The Magic Pudding - Understanding The Outcomes, Impact and Futures of Groundswell 2007 - 2011

THE MAGIC PUDDING
understanding the outcomes, impact and
futures of Groundswell 2007 to 2011
Barbara Pamphilon and Barbara Chevalier
Australian Institute for Sustainable Communities
University of Canberra

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank each and every member of the Groundswell team for their open sharing of
insights, challenges and learning. We appreciated the time you gave us in your busy lives. It was a
privilege to learn about your work and from each one of you.
Barbara and Barbara
i

Executive Summary

The Magic Pudding:
understanding the outcomes,
impact and futures of Groundswell 2007—2011

March 2011

This report documents the research undertaken in February and March at the culmination of the
Groundswell project. In order to ensure wide dissemination of the findings, the report will be
complemented by journal articles on the community engagement, composting process and council
benefits and an interactive website covering key project process, film clips, sound bites, FAQs,
lessons learned, material exemplars, initially to be hosted at the AISC site1.

The research aims were:
• To identify the outputs of the project
• To assess the extent to which the project has achieved its stated outcomes
• To clarify the lessons learned across the project
• To disseminate findings in a range of ways to ensure sustainability and broader adoption

Seven methods were used to collect data:
• Outcomes Hierarchy mapping Empowerment Evaluation Workshop
• Stakeholder interviews Community interviews
• Analysis of materials Analysis of reports
• Site visits observation, interviews

The report has eight sections.
• Section 1—introduces Groundswell and the research project
• Section 2—outlines the Groundswell Cycle: reporting on the collection, compost and outlets
for the finished product.
• Section 3—examines the three models that have been developed
• Section 4—follows up two of the many councils that have already adopted and adapted the
City to Soil process
• Section 5—reports on the two Empowerment Evaluation reviews that were undertaken at
the midway point and the final month of the Groundswell project.
• Section 6—provides an overview of the milestones, activities and outcomes of the
Groundswell project as a whole

1
(http://www.canberra.edu.au/faculties/education/research/aisc)
ii
• Section 7—steps back from the data and draws out themes that have arisen from the
evaluation
• Section 8—provides a conclusion with summary lessons

About Groundswell
Groundswell began in 2004 with a pilot program City To Soil to collect household organic waste and
process this into high quality compost in Queanbeyan, NSW. Following the success of this City To Soil
project, the Groundswell project has trialled the collection and processing of household organic
waste into quality compost in two further locations in rural NSW. In two other locations, the project
has begun but not yet achieved the composting stage.

The three‐year project ran from late 2007 to the end of March 2011. The trial sites were:
• Condobolin—a partnership with Lachlan Council and the Wiradjuri Condobolin Corporation
• Goulburn and Marulan —Goulburn Mulwaree Council
• Queanbeyan/Palerang—a partnership with Palerang and Queanbeyan City Councils and
Landtasia Organic Farms.

The Groundswell vision was to ‘to prove the wider economic viability of the ‘City To Soil’ collection
system and establish composted urban organic waste as a cost effective, high quality agricultural
input’.

The Groundswell objectives were:
1. To trial an innovative approach to the engagement of the local community through he
collection and composting of organic material and its use in agricultural and nursery
application
2. To study the multiple economic benefits of using composts from urban organic collection
upon soil nutrition and productivity for agricultural producers
3. To demonstrate how this material can be managed through the engagement of new process
drivers

Further, in their first meeting, the Groundswell Steering Committee determined that, within these
objectives, their ultimate goals for the project were:
• Working economic models for the collection, processing and application of composted urban
organic waste onto agricultural soil.
• Development of the tools, information and motivation necessary to engage community to
correctly source separate household organic waste.
• Reduction of waste to landfill
• Production of high quality compost
• Working models for the source separation of household organic waste.
• Working models for the contracting of urban organics collection.
• Measurable improvements in agricultural land
• Production of knowledge and research to assist farmers and councils to divert urban organic
waste from the waste stream onto agricultural land as a quality agricultural input.

iii
The Groundswell project used and further developed the City to Soil process, i.e. householders in
each designated area are provided with attractive bench‐top kitchen waste bins and biodegradable
inserts (biobags). Each household is provided with a mobile garbage bin (MGB) and are asked to
place green waste and the kitchen waste in biobags into the MGB. The MGBs are collected
fortnightly (Condobolin) or monthly (Queanbeyan).

A feature of Groundswell is that each site has developed the subsequent collection and composting
process in ways best suited to their local community and its opportunities and strengths. Condobolin
began a dedicated City To Soil collection process using a local Aboriginal agency whilst Goulburn
Mulwaree collected the kitchen waste with their existing monthly green waste process. Queanbeyan
and Palerang have yet to commence household collection but are planning fortnightly collections
and will deliver the green waste directly to a local farmer for processing and use. Both Condobolin
and Goulburn Mulwaree have trialled and developed a low technology and minimal handling
composting process, which has resulted in quality compost in both cases.

Main findings
In essence Groundswell has shown how the now ‘simple’ City To Soil collection process and the
Groundswell composting process can make a major contribution to a ‘wicked problem’. Degraded
soil and farming practices that continue to degrade soil are wicked problems, which farmers and
agronomists tend to face alone. The City To Soil system provides one essential contribution– it
potentially engages everyone to re‐route their everyday kitchen and garden waste back into the
food production system. At the same time it educates people about the value of nutrients in the
soil. It supports farmers. It supports the environment. It gives people a sense of something that THEY
can do.

• COMPOST AIN’T COMPOST
The Groundswell project has clearly demonstrated that all composts are not created equal. The
Groundswell compost offers a quality that appears not to be available from many other compost
providers. Because the Groundswell composting process delivers an end product that does not
contain glass or plastic, there will be demand for the product.

• WASTE AIN’T WASTE
Groundswell has developed a full cycle process (from soil to food to consumer to compost to soil)
that challenges the concept of ‘waste’. Such full cycle activities are key to sustainable development
and align closely with closed –cycle urban ecology, that is cities are seen as a living eco‐system
needing closed‐loop management cycles. The Groundswell project has demonstrated that if people
are involved in the recycling process (in this case their organic waste to compost), there is a
conceptual shift that occurs in which ‘waste’ begins to be thought of differently.

• SOILS AIN’T SOILS
The fact that the Groundswell compost not only returns nutrients to the soil but also builds up the
biological activity in soil is a key outcome and an important contribution to addressing these crises.
iv
• CHANGING MINDS OR CHANGING BEHAVIOUR?
Groundswell tested the hypothesis that we just want people to change some simple behaviours (put
organic waste in biobags and place them with their green waste). To facilitate this behaviour change
the concept was to provide people with ‘the right tools and the right information and a range of
motivators’. The City To Soil source separation process and tools are simple and effective.
Importantly, at the final stage of the project, people had become proud of their own environmental
action and that of their community. The Groundswell project demonstrates the holism of the adage
‘think globally, act locally, respond personally’ but suggests it should be presented in reverse order,
focusing on ‘respond personally’.

• CONNECTING THE CITY FRONT GATE TO THE COUNTRY FARM GATE
Whilst originally Groundswell was looking for a method for recycling organics back into the soil and
the nutrient cycle, another inherent benefit is the reconnection of the city to country. Although the
compost product may have many uses, a key strength is that it gives urban dwellers a direct link to
those who produce our food. This project demonstrates the importance of ‘practice’ rather than
‘preaching’. The City To Soil process has provided a concrete practice that can develop relationships
between urban and rural citizens and between food consumers and food producers. It has the
potential to move national community connectedness to another level.

• CONNECTING THE COMMUNITY: THE VALUE OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISES
The Condobolin model has shown the socio‐economic benefits (and potential longer term social
inclusion and social role valorisation potentials) of engaging a community agency in a ‘social
entrepreneurship model’ of City To Soil. In this model, the primary goal is not just economic, or even
environmental, but ticks the third triple bottom line box: social/employment outcomes.

• THE NEXT ‘GREEN REVOLUTION’ AND THE NEW ‘GREEN ECONOMY’
Groundswell is an exemplar of a type of full cycle project that is needed in the next Green
Revolution; that is technologies that pull resources out of the waste stream and that provide
multiple ‘green’ returns. Commercial waste, institutional waste, biosolids and large city wastes have
the potential to become a permanent ‘pull’ market for recycling organics into agriculture with the
carbon credit bonus.

• GROUNDSWELL: THE CATALYST
As a direct result of the Groundswell project, a number of organisations have received funding from
other sources to undertake further research or to develop resources to assist in the adoption of City
To Soil in other settings . This spin‐off process reveals the wider impact of Groundswell and the
breadth of its future potential. The Groundswell website will be one place where transferable
lessons can be shared in real time and that in itself can contribute to a tipping point in recycling
organics in Australia and globally.

• RESEARCH AND ACTION
The action research approach undertaken across the life of Groundswell has been key to its
achievements. There is a need to continue this action research approach through wider networks
and the ‘lessons’ found in the report provide a starting point.
v
• BUILDING THE WIDER ACTION LEARNING COMMUNITY
The action learning approach provides a model for the on‐going development of the
Groundswell/City To Soil process both nationally and internationally. The planned Groundswell/City
To Soil website will be key to the development of an extended and effective ‘learning community’ so
that all stakeholders have a central place to share learning, seek information and continue the action
learning needed in the next stages of development. Further whilst shire councils have the financial
and environmental incentives to adopt and adapt Groundswell/City To Soil, they are also the places
where change can happen. . The Groundswell project has shown the importance of directing
resources to the most effective level, that is local government.

Summary tables of lessons

The Groundswell model is effective and adaptable
• The many and on‐going adaptations developed across the project have provided many valuable and
transferable learnings. Whether it be the collection process, the composting process, staffing or
machinery issues, it is clear Groundswell has robust processes for urban waste utilisation. It is now
being adopted by a diverse group of councils, however new innovations and improvement should be
a goal.
• The cost benefit for councils and farmers are evident
• The social and commercial benefits are now visible

Project Management
• Communication needs to be targeted and regular and inclusive of all community stakeholders —The
term ‘community’ includes all stakeholders: business, agriculture, residents and local government.
Attention to on‐going communication to all stakeholders is key. Anticipate problems and be pro‐
active, especially with political issues.
• Staff are key: Staff are central to a quality process and product. It is important to keep staff engaged
and motivated and part of the process, not just doing a job. Training opportunities can be integrated
and extended. The potential to create new meaningful and on‐going employment in a new industry,
supported by training and formal qualifications is apparent.
• Collaborative action learning works and builds confidence and pride
• Team management and leadership need to be built into the process to ensure efficient compost
production
• Regulations and approvals must be factored into both timelines and budgets

Collection and Source Separation
• Green waste bin presentations rates of 60 to 70% are a realistic goal
• A fortnightly collection of City to Soil bins is the most efficient model
• Contamination rates under 1% can be maintained given appropriate community education and
monitoring
• Communities do source separate effectively when given the right tools and process
• The community will be motivated to source separate when they understand the link to local farmers
• Further education on advanced source separation would be of benefit (e.g. weed inclusion)
• There are wider sources of organic waste to be tapped
vi

Landfill
• Site selection and development need early identification and management— Key issues arising from
the project mean that Groundswell is now in a position to provide a check‐list for site selection and
management for councils, community groups and on‐farm models
• Compostable material removed from the waste stream can be assumed as approx. 50%

Composting Processing
• Identification of and attention to quality control and effective processes will lead to high quality
compost —In order to maintain high quality waste collection, effective community education is
central. This needs to be backed up by well‐trained staff, suitable (albeit minimal) equipment and an
appropriate testing regime. Quality control is crucial throughout the process. It is not hard, but it is
essential, to comply with AS4454.
• The process is suitable for green waste, food waste, bio‐solids, pet‐food and other organic excess
• The composting process can use existing infrastructure and staff
• Local conditions need monitoring and may require further adaptation of the compost process
• The composting process can link into formally accredited training
• Some additional resources would lead to a more timely compost production

Compost
• The Groundswell compost process produces AS4454 standard composted soil conditioner
• The compost complies with the Food Waste Compost Exemption.
• QA and due diligence is needed to ensure the product remains at the high standard
• The compost does not smell due to the process and the inoculant
• The compost should be accompanied by documentation on nutrients, the source of the material and
evidence that it does not contain pathogens, heavy metals or pesticide residue

Soils
• The compost does improve phosphorous, potassium and soil nutrient levels
• There is indirect evidence that soils are enhanced due to yield increases in all compost applications
• The application of compost does have a direct impact on reducing nutrient leakage and yield
improvement figures should be a guide to this impact.
• There appears to be a water use efficiency component that compost adds to the soil to enable plants
to survive in respect to plants without compost
• The retention of plant roots as a carbon store may add value to the process
Farmers
• The compost does increase productivity
• With average inorganic fertiliser rates and prices ($500 tonne and rising) a farmer should be willing to
pay between $7‐$15m3 for organic fertiliser in a broad acre application as a replacement fertiliser or
as a blend with inorganic fertiliser
• The most economically beneficial application rates have yet to be determined
• Considerable infrastructure costs are required for a large on‐farm model
• Some farmers will be motivated to produce this very clean product
• There is considerable potential for farmer education and training through a demonstration site
vii
• To meet the demand for quality compost, training for farmers in on‐farm compost production is
needed
• Organic (and other farmers) may prefer on‐farm composting over council compost in order to have
control over standards at every point

Markets
• The compost is a suitable product for sale to householders
• The compost is a suitable product for sale to farmers
• Although the sale price of compost impacts on the value to councils of adopting a Groundswell
system, low prices still make the investment worthwhile.
• Market testing by tender will demonstrate the full market potential of this compost
• A niche market exists in organic farmers
• A range of wider outlets for the compost are being identified
• Options for the use of compost may be ‘for profit’ or ‘for regional benefit’

Community Engagement and Communication
• Community education and engagement needs to be timely and on‐going —Initial education leads to a
high level of participation. On‐going education is important but the community also can be committed
to the project by knowing that the benefits are immediate and local.
• Community engagement is essential at the start but can be less intensive in later stages
• One‐to‐one delivery of bins provides a strong start
• Successful community engagement and education revolves around providing the right tools and the
right information at the right time and using a range of motivators and with on‐going attention to
locally targeted publicity
• The ‘carrot not stick’ approach to community engagement is key
• Councils know their own community and the best local messages
• Involve the Mayor
• School children show how easy household waste collection is and make for good media images
• Local pride in, and commitment to, composting innovations are likely
• Communities can come to see ‘green waste’ as a resource not waste
• Community ideas to improve City to Soil include ensuring there is an explanation of the whole cycle
and opportunities to actually see how compost is made

Partnerships
• On‐going shire/ agency partnerships are challenging but achievable.
• The Groundswell model is congruent with Aboriginal world‐view and aspirations
• Informal and early consultations with neighbours are wise as well as ensuring that the formal
consultation is conducted
viii

Further Research
• On‐going research is pivotal —The value of the project beyond the locally committed areas is now
evident from the research data, however further research will be beneficial to answer longer–term
questions.
• What happens to green waste when it is not the City to Soil week
• The use of bio‐solids as a compost feedstock
• Long term research — to determine soil microbial activity, soil carbon levels, soil structure, water
holding capacity and water efficiency
• The ‘art and craft’ of using compost needs support
• The City to Soil wider roll‐outs provide an important opportunity to further analyse the deeper
dynamics behind the success of the community engagement strategy

The success of Groundswell suggests that a national and international network of
communities and their local governments is indeed possible,
and that, in the future, we will see a worldwide movement
of many and varied settings of
Cities to Soils

For further information about the research project
Professor Barbara Pamphilon
ACT 2601
barbara.pamphilon@canberra.edu.au

ix

List of Abbreviations
DA —Development Application
DECCW — NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water
EOI—Expression of Interest
EIS —Environmental Impact Study
MGB—Mobile Garbage Bin
OH&S—Occupational Health and Safety
QA—Quality Assurance
WCC —Wiradjuri Condobolin Aboriginal Corporation

List of informants and sources
• Agronomy— Chris Houghton (Chris Houghton Agricultural)
• Economics — Michael Reynolds (M&M Project Management)
• Social Research –– Rosemary and Geoff Crane (Mosquito Production)
• VRM— Ken Bellamy
• Waste Auditing — Kevin Morgan (EC Sustainable)

• Wiradjuri Condobolin Aboriginal Corporation—Tim Atkinson, Cecil Coe, Eugene Coe, Todd Coe,
Lisa Hibbert, Percy Knight
• Armidale Shire Council— James Turnell
• Bathurst Shire Council— Peter Vernon
• Goulburn Mulwaree Shire Council — Andrew Galland, David Long, Peter Oliver, Teena Riley,
Debbie Roden
• Lachlan Shire Council—Arian Butler, Des Manwaring, Barrie Toms
• Queanbeyan City Council — Natasha Abbott; Vanessa Palmer
• Palerang Shire Council — Brian Blackburn, Paul Matthews
• Palerang Agricultural Society—Richard Graham

• NSW TAFE Western Institute—Dennis Byrne
• NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water —Gerry Gillespie
• Groundswell—Simone Dilkara

Cover graphic courtesy of Wordle

x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 ABOUT GROUNDSWELL ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 THIS PROJECT......................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.1 Research aims .....................................................................................................................................................3
1.2.2 Research questions............................................................................................................................................3
1.2.3 Research methods .............................................................................................................................................4
1.2.4 Reporting methods............................................................................................................................................5
1.3 THE REPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

2 THE GROUNDSWELL CYCLE: FROM COLLECTION TO COMPOST TO MULTIPLE
APPLICATIONS................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 THE COLLECTION PROCESS ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Mobile Garbage Bins presentation rates .................................................................................................6
2.1.2 Source separation and contamination......................................................................................................6
2.1.3 Reduction of organic waste to landfill ......................................................................................................8
2.1.4 Key lessons............................................................................................................................................................8
2.2 THE COMPOSTING PROCESS ................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2.1 Key lessons.............................................................................................................................................................9
2.3 USING THE PRODUCT: COMPOST TO … ........................................................................................................... 10
2.3.1 Compost to householder.............................................................................................................................. 10
2.3.2 Compost to farmer ......................................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.3 Key lessons......................................................................................................................................................... 13

3 THREE MODELS: CASE STUDIES OF GROUNDSWELL IN ACTION ..........................................15
3.1 THE CONDOBOLIN STORY—FROM HOUSEHOLD TO INDIGENOUS AGENCY .............................................. 15
3.1.1 The Condobolin model: an overview....................................................................................................... 15
3.1.2 Condobolin collection and composting process ................................................................................. 16
3.1.3 Condobolin compost product..................................................................................................................... 16
3.1.4 Condobolin community education and engagement....................................................................... 17
3.1.5 The Aboriginal focus ‘black thumbs with green thoughts’............................................................ 17
3.1.6 The achievements and challenges of a partnership model........................................................... 19
3.1.7 Lessons from the Condobolin model....................................................................................................... 20
3.2 THE GOULBURN MULWAREE STORY– FROM HOUSEHOLD VIA COUNCIL TO FARM ................................. 21
3.2.1 The Goulburn Mulwaree model: an overview..................................................................................... 21
3.2.2 Goulburn Mulwaree composting process............................................................................................. 21
3.2.3 Goulburn Mulwaree community engagement and education .................................................... 22
3.2.4 The achievements and challenges of an in‐council model ............................................................ 22
3.2.5 Lessons from the Goulburn Mulwaree model..................................................................................... 23
3.3 THE QUEANBEYAN/PALERANG STORY– FROM HOUSEHOLD TO ORGANIC FARM ................................... 24
3.3.1 The Queanbeyan/Palerang model: an overview ............................................................................. 24
3.3.2 Lessons from the Queanbeyan/Palerang model................................................................................ 25

xi
3.4 CROSS‐MODEL LESSONS LEARNED .................................................................................................................. 25
3.4.1 Wider sources of organic waste ............................................................................................................... 25
3.4.2 Community engagement and education .............................................................................................. 26
3.4.3 Community ideas to improve City To Soil ............................................................................................. 28
3.4.4 Messages to other councils ........................................................................................................................ 28
3.4.5 The cost benefit for councils ..................................................................................................................... 30

4 THE ESCAPEE IN ACTION: NEW CASE STORIES FROM GROUNDSWELL..............................31
4.1 THE BATHURST STORY: GREEN WASTE PLUS INTO COMPOST .................................................................... 31
4.2 THE ARMIDALE STORY: LOW HANGING FRUIT — A PURELY ECONOMIC DECISION ................................ 32
4.3 NEW LEARNINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 32
4.4 WHAT NEW COUNCILS SAY ABOUT THE CITY TO SOIL PROCESS ................................................................. 33

5 EMPOWERMENT EVALUATIONS OF GROUNDSWELL: THE TEAM REFLECTS....................34
5.1 MIDWAY EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION ........................................................................................................ 34
5.2 FINAL EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION ............................................................................................................ 35
5.3 COMPARING THE EMPOWERMENT EVALUATIONS ....................................................................................... 36
5.3.1 Vision.................................................................................................................................................................... 36
5.3.2 Taking stock ...................................................................................................................................................... 37
5.3.3 Improvements needed .................................................................................................................................. 43
5.3.4 Final lessons identified.................................................................................................................................. 44

6 THE GROUNDSWELL MILESTONES, ACTIVITIES AND OUTCOMES OVERVIEW .................45
6.1 PROJECT MILESTONES ....................................................................................................................................... 45
6.2 PROJECT ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................................................................... 46
6.3 PROJECT HIERARCHY OUTCOMES ................................................................................................................... 47
6.4 THE IMMEDIATE AND EMERGING BENEFITS OF GROUNDSWELL ................................................................ 48
6.4.1 Environmental benefits ................................................................................................................................ 48
6.4.2 Economic benefits........................................................................................................................................... 49
6.4.3 Social benefits .................................................................................................................................................. 50

7 GROUNDSWELL AND THE BIG PICTURE........................................................................................51
7.1 COMPOST AIN’T COMPOST ....................................................................................................................... 51
7.2 WASTE AIN’T WASTE .................................................................................................................................. 52
7.3 SOILS AIN’T SOILS......................................................................................................................................... 53
7.4 CHANGING MINDS OR CHANGING BEHAVIOUR?............................................................................................. 53
7.5 CONNECTING THE CITY FRONT GATE TO THE COUNTRY FARM GATE ......................................................... 54
7.6 CONNECTING THE COMMUNITY: THE VALUE OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISES ..................................................... 54
7.7 THE NEXT ‘GREEN REVOLUTION’ AND THE NEW ‘GREEN ECONOMY’....................................................... 55
7.8 GROUNDSWELL: THE CATALYST ....................................................................................................................... 56
7.9 RESEARCH AND ACTION .................................................................................................................................... 57
7.10 BUILDING THE WIDER ACTION LEARNING COMMUNITY ............................................................................ 58
8 CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................................59
xii
8.1 SUMMARY TABLES OF LESSONS........................................................................................................................ 59

9 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................63

10 APPENDICES .........................................................................................................................................65

10.1 APPENDIX 1 — MEMBERS OF THE GROUNDSWELL PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE ....................... 65
10.2 APPENDIX 2—ROLLING OUT CITY TO SOIL................................................................................................. 66
10.3 APPENDIX 3— KERBSIDE AUDIT SUMMARY RESULTS .............................................................................. 67
10.4 APPENDIX 4—KEEPING IT CLEAN: THE GROUNDSWELL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY .... 68
10.5 APPENDIX 5— CITY TO SOIL: THE HISTORY OF THE COMPOST PROCESS ............................................. 69
10.6 APPENDIX 6—GROUNDSWELL SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 72
10.7 APPENDIX 7— GROUNDSWELL COMPOST REGULATIONS ........................................................................ 73
10.8 APPENDIX 8—AGRONOMY TRIAL SUMMARY RESULTS ............................................................................. 74
10.9 APPENDIX 9—COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ADVERTISEMENT ............................................................. 75
10.10 APPENDIX 10 —COUNCIL COSTS............................................................................................................... 76
10.11 APPENDIX 11— MIDWAY REVIEW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................. 77
10.12 APPENDIX 12 — EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION WORKSHOP OUTLINE ............................................ 88
10.13 APPENDIX 13— GROUNDSWELL PROGRAM LOGIC................................................................................ 91
10.14 APPENDIX 14 — CITY TO SOIL SPINOFFS................................................................................................ 99

xiii
1 Introduction

The Groundswell project that is the focus of this report lies at the intersection of two socio‐
environmental ‘problems’; that is the degradation of agricultural soil and the costs of landfill. Simply
put we are digging holes in our land to bury the very products that could enrich our land. Australian
landfills contain close to 50% organic matter, primarily food and garden waste, (ABS 2007), and, as in
most of the world, our soils are degrading due to the depletion of soil organic matter with the
resultant poor soil structure and moisture (Lal, 2009). Linking the organic material excess (landfills)
to organic material needs (soils) was the basis for the development of the Groundswell project.

The Groundswell partnership was funded by the NSW Environmental Trust and involved Goulburn
Mulwaree Shire, Palerang Shire, Queanbeyan City and Lachlan Shire Councils, the Wiradjuri
Condobolin Corporation (WCC), the Palerang Agricultural Society, and the South East office of the
NSW Department of Environment Climate Change and Water (DECCW) Sustainability Programs
Division.

