Appendix A

Appendix A
Page 1 of 192
Page 2 of 192
LIMITATIONS
The preparation of the Waste Assessment has relied on information from multiple sources, including SWAP Analysis from the legacy councils, the Auckland Regional Council Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 2009, permits, contracts, consents, and annual reports. The accuracy of these sources is contingent on the best information available at the time and the degree of disclosure from the Waste Industry. It is not possible to calculate, with any degree of precision, up-to-date tonnage and composition of waste being disposed to landfill in the Auckland region without mandatory industry disclosure. Information has also been sought from landfill and refuse transfer station operators, who have no obligation to supply the requested information. In some instances information has been voluntarily provided, however on others the requests have been declined to supply information for this purpose. Financial analysis and modelling has relied on the best financial information available at the time of drafting of the waste assessment. The proposed way forward, a rigorous analytical stepped process with continuous validation of data, will mitigate the potential for discrepancies / errors in further waste minimisation planning.
Page 3 of 192
Page 4 of 192
APPENDIX A - SUPPORTING RESEARCH BACKGROUND PAPERS Acknowledgement This supporting research benefited from the input of contributing authors Eunomia Research and Consulting
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Funding Discussion Paper - Background Household Residual Waste Collection Polluter-Pays Charging for Household Collected Refuse Recycling Collections Inorganic Waste Construction and Demolition Wastes Commercial Waste and Recycling Services Solid Waste Bylaw Commonalities former Auckland councils Comparison of Waste Management Plans of the former councils Waste Education Strategy (draft)
pg 6 pg 34 pg 52 pg 64 pg 82 pg 92 pg 110 pg 126 pg 144 pg 148
Page 5 of 192
Page 6 of 192
FUNDING DISCUSSION PAPER - BACKGROUND
Page 7 of 192
Page 8 of 192
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Guiding principles .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Waste policies of the main New Zealand political parties ...................................................... 1 2. AUCKLAND REGION FUNDING POLICIES ......................................................................... 2 2.1. Summary of waste collection and disposal ............................................................................ 2 2.2. Summary of current services and costs per household ......................................................... 3 2.2.1.Refuse ................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2.Recyclables ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.2.3.Organic waste ........................................................................................................................ 7 2.2.4.Inorganic waste ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.5.Hazardous waste (domestic).................................................................................................. 7 3. CURRENT FUNDING AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ANOMALIES ........................................ 8 3.1. Rateable property numbers/number of services provided ..................................................... 9 3.2. Levels of service .................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.1.Inclusion policy ..................................................................................................................... 10 3.2.2.Opting-out policy .................................................................................................................. 10 3.2.3.Subsidisation of services policy ........................................................................................... 10 3.2.4.Different collection frequencies and receptacle types .......................................................... 11 3.3. Funding of services in remote areas .................................................................................... 12 4. FUNDING POLICIES AND EFFECTS ................................................................................. 13 4.1. Funding mechanisms ........................................................................................................... 13 4.2. Effects of charging for household refuse collection.............................................................. 13 5. ECONOMIC INCENTIVES ................................................................................................... 14 5.1. Economic incentives to reduce waste .................................................................................. 14 5.2. Incentives that will affect Auckland waste charges .............................................................. 14 5.2.1.Waste levy and ETS impact ................................................................................................. 15 5.2.2.Landfill disposal rates .......................................................................................................... 15 6. EXAMPLES OF WASTE MANAGEMENT FUNDING BY OTHER COUNCILS IN NEW ZEALAND ............................................................................................................................ 15 6.1. Christchurch City Council targeted rate/general rates ...................................................... 15 6.2. Timaru District Council differential targeted rate ............................................................... 16 6.3. Selwyn District Council differential targeted rate............................................................... 16 7. PREFERRED FUTURE WASTE MANAGEMENT FUNDING FOR THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL ............................................................................................................................. 16 7.1. Priorities in considering funding ........................................................................................... 16 7.2. What are the limitations/issues? .......................................................................................... 17 7.3. Polluter-pays or rates-funded waste services ...................................................................... 17 7.3.1.Funding implications ............................................................................................................ 17 7.3.2.Implications of polluter-pays services .................................................................................. 17 7.3.3.Implications of rates-funded services ................................................................................... 19 7.4. Standardisation of services .................................................................................................. 20 7.5. Funding availability .............................................................................................................. 20 7.5.1.Council funding .................................................................................................................... 20 7.5.2.Waste levy funding ............................................................................................................... 20 7.6. Future decision making and public consultation .................................................................. 21 APPENDIX A FUNDING OPTIONS ASSESSMENT RESIDUAL WASTE ........................... 22
Page 9 of 192
BACKGROUND PAPER NO. 1

FUNDING DISCUSSION PAPER - BACKGROUND Any costs are based on best financial information to date. There are different accounting treatments between the Auckland Council 2009-2019 LTCCP, as prepared by the ATA, and the 2010 annual plans of the previous eight councils. The annual plans have informed the 2010 Auckland Council budget. Differences include treatment of transition costs, interest costs, allocation of costs between different areas of council and CCOs. To the limited extent 2010 budgets are used in cost assumptions in this model, they do not recognise different cost treatment in the LTCCP. 1. 1.1. INTRODUCTION Guiding principles
With respect to the funding of waste services there are a number of drivers that dictate the quantum and sources of funding. Typically these include: Prioritising harmful wastes Waste minimisation and reduction of residual waste to landfill Full-cost pricing - polluter-pays The environmental effects of production, distribution, consumption and disposal of goods and services should be consistently costed, and charged as closely as possible to the point they occur to ensure that price incentives cover all costs Protection of public health Affordability Cost effectiveness Waste policies of the main New Zealand political parties
1.2.
The Act party supports the general principle of user pays". The Green, Maori and National parties support the polluter-pays principle. This means that the responsibility for reversing environmental degradation belongs to those who have caused it. The Green Party believes that polluter-pays is a people-save solution and the public should be provided with more opportunities to recycle. The Labour Partys waste policy supports the reduction of waste through the use of economic incentives and rewards so that businesses, councils and the public will find that waste reduction has benefits.
1|P a g e
Page 10 of 192
2. 2.1. AUCKLAND REGION FUNDING POLICIES Summary of waste collection and disposal
Refuse collections were provided by the former councils and funded via rates in Auckland and Manukau, and on a polluter-pays basis in Waitakere, North Shore, Papakura and Franklin. In Rodney the service was provided entirely by the private sector. Recyclables collections were provided by all the councils and funded via rates (or polluterpays/refuse transfer station income in the case of Waitakere). Hazardous waste collections were provided in most areas by HazMobile. Waitakere was the exception and provided this service via the Waitakere refuse transfer station. In Rodney also this service was provided through the private waste company operated transfer stations. It is noted that to provide this service at every refuse transfer station would require additional resource consents. While inorganic refuse collections were provided by most of the councils through rates funding, Waitakere provided this service on a polluter-pays basis. In Rodney the service was provided by the private sector and in Franklin through a drop off arrangement. The existing funding of waste management for the Auckland region (refer table 2.1) has a total annual cost to ratepayers (via polluter-pays and rates funding) of approximately $85M.
Table 2.1 Current residential kerbside waste collection services offered by the former Auckland Councils
Former council
REFUSE Waitakere City Council North Shore City Council Auckland City Council Manukau City Council Rodney District Council Papakura District Council Franklin District Council RECYCLABLES Waitakere City Council North Shore City Council Auckland City Council Manukau City Council Rodney District Council Papakura District Council Franklin District Council
Services provided
Weekly bag collection Weekly bag collection Weekly 120L MGB collection Weekly bag collection Private service Weekly bag collection Weekly bag collection Fortnightly 140L MRB Fortnightly 140L MRB Fortnightly 240L MRB Fortnightly 240L MRB Weekly 55L crate or fortnightly 70L crate Weekly 40L crate Weekly 40L crate
Tonnage*
21,390 18,954 65,635 63,769 5,554 5,362 18,000 23,500 41,000 30,000 8,050 4,411 2,800
Funding
Polluter-pays - $2.00 /bag Polluter-pays - $1.80 / bag (60L) or $1.60 / bag (40L) Rates Rates Polluter-pays - (price varies) Polluter-pays - $1.30 / bag Polluter-pays - $2.00 / bag Combination of Polluter-pays bags and RTS income Rates Rates Rates Rates Rates Rates
2|P a g e
Page 11 of 192
Former council Services provided Tonnage*

112(2008/09) 101(2007/08) 52(2007/08) 62(2007/08) (via drop off at two Transfer stations 21(2007/08) 4(2007/08)
Funding
Funded from RTS income, free for WCC residents Rates, $130,000/yr Rates, est. $70,000/yr Rates, est. $80,000/yr Rates
HAZARDOUS WASTE Waitakere City Waitakere RTS Council North Shore City HazMobile - 4 collections (2009) Council Auckland City HazMobile - 5 collections (2009) Council Manukau City HazMobile 4 collections (2009) Council Rodney District Metrowaste RRC, Mason Bins Council RRC Papakura District Council Franklin District Council HazMobile - 1 collection (2009) HazMobile - 1 collection (2009)
Rates, est. $30,000/yr Rates, est. $5,000/yr
Note: In 2007/08 the HazMobile Programme enabled the collection of 240T of hazardous waste, annual costs for Auckland, Manukau, Papakura and Franklin are extrapolated from North Shore costs
HOUSEHOLD INORGANIC Council Services Provided Waitakere City Pickup service Council
North Shore City Council Auckland City Council Manukau City Council Rodney District Council Papakura District Council Franklin District Council
Kerbside service annually Kerbside service once every two years Kerbside service annually No service provided by council private only (as per refuse) Kerbside service annually Drop off arrangement
Tonnages Participation from 10% of households 850 Tonnes (2009/10) Around 4,000 12,000 (2009) 11,842 (2008/09) No weighbridge information available 1397 Tonnes (2008) No weighbridge information available
Funding Polluter-pays-est. $140,000/yr
Rates -est. $850,000/yr Rates -est. $700,000/yr Rates - est. $1M/yr Polluter pays
Rates - est. $180,000/yr Rates
Note: Prior to the polluter-pays service Waitakere City Council faced an annual cost of around $639,000 to service around 64,000 households. Costs for other TAs are estimated by extrapolating Waitakeres previous cost per household.
*Tonnages from Waste Not 2010 SWAP and the Auckland Regional Council, Hazardous Waste Programme, Annual report, July 2008 to June 2009
2.2.
Summary of current services and costs per household
Based on current available data, the average cost across the region for waste services varies between no cost in rates to $224 per household. The former councils all differed in the way that they delivered services and the scope of services funded from waste budgets. This makes a comparison between councils and estimate of average cost for waste services difficult. Available information on costs for waste services is provided in a general sense rather than on a per service basis.
3|P a g e
Page 12 of 192

Table 2.2 Current waste services and associated costs in the solid waste budgets
Former council
Current council waste services provided for from Solid Waste budget
1. Residential refuse collection 2. Residential recycling collection 3. Inorganic collection 4. Hazardous waste (HazMobile) 5. Waiheke transfer station 6. Great Barrier landfill 7. Illegal dumping 8. Abandoned vehicles (gulf islands only) 9. Waste minimisation planning and policy 10. Community advice and education 11. Waste Minimisation Learning Centre (at the VISY MRF) 12. Residential refuse collection 13. Residential recycling collection 14. Inorganic collection 15. Illegal dumping 16. Hazardous waste (HazMobile) 17. Waste minimisation planning and policy 18. Waste Minimisation Learning Centre (at the VISY MRF) 19. Town centre cleaning Community advice and education Public litter bin emptying and maintenance 1. Residential refuse collection 2. Residential recycling collection 3. Commercial/industrial refuse collection 4. Commercial/industrial recycling collection 5. Inorganic collection 6. Waste minimisation planning and policy 7. Waste operator licensing, data and enforcement 8. Hazardous waste (HazMobile) 9. Devonport transfer station 10. Community advice and
Average annual net cost to council per household in rates (Dec 2010 info)
$174.83
Additional private services (domestic)
Auckland City
Greenwaste collection varies according to bin size and collection frequency. Indicative cost is $144/yr for a 240L bin and monthly kerbside collection
Manukau City
$224
North Shore City
$39.84
4|P a g e
Page 13 of 192
Former council Current council waste services provided for from Solid Waste budget
education 11. Gully cleaning Waitakere City 1. Residential refuse collection 2. Residential recycling collection 3. Inorganic collection 4. Litter bins / litter collection/ Enforcement 5. Illegal dumping/ Enforcement 6. Abandoned vehicles 7. Waste minimisation planning and policy 8. Waste operator licensing, data and enforcement 9. Waste Minimisation Learning Centre 10. Community advice and education 11. Cleaner production education 12. Stream cleaning 13. Town centre orderlies 14. Field officers waste minimisation 1. Residential refuse collection 2. Residential recycling collection 3. Waste minimisation planning and policy 4. Inorganic drop off 5. Hazardous waste (HazMobile) 1. Residential refuse collection 2. Residential recycling collection 3. Waste minimisation planning and policy 4. Inorganic collection 5. Public litter bin emptying 1. Residential recycling collection 2. Inorganic collection 3. Waste minimisation planning and policy 4. Waste operator licensing, data and enforcement 5. Public litter bin emptying and maintenance ($16.60)
Average annual net cost to council per household in rates (Dec 2010 info)
Additional private services (domestic)
Franklin District
$52.77
Papakura District
$138.97
Rodney District
$79.62
Refuse collection $130 - $290 depending on bin size. Greenwaste collection varies with bin size and collection frequency. Indicative cost is $144/yr for a 240L bin and monthly kerbside collection
5|P a g e
Page 14 of 192
2.2.1. Refuse
Council funded refuse collection services were viewed by all councils other than Rodney as a core service. Rodney let the market provide refuse collection services however this created problems with expected including levels of service not being met and mixing of days and receptacles at the kerbside. Table 2.3 outlines current services and funding.
Table 2.3 Current refuse collection services and funding
Former council
Waitakere City Council North Shore City Council Auckland City Council Manukau City Council Rodney District Council Papakura District Council Franklin District Council
Services provided
Weekly bag collection Weekly bag collection
Tonnage (household refuse, council Funding RRP collection)

21,390 18,954 Polluter-pays - $2.00 /bag Polluter-pays - $1.80 / bag (60L) or $1.60 / bag (40L) Rates Rates Polluter-pays - $1.30 / bag Polluter-pays - $2.00 / bag
Weekly 120L MRB collection Weekly bag collection Private service Weekly bag collection Weekly bag collection
65,635 63,769 5,554 5,368
2.2.2.
Recyclables
The councils all provided recyclables collection funded by rates with the exception of Waitakere City that funded this collection through funds raised from the sale of residual waste bags and income generated at its Refuse Transfer Station. Table 2.4 outlines the services and funding.
Table 2.4 Current recyclables services and funding Services provided Fortnightly 140L MRB Fortnightly 140L MRB Fortnightly 240L MRB Fortnightly 240L MRB Previously weekly 55L crate or fortnightly 70L crate. Weekly 40L crate Weekly 40L crate From 1/11/10 Franklin introduced a 240L recycling bin rates funded *It is expected that this figure will change as a result of move to 240L recycling bin
6|P a g e
Former council Waitakere City Council North Shore City Council Auckland City Council Manukau City Council Rodney District Council
Tonnage 18,000 23,500 41,000 30,000 8,050
Funding Combination of polluterpays bags and RTS income Rates Rates Rates Rates
Papakura District Council Franklin District Council
4,411 2,800*
Rates Rates
Page 15 of 192
2.2.3. Organic waste
A separate collection of organic waste is not an existing service provided by the council. 2.2.4. Inorganic waste
With the exception of Rodney and Franklin all the former councils provided kerbside inorganic refuse collection services. The cost of Waitakere City Councils polluter-pays service, where householders book online with the council or at a council office and arrange for inorganic waste to be collected from their property and taken to the Waitakere Transfer Station, was $11.25 per collection.Householders could use this service once per year and the ability for reuse/recycling is maximised. Prior to introducing the polluter-pays service Waitakere City faced an annual cost of around $639,000 to provide an inorganic collection service to around 64,000 households (once per year per household). Extrapolating the equivalent cost per household across the region, it is estimated that North Shore City paid in order of $850,000 per year for the inorganic service, Manukau City around $1M, Franklin District around $180,000 and Papakura District around $140,000. Auckland City residents received this service only once every two years. Costs to Auckland City Council for the inorganic collection are $2,477,254, which equates to an annual cost of $1.24M. Table 2.5 summarises the services provided and funding.
Table 2.5 Inorganic refuse collection and disposal services and funding
Former council
Waitakere City Council
Services provided
Pickup service
Tonnage
Household participation estimate at 10% 850 Tonnes (2009/10) Around 4,000 12,000 (2009) 11,842 (2008/09) No weighbridge information available 1397 Tonnes (2008) No weighbridge information available
Funding
Polluter-pays
North Shore City Council Auckland City Council Manukau City Council Rodney District Council
Kerbside service annually Kerbside service once every two years Kerbside service annually No service provided by the council private only (as per refuse) Kerbside service annually Drop off arrangement
Rates Rates Rates Polluter-Pays
Rates Rates
2.2.5.
Hazardous waste (domestic)
Household hazardous waste is accepted at some transfer stations around the region, including the Waitakere facility owned by the council. Waitakere City Council used this facility as its only location for the collection of hazardous material from the public. All the other former Auckland councils, including the Auckland Regional Council, funded the HazMobile service which was a free, mobile service for the public, allowing disposal of hazardous household wastes. The HazMobile vehicle visited public carparks on specified dates around the region, providing around 15 collections each year.
7|P a g e
Page 16 of 192
North Shore City Council offered this service four times per year at a cost of approximately $130,000 per annum (for collection, promotion and treatment). HazMobile costs for other TAs are not known. However, based on North Shore City Council cost of around $130,000 for 100 tonnes, annual costs for the service are estimated in order of $70,000 for Auckland City, $80,000 for Manukau City, $30,000 for Papakura District and $5,000 for Franklin District. It is noted that the Auckland Regional Council coordinated this service, so also incurred a cost for provision. The existing HazMobile service is an expensive service on a cost per tonne basis. The Waitakere City Council model appears significantly cheaper (due to the fact that existing infrastructure and staff were already in place) but requires further infrastructure ownership by the council to be practicable. If RTSs throughout the Auckland region were able to be utilised, resource consent requirements would need to be addressed to ensure such materials are able to be accepted at the transfer stations. Current services and funding are as follows.
Table 2.6 Hazardous waste services and funding
Former council
Waitakere City Council North Shore City Council Auckland City Council Manukau City Council Rodney District Council
Services provided
Waitakere RTS HazMobile - 4 collections (2009) HazMobile - 5 collections (2009) HazMobile 4 collections (2009) Council provides two hazardous waste drop-off facilities for the free disposal of household hazardous waste. These are located at the Lawrie Rd Transfer Station and Silverdale Transfer Station. HazMobile - 1 collection (2009) HazMobile - 1 collection (2009)
Tonnage
112 (2008/09) 101(2007/08)1 52(2007/08) 62(2007/08) Not known
Funding
RTS income, free for WCC residents Rates $130,000/yr Rates - est $70,000/yr Rates est $80,000/yr Rates
21(2007/08) 4(2007/08)
Rates est $30,000/yr Rates est$5,000/yr
3.
CURRENT FUNDING AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ANOMALIES
The former councils of the region had a number of waste management funding anomalies. These include:
The number of rateable properties eligible for waste collection services was often different to the number of properties provided with waste collection services. Consequently the income that the council could rely on from rates to fund waste services was unreliable Some councils provided waste services to commercial premises whereas others did not
The Auckland Regional Council, Hazardous Waste Programme, Annual Report July 2008 to June 2009.
8|P a g e
Page 17 of 192
More receptacles were provided than the number of properties servicede.g. for multi-unit commercial dwellings and some tenanted residential properties There were differing frequencies of service. The majority of properties were being provided with a weekly refuse and either weekly or fortnightly recycling collection service. Between 1 and 13 collection services could however be provided for CBD areas Some councils provided different receptacle sizes with no allowance for funding differences based on receptacle size One former council provided a subsidy to private collectors to encourage collection services to be provided where they were considered uneconomic by the private sector One former council allowed ratepayers to opt out of paying the targeted rate for waste and to engage an approved private collector Refuse collections were provided by the councils and funded via rates in the former Auckland and Manukau councils, and on a polluter-pays basis in the former Waitakere, North Shore, Papakura and Franklin councils. In the former Rodney council the service was provided entirely by the private sector Recyclables collections were provided by all the councils and funded via rates (or polluter-pays/refuse transfer station income in the case of Waitakere) Hazardous waste collections were provided in most districts by the Hazmobile whereas Waitakere provided this service via the Waitakere RTS. To provide this service at every RTS would require additional resource consents Inorganic refuse collections were provided by most of the councils through rates funding, but occurred at differing frequencies. In Waitakere the service was provided on a polluter-pays basis while the private sector provided the service in Rodney
The following section outlines these anomalies in more detail and considers the implications of changing these policies. 3.1. Rateable property numbers/number of services provided
The assessment of the income that the councils get from rates relies on the councils being able to provide an accurate number of rateable properties from which to work on, with this theoretically equating to the number of services being provided. However there appears to be a distinction between rateable properties and separately rateable units which has created problems with gathering accurate information. The difference between a rateable property and a separately rateable unit is one of definition. One property (certificate of title) may have many units, as the units themselves may not have separate titles. The certificate of title distinction is the legal basis upon which rates are set and assessed. For example, a granny flat on a property is not a separate property and cannot be sold independently of the house because there is no separate certificate of title. However, it may be a separately rateable unit (i.e. having a separate Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) and wastewater charge) within the rateable property depending on whether the owner has a family member occupying it. The property (CT) is what is rateable, the number of separate rateable units is a factor in establishing the number of charges of certain types (i.e. UAGC's and wastewater charges) that a property is rated for. 3.2. Levels of service
The former councils had a number of differing levels of service for refuse and recycling collection. These differences related to policies about funding, frequency of service, receptacle sizes and collections from commercial properties. All councils, with the exception of Rodney
9|P a g e
Page 18 of 192
District provided residential refuse and collection services. In Rodney District both households and businesses arranged directly with private operators for the collection of refuse and the council provided a recycling collection service for residential, schools and businesses. 3.2.1. Inclusion policy
Manukau City Council operated an inclusion policy for some community organisations, including sports clubs, churches and other community organisations that have permanent locations. These organisations could register and receive refuse and recycling services funded from general rates. Large, residential apartment blocks, motels etc. that were commercially operated and that did not pay the targeted rate did not receive any council waste services but arranged alternative services from a commercial waste collector. 3.2.2. Opting-out policy
Auckland City Council had a policy of rates remission for an approved refuse/recycling collection service. This policy applied to large residential blocks e.g. multi-unit dwellings and retirement villages that may arrange for their own approved alternative refuse/recycling collection company. This meant that they could opt out of using and paying for the council provided services. However, rating units within these large residential blocks were still liable for the targeted rate and criteria was set where $115 of the refuse collection targeted rate could be remitted for rating units in a large residential block, where the block: had greater than 10 residential rating units provided an approved alternative refuse collection and disposal service for all the rating units within it as at 30 June 2009.
A further $63 of the targeted rate could be remitted for these units as per the same condition, when an alternative approved recycling collection and processing service was provided by the block. The remission applied from the beginning of the rating period in which the application was approved and could not be backdated to prior years. As a result of this policy Auckland City Council made remissions totaling $3.56 million per annum. 3.2.3. Subsidisation of services policy
Rodney District provided subsidisation of household refuse collection services in certain areas of the district where a service couldnt economically be serviced by private operators. For the majority of these areas, the resident brought their refuse bags to a collection point on the nearest road with a service. This collection points often become rubbish-bag mountains every week attracting illegal dumping. When the collection points reached a stage where they were causing a nuisance, the council would approach the local waste operator to negotiate a subsidised kerbside collection for the area so that the collection point could be closed down. The following areas have a subsidised kerbside refuse collection service:
Table 3.2 Subsidised areas/roads former Rodney district
Contractor
Metrowaste Metrowaste Metrowaste Metrowaste Metrowaste Metrowaste
Area/road
South Head Makarau Krippner Road Tapora Mangawhai Rd Takatu Rd
Amount $ (per month)

229.22 373.33 112.65 539.72 173.33 173.33
10 | P a g e
Page 19 of 192
Payment was also made to the private operator for the collection of illegally dumped refuse bags from collection points in rural areas. On Kawau Island, in former Rodney District, household refuse collection was indirectly subsidised through the public litter bin contract. For Sandspit Wharf and the boat ramp the council installed moloks 2 x 5m3 for waste and 1 x 3m3 for recycling. The moloks were provided for wharf users and boaties. In addition, Kawau Islanders could dispose of their refuse and recycling here. The Kawau Island Yacht Club had an agreement with the council that the council would pay for illegally dumped refuse on their premises over the summer months. The operation of the waste transfer station at Rustybrook Rd, Wellsford was also subsidised by the council. There is also a similar situation on other Hauraki Gulf Islands, particularly Great Barrier Island where costs for waste services are well in excess of what ratepayers pay. 3.2.4. Different collection frequencies and receptacle types
In addition to the usual receptacles that councils used for the collection of refuse and recycling, some councils had alternatives available depending on circumstances, for example wheelie bins being unsuitable for use in a CBD location such as Queen Street or in multi tenancy units. These can be seen in Table 3.1 below. It is noted that Rodney data is not included as the council opted to let the market provide waste collection services and as a consequence a multitude of receptacle options exist depending on the private waste collection companies.
Table 3.1 Differences in present Council collection methods
Former council
Auckland (Isthmus East/West /Central) Auckland (Inner CBD) Auckland (Waiheke Island)
Receptacle
120L MRBs Frontloader bins and 60L bags 60L refuse bags 60L clear recycling bags Choice of 240 L recycling bins/140 refuse bins, 60 L council refuse bags and any bags for recyclables, or a mix of these
Service type
Residential and commercial (domestic-type) recycling Residential and commercial (domestic-type)refuse Refuse and recycling plus loose cardboard Refuse and recycling Drop off skips for residential waste and recycling available at Matiatia and Kennedy point
Frequency of collection
Fortnightly recycling Weekly refuse 2 x daily (Monday Saturday) 1 x daily (Sunday) Weekly refuse and recycling
Auckland (Great Barrier Island) Auckland Franklin 40 L recycling crate From 1/11/10 Franklin introduced a 240L recycling bin rates funded
Drop off points operate including the landfill. Kerbside bag collection for some routes. Inorganic collection (residential only) Recycling
Weekly (or more frequently in some areas) Every 2 years Not available over the whole district. One recycling drop off point at Matakawau serviced on an as required basis by illegal dumping removal contractor. Recycling drop off days are being established in areas with no kerbside collections as per the LTCCP.
11 | P a g e
Page 20 of 192
Former council
Manukau
Receptacle
Resident has a choice of receptacles for refuse collection: Householder supplied plastic paper bags lidded plastic or tin rubbish bin
Service type
Frequency of collection
North Shore
Paper and cardboard (commercial properties) Refuse (commercial properties) Commercial properties have to apply for service Inorganic collection (residential only) Inorganic collection residential only Loose litter collections (urban) Loose litter collections (rural) Litterbins in Parks emptied Litterbins (excluding Parks) emptied Refuse (commercial properties) CBD paper recycling
2 x weekly (Mon and Wed) 3 x weekly
Papakura
Weekly Monthly Weekly Daily 3 x weekly weekly
Waitakere
3.3.
Funding of services in remote areas
Those areas that have different levels of service for refuse and recycling collection services are often the same areas that have different funding policies from the general rule. These properties are mainly located in remote rural areas, the Hauraki Gulf Islands or CBDs (polluter-pays applies in CBD areas but frequency of services isusually weekly). The implications of introducing a full cost recovery polluter-pays system for remote rural areas and the Hauraki Gulf Islands would mean that affordability of the services would be affected for some. When a service is not affordable this can lead to illegal dumping and other environmentally unsafe disposal practices. The question is therefore: How can this be managed to ensure affordability of the service? There are a number of options: 1. Full cost recovery from users 2. Subsidisation by other ratepayers 3. Targeted rate for those areas Any change to the current funding and service level policies would require public consultation. For further discussion of these funding options refer to section 6.
12 | P a g e
Page 21 of 192
4. 4.1. FUNDING POLICIES AND EFFECTS Funding mechanisms
There are a number of funding mechanisms used for waste management in New Zealand. These include: Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) - a charge that is paid by all ratepayers. Polluter-pays2-where the user determines the value of payment variable pricing. Targeted rates- where the council charges a rate for each separately used or inhabited part of a property based on provision of a particular service e.g. an organic waste collection. Differential targeted rate -where the targeted rate is based on the level of service chosen from a menu of services. Waste levy - funds received from the Government are distributed on a population basis from money collected nationally from a levy on waste disposed to landfill. Waste levy funds also include any funds received from a successful application to the Waste Minimisation Fund. The application and impact of these types of funding (with the exception of waste levy funding which is covered within section 7.5.) are outlined in a funding options assessment in Appendix A to this paper. 4.2. Effects of charging for household refuse collection
There are a range of different types of charging systems available for household refuse collection. The effects of different levels of charges are related to the different types of systems. Although there are many potential variants of each system, the basic types of systems are: Bag based-under these systems users purchase official bags that have a charge for collection built into the cost. These are the simplest types of systems and are the most widely used in New Zealand. Volume based- these systems involve users paying an annual (or other time period) fee for a given size of wheelie bin. Different sizes of wheelie bin usually attract different fee levels. A small number of local authorities in New Zealand use these systems (e.g. Selwyn DC, South Taranaki DC [for garden waste]). These types of systems tend to be the least effective in terms of waste minimisation as once the service is purchased the incentive is to maximise its use. Pay per pickup- householders pay on the basis of the number of collections that get picked up. There may also be variable charges for each pick-up based on bin size. This requires accurate recording systems, and regular (e.g. quarterly) billing. As the incentive is to put the bins out only when they are full this system can reduce set-out rates making collections relatively efficient. It is a reasonably effective type of system in terms of waste minimisation. Pay by weight- householders pay on the basis of the weight of the bins that get collected. This requires accurate recording and weighing systems as well as billing systems. These types of systems are generally the most effective in terms of waste minimisation but can be
(Source: Auckland Waste Officers Forum minutes 310310)