The Groundswell Project was managed by Ms Simone Dilkara and supported by a Project Steering
Committee which included representation from each participating councils, WCC, the Palerang
Agricultural Society and the DECC Sustainability Programs Division. (Appendix 1: Project Steering
Committee)

1.1 About Groundswell
Groundswell began in 2004 with a pilot program City To Soil to collect household organic waste and
process this into high quality compost in Queanbeyan, NSW (Department of Environment and
Conservation (NSW), 2004). Following the success of this City To Soil project, the Groundswell project
has trialled the collection and processing of household organic waste into quality compost in two
further locations in rural NSW. In two other locations, the project has begun but not yet achieved
the composting stage.

The three‐year project ran from late 2007 to the end of March 2011. The trial sites were:
• Condobolin—a partnership with Lachlan Council and the Wiradjuri Condobolin Corporation
• Goulburn and Marulan —Goulburn Mulwaree Council
• Queanbeyan/Palerang—a partnership with Palerang and Queanbeyan City Councils and
Landtasia Organic Farms.

The Groundswell vision was to ‘to prove the wider economic viability of the ‘City To Soil’ collection
system and establish composted urban organic waste as a cost effective, high quality agricultural
input’.
1
The Groundswell objectives were:
4. To trial an innovative approach to the engagement of the local community through he
collection and composting of organic material and its use in agricultural and nursery
application
5. To study the multiple economic benefits of using composts from urban organic collection
upon soil nutrition and productivity for agricultural producers
6. To demonstrate how this material can be managed through the engagement of new process
drivers

Further, in their first meeting, the Groundswell Steering Committee determined that, within these
objectives, their ultimate goals for the project were:
• Working economic models for the collection, processing and application of composted urban
organic waste onto agricultural soil.
• Development of the tools, information and motivation necessary to engage community to
correctly source separate household organic waste.
• Reduction of waste to landfill
• Production of high quality compost
• Working models for the source separation of household organic waste.
• Working models for the contracting of urban organics collection.
• Measurable improvements in agricultural land
• Production of knowledge and research to assist farmers and councils to divert urban organic
waste from the waste stream onto agricultural land as a quality agricultural input.

The Groundswell project has used and further developed the City to Soil process, i.e. householders
in each designated area are provided with attractive bench‐top kitchen waste bins and
biodegradable inserts (biobags). Each household is provided with a mobile garbage bin (MGB) and
are asked to place green waste and the kitchen waste in biobags into the MGB. The MGBs are
collected fortnightly (Condobolin) or monthly (Queanbeyan).

A feature of Groundswell is that each site has developed the subsequent collection and composting
process in ways best suited to their local community and its opportunities and strengths. Condobolin
began a dedicated City To Soil collection process using a local Aboriginal agency whilst Goulburn
Mulwaree collected the kitchen waste with their existing monthly green waste process. Queanbeyan
and Palerang have yet to commence household collection but are planning fortnightly collections
and will deliver the green waste directly to a local farmer for processing and use. Both Condobolin
and Goulburn Mulwaree have trialled and developed a low technology and minimal handling
composting process, which has resulted in quality compost in both cases.

Please note: in this report Groundswell will be used to refer to the overall project and City To Soil will
be used when referring to the collection and community engagement process. Groundswell
composting process will refer to the composting process developed as a result of the Groundswell
project.
2
1.2 This project
This report documents the research undertaken in February and March at the culmination of the
Groundswell project. The research team was Professor Barbara Pamphilon and Adjunct Associate
Barbara Chevalier of the Australian Institute for Sustainable Communities at the University of
Canberra with the assistance of Simone Dilkara, Groundswell Project Manager. Geoff and Rosemary
Crane from Mosquito Productions assisted in the collection of video data.

1.2.1 Research aims
• To identify the outputs of the project
• To assess the extent to which the project has achieved its stated outcomes
• To clarify the lessons learned across the project
• To disseminate findings in a range of ways to ensure sustainability and broader adoption

1.2.2 Research questions
In order to address the research aims, an output analysis, an outcome analysis and a process analysis
were undertaken. The following table outlines the research questions and identifies the major areas
where each question is addressed in this report.

Output analysis
What is the most effective and sustainable model(s) for collection, processing and application of
composted urban organic waste into agricultural soil, in particular for:
• the source separation of household organic waste • 2.1.2
• 3.1.4
• 3.2.3
• 3.4.2
• 7.4
• the contracting of urban organics collection • 3.1
• 7.6
• the production of high quality compost • 2.2
• 3.1.3
• 3.2.2
• 4.1
• 7.1

What are the key factors in the effective engagement of communities
• tools • 3.1.4
• 3.2.3
• 3.4.2
• 4.4
• 7.4
• information • 3.1.4
• 3.2.3
• 3.4.2
• 4.4
• 7.4
• motivation • 3.1.4
• 3.2.3
• 3.4.2
3
• 4.4
• 7.4
Outcome analysis
For each council, what are the benefits:
• environmental (reduced or improved water use, methane gas reduction & nitrous • 3.1.1
oxide reduction) • 3.2.1
• 4.3
• 6.4.1
• reduction of organic waste to landfill • 6.4.1
• economic (sustainable and/or lower cost) • 2.3.2
• 3.4.5
• 6.4.2
• community • 6.4.3
• political • 3.1.6
• 3.2.4
• 7.6
• 7.7

For farmers:
• what are the economic benefits of returning quality organic product to soil • 2.3.2
• 6.4.2
• 7.1
• 7.2
• 7.3
• has there been increasing organic levels in agricultural soils • 2.3.2
• 6.4.2
• 7.3
• are there measurable improvement in agricultural soils and productivity • 2.3.2
• 7.3
• is there a permanent ‘pull’ market for recycled urban organics in agriculture. • 2.3.2
• 3.4.1
• 7.7

Process lessons analysis
For each LGA:
• Project Management • 3.1
• 3.2
• 3.3
• Organics Collection • 3.1.2
• 3.2.2
• Compost Processing • 3.1.2
• 3.2.2
• 7.1
• Communication • 3.4.2
• Marketing and Promotion • 3.4.2

1.2.3 Research methods
Seven methods were used to collect data
• Outcomes Hierarchy mapping Empowerment Evaluation Workshop
• Stakeholder interviews Community interviews
4
• Analysis of materials Analysis of reports
• Site visits observation, interviews

1.2.4 Reporting methods
In order to ensure wide dissemination of the findings, this report will be complemented by journal
articles on the community engagement, composting process and council benefits and an interactive
website covering key project process, film clips, sound bites, FAQs, lessons learned, material
exemplars, initially to be hosted at the AISC site2.

1.3 The report
The report is divided into seven further sections. In each section key lessons are highlighted and
these are synthesised in a Summary Tables in the Conclusion.

• Section 2—outlines the Groundswell Cycle: reporting on the collection, compost and outlets
for the finished product.
• Section 3—examines the three models that have been developed
• Section 4—follows up two of the many councils that have already adopted and adapted the
City to Soil process
• Section 5—reports on the two Empowerment Evaluation reviews that were undertaken at
the midway point and the final month of the Groundswell project.
• Section 6—provides and overview of the milestones, activities and outcomes of the
Groundswell project as a whole
• Section 7—steps back from the data and draws out themes that have arisen form the
evaluation
• Section 8—provides a conclusion with summary lessons

Please note that direct quotes are presented in italics.

2
(http://www.canberra.edu.au/faculties/education/research/aisc)
5
2 The Groundswell cycle: From collection to compost to multiple
applications

This section outlines the achievements and important lessons at each stage of the Groundswell
process, from collection to composting to using the final compost product. It draws on research
reports commissioned by Groundswell, other scientific reports, interviews with stakeholders and the
Groundswell 6‐monthly progress reports to the Environmental Trust.

2.1 The Collection Process
A total of 9,200 households have been involved in the City To Soil collection in Goulburn Mulwaree
(Goulburn and Marulan towns) and 1,300 households in the Condobolin township area. An
Information Sheet has been produced to guide other councils in the introduction of the City to Soil
collection process (Appendix 2: Rolling out City to Soil).

Three audits of kerbside Mobile Garbage Bins (MGBs) were undertaken across the life of the project
(July 2008, April 2009, March 2010). The final audit report (EC Sustainable 2010) documented the
MGB presentation rates, levels of contamination and source separation by region (Appendix 3:
Kerbside audit summary results).

Whilst kerbside audits provide important data they do have a number of limits. For example:
• it is not possible to determine the reasons behind the non‐presentation of bins and there is no
comparative data available on the norm for presentation rates by month in these councils
• it is difficult to compare results with confidence due to variables such as different seasons of
the year and environmental differences on the dehydration rates of contents.
Despite these limitations, there are useful results from the kerbside audits. Although more frequent
auditing would be ideal, such work is a high cost intensive activity.

2.1.1 Mobile Garbage Bins presentation rates
At the end of the project, presentation rates for residual waste in Goulburn Mulwaree were 83.3%
and in Lachlan Shire 94.1%. The City to Soil MGB presentation rate in Goulburn Mulwaree was 61.1%
and Lachlan Shire 69.4%. Given need for low contamination rates the actions to have non‐compliant
households self select out were important and it could be suggested from this project that other
councils could assume 60 to 70% City To Soil presentation rates. It is important to note that the
fortnightly collection of bins in Condobolin drew out more organic waste than the Goulburn
Mulwaree monthly collection (Mean weekly organic waste Condobolin—8.89; Goulburn Mulwaree
—6.15kg). This suggests that a fortnightly collection is the most efficient model.

2.1.2 Source separation and contamination
The final audit report (EC Sustainable 2010) found that contamination rates have been consistently
low in both regions. It is clear that people have been willing and able to appropriately separate
their waste at the household level. It is also important to note that in both areas contamination rates
reduced over the last two stages3—In Goulburn Mulwaree 0.2 % to 0.11%; in Condobolin 0.4 to

3
in both areas the results from two highly contaminated bins were removed to gain a true picture of overall
community rates.
6
0.03%. These results indicate an increased commitment and understanding of the importance of
how and what to source separate.
• Goulburn Mulwaree Council’s City to Soil stream contamination rate — 0.6% (mainly
glass packaging/ cullet (65.7%) and dust, rock, dirt, inert (20.21%). The contamination
rate reduced to 0.03% when the bins from two households were removed from the
sample.
• Lachlan Shire Council’s City to Soil stream contamination rate —1.2% (mainly glass
packaging/ (65.7%), ceramics (18.0%) and plastic containers (7.2%). The contamination
rate reduced to 0.11% when the bins from two households were removed from the
sample.

Central to successful source separation is the community engagement strategy that ensures that
community members have the right information and the right tools and are motivated to correctly
contribute their organic waste.

The strategy is key to non‐contamination and
as such the City To Soil logo has now been
trademarked to protect the integrity of the
brand. DECCW is developing a simple licence
agreement to use the City To Soil collection
process with base criteria to be met. An
Information Sheet has been produced to
ensure that councils understand the pro‐
active approach of the community
engagement and see the link to sustainable
source separated organic inputs from the
community
(Appendix 4: Keeping it Clean: the
Groundswell Community Engagement
Strategy)

The project did reveal the importance of early intervention when contaminated bins were found. In
Condobolin, the WCC, who initially undertook collection themselves, engaged with the Indigenous
community in town and to get them on side. They took note if a bin was non‐compliant and talked to
the householder. In Goulburn bins that were contaminated were identified and a sticker placed on
the bin. However one important lesson from Groundswell is the approach of using more ‘carrots
than sticks’. The prizes for non‐contaminated bins and the accompanying publicity focused the
community on the right way to source separate. It celebrated the success in the town (carrots);
whilst at the same time the few non –compliant households could be quietly identified and educated
and if required have their bins removed (stick).

The Mosquito Productions team who undertook social research on source separation and
summarised their findings in a DVD found that the simple kitchen equipment was valued due to its
ease of use —It was easy for me to save my veggie scraps with the bucket…It’s so easy. Council
7
keeps supplying bags. For some of the older informants, source separation was something they had
always done — It’s not a new skill, separating waste – I’ve always done that (chooks, ducks or worm
bin). However there was also evidence that past practices had led to an incorrect assumption about
what could be composted as a number of people were well meaningly separating out their weeds
and putting them in the residual garbage (following their own home compost standards). This
indicates a need for further community education directed at the keen gardeners and previous
composters. It was telling that many people did understand WHY they should source separate:

• Kitchen scraps gives more nutrition to green waste. You can put in meat, onions, oranges: you
couldn’t put them in a worm farm!
• It can go back into the earth rather than be thrown out to the tip

2.1.3 Reduction of organic waste to landfill
The kerbside audits (EC Sustainable 2010) showed there was a reduction of the proportion of
compostable organic material (excluding paper) present in the waste stream after the introduction
of the City to Soil bins. This finding was consistent across the three stages in Lachlan Shire Council
and a slightly greater proportion found in Goulburn Mulwaree’s final stage (48.18% in Stage 3
compared 43.54% in Stage 2). Lachlan is diverting 15 tonnes from landfill every fortnight and
Goulburn 100 tonnes per month.

The final audit revealed that the proportion of garden/vegetation continued to decrease in both
Council areas by weight and proportion. The weight and proportion of food increased in Stage 3
compared to Stage 2 in both Councils. The mean residual waste bins weights have decreased stage
by stage in both Council areas. The auditors noted that there is a need for further research on what
happens to the vegetation when it is not the City to Soil collection

2.1.4 Key lessons
• Contamination rates under 1% can be maintained given appropriate community education
and monitoring
• Further research on what happens to the vegetation when it is not the City to Soil week was
recommended.

2.2 The Composting Process
As one informant noted the ‘old’ view of the composting process is to reduce the bulk of material (to
Co2, nitrogen and water vapour) however in that model, ‘we lose the nutrients’! In this City To Soil
process, we want that nutrient. Compost is not just ‘stuff’. It’s not purely bulk. It’s nutrients’. Hence
the focus of Groundswell was to trial a low cost, low handling and low technology composting
process that maintained the maximum amount of nutrient. The composting process developed out
of adversity – existing methods of composting (i.e. turned open windrow) were just not suited for
the Groundswell project where there were limits on equipment, and water, and labour. Hence the
8
Groundswell team began its development of an innovative process (see Appendix 5: City To Soil: The
History of the Compost Process)

The composting process innovation was to use a broad‐spectrum inoculant, manufactured by VRM
Pty Ltd4. This inoculant was selected on the basis of its broad‐spectrum composition and its targeted
odour control. The additional innovation was that the compost was covered. Complementary to this
process was the development of an appropriate quality testing and monitoring process.

The Groundswell project in both areas demonstrated that high quality compost could be produced
using the low‐tech low handling process with little/no smell. Compost produced using the VRM
method in Goulburn Mulwaree, Condobolin, Bathurst and Shoalhaven have all passed the NSW
Biosolids Stabilisation tests. An Information Sheet has been produced to ensure new users
understand the testing regime to ensure this standard (Appendix 6: Groundswell Sampling
Methodology). The Houghton agronomy trials report (2011) demonstrated that the compost
produced is of a very high standard and meets the AS 4454 standard and an Information Sheet has
been produced to document the regulatory requirements (Appendix 7: Groundswell Compost
Regulations) The report notes that there is a need for on‐going QA and due diligence to maintain this
standard. It further recommends that all compost that is sold on to farmers should provide a
nutrient analysis, information on the source of the material and evidence that the product does not
contain pathogens, heavy metals or pesticide residue (Appendix 8: Agronomy trial summary results).

A further scientific study was commissioned to ensure peer review and to extend the inputs to the
compost process to include a range of feedstock and commercial organic waste, both normally
disposed into rural and urban landfill. The Beavis report (2010) found that both products could be
successfully composted using the Groundswell process. Although she does recommend further
trials with biosolids, Beavis found that:
[f] or the purposes of the AS4454 specifically, the end product can be called
a composted soil conditioner. For the purposes of the regulations, it is a
composted soil conditioner meets the pasteurisation requirements of the
Food Waste Compost Exemption, that is, those outlined in the NSW
Biosolids Guidelines. The material generated in these trials has met the
requirements for A‐grade unrestricted use, with some caveats required in
terms of plant nutrient requirements (p.18).

The Groundswell composting process is supported by a range of Information Sheets (Appendices 6 &
7) and has no IP restrictions.

2.2.1 Key lessons
• The process is suitable for green waste, food waste, bio‐solids, pet‐food and other organic
materials

4
http://www.vrm.com.au/
9
• The compost should be accompanied by documentation on nutrients, the source of the
material and evidence that it does not contain pathogens, heavy metals or pesticide residue
• Further research on biosolids is needed

2.3 Using the product: compost to …
The project has developed a product that is accepted by the household consumer and initially by
farmers in the trial area. A number of potential new markets have been identified which include use
on native regeneration sites, school veggie gardens, council recreation grounds, local parks and
gardens and national parks.

2.3.1 Compost to householder
The compost is being sold by WCC to Condobolin residents for home garden use. The price of $11
per 25 L bag ensures the best return for the agency given the small amounts that are being produced
to date (this is a return rate of $440 a cubic metre). The possibility of selling the compost to the
householder may be further enhanced if the public could access this ‘clean product’ from a ‘clean
site’ (i.e. other than in a landfill area).

2.3.2 Compost to farmer
When considering the potential benefits to farmers, it is important to first consider the agricultural
benefits (as documented in the Houghton report) and then consider the economic benefit (as
documented in the Reynolds report). However even before these results were available, farmers
have shown keen interest in the compost process and product. For example, an advertisement
placed in the Goulburn Post seeking farmers interested in participating in the agronomy trials
resulted in 35 individual applications. Since that time farmers have continued to contact the Project
Manager hoping to purchase compost. It has become clear that, given this interest, no country town
will be able to supply enough for their local region, therefore the Groundswell team have identified
the need to provide information on how a farmer can produce his own compost on‐farm, using his
green waste and/or growing crops for composting and/or sourcing other local organic material.

Agricultural benefits
In 2009 and 2010, Chris Houghton Agricultural conducted a series of cropping and grazing trials using
the Groundswell compost products in the following locations:
• east of Bungendore (cropping 2009)
• north of Goulburn (cropping 2010)
• Condobolin Ag Research Station (cropping 2009 and 2010)
• east and west of Goulburn (pastures 2009 and 2010)

The trial agronomy farm sites have indicated that although there are important benefits to farms
and the soil, further long‐term research is required. However it should also be noted that these trials
were undertaken in years of severe drought and therefore comparatively the results are quite
impressive (Appendix 8: Agronomy trials summary)
10
• In all trial areas, productivity was increased
• the compost makes a small but significant contribution to soil phosphorus levels when
applied in adequate quantities
• the compost is an excellent means of replenishing soil potassium
• the compost is ideal for replacing soil nutrients however further research is required to
determine correct application rates
• soil microbial activity is inconclusive and requires further research
• further plant tissue testing to determine nutrient uptake is required over a longer period
• the compost should not be relied on as a source of nitrogen for plants
• the compost has the potential to replenish soil carbon however further research is required
over a longer term
• measurable improvements in soil structure, water holding capacity and water efficiency
require further long term research
• the most economically beneficial application rates have yet to be determined

Informants also noted that there is more work needed on the ‘art and craft’ of using compost. For
example a farmer may able to leverage periods of small amounts of water to get some biological
action in the soil, knowing it will go dormant/die in dry times, but over time, moisture containing
capacity will gradually increase leading to soil transformation. Farmers will benefit from information
and instruction on various ways of applying the compost with the intended focus on soil
transformation. These activities will all benefit from further longer‐term research.

Organic farmers are a potential niche market for the compost as their practices typically revolve
around an intimacy with the soil and a more holistic approach. As one informant explained:
Groundswell [compost] increases carbon in soil, and re‐introduces microbes that have been
taken away or poisoned by fertilizers or insecticides. This creates a natural process of
reinvigorating the biota and creating a hospitable environment for microbes – which then
expand around the acreage.
Another example cited was that some organic farmers may use this product as a ‘compost tea’ which
features are more homeopathic approach.

Most of the structure of plants is drawn from the air — captured by microbes in the soil.
The ecosystem needs the microbes; they are the engine that captures the nutrients
(Ken Bellamy, innovator)
11
Economic benefits
The 2011 Reynolds report (pp. 26& 27) summarised the economic benefit of the Groundswell
product as follows:

What is the financial value to farmers of increased yield?
There is an indication that with yield benefits only, farmers would be willing to pay approximately
15m3 for pastures and 7‐10m3 for crop. However the extra benefits gained in soil biomass
accumulation, soil health, and trace elements was unable to be measured due to the low rainfall and
length of the trials. It would be assumed however that due to the yield increasing by 10‐20% in most
cases that the non‐tangible benefits would do the same.
What is the financial value to farmers of improved crop quality?
Factors of crop quality such as pasture digestibility and energy provided to livestock and change in
seed grades were not definable by the trials; small changes in pasture quality were detected and can
be viewed in the agronomy trials as previously referenced but provide little statistical relevance for
this to be assessed.

What is the financial value to farmers of reduced water use?
As stated earlier in results, there appears to be a water use efficiency component that compost adds
to the soil to enable plants to survive in respect to plants without compost. Previous studies show
water holding capacities to improve in compost applied soils from 15‐30% which has a flow on effect
to crop yields. This will directly impact financial returns from compost as well as providing social and
environmental gains to society from reduced water use in a dry environment.

What is the financial value to farmers of improved soil structure?
Soil is the medium that allows plants to be seeded and grow. Poor soil structure can hinder plant
growth and good soil structure enables plants to reach their biological and physiological potential.
This research shows indirectly that soils are enhanced due to yield increases in all compost
applications, if these had shown negative growth then it would be assumed that soil structure and
properties may have been adversely affected by compost applications, this was not the case.
However soil structure change is a gradual (long time run) impact and cannot be answered in the
timeframe of this study.

What is the financial value to farmers of increased microbial activity?
The biological study completed shows evidence that there is a microbial improvement in the soils
tested; however these improvements are unable to be assessed financially due to the minimal data
provided and the timeframe required to assess these impacts.

What is the financial value to farmers of reduced nutrient leakage?
Nutrient leakage is a financial cost not only to a farmer but to society through the external impacts
to downstream water users or water ways (could be a benefit through nutrient importation) The
small improvements in soil water holding capacity as mentioned earlier and the improved yield data
indicate that plants are gaining access to more nutrients and water which indicates these are being
held by the soil in a greater capacity than before compost application. This would indicate that the
application of compost does have a direct impact on reducing nutrient leakage and yield
12
improvement figures should be a guide to this impact. However societal impacts prove too difficult
to measure as water movement from site is too diffuse to collect and monitor and has not been
attempted in this research.

What is the financial value to farmers of reduced fertilizer costs?
Increasing costs of inorganic fertiliser has driven many farmers to look for alternatives to drive their
production systems. At average application rates a farmer will pay between $80 and $150 per
hectare for inorganic fertiliser, however in recent years this cost in some cases has doubled (highly
variable) leading to enquiries into organic replacements. Result figures provide the benchmark for
what farmers would be willing to pay for organic replacements. This study shows that at average
inorganic fertiliser rates and prices ($500 tonne) a farmer should be willing to pay between $7‐
$15m3 for organic fertiliser in a broad acre application as a replacement fertiliser or as a blend with
inorganic fertiliser. As prices double for inorganic fertiliser it would be certain that the willingness to
pay for organic fertiliser would double (economic substitution effect)

What is the financial value to farmers of Carbon Sequestration?
Research data shows that the plots with compost applied were able to build or hold onto plant
biomass longer than others without compost, which should imply an improved ability to hold carbon
for longer. If this is the case and carbon trading at any given price occurs then there should be
evidence that value can be placed on composts ability to improve carbon storages. However care
must be taken when following this concept as plants above ground can be easily removed during low
rainfall years making this assessment difficult. What is of more interest is the retention of plant roots
as a carbon store, which would add value to the process. Not enough data was provided to provide
any statistical link to this process.

There has been on‐going feedback from farmers that they need compost products with high nutrient
value that, most importantly, do not have contaminants. In the ‘old’ compost process where green
waste is shredded as the first step, there is a high risk that glass and plastic contaminants will be
shredded at that point and therefore will remain in the product. This can have serious impact for the
farmer. The Groundswell compost process addresses this risk by removing such contaminants
throughout the process and hance is providing a unique product in the market place. Although
Reynolds notes that there is a cost benefit even if the compost is sold at $7–15, it is more likely that
the demand for such a quality compost may result in much higher prices. Going to tender will be the
next step to demonstrate the market value of this particular compost.

2.3.3 Key lessons
• With average inorganic fertiliser rates and prices ($500 tonne and rising) a farmer should be
willing to pay between $7‐$15m3 for organic fertiliser in a broad acre application as a
replacement fertiliser or as a blend with inorganic fertiliser.
13
• There is indirect evidence that soils are enhanced due to yield increases in all compost
applications
• There appears to be a water use efficiency component that compost adds to the soil to
enable plants to survive in respect to plants without compost
• Further long term research is required to determine soil microbial activity, soil carbon levels,
soil structure, water holding capacity and water efficiency
• To meet the demand for quality compost, training for farmers in on‐farm compost
production is needed

‘Composting is a profound benefit to climate change by reducing methane, increasing carbon
sequestration, increasing food growing capacity: this is a magic pudding’
(Richard Graham, organic farmer)

14
3 Three models: case studies of Groundswell in action

This section presents the three models that have been developed through the Groundswell project:
the Condobolin model features a partnership between the Shire Council and a local Indigenous
corporation supported by a training component from NSW TAFE; the Goulburn Mulwaree model
illustrates a fully in‐council model and the Queanbeyan/Palerang progress to date provides
indicators for a model for council collections direct to the farmer.

3.1 The Condobolin Story—from household to Indigenous agency
This section draws on the midway review and interviews conducted with staff of the Wiradjuri
Condobolin Corporation (WCC), NSW TAFE and Lachlan Shire Council. A site visit to the composting
area and interviews with operational staff were also undertaken. Further interviews were conducted
with the managers of the two local supermarkets and one restaurant owner and staff. Three
community drop‐ins were held to gain feedback from local residents (Appendix 9: Community
Consultation Advertisement)

3.1.1 The Condobolin model: an overview
The Condobolin case presents a partnership model between a community‐based agency and a Shire
Council. Here the WCC is responsible for subcontracting the collection of bins, developing the
composting and for end‐use marketing. The Lachlan Shire Council provides the composting site and
infrastructure, the inoculants, biobags and MGBs, an annual subsidy of $10,000, funds for the
collection contract and community engagement support. The NSW TAFE Western Institute has
supported the composting process development and training through modules within Certificate II
and III in Asset Maintenance (Waste Management) for interested WCC staff. A Certificate IV for
operational site managers is also under development.

Prior to Groundswell, Condobolin did not collect green waste. The Groundswell collection added a
fortnightly collection of green waste to the weekly garbage collection. Initially the WCC had hoped to
have full responsibility for the total collection, composting and product sales/use process, however
due to unexpected issues with the collection process (lack of appropriate equipment and OH&S
issues), collection has now been sub‐contracted. Although this is a negative for some in WCC
because the collection process may have provided employment opportunities for Aboriginal locals
(‘I’d love to see one day that we had our own truck and do it ourselves’), it has provided a benefit to
a local business that is now able to have their truck on the road for a greater number of days in the
week. This provides a reliable collection routine —’ It’s important to keep to a routine so
householders know what to expect.’

There are on‐going high participation rates (69.4%) and contamination rates are consistently low
(1.2%)5. Quality compost that is compliant with national standards (AS4454) has been produced and
WCC is selling the compost in 25 litre bags to local residents ($11 a bag).

WCC sees this model as an important opportunity to develop meaningful work with commercial
potential for Aboriginal people. An added value is that is connects people to the land in a culturally

5
The contamination rate reduces to 0.11% if the bins from only two households are removed from the sample.
15
relevant way. The Lachlan Shire Council values the local environmental and socio‐economic benefits
and appreciates the model as one which has enabled their Council to show their leadership in
supporting innovation and in developing a partnership with its Indigenous community.

3.1.2 Condobolin collection and composting process
WCC is responsible for the green waste collection and the composting process. Collection has been
subcontracted to a local business and green waste bins are collected fortnightly. The Condobolin
composting is conducted at the edge of the local landfill site.

Direct intervention was needed in the early phase in areas where contamination was regular. WCC
staff dealt with this issue directly by speaking to residents, especially where contamination appeared
deliberate, and certain homes no longer receive this service.

There have been a number of challenges for the Condobolin team, all of which provide important
insights for further development of Groundswell in other areas. Importantly for a community based
organization, the team themselves solved each problem as it arose which led to greater
engagement and well‐deserved pride in their flexible and innovative solutions: ‘It’s a learning curve
for all of us. We’ve come a long way in a short space of time.’

The site was challenging as it was not initially suitable for heavy machinery and needed gravelling.
Extra funding was sourced by WCC for building a handling shed, which unfortunately in 2011 has
structural problems and is disrupting the efficient production of the compost. Creative solutions for
sieving have been developed—’the two workers designed and built sieves superior to the original
[commercial] design – brilliant – cost $100 compared to $1400 for the original.’ A small bobcat has
been purchased and quality tarps are now in place. A chipper was purchased so that WCC could
integrate other green waste dumped at the tip‐face and an expanded collection bay and signage
were provided.

Both council staff and the WCC note that as the compost is ‘clean and green’, the ideal processing
site for a community based partnership would not be on an existing landfill as this will be perceived
by the public as an inherently ‘dirty site’. A dedicated clean site is optimum.

3.1.3 Condobolin compost product
The quality of the final compost is high; as one person said at the midway point, it is ‘black gold’.
Commercialisation is an important goal for WCC. Whilst the short‐term solution has been to sell the
compost in small bags locally, other outlets for the compost are under consideration once the
production and quantity of the product are increased. One idea is to develop a market garden with
the new Wiradjuri Study Centre to supply much‐needed local fresh vegetables (and provide health
benefits) to the town. The market garden would stimulate farmland projects (paddock to plate)
creating employment and benefit to families and the local community. A further idea under
consideration is to seek additional funding from National Resource Management grants such as
‘Caring for Country’ to use the compost for native regeneration such as in the Muri Creek locality,
again providing meaningful employment and environmental benefits.
16
3.1.4 Condobolin community education and engagement
All stakeholders believed that Groundswell is crucial for the district and that education of the
community is paramount. From the start there was a strong environmental commitment by both
council and WCC staff. ‘We are living in different times, drought, and we need to be smarter,
recycling with green waste: getting people to think green, to look after the environment and think
about the future (with climate change’). As one Aboriginal informant said ‘the country is in pain at
the moment and hurting and needs to be managed better. The more we can put back in to the soil…’
This was echoed in the comment of a non‐Aboriginal stakeholder ‘this ex wheat‐belt land has been
farmed to death – [we’ve] got to replenish.’

The publicity before starting collection was seen to be crucial and although there was some ongoing
publicity, council staff believe that this was sub‐optimal even though presentation and
contamination rates show success. Central to community compliance in source separation has been
the use of prizes (for non‐contaminated bins), which are announced in the local newspaper to keep
the issue in the public eye. Prizes were particularly important in the early stage to encourage
community involvement and there is now an effective process for prize selection undertaken by
Council staff. ‘The town has taken to it – very quickly – this was a surprise as it might have been a
struggle – [there is] not all that much contamination.’

In the final consultation Condobolin community members did note that although the prizes were
welcomed (and valued because they had enviro‐friendly products AND a laundry basket) they were
not the prime motivator. People consistently now saw their organic material as ‘something not to
waste’. Indeed people lobbied the evaluation team for an increase to weekly collection in the active
growing season and WCC staff reported that a number of people ‘drop off’ their green waste at the
tip gate rather than ‘waste’ it. It appears that there has been a shift for a number of community
members from compliance to commitment.

3.1.5 The Aboriginal focus ‘black thumbs with green thoughts’
The opportunity for a local agency to be sub‐contracted for the implementation of a project is
always of local benefit however the choice of an Aboriginal agency has brought specific benefits and
important lessons in this Condobolin model. There are three aspects that have been highlighted by
stakeholders: Aboriginal training and employment opportunities, philosophical coherence and the
potential to be a model and guide for other Aboriginal communities. However this project has also
revealed the tensions and challenges in maintaining the relationship and managing communication
and expectations, which is discussed in the following section.

Aboriginal training and employment opportunities
Because nearly one third of the Condobolin population is Aboriginal, it is crucial that relevant local
training and employment is available. This project was seen by the WCC as an ‘important
opportunity to get connected back to land and country and a way of nurturing the land’ and ‘linked
to the liberation pathway program to wean off grog and Methadone’. Groundswell was an
opportunity for a meaningful project that contributes as a resource for the whole town. Condobolin
‘[was] a community that embraces misery – drugs, alcohol – and we were able to turn that around.
A whole of town approach, Aboriginal groups leading the way and not being followers’. At the end
17
of the project, a number of the community members reiterated this same point, showing pride in
their community supporting a meaningful Aboriginal initiative.

The training began in April 2008 and has attracted a number of students each year. TAFE Western
has delivered this course and developed new modules for the Indigenous learners.
• 2008: Twelve students in the composting course as a Certificate of Attainment of Asset
Maintenance (Waste Management) and covering 5 modules as part of TAFE Western ‐
Community College Partnership. Seven students completed the Certificate of Attainment.
Four students also completed Certificate II Asset Maintenance (Waste Management) later in
the year as part of TAFE Western delivery.
• 2009: Six students enrolled with two students completing a Certificate of Attainment and
one student completing Certificate II Asset Maintenance (Waste Management).
• 2010: Eight students enrolled: two students completed Certificate II Asset Maintenance
(Waste Management) including 2 imported composting modules and three students
completed Certificate III Asset Maintenance (Waste Management) including 4 imported
composting modules.

Both the teacher and trainees have valued the ‘hands‐on learning process’. As one trainee said, ‘all
of us are learning – that’s one positive of Dennis [Byrne] coming’. The value of the learning was seen
as particularly important for Aboriginal youth, giving them new and local opportunities, as reflected
in the comment by one of the long‐term operational staff members:
How important is training to the young? It’s given something. A lot of kids haven’t got the
opportunity to get out and learn something. Not a lot of opportunity for what they like doing
(e.g. they don’t like mechanics). This is outdoors. They can see an outcome. It’s good for the
young generation.

There have been six modules on composting developed overall, all linking to the new national
competency standards. These modules can be a stepping‐stone to other training for in‐demand
areas such as water management. Although the training has been developed to support Aboriginal
learners, the modules also can be used for farmers and waste management council staff.

TAFE Waste Management Modules
PRMWM101A Prepare for work in waste PRMCMN202A Provide effective customer
management service
PRMCMN201A Participate in workplace PRMWM05B Identify and segregate waste
OH&S PRMWM14B Manually sort waste
BSBCMN215A Participate in environmental PRMWM17B Store waste
work practices PRMWM11B Respond to waste emergency
PRMWM06B Organise waste recovery PRMWM44B Identify wastes and hazards
PRMWM13B Receive waste
18
However a significant issue has been that little progress is made on the composting process between
visits by the TAFE teacher. This indicates a need for the development of on‐site team leadership
skills, which could be initially developed by training one or two staff up to the Certificate IV level
(which is now in the trial stage). This issue also suggests the need for a dedicated Groundswell
project leader within the WCC staffing framework as any further commercialisation will not occur
without greater attention to timely processing of larger quantities of compost.

Further, WCC reported that the project is currently running at a loss ($50,000) however it appears
that they may not have fully factored in the subsidies and considered that the staff employed (up to
three fulltime) are allocated to other projects in their working week. This project is a complex
business model and further guidance6 on fully maximising this, as a sustainable long‐term business
would be of benefit.

Philosophical coherence
Groundswell, with its focus on the natural cycle of returning organic waste to the soil, is highly
coherent with the Aboriginal world‐view and philosophy. As one Aboriginal stakeholder said, ‘it’s a
project that’s very closely linked to our culture, epistemology and worldview. [It is] listening/hearing
what the land is saying.’ This has led to a commitment beyond the much valued employment
opportunities. There is a significant meaning for Aboriginal participants who see that although non‐
Aboriginal people may leave for the cities, Aboriginal people will always stay to care for their land –
‘[We are] culturally connected to land’. This coherence was well expressed through descriptions such
as: ‘We can be black and green and ‘black thumbs with green thoughts’.

WCC now see that this model can be linked to school curricula and address the link between food
and nutrition as well as food and the environment. Both the operational staff and the WCC
leadership believe that this model should be introduced to other Aboriginal communities across
Australia. As one of the operational staff member said, ‘Really urge them to take it on. It’s a good
venture, provides an employment and training base ‘ and another focused on the benefits for youth
—Advice to other young people? Tell ‘em yeah. It’s better for them, learning stuff’.

It’s a model that the Aboriginal community can take and deliver into other communities – rural or
remote. The site can be used as a model for the future – for western towns [in NSW] with Aboriginal
people on contract to local councils. A stepping‐stone to another town.
(Percy Knight, Aboriginal leader)

3.1.6 The achievements and challenges of a partnership model
The Lachlan Shire Council values Groundswell as an important opportunity for social and economic
(employment) development. They have made a commitment to continue to support the project
beyond the pilot and have allocated funds in their budget for this. A new MOU is under negotiation.
Across the life of the pilot, despite staff shortages, they have been committed to building capacity
and helping to collaboratively solve problems as they arise.

6
For example through the Indigenous Community Volunteers Program http://www.icv.com.au

19
‘We’re always looking for ways to help the Indigenous community – in business, in gaining
self esteem and confidence and taking an active interest in what they are doing… employing
some of our Indigenous people. They’ve been conscientious, we supplied the ground and let
them do what they need to do’.

The WCC have used an ‘action learning’ approach to also work on problems as they arise – for
example trialling collection processes, developing compost technology and determining an initial
market process for the product. WCC have also experienced staff limitations but have had an
ongoing commitment to this project. The action learning process has been strongly supported by the
Groundswell Project Manager who has provided specific collaborative workshops as required (for
example a day workshop on ways to access larger organic waste through local businesses and
institutions). The partnership is poised to provide a sustainable City to Soil model for Condobolin.

However as with all partnerships, there are tensions, particularly as both partner agencies have
limited staff numbers and other competing projects and responsibilities. This appears to have led to
communication occurring primarily when a problem arises which adds stress to the development of
an effective relationship. As the problems sometimes revolve around safety, compliance and other
serious issues, it is hard not to fall back into oppositional camps. Although both parties are
committed to continuing the project, communication would be enhanced by a commitment to
regular ‘touching‐base’ meetings. These meetings can celebrate achievements and build on
strengths as well as identify needed solutions. The nomination of one contact person in each agency
as the ‘broker’ for all communication may also ensure that communication is timely and not
misunderstood.

3.1.7 Lessons from the Condobolin model
• Team management and leadership need to be built into the process to ensure efficient
compost production

20
3.2 The Goulburn Mulwaree Story– from household via council to farm
This section draws on information from the midway review as well as interviews that were
conducted with the Waste Management staff of the Goulburn Mulwaree Shire Council at both the
midway and final points. A site visit to the composting area and interviews with operational staff
were also undertaken. Further interviews were conducted with staff from the Council
Communication team and the Economic Development Officer. Two community drop‐ins were held
to gain feedback from local residents.

3.2.1 The Goulburn Mulwaree model: an overview
The Goulburn Mulwaree case presents a totally in‐council model for the collection and processing of
green waste. Its aim was to provide quality compost to local farmers. Six months prior to
Groundswell, Council had introduced a monthly kerbside green waste collection. Residents now add
their kitchen waste to the monthly green waste collection. The collection process is ‘a big job with
100 tonnes green waste per month on average.’

Initially Goulburn Mulwaree began with a small trial area which had several benefits for the council
and community. The part of town was chosen as highly likely to have a successful rate of
engagement and compliance. This helped council to get composting and other resources in place,
and provided ‘double publicity’ (the trial and the broader roll out). ‘We learnt a lot out of that
process’ and it raised curiosity in the community as people said, ‘Where’s MY bin’?

Composting is located on a clean area of the council landfill site where existing staff process the
compost. The project has attracted significant attention from other local governments and there
have been numerous visits from waste management staff from NSW and other states’ councils. The
compost process was hampered by extremely wet weather in late 2010 however 400 cubic metres
are close to completion.

Two local farms were selected (from 35 who expressed interest) to provide sites for the agronomy
trials. Given the success of these trials (Houghton 2011) the Goulburn Mulwaree Council is now
about to call for EOIs from local farmers for purchase of the compost.

There are on‐going high participation rates (61.1%) and ccontamination rates are consistently low
(0.6%)7. Quality compost that is compliant with national standards (AS4454) has been produced.
Further, an economic options paper (Reynolds 2010) that analyses four reconfigurations of the
current system demonstrates the economic viability of continuing the City to Soil collections.
In the 2010 Council Waste Survey, it is clear that Groundswell has been a success as of those who
replied to the survey 65% (1831) wanted to continue the current service with City to Soil and 11
monthly organic collections.

3.2.2 Goulburn Mulwaree composting process
A capped clean area at the landfill site was designated for Groundswell. The process was closely
monitored for ‘different levels of breakdown’. Seasonal variations have required adjustments as at

7
The contamination rate reduces to 0.03% if the bins from only two households are removed from the sample
frame.
21
times of the year there are higher amounts of waste such as ‘grass and rose clippings, and Xmas
trees’. Initially times of higher winds (Sept‐Oct) proved a problem however with regular inspection
and heavy‐duty tarps this has been managed. In late 2010 the persistent wet weather caused two
issues: smell and lack of access. The smell was transient, however due to boggy land the timely
processing of piles was not possible. This has meant that pile sizes have not reduced and therefore
larger areas of the tip site have been needed (the space is still adequate). At the time of this report,
there are two finished piles (400 cubic metres) – one A grade, one B grade (small trace elements
were found). The two piles are now being blended and will be re‐tested.

Goulburn Mulwaree has been able to use existing council equipment and staff, however this has not
been without challenge. Operators’ attitudes are variable – ‘some good, others careless’— and when
staff are away there are no relief staff available. Further, whilst there is council machinery available
(compacter and kerbside truck plus backhoe) a trommel is also needed and, as this is borrowed,
delays have been caused.

3.2.3 Goulburn Mulwaree community engagement and education
The two‐person Council Communication team have developed an ongoing PR and engagement
campaign. Initially they had an intensive campaign with letters8, media releases and flyers designed
in consultation with the Groundswell Project Manager and the Council’s Waste and Aquatic
Manager. Two letters were sent to every household – one to say, ‘Groundswell is coming’, the next
to say, ‘It’s here’.

Following the lessons from the trial period, the Goulburn Mulwaree team made direct one‐on‐one
contact with the community, taking the bins out to people. School visits engaged children, teachers
and parents, yielding ‘cute pictures’ in newspapers and flyers that are still being used. The Project
Manager’s enthusiasm and skills as media talent meant that Groundswell always gained good media
coverage.

Goulburn Mulwaree’s Public Communications Officers are strongly of the view that linking the
process to local farmers, especially in drought conditions, was a key ‘hook’ for the community in this
agricultural town and surrounding region. Media strategies included getting farmers on board,
stories about farmers and showing people the outcome of the process on the farms. Prizes were
given as incentives but the presentation of prizes was always linked to a farmer story. Staff noted
that ‘prize‐winners did not talk about messages but about farmers!’

The involvement of the Mayor was key and local school principals were keen to support the
environmental message and link this to the curriculum. Overall the passion, enthusiasm and
inspiration led to an underlying impact that ‘compost [can be] beautiful and lovely’.

3.2.4 The achievements and challenges of an in‐council model
Groundswell in Goulburn Mulwaree demonstrates the ease of adding City to Soil to standard council
green waste processes—’City To Soil just piggybacks on our green waste program’. Knowledgeable
local council staff are in an excellent position to determine where to trial the process and what

8
27,000 letters to the Larger Goulburn Mulwaree Area and 22,000 to the City.
22
message may resonate best with their local community. Such local ‘good news’ stories are important
in adding to local pride and commitment, which will enhance compliance.

There are challenges in managing some of the process within existing council resources. Operational
staff at the tip have a number of priorities and timely processing cannot be assured. Not all staff may
have an interest in the composting work, which is of a different nature to their other roles. For some
the opportunity to gain a qualification may be an incentive, however for others this will be a non‐
issue. Further, technical equipment must be available at strategic times and all equipment needs a
maintenance and repair budget. Given that the final product will have an economic payback,
councils would be wise to look at how small additional resources (human and technical) could lead
to faster processing of the product through to sale.

The Goulburn Mulwaree model also illustrates the importance of adapting the composting process
in light of local conditions. Goulburn Mulwaree has successfully managed drought, high winds,
seasonal excess green waste and heavy on‐going rains. Other councils will need to ensure that there
is local leadership to quickly respond to such challenges.

Whilst Goulburn Mulwaree has chosen to sell‐on the compost to local farmers, some concern was
expressed that if council makes a profit from ‘something they make us pay to have collected’ a
negative response may emerge. This would be readily addressed by further community education
showing the community the overall economics of reducing landfill, enhancing local soil for long‐term
sustainability of the district and bringing income to the council, which can be directed to other
complementary services. Councils may also like to consider other ‘good news’ and cost effective
ways to use this quality product, such as using it on their own parks, gardens and recreational fields,
landscaping and regenerating degraded land and erosion, as well as for local community service
grounds, such as aged care.

3.2.5 Lessons from the Goulburn Mulwaree model
• An initial intensive campaign with one‐to‐one delivery of bins provides a strong start
• The community will be motivated to source separate when they understand the link to local
farmers
• Local conditions need monitoring and may require further adaptation of the compost
process
• School children show how easy household waste collection is and make for good media
images
23
3.3 The Queanbeyan/Palerang Story– from household to organic farm
The information for this section was drawn from the midway review, an interview with Richard
Graham of Landtasia and a review of the Project Manager’s reports. A site visit to Landtasia was also
undertaken.

3.3.1 The Queanbeyan/Palerang model: an overview
Palerang Shire Council currently collects general waste (mixed with organics) and recyclable waste in
three towns. Their plan is to undertake a third run of the truck for green waste and to be processing
900 tonnes a year. As the original pilot site for City To Soil, Queanbeyan Shire Council also already
collects green waste, and is thus well set‐up to begin the collection system. They plan to conduct the
collection trial in one area of Queanbeyan (Karabar), which has 800 homes, about 1/8th of
Queanbeyan, with a later further roll‐out across Queanbeyan. Collection will be fortnightly.

Both Shire Councils are planning to deliver their organic waste to a local organic farmer. The benefit
of the City to Soil process for an organic farmer is that the compost process can be maintained at the
highest standards as required by an organic business. Further an on‐farm site puts the control and
time‐line in the hands of the farmer who can use existing staff to work on the process as part of their
other responsibilities. The organic farmer believes that the Groundswell compost product will be
highly attractive to a wide range of farmers who are constantly seeking high quality compost. He
noted that farmers would need to be supported by education and demonstration sites.

As the farm chosen for the compost site falls within the Sydney Catchment area and thus required a
development application (DA) and an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), initial delays occurred.
When the DA consent was given (September 2009), the farmer began considerable infrastructure
development at his own cost—a construction certificate was granted and construction commenced,
the concrete slab was laid and shed begun, earthworks completed and an internal road upgrade and
realignment completed. An Operational Environmental Management Plan was completed and farm
staff been trained. The farmer noted that without support from the Project Manager to complete
the extensive DA/EIS paperwork, the project would never have got off the ground. He emphasised
that most farmers will not have time for such regulatory processes as they are particularly onerous.

Unfortunately a significant further delay was caused by the failure of the Palerang Council in late
2008/ early 2009 to notify the correct neighbours adjacent to the composting site. This has led to a
formal lobby group protesting against the on‐farm composting site. The matter was consequently
heard in the Land and Environment Court and the consent has been rescinded. The implications are
that the DA/EIS now need to be reassessed via relevant state government agencies, the neighbours
notified again and the DA placed on public exhibition. Composting infrastructure has ceased until the
DA has been approved.

Allan Parker from Peak Performance was engaged to facilitate a community workshop about the
composting site in February 2011. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an opportunity to
exchange accurate and detailed information about the proposal (scale, scope, design, operation),
share any perspectives or make any suggestions about the proposal and to ask and get answers to
questions. Around 25 people attended the workshop and the write up from the meeting has been
sent out.
24
3.3.2 Lessons from the Queanbeyan/Palerang model
• Informal and early consultations with neighbours are wise as well as ensuring that the
formal consultation is conducted
• Many farmers will be motivated to produce this very clean product
• There is considerable potential for farmer education and training through a demonstration
site
• There is a need for education for on on‐farm composting sites
• Organic (and other farmers) may prefer on‐farm composting over council compost in order
to have control over standards at every point

3.4 Crossmodel lessons learned
Although there have been particular lessons in each model, across the models other common issues
have led to important lessons. In particular that:
• Successful community engagement and education revolves around providing the right tools
and the right information at the right time and using a range of motivators and with on‐
going attention to locally targeted publicity
• The City to Soil and Groundswell wider roll‐outs will provide an important opportunity to
further analyse the deeper dynamics behind the success of the community engagement
strategy
• Community ideas to improve City to Soil include ensuring there is an explanation of the
whole cycle and opportunities to actually see how compost is made
• The cost benefit for councils is evident

3.4.1 Wider sources of organic waste
In each of the three areas, commercial and institutional food waste have been identified as
important future sources for larger amounts of organic waste. Cardboard was also indentified by
Condobolin as a readily available source. Sources for commercial organic waste include:
• In all areas: supermarkets, retirement villages, council parks service, motels, pubs, the RSL,
golf clubs, hospitals and school canteens.
• In Goulburn Mulwaree: the Correctional Centre and Police College
• In Palerang: Defence Headquarters Joint Operations Command

Enhanced processes would be required for handling larger amounts and initial ideas have been
developed including the use of commercial food waste bins and larger compostable bags from
Biobags, using VRM liquid Bokashi spray, providing MGBs and a weekly pickup, self delivery to
compost site (as many businesses already have a regular trip for organic waste to the tip). Trials have
begun in Scotland and Wales through the Zero Waste international network to ensure commercial
food waste can be safely stored over a fortnight period without producing odours and the results
will be important information for current and new City To Soil projects.

25
3.4.2 Community engagement and education
The ultimate test of community engagement has been the maintenance of bin presentation levels
with low contamination rates. This success goes against the prevailing belief within the waste
industry that people will not reliably source separate. A thorough and on‐going community
engagement strategy has been central to this success—The community engagement strategy rocks
the boat compared with the way the waste sector does it and we’ve proved it.