13 | P a g e
Page 22 of 192
very costly due to the additional weighing recording and billing systems. Weighing may also slow down collections adding to system cost.3 In general the smaller the increments that are able to be charged by the system, the more price sensitivity there is within the system. Volume based systems are the least price sensitive, while weight based are the most price sensitive, with bag and pay per pickup systems in between. In terms of calculating the waste reduction impacts of polluter-pays systems it should be noted that, while charging will reduce the quantity of residual waste collected, how that reduction is comprised can be quite complex. For example a report in the Netherlands by Proietti cites a particular study conducted for the VROM (The Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment) by KPMG in 1995-1996.4 This reported a 12 to 30% reduction in household refuse owing to polluter-pays schemes, including: 6 to 8% due to improved sorting (for recycling) by householders 3 to 10% due to unintended activity (such as waste tourism5, illegal dumping etc) 3 to 12% due to genuine prevention measures (calculated).
This indicates that polluter pays systems squeeze waste in a number of directions. The users response will vary according to a range of factors including scheme type, the availability of alternative routes, education, and enforcement. The literature does however clearly show that charging for household waste moves material from refuse to kerbside recycling. Beyond this however, changes in flows of material caused by charging schemes are generally poorly understood. 5. 5.1. ECONOMIC INCENTIVES Economic incentives to reduce waste
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environments preface to Changing behaviour: Economic instruments in the management of waste PCE 2006, Wellington PCE highlighted the fact that economic instruments for managing waste have not been used to their full potential in New Zealand. A number of councils use polluter-pays charges to manage waste collection and disposal, however when some councils tried to introduce other forms of economic incentives i.e. local levies, they were challenged in the courts. 5.2. Incentives that will affect Auckland waste charges
In addition to the use of polluter-pays charges, the introduction of a national waste levy and the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme costs will impact on future costs for waste services in Auckland.
3 4
Some modern systems are able to calculate weights while the bin is in motion avoiding the need to slow down collections. Stefano Proietti (2000), The Application of Local Taxes and Fees for the Collection of Household Waste: Local Authority Jurisdiction and Practice in Europe, Report for the Association of Cities for Recycling, Brussels: ACR Waste Tourism: the practice of avoiding full cost of waste by taking it somewhere else, e.g. to cheaper site in another council area or an unofficial site.
14 | P a g e
Page 23 of 192
5.2.1. Waste levy and ETS impact
At $10 per tonne, the waste levy does not provide an economic disincentive to waste at a level that promotes a significant behavioural shift. Internationally, levies have tended to increase steadily over time once introduced. If this occurs, the levy will become an increasingly more effective tool for minimising waste to landfill. As the landfill rates increase with the waste levy, this will serve to incentivise alternatives to landfill. The other possible benefit is that if the waste levy increases, the Auckland Councils own levy allocation may increase, providing additional funding to support waste minimisation initiatives at a local level. Any levy increases, when combined with the anticipated cost impact from 2013 of the new Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) on waste to landfill, will create a greater economic incentive for waste generation to be avoided, and for councils to divert waste to beneficial use. 5.2.2. Landfill disposal rates
Waste disposal rates at sanitary landfills in the Auckland/Waikato region range from $40 to $100 per tonne depending on the size of the disposal contract and which landfill is used. The Auckland Council and its ratepayers will benefit financially if they can find cost-effective, sustainable methods of diverting materials from landfill to beneficial use thereby avoiding the increasing costs of waste disposal. As the cost of landfilling increases over time, this will improve the economic viability of alternatives to landfill, such as waste minimisation services. Waste disposal prices vary throughout the region. Table 5.2 below shows average costs of waste disposal at transfer stations:
Table 5.2 Average cost of waste disposal at transfer stations
Vehicle
Car S/wagon, 4WD max 150kg Trailer/Ute/Van Per tonne Minimum Charge
Average price at transfer station (as at Jan 2011)

$18.63 $28.25 $34.66 $110.42 $49.33
6.
EXAMPLES OF WASTE MANAGEMENT FUNDING BY OTHER COUNCILS IN NEW ZEALAND
In addition to the former councils funding examples discussed in section 2, some selected examples illustrating other councils waste management funding for multi-bin systems are described in this section. 6.1. Christchurch City Council targeted rate/general rates
Christchurch City Council funds waste management and minimisation through a targeted rate. This is applied as a uniform targeted rate to every rating unit (or separately occupied part) and funds recycling and organic waste collection and disposal. A separate targeted rate is charged to those rating units on Banks Peninsula who use a refuse depot instead of the kerbside collection.
15 | P a g e
Page 24 of 192
The residual cost of refuse minimisation and refuse disposal is funded by general rates. 6.2. Timaru District Council differential targeted rate
Timaru District households pay a targeted rate for a 3-bin collection service or a higher rate for a 3-bin service that includes a larger capacity residual waste bin. 6.3. Selwyn District Council differential targeted rate
Selwyn District funds waste management and minimisation through a differential targeted rate. Selwyn provides a bin refuse collection service offering a selection of receptacles, which is funded using differential targeted rates based on the service type. Ratepayers have a choice of 240L or 80L mobile garbage bins (MGB) or a prepaid refuse bag for residual waste collection. The fees are structured to incentivise the uptake of the 80L refuse bin in combination with a 240L organics (food and green waste) collection. Together these services are priced lower than the targeted rate per annum for a single 240L refuse MGB. Funding of waste service in Selwyn District is provided as follows: Service
Targeted waste management rate 60 L recyclables crate Organic waste ( food and garden waste) 240L MRB 60 L rubbish bag 80L MGB for residual waste 240L MGB for residual waste
Comments
Compulsory for all households on the collection route Compulsory for all households on the collection route Optional service urban areas Targeted rate Optional service. Bags available for purchase Optional service. Targeted rate Optional service. Targeted rate
7.
PREFERRED FUTURE WASTE MANAGEMENT FUNDING FOR THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL Priorities in considering funding
7.1.
Amalgamation of the Auckland councils presents an opportunity for waste services to be standardised and rationalised. Ideally this will lead to cost savings and improved recycling and waste minimistion performance across the region. This raises a number of considerations: The kerbside and infrastructure services offered to ratepayers The appropriate level of service The extent to which the service is funded through rates or on a polluter- pays basis. A polluter-pays system for refuse collection and disposal encourages waste minimisation, but may create a risk of increased illegal dumping, and also raises questions of distributional impacts (i.e. proportionately impacting low income households). Regardless of the level of service, there will be a cost involved in providing standardised receptacles and services to households. Tendering of Auckland-wide contracts may create opportunities for cost savings
16 | P a g e
Page 25 of 192
7.2. What are the limitations/issues?
There are a number of limitations/issues related to the provision of a uniform level of service and funding. These include: if a service is removed there is likely to be a need to replace it with an alternative affordability of services for all waste receptacles i.e. wheelie bins or bags funding of services in remote locations fairness assessment of the need for any additional infrastructure some household requirements are different (would a second bin for a larger household be charged for?) commercial requirements are different from residential (require greater frequency/receptacle capacity) maintaining councils market share6 if there is to be an opt-in or opt-out of council-provided services the risk and practicality of presenting funding and service delivery options to the public at a time of significant change. Polluter-pays or rates-funded waste services Funding implications the impacts of Rates Vs. Polluter
7.3. 7.3.1.
On the latest financial data available at the time of writing pays funding options are as mentioned below: Polluter-pays - rates reduction
To move the entire city to a polluter pays funded refuse collection service and inorganic collection service the reduction in rates would be approximately $30,600,000 per annum. Rates-funded increase To move the entire city to a rates funded Refuse Collection service, and a yearly inorganic rates funded collection service the additional requirement on rates would be approximately a $16,500,000 per annum. This additional increase is not for any new services but merely reflects a change in funding mechanism from a polluter-pays charging system to a rates funded charging system and streamlining services in the region including service provision for Rodney. Capital asset acquisitions Additional funding requirement would be necessary for any additional services (e.g. for bin requirements and additional facilities (if required)). 7.3.2. Implications of polluter-pays services
There are a number of implications to residents should polluter-pays be introduced for all residual waste collection services provided by the council.
6
Council maintaining market share on its collection services is particularly important where the refuse collection service is polluter-pays a loss of market share in this instance results in loss of income which pays for the service and which can be used to cross subsidise recycling services. Market share is also important from a waste minimisation perspective as if households migrate to private waste services the opportunity to constrain the users residual waste capacity is lost.
17 | P a g e
Page 26 of 192
Impact on households
Depending on the services provided, it is expected that future council-offered waste management and minimisation services will allow ratepayer choice including how much they wish to pay for residual waste collection. Polluter-pays is considered by some territorial authorities to be the fairest approach to charging for waste collection as it connects the charge directly with the volume on a regular basis. Social issues tenanted properties Polluter-pays would see costs transferred from landlords to tenants. Sectors of the community with higher levels of waste will face higher costs. In many cases these two groups coincide. Experience from those councils that have introduced polluter-pays services is that no compensation is made through the lowering of rents by landlords when the change takes place. In some of the former council districts e.g. Manukau there are a significant proportion of households that are tenanted. Furthermore an analysis of the relationship between waste generation, household numbers and income indicates that those that generate a larger proportion of waste will also have the greatest difficulty in paying for it. This means that the introduction of polluter-pays for waste management would impose new costs on approximately one-third of that former councils community who are least able to afford it. There is risk that a proportion of the community may not easily afford polluter-pays, especially those renting.7 There are options available to the council to soften the impact of introducing polluterpays and minimise potential adverse anti-social behavior e.g. illegal dumping. These include offering enhanced or additional services to divert waste from landfill e.g. organic (food and/or green waste) collection, extend the range of recyclables collected or collect all dry recyclables, and provide educational programmes. It is noted that a bagged collection is widely regarded as the easiest and cheapest option to implement. Whilst some health and safety concerns have been noted these would be minimised with the implementation of new diversion initiatives such as an organics collection reducing the amount of residual waste left in the bag. Economic issues A significant issue is that of private companies undercutting the councils service and thereby impacting on the viability and costs of the service. Private companies can offer a service for only one waste stream and/or in only the profitable areas thereby leaving the council to service more expensive areas. This therefore reduces the ability of the council to generate income to subsidise its other services and undermining waste reduction efforts. This issue could be managed by regulation either a bylaw banning kerbside collection of commingled waste or through a licensing provision in a bylaw requiring private collectors to provide recycling services with refuse collection. To be effective, an increased number of enforcement officers with a clear mandate to enforce the bylaw, would also be required. A change in receptacle use from a bag to bin or vice versa would have cost impacts either through the redundancy of bins (unless they are used for the introduction of an additional service e.g. organics collection) or the need to purchase bins. In terms of calculating the waste reduction impacts of polluter-pays systems, while charging will reduce the quantity of residual waste collected, how that reduction is comprised can be quite complex. This can be due to improved sorting (for recycling) by householders, unintended activity (such as waste tourism, illegal dumping etc) and
7
Polluter-pays Discussion Paper (2004)
18 | P a g e
Page 27 of 192
genuine prevention measures. The move to greater recycling may impact on the need for additional infrastructure e.g. Materials Recovery Facility capacity. In remote locations such as the Hauraki Gulf Islands, special consideration is required as to whether these residents would be expected to pay for the full cost of the service or would the services be subsidised by other residents across the region using the collection service. A separate waste plan or section of the waste plan for the Gulf islands may be necessary to cater for the unique issues faced by island communities. Similarly in rural areas changes to the collection service provided need to be appropriate and cost effective i.e. drop offs rather than kerbside collection. Environmental issues The experience of some councils following the introduction of polluter-pays services, is the resulting increase in illegal dumping by those that are either not familiar with a change to current services or those wishing to avoid payment for the service. The handling of illegal dumping offences is covered by legislation under the Litter Act and council bylaws. The council would need to implement an awareness campaign prior to the introduction of any change and may need to increase enforcement/illegal dumping removal for a period of time until the system was fully operational. 7.3.3. Implications of rates-funded services
There are a number of implications to residents should rates-funded services be introduced for all residual waste collection services provided by the council. The level of impact will be driven by the type of rates funding e.g. whether there is a uniform targeted rate or differential targeted rate, and whether it is based on choice of size of bin/bag or level of service. Social issues Dependent on the services provided it is expected that future council-offered waste management and minimisation services will allow ratepayer choice for residual waste collection but not necessarily on the amount that the ratepayer is required to pay. Only ratepayers pay the charges for waste collection with tenants paying indirectly. Due to the fact that uniform receptacles are used some users complain that they are paying for volume that they do not require while other larger households may require greater capacity. The council would still need to consider whether it will provide for a policy of opting-out of the service e.g. for multi-unit dwellings, or including some properties that are not paying for the service through rates e.g. community group facilities. Operational issues Billing for services is simple as it forms part of the rates bill with negligible administrative costs. If different levels of service are offered through a differential targeted rate then this is more complex to administer. Economic issues A rates-funded collection service reduces the market issues of a polluter-pays system as the system is compulsory. The cost and revenue are secure and easy to predict. A change in receptacle use from a bag to bin or vice versa would have cost impacts either through the redundancy of bins (unless they are used for the introduction of an additional service e.g. organics collection) or the need to purchase bins. This funding of services enables consistent services to be provided across varied communities. For remote locations and CBDs, if a rates-funded service is provided, it is subsidised by other ratepayers.
19 | P a g e
Page 28 of 192
Environmental issues
In terms of calculating the waste reduction impacts of rates-funded systems, unless the receptacle size is reduced there is generally less incentive to reduce waste. Although it is noted that with a targeted rate system, for comprehensive services to be designed (refuse, recycling and organics) with appropriately-sized receptacles to encourage good recycling behaviour and waste minimisation. 7.4. Standardisation of services
Regardless of the level of service provided by the council, there will be a cost involved in providing standard receptacles to households if services are standardised for the region. A number of the individual former councils did not offer standardised services, with a number of receptacle and capacity types provided to suit the needs of residents and businesses. Some cost savings could be achieved by the redistribution of receptacles e.g. MGBs for use as organic waste receptacles should a new service be introduced, although there may be issues of colour and/or size. It is expected that when future Auckland-wide contracts (still likely to be multiple contracts for a particular service due to risk and logistical issues) are tendered, this will create an opportunity for cost savings through economies of scale and market response. 7.5. 7.5.1. Funding availability Council funding
Budgeted income and costs for Auckland Councils for waste management and minimisation are set out in the table below:
Table 7.1: Budgeted income and costs former councils
$m
Income Rates - targeted User charges* Other Costs Operating costs Capex Depreciation Funded from general rates
2009/10 Plan $
46.8 19.7 4.6 71.1 (85.5) (7.5) (1.1) (94.1) 23.0
2010/11 Proposed $
47.5 20.1 5.2 72.8 (89.7) (3.5) (1.4) (94.6) 21.8
2011/12 Proposed $
53.8 20.4 5.2 79.4 (88.2) (3.9) (1.6) (93.7) 14.3
Source: ATA Discovery Information *Incorporates transfer station charges
7.5.2.
Waste levy funding
The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 aims to encourage waste minimisation and decrease the disposal of waste to landfill. There are a number of tools set out under the Act to achieve this aim, a key tool being a levy applied to each tonne of material received at a landfill for disposal. Currently this levy is set at $10 per tonne, with the expectation that the rate will increase with time.
20 | P a g e
Page 29 of 192
The landfill levy will increase costs to the council for disposal, with the expectation that cost increases will be passed down to the waste producer (to drive behavioural change). It is expected that waste levy funding that the council will receive will be approximately $4,375,000 per annum based on the assumption population of 1,400,000 x $3.12/person. In addition to the councils share of the levy funds it may also make applications on its own, with industry and/or other council(s) to the Waste Minimisation Fund for additional funding for specific projects. The levy funds received must be spent on projects in accordance with the councils Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP). The initiatives that the Auckland Council will spend its levy funds on have not yet been identified. The draft WMMP will show funding sources for all actions including those that are waste levy funded. 7.6. Future decision making and public consultation
The Auckland Council will develop a funding policy over the next two years. The funding of waste services will be considered as part of this work. Public consultation in accordance with the special consultative procedure set out in the LGA 2002 (S 83) will be required for any change in the levels of service or funding mechanism.
21 | P a g e
APPENDIX A
FUNDING OPTIONS ASSESSMENT RESIDUAL WASTE
Funding Option
Social/cultural impact Operational issues

n/a No transparency of costs
Economic issues, costs/benefits
Contribution to NZWS and Council targets/Hierarchy position

Not aligned with achieving increased waste reduction
Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) n/a Can be used combined with a differential targeted rate. Reduces market issues of a polluter-pays system as the system is compulsory. Costs and revenue are secure and easy to predict. Database required for tracking and managing bins (if used). Billing is simple, forms part of rates bill administrative costs negligible. Reduction health and safety issues if use automated bin system.
Only ratepayers pay the charge - indirect for tenants.
Uniform targeted rate
Only ratepayers pay the charge - indirect for tenants. Some larger households may require greater capacity. Some users may complain about paying for receptacle volume they do not use and want an opt out provision. Can be used to incentivise service uptake. Can be used combined with a uniform targeted rate.
Not aligned with achieving increased waste reduction. If receptacle size is reduced then there may be some waste minimisation benefit. Volume is static, less incentive to reduce waste however volume is limited. Emphasis required on educating about waste reduction. If different bin size options are available its more complex to administer than a single size option. Reduction in health and safety issues if using automated bin system. Some areas may not be suitable for bin collection e.g. narrow streets, rights of way due to bin storage, vehicle access. Choice of receptacle size/level of service may promote some level of waste reduction.
Differential targeted rate e.g. based on choice of size of bin/bag or level of service
Page 30 of 192
Only ratepayers pay the charge - indirect for tenants. Some occupiers may complain about storage of bins. Users will have a choice of bin capacity and should accommodate most household sizes. System will require resolution of issues for multi-tenancies. Bags can create litter issues. Some level of illegal dumping may occur. Council relinquishes control of its waste stream open to market competition. Revenue is insecure and can fluctuate. Bags inexpensive to purchase
Polluter-pays
All occupiers use the system, encourages direct householder responsibility. Bags require pre-purchase. Bag requires less storage space than bin.
Costs associated with distribution of bags/bins and on-going database management for bins. Risks associated with retail bag sales.
Aligned with achieving increased waste reduction and use of recycling services. If bags are used - no limit on number occupiers can purchase, which does not
22 | P a g e
Funding Option

compared to bin purchase for the council. For bin requires link to property database for charges. If invoicing direct to occupiers may be increased costs of recovery from those who do not pay. If a bag service is adopted then current bins would need to be used for other services or would be redundant. Health and safety issues associated with manual collection of bags (however risks can be minimised if employed with bylaw regulation and other waste minimisation initiatives e.g. organics collection). May require change of receptacle type for some households if bag service replaced by bin.

encourage waste reduction.
Bags only placed out when full so polluter-pays for volume needed. Those occupiers with current bin services may be reluctant to change to a bag collection should that be adopted. Extensive education programme required to inform occupiers who do not currently have a polluter-pays system. Responsive to all household sizes i.e. larger families can purchase more bags. Some level of illegal dumping may occur. Requires chips (RF tags) installed in bins. Database for tracking and managing bins is required Bag cost currently includes pay per lift.
Targeted rate with a pay per lift charge
Polluter-pays by volume aligned with waste reduction concept and use of council recycling collection services.
Page 31 of 192
Billing system new to users may be some backlash. If large capacity bins are not emptied often waste may accumulate causing nuisance. May encourage user overfilling depending on receptacle size. May cause an increase in illegal dumping in neighbours bins. Issues in multi-unit tenancies where refuse difficult to track and manage. Some level of illegal dumping may occur. Ratepayers/landlords will have to recover costs from tenants on a regular basis.
Ratepayers/landlords will have to recover costs from tenants on a regular basis. Billing system must track data via collection vehicles. Exposure to market competition may be limited depending on funding structure. Can be used as an economic incentive. Allow choice in terms of costs paid and service provider. Shows transparency of costs.
Combination targeted rate with a pay by lift and a pay by weight
Billing system new to users - may be some backlash If large capacity bins are
Database for tracking and managing bins required Requires chips (RF tags)
Well aligned with achieving increased waste reduction Promotes use of recycling
23 | P a g e
Funding Option

Billing system must track data via collection vehicles. Invoices will have three components cost involved in data management, establishing and maintaining invoicing system. Possibility for more complicated issues with nonpayment and debt collection. Exposure to market competition may be limited depending on funding structure. installed in bins. Pay by weight systems not considered suitable for plant (side-arm) utilised in NZ no certified weighing system available. Accessibility issues may result on requirement for different types of collection method in some areas. Operational efficiency may be reduced weighing systems require more time at kerbside.

services. Accessibility issues may result on requirement for different types of collection method in some areas.
not emptied often waste may accumulate causing nuisance. May cause an increase in illegal dumping in neighbours bins Issues in multi-unit tenancies where refuse difficult to track and manage.
Page 32 of 192
24 | P a g e
Page 33 of 192
Page 34 of 192
HOUSEHOLD RESIDUAL WASTE COLLECTION
Page 35 of 192
Page 36 of 192
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 2. 3. 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5. 5.1 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 6. DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 Service configuration ........................................................................................................... 1 Funding mechanisms........................................................................................................... 1 Service delivery ................................................................................................................... 2 COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 2 POLLUTER-PAYS OPTIONS ............................................................................................... 4 Polluter-pays systems with bags ......................................................................................... 4 Polluter-pays systems with re-usable bins ........................................................................... 5 Volume-based charging .................................................................................................. 5 Frequency-based charging ............................................................................................. 5 Weight-based charging ................................................................................................... 6 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 6 SERVICE PROVISION ISSUES ........................................................................................... 6 Frequency of collections ...................................................................................................... 6 Impact of residual waste collection system.......................................................................... 7 Health and safety ................................................................................................................. 8 Street scene issues ............................................................................................................. 8 Private sector services......................................................................................................... 9 OPTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 10 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 10 Option 1 Align charging for current collection systems ................................................... 10 Description .................................................................................................................... 10 Social/cultural issues..................................................................................................... 11 Environmental impacts ..................................................................................................11 Economic issues, costs/benefits ................................................................................... 11 Operational issues ........................................................................................................ 11 Option 2 Polluter pays bag system ................................................................................. 12 Description .................................................................................................................... 12 Social/cultural issues..................................................................................................... 12 Environmental issues .................................................................................................... 12 Economic issues, costs/benefits ................................................................................... 12 Operational issues ........................................................................................................ 13 Option 3: Introduce rates-funded fortnightly wheelie bin collection ................................... 13 Description .................................................................................................................... 13 Social/cultural issues..................................................................................................... 13 Environmental issues .................................................................................................... 13 Economic issues, costs/benefits ................................................................................... 14 Operational issues ........................................................................................................ 14 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION........................................................................................ 14
Page 37 of 192

HOUSEHOLD RESIDUAL WASTE COLLECTION 1. DESCRIPTION
The council has an obligation under the Local Government Act 2002 to include in its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, provision for residual waste collection (although the council is not obligated to provide the service itself.) There was a notable variation in the management of residual waste collections amongst the former Auckland councils. In the Rodney District, there were no council provided residual waste collections at all. Amongst the council-provided collections there was variance in the receptacles provided (sometimes there was variation within a single district) and in the extent to which polluter-pays or targeted rates were applied. It is worthwhile making a distinction at this point between service configuration, how the service is funded, and how the service is delivered. These distinctions are expanded below. 1.1 Service configuration
Service configuration is essentially the service that is delivered to the householder. It consists principally of the type and size of receptacle (or number of receptacles), and the frequency of their collection. The two main types of receptacle are: Bags- These are typically 60L polyethylene sacks. The council or service provider may offer official sacks or the householder may provide their own. Collection frequency for bags is usually once per week, but may be more frequent in city centres. Wheelie Bins- These can come in a range of sizes with the most common being 60L, 80L, 120L, 140L and 240L. Wheelie bins are usually collected weekly or fortnightly. Funding mechanisms
1.2
There are two main types of funding mechanism, rates-funded or polluter-pays, with a range of variations within each. These include the following: Rates-funded - Collection services can be funded either through a general rate, a uniform annual charge or a targeted rate. The main difference between these approaches is the degree of relationship and transparency between the charge and the level of service provision. General rate funded service has no direct relationship, a uniform annual general charge applies a consistent charge to every household for waste, and a targeted rate allows for variation of service levels across the councils district. Polluter-Pays- There are a wide range of polluter-pays mechanisms. mechanisms used for household refuse collection include: The main
o pre-paid bags or stickers; o wheelie bins charged on an annual basis (often with some variable element based on the size of the bin the bigger the bin the higher the charge) o wheelie bins charged on a perpickup basis (also often with some variable element based on the size of the bin the bigger the bin the higher the charge); or o wheelie bins charged on the weight of refuse collected. These charging mechanisms are discussed further below.
1|P a g e
Page 38 of 192
1.3
Service delivery
The two main ways that services can be delivered are through a council-operated or contracted service, or through private collections. In many areas in New Zealand private collections operate alongside council collections usually offering large capacity (e.g. 240L wheelie bins) to those households that desire the additional capacity and/or convenience of a large wheelie bin. A key fundamental decision that must be made by the council is whether or not to offer a council service. It is a traditional area of activity for the council and is often expected by ratepayers. There are also a number of advantages to council provision including: economies of scale resulting in lower costs for householders (whether this is passed on through rates or user charges) uniformity of service provision to households ensuring equity across all areas reduction in collection vehicle traffic.
The principle advantages of the council not providing a service is that the cost is removed from the rates and the need to manage and administer the contracts is avoided. 2. COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPACTS
The choice of residual waste collection system (receptacle, frequency, and funding) can have a significant impact on the success of other waste management initiatives. This is demonstrated clearly by the dramatic increase in recyclables collected when Auckland City downsized their residual waste receptacle for much of the city from a 240L wheelie bin to a 120L wheelie bin (still collected weekly)1. In general, systems that offer greater capacity for rubbish disposal result in more waste collected through the council service. Conversely, restricting capacity serves to reduce waste and encourage recycling/composting. Reducing the frequency of service is one way of reducing capacity (assuming households have a fixed bin size) while also reducing collection costs and the ease and convenience of the service. Fortnightly collections therefore collect less waste than weekly collections. If people have to pay for their waste in direct proportion to the amount that they dispose of this provides a powerful incentive to reduce waste and recycle. In general, weight-based charging systems provide the greatest direct link between quantity and cost and are the most effective at reducing waste. Pre-paid bag based systems are also effective. Frequency based collections are less effective as the temptation is to fill the bin as full as possible each time it is put out for collection. Finally, volume based systems which have a regular charge are least effective and may not incentivise reduction at all as once the charge has been paid the incentive is to fill the bin as full as possible. An illustration of the impact of these different types of systems can be gained from an examination of the residual waste per capita for each of the former Auckland councils. This is shown in the table below:
Auckland City Waste Assessment (2009), prepared for the council by Eunomia Research & Consulting. Unpublished.
2|P a g e
Page 39 of 192
Former council
Residual waste collected2 (kg/ annum/head of population)