It’s just easy!
Drawing on recent research9, the Project Manager believed that if you construct easy ways for
people to do the right thing (rather than trying to first convince them of the global issues) and
provide the right tools and the right information backed up by simple motivators then people
would engage10. This has been proven to be correct. —The way it was put together. It was a
breathtaking success. People were part of the solution without telling them what the problem is.

Community members report that it IS a simple system—from the attractive kitchen bench container
and bags—I couldn’t live without it [my kitchen bin]. It’s always full—through to the regular bin
collection for green waste and kitchen waste.

Indeed in Condobolin, a number of people reported that the
new bags did not fit well and made their installation fussy and
off‐putting. They were keen for this to be fixed so that the ease
returned and others were not put off. In Goulburn one young
man in his mid 20s proudly reported that he watched his Mum
use the kitchen bins every day and she found it easy. When
asked if he also scraped his meal leftovers into the kitchen bin
he said ‘ Oh No, that’s her job! But it is good to see it is easy for
her!’

Now, three years after its instigation, people see the City To Soil process as just commonsense AND
do now link it to environmental needs—’I just think it’s a great idea – it’s going to the recycling not
to the tip. It’s being re‐used, helps the environment and every little bit helps’ and— ‘I thought it was
pretty good. Why use it? To help the environment. It was an easy system to use, sits on a bench,
chuck your scraps in!’

9
. Research has identified six reasons why people might participate and different people would respond to one,
some or all of those six: Help address climate change; Reduce waste to landfill; Reduce waste costs; Improve
agricultural soils; Support local farmers; Win prizes (For example, NSW DECCW Who Cares about the
Environment)
10
Groundswell consciously used combinations of all six motivators in media releases, article and letters to
reach the community
26
In Condobolin and Goulburn Mulwaree the engagement, positive feedback, low contamination rate
and desire that City To Soil continues are all apparent —’The big news is that the community is really
onside: their attitude is the evidence, and the contamination rate is the proof.’

The motivators—prizes and more
The original motivator to use the green waste bin correctly was a prize draw for uncontaminated
bins, which was announced in the local paper. The community members did value the prizes ‘the
prize was handy – a surprise. I didn’t expect it’ and appreciated the eco nature of the hamper ‘great
prizes – spot on – a shock’. Comments reflected that the press announcement of prizewinners did
reinforce the town’s achievement—The hamper’s a great idea. At least you know people are using
[‘City To Soil’]. Some who contributed only clean green waste (i.e. did not contribute kitchen waste)
were disappointed not to be included in the draw.

However there are other motivators that are apparent. One was the simply the provision of the
effective equipment ‘we each got a wheelie bin. That was the motivation. Bingo!’ and ‘I’d be lost
now if I didn’t have the bin’. Importantly as Groundswell began in times of severe drought the linking
of the project back to farmers was a key factor in Goulburn Mulwaree as ‘people wanted to do the
right thing for farmers’. As one community member said ‘I was interested from the word go. I’m a
keen gardener but too busy to make my own compost heap. If I don’t have time to do my own
compost, at least it’s going to a farmer’.

In both regions people understood the importance of reducing landfill — ‘Benefits that attracted
[me]? It’s better than sending waste to landfill’ —and they understood the benefits of the use of
their organic waste to create compost and returning nutrients to the soil/agriculture/farmer. In
Condobolin, there was pride in the product and people saw it as an important project for local
Indigenous people; indeed suggesting that it should be sold in the local supermarkets11.

There are also lessons to learn from the small number of people who did not support the City To Soil
process. One family in Goulburn Mulwaree reported that they were ‘told off’ and a ‘nasty letter’ was
left on their bin because they did not follow the process. It appears that they probably placed food
waste in the bin directly and not in the bio‐bags (which reduce the smell). This family asserted that
‘they had done the right thing’ by giving their food waste but clearly they had missed the message of
‘how’. Some council informants noted that talking directly to people in the early days if the bin had
been contaminated often fixed the problem and led to full compliance. It is possible that this family
was recalcitrant but equally they may have been new residents who did not understand the
requirements. They are indicators of the importance of on‐going intermittent community
education. The lesson may be best expressed as providing the right tools and the right information
at the right times.

11
Both supermarket mangers were very willing to consider selling the product
27
Publicity lessons
Council staff in both areas did put energy into catchy campaigns, with a focus on the local returns
for the region. Goulburn Mulwaree staff found that the use of children (the future) and farmers (our
people) were particularly important. Using kids as the ‘face’ of Groundswell gave the message that
the City to Soil was a simple system — ‘kids show how easy it is’. Goulburn Mulwaree staff also
noted that using local farmers in campaigns did require careful selection of the farmer, as not all
would be comfortable working with the media. Both areas used the Mayor and highlighted other
councils who were drawn to the town to find out about the project.

Regular attention in the media was the ideal but the Goulburn Mulwaree staff warned of the need to
avoid saturation by too frequent coverage. In contrast, in Condobolin, the staff believed that they
could have done more ‘we didn’t throw enough resources at it – we had a few ads, flyers and prizes.
We got a good result but could have got 100% more results. We could have done better, got out
there, held information sessions, etc.’. The fact that Condobolin was successful without massive
coverage suggests that one Goulburn Mulwaree staff member may be right when she said, ‘I don’t
think we’ve done a brilliant job. I think people were just ready for it.’

3.4.3 Community ideas to improve City To Soil
Although most people consulted were very happy with City To Soil, it was clear that not all
understood the full cycle and wanted to. Not everyone in Condobolin knew that bagged compost
had been already produced and in Goulburn Mulwaree people wanted to know more about how
farmers would use the product. In Condobolin, people really wanted to know HOW the compost‐
making process worked—I’d love to see how the process is done. I don’t really know the process—
and some were especially keen to know ‘How do they kill the weeds and seeds?’ One good
suggestion was an Open Day. Although these are simple comments, they do reinforce the
importance of continuing the community education right through the cycle – from City To Soil. As
one person said ‘It would be nice to know HOW it goes back into the soil’.

These recommendations gel with the feedback from the Goulburn Mulwaree Communications team
who stressed the importance of making sure there were stories after the first collection to remind
people. One of their suggestions was to publicise low contamination rates: ‘You don’t contaminate
your local farmer’. Introducing City To Soil in schools was another frequent suggestion; in this case
educating young people to see organic material as a resource not waste.

3.4.4 Messages to other councils
When community members in both areas were asked what they would say to other councils12
considering adopting a City To Soil process, there was an overwhelming positive response, with it
being noted as a council strength (It’s been a great asset as far as I can see) and a needed process
(It’s a wonderful service) with a valued output (Anybody that’s going to start: it’s a fabulous idea and
get behind it. You get an end product).

12
other advice for councils is also included in Section 4.3
28
Community members stressed the link to farmers—Take it on. It’s a great idea. It DOES matter here
– we’re a farming community. It’s important for farms. It puts stuff back into the soil, improves
pasture. The community members also recommended suitable messages to use in promoting City To
Soil. The messages reveal the values people saw in City To Soil:
• We have a solution for your excess garden waste. It costs you nothing (that’s the main
incentive)
• ‘Help clean up Australia every day’
• It’s the next thing after Clean Up Australia
• It’s clean – there’s less rubbish in the street, the tip [won’t] smell as it used to
• ‘You’ve got to be in it to win it’
• You can get hampers/prizes

A strong brand identification is am important factor and for councils who are willing to ensure
compliance with the City to Soil process a number of effective graphics and a logo will be available to
them. This will be an important quality marker across the country as the process rolls out nationally.

29
3.4.5 The cost benefit for councils
The Reynolds report (2011) provides important data for councils considering the financial
implications of introducing a City To Soil process. Reynolds has documented the core costs for
council from set‐up to maintenance (Appendix 10: City To Soil council costs) finding that per
household costs are: set‐up $68, annual maintenance $16.80, first year plant and salaries $114 and
ongoing $45.90. He then provides the following value calculation (p. 14):

Groundswell process value calculation (Reynolds 2011)
• $130 tonne = $0.13 per kilogram (kg)
• Each household diverts 10kg per week = 520kg per year
• $0.13 x 520kg = $67.60 of diversion values per household per year to councils
• Conversion rates recorded at the composting sites indicate a 50% reduction of waste to
compost ratio = 260 kg of compost developed per household per year (0.25 tonnes)
• Bulk densities measured from composting piles also indicates that approximately 600kg is
similar to approximately 1 cubic metre of compost.
• Current market value of 1m3 of compost is approximately $45 which is closely related to the
total annual amount produced per household, therefore value per household = $45
• The total annual value per household from diversions and compost development = $67.60 +
$45.00 = $112.60

Reynolds concluded that:
When the value of compost decreases to 15m3 as indicated by research results the payback
time for councils will increase from 3 years to 5 years, and the NPV at year 5 being $8.63.
Although the payback timeframe has increased and NPV is not as high as previously
reported, these results indicate the overall net worth to councils to undertake such
investments is still very positive. It also indicates the although the sale price of compost
impacts on the value to councils of adopting a Groundswell system, low prices still make
the investment worthwhile. (p.15)
30
4 The Escapee in Action: new case stories from Groundswell

Although Groundswell was designed as a pilot project, from the midway point it was apparent that
many councils were keenly interested and by March 2011 there were 35 sites that had expressed
interest in Groundswell composting process, 27 in NSW. As one person said ‘it has escaped!’ A
number have already adopted the City To Soil process based only on the early research and results;
this in itself indicates the pressing needs for councils to find environmentally responsible ways to
reduce landfill and support local agriculture and/or community needs.

This section presents an analysis of two such sites, Bathurst and Armidale, and provides case studies
of small councils taking up and adapting the City To Soil process to suit their local needs.

4.1 The Bathurst story: Green waste plus into compost
Bathurst is a small NSW council that has taken up the Groundswell composting process for their
existing green waste, however it does not yet have the resources to implement the City To Soil
domestic organics collection process. (It hopes to down the track.) Their first priority is keeping
large amounts of commercial organic waste and biosolids out of the landfill, as well as using their
chipped green waste in a more effective way.

In 2009‐2010 with the help of DECCW staff, Bathurst undertook three trials of compost processing:
mixing with existing green waste the by‐products of pet food or biosolids or green waste mulch only.
Compost from each of these processes was assessed as unrestricted A Grade compost (Beavis,
2010). To date Bathurst has produced over 200 cubic metres initially over four months and has 350
cubic metres ‘baking’ at the moment. They anticipate they will have produced 600 cubic metres by
the end of the year.

Bathurst’s end product has been used in a range of ways: one tonne to a school veggie garden
project; selling on for $33 a tonne (mulch is free); Parks and Gardens regeneration and they have
used it at the tip and turned it into a park. The results of this trial and recommendations for
processing chipped green waste are documented in a report (Bathurst Regional Council 2010) which
can found on the NetWaste website13.

13
http://www.netwaste.org.au/OrganicsUserGuide.pdf

31
4.2 The Armidale Story: low hanging fruit — a purely economic decision
Armidale currently collects 8,000 green waste bins fortnightly, and following the Council’s Waste
Management Committee unanimous approval, they plan to implement the City To Soil collection and
the Groundswell composting process this year. Armidale chose the full processes for two main
reasons:
• Economic: as a small council (27,000 people), it cannot afford the bigger systems Ultimately,
the residents pay, so it was in the council’s interest to be cost effective. ‘It was purely an
economic decision’
• Process Integration: the City To Soil community collection process plus composting provides
an achievable model for a council with small staff numbers.

Armidale will now begin with media coverage and a first trial area, closely following the City To Soil’s
detailed ‘how to ‘ list (Appendix 2: Rolling out City to Soil). Council will be seeking community
feedback across the whole process to ensure they keep their community fully engaged.

Armidale plans to build on its existing green waste products: simple compost is already produced;
loam products are produced for earthmoving companies, and they produce some mulch. They will
augment these current sales to include next include the organic compost from the Groundswell
process. As one staff member commented:
We don’t know if gardeners want first go before farmers. We’ll suck it and see. Armidale
doesn’t have a lot of agriculture (unlike Goulburn). It does have grazing. It has a keen
gardening community and is an enviro city, so compost is in high demand.

Armidale noted that Groundswell is a ‘recognised process, supported by scientific evidence, low
input/capital cost, cost effective’. Further the City to Soil dimension offered people an easier way to
source separate: ‘low hanging fruit’. People want to do the right thing. They don’t have to be green.

4.3 New Learnings
These two case studies indicate the important fact that learnings that will continue to emerge as the
Groundswell and/or the City To Soil process is introduced in differing environments.

Bathurst tips:
• Hold down the tarps with sandbags, as the tyres collected water
• Use a simplified process for testing for temperature by putting four holes in the tarp to save
lifting the tarp – you can stick the probe in the same spot
• Chipped mulch is dry and so needs a lot of water at the start
• Soaking is time‐saving and simple, for $20 for a soaking: soaker hoses zigzagged across the
pile for delivering 2000 litres saves time
• The methane testing of the composting process showed ranges all under 1/3rd the normal
levels of 32‐35% that are found in the landfill
• ‘You can neglect it and it still works’—due tarp shortages and no temperature checks for two
months was not a problem (a bit of odour)
Armidale tips:
• Another council left out the bin liners process – and there was smell.

32
4.4 What new councils say about the City To Soil process
The two councils interviewed provided further data on the range of benefits of the City To Soil
process. The reinforced all the issues raised by the project sites of Condobolin and Goulburn
Mulwaree.

The quality of the compost was highly valued — ‘You could almost eat it’; It’s absolutely phenomenal
and for both councils the simplicity of the composting system was surprising:
• This system works. It’s so simple. It feels like you’re cheating. It feels like it’s too simple.
• The proof’s in the pudding (re contamination, odour, vermin). People don’t understand
about in cell photosynthesis and microbes doing the work under tarps’.

Councils also appreciated that the cost is minimal. Bathurst were impressed that Goulburn had
pulled 50% out of landfill with no extra machinery and for Bathurst the only costs were tarps, a
temperature gauge, moisture meter and spray. Little cost, great result, fantastic. In Armidale they
have estimated the need to ‘make $130,000 a year to pay for the system which seems very do‐able.
Plus [there is] the savings on landfill.

The messages to other councils were clear— ‘It gives power/ownership back to councils to achieve
the same environmental outcomes. That’s why I jumped at it.’ (Armidale). According to a Bathurst
council staff member, councils need to focus on the diversion from landfill, the benefits to
surrounding farm and environment, the reduced methane (half) and that the process kills smell in 24
hours – ‘even biosolids which make you dry retch – it’s absolutely phenomenal’.

The Armidale spokesperson reinforced that councils will need to know that the City To Soil collection
process hinges on giving the right tools so that people can easily comply. He was highly supportive
of the simple but effective City To Soil equipment supplied to householders. Both councils reiterated
the importance of following through the community engagement strategy to ensure low
contamination rates.

The fact that many other councils are now taking up the City To Soil process gave these councils
confidence. One council staff member noted that ‘councils trust other councils’. He stressed that
there was good science and good links to help and support councils. Further he recommended that
these links be further developed through blogs that included the symbols/logos of all councils that
were involved.

Tibaijuka (cited in Lehmann, 2010, p. 28) reiterates the importance of council leadership in the area
of waste management when she says that “managing solid waste is always in the top five of the
most challenging problems for city management…The quality of waste management services is a
good indicator of a city’s governance” (emphasis added)

‘Come up and see us …People are doing it. ‘You can do it too’
James Turnell ( Armidale Shire Council)

33
5 Empowerment Evaluations of Groundswell: the team reflects

Two Empowerment Evaluation (Fettermann, 2001) days were used to enable all key stakeholders to
reflect on the progress, issues and achievements of the Groundswell project as a whole. The first was
held at the 18‐month mark (April 2009) and the second at the end of the project (February, 2011). A
common review process was used for both days (Reflecting on the Vision, Taking Stock and
Improvement Plans) which allowed for comparisons to be made, however in the 2011 workshop, the
improvements stage focused more on stakeholders’ advice on focusing this final evaluation.

The following section outlines the results of each Empowerment Evaluation review and then
compares the Vision, Taking Stock and Improvement results.

5.1 Midway empowerment evaluation
The Groundswell project was reviewed at the mid‐way point with a focus on providing opportunities
for the major partners to reflect on their experiences, clarify the lessons learned and mutually
discuss and determine what would be needed in the second half of the implementation phase
(Appendix 11: Midway Review Executive Summary). Three major themes were identified at this
point:

1. Action learning is particularly useful in new projects where simple solutions are not
available. The Groundswell collaborative and team approach has enabled all participants to
share their learning which has enabled more creative solutions to emerge. Delays and
problems are seen as challenges rather than failures and thus the lessons can be harnessed
and shared. The effective facilitation and leadership, and the strengths‐based action learning
philosophy and process, have emerged as central to the success of Groundswell to date.

2. Groundswell has captured the attention of stakeholders and there is an emerging sense of
collaborative commitment arising from Groundswell. It will be important to clarify the ‘art
and craft’ of the successful approach taken to motivate and engage the community—the
right tools, the right information at the right time.

3. There are a number of possible futures just out of sight for Groundswell. The composting
process is groundbreaking in its low technology and local handling, with further possibilities
of integrating other products such as commercial waste into the soil enrichment process.

The major lessons were:
Lesson 1: The Groundswell model is effective and adaptable
Lesson 2: Identification of and attention to quality control and effective processes will lead to high
quality compost
Lesson 3: Community education and engagement needs to be timely and on going
Lesson 4: Communication needs to be targeted and regular and inclusive of all community
stakeholders
Lesson 5: Training opportunities can be integrated and extended
Lesson 6: Research and its timely and targeted reporting is a pivotal aspect of the project
Lesson 7: Site selection and development need early identification and management
Lesson 8: The social and commercial benefits are now visible
34
5.2 Final Empowerment Evaluation
The final Empowerment Evaluation Review was held in early February 2011 with a focus on
providing opportunities for the major partners to reflect on their experiences and progress since the
midway review and to identify summative lessons learned (Appendix 12: Empowerment Evaluation
Workshop Outline) Participants were extremely positive about Groundswell, noting that over 30
councils or groups are already trialling City To Soil collections or the Groundswell composting
process—as one participant said ‘it’s escaped’.

The major positive themes that were identified at conclusion of the project were the value of a
quality process and product, the importance of project management and communication and the
key place of community consultation and on‐going engagement. These are highly congruent with the
midway Empowerment Evaluation .The negative themes were the impact of politics and the need
for greater commercialisation, although the group was divided on the impact of these.

• A quality process and product: the collection processes have worked, the contamination
rates are low, a new simple low‐tech and low cost process has been developed and staff
have been trained. The product meets all standards and is better than most similar products
on the market

• Project management and communication—the skilled project management has enabled
lessons to be shared across the life of the project. It is now clear that there is an on‐going
need for leadership to continue in each area from a dedicated team leader through to
operational staff. The research consultants were also seen to be a positive part of
communication as they have been involved from the start, not just tacked on at the end.

• Community consultation and on‐going engagement—the evidence of success is in the on‐
going presentation of bins and the low contamination rates. The need to attend to on‐going
engagement was important to continued success.

• Politics: there was acknowledgement of political issues: within council, from the waste
industry, neighbour resistance, red tape, legislation and regulation, however these have
primarily impacted in one area only. The need for close attention to planning requirements
is apparent however there is also the opportunity to show that most concerns are not valid
through the research and outcomes of the two advanced areas.

• Commercialisation: although commercialisation was not the driver of the project, given the
results of the research strategy, it should be now possible to examine wider commercial
options. ‘It’s next’.

Lessons —The final Empowerment Evaluation data showed that the lessons identified in the first 18
months continue to have relevance and are now deepened and backed up by 3 years of experience
and research data. They are discussed in the following section.
35
5.3 Comparing the Empowerment Evaluations
This section compares the Empowerment Evaluations at the 18 month and 3 year points. It
illustrates the deepening understanding of the vision, compares the Taking Stock results, documents
the progress on improvements identified at the midway point and synthesises the lessons learned.

5.3.1 Vision
At the 18‐month point stakeholders identified six major aspects of their current vision:
• engagement and education—highlighting the importance of involvement at all levels and
with all stakeholders to ensure ownership
• dedicated people—inside Groundswell and supporting Groundswell
• creating a nutrient cycle— establishing the economics and simple systems for efficient and
best use of green waste as a resource, and of national relevance
• quality materials— satisfaction of all stakeholders with the materials at every level
• refining processes —constant learning and clarification
• value adding —to the model, process and outputs

The team’s midway vision was highly congruent with the original vision. They proposed additional
components to the vision: that is the notions of value‐adding, national relevance and the
engagement and education of stakeholders from all levels. Dedicated people and the training and
employment opportunities were also central to the midway vision of the team.

At the 3 year point, the team identified the significance of process as key within the vision and added
the importance of:
• the engagement and education of communities — connecting people to food production
cycle, linking urban folk to where food comes from; ownership, responsibility, engagement
and empowerment
• the participatory and cooperative nature of the project—such as councils helping councils,
community returning organics to soil and agriculture. ‘The original vision doesn’t mention
community’
• cost effectiveness —the returns to the economy of a smart simple input and a simple cheap
system for reducing landfill

When compared with the original vision for Groundswell14 — ‘to prove the wider economic viability
of the ‘City To Soil’ collection system and establish composted urban organic waste as a cost
effective, high quality agricultural input’—it is clear that the macro or big picture vision (common to
many environmental projects) is now more evident, that is seeing the relationship to global
environmental sustainability and future wellbeing. ‘It’s a much bigger vision than we originally
thought’. The team agreed it was now a ‘much more matured level of vision’

‘It’s now a vision grounded in experience’.

14
Groundswell Draft Business Plan, 01/27/11/2007
36
5.3.2 Taking stock
The team identified the major components of Groundswell’s activity at the mid‐way point. Each
category was reassessed in the final evaluation leading to and some fine‐tuning of existing
components. Three new categories were added at this time15.

TABLE 1: TAKING STOCK COMPARATIVE SCORES (MIDWAY AND FINAL)
Mid‐way evaluation components Final evaluation components
Composting process Composting process
Commercialisation Commercialisation
Education and Engagement Community Education and Engagement
Infrastructure Infrastructure and logistics
Models Models
Outreach/advisory Outreach/advisory
Research Research
Staff Staff – operational, local, training
Politics
Regulations & legislation
Team leadership

These new components were combined with those from the midway review. Participants were first
asked to individually write their scores out of 10 (10 being the highest) for each component and add
comments. They then wrote individual comments and discussed why they had given their scores.
A key outcome of the final Taking Stock process was that the average ranking of all components
that had been evaluated at the midway review were ranked higher in this end‐of‐project review.

Components with the greatest improvements were:
• Outreach/advisory: +2.8
• Composting: +2.5
• Community Education and Engagement: +2.0.

Rankings of Infrastructure and logistics, research, models and staff all improved by between 1.4 and
1.8 compared with the midway evaluation. Commercialisation improved the least (+0.4).
The following table shows the difference between the midway and end of project average scores

15
Changes and additions to midway components are in italics.
37
TABLE 2: AVERAGE RANKINGS OF COMPONENTS AT MID‐WAY AND FINAL EVALUATION
Component16 Score midway Score at end of Difference between mid
through project project and end rankings
Composting process 6.5 9 +2.5
Community Education and 6.4 8.4 +2.0
Engagement
Team leadership Not assessed 8.3
Models 6.6 8 +1.4
Outreach/advisory 5.0 7.8 +2.8
Research 6.3 7.8 +1.5
Staff – operational, local, 6.2 7.6 +1.4
training
Infrastructure & logistics 5.3 7.1 +1.8
Regulations & legislation Not assessed 6.4
Politics Not assessed 5.8
Commercialisation 4.3 4.7 +0.4

A summary of the main points raised in the mid‐way and final evaluation sessions follows, in the
order of most highly to lowest ranked components at the final evaluation.

Composting process — 18 months: 6.5 3 years: 9
At the mid‐way point: The progress towards an effective composting system was highly valued and
seen to be ‘pivotal’. All participants agreed that the progress in developing solutions to each
challenge was excellent. The process was’ groundbreaking …composting in a way that nobody is’. If
Groundswell can now show why and how the process works (e.g. it is possible to compost without
odours and without shredding) it would lead to a ‘revolutionary process’. The Project Manager
summarised, ‘Groundswell has reached a level of stabilization and now refining, collecting data and
testing with monitoring for contamination is becoming key’.

As one Condobolin participant noted, ‘starting from zero knowledge to what we have now [October
to now] is incredible. I’d go and buy 10 trailer loads of stuff.’

At the final evaluation: The outstanding success was the compost process and product itself, which
scored an average of 9. Participants described it as:
• ‘Low maintenance’
• ‘Simple, works well and it’s forgiving’
• ‘Very resilient’
• ‘Dynamic, flexible and robust’
• ‘It works well with all materials’
• ‘The compost is first class and cost‐effective’
• ‘It’s (almost) an idiot‐proof process. You can leave it for a month or two ‘

16
Sorted from highest to lowest final average ranking (1 lowest score; 10 highest)
38
Community Education and Engagement— 18 months: 6.4 3 years: 8.4
At the mid‐way point: The high scores in this component reflected success in both the community
education and the training aspects of Groundswell.

Both Condobolin and Goulburn Mulwaree participants assessed that community engagement was
going well and that the rollout strategy plan had been effective. Lessons include that timing was
important; that the informal approach to community education had been extremely effective but
had a high maintenance level; the approach was low‐cost and effectively used existing networks, and
that people loved the messages about agriculture and jobs. The linking of compost collection into
agriculture was one of Groundswell ‘s most effective messages.

The other aspect of education within Groundswell that gained a high score was the integration of
training in waste management leading to a formal qualification. This was highly valued at Condobolin
by the current trainees and had the potential to be an important opportunity for others looking for
work and qualifications in each local area.

At the final evaluation: This was the other major success of the Groundswell project, scoring an
average of 8.4. One participant described it as ‘a breathtaking success’; another said ‘the community
engagement strategy rocks the boat compared with the way the waste sector does it and we’ve
proved it…it works. However Lachlan Shire noted that they could do more in this area. Community
ownership was noted as ‘essential’. Educating community and getting them on board was seen to
have worked well, and was variously described as ‘excellent’, ‘extremely important’, ‘vital’, and
‘crucial’ to success.

Team leadership — 3 years: 8.3
At the final evaluation: Participants identified that team leadership had been crucial to the success
of the project. The project team had worked very well together and had kept local teams focused.
Such direction and commitment would be needed in the future at each new site. On the ground,
team leadership at local sites would also make ‘a big difference’ for motivation and training, but
especially for the entrepreneurial/commercial end of the composting process. Goulburn Mulwaree
noted that ‘it was OK’ when they were fully staffed but at other times staff needed ‘pushing…as [the
staff] core business is collecting bins.’

Models and Logistics — 18 months: 6.6 3 years: 8
At the mid‐way point: The high scores for this component reflected agreement that the three
different sites and models were positives in this trial period —’a model that is transferable and
transportable; an evolving model; a model for the future’. Participants agreed that the model would
be further refined as the research results became available.

There were varying opinions on the location of Groundswell on a landfill site and this was seen as
important issue for further consideration. The need for knowledge of, and confidence in, the
contamination history and capping of the sites prior to commencing; the questionable suitability of
landfill sites for such a clean product and the public perception of this plus the unpleasant
environment for workers and OH&S issues were discussed.
39
At the final evaluation: The basic model seemed solid, and the range of models was seen as
strength. Individuals commented on the flexibility of having not one but different models. This also
means that every site will need to be adapted and managed well at the start and that models will
always be slightly different. The model also has many forms – economic, the composting process,
testing, etc.

Of the three models, two are proven, while one hasn’t started. The Goulburn Mulwaree model
appears resilient and functional; the Condobolin model of engaging a community organisation seems
solid and is still evolving. Queanbeyan/Palerang potentially can make a direct link to food
production.

Comments included: ‘The three models are very well thought through; proven on paper and in place;
we know enough about the others to know that it will work; Goulburn Mulwaree enabled economics
to be assessed. Condobolin will be easy to assess economics’. The commercial model and its
evaluation were seen by some as ‘still vague and uncertain’.

Outreach/advisory — 18 months: 5.3 3 years: 7.8
At the mid‐way point: The lower score related to then present stage of the project. Participants
acknowledged the great interest in Groundswell both within their area, across the country and
indeed the world. However at this stage of the project outreach was not relevant to all roles within
Groundswell with one participant warning that ‘outreach is peripheral. The focus is on the project
and it is important not to get distracted.’

At the final evaluation: The interest from other councils, and overseas, had been ‘astounding’, with
trials in New Zealand, England and the USA.

Keeping up outreach and continuing the learning process were seen as essential in order to keep
stakeholders engaged, and for awareness and ownership. At the same time, outreach and advice
seemed to be ‘happening anyway’, with the added advantage of ‘more connections= more support ‘.
• ‘The number of inquiries is incredible. Word gets around. The DVD will make it worse (!). It
spreads by osmosis.
• People are coming to us.
• People coming in are interested in doing their own trials – the process keeps going.

Research — 18 months 6.3 3 years: 7.8
At the midway point: The integration of research received high scores as it was seen as essential and
well designed and would provide needed data to illustrate the benefits and quality. One participant
noted that ‘our difficulty is not being successful, it [will be] managing our success’. As one researcher
said the research was ‘just bubbling away’. The real stuff is going to happen nearer the end.’
Participants agreed that the three different models added weight.

At the final evaluation: The research component was highly rated, was needed, was very important
and awaited by councils, but not completed yet (early February). The collaborative way in which the
Steering Committee had decided what they wanted to know by the end had provided both focus and
affordability: with the focus on the needs of two groups—councils and farmers. One researcher also
40
valued having participated in the process from the beginning compared to the more usual practice
of being called in at the end. However, it was suggested that the short‐term nature of the
agricultural research compromised the outcomes, and there was a question about whether further
commercial research should be done.

Staff—18 months: 6.3 3 years: 7.6
At the mid‐way point: Whilst the enthusiasm and commitment of current staff (‘this is mine, don’t
stuff it up. I’ve been working hard, under a difficult time’) led to high scores, participants also
highlighted the challenges in enthusing and maintaining waste management staff. Both Condobolin
and Goulburn Mulwaree had challenges here: with high student drop‐out rates in Condobolin and
staff absences a risk management issue in Goulburn Mulwaree. It was hoped that with mentoring
and further training opportunities this could be addressed in the next stage. As one participant said,
‘it is about employment and community – the more people we employ, the better it is.’

At the final evaluation: The main comments about staff related to operational, or ground staff, who
were seen to have great skills and understand the process. Participants thought well‐trained and
empowered staff were crucial, which would require an ongoing and long‐term training program.

Some key differences were noted between community based partnerships, compared with council
staffing. For community based agencies there were challenges in turnover of staff but social issues,
such as being unemployed and self‐esteem and the ‘huge benefit of providing meaningful work’
were noted. A dedicated leader was a need for community‐based teams. For councils the ongoing
challenges were the need for a full complement of staff and machinery and ways to encourage staff
in this process, which is not seen by them as their core work.

Infrastructure and logistics — 18 months: 5.3 3 years: 7.1
At the mid‐way point: The lower scores for this component reflected concerns about infrastructure
from the two active sites. Whilst Goulburn Mulwaree had most of the appropriate equipment, the
machinery does not always work, and staff commitment and numbers were somewhat lower than
ideal. Condobolin had overcome significant equipment and site problems and was looking for further
equipment to avoid excessive manual handling. Participants also noted the importance of a good
working environment or ‘young fellows won’t work there.’

At the final evaluation: The three different models vary widely: ‘Condobolin is low tech while
Goulburn Mulwaree has everything there’. The basic, low‐tech, flexible nature and the simplicity of
the infrastructure required were again noted as a strength/resilience factor. ‘The structure can be
built as you go’. Furthermore, the ‘low cost start up is easy to adopt and makes the future work’.
Other comments included:
• ‘The collection works really well. [but] what happens to the compost? That end … has always
been vague’
• ‘I was impressed by the pragmatic problem solving at each site—logical and creative—a
combination of pragmatism and creativity.’
• ‘Silk purses out of sow’s ears’
41
Regulations and legislation— 3 years: 6.4
At the final evaluation: The project process had brought to the surface learning about regulations
that need on‐going attention. While there had been no ‘red tape’ in Condobolin or Goulburn
Mulwaree, many problems had emerged with the farm at Palerang. The group agreed that it would
be very unlikely that other farmers would be prepared to jump through so many hoops, so these
regulation and legislation issues will need to be anticipated.

Politics —3 years: 5.8
Politics had bubbled up unexpectedly and late in the process, for example in Palerang. One way to
mitigate this was for councils to talk to key people on an ongoing way, as the Project Manager has.
Some people saw politics as a definite impediment, as difficult and creating problems. Others
thought politics were inconsequential or that local politics were good, but other levels needed work.
Good to be aware, but inconsequential to project’s success and adaptation

Commercialisation — 18 months: 4.3 3 years: 4.7
At the mid‐way point: This low score revealed that many participants did not see that the project as
up to this stage yet. All agreed that the process and product would need to be commercially viable.
The Project Manager stressed that it is now critical to gear up to ‘demonstrate to councils that we
can get as much as possible out of the regular bin.’ The single issue is for councils not to have any
increase in collections (i.e. no extra bin). The project was described by one participant as having
‘phenomenal potential.’ Another commented: ‘it’s cut and dried that it is going to be commercial.
I’ve got no doubt. There is no need to focus on this now. It will look after itself.’

At the final evaluation: The commercial aspect of selling the compost had not really begun, partly
due to delays in production due to weather and quality management. However the group agreed
that the process should be cost effective, and value for dollar was considered important to both
councils and private industry viability. Commercialisation was seen as both a logical outcome of the
model, and will drive future expansion; the future will depend on a business model being
developed. ‘The trouble with compost is how do you put a value on compost? —’You’re too
expensive’—but others are selling inferior products’.

For others, commercialisation was not a problem: it was not crucial to the process, but was
happening by osmosis and it did not need much investment. Participants noted that the people to
use the compost were not likely to be large commercial entities and that there were other values,
such as community engagement. Other issues for councils were identified:
• Council staff are not specialists in commercialization, but rather focus on being cost‐neutral
or saving money
• Councils have a cost recovery model. This has not been tested yet. So far the fact that it
relieves pressure on landfill is primary.
• Councils may have issues with charging to collect waste that someone then makes money
out of: there is not a model for that yet.

‘As soon as commercial comes in, politics comes in; Interesting that politics has only just come in as
an aspect of the project’.
42
5.3.3 Improvements needed
The Midway Empowerment Evaluation identified priority improvements. As can be seen below, the
majority of these improvements have been achieved or partially achieved.

TABLE 3: PROGRESS ON MIDWAY IDENTIFIED IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED
Midway improvement identified Achieved Partially Not yet
achieved achieved
Education and Engagement
Palerang and Queanbeyan — need to roll out process for √
community education and participation
Condobolin and Goulburn Mulwaree — for ongoing √
engagement, need to use audit results prizes city visitors
media events, photo and quotes
Ongoing challenge—how to put systems in place with √
busy staff
Future ideas— field days; Fly Buy/swipe/loyalty cards √
Need to compile lessons learned for future projects √
Commercialisation
The urgent issue is compost that meets standards √
The research strategy shows when commercialisation √
should occur
Demonstrations needed— market garden /other outlets √
Smaller bags of compost could be a large product √
Backload on grain trains for Sydney √
Research
Must report and communicate the results as soon as √
possible and in an ongoing way
Composting process
need a long‐term technological solution for wind issues √
need to refine data collection √
must reach national quality standards √
must demonstrate cost effectiveness √
need to ensure OH&S standards are met √
Infrastructure
Condobolin— compound problems in hand √
Condobolin—need for machinery and training √
5 cubic meter bins, a trommel (longer‐term) √
Models and Logistics
Queanbeyan and Palerang rollout will enable site and √
economic comparison of an on‐farm model
Should Queanbeyan try to find a new site? . √
Staff
Goulburn Mulwaree —needs more staff in key weeks √
Outreach/Advisory
Relationship maintenance and development √
Time for people to show visitors around √
43
5.3.4 Final lessons identified
The final Empowerment Evaluation showed that the initial lessons in the midway review remain
relevant. Participants were more articulate and confident about the lessons learned as they had
three years of experience on which to reflect. Although there was a lot of attention given to the
transferable processes, the only new lesson that emerged was the key contribution of committed
and well‐trained staff.

Lesson 1: The Groundswell model is effective and adaptable— The many and on‐going adaptations
developed across the project have provided many valuable and transferable learnings. Whether it be
the collection process, the composting process, staffing or machinery issues, it is clear Groundswell
has robust processes for urban waste utilisation. It is now being adopted by a diverse group of
councils, however new innovations and improvement should be a goal.

Lesson 2: Identification of and attention to quality control and effective processes will lead to high
quality compost —In order to maintain high quality waste collection, effective community education
is central. This needs to be backed up by well‐trained staff, suitable (albeit minimal) equipment and
an appropriate testing regime. Quality control is crucial throughout the process. It is not hard, but it
is essential, to comply with AS4454.

Lesson 3: Community education and engagement needs to be timely and on‐going —Initial
education leads to a high level of participation. People respond because they have the right tools
and information. On‐going education is important but the community also can be committed to the
project by knowing that the benefits are immediate and local.

Lesson 4: Communication needs to be targeted and regular and inclusive of all community
stakeholders —The term ‘community’ includes all stakeholders: business, agriculture, residents and
local government. Attention to on‐going communication to all stakeholders is key. Anticipate
problems and be pro‐active, especially with political issues.

Lesson 5: Staff are key: Staff are central to a quality process and product. It is important to keep
staff engaged and motivated and part of the process, not just doing a job. Training opportunities can
be integrated and extended. The potential to create new meaningful and on‐going employment in a
new industry, supported by training and formal qualifications is apparent.

Lesson 6: On‐going research is pivotal —The value of the project beyond the locally committed
areas is now evident from the research data, however further research will be beneficial to answer
longer–term questions.

Lesson 7: Site selection and development need early identification and management—Key issues
arising from the project mean that Groundswell is now in a position to provide a check‐list for site
selection and management for councils, community groups and on‐farm models

Lesson 8: The social and commercial benefits are now visible —Whilst there is strong data to prove
economic benefits, another significant outcome is the additional value of inherent benefit to
communities who can see their own part in the soil enhancement and nutrient cycles. People want
to be involved
44
6 The Groundswell Milestones, Activities and Outcomes Overview

In the planning phase of Groundswell, a full program logic model was developed (Appendix 13:
Groundswell Program Logic). This document has provided an important guide for implementation
and reporting as well as for time management and accountability. This section reports on the
milestone achievements, project activities and gives an overview of the achievements of
Groundswell against this program logic document.

To assess these achievements, the project reporting documents have been reviewed and then
validated through the interviews, site visits and the Empowerment Evaluation workshop. The
chapter concludes with a section on the immediate and emerging benefits of Groundswell that are
apparent at this point in time.

6.1 Project milestones
All but one milestone was achieved within the project timeline. The initial program logic planning
framework has proven to be robust and yet flexible to local settings and needs.
1. Groundswell Research Strategy design —Completed January 2008
2. City To Soil Collection Goulburn Mulwaree & Condobolin —Commenced May 2008.
3. First composted urban organic waste product applied to agricultural land—October 2008
4. Midway Review —Completed May 2009
5. Project partners can demonstrate reduction in waste to landfill—November 2009
6. Measurable improvement in agricultural soil and productivity—April 2010
7. City To Soil Collection commenced in Queanbeyan and Palerang—not yet achieved

The major unexpected challenge was the need for a Development Application (DA) including an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the Queanbeyan/Palerang site as it falls in the strictly
controlled Sydney Catchment area. This was further exacerbated by a mistake by Council regarding
the consultations with neighbours requiring that the DA be resubmitted. Although this has led to a
significant delay in that trial area, in itself this highlights an important issue that may need to be
included in any initial project scoping process for the rollout of City To Soil in other regions, that is
the consideration of the impact of local and state regulations and processes (see Section 3.3: The
Queanbeyan/Palerang story).
45
6.2 Project activities
The Project Manager has ensured that all activities have been completed across the life of the
project. Timely communication with local teams has been key.

Minor changes were required in the social research activity as the unexpected requirement to fund a
community consultation process in Palerang necessitated a review of the budget and budget
allocations. Further as only two sites were operational (Goulburn Mulwaree and Condobolin), the
full planned social research17 was not possible. The decision was made to use more creative ways to
explore the social research question of what gets people to source separate their organics and
participate in City To Soil. Mosquito Productions undertook that research and produced a series of
‘vox pop’ short videos that will be kept on the website showing community members in their own
words talking about why they participate in City To Soil, or why they do not. This work does still
address the original social research questions outlined in the Groundswell Research Strategy. It was
also used as data in this independent evaluation.

TABLE 4: GROUNDSWELL ACTIVITIES AND INDICATORS PROGRESS
Activities and Indicators Progress
Strategy 1: Establish Project management procedures and structures Completed on
Project Manager recruited; Project financial management systems established. time.
Project Steering Committee formed and meeting schedule developed.
Strategy 2: Develop City To Soil Collection & Processing Strategy including site Completed on
selection, capital works, licenses & approvals, recruitment of farmers, bins & time.
resources, tagging system, collection, processing, transport & application for
each site.
City To Soil Collection & Processing Strategy endorsed by Project Steering
Committee
Strategy 3: Develop Communication & Promotion Strategy – overall & LGA Completed on
Communication & Promotion Strategy developed in consultation with steering time.
committee members and tabled at Project Steering Committee meeting.
Strategy 4: Develop Groundswell Research Strategy – overall and for each site Completed on
Groundswell Research Strategy endorsed by Project Steering Committee. time.
Strategy 5: Develop Project Evaluation Strategy Completed on
Project Evaluation Strategy endorsed by Environmental Trust. time.
Strategy 6: Develop Groundswell Data Collection, Project Monitoring & Completed on time.
Reporting Structures
Data collection and reporting schedule developed and tabled at Project
Steering Committee meeting.
Strategy 7: Implement City To Soil Collection and Compost Processing Strategy Condobolin: YES
in each LGA Goulburn: YES
City To Soil collection system is established in each LGA as planned. QBN/Palerang: NO*

17
The original research proposal included telephone interviews and focus groups in all four council areas
46
Strategy 8: Implement Communication & Promotion Strategy in each LGA Condobolin: YES
Communication & Promotion Strategy is implemented in each LGA as planned. Goulburn: YES
QBN/Palerang: NO
Strategy 9: Implement Research Strategy Minor adaptations
Research Strategy is sub‐contracted and implemented as planned.
Strategy 10: Undertake Data Collection, Project Monitoring and Reporting Final reporting in
activities. hand
Project partners collect and provide appropriate data as agreed.
Project reports provided to steering committee and Environmental Trust as
agreed.
Strategy 11: Undertake midway project review. (18 months) Completed on time
Midway review conducted and report tabled to Project Steering Committee and
Environment Trust.
Strategy 12: Undertake Project Evaluation. In progress March
Project Evaluation undertaken and report provided to Project Steering 2011
Committee and Environmental Trust.

6.3 Project Hierarchy Outcomes
Whilst program logic highest‐level outcomes are typically linked to the project objectives, in the
Groundswell Program it is more meaningful to assess the achievements against the ultimate
outcomes set by the Project Steering Committee at its first meeting. It is clear that each and every
one of these goals have been achieved and there is a range of evidence to support this achievement.

Ultimate Outcome √ / X Evidence
Outcome 1: Groundswell √ • Based on the success of the City to Soil and the
has resulted in the Groundswell process, Lachlan and Goulburn Mulwaree
establishment of viable Councils will continue City to Soil collections beyond the
economic models for the life of the project.
• Palerang and Queanbeyan Councils will commence City
collection, processing and
to Soil collections once on farm composting site is
application of urban organic finished.
waste onto agricultural land. • Evidence of viability of economic models : “The
(Objective 1, Objective 3) Economics of Groundswell” (Reynolds, 2011)
Outcome 2: The √ • Over 5,000 tonnes of organic waste has been diverted
Groundswell project has from landfill by Goulburn Mulwaree and Lachlan councils
resulted in a reduction of • 140 tonnes of organic waste continues to be diverted
waste to landfill each month.
• More waste will be diverted as new councils implement
(Objective 3) City to Soil and the Groundswell composting process
• Evidence of diversion of waste from landfill : “Domestic
Kerbside Waste, Recycling and City to Soil Audit” report
(EC Sustainable, 2010)
47

Outcome 3: Communities √ • Goulburn and Condobolin communities actively
actively support diversion of participate in City to Soil collections.
urban organic waste from • Participation rates have been high and compliance rates
the waste stream through have exceptional.
• Evidence of community support: Domestic Kerbside
source separation of
Waste, Recycling and City to Soil Audit” report (EC
household organic waste. Sustainable, 2010), “City to Soil – Become Part of the
(Objective 1) Solution” DVD, “Yes, but what did they really say” Social
Research DVD
Outcome 4: Application of √ • Measurable improvements in agricultural land :
composted urban organic “Groundswell Project – Final Agronomy Report”
waste has resulted in (Houghton 2011).
measurable improvements
in agricultural soils and
productivity. (Objective 2)
Outcome 5: The models and √ • Goulburn Mulwaree and Lachlan Councils to continue
systems established through City to Soil collections permanently.
the Groundswell project are • Palerang and Queanbeyan to implement City to Soil
sustainable and collections once composting site is constructed.
• Armidale Dumaresq Council have resolved to implement
transferable. (Objective 3)
City to Soil collection system and Groundswell
composting process in 2011.
• Over 35 separate projects in other locations either
underway or completed as a direct result
• “The Economics of Groundswell” (Reynolds, 2011) report
demonstrates the pay back period for council investment
in City to Soil is 3 years
• Groundswell Information Sheet series published and
available from website.

6.4 The immediate and emerging benefits of Groundswell
This report has documented the range of Groundswell’s achievements and challenges across the
three‐year project phase. This section summarises the environmental, business and social benefits
that are apparent at this point, noting that some of these benefits are still emerging due to the short
time frame and setbacks in one region.

6.4.1 Environmental benefits
There are demonstrable benefits for landfill, in the composting process and soil regeneration.

Landfill issues
• Potential reduction of organic waste to landfill reduces landfill footprint by 50%
• Kerbside collections of organic waste keep people out of the tip (safety, risk of fire and
contamination)
• Methane levels potentially reduced by 50%
48
Composting process
• Develops highest quality compost
• Works effectively with a wide range of inputs (emerging)
• Does not need the normal carbon/nitrogen ration (20:1)—the VRM inoculant appears create
a substrate for biology that pulls nitrogen from the atmosphere (emerging)
Soil regeneration
• Returning nutrients to the soil can take many forms– whether via agriculture, landscaping,
or land restoration (emerging)
• Building up biological activity in the soil, Healthy Soils, (immediate) which change the nature
of soil (emerging)
• Carbon capture (emerging)
• Increased water retention as over time, moisture containing capacity will gradually increase
leading to soil transformation (emerging)

6.4.2 Economic benefits
There are demonstrable benefits for councils, farmers and community agencies.

For councils
• Low cost and cost effective domestic waste collection —less green waste in residual waste
can enable smaller bins and/or reduction of collection period to fortnightly (emerging)
• Commercial organic waste potential (emerging)
• Reducing landfill costs: removing organic waste may reduce the cost of landfill to $50 a
tonne
• Reduced future levy costs on landfills (emerging)
• Shorter tip opening hours as the public needs less access (emerging)
• Collection and composting process can be managed by one to two staff, one to two days a
week
• Commercially viable product with a range of potential outlets (emerging)

For farmers
• Low application rate of compost provides better cost benefit when compared to other
compost/fertilisers
• Reduced need for and cost of commercial fertilizer
• High quality compost can be assured (emerging)
• Pasture productivity is increased
• Improved crop quality
• Increased yield
• Improved water efficiency
• Potential to self compost (emerging)
• Reduced water use
• Improved soil structure (emerging)
• Increased microbial activity (emerging)
• Reduced nutrient leakage (emerging)
• Reduced erosion
49
• Carbon sequestration (emerging)
• Increased land value (emerging)

For community agencies
• Potential to create a cost‐effective sustainable training and employment program
• Inter‐related multiple layers —a viable community, a green economy, education and
employment through to the impact on health and wellbeing of improving nutrients in food
(emerging)
• Multiple outcomes have the potential to attract funding from various sources—such as
Caring for Our Country, Natural Resource Management, Landcare; programs that fund
education, training and employment for youth, disadvantaged groups, Indigenous
communities (emerging)

6.4.3 Social benefits
There are demonstrable social benefits for citizens and urban and rural communities.
• The message and behaviour connects people to the nutrient cycle, soil and food production,
urban citizens to rural and agriculture communities, people to their local farmers (emerging)
• Developing a relationship between urban and rural citizens and seeing the links to national
and global issues takes community education to another level (emerging)
• Respect for farmers for making our food and respect for agriculture — a shift in knowledge
and attitudes towards soil and food production (emerging)
• Triple bottom line outcomes include social benefits from training and employment
• Social entrepreneurial opportunities for councils
• Engaging the next generation through school composting (emerging)
• Training opportunities: schools, TAFE, adult and community education, E‐learning (emerging)
• Educating stakeholders – councils, waste industry (emerging), farmers
• Making visible the impacts of ‘affluenza’ ‐ an over affluent society (emerging)
50

7 Groundswell and the Big Picture

In essence Groundswell has shown how a now ‘simple’ City To Soil collection process and the
Groundswell composting process can make a major contribution to a ‘wicked problem’18. The
Australian Public Service Commission noted in their 2007 analysis of pressing wicked problems faced
by Australia that:
Land degradation is a serious national problem. Given that around 60% of Australia’s land is
managed by private landholders, it is clear that assisting and motivating primary producers
to adopt sustainable production systems is central to preventing further degradation,
achieving rehabilitation and assisting in sustainable resource use. All levels of government
are involved in land use, as is a range of NGOs (p.2, emphasis added)

Degraded soil and farming practices that continue to degrade soil are a wicked problem, which
farmers and agronomists tend to face alone. The community is just beginning to understand and
take responsibility for their part in this ‘wicked problem’. The City To Soil system provides one
essential contribution– it potentially engages everyone to re‐route their everyday kitchen and
garden waste back into the food production system. At the same time it educates people about the
value of nutrients in the soil. It supports farmers. It supports the environment. It gives people a
sense of something that THEY can do.
‘It gives hope’

7.1 COMPOST AIN’T COMPOST
The Groundswell project has clearly demonstrated that all composts are not created equal. The
Groundswell compost offers a quality that appears not to be available from many other compost
providers. Because the Groundswell composting process delivers an end product that does not
contain glass or plastic, there will be demand for the product. The nutrients and quality
distinguishes Groundswell compost from other composts and it meets both regulatory and compost
standards. However it will be essential that this quality be maintained. Farmers and other end‐users
must be confident that any contaminants are fully screened, as reversing contaminant damage is
costly for a farmer and would be extremely damaging to the reputation of the product. The
trademarking of the City To Soil logo and the licence agreement by users to conform to set principles
and practices is central to this quality assurance of the compost inputs.