186 175
Collection service description
Funding method
Manukau City Auckland City
Unlimited number of bags placed out each week 120L wheelie bin collected weekly Mixture of bag and bin user pays services Weekly polluter-pays bags Polluter-pays pre-paid bags, weekly Bag collection with polluter pays stickers (except Tuakau which has 120L wheelie bins collected weekly) Polluter-pays pre-paid bags weekly
Fully rates funded Targeted rate (one charge per property receiving service) 100% private collections no council refuse service Fully polluter-pays Fully polluter-pays Largely polluter-pays
Rodney District Papakura District North Shore City Franklin District
161 162 142 133
Waitakere City
134
Fully polluter-pays
Source: Composition of Kerbside Refuse from Residential Properties in Auckland (Oct 2010) WasteNot Consulting
From the above table it can be seen that Manukau, which provides unlimited capacity at no direct charge to the householder, has the highest level of waste per head. Auckland, which provides a weekly wheelie bin service, has the next highest although the level of waste is constrained by the size of the bin. Rodney which has no council service and is private user pays also has quite high waste arisings. The levels are high because although many households use a bag-based service (which constrains waste volume), a significant proportion use wheelie bins on a fixed charge basis (and so waste from these households is high). What is clear is that the lowest levels of waste generation are all from polluter-pays bag systems, reflecting the effective incentive this system provides to recycle and reduce waste. The former councils household residual waste composition data also supports the argument that polluter-pays systems divert waste from landfill as opposed to the waste taking a different route than through the household residual waste collection service. For example, a refuse bag collected in the Manukau Citys kerbside refuse collection (rates funded) included 18.6% greenwaste compared to the Waitakere City (with polluter-pays) where refuse bags included 4.2% greenwaste. Several factors may influence the choice of a residual waste collection system: The New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS) supports polluter-pays principles, and so a residual waste collection system should ideally provide for polluter-pays to be implemented Councils have an obligation to consider the waste hierarchy when planning waste services. A residual waste collection system should be chosen that encourages waste reduction, reuse and recycling Implications for both public and operator health and safety should be considered
The kg/annum/head of population depicted in the table above includes not only waste collected as part of the council-provided collection services but also an estimate of privately collected kerbside residual waste with the exception of the data for Franklin District, which does not include privately collected waste .
3|P a g e
Page 40 of 192
3.
POLLUTER-PAYS OPTIONS
A discussion of the key considerations around polluter-pays refuse collection is provided in this section as there are a range of options for how polluter-pays might be implemented. This section discusses polluter-pays only so far as this has implications for the choice of residual waste collection system. Options for funding services are discussed in detail in the funding paper in appendix A. Not providing a council residual waste collection at all might seem to provide the ultimate solution in polluter-pays services. However if the primary goal is to provide an economic incentive to reduce waste, then this option may not necessarily achieve this. For example from a private collection operators perspective there is an incentive to offer bulk discounts i.e. the more that is disposed of the lower the unit cost. As a consequence, the incentive is to dispose of more rather than less. Further, in the former Rodney District where no council-provided services existed, costs for services in rural areas were higher or, in some cases, services were not provided at all. The Rodney District Council had to provide subsidies to ensure that residents in rural areas had access to a similar range of services as those in more high-density areas. The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requires the council to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within its district. This includes being cost-effective. This makes it clear that the Government views pricing as a tool to reward those who reduce, reuse, or recycle more of their waste, and to encourage better waste management as a result. Therefore polluter pays services must be able to acknowledge in some way the amount of residual waste that is being collected from a customer. It is worth noting also that all major political parties in New Zealand support polluter-pays or user-pays charging for residual waste. There are various ways to do this, and these can be categorised by the type of receptacle used by the collection system either single-use bags, or re-use bins (usually in Auckland, wheelie bins of various sizes). 3.1 Polluter-pays systems with bags
This system is already in operation in the former Waitakere, North Shore, Papakura and Franklin Council areas, as well as a partial system in some parts of Auckland City. Waitakere and North Shore both used a pre-paid bag for residual waste collections. As of May 2010, these had a recommended retail price (RRP) of $1.60 (40L) and $1.80 (60L) in the North Shore, and RRP of $2.00 (60L) in Waitakere. Auckland City operated a combination targeted rate/pre-paid bag system in the inner CBD. A package of 104x60L residual waste bags and 156x60L recycling bags was provided for the standard targeted rate. In the 2009/10 rating year, this uniform charge was $183. Inner CBD customers could also purchase additional packs of 2x60L residual waste bags and 3xrecycling bags for a RRP of $6.95. The pricing of these packs was deliberately set to make them noncompetitive with the private collection market; largely to ensure that businesses did not use the council collection for other than residential-type waste. On Waiheke Island, the former Auckland City provided a choice of a 140L wheelie bin, collected weekly, or 52x60L official residual waste bags, for the same uniform charge outlined above. This service began on 30 November 2009, and the impact of offering the choice between a wheelie bin or bags has not yet been assessed. Additional 60L residual waste bags can be purchased for$3.50. Operating a polluter-pays system with single-use bags is relatively straightforward. The price per bag is set (usually through the annual plan process) and bags are provided either by the council,
4|P a g e
Page 41 of 192
through retail outlets, or a combination of the two at that price. Where retail outlets are used, the price can only be a RRP and as such can vary up or down from that point. The price point can be set taking into consideration a number of factors, including the desire to encourage better waste minimisation and management, and account for the full social, environmental and economic costs. An alternative way to provide this system is by selling stickers or tokens of some kind instead of bags as per the North Shore system. This system can have some advantages as a pack of stickers can take up less space than an equivalent pack of bags, and the customer has the option of using their preference of bag for residual waste, for example, some might prefer a heavier grade plastic than that used for the official council bags. This system also has some difficulties, such as customers taking advantage of the flexibility by using far larger bags than requested. It can also be more difficult for the operator collecting the bags to identify those intended for the council collection amongst those that have been dumped illegally, or intended for another private collector. 3.2 Polluter-pays systems with re-usable bins
Given that the vast majority of re-usable receptacles currently in use in the Auckland region are wheelie bins of various sizes, this discussion focuses on the options for these. Currently there are no frequency or weight based polluter-pays council operated systems operating with wheelie bins in New Zealand. Some of the former Auckland councils charged a targeted rate for waste services, which included the residual waste collection from wheelie bins (as discussed above for Auckland City). There are several options for implementing a polluter-pays system with wheelie bins, outlined here in order of increasing complexity and cost. 3.2.1 Volume-based charging
Under a volume-based charging system different size wheelie bins could be offered at varying targeted rates3. The opportunity for waste reduction occurs only when the householder is making the decision on what bin size to purchase. Once a particular size of bin is in use the incentive is to maximise the space that has been paid for thus negating the intended incentive to minimise waste. Although the least effective of the charging options, this option could be offered with relatively few financial and operational impacts (considered in more detail later in this section). 3.2.2 Frequency-based charging
A charging schedule could be developed with the existing wheelie bins or a variable size wheelie bin offering, with the customer charged per lift. This requires each wheelie bin to be uniquely identifiable and attached to a certain customer. Wheelie bins in use in Auckland all have serial numbers printed on the side, and in many cases they are already allocated to a specific customer or ratepayer through a database. The easiest way to operate this scheme from an operational perspective would be to retro-fit each wheelie bin with an electronic chip (know as a Radio Frequency Transmitter or RFT), which holds very basic information such as the serial number of the bin (much more information can be held than this, but would result in increased costs and administration). As the wheelie bin is emptied, an automatic reader on the trucks lifting arm scans the chip for the serial number, and relays this to a database4. The database would then
3
Selwyn District Council offer a bag option or 2 wheelie bin options $115 pa for an 80L bin weekly or $360 for a 240L http://www.selwyn.govt.nz/services/rubbish-refuse/fees-and-charges Bar codes can also be used but are more prone to damage that RFT tags
5|P a g e
Page 42 of 192
record the service against the customers record, enabling them to be charged on a periodic basis. 3.2.3 Weight-based charging
This involves fitting a weighing mechanism to the lifting arm, along with the RFT reader. This enables customers to be charged per lift by weight. It is the most costly system from an operational point of view, and also presents the greatest number of operational difficulties. There have historically been concerns that speed of collection may be affected as the systems may require the lifting arm to be stationary for the weight to be calculated accurately. Modern systems however apply an algorithm that takes account of the force applied during the lift to calculate the weight. Other issues include the fact that the weighing equipment is relatively costly and must be operationally reliable. Both of the latter two systems are in regular use in Europe. 3.3 Summary
Should the council choose to implement a polluter-pays scheme across the entire area, this is possible with the current combination of bag and bin-based services. A polluter-pays system with wheelie bins will probably be more expensive operationally and require additional administration from a database management and charging perspective. Implementing a polluter-pays system will require a shift in philosophy in some areas for example, Manukau City traditionally opposed polluter-pays on the grounds that lower socioeconomic groups have less ability to access services and are likely to dump material on the roadside if they are not able to afford to pay. This is a political decision about potentially conflicting priorities that would need to be considered carefully; such as consideration of the importance of ensuring access of disadvantaged groups to services, and maintaining clean streets over the drive to improve waste minimisation. 4. 4.1 SERVICE PROVISION ISSUES Frequency of collections
Although polluter-pays bag services are well established in New Zealand and as shown by the above data, are effective in promoting waste minimisation, there are some potential issues with this type of service, in particular the issue of equity as noted above, and the health and safety aspects of manual collections. One alternative that is widespread in the United Kingdom in particular and is also in place in a couple of centres in New Zealand is to reduce the frequency of residual waste collection. This is most effective as a waste minimisation measure when households have a fixed capacity provided (and so reducing the collection to once every two weeks instead of weekly effectively halves the capacity). This system is used in Timaru where the council offers a 140L wheelie bin collected fortnightly and the quantity of waste disposed of per person through the kerbside is approximately 110kg/yr.5 Similarly Christchurch City Council introduced a 120L fortnightly wheelie bin refuse
Gallagher B (2007) 321 Zero, Results and Experiences of the Timaru District Council 3 Bin Kerbside Collection. Paper presented to WasteMINZ Conference 07
6|P a g e
Page 43 of 192
collection and report approximately 96kg per capita per year being disposed of through the system.6These compare with a national average of 153kg/pp/yr.7 Thus while there is good evidence to suggest this system can be at least equally as effective as a polluter-pays bag service in terms of waste minimisation there a couple of issues that need to be considered as well. The principal issue is that reducing the frequency of collection raises potential for issues of odour and vermin if food waste is not collected separately. Introducing a fortnightly collection of residual waste is only advisable only if food waste is going to be collected on a more frequent basis alongside the system. Both Christchurch and Timaru offer weekly food and garden waste collection as part of their service package. There is also the issue of significant capital outlay required for the supply of organics bins to every household. 4.2 Impact of residual waste collection system
Research comparing various collection system combinations suggests that restricting access to residual waste collections (by reducing the size of the receptacle or frequency of collection) helps to maximise recycling rates.8 For example: a shift from a weekly to fortnightly residual waste collection has been estimated by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to increase participation and recognition of recycling collections, resulting in an increase in overall recycling collection yield of up to 42 kg per householder per year9. Similar effects have also been noted for organic waste collections.10 The table below shows the recycling rates of the former councils. The highest recycling rates are for those areas where there are polluter-pays bag collections. The exception to the pattern appears to be Franklin which has polluter-pays bag collections (but also a very high rate, of 50% of private collections) but the lowest recycling rate of the former authority areas. Recycling rate
Nth Shore Waitakere Papakura Auckland Rodney Manukau Franklin* 44% 41% 38% 35% 34% 31% 25%
Collection service
Polluter-pays bags - weekly Polluter-pays bags - weekly Polluter-pays bags - weekly 120L wheelie bin - weekly Mixed private collections - weekly Rates funded unlimited bags - weekly Polluter-pays bags - weekly
Source: Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment11
* Former Franklin area has since moved to 240L Recycling bin as of 1 Nov 2010
All other factors being equal, a residual waste collection system that restricts the householders capacity for disposal will make the most beneficial contribution to waste management and minimisation efforts generally. This could be done by reducing the size of the waste receptacle
6 7
10 11
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/homeliving/rubbish/wastestatistics.aspx Waste Not Consulting (2009) Household sector waste to landfill in New Zealand. Prepared for: Household Sustainability Programme Ministry for the Environment Eunomia Research & Consulting (2002), Maximising Recycling Rates, Targeting Residuals, report for the Community Recycling Network Waste & Resources Action Programme (2007), Alternative weekly collections guidance, available on www.wrap.org.uk. Waste & Resources Action Programme (2008), Kerbside Recycling: Indicative Costs & Performance, available on www.wrap.org.uk Waste & Resources Action Programme (2009), Food Waste Collection Guidance, available on www.wrap.org.uk Auckland Regional Council (2009), Auckland Waste Stocktake Auckland Region Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment. Prepared on behalf of Auckland Regional Council by Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd, Sinclair Knight Merz, and Waste Not Consulting Ltd
7|P a g e
Page 44 of 192
(as was implemented by Auckland City Council in 2001) or reducing the frequency of collections. The latter is uncommon in New Zealand, and would be problematic in our climate unless organic waste is removed from the residual waste stream. If however, a food waste or organic waste collection was introduced then residual waste collections could feasibly be reduced to a fortnightly frequency.12 4.3 Health and safety
Collections of residual waste from wheelie bins or similar reusable receptacles can be carried out using automated systems, such as trucks with automated mechanical arms. This can present fewer potential health and safety risks than collections from bags, which are usually collected manually. The issue of health and safety concerns around manual collections has been gaining prominence and has most recently been highlighted through the publication of a report commissioned by the WasteMINZ Health and Safety Sector Group.13 Although the report acknowledges some limitations with the data it concludes that: Clearly there is a marked difference in the injury rates between manual and automated collection methods, with manual methods more likely to result in injury. This evidence should be clearly communicated to councils and the waste industry and incorporated into the decision making process when they are selecting waste collection methods. On a health and safety basis, automated collections have advantages over manual collections as they reduce the exposure of workers to risk factors. However, there is also evidence to suggest that with properly designed and implemented systems, the risks associated with manual collections can be adequately managed14. As an example, with sufficient waste diversion initiatives such as food waste and recycling collections, combined with effective bylaws and regulation, the weight of residual waste will be reduced minimising risks associated with manual handling injuries. For this reason manual collections should not be discounted on health and safety grounds alone and in assessing the options the council would need to be satisfied that the management systems in place were sufficient to manage the risks. It will ultimately be a decision for the council as to whether any potential risks associated with manual collections are outweighed by the advantages inherent in non-automated collections. In respect of residual waste collection, the main advantage of a manual system over an automated system is that polluter-pays can be implemented for less cost and administrative burden with a manual collection system based on pre-paid bags. 4.4 Street scene issues
Wheelie bins are considered to reduce the incidence of dog-strike and resulting wind-blown litter, although it is noted that wheelie bins will occasionally tip over resulting in litter issues. Wheelie bins remain on the kerbside after collection until they are taken in by the householders. This results in some negative visual impact, although wheelie bins may be considered tidier and as having lower visual impact compared to bags. Conversely bags are removed from the kerbside immediately on collection reducing the period of time they present negative visual
12
13
14
This relationship is explored in more detail in report into options for beneficial processing of food waste as titled below: Morrison Low in association with Eunomia Research & Consulting (2009), Investigation into Options for Beneficial Processing of Food Waste, confidential report to the Organic Waste Working Group. Morrison Low Associates2010. An assessment of the health and safety costs and benefits of manual vs automated waste collections. Position report for WasteMINZ WRAP, 2009. Choosing the right recycling system.Banbury UK
8|P a g e
Page 45 of 192
impacts. In some urban areas where multi unit properties are present, large numbers of wheelie bins placed on kerbside for collection can cause both access and visual amenity issues. 4.5 Private sector services
The potential impact of private waste collection services on any efforts to institute a relatively uniform level of service for waste collection in Auckland also needs to be considered. Under the Commerce Act the private sector is able to offer waste collection services to households even where there is a service provided by the council. There are a number of reasons why households may choose to use private sector services. Often this is because the private sector service offers more capacity than the council service or greater convenience (in the form of wheelie bins). In the Auckland region there are a large number of private waste collection companies that provide household waste collections although the market is dominated by the two large companies, Transpacific Industries Group and EnviroWaste Services. The proportion of households using private collection services varies significantly across the former councils areas. The table below provides some estimates of the level of uptake of private services: Former council area
Manukau City Auckland City Rodney District Papakura District North Shore City Franklin District Waitakere City
Source: SWAP (October 2010)15
Estimate of uptake of private services

5% 17% 100% 13% 11% 16% 8%
What is notable is that uptake of private services varies widely. The lowest level of uptake is in the former Manukau City which reflects the ability for households to place out unlimited quantities at no direct charge. Generally the areas with the highest uptake of private services (excluding Rodney where there is no choice) predominantly offer polluter-pays bag services. It can be argued that where the council service is perceived to be cost effective and/or convenient then the demand for private services is limited. This is a significant issue to remain conscious of. If efforts are made to reduce waste through the type of refuse collection offered, this could simply have the effect of causing households to migrate to private sector services where there is currently less restriction on the quantities of waste that can be disposed. A council provided collection service must therefore strike a balance between encouraging waste minimisation and retaining customers. One of the keys to this is likely to be the package of services that are offered. In other words if the capacity and convenience of the refuse, recycling and organic waste collection service package as a whole is acceptable to householders, then they are less likely to seek private services for the residual waste.
15
SWAP Composition of Kerbside

9|P a g e
Page 46 of 192
5. 5.1
OPTIONS Introduction
On the basis of the research presented within this paper, three discussion options are put forward for aligning residual waste collection services across Auckland. Although not exhaustive these options provide an overview. These options were selected on the basis that they are capable of providing an incentive to reduce waste and support waste minimisation objectives, while being proven cost effective and practical to implement. The options are: 1. Maintain current service configurations but align charging mechanisms 2. Move to a polluter-pays bag service across Auckland 3. Move to a fortnightly wheelie bin service across Auckland Each of these options is discussed in more detail in the following sections. 5.2 5.2.1 Option 1 Align charging for current collection systems Description
This would require a review of all existing collection systems and funding arrangements, to ensure consistency across the Auckland region. As discussed earlier, this would require a significant shift in approach in some areas, such as Manukau where polluter-pays has traditionally been avoided and Rodney where a totally free market approach is followed. As far as waste management and minimisation is concerned, a polluter-pays system has significant advantages. However other aspects such as social and operational impacts need to be carefully considered. Given these caveats, an Auckland-wide polluter-pays waste service could be put in place under the existing collection arrangements, with the exception of Rodney where no council collection exists. Where polluter-pays bags are provided for collections, charges will need to be made consistent across the Auckland area. Where wheelie bins are used, this option becomes more complicated. One approach would be to assume that the capacity of a residual waste wheelie bin would be used to its maximum for each collection, and charge on that basis. This would result in the average former Auckland City householder paying between $166 and $208 per annum for the weekly collection of a 120L wheelie bin.16 This compares with a targeted rate charge of $183 for the 2009/10 year, although it is noted that this charge includes other waste services such as kerbside recycling and biennial inorganic waste collection. However many householders would point out that they do not fill their wheelie bin completely each week. So charging on this basis would probably result in dissatisfaction with residents who do not have access to a bag-based polluter pays scheme. Such a system may even have the opposite effect to that intended, leading to residents filling up their wheelie bins to maximum
16
This has been calculated using the pre-paid bag charges used by Waitakere and North Shore City Councils, and assuming a 120L MGB collected weekly is the equivalent of using two pre-paid 60L bags per week.
10 | P a g e
Page 47 of 192
capacity each week to ensure that they get value for money. One potential solution to this would be to offer residents the choice of a smaller bin (e.g. 80L) for a reduced fee. In practice the refuse charge would be administered not as a separately invoiced fee but as a targeted rate, and would therefore simply show up as a line item on the rates bill. For residents of the former Auckland City Council area this would not constitute any noticeable material change from the current system unless householders are specifically given the choice of bin size at variable cost on a regular basis (at least annually). 5.2.2 Social/cultural issues
The group that would be most affected by this change are those residents who currently do not have a polluter-pays residual waste system, and are in a lower socio-economic group. Changing from a rates funded system (where rates are based on property values) to a polluter-pays system will have the effect of transferring costs from those who live in high value properties to those in low value properties. Also significant will be that in the former Manukau City Council area, refuse charges are paid through rates and so are not directly paid by all users. The council will need to balance the potential waste minimisation and management benefits (and strategic alignment at a national level) of a polluter-pays system, against the social impact of transferring cost to lower income families when making any decisions. 5.2.3 Environmental impacts
The environmental impact of changing services can be estimated somewhat by comparing the performance (in kilograms of residual waste collected per head of population) of the former councils and the various residual waste collection systems used. Clearly there are other factors that influence how much residual waste is placed out for collection such as household size, the scope of alternative services (such as kerbside recycling or a residential organics waste collection), and enforcement of system abuse (for example businesses using the household collection service). However this comparison suggests that the potential impact of shifting from a rates-funded service to a polluter-pays service could be a significant reduction in residual waste for those areas of the region not currently on a polluter-pays system. 5.2.4 Economic issues, costs/benefits
There are two main benefits from this option. 1. There does not have to be significant change in contracts or infrastructure to effect the change. It would essentially be business as usual with the exception of the former Rodney District, for which the council may decide to introduce a formal council-contracted service. 2. There is potential for cost recovery from the introduction of polluter-pays charges in the former Manukau area (although the Auckland wheelie bin service would technically shift to a form of polluter pays, in practice the change would be in the form of rating levied). Assuming a bag price of $2.00 for 60L and that each household generates and average of 1.5 bags per week this would result in income from polluter-pays charges of $15-20 million per annum. Any such income would of course have to be offset against the level of refuse charges deducted from rates. 5.2.5 Operational issues
Because there would be little change for most areas of the Auckland region, operational issues would not be significant. The most significant issues are likely to arise in the former Manukau
11 | P a g e
Page 48 of 192
area, where supplies of official pre-paid bags would have to be made available and where there may be some public resistance to the change. Any attempt to introduce polluter pays charges would have to be accompanied by dispensation and assistance for those in genuine financial hardship, as well as monitoring and enforcement to prevent illegal dumping. If a council provided service were to be introduced to Rodney, this would require an appropriate level of consultation, and initiation of a procurement process. Issues with introducing a council service to former Rodney Council area include objections from local private sector operators whose businesses may be threatened by the introduction of a council service, and determining appropriate levels of service provision for the more remote parts of the area. 5.3 5.3.1 Option 2 Polluter pays bag system Description
Under this option all areas of the Auckland region would have as their default service a polluterpays bag system. For most areas this would mean no change to existing services. Areas to change would be the former Manukau, Auckland and Rodney Council, with the most significant change likely to occur in Auckland as a result of a move away from wheelie bins. 5.3.2 Social/cultural issues
The most significant issues for this option are likely to be the same as those noted above for Option 1 in Manukau, with a shift to polluter-pays from rates-funded system potentially leading to some distributional impacts (i.e. low income households are potentially more adversely affected), and potential public resistance to the change. There may also be public resistance to the change in Auckland as householders are now used to wheelie bins and may object to the change to a bag-based polluter-pays collection. It could be expected that if the former Auckland area is returned to a bag-based system, many might opt to sign up to a private wheelie bin service. 5.3.3 Environmental issues
Assuming that most households remain with the council-provided polluter pays bag service, substantial reductions in waste to landfill in Auckland, Manukau and Rodney could be expected as a result of the incentive to minimise waste. If it is assumed that these three areas reduced their waste to 135kg/hh/yr (similar to the other polluter-pays areas) this would result in a total reduction of approximately 37,500 tonnes per annum in waste to landfill equivalent to a 16% decrease in kerbside collected residual across the region. 5.3.4 Economic issues, costs/benefits
The most significant impact from a cost perspective is the ability of a polluter-pays service to recover costs for the council. This would apply primarily to services provided in the Auckland and Manukau areas. Income would also be generated from the Rodney area, but as there is currently no council service this would, in theory, be a cost neutral exercise. Assuming a bag price of $2.00 for 60L and that each household generates an average of 1.5 bags per week, Auckland and Manukau moving to polluter-pays would result in income from polluter-pays charges in the order of $43 million per annum. Any such income would of course have to be offset against the level of refuse charges deducted from rates.
12 | P a g e
Page 49 of 192
5.3.5
Operational issues
Currently several different systems exist for residual waste collection, and transition to the new system would take place over time, as contracts are able to be re-negotiated or renewed. It should also be noted that there will be an ongoing need to provide variations on the basic service for specific areas or customer types such as high-density mainly commercial areas, multi-unit dwellings and very narrow streets. However if the system is chosen carefully, this variation could be minimised. For example, a bag-based service is currently used in very narrow streets, and in most high-density areas such as in the former Auckland City CBD. 5.4 5.4.1 Option 3: Introduce rates-funded fortnightly wheelie bin collection Description
Fortnightly collections of wheelie bins appear to be able to deliver a similar level of waste reduction performance as polluter-pays systems where capacity is constrained (i.e. less than 120L per week), and where there are complementary collections of recyclables and organic waste. The advantages of a fortnightly wheelie bin collection are: 5.4.2 overall collection costs are able to be reduced due to the lower frequency of collection wheelie bins avoid health and safety risks associated with manual handling as it is not polluter pays, the service avoids distributional issues associated with direct charging systems, while still promoting waste reduction as long as overall service package is appropriate, providing households with a free wheelie bin may help the council maintain market share. Social/cultural issues
There are no anticipated significant social or cultural issues associated with this option. Potential issues could include large households having insufficient capacity with a fortnightly fixed capacity system, and resistance from households that do not want wheelie bins. Capacity issues for households could be addressed by making larger size or additional bins available if requested by large households (for an additional charge - or possibly free to low income households). 5.4.3 Environmental issues
As noted, similar levels of waste reduction can be achieved by using a fortnightly wheelie bin system compared to a polluter-pays bag system, as effectively reducing collections of a 140L bin to fortnightly is equivalent to reducing capacity by half. This is generally comparable to the waste minimisation benefits of moving to a 60L bag. Assuming households that currently have polluterpays services maintain similar residual waste levels, if they receive a 140L bin instead of bags, then substantial reductions in waste to landfill in Auckland, Manukau and Rodney could be expected, as a result of the incentive to minimise waste provided by fortnightly collections. If it is assumed that these three areas reduced their waste to 135kg/person/yr (similar to the former Waitakere area polluter-pays area) this would yield a total reduction of approximately 39,500 tonnes per annum in waste to landfill. This is equivalent to approximately an18% decrease in kerbside collected residual across the region.
13 | P a g e
Page 50 of 192
5.4.4
Fortnightly collections of residual waste typically can operate for approximately 70% of the cost of an equivalent weekly collection (the costs are not halved from a weekly collection because set out rates and quantities are higher for fortnightly collections compared to weekly collections increasing collection times - and hence cost - on a fortnightly round). Balanced against this option is the fact that a rates-funded system does not have the ability to recover costs directly. This means that collections that are currently funded by polluter pays charges would have to be funded through rates. 5.4.5 Operational issues
Currently several different systems exist for residual waste collection, and transition to the new system would take place over time, as contracts are able to be re-negotiated or renewed. Fortnightly bin-based systems are well established in Christchurch and would pose no significant operational issues providing additional residential organic waste collections are provided. It should also be noted that there will be an ongoing need to provide variations on the basic service for specific areas or customer types such as high-density mainly commercial areas, multi-unit dwellings and very narrow streets. However if the system is designed carefully, this variation could be minimised. 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The three options presented are all capable of supporting waste minimisation objectives and are all feasible and cost effective options. Each option has pros and cons which have been identified to show the range of issues that need to be addressed.
14 | P a g e
Page 51 of 192
Page 52 of 192
POLLUTER-PAYS CHARGING FOR HOUSEHOLD COLLECTED REFUSE
Page 53 of 192
Page 54 of 192
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW OF CHARGING SYSTEMS .........................................................................................1 . 2. DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACTS.............................................................................................................5 2.1. 2.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.1.3. Determinants of household waste generation.............................................................................5 Income...........................................................................................................................................5 Household size.............................................................................................................................6 Discussion.....................................................................................................................................7
Page 55 of 192