The biological process enhancer (‘inoculant’) was chosen by Groundswell based on its wide spectrum
and its apparent ability to control odours. The proof of it efficacy is an important achievement as it
has been assumed knowledge in both industry and communities that ‘compost smells’. It will be
important that sceptics and the waste industry have the opportunity to ‘sniff test’ and to continue to
receive research data that proves this claim in a range of settings.

18
wicked problems refer to complex issues that are apparently intractable and in which reductionist responses
are inappropriate and ineffective. They typically involve multiple stakeholders with multiple views of what the
problem actually is (see Brown et al. 2010)
51

The Groundswell composting process challenges conventional wisdom about composting as it moves
beyond the aerobic (‘good’)/ anaerobic (‘bad’) dichotomy. Further, both the carbon footprint and
low cost of the low handling low‐tech process are significant when compared with most Alternative
Waste Technologies. This process is transferable to large or small settings. Consequently there is
great potential to stimulate wider uptake by providing training in the process for farmers,
community supported agriculture, community gardeners and the like.

7.2 WASTE AIN’T WASTE
Groundswell has developed a full cycle process (from soil to food to consumer to compost to soil)
that challenges the concept of ‘waste’. Such full cycle activities are key to sustainable development
and align closely with closed –cycle urban ecology, that is cities are seen as a living eco‐system
needing closed‐loop management cycles. Lehmann (2010,p. 36) cites a highly relevant definition of
‘Cradle to Cradle’ closed loop system from McDonough and Braungart (2010, p. 106) who also re‐
position the concept of waste:
[w]aste equals food. In nature, the processes of every organism contribute to the health of a
whole. One organism’s waste becomes food for another, and nutrients flow perpetually in
regenerative, cradle –to –cradle cycles of birth, death, decay and rebirth. Design modelled
on these virtuous cycles eliminates the very concept of waste: products and materials can
be designed of components that return either to soil as a nutrient or to industry for
remanufacture at the same or even higher level of quality (emphasis added).

For the community, landfills are places to ‘dump’ or ‘tip’ waste, therefore inherently anything placed
in the garbage collection to be taken to the tip is by definition waste and any trailer load delivered to
a tip is waste. Despite the fact that these ‘tips’ have been re‐named ‘ resource recovery sites’, the
notion of waste still resonates in the community and the service provided for ‘dumping it’
somewhere else reinforces that this is waste19; even green waste is taken away for someone else to
deal with.

However the Groundswell project has demonstrated that if people are involved in the recycling
process (in this case their organic waste to compost), there is a conceptual shift that occurs in which
‘waste’ begins to be thought of differently. It was clear in both regions that community members
now saw their City To Soil organic material not as ‘waste’ but a resource to be valued. Although not
directly linked, there were indications of a complementarity between the ‘love food, hate waste’
movement20. For some it was just important that this resource be used and for others the fact that
the end product going to soil/farmers was the key. Either way, there are indicators of an important
shift from seeing organic materials not as a ‘waste product’ but as a ‘resource’.

19
In 2006‐7, 48% of Australia’s waste went to landfill, and approximately 65% (14 million tonnes) of this was
organic waste (DEWHA, 2010).
20
http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.nsw.gov.au/
52
7.3 SOILS AIN’T SOILS
The degradation of soils across Australia is well demonstrated (CSIRO21, McKenzie et al.2004, NSW
Government State of the Environment reports22) and along with climate change is having a
significant impact on agricultural productivity and futures. Soil regeneration and indeed
transformation is a priority to avoid a soil and agricultural crisis. The fact that the Groundswell
compost not only returns nutrients to the soil but also builds up the biological activity in soil is a
key outcome and an important contribution to addressing these crises.

The early results from the Groundswell agronomy trials are encouraging however as is noted in the
Houghton report (2011) the variables created by changing weather conditions, the lack of precision
in available testing methodologies (especially in the testing for soil microbes) and the need for
longitudinal studies all indicate the importance of on‐going research to fully demonstrate the
potential of Groundswell compost as a soil regenerator, especially when compared to other available
compost products and fertilisers. The Groundswell research clearly indicates that the product has
great potential as a soil ameliorant and a nutrient source for agriculture

The soil is where it all begins – it’s the reason air has oxygen; it draws C02 and nitrogen out of the
soil. It feeds us. It creates the environment we live in. It’s so important to take care of it.
The soil is alive.
(Richard Graham, Organic Farmer)

‘If you don’t have good soil, you don’t have an economy or human population’
(Gerry Gillespie, DECCW)

7.4 Changing minds or changing behaviour?
The current trend in environmental action typically revolves around the exhortation to ‘save the
planet’23 and that to do this we need to influence beliefs and change people’s values which will then
lead to behaviour change. However, Groundswell tested the hypothesis that we just want people to
change some simple behaviours (put organic waste in biobags and place them with their green
waste). To facilitate this behaviour change the concept was to provide people with ‘the right tools
and the right information and a range of motivators’. The community members found the process
easy and sensible and so complied. The lesson is certainly aligned with the well‐known KISS24
principle. Compared to most, perhaps all, other recycling, the City To Soil source separation process
and tools are simple and effective.

However there was evidence that the motivators were varied: some people cared about farmers
getting a good product, some people did not want to be wasteful and some people wanted an easy
way to discard unwanted organics. Importantly, at the final stage of the project, people had become
proud of their own environmental action and that of their community. The Groundswell project
demonstrates the holism of the adage ‘think globally, act locally, respond personally’ but suggests it
should be presented in reverse order, focusing on ‘respond personally’.

21
http://www.csiro.au/
22
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soe/index.htm
23
in March 2011 a Google search of the term ‘save the planet’ revealed over 77 million sites
24
Keep It Simple Stupid
53
This community pride through engagement and action is a dynamic linking to social capital building.
As Newman (2010) argues in relation to such emerging technologies:
The social capital being built around these new technologies and lifestyles is also proving
highly infectious and is poised to become the basis of a social movement if governments
are prepared to adopt the approach more broadly (p.9)

7.5 Connecting the city front gate to the country farm gate
Whilst originally Groundswell was looking for a method for recycling organics back into the soil and
the nutrient cycle, another inherent benefit is the reconnection of the city to country. Although the
compost product may have many uses a key strength is that it gives urban dwellers a direct link to
those who produce our food.

With an industrialised food system that trades food as a commodity, not different to any other item
in the market place, linking food production to the actual producer rarely occurs. Encouraging
people to think that their food comes from the multinational companies rather than from farmers or
the earth disrupts connections with nature and with food producers and causes substantial
environmental and health costs25 (Bambrick, 2005). This has implications for both food security and
food sustainability.

Respect for the farmers who make our food and respect for agriculture itself are a crucial
components in the needed shift in knowledge and attitudes towards soil and food production.
People need to be reminded that no community can survive without soil to feed the population and
that the survival of their grandchildren depends on soil. However this project demonstrates the
importance of ‘practice’ rather than ‘preaching’. The City To Soil process has provided a concrete
practice that can develop relationships between urban and rural citizens and between food
consumers and food producers. It has the potential to move national community connectedness to
another level.

7.6 Connecting the community: the value of social enterprises
As the Reynolds report (2011) demonstrated there are a number of clear immediate economic
benefits from the Groundswell models. The Condobolin model in particular had shown the socio‐
economic benefits (and potential longer term social inclusion and social role valorisation26
potentials) of engaging a community agency in a ‘social entrepreneurship model’ of City To Soil. This
has application to any region that is seeking a productive project and partnership with local
community organisations that work with disadvantaged groups. In this model, the primary goal is
not just economic, or even environmental, but ticks the third triple bottom line box:
social/employment outcomes. Long‐term measurement of financial security, physical health, mental
health, and social inclusion indicators would demonstrate the extent of social capital building
through these types of targeted enterprises.

25
linked to over consumption of processed food, chemicals, preservatives etc
26
‘Social roles dominate people's lives, and people largely perceive themselves and each other in terms of
their roles. The value people attribute to various social roles tends to decisively shape their behaviour toward
persons whom they see in valued or devalued roles. Those in valued roles tend to be treated well and those in
devalued roles, ill’ (Wolfensberger, 2000, p. 105)
54
It’s a good project – it’s had its ups and downs. Got a lot of stuff, compost, there we’ve made.
If 2 ½ years ago someone had walked up to me and said ‘make compost’!…
Proud? Yeah, proud of what we’ve done!
(Eugene Coe, Indigenous staff member)

7.7 The next ‘Green Revolution’ and the new ‘Green Economy’
Although the term Green Revolution has been in circulation since the late 1960s, primarily to
describe the spread of technologies for increased food production for developing countries, today
climate change and environmental degradation demand a re‐invention of the term to encompass
what it means to be ‘green’ in the twenty‐first century. Central to this is the concept of zero waste:
Over the last decade, the holistic concept of a ‘zero waste’ lifecycle has emerged as part of a
cultural shift and a new way of thinking about the age‐old problem of waste and the
economic obsession with endless growth and consumption (Lehmann, 2010, p. 28)

Groundswell is an exemplar of a type of full cycle project that is needed in the next Green
Revolution; that is technologies that pull resources out of the waste stream and that provide
multiple ‘green’ returns.

One example can be seen in carbon capture through the Groundswell composting process. Although
carbon is only one dimension of Groundswell’s benefits, the nascent carbon market is an opportunity
for Groundswell’s contribution to soil carbon (as well as for other nutrients) to be integrated in a
sustained cost effective way: for example councils could return a carbon dividend back to the people
through a community trust or large landholders’ activities could be subsidized by carbon credits.
Commercial waste, institutional waste, biosolids and large city wastes have the potential to become
a permanent ‘pull’ market for recycling organics into agriculture with the carbon credit bonus.

‘It would require only a 0.5% increase in soil carbon on 2% of Australia’s agricultural land
to sequester all greenhouse gas emissions’
Dr Christine Jones (The Land, July, 2008)

55
The language of Ecosystem Services also provides an economic framework by which Groundswell can
calculate its wider benefits. As the table below shows, the UN Millennium Ecosystems Assessment
Board (2005, p. 7) has powerfully demonstrated that the constituents of future human wellbeing
are inextricably linked to ecosystem services. The Groundswell project provides close links to each
and every one of the four categories of ecosystem services provisioning, such as the production of
food and water; regulating, such as the control of climate and disease; supporting, such as nutrient
cycles and crop pollination; and cultural, such as spiritual and recreational benefits.
7.8 Groundswell: the catalyst
As a direct result of the Groundswell project, a number of organisations have received funding from
other sources to undertake further research or to develop resources to assist in the adoption of City
To Soil in other settings (see Appendix 14: Groundswell spinoffs). This spin‐off process reveals the
wider impact of Groundswell and the breadth of its future potential. Indeed one informant aptly
commented that ‘City to Soil [is] a change agent –[a] disruptive or catalytic innovation – to the
waste ‘business as usual’ [approach].

The compost process is now being expanded to include a range of feedstock especially in cases
where there is an excess material that is under utilised (for example coal‐fines). It would be valuable
to identify other relevant resources across Australia that are ‘problems’ for re‐use/disposal as
Groundswell provides one possible solution for trialling.

The project continues to attract avid interest from councils across Australia seeking to adopt either
the Groundswell composting process and/or the City to Soil collection system. The councils that are
56
already using the composting process are a direct result of the success of the Groundswell project
and simplicity of the process and its support materials. This shows how the firm knowledge base of
Groundswell provides a strong platform for the further development of transferable knowledge.
The Groundswell website will be one place where transferable lessons can be shared in real time and
that in itself can contribute to a tipping point in recycling organics in Australia and globally.

Groundswell has triggered specific interests and applications each of which now would benefit from
on‐going support and development.

Groundswell provides valuable products and services which should lead to a feeding frenzy and a
tipping point where compost is seen as the most valuable resource in our community.
And it’s not far off.

7.9 Research and action
Compared with ‘pure research’, which is typically a slow long‐term process, the action research
approach (see Dick, 2006) undertaken across the life of Groundswell has been key to its
achievements. It has been important to identify research as and when it is needed in order to feed in
early results that allow adaptations to be developed in a timely way. There is a need to continue this
action research approach and the ‘lessons’ found in the Conclusion of this document provide a
starting point.

The advanced action research approach found in Groundswell is closely aligned with the Organic
Research and Collaborative Development model being fostered in the Australian Institute of
Sustainable Communities.
By organic research we mean research that is grounded in‐country, with capacities, issues,
problems and solutions defined by the people concerned. In this, it is comparable to
adaptive research (Murithi, 2000) which has been widely used in farming systems research
to enhance the adoption of new agricultural technologies. However, organic research is
intended to be more than just about adapting existing research and technology to local
conditions. We don’t begin with a line of research or a technology to be adopted; we begin
with an exploration of development problems as experienced by the people under
engagement. By collaborative development, we mean a particular type of participatory
development… One of the more attractive features of the participatory approach is that it is
explicitly evolutionary. (Chambers and Spriggs, 2009, p.1 & p.7)

There is also a need to ensure that peer review studies continue on both the product and the
process. Long‐term follow throughs of the initial agronomy and socio‐economic studies will be
important and the application of City To Soil in a wider range of environmental conditions will
provide essential deeper understanding of the composting process and benefits. Further, as
commercialisation is both a logical outcome of the model, and will drive future expansion, research
into wider business models should be developed.

57
7.10 Building the wider action learning community
Whilst some have described the implementation of Groundswell as ‘trial and error’, it typifies a
much more rigorous process known as action learning. The hallmarks of action learning include
cycles of action, observation, reflection, analysis, and planning new actions in which participants
collaboratively share their perspectives and develop mutual learning. Action learning is particularly
useful in new projects where simple solutions are not available. Groundswell used this process most
effectively and this action learning approach provides a model for the on‐going development of
the Groundswell/City To Soil process both nationally and internationally. The planned
Groundswell/City To Soil website will be key to the development of an extended and effective
‘learning community’ so that all stakeholders have a central place to share learning, seek
information and continue the action learning needed in the next stages of development.

Groundswell’s collaborative and team approach demonstrated that facilitating ALL participants to
share their learning enabled more sophisticated solutions to emerge. Delays and problems have
been challenges rather than failures and, as there has been collaborative thinking throughout, the
lessons are owned by all and can be immediately harnessed. This effective action learning required
skilled and effective facilitation and leadership and the Project Manager, Simone Dilkara, was
acknowledged by all stakeholders as central to the success of Groundswell. Her focus on strengths,
opportunities and learning (in contrast to needs, problems and control) were critical success factors.
It will be important to ensure that the strengths‐based action learning philosophy and facilitative
process are fore‐grounded in the design and maintenance of the website.

Whilst action learning is key, there is also an opportunity to further integrate formal education into
the development of a Groundswell learning community. For example a demonstration farm site
could provide evidence of what this compost can do over larger27 blocks of agricultural land for crops
and cattle. Such a demonstration site could have agricultural areas of 50‐100 acres of composted soil
and an equal control area managed in a traditional way. The site could provide information and
instruction on various ways of applying the compost with the intended focus on soil transformation,
not just reducing landfill and provide a venue to share agricultural experience with other organic and
non‐organic farmers.
Whilst shire councils have the financial and environmental incentives to adopt and adapt
Groundswell/City To Soil, they are also the places where change can happen. As Lehmann (2010, p.
31) notes it is important to apply ‘closed loop strategies’ at an appropriate scale. In Australia,
country towns connected to local farmers are indeed the most appropriate scale. There will always
be an important policy, regulatory and wider research support framework to be provided by both
commonwealth and state governments, however the Groundswell project has shown the
importance of directing resources to the most effective level, that is local government.

Just as “compost is no good unless you spread it around!” an action learning community will provide
an ongoing opportunity for all stakeholders to spread the learning around

27
more than 4 sq metres
58
8 Conclusion

There are wide ranging outcomes from the Groundswell project and as can be seen below there are
multiple transferable lessons that span the range of stakeholders. Whilst there is strong data to
prove the environmental, agricultural and economic benefits of Groundswell/City To Soil, an equally
significant outcome is the inherent benefit to communities who can now directly experience their
own part in the soil enhancement and nutrient cycles.
People want to be involved.

8.1 Summary tables of lessons

The Groundswell model is effective and adaptable
• The many and on‐going adaptations developed across the project have provided many
valuable and transferable learnings. Whether it be the collection process, the composting
process, staffing or machinery issues, it is clear Groundswell has robust processes for urban
waste utilisation. It is now being adopted by a diverse group of councils, however new
innovations and improvement should be a goal.
• The cost benefit for councils and farmers are evident
• The social and commercial benefits are now visible

Project Management
• Communication needs to be targeted and regular and inclusive of all community
stakeholders —The term ‘community’ includes all stakeholders: business, agriculture,
residents and local government. Attention to on‐going communication to all stakeholders is
key. Anticipate problems and be pro‐active, especially with political issues.
• Staff are key: Staff are central to a quality process and product. It is important to keep staff
engaged and motivated and part of the process, not just doing a job. Training opportunities
can be integrated and extended. The potential to create new meaningful and on‐going
employment in a new industry, supported by training and formal qualifications is apparent.
• Team management and leadership need to be built into the process to ensure efficient
compost production

Collection and Source Separation
• Contamination rates under 1% can be maintained given appropriate community education
and monitoring
• The community will be motivated to source separate when they understand the link to local
farmers
59

Landfill
• Site selection and development need early identification and management— Key issues
arising from the project mean that Groundswell is now in a position to provide a check‐list
for site selection and management for councils, community groups and on‐farm models

Composting Processing
• Identification of and attention to quality control and effective processes will lead to high
quality compost —In order to maintain high quality waste collection, effective community
education is central. This needs to be backed up by well‐trained staff, suitable (albeit
minimal) equipment and an appropriate testing regime. Quality control is crucial throughout
the process. It is not hard, but it is essential, to comply with AS4454.
• The process is suitable for green waste, food waste, bio‐solids, pet‐food and other organic
excess
• Local conditions need monitoring and may require further adaptation of the compost
process

Compost
• The compost should be accompanied by documentation on nutrients, the source of the
material and evidence that it does not contain pathogens, heavy metals or pesticide residue

Soils
• There is indirect evidence that soils are enhanced due to yield increases in all compost
applications
• There appears to be a water use efficiency component that compost adds to the soil to
enable plants to survive in respect to plants without compost
60
Farmers
• With average inorganic fertiliser rates and prices ($500 tonne and rising) a farmer should be
willing to pay between $7‐$15m3 for organic fertiliser in a broad acre application as a
replacement fertiliser or as a blend with inorganic fertiliser
• The most economically beneficial application rates have yet to be determined
• Some farmers will be motivated to produce this very clean product
• There is considerable potential for farmer education and training through a demonstration
site
• To meet the demand for quality compost, training for farmers in on‐farm compost
production is needed
• Organic (and other farmers) may prefer on‐farm composting over council compost in order
to have control over standards at every point

Markets
• Although the sale price of compost impacts on the value to councils of adopting a
Groundswell system, low prices still make the investment worthwhile.

Community Engagement and Communication
• Community education and engagement needs to be timely and on‐going —Initial education
leads to a high level of participation. On‐going education is important but the community
also can be committed to the project by knowing that the benefits are immediate and local.
• One‐to‐one delivery of bins provides a strong start
• Successful community engagement and education revolves around providing the right tools
and the right information at the right time and using a range of motivators and with on‐
going attention to locally targeted publicity
• School children show how easy household waste collection is and make for good media
images
61
• Community ideas to improve City to Soil include ensuring there is an explanation of the
whole cycle and opportunities to actually see how compost is made

Partnerships
• Informal and early consultations with neighbours are wise as well as ensuring that the
formal consultation is conducted

Further Research
• On‐going research is pivotal —The value of the project beyond the locally committed areas is
now evident from the research data, however further research will be beneficial to answer
longer–term questions.
• What happens to green waste when it is not the City to Soil week
• The use of bio‐solids as a compost feedstock
• Long term research — to determine soil microbial activity, soil carbon levels, soil structure,
water holding capacity and water efficiency
• The City to Soil wider roll‐outs provide an important opportunity to further analyse the
deeper dynamics behind the success of the community engagement strategy

The success of Groundswell suggests that a national and international network of
communities and their local governments is indeed possible,
and that, in the future, we will see a worldwide movement
of many and varied settings of
Cities to Soils

62
9 References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (20017) Australian Social Trends 2007,
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/E15A3A2832FCC99BCA25732F001CA721
/$File/41020_Household%20waste_2007.pdf accessed March 2011

Australian Public Service Commission (2007) Tackling Wicked Problems: a public policy perspective,
Contemporary Government Challenges Series, Australian Government, Canberra
http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications07/wickedproblems.pdf accessed February 2011

Bambrick, H. (2005). Is globalisation good for your health? Journal of Home Economics Institute of
Australia, vol 12 no 1, pp 21‐24.

Bathurst Regional Council (2010) Quick User Guide for Composting Chipped Green Waste. Bathurst
http://www.netwaste.org.au/OrganicsUserGuide.pdf accessed March 2011

Beavis, S (2010) Groundswell Compost Peer Review, unpublished report

Brown, V, Harris, J & Russel, J (2010) Tackling Wicked Problems: through transdisciplinary
imagination, Earthscan, London

Chambers,B & Spriggs, J (2009) Organic Research and Collaborative Development: challenging the
log‐frame approach to development in the Asia‐Pacific Region, Development Studies Association
Annual Conference 2009: Contemporary Crises and New Opportunities, September

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (2004) City to Soil Project Report: Resource
Recovery Models: development of markets for household collected organics Queanbeyan, July

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) National Waste Report
2010 Fact Sheet, www.environment.gov.au/wastepolicy/resources.html. accessed March 2011

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW) (2009) Who Cares about the
Environment http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/community/Whocares2009.htm accessed March 2011

Dick, B (2006) Action Research Literature 2004–2006 Themes and trends, Action Research vol. 4, no.
4, pp. 439–458

EC Sustainable Environment Consultants (2010) Domestic Kerbside Waste , Recvcling and City To Soil
Audit: a report to Groundswell, June

Fetterman D.M (2001) Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation, Sage Publications. London

Houghton, C (2011) Groundswell Project Final Agronomy Report, Chris Houghton Agricultural,
Crookwell, unpublished paper

63
Lal, R. (2009) Soils and food suﬃciency: a review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 29 pp
113–133

Lehmann, S. (2010) Resource Discovery and Materials Flow in the city: Zero waste and sustainable
consumption as paradigms in urban development, Sustainable Development Law and Policy, vol XI,
no. 1, pp 28–38

McDonough, W & Braungart, M (2010) Cradle to Cradle: Adapting production to nature’s model,
State of the World 2010: Transforming Cultures: from consumerism to sustainabailty, Worldwatch
Institute. p. 106

McKenzie,N., Jacquier, D., Brown, K & Isbell, R (2004) Australian Soils and Landscapes: An Illustrated
Compendium, CSIRO Publishing Canberra

Murthi F M. (2000) Adaptive Research Needs and the Role of Farmer Participatory Research. Kenya
Agricultural Research Institute, Socio‐economics and Biometrics Division, KARI Headquarters:
Nairobi.

Newman, P (2010) Sustainable Cities of the future: the behaviour change driver, Sustainable
Development Law and Policy vol XI, no. 1, pp. 7–10

Reynolds, M. (2010) Goulburn Mulwaree Council Options Comparison Analysis – City to Soil, M & M
Management, unpublished paper

Reynolds, M. (2011) The Economics of Groundswell, M & M Management, unpublished paper

Tibaijuka, A (2010) Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities: Water and sanitation in the
world’s cities, United Nations Human Settlement Program, UN Doc HS/105/104

UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board, (2005) Living Beyond Our means: natural assets and
human wellbeing, Statement from the Board http://pdf.wri.org/ma_board_final_statement.pdf,
accessed March 2011

Wolfensberger, W. (2000) A Brief Overview of Social Role Valorization. Mental Retardation, Vol. 38,
no. 2, pp. 105‐123.

64
10 Appendices

10.1 Appendix 1 — Members of the Groundswell Project Steering Committee

Groundswell Project Manager
Simone Dilkara

Lachlan Shire Council
Adrian Butler
Director Environmental Services & Planning

Barrie Toms
Manager Assets and Projects

Goulburn Mulwaree Council
Andrew Galland
Waste and Aquatic Manager

Palerang Council
Bill Ellison
Director Infrastructure Planning

Paul Mathew
Project Engineer

Palerang Agricultural Society
Richard Graham –

Queanbeyan City Council
Michael Thompson
Director Environmental Services

Natasha Abbott
Manager Environment and Health

Vanessa Palmer
Waste Minimisation Coordinator

NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water
Gerry Gillespie
Manager
South East Office
Sustainability Programs Division
65

10.2 Appendix 2—Rolling out City to Soil
66
10.3 Appendix 3— Kerbside audit summary results
EC
Sustainable (2010 p. ix above, p.x below)
67
10.4 Appendix 4—Keeping it Clean: the Groundswell Community Engagement
Strategy
68
10.5 Appendix 5— City To Soil: The History of the Compost Process

In the initial stages of identifying process methodologies for organics collections, the high costs
associated with the standard “Shred and Turn” compost method were seen as far to expensive to
use in a project spread over a large area and using relatively small amounts of process materials per
collection.

To reduce the costs associated with transport, machinery use, and shed construction in the
Groundswell Project the project manager Simone Dilkara and Gerry Gillespie (DECCW SPD) designed
a simple “No Shred” compost process which combined a number of factors to meet composting
standards and regulatory requirements.

The development of this process relied heavily on the combined 50 years composting and
vermicomposting skills of Gerry Gillespie and the community gardening experience of Simone
Dilkara, the Project Manager.

The Groundswell project was to be collecting food waste in the City of Queanbeyan for the first time
and due to regulatory and licensing concerns regarding the production of odours from the compost
process a trial was conducted as a first step in designing an effective no shred, no odour compost
process.

In the initial trials conducted on the Mountain Road Nursery site of Queanbeyan City Council two
compost windrows of non‐shredded material of approximately 10 cubic meters each were placed
side by side. To comply with licensing requirements for the site, no food was included. Both piles
were moistened and one of the piles inoculated with EM supplied by VRM Townsville.

The piles were covered to control the environment within the heaps and the product left unturned
for twelve weeks in total.

The choice of EM was made following attendance at a two week course in Thailand where the
product had demonstrated excellent odour control in piggeries, caged egg‐bird flocks, the
production of intensive small scale agriculture and dairy operations and intensive aquaculture in
small 2metre square fish dams. The product was also used directly in agricultural compost
applications on a 200 acre organic farm used for regional food production. Gerry Gillespie had
completed the EM and Bokashi course held in Thailand in 2005 with Mal Williams of Cylch, Wales
and Ken Bellamy VRM, Townsville.

The trials conducted at Mountain Road Nursery demonstrated after six and twelve weeks that the
process was very effective in processing raw organic waste into a high quality compost, without the
introduction of food.

A second trail was then conducted on Goulburn landfill with the inclusion of food. Goulburn at the
time was collecting its organic waste on a monthly basis. The heavy reliance on a food collection
process which produced no odour in the home resulted in the use of the Bio bag food waste
69
collection system. This choice was made following successful trial at Ashburton in New Zealand
where it was claimed that even fish waste collected in the Bio bag system produced no odour.

To reproduce the efficacy of the Ashburton experience a range of green waste bins complete with
various potentially odorous food stuffs, fish, meat, fruit and vegetables was set up in the heat of
summer on the Goulburn landfill. After six weeks this trail produced no odours.

It was found that the high temperatures involved in the initial composting stages drive the moisture
out of the heap and onto the cover which resulted in the centre of the pile drying out. To overcome
this, the compost pile was changed to an “M” shape. The indentation in the middle of the heap
ensured that the water reticulated through the pile and saved a large amount of water in
comparison to conventional ‘turned’ compost processes.

Subsequent to this trial, Goulburn commenced collections and a variety of heap sizes, using the
previously trialled Queanbeyan model, but this time including food waste commenced on the
Goulburn landfill.

The trials over the past three years, have revealed that in addition to the ‘no shred’ product, the
model requires the two part inoculant, very high levels of water to ensure conduct of the inoculant
through the heap, the use of an “m” shape heap to maintain internal water reticulation and a cover
to support the internal windrow environment.

Extensive trials at numerous sites throughout NSW have indicated that if the process is attempted
without one of these elements the process is jeopardised and optimal results may not be achieved.

Since the full operational compost program was commenced at Goulburn, the process has been
used in extensive product input trials in various councils over the past three years. No odour
complaints have been received in this time.

Expanding the process
The initial work was completed over three years ago and many thousands of tonnes of material have
now been through this process with no registration of odour at any of the locations where the
process has been used.
The inputs to date have included a broad range of organic inputs including biosolids and commercial
food waste.
Bathurst City Council has produced a process document on behalf of Netwaste for distribution to
other councils to assist them in using the compost process on their landfill sites.
Several councils have made direct requests to consultants in the field to investigate the possibility of
using the compost process at regional landfill sites and many others are using it at this time.
The process is in demand from councils because it is not only economic, feasible and practical for
use in regional centres but is also pragmatic in that it addresses the fundamental issue of waste
diversion from landfill, while providing a product of high quality and value.

70

EM HISTORY
The inoculant
The City to Soil compost process uses a biological inoculant which has as its basis in a product known
as EM. Originally marketed as EM‐1 Microbial Inoculant it is now marketed by a plethora of
companies around the world under various names, each with their own proprietary blend.
EM was developed by Japanese horticulturist Teruo Higa, from the University of the Ryukyus
Okinawa, Japan. His 1970’s report stated that a combination of around 80 different microorganisms
is capable of positively influencing organic matter as it decomposes in a such way that it reverts into
a ‘life promoting’ process.
Higa’s research demonstrated that it is possible to positively influence a given media by
supplementing with what he refers to as ‘positive’ microorganisms. This later became know as
Effective Microorganisms or EM.
There are a great number of claims made around the world on behalf of EM and as stated in a 1994
paper which Higa co‐authored with American microbiologist James Parr, one of the most difficult
aspects involved in the use of EM was “the problem of reproducibility”.
It should be remembered that while the initial work of Dr Higa was focused on the use of the
inoculants to improve soil health, the same or a similar biological mixture was also later used to
control odour in water and waste.
More detail on the work of Dr Higa can be found at:
http://emrojapan.com/

A paper by Dr Higa and Dr James Parr titled “Beneficial and Effective Micro‐organisms for a
sustainable Agriculture and Environment” can be found at:

http://www.agriton.nl/higa.html

A free course is held at Sara Buri at the Kyusei Nature Farming Center in January and July each year.
If you wish to attend you will need to be recommended by someone who has completed the course.
Details can be found at:

http://www.apnan.org/Workshops_and_Tours.htm

71
10.6 Appendix 6—Groundswell Sampling Methodology

72
10.7 Appendix 7— Groundswell Compost Regulations
73
10.8 Appendix 8—Agronomy trial summary results
Houghton 2011, p.4
74
10.9 Appendix 9—Community Consultation Advertisement

75
10.10 Appendix 10 —Council costs
Reynolds 2011 p. 12
Council costs to establish a Groundswell collection per household (Year 1)
Equipment & processes Cost per
Household

Max Air Bins: $3.00
240 Litre City to Soil Bin $40.00
Bio‐bags $10.00
Compost Tarps $3.50
VRM Inoculants $2.00
Compost Testing for Certification $5.00
Communications $5.00
Total (A) $68.50
Council Costs to maintain Groundswell Processes (Annually)
Equipment & Processes Cost per
Household
Max Air Bins: replacements $0.20
240 Litre City to Soil Bin: replacements $1.20
Bio‐bags $10.00
Compost Tarps $0.40
VRM Inoculants $2.00
Compost Testing for Certification $1.00
Communications $0.80
Compost screening $0.60
Total (B) $16.20
Council Collection costs, Plant & Salaries
Plant & Salaries Cost per
Household

Curb Collection @ $1.60 lift 12 (monthly)* $19.20
Plant & Equipment (composting)** $2.20
Salaries (composting)*** $8.30
Total (C) $29.70
Total First Year (A+B+C) $114.40
Total Annual Ongoing (B+C) $45.90
* based on average annual cost per lift between Lachlan council (contractor rates) & Goulburn Mulwaree
council (Trucks purchased and depreciated, 20% residual value)
** Plant and equipment includes average price of purchase of both small and medium front end loaders, spray
plant and associated equipment
*** Salaries based on averages between the two councils and compared to composting rates. All rates are
averages and based on 25% diversions. As diversion rates increase constant economies of scale occur, hence
figures listed will decrease with increased production leading to decreasing total costs.
76
10.11 Appendix 11— Midway Review Executive Summary
The Learning Curve:
Midway Review Report of Groundswell
Australian Institute of Sustainable Communities
May 2009
The University of Canberra’s Australian Institute for Sustainable Communities conducted a

Mid-way Review of the Groundswell project between March and May 2009. The review
report covers:
• An introduction to Groundswell and the review methodology,

• Project milestones,
• Stakeholder reflections and lessons—by site and collectively,
• Project themes and lessons, and
• Conclusion and recommendations.
The Review focused on providing opportunities for the major partners to reflect on their
experiences, clarify the lessons learned and mutually discuss and determine what would be
needed in the second half of the implementation phase.
The Review objectives were to:
1. Reflect on the project implementation to date,

2. Assess the appropriateness of project plans, strategies and outcomes, and
3. Identify any changes or adjustments to project plans, strategies or outcomes.
The guiding questions included:
• How is the project going?

• What have we achieved?
• Are our plans working?
• Do we need to make any changes to our plans?
• What difficulties are we facing?
• What do we need to do to overcome these difficulties?
The main strategy of the review was a one-day workshop brought together as many
stakeholders as were available in a structured process that enabled shared learnings,
issues, challenges and solutions to emerge. This strategy was complemented by:
• An analysis of the project achievements to date;

• Site visits;
• Interviews with other identified stakeholders, and
• Interviews with the Project Manager.
77
Groundswell
Following the success of the original City to Soil pilot in Queanbeyan, NSW, the Groundswell
project aims to trial the collection and processing of household organic waste into high
quality compost in three locations in rural NSW. The vision of Groundswell is “to prove the
wider economic viability of the ‘City to Soil’ collection system and establish composted urban
organic waste as a cost effective, high quality agricultural input”.
The Groundswell partnership is funded by the NSW Environment Trust and involves
Goulburn Mulwaree, Palerang, Queanbeyan City and Lachlan Councils, the Wiradjuri
Condobolin Aboriginal Corporation (WCC), the Palerang Agricultural Society, Bettergrow
and the South East office of the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change
Sustainability Programs division.
The three-year project began in late 2007 and is now at the halfway point. The trial sites are:
• Condobolin—a partnership with Lachlan Council and the Wiradjuri Condobolin

Aboriginal Corporation;
• Goulburn —Goulburn Mulwaree Council; and
• Queanbeyan/Palerang—a partnership with Palerang and Queanbeyan City Councils
Householders in each designated area are provided with bench-top kitchen waste bins and
biodegradable inserts. Each site has developed the collection and composting processes in
ways best suited to their local community and its opportunities and strengths. For example,
Condobolin began a dedicated green waste collection process whilst Goulburn collects the
kitchen waste with the monthly green waste process. Queanbeyan/Palerang have yet to
commence household kitchen waste collection. All sites are trialling low technology and
minimal handling composting processes.
Project milestones to date
Project report documents were reviewed to gain an overview of:
• project implementation and progress to date against the planning frame;

• the achievements and successes, and
• any constraints, challenges or issues.
This was then validated through the interviews, site visits and review day workshop.
Overall, the project milestones have been achieved in two of the three sites with Goulburn
now collecting from 9200 households and Condobolin 1300 households. Composting
infrastructure and processes are under development.
• Groundswell Research Strategy designed and implemented (achieved)

• City to Soil collection commenced (achieved in Condobolin and Goulburn; pending
Queanbeyan/Palerang)
• First organic compost applied to agricultural land (achieved)
• Reduction of waste to landfill (on track)
The major unexpected challenge has been the need for a Development Application including
an Environmental Impact Study for the Queanbeyan/Palerang site as it falls in the strictly
controlled Sydney catchment area. Although this has led to a 6-month delay in that trial area,
78
in itself this highlights an important issue that may need to be included in any initial project
scoping process for the rollout of Groundswell in other regions, that is the consideration of
the impact of local and state regulations.
The research strategy has been designed collaboratively by the Steering Committee,
ensuring that key questions and data are sourced (asking stakeholders ‘what do you and
farmers need to know at the end of the project?’). Achievements to date include:
• EOI process for Groundswell research team established

• Current cost of waste management for councils report
• Before analysis of waste stream
• Initial impact of City to Soil collection on general waste through kerbside audits
• Data collection and record keeping systems established and on-going.
The research strategy is on target given the stages of the project in the different sites.
The initial program logic planning framework has proven to be robust and yet flexible to local
settings and needs.
Stakeholder reflections and lessons – by site
The findings represent feedback and reflections from the interviews with individual
stakeholders from each site and from the collective discussions on the review day.
Condobolin
The Condobolin trial is a partnership between WCC (responsible for collection of bins,
developing the composting and for end-use marketing) and the Lachlan Council (providing
the composting site and community engagement support). The TAFE NSW Western Institute
through training and support for Certificate II and III in Asset Maintenance (Waste
Management) for interested WCC staff supports the composting process training.
Overall the Condobolin process has been challenging at a number of levels but its hallmark
has been of an active problem-solving approach with highly valued learning to date.
The choice of an Aboriginal agency has brought specific benefits and important lessons in
this Condobolin trial: Aboriginal training and employment opportunities; philosophical
coherence and the potential to be a model and guide for other Aboriginal communities.
Groundswell, with its focus on the natural cycle of returning organic waste to the soil, is
highly coherent with the Aboriginal world-view and philosophy.
Initially the WCC had hoped to have full responsibility for the total collection, composting and
product sales/use process, however due to lack of appropriate equipment and OH&S issues,
collection has now been sub-contracted. Although this is a disappointment for some in WCC,
because the collection process may have provided employment opportunities for Aboriginal
locals, it has provided a reliable collection routine.
Community engagement has been effective with high participation rates and very low
contamination rates (less than 1%). In areas where contamination has been regular, WCC
staff have dealt with this issue directly by speaking to residents and certain homes no longer
receive this service. An effective process for prize selection undertaken by Council staff
encourages community involvement.
79
The Condobolin composting is conducted at the edge of the local landfill site and despite a
number of challenges with the site, initial composting has begun and the product is of very
good quality. Extra funding was sourced by WCC for building a handling shed and creative
solutions for sieving have been developed. Similar creative solutions are now being
considered to enable suitable machinery and tarps to be sourced.
While the compost is not yet ready for end-use or sales, further testing and refinement of the
process will enable a top quality process and product to be developed. Longer-term plans
are for a trial of compost to go to a market garden at the Wiradjuri Study Centre (under
development by WCC) that will provide employment and benefit families and the local
community. The commercial viability of the process is vital. Stakeholders see that they can
start in Condobolin through this trial and eventually expand to the wider Shire.
The following issues in the Condobolin trial were identified:
• Site improvements, machinery purchase (and training) and enhanced processes are
developed as a priority (which would also encourage young workers to join again)
• Consider ways to further attract Aboriginal participants
• Re-invigorate community engagement so participation rises and contamination falls
• Ensure that cost benefits are well documented for Council.
Goulburn
Council began a green waste collection 19 months ago with monthly kerbside collections.
Groundswell began in October and residents now add their kitchen waste to the monthly
green waste collection. 100 tonnes of green waste per month are collected on average.
Overall, Goulburn is actively engaged in the development of a quality product and processes
and stakeholders are happy with their progress.
Composting is located at the council landfill site. Existing staff sort, wet, inoculant spray,
windrow, cover, and leave the compost for 6-8 weeks and contamination rates are better
than average (1-1.7%). The first batch of compost is currently being tested and is ready for
application. The process has been notable for its lack of odour. The 1000 tonnes of green
waste should produce 300 tonnes finished product, which might service two local farms that
have been selected (from 20 who expressed interest) and are fenced off and ready to roll
out. The agronomist will come on board in another eight weeks. Ideas for accelerating the
process are being considered, such as blending the compost with sediment from dredged
ponds. The management of seasonal trends such as variations in content and volume, and
times of higher winds (Sept-Oct), have required adjustments that will be also relevant to
other local government areas
The process has attracted attention from other local governments and there have been visits
from waste management staff from NSW and Queensland councils.
Goulburn has been able to use existing council equipment and staff. Heavy-duty tarps have
been found to last 12 months compared to plastic ones (2 months). Extra training and
machinery may be required. Machinery availability, maintenance and repair are costs that
Goulburn would advise other councils to consider in advance. Space is also becoming an
80
issue as the three months of composting consumes half the worksite. Moving the final stage
to another site is under consideration.
While the process is not yet cost-effective at this stage, the commercial opportunity of
organic fertilizers relative to the rapidly increasing price of non-organic fertilizers is keenly
anticipated.
The Groundswell project manager with the support of committed and engaged council staff
have conducted the community engagement, especially via radio, advertisements and
regular prizes. Overall community engagement has been effective, with the project being
well received by 90% of the Goulburn population. There is a need now for further education
to reduce the contamination which is found in certain areas of the city.
The following issues in the Goulburn trial were identified:
• Screening solution is an immediate need

• Determine machinery requirements and maintenance for next stage
• Appoint specific staff to Groundswell
• Develop ways to motivate existing staff (?Certificate IVs, greater responsibility e.g.
for testing)
• Ensure that cost benefit is well documented for council\
• Further community education to maintain high quality waste/reduce contamination
Queanbeyan/Palerang
The collection and composting process in Queanbeyan and Palerang has not yet
commenced as the farm chosen for the compost site falls within the Sydney catchment area
and thus requires a development application. This critical and predictable process has
required a great deal of work which is seen as valuable learning by the Groundswell team.
The delay may require the Groundswell trial to be extended 18 months in these two shires.
Stakeholders see the Groundswell model as important and value the trial approach and the
possibilities for business and job creation. The inclusion of the time and resources of an
organic farm is valued. Overall the Palerang people are relaxed and positive about the
process and informed about the project, the process and the delays, having been more
involved to date. Meanwhile, Queanbeyan to some extent has been on the sidelines, waiting
to begin.
Both areas will integrate Groundswell into their existing waste collection strategies:
Groundswell will be integrated into Palerang’s new best practice waste strategy plan (2005–
2025). Palerang collects general waste (mixed with organics) and recyclable waste in the
three towns. Groundswell will be a third run of the truck (1900 bins) @ $80,000 per annum.
Palerang hopes to be processing 900 tonnes of green waste a year. Similarly, Queanbeyan
– as the original pilot site for City to Soil – already collects green waste, and is thus well set-
up to begin the collection and composting system. They plan to conduct the trial in an area
of Queanbeyan (Karabar), which has 800 homes, about 1/8th of Queanbeyan, with the aim to
lead to a further roll-out across Queanbeyan. Collection will be once a fortnight.
The choice of on-farm processing for the composting site, after the first choice (Queanbeyan
Waste Minimisation Centre) had space and zoning issues, was seen as an excellent
decision that has added another important component to the overall Groundswell trial.
81
However there was some concern about the transport costs to the site from Queanbeyan
(84 km return). The issue of comparative transport costs will be an important part of the next
stage cost benefit modeling that will provide councils with important cost comparisons.
Both councils are keen to begin the community engagement and education. They are aware
that they can learn from the other two areas’ experience and learnings. There is already
some community interest among farmers and citizens via word of mouth, and a sense of
readiness and enthusiasm in the teams. Queanbeyan is aware of the challenge of rolling
out Groundswell in just one area of the city and is considering how to manage questions
from residents.
The following issues in the Condobolin site were identified:
• Great opportunity to learn from others’ lessons: composting process and community
engagement
• Queanbeyan and Palerang partnership may benefit from more mutual discussions
and engagement
• Queanbeyan —management of roll-out to only one part of town
• Cost analysis—importance of modelling comparative transport costs
Stakeholders’ collective reflections and lessons
The Review Day brought together stakeholders from each trial area, researchers and
Groundswell staff. At this halfway point in the project, stakeholders were first asked how
they would now describe their vision for Groundswell given their experiences to date in their
own region. They identified six major aspects of their current vision:
• engagement and education—highlighting the importance of involvement at all levels

and with all stakeholders to ensure ownership
• dedicated people—inside Groundswell and supporting Groundswell
• creating a nutrient cycle— establishing the economics and simple systems for
efficient and best use of green waste as a resource and of national relevance
• quality materials— satisfaction of all stakeholders with the materials at every level
• refining processes —constant learning and refining
• valuing adding —the model, process and outputs
The team’s current vision is highly congruent with the original vision for Groundswell: “to
prove the wider economic viability of the ‘City to Soil’ collection system and establish
composted urban organic waste as a cost effective, high quality agricultural input”. Additional
components to the vision that they have added are: the notions of value-adding, national
relevance and the engagement and education of stakeholders from all levels. Dedicated
people and the training and employment opportunities are also central to the current vision
of the team.
The team identified and then ranked what they saw as the major components of
Groundswell’s activity at this mid-way point, followed by an evaluative discussion.
82
Components of Groundswell Average score (1 lowest score; 10 highest)
Models and Logistics 6.6

Composting process 6.5
Education and Engagement 6.4
Research 6.3
Staff 6.3
Infrastructure 5.3
Outreach/advisory 5.3
Commercialisation 4.3
Models and logistics
The high scores for this component reflected agreement that the three different sites and
models were positives in this trial period. Participants agreed that the model would be
further refined as the research results became available.
The location of Groundswell on a landfill site was seen as important issue. Participants had different
views, and discussed the need for knowledge of and confidence in the contamination history and
capping of the sites prior to commencing; the questionable suitability of landfill sites for such a
clean product and the public perception of this plus the unpleasant environment for workers
and OH&S issues.
Composting process
The progress towards an effective composting system was highly valued and seen to be
pivotal. All participants agreed that the progress in developing solutions to each challenge
was excellent. The process of composting without shredding and without odours that
Groundswell has developed is groundbreaking and has potentially revolutionary potential.
Education and engagement
The high scores in this component reflected success in both the community education and
the training aspects of Groundswell. Both Condobolin and Goulburn participants assessed
that community engagement was going well and that the rollout strategy plan had been
effective. Lessons include that timing was important; that the informal approach to
community education has been extremely effective but has a high maintenance level; the
approach is low-cost and effectively uses existing networks, and that people love the
messages about agriculture and jobs. The linking of compost collection into agriculture was
one of Groundswell ’s most effective messages.
The other aspect of education within Groundswell that gained a high score was the
integration of training in waste management leading to a formal qualification. This was highly
valued at Condobolin by the current trainees and has the potential to be an important
opportunity for others looking for work and qualifications in each local area.
Research
The integration of research received high scores as it was seen as essential and well
designed and will lead to needed data to illustrate the benefits and quality. The main
research activity will happen nearer the end of the project. Participants agreed that the three
different models add weight.
83
Staff
Whilst the enthusiasm and commitment of the current team led to high scores, participants
also highlighted the challenges in enthusing and maintaining waste management staff. Both
Condobolin and Goulburn have had challenges here with high student drop-out rates in
Condobolin and staff absences a risk management issue in Goulburn. It was hoped that
mentoring and further training opportunities will address these challenges in the next stage.
Infrastructure
The lower scores for this component reflected concerns about infrastructure from the two
active sites. Whilst Goulburn has the appropriate equipment, the machinery does not always
work, and staff commitment and numbers are somewhat lower than ideal. Condobolin has
overcome significant equipment and site problems and is now looking for further equipment
to avoid excessive manual handling. Participants also noted the importance of a good
working environment for employees.
Outreach/advisory
This lower score reflected that at this stage of the project it was seen as peripheral, or not
relevant to all roles within Groundswell. Participants acknowledged the great interest in
Groundswell both within their area, across the country and indeed the world.
Commercialisation
This low score revealed that many participants did not see that the project as up to this
stage yet. All agreed that the process and product would need to be commercially viable,
especially for councils. Participants expressed great optimism in the potential commercial
outcome of the project’s findings.
The final part of the Review Day was to identify improvements that should now be
implemented. Participants were given five dots each to determine record their priorities for
action. The areas for action are presented below in rank order.
Priorities for action No. of dots

Education and Engagement 19.5
Commercialisation 10
Research 8
Composting process 6
Infrastructure 6
Models and Logistics 6
Staff 3
Outreach/Advisory 3
Education and engagement
• Palerang and Queanbeyan need to roll out the community education and participation
• Condobolin and Goulburn need ongoing community engagement activities
• An ongoing challenge is how to put systems in place with busy staff
Commercialisation
• The urgent issue is that compost meets regulatory standards

• The research strategy shows when commercialisation should occur
84
• Demonstrations are needed, for example at market gardens and other outlets
• Smaller bags of compost could be a large product
Research
• The importance of reporting and communicating the results as soon as possible and in
an ongoing way was highlighted
Composting process
• The need to find a long-term technological solution for wind issues

• The need to refine data collection
• The need to reach national quality standards
• The need to demonstrate cost effectiveness
• The need to ensure OH&S standards are met
Infrastructure
• Condobolin—need machinery and related training

• Goulburn—screening process is an immediate need; 5 cubic metre bins, and a trommel
are longer-term requirements.
Models and logistics
• Queanbeyan and Palerang rollout will enable site and economic comparison of an on-
farm model with the other two models.
Staff
• Goulburn —needs more staff in key weeks

Outreach/Advisory
• Relationship maintenance and development

• Time required to show visitors around
Project lessons
Lesson 1: The Groundswell model is effective and adaptable