POLLUTER-PAYS CHARGING FOR HOUSEHOLD COLLECTED REFUSE There has been substantial international research on the impacts of directly charging for the collection of household waste. This paper provides a summary of a number of international studies on user-pays systems for household residual waste. 1. OVERVIEW OF CHARGING SYSTEMS
It is worth beginning by outlining the range of different types of charging systems that are in place, as the effects of different levels of charges are related to the different types of systems. Although there are many potential variants of each system, the basic types of systems are: Bag-based systems. Under these systems users purchase official bags that have a charge for collection built into the cost. These are the simplest types of systems and are the most widely used in New Zealand Volume-based systems. These systems involve users paying an annual (or other time period) fee for a given size of wheelie bin. Different sizes of wheelie bin usually attract different fee levels. A small number of local authorities in New Zealand use these systems (e.g. Selwyn and South Taranaki District Councils [for garden waste]). These types of systems tend to be the least effective in terms of waste minimisation as once the service is purchased the incentive is to make the most use of it and fill the bin as much as possible each time Pay per pickup systems. Householders pay on the basis of the number of collections that get picked up. There may also be variable charges for each pickup based on bin size. This requires accurate recording systems, and regular (e.g. quarterly) billing. As the incentive is to put the bins out only when they are full this system can reduce the setout rate making collections relatively efficient. It is a reasonably effective type of system in terms of waste minimisation Pay by weight. Householders pay on the basis of the weight of the bins that get collected. This requires accurate recording and weighing systems as well as billing systems. These types of systems are generally the most effective in terms of waste minimisation but can be very costly due to the additional weighing recording and billing systems. Weighing may also slow down collections adding to system cost, however, some modern systems are able to calculate weights while the bin is in motion avoiding the need to slow down collections
In general the smaller the increments that are able to be charged by the system, the more price sensitivity there is within the system. Volume-based systems are the least price sensitive while weight-based are the most price sensitive, with bag and pay per pickup systems in between. The chart below presents data from the Waloon region of Belgium which illustrates the impact of different charging schemes on residual waste quantities. As collection schemes have shifted to user-pays systems over time waste quantities have fallen. It can be noted from the graph that for a no charge (rates based systems) residual waste is generally higher in quantity than waste quantities from a volume based charging system. The graph also shows that weight based charging offers best waste minimisation results.
1|P a g e
Page 56 of 192
Figure 1
Res sidual waste per inhabit e tant related to charge s scheme (Waloon Region n)
Graphfro om:D.Hogg,D.Wilson,A.Gibbs,M.Ast tleyandJ.Pap pineschi(2006 6)Modellingth heImpactofH Household Charging gforWasteinEngland,Fina alReporttoDefra.
In terms of calcula s ating the wa aste reductio impacts of user-pay systems it should be noted tha on ys at, while c charging will reduce the quantit of residual waste collected, how that reduction is ty compris sed can be quite com e mplex. For example a report in the Netherla ands by Pr roietti cites a particular study co onducted for the VROM (The Neth r M herlands Ministry of Ho ousing, Spa atial Plannin ng and the Environm e ment) by K KPMG in 1995-1996.1 This rep ported a 12 to 30% reduction in 2 household refuse o owing to user-pays sch hemes, inclu uding: 6 to 8% d to impro due oved sorting (for recycl g ling) by hou useholders 3 to 10% due to unintended ac ctivity (such as waste t h tourism, ille egal dumpin etc) ng 3 to 12% due to gen nuine preven ntion measu ures (calcul lated).
This ind dicates that pay as you throw (PA AYT) systems squeez waste in a number of directions ze o s. Exactly what the p pattern of t this respons is will va according to a ran se ary nge of facto includin ors ng scheme type, the availability of alternat e tive routes, education, and enfor , rcement. The literatur T re does ho owever mos clearly sh st how that ch harging for household waste mov material from refus ves l se to kerbside recycling. Beyon this how nd wever, chan nges in flow of mater caused by chargin ws rial ng scheme are gene es erally poorly understoo It is fair to assume that if co y od. onstraints ar placed o re on one par of the wa rt aste manage ement syste then material has a habit of f em, m flowing onto other part o ts 2 of the s system. Price e elasticity of demand (PED or Ed) is a measure u f used in ec conomics to show th he respons siveness, o elasticity, of the qua or antity demanded of a g good or service to a change in it c ts
1 2
Stefan Proietti (2000), The Applica no ation of local Ta axes and Fees for the Collectio of Househol Waste: Local Authority f on ld l Jurisd diction and Prac ctice in Europe Report for the Association of Cities for Rec e, e cycling, Brussel ACR ls: Eunom et al (2009) International Review of Was Managemen Policy, Repor to Departmen of the Environ mia ), ste nt rt nt nment, Heritage and Lo Governme Ireland ocal ent,
2|P a g e
Page 57 of 192
price. It gives the percentage change in quantity demanded in response to a one percent change in price (holding constant all the other determinants of demand, such as income). The following tables show the price elasticises of demand for a range of different studies (Note: the closer the value is to zero the more inelastic i.e. unresponsive to price). What table 1 shows is that, moving from volume-based charging schemes (light blue - top) to weight-based schemes (dark blue - bottom), the elasticity of demand increases.
Table 1 Empirical estimates of the effect of unit-pricing
Study
Wertz (1976)
Data
Volume-based - Compares subscription program in San Francisco with flat fees imposed by all urban areas Volume-based - Panel of 14 cities (10 with user fees) over 1980-88 Volume-based - 1990 survey of 4,306 households in and around Portland, Oregon. Volume-based - Seven year (1984-1991) time series in Portland, OR Volume (household survey data)
Change in refuse
= -0.15
Change in recycling
Jenkins (1993) Hong et al. (1993) Strathman et al. (1995) Van Houtven and Morris (1999) Van Houtven and Morris (1999) Reschovsky and Stone (1994) Fullerton and Kinnaman (1996)
= -0.12 No significant impact = -0.11 = -0.10 Unspecified positive relationship
Volume (municipality data)
<0
Sack-based - 1992 mail survey of 1,422 households in and around Ithaca, NY. Sack-based - Two-period panel of 75 households in 1992 = -0.076 (weight) = -0.226 (volume) Sack-based - 1992 cross-section of 159 municipalities in NJ, 12 with unit-pricing Sack-based - 1991 cross-section of 959 towns across the U. S., 114 with unitpricing Sack-based (household survey data) = -0.39 = -0.19 = -0.28
No significant impact
Cross-price elasticity is 0.073
Podolsky and Spiegel (1998) Kinnaman and Fullerton (1997)
= 0.23 = 0.22
Van Houtven and Morris (1999) Van Houtven and Morris (1999) Hong (1999) Linderhof et al (2001)
= -0.26
Sack-based (municipality data)
= -0.19
Sack-based National data from Korean volume based waste fee Weight-based compostable waste (Oostzaan, Netherlands)
= -0.15 = -1.39
3|P a g e
Page 58 of 192
Study
Linderhof et al (2001) Miranda et al. (1994) Callan and Thomas (1997) Seguino et al. (1995)
Data
Weight-based - residual waste (Oostzaan, Netherlands) Various - Panel of 21 cities over 18 months beginning in 1990 Various (bag, tag, volume) - 1994 crosssection of 324 towns in MA, 55 with unitpricing programs 1993-1994 cross section of 60 towns in Maine, 29 with unit-pricing
Change in refuse
= -0.34 17%-74% reduction in garbage
Change in recycling
Average increase of 128% = -0.07
56% decrease
Another study3 provided estimates of price elasticity for different types of charging schemes. This is shown in table 2 below.
Table 2 Estimated price elasticities under different charging schemes
Price
Standard model Weight Bag, refuse and compostable Bag, refuse Frequency Volume Model with environmental activism Weight Bag, refuse and compostable Bag, refuse Frequency Volume 4.39 2.02 2.15 3.91 1.94 4.39 2.02 2.15 3.91 1.94
Total
Unsorted
Compostable
Recyclable
-0.47 -0.43 -0.14 -0.22 -0.06
-0.67 -0.66 -0.71 -0.28 -0.12
-0.92 -0.97 0.29 -0.40 0.01
0.16 0.25 0.14 0.08 0.01
-0.40 -0.36 -0.07 -0.16 -0.00
-0.53 -0.51 -0.58 -0.16 0.01
-0.81 -0.85 0.40 -0.31 0.09
0.12 0.20 0.09 0.04 -0.03
The above data indicates clearly that weight and bag-based schemes are more price responsive than frequency (per pick-up) and volume-based schemes. Figure 2 below shows the relationship between residual waste and price.
E. Dijkgraaf and R. Gradus (2003) Cost Savings of Unit-Based Pricing of Household waste, the case of the Netherlands. Research Memorandum 0209, OCFEB, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
4|P a g e
Page 59 of 192
Figure 2
Plot of residual waste per inhabitant (y) against sack price (x) for Flemish schemes
Residualkg/hh/yr
Priceofsackforhouseholdwaste (Euros)
Figure 2 indicates that as price of waste disposal increases, quantity of residual waste decreases. SERA (2000) estimated that a US$1 increase in rate differentials for 30 gallons of service (approx $1.32 per 140 l) increases recycling by 0.3%. A $4.00 (approx $5.15) differential led to an increase in recycling of approximately 3%. This suggests that as the price of waste disposal increases, corresponding recycling rates improve as more waste is removed from waste bins and placed in recycling bins. 2. 2.1. 2.1.1. DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACTS Determinants of household waste generation Income
One of the issues which will affect the costs for a given household is the amount of waste generated. The evidence relating waste generation to income is somewhat mixed. The results from studies conducted during the late 1980s and early 1990s (DoE 1994) suggested that more affluent households produce more waste than those in less affluent households. Work done by Coggins and Brown (1995) suggested that where a large proportion of households were using coal-fired heating (e.g. North, Yorkshire and Humber and East Midlands) waste generation per capita was higher than in other regions. Socio-demographic variations were also examined and it was suggested that collection authorities with high proportions of professional persons and low unemployment had lower per capita waste arisings than waste collection authorities with a high proportion of manufacturing workers. There appears to be very little (if any) recent evidence to support a link between income generation and waste quantities. Indeed other factors, notably household size, but also the nature of the collection system in place, seem rather more important in determining overall waste generation. Parfitt (2002) suggested that socio-economic variables (including or closely
5|P a g e
Page 60 of 192
correlated with income) do not significantly influence household waste arisings. A recent study (Welsh Assembly Government 2003) determined that there was no statistically significant relationship between the socio-economic profile of a household and the amount of waste it produced. Another recent study (Newcastle 2004) has also shown that there are no significant differences in the amount of waste produced by households in different socio-economic groups. These studies are, however, somewhat counter-intuitive. There are few, if any studies in the United Kingdom which has looked at the waste generated by specific households over more than one week. Furthermore, when looking at total waste quantities, a host of factors can act to mask the impact of income on total waste collected. For example: garden waste collections could act to mask such variation (especially if measurements are taken in one week only) wealthy people are more likely to be more mobile, and have access to facilities which others may not have access to (civic amenity sites, for example). This means that measuring waste collected from the doorstep which is usually the variable recorded will give only a partial picture.
Even so, on the basis of the available evidence, it would appear that income status does not explain the variation in waste arisings per household. The available evidence therefore suggests the absence of a clear link between household income and waste generation. Rather, the strongest relationship, perhaps unsurprisingly, is between waste quantity and household size. 2.1.2. Household size
There is a substantial amount of data that shows clear links between household size and waste generation. This link is an obvious one and so the issue is not expanded on significantly here. Instead data from a couple of studies is shown below to illustrate the approximate relationship between household size and waste generation. Data from a study by Parfitt et al (1997)4 are shown in Table 3. This shows data split by containment method. As would be expected, larger households tend to produce more waste.
Table 3 Variation in waste quantities with household size- 1 Sack collection kg/hh/wk 1 2 3 4 5 8.8 10.6 12.2 15.0 16.1 Wheelie bin collection kg/hh/wk 9.2 14 19.6 22.8 27
Household size
*Kg/hh/wk :kilograms per household per week Source: Parfitt et al, 1997
This data compares quite closely with figures from another study by Dresner and Ekins (2004)5
4 5
Parfitt J, R. Flowerdew and R. Pocock (1997) A review of the United Kingdom Household Waste Arisings and Compositional Data. Report produced for the Department of the Environment, May 1997. Dresner, Simon, and Paul Ekins, Charging for Domestic Waste: Combining Environment and Equity Considerations, The Social Impacts Of Environmental Taxes: Removing Regressivity, PSI Research Discussion Paper 20
6|P a g e
Page 61 of 192
Table 4
Variation in waste quantities with household size - 2
Number of people
All households 1 2 3 4 5
Kg/hh/wk
15.0 9.9 12.7 16.5 18.6 20.5
As the above tables show the relationship is not a linear one in other words a two person household does not generate twice the waste of a single person household etc. The figure below illustrates the relationship.
Figure 3 Relationship between household size and waste
30 25 kg/hh/wk 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
2.1.3. Discussion
ParfittSack ParfittWheeledbin Dresneretal Average
Householdsize
The absence of a link between income status and waste generation suggests the potential for the impact of charging to be regressive (i.e. lower income households are proportionally more affected). The detailed effects of a switch from the existing system to an alternative financing arrangement are beyond the scope of this study. A number of means to offset the regressive nature of charging exist. These include dealing with any perceived: 1. increase in hardship through adjusting existing instruments of redistributive policy 2. hardship through locally implemented redistributive policies 3. hardship through the charging system itself. Here, there are essentially three options: a. Reducing the fixed rate tariff
7|P a g e
Page 62 of 192
b. Reducing the variable rate tariff c. Offering a reduction in the fee estimated as a percentage of the total. This maintains an incentive, but reduces its overall magnitude. In practice, 2) and 3) tend to be used more widely, with 3) probably being the most favoured approach owing to the relative administrative ease with which it can be implemented. These observations indicate that headline measures regarding charging generally indicate a positive effect, though with some negative side effects. The details concerning exactly how the positive effect is achieved, and details of a clear relationship concerning negative consequences, are not so widely available in the literature. Generally, in our experience, councils recognise that there may be some increase in negative side effects, but their desire, generally, to persevere with schemes indicates an assessment that the positive benefits outweigh any negative side-effects. It is interesting to note that literature on schemes which have been implemented, but which have then been withdrawn, is limited. The experience of Torrelles de Llobregat in Spain, documented by Hogg (2006), is one such example.6 In that case, it seems that locally, residents were concerned more about the new waste collection system and less about the charging scheme, but a change in political party led to the withdrawal of the charging scheme and the maintaining of the prevailing collection service.
See Hogg (2006).