The many and on‐going adaptations that are being discovered as the trial develops are providing
many valuable and transferable learnings. Whether it be the collection process, the composting
process, staffing or machinery issues, it is clear Groundswell has robust processes for urban waste
utilisation.
Lesson 2: Identification of and attention to quality control and effective processes will
lead to high quality compost
In order to ensure high quality waste collection, effective community education has been
central.
Lesson 3: Community education and engagement needs to be timely and on-going
Effective and on-going education leads to a higher level of participation as the community
becomes committed to supporting the project, knowing that the benefits are immediate and
local.
Lesson 4: Communication needs to be targeted and regular and inclusive of all

community stakeholders
85
The term “community” includes all stakeholders: business, agriculture, residents and local
government. Attention to communication to all stakeholders is key.
Lesson 5: Training opportunities can be integrated and extended
The potential to create new meaningful and on-going employment in a new industry,
supported by training and formal qualifications is apparent.
Lesson 6: Research and its timely and targeted reporting is a pivotal aspect of the
project
The ability to show the value of the project beyond the locally committed areas will now
require the data from the research strategy and dissemination of results in an on-going way.
Lesson 7: Site selection and development need early identification and management
Key issues arising from the trial to date mean that Groundswell is now in a position to
provide a check-list for site selection and management.
Lesson 8: The social and commercial benefits are now visible
The trial is identifying a number of potential outlets for the high quality product. Whilst there
is a need to have strong data to prove the benefits on a business level, another significant
outcome is the additional value of inherent benefit to communities who can see their own
part in the soil enhancement and nutrient cycles. People want to be involved.
Key themes
Throughout the Review a number of key themes emerged across the broader Groundswell
project and relate to action learning, collaborative action and the emergence of new future
opportunities.
Action learning is particularly useful in new projects where simple solutions are not
available. The Groundswell collaborative and team approach has enabled all participants to
share their learning which has enabled more creative solutions to emerge. Delays and
problems are seen as challenges rather than failures and thus the lessons can be harnessed
and shared. The effective facilitation and leadership, and the strengths-based action learning
philosophy and process, have emerged as central to the success of Groundswell to date.
Groundswell has captured the attention of stakeholders and there is an emerging sense of
collaborative commitment arising from Groundswell. It will be important to clarify the ‘art
and craft’ of the successful approach taken to motivate and engage the community—the
right tools, the right information at the right time.
There are a number of possible futures just out of sight for Groundswell. The composting
process is ground-breaking in its low technology and local handling, with further possibilities
of integrating other products such as commercial waste into the soil enrichment process.
This project has demonstrated that there is a there is an exciting new industry emerging
which has the potential to provide meaningful employment and training and enhance local
livelihoods. Although this has an immediate application in rural Australia and other
developed countries, given its low technology and local training effectiveness, its potential
for use in developing countries is significant. The need for local sustainable resource
86
management cycles is a world-wide issue—Groundswell is proving its efficacy in stimulating
and maximising local resources, local strengths, local solutions and local opportunities.
Conclusion
In its first eighteen months the Groundswell project has resonated with communities,
councils, waste management teams, farmers and community groups and is now beginning
to attract attention nationally and internationally. The second eighteen months will enable the
full cycle back to the soil to be completed and the important benefit analyses undertaken.
The future of Groundswell is indeed strong.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Groundswell:
1. assess the research strategy , and extend if required, prior to the final 12 months.
2. seek funding to examine, document and disseminate the learning arising from the
EIS process, the project management process and the community education
/engagement strategy.
3. facilitate the identification of possible spin-off projects
4. develop a communication plan for the dissemination of findings that arise in the
next eighteen months and beyond the life of the project
“People do get it and do want to be involved”
For further information on Groundswell, contact: Ms Simone Dilkara;

Simone.Dilkara@environment.nsw.gov.au; ph 02-6122 3199; 0447 273 099
87
10.12 Appendix 12 — Empowerment Evaluation Workshop Outline

Time Activity Comment
9.30 Arrivals & Welcome Name tags
9.45 – Overview of day & process
10.00
Main purpose of the day: Reminder about EE Methodology?
1. Determine the vision for Groundswell Focuses on bringing together all stakeholders in a structured process to enable
2. Use the EE process to see what has happened (taking shared learnings, issues, challenges and solutions to emerge.
stock)
3. Harness all the lessons learnt in order to share, continue “Openly clarificative” approach
to improve, and to disseminate

4. Identify where the evaluators should further explore/dig
in/drill down. Focus of summative EE review is on:

Morning: BP: to outline and to note how the summative session different from the
midway session?
• Revisit and assess the Groundswell Vision – original
plus 6 major aspects from midway review
• Taking Stock
Afternoon:
• Lessons Learned, tips and traps

Guiding questions?
• What is useful to document for dissemination to What have we achieved?
different stakeholders?
• Where to drill down, dig deeper for information? What have we learnt?
What are the tips and traps we can pass on?
How do we now feel?
88
10.00 Introductions:
‐ Who you are
‐ Where you live
‐ Your role in Groundswell
‐ Groundswell today 1 word
10.15 Vision Process Use post it notes to capture what they now see as Vision and then compare to

original vision and 6 major aspects from mid term review
Explanation of purpose of exercise
Are there other aspects to add?
Post it notes
(handout)
11.00 Morning tea
11.30 Taking Stock Butchers paper
Individuals score each category on their own piece of paper
Then add their score to matrix
(handout)
Big discussion
In large group discuss matrix scores
Then Assess if the original "highest outcomes" still relevant?
(handout)
12.30 Lunch
89
1.30 – Lessons learnt, tips and traps – and feelings Dots – if there is action needed by any team
2.00
Prepare notes in local teams
2.00‐ Display notes —> Large group discussion
3.00
3.00 Afternoon tea
3.15‐ Where to from here?
4.30
Stakeholder groups discuss:
What to document for dissemination, for whom and how?
What should evaluators drill and dig for?
Share & discuss in large group
4.30 Final words: what is the best piece of advice for people
doing this in the future?
4.45 Wrap Up. Celebrate Name, celebrate, acknowledge achievements, courage & how hard people have

worked
90
10.13 Appendix 13— Groundswell Program Logic
Outcomes Hierarchy Measures Information Sources Standard /
Judgement
Ultimate Outcomes Evaluation Questions Indicators
Outcome 1: Groundswell has resulted in • Have viable Economic models • Models/systems are self sustaining • Groundswell Evaluation Stakeholder
the establishment of viable Economic been established, costed and • Models / systems can operate at same criteria &
Models for the collection, processing documented? or less cost for councils approval
and application of urban organic waste • What is the costs/benefit analysis • Models demonstrate measurable • Groundswell Research
for the community, council, benefits to community, councils, Findings Cost/Benefit
onto Agricultural land. (Objective 1,
collector, processor and farmer in collectors, processors and farmers.
Objective 3) Analysis
each model?
Outcome 2: The Groundswell project • How much waste has been • Project partners can demonstrate a • Councils – changes Quantity
has resulted in a reduction of waste to diverted from landfill as a result of reduction in waste to landfill as a direct (reduction) in general
landfill (Objective 3) Groundswell? result of providing City to Soil waste, quantities
collection. collected through City to
Soil
Outcome 3: Communities actively • Have communities actively • Communities source separate their • Data from councils and Quantity -
support diversion of urban organic supported the diversion of urban organics at householder level. collectors Collections
waste from the waste stream through organic waste from waste stream • Contamination levels are manageable. • Data from collectors and contamination
source separation of household organic through source separation of processors. levels
household organic waste?
waste. (Objective 1)
Outcome 4: Application of composted • What happens when composted • Measurable improvement in • Outcomes from Measurable
urban organic waste has resulted in organic urban waste is applied to agricultural soil and productivity Research Strategy Change
measurable improvements in Agricultural soils and productivity? • Financial benefits ascribed to methodology, findings
agricultural soils and productivity. • What financial benefits can be measurable improvements in soil and and reporting. Cost / Benefit
ascribed to each of the benefits of productivity quantified. Analysis
(Objective 2)
compost application on
Agricultural soil and productivity?
Outcome 5: The models and systems • Will the models continue in each • The System/Models continue beyond • Councils Stakeholder
established through the Groundswell setting beyond the life of project timeframe • GSC & Project Partners criteria &
project are sustainable and transferable. Groundswell? • Feedback from LGSA & approval
(Objective 3) • Will be models be adopted in other other councils
settings? • The Systems/Models are adopted / • GSC & USP Progress
implemented in other settings. Reports
• Research Reports
• Evaluation Report
Outcome 6: Groundswell has • Has compost application in • Project has contributed to a range of • Research Reports Stakeholder
contributed range of environmental Agricultural settings contributed to environmental outcomes including • DPI criteria &
outcomes : reduced or improved water broader Environmental outcomes reduced or improved water use, • Greenhouse Office approval
use, carbon sequestration, methane gas including reduced or improved carbon sequestrations, methane gas
water use, carbon sequestration, reduction and nitrous oxide reduction.
reduction and nitrous oxide reduction.
methane gas reduction and nitrous
(Obj. 2)
91
oxide reduction?
Judgement
Intermediate Outcomes Evaluation Questions Indicators
Systems in place to support project Are the systems in place to support project Project achieves reporting requirements • Reports to GSC & USP All project
and contract compliance. and contract compliance? and key milestones. (Outcome 1-6)) • USP contract manager milestones
• GPM achieved
Urban Organic Waste diverted from How much waste is being diverted from Measurable reduction in amount of waste • Councils and/or Target:
waste steam landfill? going to landfill. (Outcome 3) contractors 40%-70%?
How much urban organic waste is being
collected? Quantity of urban organic waste collected Measurable
in each location. (Outcome 3) Quantity
Composting occurring in each How is the composting going? Quantity of compost produced in each • Councils and/or Stakeholder
location How much Urban Organic Waste is being location. (Outcome 1) contractors. criteria &
composted? • Bettergrow approval
What are the conversion rates? • Researchers
What is the makeup of the composted Measurable
product? Quantities
Composted product applied to Where and what quantities of composted Quantity of composted product applied to • Farmers Measurable
Agricultural land product is being applied? Agricultural land. (Outcome 1,4) Change - in
What is happening as a result of the soil &
compost application? Impact of composted product on • Research Contractors productivity
Agricultural land. (Outcome 4)
Media and promotion supports How is City to Soil being promoted in each Communities actively support diversion of • Media clippings Stakeholder
community participation & LGA? urban organic waste from the waste • GPM reports to GSC criteria &
compliance. What media coverage is the project stream through source separation of • Community Surveys, approval
receiving? household organic waste. (Outcome 3) Focus Groups &/or
Are communities separating their Consultations. Stakeholder
household organic waste correctly? Contamination Rates are low or criteria &
What gets communities to correctly source manageable (Outcome 1,3) approval
separate their household organic waste?
Councils receive community Do communities support council’s efforts Councils are supported to continue and • Media clippings Stakeholder
support, positive feedback and to reduce waste, improve Environmental adopt diversion of urban organic waste • Feedback received by criteria &
positive media coverage sustainability and support local from waste stream through City to Soil Project Partners and approval
Agriculture? collection (Outcome 1,2,3,5) Councillors
• Community Surveys,
Focus Groups &/or
Consultations
92
Researchers work in partnership Are the researchers collecting the data : Application of composted urban organic • Research Progress Measurable
with collector/processor/farmers to required by project partners? waste has resulted in measurable Reports. Change -
ensure appropriate research data is Is the Research Strategy being improvements in agricultural soils and • Feedback from PAS Positive
collected. implemented appropriately? productivity. (Outcome 4) members impact
Is the project achieving measurable • Midway Review
improvements in agricultural soil and
productivity?
Project partners contribute to Are project partners collecting & providing Project partners have information they • Councils Stakeholder
collection of data and generation of the data required by the project? need about project and project outcomes. • PAS criteria &
knowledge about the project. (Outcome 1,2,3,4,5,6) • Bettergrow approval
• WCC
Steering committee has information Are reporting requirements and key Project achieves reporting requirements • GPM reports to GSC & Stakeholder
required to monitor & manage milestones being met? and key milestones. (Outcome 1,2,3,4,5,6) USP criteria &
project. approval
Project partners able to assess Do project partners have information they Project achieves reporting requirements • GPM reports to GSC & Stakeholder
progress and made adjustments as require to assess progress and make and key milestones. (Outcome USP criteria &
necessary. adjustments as necessary? 1,2,3,4,5,6)) • Reports from Research approval
Contractors
• All other project
documentation
Project Evaluation undertaken and Has the Evaluation Strategy been Project partners have information they • GPM reports to GSC & Stakeholder
report provided to steering implemented? need about project and project outcomes. USP criteria &
committee and Environment Trust. (Outcome 1,2,5) • GSC minutes approval
• Reports from Research
Contractors
• Community surveys
/consultations.
• Project partners
• All other project
documentation
93
Judgement
Immediate Outcomes Evaluation Questions Indicators
Project Manager recruited. Project Have effective systems been established Systems in place to support project • GPM reports to GSC Stakeholder
financial management systems to support project management and management and contract compliance. • GSC minutes criteria &
established. Project Steering performance? • Monthly Financial approval
Committee formed and meeting reports
schedule developed.
Project partners actively work to
implement project and resolve issues.
City to Soil collection system is Is City to Soil working? Urban Organic Waste diverted from waste • Data from Councils Stakeholder
established in each LGA as steam • Data from PAS criteria &
planned. Is urban organic waste being collected, members approval
composted and applied? Composting occurring in each location • Data from Research
consultants
What is working well Composted product applied to Agricultural • GPM reports to GSC
land Measurable
Quantities
Communication & Promotion How effective are the media and Media and promotion supports community • Community Surveys, Stakeholder
Strategy is implemented in each promotion strategies? participation & compliance. Focus Groups &/or criteria &
LGA as planned. Consultations. approval
What M&P strategies are working well? Councils receive positive community • Feedback from
feedback and media coverage Councils.
• Media clippings.
Research Strategy is sub- Have researchers been contracted? Researches work in partnership with • GPM reports to GSC Stakeholder
contracted and implemented as collector/processor/farmers to ensure • Progress reports from criteria &
planned. Is research underway? appropriate research data is collected. Research contractors. approval
• Feedback from project
Is research on track? partners
Project partners collect and provide Does each project partner know what data Project partners contribute to collection of • Council staff and Stakeholder
appropriate data as agreed. they are responsible for collecting? data and generation of knowledge about contractors criteria &
the project. • GPM progress reports to approval –
Is data being collected and delivered as GSC
agreed? • GPM reports to
Environment Trust.
Project reports provided to steering
94
committee and Environment Trust Are project reports being produced and Steering committee has information • Feedback from GSC GSC
as agreed. provided to steering committee and required to monitor & manage project. members perception =
Environment Trust as agreed? yes.
What Issues or challenges are there with

the data collection?
Midway review conducted and Was midway review conducted? Project partners able to assess progress • Midway review. Stakeholder
report tabled to Steering Committee and make adjustments as necessary. • GPM reports to GSC criteria &
and Environment Trust. • Research contractors approval
progress reports.
How were findings of mid way review • Feedback from GSC - GSC
used? members
perception =
• GSC minutes
yes.

Judgement
Activities Evaluation Questions Indicators
Strategy 1: Establish Project Have effective systems been established Project Manager recruited. • GSC Stakeholder
management procedures and to support project management and • Goulburn Mulwarree criteria &
structures performance? Project financial management systems Council approval-
established. • DECC
Perception
Project Steering Committee formed and of GPM
meeting schedule developed.
Strategy 2: Develop City to Soil Was an appropriate City to Soil strategy City to Soil Collection & Processing • Councils. Stakeholder
Collection & Processing Strategy developed for each site? Strategy endorsed by Project Steering • Michael Reynolds criteria &
including site selection, capital Committee • Wiradjuri Condobolin approval
works, licenses & approvals, Corporation
recruitment of farmers, bins & • Bettergrow
• DECC
resources, tagging system,
collection, processing, transport &
application for each site.
Strategy 3: Develop Communication Was an appropriate Communication & Communication & Promotion Strategy • Project Partners Stakeholder
& Promotion Strategy – overall and Promotion Strategy developed for each developed in consultation with steering • Local media experts. criteria &
for each LGA site? committee members and tabled at project approval
steering committee meeting.
95
Strategy 4: Develop Groundswell Was an appropriate Research Strategy Groundswell Research Strategy endorsed • GSC Stakeholder
Research Strategy – overall and for developed? by project steering committee. • Michael Reynolds criteria
each site • Chris Houghton &approval
Strategy 5: Develop Project Was an appropriate Evaluation Strategy Project Evaluation Strategy endorsed by • GSC Stakeholder
Evaluation Strategy developed? Environment Trust. • USP criteria &
approval
Strategy 6: Develop Groundswell Were appropriate data collection, Data collection and reporting schedule • GSC members Stakeholder
Data Collection, Project Monitoring monitoring & reporting structures developed and tabled at project steering • USP criteria &
& Reporting Structures developed? committee meeting. approval
Strategy 7: Implement City to Soil Was City to Soil established in each LGA? City to Soil collection system is established • GSC members Stakeholder
Collection and Compost Processing in each LGA as planned. criteria &
Strategy in each LGA approval
Strategy 8: Implement Was the Communication & Promotion Communication & Promotion Strategy is • Media clippings Stakeholder
Communication & Promotion strategy executed in each LGA? implemented in each LGA as planned. • GPM reports to GSC criteria &
Strategy in each LGA approval
Strategy 9: Implement Research Was Research Strategy implemented as Research Strategy is sub-contracted and • GPM reports to GSC Stakeholder
Strategy planned? implemented as planned. • Research contractor criteria &
progress reports approval
Strategy 10: Undertake Data Was appropriate data collected? Did Project partners collect and provide • Project partner reports Stakeholder
Collection, Project Monitoring and project monitoring happen as agreed? appropriate data as agreed. to GSC/GPM criteria &
Reporting activities. Were project reports produced as agreed? • GPM reports to GSC & approval
Project reports provided to steering USP
committee and Environment Trust as
agreed.
Strategy 11: Undertake midway Was midway review conducted? Midway review conducted and report • GPM reports to GSC Stakeholder
project review. (18 months) tabled to Steering Committee and • Research contractors criteria &
Environment Trust. progress reports. approval
• Feedback from GSC
members
• GSC minutes
96
Strategy 12: Undertake Project Was Project Evaluation conducted? Project Evaluation undertaken and report • GPM reports to GSC & Stakeholder
Evaluation. provided to steering committee and USP criteria &
Environment Trust. • Research contractor approval
reports
• Community Surveys,
Focus Groups &/or
Consultations.
• Other project
documentation
97
Judgement
Needs Evaluation Questions Indicators
Divert organic waste from the urban Has Groundswell resulted in diversion of Project partners can demonstrate a • Councils – changes Stakeholder
waste stream. organic waste from the urban waste reduction in waste to landfill as a direct (reduction) in general criteria &
stream? result of adopting a city to soil collection. waste, quantities approval
collected through city to
soil
Improve urban sustainability Have communities actively supported the Communities source separate their • Data from councils and Stakeholder
diversion of urban organic waste from organics at householder level. collectors criteria &
waste stream through source separation of • Data from collectors and approval
household organic waste? Project partners can demonstrate a processors.
reduction in waste to landfill as a direct • Councils – changes
(reduction) in general
Has Groundswell resulted in diversion of result of adopting a city to soil collection.
waste, quantities
organic waste from the urban waste collected through city to
stream? soil
Improve Agricultural sustainability What happens when composted organic Measurable improvement in agricultural • Outcomes from Measurable
including increase health and urban waste is applied to Agricultural soils soil and productivity. Research Strategy change -
productivity of Agricultural soils. and productivity? Financial benefits ascribed to measurable methodology, findings changes in
improvements in soil and productivity and reporting. soil &
What financial benefits can be ascribed to quantified. positive
each of the benefits of compost application impact on
on Agricultural soil and productivity? productivity
Cost /
Benefit
analysis
Improved Environmental Has compost application in Agricultural Project has contributed to a range of • Research Reports Stakeholder
sustainability settings contributed to broader environmental outcomes including reduced • DPI criteria &
Environmental outcomes? or improved water use, carbon • Greenhouse Office approval
sequestrations, methane gas reduction Measurable
and nitrous oxide reduction. change
To establish economically viable Have viable Economic models been Models/systems are self sustaining • Research Reports Stakeholder
models for the collection, established, costed and documented? The System/Models continue beyond • Midway Review criteria &
processing and application of urban project timeframe • Project Evaluation approval
organic waste into Agricultural land. What is the costs/benefit analysis for the • DPI
community, council, collector, processor The Systems/Models are adopted / • Greenhouse Office Cost/benefit
and farmer in each model? implemented in other settings. analysis
Models / systems can operate at same or
less cost for councils
98
10.14 Appendix 14 — City to Soil Spinoffs

Site Inputs Collec Comp Other Partners

tions ost
Goulburn Food/green Yes Yes Coal included Groundswell
Condobolin Food/green Yes Yes Future commercial organics & Groundswell
cardboard
Bathurst Biosolids No Yes Env Trust application in for Coal and Ash to be included in DECCW SE
Food processing future trials
waste Expanding
Green
Wagga Biosolids No Yes Some City to Soil collection interest from Council Self funded
Wagga Greenwaste
Cooma Biosolids/green No Yes City to Soil interest DECCW
Council waste
Snowy No No City to Soil interest
Council
National Sawdust No Yes Excellent product – prospects for UN Biosphere Env Trust application in
Parks – Island
Bend
Armidale Food/green Yes Yes City to Soil to start soon Self funded
Dumaresq ready
Shoalhaven Food/green Not Yes Two bin system DECCW plus Self
same funded
Queanbeyan Food/green No No Groundswell
Krawarree & Sust Schools
Schools
Netwaste Food/green No Yes
Dept Defence Food No No To go to Landtasia Part of Qbyn City to
Soil Self funded
Trevor Ross Saleyard No Yes 3% additional protein Self funded
manure/straw
Penrith No No Collection alterations

99
Great Lakes 1. Green waste No Yes Applic to Env Trust for funding
2. Chicken
Manure
Great Lakes Gyprock and No Yes
green waste
Harden Food Green Yes Yes Started compost DECCW SE
Galong soon Good product SERRROC
Stephen Food/green No No Self Funded
Smith
Gladstone
New Zealand Food/green No Yes On farm Self funded
Max Purnell
Wales Cwm Food/ green Yes Yes IP discussion Self funded
Harry Trust Not
same
ACT Commercial No Yes large trial Self Funded
Rob Food/green
Rutherford
Whyalla Food/green No No Self funded
Gippsland
Southern Oils Oil residuals No No Self funded
Wagga
Barwon No No
councils
group
Mudgee Greenwaste No Yes
Delta Energy Fly ash ‐ coal No No
Terry Hills Sydney markets No Yes
vegies
Barham Green waste and No Yes
dairy effluent
Capital Wind Greenwaste No No erosion project Video complete
farm
100

Graham Manure ‐ straw No Yes

McCormack
Queanbeyan Bark Chips – in‐ No Yes
office garden compost
with lucerne
Albury Green waste No Yes Self funded
Landfill biosolids and
water weeds
Zeolite Mixed wastes No Yes Self‐funded
Erik van Brik and Zeolite
Townsville Green waste No Yes Self‐funded
City Council from cyclone
101

102

The Magic Pudding - Understanding The Outcomes, Impact and Futures of Groundswell 2007 - 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Magic Pudding - Understanding The Outcomes, Impact and Futures of Groundswell 2007 - 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 APPENDICES .........................................................................................................................................65

Australian Institute of Sustainable Communities

The University of Canberra’s Australian Institute for Sustainable Communities conducted a

• An introduction to Groundswell and the review methodology,

The Review objectives were to:

1. Reflect on the project implementation to date,

• How is the project going?

• An analysis of the project achievements to date;

• Condobolin—a partnership with Lachlan Council and the Wiradjuri Condobolin

Project milestones to date

Project report documents were reviewed to gain an overview of:

• project implementation and progress to date against the planning frame;

• Groundswell Research Strategy designed and implemented (achieved)

• EOI process for Groundswell research team established

Stakeholder reflections and lessons – by site

The following issues in the Condobolin trial were identified:

• Screening solution is an immediate need

The following issues in the Condobolin site were identified:

Stakeholders’ collective reflections and lessons

• engagement and education—highlighting the importance of involvement at all levels

Models and Logistics 6.6

Models and logistics

Education and engagement

Priorities for action No. of dots

Education and engagement

• The urgent issue is that compost meets regulatory standards

• The need to find a long-term technological solution for wind issues

• Condobolin—need machinery and related training

• Goulburn —needs more staff in key weeks

• Relationship maintenance and development

Lesson 1: The Groundswell model is effective and adaptable

Lesson 3: Community education and engagement needs to be timely and on-going

Lesson 4: Communication needs to be targeted and regular and inclusive of all

Lesson 5: Training opportunities can be integrated and extended

Lesson 8: The social and commercial benefits are now visible

It is recommended that Groundswell:

“People do get it and do want to be involved”

For further information on Groundswell, contact: Ms Simone Dilkara;

Time Activity Comment

9.30 Arrivals & Welcome Name tags

• Lessons Learned, tips and traps

10.15 Vision Process Use post it notes to capture what they now see as Vision and then compare to

11.30 Taking Stock Butchers paper

4.45 Wrap Up. Celebrate Name, celebrate, acknowledge achievements, courage & how hard people have

What Issues or challenges are there with

Outcomes Hierarchy Measures Information Sources Standard /

Site Inputs Collec Comp Other Partners

Graham Manure ‐ straw No Yes

You might also like