8|P a g e
Page 63 of 192
Bibliography The information presented above is largely summarised from the following studies: Eunomia (2003) To Charge or Not to Charge? Final report to IWM (EB). D. Hogg (2006) Impact of Unit-based Waste Collection Charges. ENV/EPOC/WGWPR(2005)10/FINAL, Paris: OECD. D. Hogg, D. Wilson, A. Gibbs, M. Astley and J. Papineschi (2006) Modelling the Impact of Household Charging for Waste in England, Final Report to Defra.
9|P a g e
Page 64 of 192
RECYCLING COLLECTIONS
Page 65 of 192
Page 66 of 192
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 2. 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 3. 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 3.6 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................................. 1 Kerbside sort ....................................................................................................................... 1 Comingled systems ........................................................................................................... 2 Dry recycling systems...................................................................................................... 2 Two stream/hybrid systems .............................................................................................. 3 EVALUATION OF ISSUES .................................................................................................. 3 Social/cultural issues ........................................................................................................... 3 Householder acceptance .................................................................................................. 3 Health and safety .............................................................................................................. 4 Environmental issues .......................................................................................................... 4 Waste hierarchy ................................................................................................................ 4 Life cycle assessment ....................................................................................................... 5 Waste diversion from landfill ............................................................................................. 6 Recovery of material ......................................................................................................... 7 Carbon impacts ................................................................................................................. 7 Economic issues, costs/benefits ......................................................................................... 8 Capital costs ..................................................................................................................... 8 Operational costs .............................................................................................................. 8 Revenue/markets .............................................................................................................. 8 Local economic impacts .................................................................................................. 10 Operational issues............................................................................................................. 10 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 10 Deliverability .................................................................................................................... 11 Timescales ...................................................................................................................... 12 Contribution to targets ....................................................................................................... 12 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 12
Page 67 of 192
RECYCLING COLLECTIONS 1. DISCUSSION
In the following subsections the issues surrounding recycling collections are explored and an analysis is undertaken to provide direction in determining the best recycling collection system(s) for Auckland. It is not the intention of this research to specify the precise design of Aucklands future recycling collection services but to examine the issues and make explicit the key considerations around different broad types of service provision. This will then provide a solid basis for decision making and future service design and procurement. In considering recycling collections there are four principle types of recycling collection that are identified. It is accepted that in making these distinctions there will be issues of definition around the boundaries and so the broad principles and impacts identified may not strictly apply to any given system. The four system types are: Kerbside sort systems - This refers to systems where recyclable material is manually collected and sorted at the kerbside or on the vehicle, for example a vehicle may have four bays where paper, glass, plastic and cans are separated by operators as its collected. Co-mingled systems - All recyclable material is collected in a single bin, and is taken to a Material Recovery Facility for sorting such as with Auckland City or Manukau City collections. For this system residents enjoy the convenience of placing all recyclable material unsorted into one bin. Dry recycling systems - Dry recycling systems are essentially a variation on co-mingled recycling systems but collect a much wider range of materials than the conventional recyclable commodities of plastic bottles, glass, cans, and paper. Materials may include textiles, shoes, electronic goods and small household appliances, batteries, etc Hybrid or two-stream systems - This is where two or more streams of recyclable material are collected in separate containers and in separate vehicles or compartments of a vehicle. No manual sorting of material takes place at the kerbside. An example could be where glass cans and plastics are placed in the bin but paper is placed out for a separate collection.
A description of each of these systems is provided. The systems are then considered in terms of the key issues against which options are being evaluated. A comparative analysis is provided at the conclusion of this section. 2. 2.1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS Kerbside sort
Kerbside sort systems are among the most long established recycling systems. There are a wide variety of configurations in terms of how systems are delivered. Material is presented on the kerbside by the householder in one or more containers. The containers are usually open topped
1|P a g e
Page 68 of 192
(although some may have separate lids) to enable easy access for sorting by the collection crew. Pickups are undertaken manually and the degree of sorting that takes place as the material is picked up can vary significantly. Most kerbside sort systems will separate fibres (paper and cardboard) from containers, and will usually also separate glass, often by colour, from other container types. The purpose of sorting at the kerbside is to attempt to maximise the quality of the material collected, and avoid cross contamination with other materials. Paper and glass are the most sensitive to contamination and hence these are usually the focus of efforts to separate at the kerbside.1 Sorting at the kerbside is clearly more time consuming than collecting the materials all together, and the degree of sorting undertaken is usually an effort to strike a balance between the extra time (and hence cost) of sorting, and the extra value able to be obtained from the higher quality separated material. Papakura, Franklin and Rodney District Councils all operated kerbside sort systems however Franklin has since moved to a 240L comingled bin as of 1 November 2010. 2.1.1 Comingled systems
Co-mingled systems have gained in popularity significantly in recent years in many countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, approximately 37% of recycling schemes are now single stream co-mingled systems,2 while in Australia the majority of collections use co-mingled wheelie bin systems.3 There are a number of reasons for the increase in wheelie bins popularity including: increased focus on health and safety considerations higher perceived levels of user-friendliness (less sorting is required by residents) with an increased range of materials to be collected (in particular plastics), the volume required to store the material for collection has increased.
These reasons make wheelie bins the most practical option. Because the recyclable materials are collected all together, sorting must take place subsequent to collection and so a co-mingled collection system requires a Material Recovery Facility (MRF). Comparison of co-mingled versus kerbside sort systems should therefore include evaluation of the MRF component as well as the collection component. The former Auckland and Manukau City Councils operated co-mingled collection systems. 2.1.2 Dry recycling systems
Dry systems are essentially the same as co-mingled systems with the difference being in the range of materials that are processed in the system. Dry systems essentially take all dry material from a household, usually excluding only food, and garden organics, nappies, liquids and food contaminated packaging. Dry systems are commonly paired with a wet collection (these types of systems are referred to as wet/dry systems). A wet system accepts the material not placed in the dry system. The material is usually subjected to some form of biological treatment to create a compost-like output. Despite these types of schemes having been in existence for a number of years they have yet to become commonplace. Only one such system is currently operating in New Zealand (in Rakaia District, south of Christchurch).
In order to be remelted into bottles, glass must be colour sorted and must have very low levels of physical or chemical contaminants, as these can affect the quality of the final product. Glass breaks easily in collection systems. The colour sorting of broken glass is problematic. Mechanical optical sorters can colour separate small pieces of glass but fine shards of broken glass can contaminate other recyclable materials in particular paper, and are abrasive on MRF sorting machinery. Paper that is contaminated with glass achieves a lower commodity price so keeping glass and paper separate is key to material quality. WRAP (2009) Analysis of kerbside dry recycling performance in England 2007/08 shows that 45% of schemes are kerbside sort, 15% are two stream co-mingled and 3% are other types of systems (e.g. single stream). Morrison Low & Associates 2010, An assessment of the health and safety costs and benefits of manual vs automated waste collections. Position Report for WasteMINZ
2|P a g e
Page 69 of 192
2.1.3
Two stream/hybrid systems
Two or three stream systems are a further variation on co-mingled systems and are to an extent a hybrid between the co-mingled and kerbside sort approaches. In two stream recycling systems one or two materials, usually glass and/or paper are collected in a separate container and loaded onto a separate vehicle or vehicle compartment. The philosophy behind the approach is to attempt topreserve material quality by keeping the mostproblematic materials (paper and glass) separate. Thus this approach attempts to combine the advantages of both the co-mingled and kerbside sort systems. The former North Shore and Waitakere Cities operated two stream systems (with paper collected separately)4. 3. 3.1 3.1.1 EVALUATION OF ISSUES Social/cultural issues Householder acceptance
As noted above co-mingled systems are generally perceived to be more user friendly than kerbside sort systems. A householder survey from Waitakere City for example, which directly asked respondents whether they preferred the old crate system or the new wheelie bin, returned a preference among 92% of respondents for the wheelie bin5. Kerbside sort systems sometimes require the householder to sort their recyclable material into different material streams such as paper and containers. In addition kerbside sort systems which do not use wheelie bins require householders to carry material to the kerbside. Although wheelie bin systems clearly show higher levels of householder preference it should be noted that ratepayer satisfaction surveys for kerbside sort recycling services are typically very high6 (often among the highest rated council services), and so perceptions of lower levels of user friendliness need to be seen in this context. Research undertaken by WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) in the United Kingdom indicates that the requirement to sort materials into different containers is not of great concern to householders. Eighty seven percent of respondents, who have to separate out different materials, indicated that they did not mind that task.7 Larger households wanting to increase the quantity of material they recycle may find issues with capacity in kerbside sort systems and may require additional bins. This is clearly less convenient than a single larger wheelie bin typically used in a co-mingled system. Due to health and safety considerations there is a restriction on the maximum size of kerbside bins due to the fact that they require manual lifting. Therefore for kerbside sort systems there must be a trade off between capacity and the number of bins. It is also worthwhile noting that different types of collection systems can have groups of (sometimes vocal) supporters or opponents. For example the prospect of the introduction of wheelie bin collections on Waiheke Island sparked significant community protest in 2009. Thus while some systems may be more acceptable to certain householders than others, there may be opposition expressed to any given system.
4 5 6
Palmerston North has recently introduced a two stream collection with glass collected separately. In the United Kingdom 15% of kerbside recycling collections are now two stream systems. WCC (2009), Public Opinion on Waste Collection Issues, Topline Results, February 2009 e.g. Taupo District Council 78% satisfaction rating refer: http://www.taupodc.govt.nz/Documents/Council%20services/NRB%20Survey/2009%20Survey%20Report.pdf Wellington City Council 90% satisfaction rating refer: http://www.wellington.govt.nz/about/overview/pdfs/rss07.pdf WRAP, 2009. Choosing the right recycling system. Banbury UK
3|P a g e
Page 70 of 192
3.1.2
Health and safety
Co-mingled systems that generally collect material in wheelie bins, often using automated mechanical arms to empty the material, present fewer potential health and safety risks than kerbside sort systems which are invariably manual collections. The issue of health and safety concerns around manual collections has been gaining prominence and has most recently been highlighted through the publication of a report commissioned by the WasteMINZ Health and Safety Sector Group.8 Although the report acknowledges some limitations with the data it concludes that: Clearly there is a marked difference in the injury rates between manual and automated collection methods, with manual methods more likely to result in injury. This evidence should be clearly communicated to councils and the waste industry and incorporated into the decision making process when they are selecting waste collection methods. Unfortunately the data in the report is not able to identify kerbside sort recycling collections as a specific category (non-automated bin collection being the closest classification) and so it is not possible to separate kerbside recycling services from other non-automated bin collections (for example rear-loader wheelie bin collections) to more precisely determine the risks as they relate to kerbside sort systems. Manual kerbside sort systems clearly present a range of significant risks for workers that must be managed. These include issues around manual lifting of materials, handling of sharps such as broken glass, and working on the road. It is worth noting however that WRAP concludes in their report on recycling collection systems in the United Kingdom, which takes a number of health and safety studies into account, that for kerbside sort systems There appear to be no unmanageable health and safety considerations.9 On balance, the evidence suggests that there are significant health and safety concerns with kerbside sort type systems and that the management of these issues must be taken seriously but that, if properly managed, it is possible to mitigate these risks. 3.2 Environmental issues
There is substantial evidence to suggest that recycling provides significant environmental benefits relative to treatment or disposal. 3.2.1 Waste hierarchy
The waste hierarchy is well established, and under s44 of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008) one of the key principles which local authorities must consider when preparing amending or revoking a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. The hierarchy sets out simple high level criteria for assessing waste management options. It states that the following are preferable, in order: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
8
reduction reuse recycling recovery treatment disposal
Morrison Low & Associates 2010. An assessment of the health and safety costs and benefits of manual vs automated waste collections. Position report for WasteMINZ WRAP, 2009. Choosing the right recycling system. Banbury UK
4|P a g e
Page 71 of 192
In this context therefore, methodologies at the top of the hierarchy which seek to reduce the amount of material requiring management at the bottom of the hierarchy, are to be considered preferable. 3.2.2 Life cycle assessment
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the process of evaluating the potential effects that a product, process or service has on the environment over the entire period of its life cycle. The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has defined LCA as: a technique for assessing the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product by: compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a product system evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and outputs interpreting the results of the inventory analysis and impact assessment phases in relation to the objectives of the study (AS/NZS 1998).10
Life cycle assessments tend to be highly dependent on the boundaries that are drawn for the study. Key boundary issues for assessment of recycling and landfilling impacts include the following: The type of energy used for the manufacture of primary materials The type of energy used for the manufacture of secondary products from recycled materials The type of recycling process applied
By their nature LCAs are comparative analyses, in other words, they compare two or more different processes and attempt to determine which of these is more favourable from an environmental perspective. The outcomes of LCAs usually therefore depend on what alternatives are being evaluated. For example if incineration of plastic waste to produce electricity is considered as an alternative to a coal-powered energy facility, then recycling plastic waste will result in less benefits overall than using the waste to produce energy. However in New Zealand the comparisons will be a more straightforward choice between landfilling and recycling. In these cases, a review of the literature reveals that recycling almost invariably has a beneficial environmental impact when compared to disposal alternatives. It should be noted also that some methods of recycling provide more environmental benefits than others. This is particularly true where the recycling process produces a product that displaces another product. One example of this is processing glass cullet into aggregate or a filtration medium. In both cases, the alternative (crushed metal or sand respectively) are low impact products. It is preferable to recycle the glass into new glass products. Also critical is that recycling has different degrees of benefit depending on the materials recycled, the nature of the recycling process, and the structure of the industry. One key review provided a meta-analysis of LCA studies on recycling from around the world. It concluded that recycling offers more environmental benefits and lower environmental impacts than other waste management options 11. An analysis of the United Kingdom recycling industry estimated that, at the time, this industry was saving 10-15 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year, when compared with a representative mix of landfilling and energy recovery.
10 11
Grant T, James KL, Partle, H (2003) Life Cycle Assessment of Waste and Resource Recovery Options (including energy from waste) Waste & Resources Action Programme,(2006) Environmental Benefits of Recycling
5|P a g e
Page 72 of 192
The review evaluated the results of sixty-eight LCA study scenarios that considered recycling versus landfilling options. The review found the following:
Material Paper Glass Plastics Aluminium Steel Aggregates Total Recycling preferred 12 14 15 7 11 6 65 Landfill preferred 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 No preference 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Recycling is the preferred option in 65 out of the 68 scenarios studies with landfilling preferred in only 2 of the scenarios relating to glass. In Australia, a LCA study conducted for the State of Victoria in Australia12 concluded the following in respect of recycling: Significant environmental savings are achieved from undertaking kerbside recycling. The higher the yields of materials recycled, the greater the savings. Savings are achieved across the whole range of environmental indicators, with the highest credits for avoided virgin material extraction and reduced energy use. The same study also noted the following in respect of comparison of the results with a number of other studies including studies by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Sonesson, 1997); the USEPA (2002); and the European Commission (Smith et al 2001): In general, all studies indicate improved environmental performance associated with dry material recycling. There is an overall benefit, and most environmental categories are improved, from source separated aerobic or anaerobic management of organic waste. Also in general, landfill performs the worst of all technologies in relation to resource depletion, photochemical oxidation, water toxicity and greenhouse gas potential. From recent desk top research and literature reviews of existing research, evidence from the literature would appear to be conclusive that, on balance, recycling and composting represent more favourable waste management options than landfilling with respect to minimising the environmental harm from waste. 3.2.3 Waste diversion from landfill
The key environmental impacts in terms of kerbside sort systems relate to the reduction in waste to landfill and the quantity of material recycled. Broadly speaking the quantity of material able to bediverted from landfill by a given system is dependent on a range of factors including materials targeted, frequency, capacity, education and incentives. Whether or not material is sorted at kerbside or at a MRF has only marginal impact on material actually recycled. The key differences in respect of quantities are a result of the quality of materials collected. There is evidence to suggest that co-mingled systems tend to collect significantly higher quantities of materials from households (due to the capacity and ease of use of wheelie bins), but that kerb sort systems have lower levels of contamination, and that once contamination is accounted for quantities are essentially the same from both types of systems13. A report by WRAP concluded:
12 13
Life Cycle Assessment of Waste and Resource Recovery Options (including energy from waste), Grant T, James KL, Partle, H (2003), Report to EcoRecycle Victoria ibid
6|P a g e
Page 73 of 192
The kerbside scheme type (e.g. kerbside sort, single stream co-mingled or two stream co-mingled), acting in isolation, was not a defining influence in that no one type performed consistently better than the others. There was a lot of variation in material specific recycling performance across all scheme types, and scheme characteristics cannot be considered in isolation from each other or from local authority characteristics.14 3.2.4 Recovery of material
While diversion from landfill is a key environmental consideration it is also important to consider the use to which the recovered material is put and the environmental benefits arising from that. Material that is down-cycled into lower grade uses will have less positive environmental impacts than where material is recycled into equivalent grade products. This is where the environmental performance of the kerbside sort and co-mingled types of systems can tend to diverge. WRAP, has considered this issue extensively and has come out clearly in favour of kerbside sort systems in respect of their ability to deliver material quality: WRAP has maintained for more than two years now that kerbside sort systems which allow contamination to be filtered out at the point of collection gives the most reliable stream of quality materials. Co-mingled collections particularly single stream collections face quality problems from three sources: householders putting the wrong materials into the collection, compaction of the waste which breaks glass into small pieces and tends to bind materials together, and the technical and physical capacity of the MRF to separate materials in the volumes delivered to them. Two stream co-mingled collections can reduce some of these problems by keeping fibres separate from containers and reducing the potential for materials to bind together.whilst it is true that considerable success is being achieved by some newer MRFs, even they are unable to deliver the levels of quality achieved by kerbside sort systems.15 While WRAP has maintained its position in respect of kerbside recycling methods, it should be noted that the report has attracted a degree of controversy and disagreement (particularly from MRF operators). Thus while it may hold that kerbside sort systems generally produce better quality materials, this is not necessarily always the case, and automated systems are constantly improving. It should also be noted that the Visy MRF which accepts material from the former Auckland and Manukau City Councils has had some well publicised quality issues, particularly in respect of the ability of the plant to separate glass,16 although these have been largely addressed. 3.2.5 Carbon impacts
The carbon impacts of recycling derive from several sources; reduced energy use from the avoidance of extraction of virgin materials, avoidance of greenhouse gases generated in landfill, and additional energy involved in the collection and sorting of material. As noted in the section on life cycle assessment, there are significant carbon benefits associated with recycling. Few studies appear to differentiate between the carbon impacts of different collection methods. On the basis that most of the carbon benefits arise where the recycled material is substituted for virgin materials, collection methods that maintain material quality and close the loop more effectively, are likely to have greater carbon benefits. Work done by Eunomia in the United
14 15 16
WRAP, 2009. Analysis of kerbside dry recycling performance in England 2007/08 (WRAP Project EVA034-087). Report prepared by Icaro Consulting and WRAP, Banbury, WRAP. WRAP, 2009. Choosing the right recycling system. Banbury UK Refer Metro Magazine Article March 2010: Climbing Mount Visy
7|P a g e
Page 74 of 192
Kingdom17 suggests that if glass is recycled into aggregate the carbon benefits are effectively zero, while plastics down-cycled into plaswood (plastic lumber) actually has negative carbon benefits.18 3.3 3.3.1 Economic issues, costs/benefits Capital costs
Co-mingled systems (including dry and two stream systems) tend to have higher capital costs than kerbside sort systems. The vehicles used tend to be more highly engineered compactor vehicles, with bin-lifts or mechanical arms, costing in the order of $300,000 each. Relatively simple non-compacting multi-compartment vehicles with a value in the order of $100,000 are used for kerbside sort systems. As noted, co-mingled systems also require a MRF. Although some MRFs are relatively simple manual picking lines, the trend is towards increasing levels of automation, for reasons of cost effectiveness, health and safety and material quality. The Visy MRF in Onehunga (which has a reported capacity of approximately 70,000 tonnes per annum) had an initial capital cost of approximately $22 million. Depending on the scope of vehicle sort, kerbside systems require space for bulking and a limited MRF. Also important in terms of capital costs is the cost of bins. Co-mingled systems generally require wheelie bins which will cost in the order of $40-$50 each (depending on size and economies of scale). Recycling crates as typically used in kerbside sort systems by comparison are in the order of $10-15.19 Two stream systems are likely to have the highest capital costs for bins as they require two bins per property. 3.3.2 Operational costs
Labour costs on kerbside sort systems are invariably greater than for co-mingled systems due to the manual sorting techniques employed, and consequent higher staffing levels. This is particularly true if high pay rates and high levels of staff training are provided, both of which are important in ensuring service quality and managing health and safety risks. Other operational costs such as vehicle and plant maintenance, fuel, road user charges, and insurance will tend to be greater for co-mingled systems, reflecting the use of larger and more expensive plant and equipment. Co-mingled systems, because of their ability to easily provide the householder with large capacity through a wheelie bin, can operate on a fortnightly basis with minimal impact on participation and capture rates. This can provide savings on collection costs (although collection costs are not usually half of weekly collections but are around 70% of the costs, due to higher set-out rates and the need to collect the same amount of material albeit less frequently). 3.3.3 Revenue/markets
Recovery of materials from the waste stream for recycling and reuse is heavily dependent on the recovered materials having an economic value. This particularly holds true for recovery of materials in the private sector. Markets for recycled commodities are influenced by prevailing economic conditions and most significantly by commodity prices for the equivalent virgin materials.
17 18 19
Eunomia (2007) Greenhouse Gas Balances of Waste Management Scenarios, Report for the Greater London Authority The carbon benefit for HDPE reduces from approximately 1000 kg CO2 equ/tonne to (-)850 kg CO2 equ/tonne 2-3 crates would need to be collected weekly to provide equivalent capacity to a 240L wheeled bin that was collected fortnightly, meaning the comparable cost in terms of capacity would be $20-$45 per household.
8|P a g e
Page 75 of 192
In the latter part of 2008 international markets for recycled commodities fell sharply. Prices for aluminium cans dropped from $1000 to $100 a tonne. Plastics, on average, fell from $280 to $200 a tonne, steel from $700 to $100 a tonne and copper from $8000 to $4000 a tonne. Cardboard and paper prices also dropped 90 per cent.20 Since this time demand and prices have recovered to a degree, but not to previous highs. While the fall appears dramatic, prices were falling from record highs and have in real terms simply returned to pre-boom prices. This is shown in figure 1 below:
Figure 1 UK recycling commodity prices 2001-2009
Source: MfE Solid Waste Composition Report Card in http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/reportcards/waste-composition/2009/index.html
In terms of the differences between kerbside sort and co-mingled systems, the issue of revenue and markets is closely aligned with the earlier discussion on material quality. Research into how markets for recycling can be optimised21 concluded that minimising contamination and maximising quality was crucial. In particular, the latter criteria, requires quality that can be assessed by the target market, whether visually, or through utilising a methodology that is well known to result in high quality. The ability of kerbside sort systems to deliver consistently high levels of product quality means they are in a more advantageous position when selling into market and will generally command higher prices and maintain demand during downturns in the market. Alternatively a hybrid or two stream system (co-mingled system supplemented with a separate collection for glass) can also deliver high level product quality.
20 21
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4810576a13.html Eunomia and Arcadis (2008). Optimising Markets for Recycling report to the European Commission November 2008
9|P a g e
Page 76 of 192
It is worth noting that prior to the economic crisis of 2008-09, which saw commodity prices plummet, prices and demand for recyclate in Asia had been steadily increasing. The effect of this was to disincentivise investment in material quality by MRFs, and to focus on quantity of throughput (as all material that could be produced was easily sold, and good quality material did not attract sufficient premium). With material quality becoming a key factor in markets again this is likely to provide incentive for MRFs to invest in leading edge technologies and hence for material quality from MRFs to improve. The ability of any system to command high commodity prices is an important factor in determining overall systems costs. Including income from commodities into an assessment of system cost introduces risk due to price. Any system that can produce higher quality materials is more likely to be able to secure long term supply contracts at fixed rates with recycling facilities that want their material, and so mitigate market volatility to a degree. 3.3.4 Local economic impacts
While on one level the councils primary concern is to ensure material is diverted from landfill to beneficial use, there are wider economic issues that deserve some level of consideration. Material that is of lower quality tends to find markets offshore as countries with lower costs of labour are able to further manually sort material to enable it to then be reprocessed. Local reprocessors do not have this option and therefore require higher levels of material quality from the kerbside system. Providing material for local reprocessing will have economic benefits in terms of reduced need to import material, retaining the value of recovered resources locally, and supporting local reprocessors. It is worthwhile noting that, according to recent SWAP data, 657 tonnes of aluminium cans per annum are still going to landfill. This represents a value of approximately $1.7 million. 3.4 3.4.1 Operational issues Infrastructure
The infrastructure requirements of the different options need to be viewed in the context of the systems that are currently in place. In brief these are: Council area
Auckland
Household system
240 L wheelie bin, comingled, fortnightly collection 55 L crate for containers, paper collected separately, weekly collection* 240 L wheelie bin, comingled, fortnightly collection 140 L wheelie bin, 2 stream, fortnightly collection 45-55 L crate for containers, paper collected separately, weekly collection 45-55 L crate for containers, paper collected separately,
Materials
Paper glass, steel and aluminium cans, plastics, card, tetrapaks glass, steel and aluminium cans, plastics in bin, paper separate Paper glass, steel and aluminium cans, plastics, card, tetrapaks glass, steel and aluminium cans, plastics in wheelie bin Paper separate glass, steel and aluminium cans, plastics in bin, paper separate glass, steel and aluminium cans, plastics in bin, paper collected separately
Tonnage Contract collected expiry

41,000 Collection contract 2015 MRF 2022 2013
Franklin
2,800
Manukau
30,000
North Shore
23,500
Papakura
4,411
Collection contract 2017 MRF 2022 Collection 2015 Processing 2015 2011
Rodney
8,050
2013
10 | P a g e
Page 77 of 192
Council area
Household system
weekly collection (rural: 70L bins collected fortnightly) 140 L wheelie bin, 2 stream, fortnightly collection
Materials
Tonnage Contract collected expiry
Waitakere
glass, steel and aluminium cans, plastics in wheelie bin, paper collected separately
18,000
Collection 2015 Processing 2015
* Franklin moved to a 240L Bin on 1 November 2010 Source: ARC (2009), Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment.
The significant investment in infrastructure particularly in the case of the Onehunga MRF and in the large numbers of wheelie bins currently in service, means that moving away from a wheelie bin based system is, at least for the economic life of the assets, likely to be untenable. If all the former councils that used kerbside sort systems were to move to either a two stream or co-mingled system at least an extra 15,000 tonnes of material would require reprocessing through a MRF annually. The Visy MRF has the potential to be expanded through the addition of a second sorting line to accommodate all Aucklands recyclables. Further alterations to the facility to accommodate increased numbers of truck movements and the bulking and storage of output material would probably also be required. Other facilities in Auckland, while having some spare capacity are not of sufficient size that they could themselves accommodate the additional material from a comingled system. If the systems were to be converted to a dry system, changes to the infrastructure would be required to accommodate the wider range of materials. Changes to existing vehicle fleets will be required whichever system becomes the uniform standard. The co-mingled and dry options would require relatively standard side-arm compactors to be deployed in those areas without wheelie bin recycling collections. The two stream system would either require significant modifications to the existing fleet to accommodate two streams on the vehicles or would require an additional vehicle fleet to collect the second stream. Two stream collection vehicles have challenges in terms of vehicle configurations (compartment size, load balancing) and logistics and this is likely to increase both vehicle costs and collection times (hence operating costs). Kerbside sort vehicles are relatively cost effective by comparison, although a larger fleet is required to service the same number of households compared to compactor vehicles. 3.4.2 Deliverability
All systems described here are technically deliverable. Kerbside sort, comingled and two stream systems currently operate with the Auckland region. Although there would be significant logistical (and potentially financial) implications from moving to uniformity of service provision for any of these systems across the Auckland Councils district, no significant technical barriers are anticipated. Dry recycling systems are likely to present a greater technical challenge, particularly if a balance is to be struck between material quality and system cost.
11 | P a g e
Page 78 of 192
3.4.3
Timescales
Moving to uniformity of service provision will present a number of challenges in terms of timescales for any of the systems. Key issues include: constraints imposed by existing contracts termination dates the need to procure and roll-out uniform bin configurations ensuring adequate processing capacity is in place for material collected effects on other kerbside collection services e.g. frequency of the other services. The extent of the challenge provided by these issues depends in part on the degree to which uniformity of service provision is delivered all at once versus being rolled out progressively over time. A progressive staged rollout is likely to have advantages in terms of: 3.5 scale and manageability of the process avoidance of the need to co-terminate existing contracts improving competition amongst potential contractors. Contribution to targets
All systems would make a positive contribution to diversion targets, and there would likely be little significant difference between the quantities of material diverted from kerbside sorted, comingled, or two/three stream systems. Although quantities diverted are likely to be comparable between the systems there may be differences between the systems in respect of other environmental benefits. Where materials are put to higher value use, this will have additional climate change and resource use benefits. The dry system has the potential to deliver the largest quantities of waste by virtue of targeting the widest range of materials. Question marks over the quality of the material diverted however means that there is uncertainty over the extent to which this potential might be able to be delivered upon. It is interesting to note that recent SWAP Analysis carried out by Waste Not Consulting in October 2010 revealed that the amount of recyclable material placed out in kerbside collections appears to be directly affected by waste or refuse collection systems. SWAPs on former council areas reveal that former North Shore and Waitakere City Council areas on polluter pays refuse systems recover more aluminium cans per capita than former Auckland and Manukau City areas on rates funded mobile recycling bin collections. 3.6 Summary
The following table provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each system.
12 | P a g e
Adv/Disadv
Material quality high particularly on paper and glass Smaller, lower impact, collection vehicles More material is able to be used within NZ Capture of material from households tends to be lower Higher labour costs Significant investment in MRFs means any widespread move from co-mingled type systems would result in these assets being redundant Current MRF infrastructure would ultimately be redundant. Visy MRF contract does not expire until 2022 therefore Manukau and Auckland City areas unlikely to be able to change until this point Kerbside sort systems tend to be lower cost and require less capital inputs Material quality leads to better economic returns on collected materials Relatively straightforward infrastructure requirements Technically simple
Social/Cultural
Operational issues
Contribution to targets
Good level of contribution to diversion targets Most positive contributions to carbon and environmental harm targets Volume of materials collected may be lower than other systems
Kerbside Sort
Advantage
Well established Clear link between household actions and outcomes
Disadvantage
Co-mingled
Advantage
Capacity can be inadequate Manual transfer to kerbside required Health and safety risks from manual collections (although with introduction of organics collection and effective bylaws these can be managed) Wheelie bins most popular with households No manual lifting required Fewer health and safety risks associated with automated collections Relatively high captures of material into the system from households Ability to process material in centralised facility may help control costs Significant capital already in place Contamination hard to control Material quality issues particularly in respect of broken glass Higher capital costs. Need to write down cost of plant over time reduces flexibility Greater reliance on overseas markets to sell materials This provides a one stop shop for all recycling and avoids the need for new facilities to
The majority of households are already using this system Onehunga MRF is designed to be able to expand to have capacity to handle all kerbside material in the region Additional MRF capacity would be required
Good level of contribution to diversion targets Positive contributions to carbon and environmental harm targets Lower material quality may lead to lower benefits than kerbside sort for certain materials e.g glass
Page 79 of 192
Disadvantage
Some issues with wheelie bin provision on narrow roads, long driveways, upstairs apartments etc
Dry system
Advantage
Ease of use Minimal sorting required by public
Targets wide range of items Potential for high rates of diversion
Additional materials could be added to existing plant
Targets widest range of materials and has potential for delivering highest diversion levels
13 | P a g e
Adv/Disadv
accommodate new types of material (although modifications to existing plant would be required) Contamination potentially significant issue May be additional material quality issues compared to co-mingled systems Separation of glass and fibre streams leads to better material quality High capacity for households Higher material quality preserves income on the separated material helping reduce overall system costs Potential contamination could lead to reduced material income Plant and operational reconfigurations would be required to handle additional materials
Social/Cultural
Operational issues
Contribution to targets
Disadvantage
Some issues with wheelie bin provision on narrow roads, long driveways, upstairs apartments etc
Material quality concerns may reduce level of environmental benefit achieved by diversion
Two stream/Hybrid
Advantage
Wheelie bins handle bulk of material and provide high capacity
Existing plant could be reconfigured to accommodate separate glass/paper streams
Good level of contribution to diversion targets Positive contributions to carbon and environmental harm targets Significant vehicle reconfigurations or additional vehicles would be required
Disadvantage
Sorting required by householders Two containers/streams for householders to store and transfer to kerbside
Material quality not as good as source separated. (Although better than co-mingled)
Collection vehicle configurations and logistics hard to optimise increased collection costs
Page 80 of 192
14 | P a g e
Page 81 of 192
Page 82 of 192
INORGANIC WASTE
Page 83 of 192
Page 84 of 192
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 2. 2.1
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 1 OPTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 2 Option 1 Discontinue kerbside inorganic collections .................................................. 2
2.1.1 Social/cultural issues .......................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Environmental issues ......................................................................................................... 3 2.1.3 Economic issues ................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.4 Operational issues .............................................................................................................. 4 2.1.5 Contribution to targets ........................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Option 2 Discontinue kerbside inorganic waste collections and provide an alternative by request service ......................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Social/cultural impacts ....................................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Environmental impacts....................................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Economic impacts............................................................................................................... 5 2.2.4 Operational impacts ........................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Option 3 Discontinue kerbside inorganic collections, and instead provide an onrequest service supported by a network of resource recovery parks ........................ 6
Page 85 of 192
INORGANIC WASTE 1. DISCUSSION
The current management of domestic inorganic waste varies significantly across the region. Table 1 below shows the various inorganic services offered: Table 1
Council Waitakere City Council North Shore City Council Auckland City Council Manukau City Council Rodney District Council Papakura District Council Franklin District Council
Council inorganic services

Inorganic Service Pickup by request service Kerbside service annually Kerbside service once every two years Kerbside service annually No service provided by Council private only (as per refuse) Kerbside service annually Drop off arrangement
Inorganic waste collections account for approximately 22,000 tonnes per annum1. Inorganic waste collections are generally perceived as a highly valued service by residents. However they do not make a positive contribution to waste minimisation or management aspirations or targets. Where recycling or recovery attempts are incorporated in the collections rates are low. In the former Auckland City Councils 2007 collection, a recycling rate of less than 10% was achieved, despite surveys showing that between 30% to 50% of the inorganic collection material is reusable or recyclable2 (note that these surveys took place after scavenging and after the material has been collected and sometimes compacted). The amount of material put out for inorganic collections has shown annual increases that are out of proportion to population growth.3 The ease of disposal offered through these collections does not encourage residents to seek out alternatives. Previous research has shown that where collections are not offered, residents can be encouraged to use alternatives such as charity donations or second-hand dealers.4 Although councils do publish criteria for the types and amounts of waste that can be put out for inorganic waste collections, these largely seem to be ignored5 and would be very difficult to enforce. In 2005, a survey was undertaken of the former Auckland City Council inorganic waste collection measuring the composition of the waste. Over a quarter was what might be considered largely construction and demolition waste, timber-fabricated items (20%) and rubble and concrete (7%), even though the collection is not intended for this type of waste. The timber category would also include wooden furniture.
1 2 3
4 5
ARC (2009), Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment. Waste Not Consulting Ltd (2007), Composition of Auckland City Inorganic Refuse Collection, report to Auckland City Council In Auckland Citys inorganic collections, kilograms of waste per head of population increased from 20 kg/person in 2001 to 28 kg/person in 2007. This dropped in 2009; however previous research has shown a reduction in all waste streams in 2009, likely due to the slow economy. Envision (2005), Reclaiming Aucklands Resources Based on the information available on the composition of inorganic waste collections, and personal experience of the authors.
1|P a g e
Page 86 of 192
The composition of inorganic waste collections also changes over time, apparently in response to changes in market prices for various materials6. This demonstrates the significant impact that scavenging can have on these collections, for example in Auckland Citys inorganic waste collections the amount of metal dropped significantly between 2001 and 2005, when the market price for metal increased. Scavenging also has a negative impact on public health and safety, and the ability to reuse or recycle any of the material left out for collection. Even if residents put their waste out tidily separated for recycling, the action of scavengers often results in mixed waste strewn across the berm7 and various items with parts removed or dismantled. It is estimated that up to 30% of material placed out for collection can be removed by scavengers before the official collections occur. The actions of scavengers also results in a number of complaints from residents about the mess and perceived criminal activities. Analysis of inorganic waste that has not been placed on the berm (but instead collected from private property) has not been sorted through by scavengers indicates that a far higher proportion could be reused or recycled8. Currently collections are carried out in this way in the former Waitakere City area and Porirua City in Wellington. The options below prioritise improved waste management and minimisation practice. opinion is also discussed as part of the social impact. 2. 2.1 OPTIONS Option 1 Discontinue kerbside inorganic collections Public
This option resolves the current situation somewhat by no longer offering a rates-funded kerbside collection of inorganic items. Residents would be expected to use one of the existing options to dispose of these items either through arrangements with second-hand dealers, engaging private waste collectors or transporting the items to a transfer station themselves. 2.1.1 Social/cultural issues
As previously discussed, where it is offered, the inorganic waste collection is a very popular service with residents. Beyond the obvious factor of the easy disposal avenue the service offers, there is a real benefit to those residents who are less able to transport this type of waste themselves, the elderly, physically less-able, or those who do not have their own transport. Were this collection no longer offered, these residents will be faced with a potentially expensive and difficult task in finding a replacement option. There may also be an argument for the social benefit that the scavengers receive from the collections, in that those involved receive free second-hand items and material for which they can receive payment (such as scrap metal in the Auckland City example). However there is no way of quantifying this benefit received by a relative few through a collection funded by all ratepayers. If the councils goal is to support those in lower socio-economic groups and provide access to free or very cheap second-hand items, there are likely to be more effective and cheaper ways to achieve this.
6 7
Waste Not Consulting report for Auckland City Composition of Auckland City Inorganic Refuse Collection, 2005 and 2007 A visual inspection of a street scheduled for an inorganic collection after waste has been put out, and then just before collection, demonstrates this effectively. Envision NZ Ltd (2005), Reclaiming Aucklands Resources
2|P a g e
Page 87 of 192
There are positive social and cultural outcomes from no longer providing inorganic collections. All councils who run these collections receive complaints about the mess and the negative visual impact inorganic collections cause. Discontinuing inorganic collections, that use the berm as a collection space, would remove these issues and others, such as the health and safety concerns that must be managed when inorganic waste is left in a public space. An example is the case during a past collection where a broken childs toy was put out for collection, removed by a scavenger and given to their child, later resulting in injury to the child. In balance, the one negative impact for which there is no associated positive impact is the effect that removal of this service will have for those that find accessing alternatives difficult. 2.1.2 Environmental issues
No longer providing inorganic waste collections could have both positive and negative environmental impacts. Most councils believe that some illegal dumping occurs during inorganic waste collections whether this is non-domestic waste from within the area, or transported in from another area. Not providing an inorganic waste collection would remove the opportunity for this to occur and may encourage the use of more legitimate disposal/reuse options instead. There is a concern that no longer providing this service may encourage illegal disposal of the waste this service was intended to collect, whether this be through illegal dumping, or backyard burning, or other means. Experience from other authorities that have made similar changes to collection service is that there have been no significant increases in illegal dumping. The absence of an inorganic waste collection may encourage more responsible management of inorganic-type waste by residents, particularly the necessity to take more ownership of their waste. The sum impact should be a reduction in the amount of inorganic-type waste going to landfill, and an increase in the amount of items that are reused or recycled through the various avenues that exist. If individual transport of inorganic waste items becomes the alternative of choice, resulting in a large number of trips being made to transfer stations, this could result in a negative environmental impact through increased road traffic and emissions compared to the relatively efficient council-run collections. 2.1.3 Economic issues
Inorganic waste collections are a widely used service where it is made available and are a relatively efficient way to collect such large amounts of bulky waste, although on a tonnage basis they are generally more expensive than residual waste collections (depending on the recycling component that is requested). However as discussed earlier, there is a proportion of the inorganic waste stream that has potential to be reused or recycled, rather than being sent to landfill. As inorganic waste collections are usually rates-funded, this represents a significant cost to the community that could be avoided were the inorganic waste collections not provided. There is also the potential for positive impact on the recycling and reuse industry in Auckland were more material channelled through these avenues rather than landfill9.
Envision (2005), Auckland Recycling Industry Study A survey of recycling and second hand businesses in the Auckland Region
3|P a g e
Page 88 of 192
If the existing market is able to respond to the increased supply of quality second-hand items, there is significant potential for this industry to expand both in turnover and in employment10. There is insufficient information to predict to what extent this may happen, and how quickly. There is also potential in expanding and supporting, through promotion and education, community initiatives such as freecycle (www.freecycle.org). There may also be a negative economic impact on the community as a whole, if individual transport of inorganic waste to transfer stations becomes the norm, as transport costs and potentially hire of trailers or similar may be required. The most significant economic impact will likely be on those that are not able to transport their waste themselves, such as the elderly, physically less able, or vehicle-less households. These residents will probably have to pay for assistance to move and transport their inorganic waste items. In summary, there will be an obvious avoided cost to the council by not offering a rates-funded collection service. However, unless there is a significant change in behaviour through increased waste reduction, reuse, or recycling, it is likely that there will be a diluted and transferred cost to the community as a whole and in particular those that can less afford it. 2.1.4 Operational issues
There would be a significant advantage from an operational point of view if inorganic collections were discontinued. These collections result in a disproportionate level of complaints, service requests, management time and administration considering the amount of waste that is collected. A recent study into the health and safety issues of refuse collections also showed that inorganic collections are the type of waste collection service most likely to result in a work injury.11 2.1.5 Contribution to targets
Assuming that between 30-50% of the inorganic waste stream is actually reusable or recyclable, then potentially 7,000 to 12,000 tonnes of inorganic waste per annum could be diverted from landfill, compared to the current 500 or so tonnes per annum.12 How much of this is actually achieved would depend on various factors, such as how well the alternatives to inorganic waste collections are promoted, and how responsive the Auckland reuse and recycling industry is in providing alternatives. 2.2 Option 2 Discontinue kerbside inorganic waste collections and provide an alternative by request service
This option resolves a number of the issues outlined above by offering an alternative service that is less convenient than the former city-wide inorganic waste collections offered in some areas, but still provides access to a council-coordinated service. A collection can still be offered but only for strictly controlled items, and at a standard charge. By collecting the waste in smaller volumes and from inside property boundaries, scavenging and damage to potentially reusable or recyclable items can be minimised.
10 11
12
Envision (2005), Reclaiming Aucklands Resources Morrison Low (2010), An assessment of the health and safety costs and benefits of manual vs automated waste collections, position report for WasteMINZ Based on figures available from ARC (2009) Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment
4|P a g e
Page 89 of 192
Making collections available on a polluter-pays basis, with perhaps a subsidy for certain parts of the community, will encourage residents to take more responsibility for their waste and consider alternatives. 2.2.1 Social/cultural impacts
The most significant issue relating to the cancellation of inorganic waste collections, as outlined above, is the impact on parts of the community that are unable to easily access alternatives. By providing an alternative service on a polluter-pays basis, the council will negate this impact entirely. It may even be in the interests of the council to offer a subsidy for this service to those that fulfil certain criteria, such as holding a community services card. This is a very common approach to management of inorganic waste collections in the United Kingdom and generally volumes of waste collected are far lower, and proportions recycled and reused are higher. Collecting these items from inside property boundaries also ensures that potential public health and safety issues are prevented. A collection service of this kind would be more difficult and less efficient to provide in rural areas. However, those living in rural areas are also more likely to have access to transport and more likely to make journeys for other reasons. A polluter-pays system would benefit this part of the community as they will no longer support a rates-funded service that they may not often access. A survey carried out shortly after the former Waitakere City Council made the transition to an on request service showed that 80% of customers rated the service as excellent, with 96% of customers rated the service as at least satisfactory, meeting requirements.13 Nearly 95% of customers reported that they had noted no scavenging or illegal dumping during their collection. Most importantly, nearly 80% of customers were happy with the new service (60 % preferred the new service and 18.6 % found it comparable to the old service.) 2.2.2 Environmental impacts
By ensuring that items collected can be reused or recycled where possible, through reducing damage from scavenging or vandalism, more of the inorganic waste collected will be diverted from landfill. By carefully scheduling and routing the collection service, and including this task along with others that require frequent journeys around Auckland (such as removal of illegal dumping), additional traffic movement and emission impacts can be minimised. It is likely that more inorganic waste will be reused or recycled rather than going to landfill once the easy kerbside collection option has been removed. 2.2.3 Economic impacts
Similar to the previous option, this option will reduce costs to ratepayers from both a collection and disposal perspective, while having a positive impact on the reuse and recycling industry in Auckland, depending on the parameters of the new service.
13
Waitakere City Council (2010), Inorganic Waste Collection Service Customer Satisfaction Survey, unpublished data provided by WCC
5|P a g e
Page 90 of 192
2.2.4
Operational impacts
While the operational issues associated with a city-wide inorganic waste collection will be avoided, there will be some new issues around providing an on-request polluter-pays collection service. A barrier to operating this type of service effectively is the difficult access to transfer stations or other similar sites around the region. To ensure that as much material as possible can be reused and sold, or recycled, ideally space is needed to receive material, process, repair, and potentially even sell back to the public. The council will also need to invest in education and promotion material to ensure residents are aware of the change in service, and to encourage them to access alternatives as well as the council-provided collection service. While there may still be some health and safety issues involved in a manual collection of inorganic waste, this will be reduced by collecting the waste from private property and so reducing the impact of scavengers and illegal dumping (as was found in Waitakere City). This practice also means that if the collector arrives to find incorrect materials or unsafe presentation, the waste can be left at the customers property and further instructions provided. 2.3 Option 3 Discontinue kerbside inorganic collections, and instead provide an onrequest service supported by a network of resource recovery parks
This option is identical to Option 2 above, but with the addition of a network of Resource Recovery Parks to provide opportunities for drop off, refurbishment and resale of inorganic items.
6|P a g e
Page 91 of 192
Page 92 of 192
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES
Page 93 of 192
Page 94 of 192
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. OPTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Option 1 Waste exchanges and brokering services ........................................................... 2 2.1.1 Description .......................................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Social/cultural issues ........................................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Environmental issues .......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.4 Economic issues, cost/benefits ........................................................................................... 5 2.1.5 Operational Issues .............................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Option 2 - Introduce local requirements for management of C&D waste .............................. 6 2.2.1 Description .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Social/cultural issues ........................................................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Environmental issues .......................................................................................................... 7 2.2.4 Economic issues, costs/benefits ......................................................................................... 7 2.2.5 Operational issues ............................................................................................................... 8 2.2.6 Contribution to targets ......................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Option 3 Managing cleanfills............................................................................................... 8 2.3.1 Description .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 Social/cultural issues ......................................................................................................... 10 2.3.3 Environmental issues ........................................................................................................ 10 2.3.4 Economic issues, cost/benefits ......................................................................................... 10 2.3.5 Operational issues ............................................................................................................. 11 2.3.6 Contribution to targets ....................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Option 4 Increased availability of facilities for C&D waste (industrial and domestic) ........ 11 2.4.1 Description ........................................................................................................................ 11 2.4.2 Social/cultural issues ......................................................................................................... 12 2.4.3 Environmental issues ........................................................................................................ 12 2.4.4 Economic issues, cost/benefits ......................................................................................... 12 2.4.5 Contribution to targets ....................................................................................................... 12 Addendum ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Page 95 of 192

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE 1. DISCUSSION
Construction and demolition (C&D) waste is one of the top priority waste streams for Auckland, as identified by the Auckland Waste Officers Forums Strategic Priorities for Waste document from 2007-08 and supported by the individual councils waste management plans. MfE states that C&D waste is likely to make up around 50% of all waste generated in New Zealand, and as a result, C&D waste is viewed as a priority at a national level also1. A recent waste data stocktake in Auckland estimated that 772,000 tonnes of C&D waste is currently going to landfill or cleanfill disposal. Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) surveys conducted at approximately 50 transfer stations and landfills around New Zealand indicate that C&D waste is rarely more than 25% of waste to landfill. A SWAP survey completed in 2010 at the Waitakere Transfer Station found that 17% of waste to landfill was generated by C&D waste activity. A number of national and regional surveys have identified that a large (but unknown) proportion of C&D waste goes to cleanfills and (in Auckland and Wellington) managed or C&D fills2. Recent estimates for cleanfill (including managed fill) disposal in the Auckland region has been in the vicinity of 1.79 million tonnes per annum3, with at least 30% or 459,000 tonnes of this material being C&D waste (MfE have previously estimated that up to 80% of cleanfill waste could be C&D). Cleanfills compete strongly with landfills on a cost basis, but a Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) audit shows that some of the most common waste types going to landfill are also most likely from a C&D origin such as timber (14%) and rubble (9%). There are currently few drivers for increased reduction and recovery of C&D waste in general. The recent introduction of a landfill levy is one notable driver, although ready access to cleanfills at low cost (where the levy does not apply) reduces the impact of this economic instrument. There is a burgeoning C&D waste recycling industry. However, recent discussions amongst two largely Auckland-based C&D waste industry groups4 has established that there is still a relatively weak market for recycled material, in particular concrete and timber. The key barriers appear to be lack of awareness of product standards for materials such as concrete, and a resulting reluctance to use recycled concrete aggregate rather than virgin aggregate due to quality concerns. The increasing use of the GreenStar accreditation system for construction projects has provided a further incentive to improve C&D waste management5. However, the requirements under GreenStar for waste management are not particularly challenging and current reviews are likely to dilute these requirements further6. In working towards GreenStar accreditation, three points (out of a total of 151) are available for waste management. These points are based on the preparation of a waste management plan and achievement of certain recycling rates.
1
4 5
Ministry for the Environment (2009), Waste Minimisation in New Zealand. Discussion Document available at www.mfe.govt.nz. For example Sinclair Knight Merz (2008), Waste Facilities Survey Methodology and Summary of Results; Auckland Region Waste Stocktake referenced below, and draft Auckland Waste Assessment Auckland Regional Council (2009), Auckland Waste Stocktake Auckland Region Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment. Prepared on behalf of Auckland Regional Council by Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd, Sinclair Knight Merz, and Waste Not Consulting Ltd One being the WasteMINZ coordinated C&D waste sector group. Information from the New Zealand Green Building Council/REBRI states that in 2009, 45-50% of new office buildings were targeting Green Star ratings. Pers. Comm. BRANZ staff member
1|P a g e
Page 96 of 192
Given the size of this waste stream, better management of C&D waste and diversion of this waste stream from landfill and cleanfill disposal has the potential to make a significant contribution to waste minimisation efforts. However making significant progress is likely to require some level of action or intervention on the part of the Auckland Council, as little new progress has been made at a national and industry level over the last few years7. C&D waste management and minimisation is still in the early stages in New Zealand, compared to other countries such as in the United Kingdom where the Waste and Resources Action Programmes (WRAPs) construction programme has undertaken substantial research and succeeded in developing and implementing best practice across much of the construction sector. International research has shown that the most significant impact can be made in reducing and preventing construction waste at the earliest stages8 using tools such as site waste management plans (SWMPs). However, these are also the most difficult impacts to measure accurately. Research shows that recycling rates of over 80% are feasible using a C&D waste recycling facility and that requiring levels of 10% recycled content for construction projects should be considered an industry minimum.9 This international research and baseline data has been used to guide the options outlined below. These options are listed in rough order of input required from the council. To be most effective, each option would be supported by the ones preceding it (e.g. facilities for recycling/processing construction waste would likely be used more if access to cleanfills is controlled or restricted somehow).
2. 2.1 2.1.1
OPTIONS Option 1 Waste exchanges and brokering services Description
This option includes a range of potential types of initiatives that could serve to promote good practice and diversion of C&D materials. In practice most of these initiatives would have a wider focus than C&D waste (and these initiatives are also outlined in the commercial waste section), however they are included here as C&D waste would likely be a significant focus for them. The potential initiatives include the following:10
Waste matching: This would entail a unit with dedicated staff who actively match-make difficult or one-off wastes. These facilitators may become aware of specific wastes either via the website listings or, ideally, through direct contact with businesses. Waste-matching may be possible to be achieved without requiring listings on the web-directory. These types of active waste matching services are provided by a range of different organisations in a number of countries, including Christchurchs Terra Nova. This type of service has the added benefit of keeping waste brokerage staff in contact with businesses to help maintain strong business networks. This service could include sending direct SMS-messages or email-alerts to businesses for new listings, difficult, or one-off wastes. Promotion: Active promotion of the waste brokerage and exchange services to key businesses and business sectors that can utilise waste matching/exchange services and to those businesses and organisations identified as likely users of waste materials (e.g.
7 8 9 10
For example, since the REBRI material was first developed in 2005 there has been little added or updated WRAP (2009), Site Waste Management Plans Impacts Survey 2009, available on www.wrap.org.uk Recycled content being the amount of recycled content contained in building materials by mass These options are taken from: Waste Not Consulting (2010) Waste Brokering in the Auckland Region Report for the Auckland Regional Council
2|P a g e
Page 97 of 192
recycling sector, creative industries etc). Standard promotional material could be developed, similar to that used by the California CalMAX waste brokerage model.
Facilitation: Facilitate and develop partnerships with key organisations that could help promote waste brokerage services to the wider business, recycling and community sectors, and identify key research and market development projects. Organisations may include universities, community groups, enterprising agencies, industry associations, business parks, recycling sectors or charitable organisations that deal with the reuse or on-sale of wastes and materials (e.g. Salvation Army, DonateNZ). Waste brokering staff would facilitate forums with key partners to discuss re-use/recycling opportunities, or work to develop linkages with specific organisations (e.g. council trade-waste officers, pollution prevention officers, sustainable business forums, construction sector, charity sector etc.) Ideally, this type of facilitating role would aim to create and strengthen partnerships to promote sustainable environmental and economic practice through specific research and development projects or new services. An example of where this concept could be developed further in the region is within the Auckland charity sector. A directory of charitable organisations that accept specific wastes or materials in the Auckland region could be produced in a similar manner as has been done by the New York Materials Exchange Development Programme. This type of reuse/charity directory could be modeled on the former Auckland Regional Council online recycling directory, but utilise the networks already established by the successful DonateNZ website. GIS-tools: Develop and utilise GIS-mapping tools to map, locate and facilitate linkages for specific waste streams and waste users. This type of tool would be most applicable for C&D and/or inorganic wastes (both identified as priority waste streams in this Waste Assessment), given these wastes are typically generated at temporary sites and/or cannot be stored on-site for long periods as reflected by feedback from the construction sector. A GIS-mapping tool would need to be operated in a real-time basis and could be used to notify registered C&D/inorganic waste collection operators of new listings which are relevant to their operations. This option could build on an existing independent proposal, referred to as the Earth Register that was presented to the Auckland Waste Officers Forum and the Ministry for the Environment in 2009. Business waste assessments: Conduct on-site visual waste assessments for Auckland businesses, as offered by UKs Why Waste, Kentuckys KIME, and New York Citys WasteMatch programmes, among others. There is potential to offer this type of service to a range of Auckland businesses, in particular those businesses that are part of a future council-subsidised business sustainability programme and/or those businesses that are members of independent sustainability programmes (e.g. Sustainable Business Network). Utilising engineering or environmental staff and students at the University of Auckland or other tertiary institutes to undertake this type of service could be an option, as is the case in Kentuckys KIME model. More in-depth consulting services and waste assessments could be offered on a business membership or user-pays basis in a similar way to the Green Calgarys Commercial Environmental Services programme. Resource recovery network: Facilitate the active involvement of Aucklands overall resource recovery sector and transfer stations so that staff at these sites interact with the waste brokering services and utilise the directories and/or waste brokers to post or match materials that are recovered and stockpiled at sites (e.g. similar to the use of TradeMe by Waitakere Transfer Station but for less valuable materials). Incentives scheme: Establish an incentive scheme for public or privately run waste handling facilities to encourage these sites to take advantage of waste brokering services. For example, staff at these waste handling facilities could be encouraged to identify businesses that regularly dispose of wastes that could otherwise be reused / recycled. Staff would provide the waste broker with a business contact to follow up with and if a match is made, then a type of bonus could be provided to the staff member/site. Incentives need to be attractive enough to privately operated sites as these sites rely on maximising the through-put of waste.
3|P a g e
Page 98 of 192
Research development and funding: Facilitate research and development projects with key partner organisations and sector groups. Waste brokering staff would have a role in developing funding applications for public-private partnership projects which could utilise the Waste Minimisation Fund. Applications could relate to research and development projects for specific waste streams, request funding for specific components of the waste brokerage programme (e.g. incentive scheme for waste-handling facilities or GIS-tool development) or fund investment in new technologies and research etc. An example of the type of project that could be used as a model is the recent Auckland food and beverage sector project initiated by Enterprising Manukau in 2008. At the time of writing, this project has led to the facilitation of a pilot food waste collection to serve the hotel sector in Auckland.
Combined as one overall scheme, the eight components represent a comprehensive programme which could help deliver multiple waste minimisation, social and economic benefits in an integrated manner. However, it may be possible and more practical to deliver individual components in a modular fashion, based on available council resources, funding and priorities and business needs. In a number of ways this option is only going to be genuinely effective if it is combined with one or more of the other options outlined below, as making the facilities available does not necessarily in itself provide sufficient incentive for change. The following options offer more direct drivers for waste minimisation which this initiative would support. 2.1.2 Social/cultural issues
These types of schemes have a number of potential positive social benefits, including enhancing community engagement and the potential for local economic development through extracting value from discarded materials. While it is reasonable to imagine positive impacts from these initiatives, the measurement of the impacts is extremely difficult, particularly at this stage. An assessment of the potential impacts by Waste Not Consulting is shown in the following table.
Table 1 Proposed Waste Brokering Benefits
BROKERINGSCHEME
# SchemeComponent Type 1 WasteMatching 2 Promotion 3 Facilitation 4 GISTools 5 BusinessWaste Assessments Active Active ActivePlus ActivePlus ActivePlus ActivePlus ActivePlus ActivePlus Waste Reduction
PROPOSEDBENEFITS
Environmental Cost/Resource Community LocalEconomic Engagement Development Protection Savings
6 ResourceRecovery 7 IncentiveScheme 8 R&D/Funding
Total
Note: for more on classification of services and benefits refer to point of information 1 (at end of document)
4|P a g e
Page 99 of 192
2.1.3
While the scheme is likely to generate some level of waste reduction, as is noted above, the most significant impacts are likely to occur in concert with other initiatives. The potential impacts are difficult to quantify at this stage. 2.1.4 Economic issues, cost/benefits
The Waste Not Consulting report undertook a high level evaluation of the potential costs of administering the schemes. The precise costs would be dependent on the delivery mechanisms (i.e. whether they are undertaken in-house or through contracts/partnerships etc). The table below shows the indicative costs.
Table 2 Indicative Costs and Suggested Delivery Options
BROKERINGSCHEME
# Scheme Component 1 WasteMatching 2 Promotion 3 Facilitation 4 GISTools 5 BusinessWaste Assessments Resource 6 Recovery Type Active Active ActivePlus ActivePlus ActivePlus ActivePlus FTEs 3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3
INDICATIVEANNUALCOSTS
$FTEs $180,000 $12,000 $30,000 $18,000 $30,000 $12,000 $12,000 $18,000 $Expenses Delivery
$30,000 CouncilorContract $10,000 CouncilorContract $10,000 Council
$2000* CouncilorContract $5,000 $5,000 ContractandUser Pays Council
7 IncentiveScheme ActivePlus 8 R&D/Funding ActivePlus
$25,000 CouncilorContract $5,000 Council
TOTAL TOTALANNUALCOSTS
Note:
* **
5.2
$312,000 $404,000
$92,000
Expenses for initial set-up costs are not included for any of the components e.g. for the initial GIS tools development and set up. 1x FTE = $60,000
The total annual cost of the eight components is estimated to be $404,000 (including 5.2 FTEs and $92,000 estimated expenses). This total figure excludes set-up costs associated with the individual components, such as developing the GIS-mapping software and tools. Depending on available council resources, funding and priorities, and associated business needs, it may be possible to deliver individual components according to council priorities and business needs. 2.1.5 Operational Issues
No significant operational issues are anticipated with the above initiatives. The most significant factor which will affect the above indicative costing is how the different types of initiatives are delivered and by whom whether they are part of the council Solid Waste Business Unit, whether they are delivered through contracts with the private or community sector or whether a separate
5|P a g e
Page 100 of 192
entity is established for the purpose. The issue of funding the above types of initiatives would also require further consideration. Funding options could include rates, user pays elements, or through the council apportioned waste levy funds. 2.2 2.2.1 Option 2 - Introduce local requirements for management of C&D waste Description
This option improves on the status quo and involves setting requirements for all construction projects in Auckland. This could be achieved by: requiring all construction projects in Auckland over a certain size to complete a Site Waste Management Plan11 and achieve 50% recycling rate (equivalent to scoring two out of the three points in most GreenStar rating tools), and setting minimum standards for C&D waste management and minimisation in council procurement systems for all the councils construction projects, including a 50% recycling rate and a 10% recycled content requirement.12
This approach will both create demand for recycled products, by requiring recycled content in the councils construction projects, and encourage waste reduction and recycling in all construction projects. Requiring a certain standard under the various GreenStar rating tools is not recommended for two reasons. Firstly, there is no guarantee that a good rating under GreenStar will have been achieved by delivering better waste management outcomes, as it is perfectly feasible to achieve the highest ratings without scoring any of the three available points for construction waste management. Secondly, GreenStar rating tools do not yet exist for many construction project types (for example a residential rating tool is currently in development and no tools exist for infrastructure projects). It should be noted that the term Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) is used here for clarity: - a Waste Management Plan could be understood to be an overall company-wide action rather than relating to specific construction projects as a SWMP normally would. It is also important that a SWMP is developed as early as possible in a construction project, preferably at the client/design stage. SWMPs are not yet as common in New Zealand as in other countries, where they have been used on a voluntary basis for some time (such as the SWMPs under assessment schemes such as GreenStar in the United States of America or BREEAM in the United Kingdom). SWMPs are now compulsory in the United Kingdom for construction projects over a certain size via legislation. At their most basic level, a SWMP is simply a prediction of waste types and volumes prior to construction, monitoring of data throughout construction, and a final review of performance post construction. However, research by WRAP in the United Kingdom has shown that just the process of preparing such a waste management plan for a construction project, particularly if this occurs at the earliest stages, prompts consideration and implementation of better waste management and minimisation and also makes performance easier to measure and compare.13 Requiring that C&D waste is recycled will only address part of the recycling loop. Recycled products require a market, and therefore it is also recommended that the council introduce
11
12
13
Site Waste Management Plans may be able to be implemented through a bylaw that request a SWMP at the time a building consent application is lodged. A number of bylaws already in place in NZ require Waste Management Plans for multi-unit developments, and the SWMP requirement could be applied through a similar mechanism. These targets (50% recycling and 10% recycled content) are required to achieve two out of three available points in most Greenstar rating tools. BRANZ consider these to represent average performance. WRAP (2009), Site Waste Management Plans Impacts Survey 2009, available on www.wrap.org.uk
6|P a g e
Page 101 of 192
requirements for more recycled products, or recycled content, to be used in the councils construction projects to facilitate the development of this market. Procurement requirements have been a key tool used by the WRAP construction team in the United Kingdom. In 2008 WRAP reported 9M of impact resulting from procurement requirements out of a total 58M of impact achieved that year.14 This approach would be particularly effective in addressing issues with recycled aggregates, where the barriers are largely perceived rather than real. Existing standards, such as those written by the New Zealand Transport Agency for recycled aggregates, could be referenced in procurement documents and minimum levels of recycled material such as aggregate set for roading and similar projects. 2.2.2 Social/cultural issues
Previous reports on C&D waste and on the recycling industry in general in Auckland have concluded that increased recycling activity would result in increased employment15. Recycling of material is likely to be more labour intensive due to the need to separate materials, whether onsite or subsequently at a materials recovery facility. However it is difficult to quantify and predict this impact. 2.2.3 Environmental issues
The most significant environmental impact from this action is the reduction in C&D waste, and increased recycling both resulting in decreased C&D waste going to landfill and cleanfill. Research shows that the most effective way to prevent C&D waste is for waste management and minimisation to be considered as early as possible in the construction process. SWMPs prove to be more effective in waste reduction the earlier they are produced16 - 65% of respondents to a recent WRAP survey identified designing out waste as the single most effective action (from a cost saving point of view as well as waste management and minimisation). Therefore the requirement for SWMPs should specifically state when the SWMP should first be considered. SWMPs overall have been shown to have positive impacts from a waste reduction, management, and minimisation perspective. It is difficult to quantify the impact they have had, as construction projects vary significantly and it is rare to be able to compare one identical project (with a SWMP) to another. The extent to which a SWMP will be effective also depends on the level of involvement by all parties involved in a construction project, and the significance placed on the SWMP and the opportunities identified. WRAP estimate that the introduction of compulsory SWMPs in the United Kingdom will result in resource efficiency gains in over 65% of construction projects, with reductions in waste to landfill of between 58% and 85% (for new build projects).17 2.2.4 Economic issues, costs/benefits
Contrary to expectations amongst much of the construction industry, better management and minimisation of construction waste usually saves money overall. WRAP research has demonstrated an average saving of 1.6% of the entire construction budget. This is a significant
14 15
16
17
WRAP (2008), WRAP Business Plan 2006-08: Impact Review. Available on www.wrap.org.uk. Envision (2005), Reclaiming Aucklands Resources; also Symonds Group, Construction and demolition waste management practices and their economic impacts, report for the European Commission; and WRAP (2009), Cost Benefit Analyses Summary Report and numerous case studies available on www.wrap.org.uk WRAP case studies available on www.wrap.org.uk, DEFRA sustainable construction strategy on, www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-sectors/construction/sustainable-construction/strategy-for-sustainable-construction WRAP (2010), Assessing the costs and benefits of reducing waste in construction, available on www.wrrap.org.uk.
7|P a g e
Page 102 of 192
savings considering waste management is usually between 6% to 10% of a project budget depending on the type and location of the project.18 However a key difference between the United Kingdom and New Zealand is the presence in New Zealand of cleanfills as a cheap alternative disposal option to landfills. The United Kingdom does have a range of facilities that fall under the category of landfills, but all must comply with basic environmental management requirements19. The landfill tax applies to all facilities. However, some lower risk wastes are subject to a lower landfill tax including rocks, non-contaminated soil, clean building or demolition stone, and topsoil. The REBRI programme resources, now based within BRANZ, does include a few case studies from large New Zealand construction projects that have achieved cost savings through better waste management.20 One barrier appears to be lack of awareness of the potential to make cost savings through better waste management and minimisation. Instead the general assumption appears to be that the cost in additional time, staffing and infrastructure that might be required to manage construction waste better will not be matched or bettered by the cost savings made in waste prevention, avoided materials wastage and decreased disposal costs. Promotion through the Auckland Council of the REBRI guidance and case studies would partially assist. However, with many construction waste types the ongoing easy access to cheap cleanfill disposal may well make the economics marginal. Further work would be necessary to support the business case, but while access to cheap cleanfill disposal exists this will not be a strong argument for better waste management. 2.2.5 Operational issues
The key operational impact will be the requirement to receive a SWMP with a building consent, check for completeness, and follow up if not provided or unsatisfactory. Like other regulation and enforcement tools, this could be self-funding. Basic templates for SWMPs already exist and are freely available as part of the REBRI resource. The council would also be required to insert requirements in procurement documents and procurement managers will need to ensure that these requirements are met. 2.2.6 Contribution to targets
Although, as discussed above, it is difficult to quantify the C&D waste stream, it is most likely the largest single waste stream in Auckland. Therefore any reduction in C&D waste to landfill will make a significant contribution towards an overall waste to landfill target. However given the lack of data on C&D waste volumes, it is impossible to estimate what the potential reduction might be. What this option will provide is more detailed information on C&D waste streams and destinations through the SWMP system. 2.3 2.3.1 Option 3 Managing cleanfills Description
This option addresses one of the key issues currently preventing better C&D waste management the availability of low cost cleanfill disposal.
18
19 20
In addition to previously referenced reports Client Cost Saving Guidance available on www.wrap.org.uk/construction; also www.wrap.org.uk/constructioncba for general cost benefit analysis data. Refer defra.gov.uk for specific details of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and other relevant legislation www.branz.org.uk/rebri
8|P a g e
Page 103 of 192
In the MfEs 2002 A Guide to the Management of Cleanfills, cleanfill is defined as: Material that when buried will have no adverse effect on people or the environment. Cleanfill material includes virgin natural materials such as clay, soil and rock, and other inert materials such as concrete or brick that are free of:

combustible, putrescible, degradable or leachable components hazardous substances products or materials derived from hazardous waste treatment, hazardous waste stabilisation or hazardous waste disposal practices materials that may present a risk to human or animal health such as medical and veterinary waste, asbestos or radioactive substances liquid waste
In terms of the Auckland Air, Land and Water Plan, the deposition on land of materials that comply with the MfEs definition of cleanfill is generally a permitted activity. The rationale for this is that cleanfilling can be a beneficial activity (for example, where it is used to improve sites). As a result of cleanfillings status as a permitted activity, the exact number is impossible to determine. However, despite the fact that most cleanfills in the region do not pose problems, the extremely large numbers of cleanfills makes oversight problematic. Managed fill sites, that accept soil with low levels of contamination, are more rigorously controlled through the resource consent process. Compounding this issue is that many cleanfills exist only temporarily while a site is levelled or gully filled for example, and they are not operated as ongoing disposal facilities. A 2005 survey by SKM identified at least 30 cleanfill sites in the region,21 based on information provided by the former Auckland Regional Council. The survey also noted six managed fill sites, where low level contaminants could be discharged. Two of these sites were disposing of waste generated on-site from their own operations. Previous research into cleanfill management22 has identified two main management options that can be delivered at a regional or local level: 1. 2. RMA approach - conditions on consents for cleanfills, with associated enforcement RMA supported by a bylaw that controls cleanfills, including licensing of operators
The former option is currently operating effectively in Taranaki, while the best example of the latter option is the bylaw that has been in place in Christchurch City since 2004. The RMA-only approach utilises the provisions of the RMA to control the location, construction, management, and self-monitoring of cleanfills. Under this approach cleanfills are regarded as controlled or discretionary activities in the relevant regional and district plans, and so are able to be more readily controlled and monitored by the council. In general consent conditions on acceptable materials follow the MfEs cleanfill guidelines,23 if not more strict than the guidelines. Bylaw management has additional options for controlling cleanfills beyond this, by licensing cleanfill operators and setting conditions under that licence for operation of the cleanfill, which could involve further restrictions on materials or proportions of specific materials. The key focus of the bylaw approach is to achieve higher levels of waste diversion (as opposed to the RMA which focuses on minimising environmental harm), and so under a bylaw approach materials such as concrete, which are essentially inert acceptable cleanfill material with minimal
21
22
23
SKM (2008) Waste Facilities Survey Methodology and Summary of Results, unpublished, prepared for the Ministry for the Environment Ministry for the Environment (2009) work not yet released. Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd, Waste Not Consulting, and Tong Associates. Ministry for the Environment (2002) A Guide to the Management of Cleanfills, prepared by Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd, available on www.mfe.govt.nz.
9|P a g e
Page 104 of 192
environmental impact, could be more readily diverted to a more beneficial use such as recycled aggregate. As noted above, in the Auckland region, a number of consents have been given for facilities that are known as managed fills. These are more similar to a cleanfill than a landfill, but are able to accept materials that are outside those listed in the cleanfill guidelines. Consequently, managed fills are required to apply for a consent from the council. Unfortunately, existing consents makes an enforcement RMA-type approach more difficult if the aim is to discourage the use of cleanfill/managed fill disposal for C&D waste. For this reason, the bylaw approach is likely to be more appropriate for the Auckland Council, although there would need to be further research into those situations where a consent has already been given for a facility that is operating against the objectives for better C&D waste management. The specific details of a cleanfill bylaw have not been discussed here, but a bylaw system similar to that in operation in Christchurch has been used as a baseline. 2.3.2 Social/cultural issues
There are no significant social or cultural issues anticipated from a bylaw approach to regulating cleanfills. 2.3.3 Environmental issues
It is anticipated that there would be significant environmental benefits resulting from tighter control of cleanfills. These benefits are all but impossible to quantify at present given the lack of data on cleanfilling activity in the region and the number of potential variables in how a cleanfill bylaw might be implemented. However key benefits could be expected to include the following: Reduced site emissions, in particular to ground water resulting from greater control over what enters the sites Reduced resource use from reuse of recoverable materials such as timber, plasterboard, concrete, and asphalt Extended cleanfill life resulting from a decrease in tonnage entering cleanfills 2.3.4 Economic issues, cost/benefits
There are likely to be a number of cost implications from introducing a cleanfill bylaw. In terms of the council costs, these will relate to monitoring and enforcement of the bylaw. If the scheme is properly structured, cost recovery should be possible through annual licence fees (this has been the experience in Christchurch). If prosecutions are brought under the scheme it may be possible to defray some of these costs through fines or penalties. Cleanfill operators will face extra costs under a licensing scheme. This includes the cost of licence fees (which are not expected to be prohibitive), additional administrative costs associated with monitoring and reporting on cleanfill activity and potential loss of income as a result of decreased tonnage entering cleanfills, through increased diversion and the likely increased costs of cleanfilling as a result of operators passing on additional costs. These issues are likely to mean the introduction of a cleanfill bylaw will meet with some resistance from operators, and this will require a robust consultation process to ensure these concerns are acknowledged. The key benefit for operators, which has been endorsed by operators in Christchurch, is that a cleanfill bylaw creates a level playing field and ensures that responsible operators are not unfairly disadvantaged by uncontrolled facilities undercutting pricing.
10 | P a g e
Page 105 of 192
2.3.5
Operational issues
There are a range of operational issues that will arise if a cleanfill bylaw is enacted. Outside the bylaw development process the operational considerations for the council are likely to include the following: Establishing monitoring and enforcement resource requirements Ensuring communications with operators and key stakeholders Setting up and administering data and reporting systems Undertaking monitoring and enforcement Establishing clear processes for bringing prosecutions Reviewing the operation and effectiveness of the bylaw and reporting to councillors 2.3.6 Contribution to targets
A total of 1,790,000 tonnes of material is estimated to be disposed of to cleanfills and managed fills within the region annually.24 There is therefore potential to divert significant tonnage of material to beneficial use from this waste stream if even a fraction of the material is targeted. Experience from Christchurch suggests cleanfill tonnage has dropped by approximately one third since the introduction of the bylaw.25 If a similar level of diversion was achieved in Auckland this could be equivalent to approximately 540,000 tonnes of material diverted to beneficial use. 2.4 Option 4 Increased availability of facilities for C&D waste (industrial and domestic) Description
2.4.1
Restricting disposal to cleanfill would be most effective if supported by the increased availability of C&D recycling/processing facilities. Although several of these exist already in Auckland (e.g. Ward Demolition and Nikau Contractors, and the recently opened Smart Environmental and Winstones operation in Kumeu), feedback from the industry suggests that it is difficult to find suitable locations for these facilities. When restricting access to cleanfill disposal for C&D waste, it is important to consider this in the context of the larger waste management system, and particularly what alternatives exist for the disposal or processing of C&D waste. For example, other than recycling, some C&D waste can be used as cover material at landfills. Currently only a small proportion of the total estimated C&D waste stream is ending up at recycling or recovery centres26. There are several reasons for this, but one contributing factor is likely to be the lack of C&D waste facilities in the region. If the council wishes to encourage diversion of C&D waste towards recycling and recovery rather than disposal (whether cleanfill, managed fill or landfill) then it is preferable for both the council (from an enforcement perspective as well as a waste management perspective) and the C&D industry that recovery and recycling facilities exist. One key aspect is the availability of sorting, recovery, and recycling facilities that from a transport and cost perspective are similarly accessible to the disposal options. The council could rely on the private sector to provide these facilities, and focus on restricting the disposal avenues for C&D waste. Alternatively, it could take a more active role, ranging from direct ownership and provision of the facilities or contractual
24 25
26
ARC (2009) Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment. Auckland Regional Council Technical Report 2009-107 Potgieter (2004) A Bold New Step: Christchurchs Cleanfill Licensing Bylaw. Paper presented to WasteMINZ Conference 2004; CCC (2006) Towards Zero Waste: Waste Management Plan 2006 ARC (2009) Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment. Auckland Regional Council Technical Report 2009-107
11 | P a g e
Page 106 of 192
arrangements with the private sector at existing waste facilities (e.g. transfer stations), to spatial waste planning to provide sites for these facilities. Where these facilities are only to be useful for C&D waste, a less active role might be preferred. However, another possibility is to combine C&D waste processing with inorganic waste (i.e. bulky household items such as furniture, appliances, carpets etc), which, while relatively minor in volume, has a high profile with the public and can cause significant management issues for councils. While this waste stream is discussed in more detail in a separate background paper (refer Appendix A Supporting research Inorganic Waste), a facility suitable for receiving C&D waste is likely to be suitable also for inorganic waste. For this reason, an option that involves the council taking a more active role in providing facilities for C&D waste has been assumed here, with the council ensuring (whether through direct ownership, contracting, or leasing) that a network of resource recovery facilities are available in Auckland. 2.4.2 Social/cultural issues
Increasing the availability of C&D waste sorting facilities and the tonnage of materials able to be processed by these facilities is likely to result in increased employment opportunities. 2.4.3 Environmental issues
There are an estimated 313,000 tonnes of C&D waste disposed of to landfill in the Auckland region and a further 450,000 tonnes of C&D material disposed of to cleanfill.27 This makes C&D waste one of the single most significant sources of material that is currently being sent to disposal. The presence of facilities designed to effectively sort and recover material has the potential to result in significant diversion of material from landfill. 2.4.4 Economic issues, cost/benefits
Diverting material from landfill will result in avoidance of disposal (and potentially transport) charges which will have an economic impact in terms of the costs of construction and civil works projects. Establishing and operating such facilities will however likely entail significant cost and with that some potential commercial risk.28 The costs and risks entailed with establishing facilities are likely to be significantly reduced if C&D sorting and processing capability is added to existing waste facilities. 2.4.5 Contribution to targets
As noted above, there is significant tonnage of C&D materials that could potentially be diverted to beneficial use. Accessing this tonnage will be critical if recovery or diversion targets beyond the status quo are to be achieved.
27 28
ARC (2009) Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment. Auckland Regional Council Technical Report 2009-107 At the time of writing two operations in Christchurch that had a core focus of processing C&D waste, Meta NZ and Becon Canterbury Limited had recently experienced financial difficulties with Meta NZ (responsible for processing kerbside recyclables) taken over by Christchurch City Council to ensure its continued operation.
12 | P a g e
Page 107 of 192
Addendum Point of information 1 - Classification of waste exchanges and brokering services To help clarify the various types of waste brokering (or waste exchange or matching services) that exist nationally and internationally, four different categories are defined below. For the purpose of this study, those described as Type 2 (Active) and Type 3 (ActivePlus), and highlighted in green in Figure 1 below, form the scope of this study.
Figure 2 - Classification of waste exchanges/brokering services
1. Type 1 (Passive) This grouping is for web-based waste exchanges only. The service utilises an online databases for the presentation of users waste information and requires minimal staff input to manage (e.g. similar to the existing ARC RENEW programme). Given that the 2008 Waste Exchange Review report reviewed numerous national and international examples of web-based waste exchanges, this type of waste brokering service is not included in the scope of this study. Instead, Appendix A presents a table listing the 21 examples of international and national web-based waste exchange directories reviewed in the 2008 Waste Exchange Review report. 2. Type 2 (Active) This type of waste exchange/waste brokering service is described as an active form of a web-based directory given it is not solely based on the web-based service but requires more personalised waste matching services that must be conducted directly by staff. An example of this type of service operating in New Zealand is Christchurch City Councils TerraNova programme (www.terranova.org.nz). 3. Type 3 (ActivePlus) For the purpose of this study, an ActivePlus waste brokering service extends further beyond the basic online directories and personalised waste-matching services, as described above. This type of service would therefore typically be part of a wider network of integrated public and private waste minimisation initiatives and services. A range of tools could be utilised for the brokering service including an online exchange directory, recycling directory, face-to-face visits, education, research and development, and/or developing partnerships and projects with key industries and physical resource recovery sites. ActivePlus waste brokering services may facilitate the reuse of materials and wastes and market development through targeting specific industry sectors, large businesses, or businesses located in close proximity, and/or key waste streams. For example, the exchange/broker may work to develop uses and markets for organic wastes by facilitating links between waste processors and the food producing industries, or work with the construction and building sector to match up C&D wastes with other builders/construction sites or resource recovery operators. ActivePlus waste brokering is closest to what is referred to as industrial ecology or industrial symbiosis.
13 | P a g e
Page 108 of 192
According to the UKs National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP), Industrial symbiosis brings together companies from all business sectors with the aim of improving cross industry resource efficiency through the commercial trading of materials, energy and water and sharing assets, logistics and expertise. It engages traditionally separate industries and other organisations in a collective approach to competitive advantage involving physical exchange of materials, energy, water and/or by-products together with the shared use of assets, logistics and expertise.29 4. Type 4 (Commercial) This type of service involves brokering the most cost-effective waste and recycling contracts on behalf of businesses, in a similar way that insurance or mortgage brokers conduct their services. This type of service is not included in this study, given that commercial entities are more appropriately equipped to develop and deliver such services, rather than local government organisations.
29
www.nisp.org.uk
14 | P a g e
Page 109 of 192
Page 110 of 192
COMMERCIAL WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES
Page 111 of 192
Page 112 of 192
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 2
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 1 OPTIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Option 1 - Promote voluntary waste minimisation to the commercial sector .................... 2 Social/cultural issues ................................................................................................. 4 Environmental issues................................................................................................. 5 Economic issues, cost/benefits .................................................................................. 5 Operational Issues ..................................................................................................... 6 Description ................................................................................................................. 6 Social/cultural issues ................................................................................................. 7 Environmental impacts .............................................................................................. 7 Economic and financial impacts ................................................................................ 7 Operational impacts ................................................................................................... 8 Contribution to targets ............................................................................................... 8 Description ................................................................................................................. 9 Description ................................................................................................................. 9 Social/cultural impacts ............................................................................................... 9 Environmental impacts .............................................................................................. 9 Economic and financial impacts ................................................................................ 9 Operational issues ................................................................................................... 10 Contributions to targets............................................................................................ 10 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.3 2.4 2.3.1 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5 2.4.6
Option 2 Status quo, but controlled through bylaw and/or licensing .............................. 6
Option 3 - Council involvement in management of transfer stations / disposal sites ........ 9 Option 4 - Council collection services extended to commercial customers ...................... 9
Addendum ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Page 113 of 192

COMMERCIAL WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES (EXCLUDING CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE) 1 DISCUSSION
Over fifty per cent of waste sent to disposal from the Auckland region (to landfill, cleanfill or other disposal site such as managed fills) is non-domestic in origin and largely outside councilcontrolled collection, transfer and processing systems.1 A large, although relatively uncertain, proportion of the non-domestic waste is from construction and demolition activities, and as this has its own unique properties and issues. This is dealt with in a separate background paper (refer Appendix A Supporting research: Construction and Demolition wastes). Options for managing the remainder of waste generated by commercial activity are considered here. The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) requires that waste assessments and waste minimisation and management plans consider all waste streams rather than just domestic waste as has often been the case with territorial authority waste planning in the past. Historically, few services have been provided for commercial waste by councils. In some cases non-domestic waste is collected in council collections, but this is generally not considered to be a core activity and the services are usually designed for the type and volumes of wastes that would be expected to arise from a household. One example of this is the refuse and recycling collections in the inner central business district (CBD) of Auckland City. One survey suggested that nearly a third of the waste collected by the council in the inner CBD was not domestic or domestic-type waste.2 It has instead been left largely to the private sector to respond to customer demand from the commercial and industrial sectors, including some recycling services. Based on data from the Auckland Waste Stocktake3 excluding construction and demolition (C&D) waste, the commercial sector accounts for in the order of 85% of material recovered and also for approximately 85% of the material disposed. This means that if significant impacts are going to be made in terms of waste minimisation, the contribution of the commercial sector will be critical. There is therefore potential to make a significant contribution towards targets for reducing waste to landfill by influencing how commercial waste streams are managed. It is also worth noting that the data suggests the commercial sector recycles or recovers for beneficial use close to 50% of the material generated with approximately 1 million tonnes going to recovery and a similar number to landfill.4 Various options are outlined in the sections below as to how this might be achieved, in rough order of increasing involvement from the council.
1
2 3
Auckland Regional Council (2009), Auckland Waste Stocktake Auckland Region Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment. Prepared on behalf of Auckland Regional Council by Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd, Sinclair Knight Merz, and Waste Not Consulting Ltd Waste Not Consulting Ltd (2004), Analysis of Council Bagged Refuse in the inner CBD Auckland Regional Council (2009), Auckland Waste Stocktake Auckland Region Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment. Prepared on behalf of Auckland Regional Council by Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd, Sinclair Knight Merz, and Waste Not Consulting Ltd Excluding C&D was and materials to cleanfill
1|P a g e
Page 114 of 192
In addition to the potential to manage and minimise commercial waste more than at present, commercial waste collections can result in other issues for councils. In many cases, commercial waste collections use public spaces for collections e.g. rubbish bags or bins are put out on footpaths or other pedestrian areas for collection by various companies. There have been cases in the past of waste receptacles being stored in public areas. This practice can lead to health and safety problems as pedestrians navigate around piles of rubbish and/or recycling, and it has a negative impact on the aesthetics of public spaces. These problems have led some councils, such as the former Auckland City Council and Queenstown Lakes District Council, to introduce restrictions about where and when commercial waste can be put out for private collections. The following options are proposed for consideration for the management and minimisation of commercial waste. 2 2.1 OPTIONS Option 1 - Promote voluntary waste minimisation to the commercial sector
Business sustainability initiatives supported by the former councils in the Auckland Region included: Ecobiz Envirosmart/Enviromark Businesscare REBRI RENEW Waste Exchange Conscious consumer
There are a range of positive reasons why it can be in businesses best commercial interests to minimise waste, and there is a significant body of literature identifying the benefits which include: reduced costs from waste disposal reduced costs associated with the avoided production of waste reduced raw material costs positive staff engagement potential sales and public image benefits from promotion of green credentials.
There are a range of programmes and approaches which take account of waste minimisation which are promoted to and adopted by businesses. These include Cleaner Production, Zero Waste, Environmental Management Systems, The Natural Step, Ecolabels, voluntary industry sector producer responsibility schemes and initiatives5 and networks such as the Sustainable Business Network and the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development. In addition the Government also has the power under the WMA to establish Product Stewardship Schemes for materials or products it nominates as Priority Products.6 There is also evidence that taking account of sustainability (including waste minimisation) is a direction that increasing numbers of businesses are inclined to go without specific encouragement or support from the council, due to the development of markets for green
5 6
Examples are the Glass Packaging Forum and the Enterprising Manukau led commercial food waste collection pilot programme in Auckland WMA Part 2 Product Stewardship. No priority products have been nominated as of the time of writing
2|P a g e
Page 115 of 192
products and services, and increasing pressure to meet high environmental standards in overseas markets. On the face of it therefore it would appear that there are already notable levels of activity around supporting businesses waste minimisation efforts. If the council is to take a more proactive role it is important to determine what value is specifically going to be added and to ensure, to the extent possible, that any council-sponsored initiatives are complementary to existing industry and government initiatives. Under this option it is proposed that an integrated suite of initiatives be developed which would complement existing ongoing local and national programmes. The focus of these initiatives is to put in place support structures and infrastructure to encourage and enable waste minimisation by Auckland businesses. The initiatives put forward in this section are taken from a report prepared for the former Auckland Regional Council in 2010 on Waste Brokering7. The potential initiatives include the following: 1. Waste matching: This would entail a unit with dedicated staff who actively match-make difficult or one-off wastes. These facilitators may become aware of specific wastes either via the website listings or, ideally, through direct contact with businesses. Wastematching may be possible to be achieved without requiring listings on the web-directory. These types of active waste matching services are provided by a range of different organisations in a number of countries, including Christchurchs TerraNova. This type of service has the added benefit of keeping waste brokerage staff in contact with businesses to help maintain strong business networks. This service could include sending direct SMS-messages or email-alerts to businesses for new listings, difficult, or one-off wastes. 2. Promotion: Active promotion of the waste brokerage and exchange services to key businesses and business sectors that can utilise waste matching/exchange services and to those businesses and organisations identified as likely users of waste materials (e.g. recycling sector, creative industries etc). Standard promotional material could be developed, similar to that used by the California CalMAX waste brokerage model. 3. Facilitation: Facilitate and develop partnerships with key organisations that could help promote waste brokerage services to the wider business, recycling and community sectors, and identify key research and market development projects. Organisations may include universities, community groups, enterprising agencies, industry associations, business parks, recycling sectors or charitable organisations that deal with the reuse or on-sale of wastes and materials (e.g. Salvation Army, DonateNZ). Waste brokering staff would facilitate forums with key partners to discuss re-use/recycling opportunities, or work to develop linkages with specific organisations e.g. the council trade waste officers, pollution prevention officers, sustainable business forums, construction sector, charity sector etc. Ideally, this type of facilitating role would aim to create and strengthen partnerships to promote sustainable environmental and economic practice through specific research and development projects or new services. An example of a partnership that could be developed further in the region is within the Auckland charity sector. A directory of charitable organisations that accept specific wastes or materials in the Auckland region could be produced in a similar manner as has been done by the New York Materials Exchange Development Programme. This type of reuse/charity directory could be modelled on the former Auckland Regional Council online recycling directory but utilise the networks already established by the successful DonateNZ website. 4. GIS-tools: Develop and utilise GIS-mapping tools to map, locate and facilitate linkages for specific waste streams and waste users. This type of tool would be most applicable for C&D wastes (identified as a priority waste stream in the Waste Assessment), given these wastes are typically generated at temporary sites and/or cannot be stored on site
7
Waste Not Consulting (2010) Waste Brokering in the Auckland Region Report for the Auckland Regional Council
3|P a g e
Page 116 of 192
for long periods as reflected by feedback from the construction sector. A GIS-mapping tool would need to be operated in a real-time basis and could be used to notify registered C&D waste collection operators of new listings which are relevant to their operations. This option could build on an existing independent proposal, referred to as the Earth Register that was presented to the Auckland Waste Officers Forum and the Ministry for the Environment in 2009. 5. Business waste assessments: Conduct on-site visual waste assessments for Auckland businesses, as offered by United Kingdoms Why Waste, Kentuckys KIME, and New York Citys WasteMatch programmes among others. There is potential to offer this type of service to a range of Auckland businesses, in particular those businesses that are part of a future council-subsidised business-sustainability programme and/or those businesses that are members of independent sustainability programmes (e.g. Sustainable Business Network). Utilising engineering or environmental staff and students at the University of Auckland or other tertiary institutes to undertake this type of service could be an option, as is the case in Kentuckys KIME model. More in-depth consulting-services and waste assessments could be offered on a business-membership or user-pays basis in a similar way to the Green Calgarys Commercial Environmental Services programme. 6. Resource-recovery network: Facilitate the active involvement of Aucklands overall resource recovery sector and transfer stations so that staff at these sites interact with the waste brokering services and utilise the directories and/or waste brokers to post or match materials that are recovered and stockpiled at sites (e.g. similar to the use of TradeMe by Waitakere Transfer Station but for less valuable materials). 7. Incentives scheme: Establish an incentive scheme for public or privately-run waste handling facilities to encourage these sites to take advantage of waste brokering services. For example, staff at these waste handling facilities could be encouraged to identify businesses that regularly dispose of wastes that could otherwise be reused / recycled. Staff would provide the waste broker with a business contact to follow up with and if a match is made then a type of bonus could be provided to the staff member/site. Incentives need to be attractive enough to privately-operated sites as these sites rely on maximising the throughput of waste. 8. Research, development and funding: Facilitate research and development projects with key partner organisations and sector groups. Waste brokering staff would have a role in developing funding applications for public-private partnership projects which could utilise the Waste Minimisation Fund. Applications could relate to research-anddevelopment projects for specific waste streams, request funding for specific components of the waste brokerage programme (e.g. incentive scheme for waste-handling facilities or GIS-tool development) or fund investment in new technologies and research etc. An example of the type of project that could be used as a model is the recent Auckland food and beverage sector project initiated by Enterprising Manukau in 2008. At the time of writing, this project has led to the facilitation of a pilot food waste collection to serve the hotel sector in Auckland. Combined as one overall scheme, the eight components represent a comprehensive programme which could help deliver multiple waste minimisation, social and economic benefits in an integrated manner. It may however be possible to deliver individual components in a modular fashion, based on available council resources, funding and priorities and business needs. 2.1.1 Social/cultural issues
These types of schemes have a number of potential positive social benefits including enhancing community engagement and the potential for local economic development through extracting value from discarded materials. While it is reasonable to postulate positive impacts from these initiatives quantification of the impacts, particularly at this stage is extremely difficult.
4|P a g e
Page 117 of 192
An assessment of the potential impacts by Waste Not Consulting is shown in the following table.
Table 1 Proposed waste brokering benefits
BROKERINGSCHEME
# SchemeComponent Type 1 WasteMatching 2 Promotion 3 Facilitation 4 GISTools 5 BusinessWaste Assessments Active Active ActivePlus ActivePlus ActivePlus ActivePlus ActivePlus ActivePlus Waste Reduction
PROPOSEDBENEFITS
Environmental Cost/Resource Community LocalEconomic Protection Savings Engagement Development
6 ResourceRecovery 7 IncentiveScheme 8 R&D/Funding
Total
2.1.2 Environmental issues
While the scheme is likely to generate some level of waste reduction the most significant impacts are likely to occur in concert with other initiatives. The potential impacts are difficult to quantify at this stage. 2.1.3 Economic issues, cost/benefits
The Waste Not Consulting report undertook a high level evaluation of the potential costs of administering the schemes. The precise costs would be dependent on the delivery mechanisms (i.e. whether they are undertaken in-house or through contracts/partnerships etc). The table below shows the indicative costs.
5|P a g e
Page 118 of 192
Table 2
Indicative costs and suggested delivery options
BROKERINGSCHEME
# Scheme Component 1 WasteMatching 2 Promotion 3 Facilitation 4 GISTools BusinessWaste Assessments Resource 6 Recovery 5 Type Active Active ActivePlus ActivePlus ActivePlus ActivePlus FTEs 3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3
INDICATIVEANNUALCOSTS
$FTEs $180,000 $12,000 $30,000 $18,000 $30,000 $12,000 $12,000 $18,000 $Expenses Delivery
$30,000 CouncilorContract $10,000 CouncilorContract $10,000 Council
$2000* CouncilorContract $5,000 $5,000 ContractandUser Pays Council
7 IncentiveScheme ActivePlus 8 R&D/Funding ActivePlus
$25,000 CouncilorContract $5,000 Council
TOTAL TOTALANNUALCOSTS
*
5.2
$312,000 $404,000
$92,000
Expenses for initial set-up costs are not included for any of the components e.g. for the initial GIS tools development and set up ** 1x FTE = $60,000
The total annual cost of the eight components is estimated to be $404,000 (including 5.2 FTEs and $92,000 estimated expenses). This total figure excludes set-up costs associated with the individual components, such as developing the GIS-mapping software and tools. Depending on available council resources, funding and priorities and associated business needs, it may be possible to deliver individual components according to the council priorities and business needs. 2.1.4 Operational Issues
No significant operational issues are anticipated with the above initiatives. The most significant factor which will affect the above indicative costings is how the different types of initiatives are delivered and by whom, whether they are part of the council solid waste business unit, whether they are delivered through contracts with the private or community sector or whether a separate entity is established for the purpose. The issue of funding the above types of initiatives would also require further consideration. Funding options could include rates-funded, user-pays elements, or funding through the council-apportioned waste levy funding. 2.2 2.2.1 Option 2 Status quo, but controlled through bylaw and/or licensing Description
In this option, the council services continue to be provided to commercial properties for domestictype waste only. All other waste is collected through private operators, responding to the demands of the market. However the council could control these collections by introducing a bylaw. A bylaw could extend
6|P a g e
Page 119 of 192
to licensing waste collectors, and setting restrictions around when and how commercial waste can be collected from public spaces. Several bylaws affecting commercial operators already exist in the Auckland region, such as the bylaw set by the former Auckland City Council, and the bylaw and licensing system set by the Northern Alliance (made up of the three former councils North Shore and Waitakere Cities, and Rodney District). The former Manukau City Council and Franklin District Council also had bylaws relating to solid waste management that include requirements for commercial operators. The former Auckland City bylaw focused on the issues around use of public spaces for commercial collections, setting restrictions around when waste could be placed in public spaces for collections, how long it could remain there, and also preventing the use of public spaces for storing waste receptacles. The introduction of this bylaw was supported by an intensive enforcement campaign, which coincided with the introduction of new council waste services in the CBD in 2001. The Northern Alliance bylaw focused on controlling the companies providing private collections of commercial waste and the collection of data, by requiring these companies to be licensed. A similar approach is taken in other council areas such as Taupo District Council. A revised Auckland Council bylaw could incorporate various aspects of the former council bylaws, along with examples of best practice that have emerged in other areas since these bylaws were introduced. 2.2.2 Social/cultural issues
Controlling the use of public spaces for commercial collections would have a positive social and cultural outcome. Health and safety would also be improved if less waste were stored and collected from public spaces. There is evidence of better public perception once waste is no longer stored in public areas. 2.2.3 Environmental impacts
Local environmental quality issues would be improved by controlling the use of public spaces for waste collections. The ability of the council to manage this waste stream would improve if better information were available regarding the amounts and types of wastes collected. If a bylaw was introduced requiring e.g. providers of private collections to offer a recycling option, then waste to landfill could be reduced and recycling increased. Waipa District Council is one council that has introduced a solid waste bylaw requiring that wastes of specified types be separated at source from other wastes8 (although this has not yet been used to require separation of recyclables from other wastes). 2.2.4 Economic and financial impacts
There would be one-off costs involved in developing and passing a new bylaw for the Auckland Council. This process would involve: reviewing existing by-laws regarding solid waste (including the former Auckland councils bylaws [that are now the Auckland Councils bylaws], and other examples from throughout New Zealand). agreement of the aims of the new bylaw and draft accordingly working through the Local Government Act and Waste Minimisation Act bylaw requirement processes
Waipa District Council Refuse Collection and Disposal bylaw, 2007, available on www.waipadc.govt.nz.
7|P a g e
Page 120 of 192
administration and enforcement of the new bylaw requirements.
Depending on the complexity of the bylaw, the level of consultation undertaken, and the legal issues involved, costs to carry out the first three steps towards establishing the bylaw could be in the vicinity of $50,000. A licensing fee could be charged to cover administration costs and at this level would be unlikely to have a negative impact on the businesses involved. If a bylaw was established to encourage the provision of recycling services, this sector could be expanded resulting in additional job creation.9 The quality of recyclables collected through a service like this would depend on the private operator although as the commercial viability of their business depends at least partially on the sale of recyclables, they would be motivated to ensure quality is high. Enforcement of a bylaw or licensing is crucial for maximum impact. Once again however this can be delivered on a cost-recovery basis through licensing fees. Similar enforcement activities are operated widely in the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent in New Zealand. 2.2.5 Operational impacts
Once the bylaw is established, there would be little required from the Auckland Council operationally, in so far as the contractors would not be required to provide any additional services. There would be staff requirements to administer and enforce a bylaw/licensing scheme; however as described above this could be designed on a cost-recovery basis. The Local Government Act (LGA) largely controls the ability of councils to set bylaws, although the WMA also specifically provides for bylaws and licensing schemes relating to waste as defined in the LGA. Current legal opinion10 is that councils are able to set bylaws for collections where these occur on public property, for both waste and recycling services. However councils have been challenged when attempting to apply bylaws to the collection of recyclables from private property. Previous discussions with private collection companies in the Auckland Region (including those involved with recycling collections) have indicated that they would be happy with a wide-ranging licensing scheme as long as it was consistent, not a money-making tool, and aimed at collecting information and ensuring a level playing field. A licensing scheme that applies across Auckland, and is not overly onerous in terms of paperwork and reporting, would likely have strong support from the private waste sector. Should the council wish to proceed with a bylaw and licensing scheme, and apply this to recycling collections as well as waste collections, legal advice should be sought as to whether the LGA and the WMA provide for the level of control the council wants to achieve and to ensure it is not in contravention of any other legislation (for example the Commerce Act). 2.2.6 Contribution to targets
If provision of recycling services can be encouraged, then there may be a positive contribution to targets. Otherwise the most important contribution will be the availability of data to enable better target setting and monitoring, and to inform future management strategies.
9 10
Envision NZ Ltd (2005), Auckland Recycling Industry Study Based on legal opinions that have been provided to Christchurch, Auckland and Waitakere City Councils.
8|P a g e
Page 121 of 192
2.3
Option 3 - Council involvement in management of transfer stations / disposal sites Description
2.3.1
This option is designed to encourage increased reduction and recycling of commercial/industrial wastes by making disposal a less attractive option. Currently, the majority of transfer stations and landfills serving the Auckland Region are privately owned and operated. To influence the relative cost and ease of resource recovery, there would need to be some level of council involvement and control in these facilities. As this is an option enabling better management for many waste streams, this has been included separately as a cross-cutting issue and therefore the impact of this option is not analysed in detail here but is discussed fully in the waste assessment. However, it is noted that it has significant benefits. 2.4 2.4.1 Option 4 - Council collection services extended to commercial customers Description
Under this option, the council-provided service package is made available to commercial customers, on the same charging basis (whether this is rates-funded or polluter-pays). The service package would only be appropriate for small businesses, or home/business setups, as is the case in the former North Shore City Council area. Larger businesses would continue to use private collection services, and ideally the options outlined above regarding bylaws and/or licensing would be incorporated. 2.4.2 Social/cultural impacts
There would be minimal impact in this respect, beyond those issues outlined above for a bylaw/licensing system. There may be a small positive impact on small businesses through enabling them to access a more comprehensive waste management system, as often recycling services provided by private collection companies are far from competitive with residual waste collections at a smaller scale. 2.4.3 Environmental impacts
It would seem logical that recycling would increase should small businesses have access to the council services even more so if these services included organic waste. There would of course be a corresponding decrease in waste to landfill. Carbon impacts overall should be neutral or reduced, as long as the businesses using the collection service are on a residential collection route, and as long as private collection service movements reduced correspondingly. 2.4.4 Economic and financial impacts
Financial impacts for businesses that choose to use the council services will depend on what service package is offered, at what cost, and on what charging basis. If the services are rates funded, then this would have implications for any household or business that pays rates but doesnt use the council services. If services are completely polluter-pays, then businesses are likely to make their service provision choice based on cost and service preference. There are likely to be some issues around the margins in respect of the council services competing with private sector services. Targeting services so that they are provided to all
9|P a g e
Page 122 of 192
companies that require them, while avoiding gaps in service provision or overlaps with private sector service providers, is likely to be problematic. If the council provides a service package, including recycling services, financial impacts for the council would depend entirely on what funding model is chosen for waste services. 2.4.5 Operational issues
There should be minimal capital and operational impacts, as long as the commercial customers are offered the same service package, on the same funding principles, as householders. If services for commercial customers are to be provided under existing contracts, then there will need to be negotiations to agree variations to these contracts as total customer numbers could increase significantly (with the exception of areas where this option is already offered). This increase in customer numbers may be sufficient to require further development in waste management infrastructure also. 2.4.6 Contributions to targets
There is not sufficient data at present to estimate the number of businesses that would be likely to take up the sort of service package proposed, the quantities of waste that these businesses generate or the quantity of material that would be recycled or recovered.
10 | P a g e
Page 123 of 192
Addendum Point of information 1 - Classification of waste exchanges and brokering services To help clarify the various types of waste brokering (or waste exchange or matching services) that exist nationally and internationally, four different categories are defined below. For the purpose of this study, those described as Type 2 (Active) and Type 3 (ActivePlus), and highlighted in green in Figure 1 below, form the scope of this study.
Figure 1 Classification of waste exchanges/brokering services
1.
Type 1 (Passive) This grouping is for web-based waste exchanges only. The service utilises an online databases for the presentation of users waste information and requires minimal staff input to manage (e.g. similar to the existing ARC RENEW programme). Given that the 2008 Waste Exchange Review report reviewed numerous national and international examples of webbased waste exchanges, this type of waste brokering service is not included in the scope of this study. Instead, Appendix A presents a table listing the 21 examples of international and national web-based waste exchange directories reviewed in the 2008 Waste Exchange Review report. Type 2 (Active) This type of waste exchange/waste brokering service is described as an active form of a web-based directory given it is not solely based on the web-based service but requires more personalised waste matching services that must be conducted directly by staff. An example of this type of service operating in New Zealand is Christchurch City Councils TerraNova programme (www.terranova.org.nz). Type 3 (ActivePlus) For the purpose of this study, an ActivePlus waste brokering service extends further beyond the basic online directories and personalised waste-matching services, as described above. This type of service would therefore typically be part of a wider network of integrated public and private waste minimisation initiatives and services. A range of tools could be utilised for the brokering service including an online exchange directory, recycling directory, face-to-face visits, education, research and development, and/or developing partnerships and projects with key industries and physical resource recovery sites. ActivePlus waste brokering services may facilitate the reuse of materials and wastes and market development through targeting specific industry sectors, large businesses, or businesses located in close proximity, and/or key waste streams. For example, the exchange/broker may work to develop uses and markets for organic wastes by facilitating links between waste processors and the food producing industries, or work with the construction and building sector to match up C&D wastes
2.
3.
11 | P a g e
Page 124 of 192
with other builders/construction sites or resource recovery operators. ActivePlus waste brokering is closest to what is referred to as industrial ecology or industrial symbiosis. According to the UKs National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP), Industrial symbiosis brings together companies from all business sectors with the aim of improving cross industry resource efficiency through the commercial trading of materials, energy and water and sharing assets, logistics and expertise. It engages traditionally separate industries and other organisations in a collective approach to competitive advantage involving physical exchange of materials, energy, water and/or by-products together with the shared use of assets, logistics and expertise.11 4. Type 4 (Commercial) This type of service involves brokering the most cost-effective waste and recycling contracts on behalf of businesses, in a similar way that insurance or mortgage brokers conduct their services. This type of service is not included in this study, given that commercial entities are more appropriately equipped to develop and deliver such services, rather than local government organisations.
11
www.nisp.org.uk
12 | P a g e
Page 125 of 192
Page 126 of 192
SOLID WASTE BYLAW COMMONALITIES - FORMER AUCKLAND COUNCILS
Page 127 of 192
Solid waste bylaw commonalities former Auckland councils

Manukau City Manukau City Consolidated Bylaw Chapter 20 Waste Management 2008 North Shore City Bylaw Part 04 Solid Waste Management and Minimisation Rodney District Council General Bylaw: 1998 Chapter 19 Waste (2005) Papakura District - Collection and Transportation of Refuse Bylaw 2006 - NZS 9201 Removal of Refuse Bylaw (1972) - Chapter 10 Removal of Refuse (of the former Manukau City Consolidated Bylaw 1999) (excluding clause 3.5 revoked in 2006) - Chapter 11 Refuse Disposal (of the former Manukau City Consolidated Bylaw 1999) Waitakere City Waste Bylaw 2005 The council proposed in 2006 that it would review its solid waste bylaws in 2007-08 and prepare one bylaw. This review has not been completed - 1 August 2005 - 1 July 2006 (unsolicited mail) - 1 August 2005 - 1 July 2006 - 1972 - 1999 - 1999 The Bylaw was adopted on 29 June 2005 and amended on 31 August 2005. North Shore City Rodney District Papakura District Waitakere City Comment on points of difference
Former Council
Auckland City
Franklin District
Explanatory/General Bylaw Title
Auckland City Consolidated Bylaw 1998 Part 22 Solid Waste 2006
Franklin District Waste Bylaw 2009
Comment
Date of Commencement
- 2006
- 10 August 2009
Attachments for information outline council resolutions in relation to the bylaw - 1 October 2008
- 1 August 2005 - 1 July 2006 (unsolicited mail)
Waste Type - Household - Kerbside collection - May determine collection standards from time to time - Defined - No accumulation of household waste - Defined - No accumulation of household waste
- Defined - Conditions appear under receptacles and collection below
- Defined - Waste collection and disposal at a waste management facility
- Defined - No accumulation of household waste
- Defined - No accumulation of household waste
- The Manukau bylaw has fewer provisions about collections of household waste than some of the other bylaws. This is because there is scope to change these readily through resolutions of council rather than rewriting the bylaw for changes to processes. - Defined (kerbside collected and other) - Accumulation not permitted - Must use approved receptacle - Recyclables cannot be disposed of in landfill unless council authorised - Defined in licensing bylaw - Defined (kerbside collected and other) - Accumulation not permitted - Must use approved receptacle - Recyclables cannot be disposed of in landfill unless council authorised - Papakuras bylaws have not been updated for some years with the exception of their licensing provisions there are no provisions therefore for recyclables collection
Page 128 of 192
Recyclables
- Defined can be altered by the council from time to time, includes paper - No waste to be placed in a recyclables receptacle - Collectors to pick up spilled recyclables and waste - Kerbside collection - May determine collection standards from time to time - Council resolution about what constitutes kerbside recyclables (attachment) - Not separately - Defined
- Specifies collection of aluminium cans, steel cans, glass bottles, plastic and any other items notified
- Defined (kerbside collected and other) - Accumulation not permitted - Must use approved receptacle - Recyclables cannot be disposed of in landfill unless council authorised
Paper
- Not separately
- Kerbside
- Defined
- Defined in licensing bylaw
- Defined
- Auckland has not

1|P a g e
Page 129 of 192
Former Council defined - Presume included in the definition of recyclables - Accumulation not permitted - Must be bound together or contained in approved manner - Accumulation not permitted - Must be bound together or contained in approved manner - Accumulation not permitted - Must be bound together or contained in approved manner
Auckland City
Manukau City
North Shore City
Rodney District
Papakura District
Waitakere City
defined
Franklin District collection - Does not prevent private collection from kerbside - Containment of paper put out for collection - Defined included in bylaw under the requirements for waste - Defined - No accumulation of green waste - Kerbside collection - Not to be disposed of in landfill - Defined - No accumulation of green waste - Kerbside collection - Not to be disposed of in landfill - Mentioned in licensing bylaw - Defined - No accumulation of green waste - Kerbside collection - Not to be disposed of in landfill
Comment on points of difference separately defined paper waste
Green
- Defined as garden waste - Receptacles provided by Council are for storage and collection of garden waste - Not mentioned - Kitchen food waste appears in the definitions only - Not mentioned - Kitchen food waste appears in the definitions only - Kitchen food waste appears in the definitions only
- Collection - Ban on disposal to landfill
- Green waste receptacle provided to Auckland City residents is only to be used for the storage and collection of garden waste
Kitchen
- Defined separately
- Not mentioned
- A definition only (no actual provisions) for kitchen food waste appears in some bylaws where the others make no mention of kitchen food waste - Defined - No accumulation of inorganic waste - Kerbside collection no more than 1 cubic metre and not include any one item more than 55 kg - Collection may be directly from private property - Offence to scavenge inorganic waste for resale or commercial gain does not apply to the Councils collector - Inorganic waste collection included as special collection in Auckland City bylaw - Inorganic collected at kerbside has a specified amount and weight for Waitakere and North Shore - Rodney bylaw provisions are for private and not public collection no collection can be from a public place
- Defined - No accumulation of inorganic waste - Private collection must be in accordance with private contract - No inorganic collection in a public place - Council may charge (owner and occupier) for removal of uncollected waste
Inorganic
- Defined as a special collection - Conditions outlined for kerbside collection - Uncollected waste to be removed - Defined - Conditions outlined for kerbside collection (in attachment to bylaw) - Defined - No accumulation of inorganic waste - Kerbside collection no more than 1 cubic metre and not include any one item more than 55 kg - Collection may be directly from private property - Offence to scavenge inorganic waste for resale or commercial gain does not apply to the councils collector - Defined - No accumulation of commercial household waste - Defined - No accumulation of commercial household waste
- Kerbside collection - Does not prevent private collection from property (but not kerbside) - Delivery to a facility
Page 130 of 192
Commercial Household
- Included in household waste provisions - Not separately identified
- Not separately identified
- Defined - No accumulation of commercial household waste
- Commercial household waste is not separately defined or regulated by all the bylaws. It is included in the definition of household waste by some of the councils - Defined - No accumulation of commercial waste - Contract for removal - Defined - No accumulation of commercial waste - Contract for removal - Defined as trade refuse - Not removed unless agreement in writing - No accumulation of trade - Defined - No accumulation of commercial waste - Contract for removal - Commercial waste is defined as business waste by some bylaws
Commercial
- Defined as business waste - Only collected by Council if prior
- Defined - Waste collection and disposal at a
- Defined as business waste
2|P a g e
Page 131 of 192
Former Council must be in terms of licence and contract with customer - Contract must include provisions for approved receptacle, dates and times of collection, place of collection must be in terms of licence and contract with customer - Contract must include provisions for approved receptacle, dates and times of collection, place of collection refuse must be in terms of licence and contract with customer - Contract must include provisions for approved receptacle, dates and times of collection, place of collection
Auckland City
written arrangement - Conditions of collection of business waste - Undue accumulation - Building owner to provide suitable provision for storage and collection of waste and recyclables, access for vehicles, keep building clean - Defined - Defined - Includes radioactive waste (excluding domestic smoke detectors) - Includes hazardous waste - No accumulation - Describes waste prohibited from receptacles - Defined - No accumulation - Contract for removal (as for commercial waste) - Defined in licensing bylaw - Defined - Includes radioactive waste (excluding domestic smoke detectors) - Includes hazardous waste - No accumulation - Defined - No accumulation - Contract for removal (as for commercial waste) - Defined - Includes radioactive waste (excluding domestic smoke detectors) - Includes hazardous waste - No accumulation - Defined - No accumulation - Contract for removal (as for commercial waste) -
Franklin District waste management facility Manukau City North Shore City Rodney District Papakura District Waitakere City
Comment on points of difference
Prohibited
- Prohibited materials defined and not permitted for collection
- Defined - Waste collection receptacles not to contain prohibited waste
Hazardous
- Household hazardous waste hazmobile service - Defined
- Licence required for collection
- Auckland City bylaw specifically mentions the Hazmobile service. Generally radioactive materials are included in the other bylaws as hazardous or prohibited waste - Defined as part of prohibited waste (excludes domestic smoke detectors) - Included as hazardous waste - Radioactive waste conditions apply in the Auckland City bylaw
Radioactive material
- Disposal in accordance with legislation - Not mentioned - Included as hazardous waste
- Not mentioned
- Included as hazardous waste
Other requirements Multi-unit properties - Waste management plan required(for 8 or more units) - Attachment to the bylaw outlines application details for a permit, application assessment matters - Owners to provide approved receptacles - Must provide waste management plan when applying for a building consent for multi-unit property ( 2 or more units)
Page 132 of 192
- Responsibilities of owners of residential buildings ( 2 or more tenancies) - Sufficient approved receptacles for waste and recyclables to be provided - Council may agree alternative method of waste disposal for the site - No accumulation of waste
- Waste management plan required for resource consent - Waste collection area required 5 or more units
- Owners to provide approved receptacles - Must provide waste management plan when applying for a building consent for multi-unit property ( 2 or more units)
- Owner of building to provide receptacles - No accumulation of waste
- Owners to provide approved receptacles - Must provide waste management plan when applying for a building consent for multi-unit property ( 2 or more units)
- Multi-unit properties there are different numbers of properties that trigger the bylaw conditions e.g. Auckland (2), Manukau (8), Franklin (5), Waitakere, North Shore, Rodney (2) - Papakura (not specified)
3|P a g e
Page 133 of 192
Former Council
Auckland City
Franklin District Manukau City North Shore City Rodney District Papakura District Waitakere City
- Owner to provide for suitable storage for receptacles - Owner to provide vehicle access for collection vehicles if necessary - Disposal of waste in public places - Nuisances and inappropriate disposal of waste - Depositing waste/litter/trolleys/re ceptacles on public land - Council to give 24 hours notice prior to impoundment - Sale of impounded receptacles after 3 months - Trolleys and receptacles to have name and location of commercial enterprise - Depositing waste/litter/trolleys/rece ptacles on public land - Council will not give notice prior to impoundment - Sale of impounded receptacles after 3 months - Trolleys and receptacles to have name and location of commercial enterprise - Litter defined - Depositing waste/litter/trolleys/ receptacles on public land - Sale of impounded receptacles after 3 months - Trolleys and receptacles to have name and location of commercial enterprise - The sale of impounded trolleys (and shopping baskets in Franklin) etc for those with these conditions is usually after 3 months ( 2 in the case of Franklin). Owners are given 24 hours notice to remove a trolley when the Council locates one (except Rodney, which does not provide any notice) - Auckland, Manukau and Papakura bylaws make no provision for trolley removal - From 1 July 2006 - Unaddressed, unsolicited mail unacceptable (excludes newspapers, public notices from TAs, charities)
Illegal dumping/littering
- No deposit of waste on public or private land
- Depositing waste/litter/trol leys/ shopping baskets/recept acles on public land - Sale of impounded receptacles after 2 months
Unsolicited mail
- Outlines unsolicited mail which is or is not acceptable - Not mentioned - Not mentioned
- Not mentioned although there appear definitions for addressed, advertising material, unaddressed, solicited - Outlines types of waste that cannot be placed in litter bins - Recyclables can be placed in recycling bins
- Not mentioned
Public litter and recycling bins
- Litter bins no household, garden or business waste
- Not mentioned
Page 134 of 192
- From 1 July 2006 - Unaddressed, unsolicited mail unacceptable (excludes newspapers, public notices from TAs, charities, political parties, groups, candidates) - No placing of certain types of waste - No removal of waste or recyclables from bins - No advertising on bins - No vandalising of bins - Litterbins on public property to be maintained and serviced by occupier - No placing of certain types of waste - No removal of waste or recyclables from bins - No advertising on bins - No vandalising of bins - Litterbins on public property to be maintained and serviced by occupier
- No placing of certain types of waste - No removal of waste or recyclables from bins - No advertising on bins - No vandalising of bins - Litterbins on public property to be maintained and serviced by occupier
- Unsolicited mail conditions do not appear in all bylaws (although the definition may appear - Franklin). Exclusion for political parties, groups and candidates and public notices applies to North Shore only - Public litter and recyclables bins some bylaws only mention litter bins, Franklin includes conditions appropriate for bins that are located, maintained and serviced on private property whereas the others generally only mention litter bins located on public property
Recycling bins
- Retrieval of reusable receptacles
- No placing of certain types of waste - No removal of waste or recyclables from bins - No advertising on bins - No vandalising of bins - Litterbins on private property to be maintained/ and serviced by occupier - Provision made in general waste - In attachment to the bylaw - Recycling - Approved receptacles, plastic crate, mobile
- Approved receptacles, plastic crate, mobile recycling bin, any
- Not mentioned
- Approved receptacles, plastic crate, mobile recycling bin, any
- Similar provisions for all bylaws with the exception of Papakura,

4|P a g e
Page 135 of 192
Former Council receptacle issued by council receptacle provided by licensed collector, any receptacle provided by council - Maintenance of reusable receptacles - No waste in recycling receptacle except recyclables - Retrieval of reusable receptacles receptacle provided by licensed collector, any receptacle provided by council - Maintenance of reusable receptacles - No waste in recycling receptacle except recyclables - Retrieval of reusable receptacles - In the older bylaws approved receptacles provisions are for the old fashioned plastic or metal trash cans and multiwalled paper bags - the Licensing bylaw does update the definition of an approved receptacle to mean container or bag used for Household Refuse (includes mobile bins) or any other receptacle provided by or on behalf of the council - Receptacles to be securely sealed - Receptacles to be kept clean and in good repair - Waste not to be packed tightly in reusable receptacles - Must use approved receptacles - Approved receptacles listed for household waste, recyclables, green waste, commercial household - Approved receptacles include paper bag, plastic bag, plastic bin, mobile bin, plastic crates, skip bins, cages, any other receptacle provided by the council, any receptacle provided by licensed waste collector and approved by the council - Maintenance of reusable receptacles - Use of approved receptacles - Bag weight 15kg - Must not contain prohibited waste - Must use approved receptacles - Approved receptacles listed for household waste, recyclables, green waste, commercial household - Approved receptacles include paper bag, plastic bag, plastic bin, mobile bin, plastic crates, skip bins, cages, any other receptacle provided by the council, any receptacle provided by licensed waste collector and approved by the council - Maintenance of reusable receptacles - Use of approved receptacles - Bag weight 15kg - Must not contain prohibited waste
Auckland City
Manukau City
North Shore City
Rodney District
Papakura District
Waitakere City
- Not to be stored on public land
Franklin District collection provisions - Defined as crate or any receptacle approved by council
Comment on points of difference which does not include recycling provisions
Approved receptacles - In attachment to the bylaw a receptacle issued by the council, 60l plastic bag, 60l paper bag, - Weight restrictions for waste receptacles are the same as those for Auckland City - Weight restriction for recyclables is 240l 96kg)
- Approved receptacles plastic bag/or approved receptacle stickered with an official sticker, mobile bin, any other receptacle approved by the council
recycling bin, any receptacle provided by licensed collector, any receptacle provided by council - Maintenance of reusable receptacles - No waste in recycling receptacle except recyclables - Retrieval of reusable receptacles - Must use approved receptacles - Approved receptacles listed for household waste, recyclables, green waste, commercial household - Approved receptacles include paper bag, plastic bag, plastic bin, mobile bin, plastic crates, skip bins, cages, any other receptacle provided by the council, any receptacle provided by licensed waste collector and approved by the council - Maintenance of reusable receptacles - Use of approved receptacles - Bag weight 15kg - Must not contain prohibited waste
- Approved receptacles there is a difference in the weight permitted for a 240L recycling bin in Auckland as opposed to Manukau. Auckland City also have a clause that prevents a person placing waste in the bin of another property - Generally approved receptacles are listed and these are similar with a number of bylaws making provision for any other receptacle approved by the council
Page 136 of 192
Placement of waste for collection
- Approved receptacles wheeled plastic bins approved or provided by council, a metal or plastic container or a multi-wall paper bag or heavy grade plastic bag - Maintenance of receptacles also covered - No waste in recyclables bin - Receptacles to be securely sealed - Use of damaged receptacles - Retrieval of reusable receptacles - Weight restrictions for wheeled bins, plastic or paper bags - (120l - 30 kg, 240l 60 kg, 60l plastic or paper bag 15kg) - Receptacles assigned to property - Waste not to be packed tightly in reusable receptacles - No person deposit waste in a bin of another property - No earlier than 5.00pm previous day and prior to - In attachment to bylaw - Time, collection area and maximum number (determined - Time, collection area and maximum number (determined from time - Receptacles to be placed conveniently for emptying or removal
- No earlier than 5.30pm previous night
- Time, collection area and maximum number (determined from time
- Placement of waste for collection there are differences in timing

5|P a g e
Page 137 of 192
Former Council from time to time) - Occupiers to remove receptacles and uncollected waste by end of collection day (if after 8.30am next day may be collected by Council and the occupier charged) - Recyclables out no earlier than 5.30pm previous day and no later than 7.30 am day of collection - Commercial recyclables/commerc ial household waste no earlier than 5pm and not later than 6pm on the day of collection - Occupiers to remove receptacles and uncollected waste by end of collection day (if after 8.30am next day may be collected by the council and the occupier charged) - No cages or skips in public place or waste collection area without approval to time) - Occupiers to remove receptacles and uncollected waste by end of collection day (if after 8.30am next day may be collected by Council and the occupier charged) - Recyclables out no earlier than 5.30pm previous day and no later than 7.30 am day of collection - Commercial recyclables/commercial household waste no earlier than 7am on the day of collection - Occupiers to remove receptacles and uncollected waste by end of collection day (if after 8.30am next day may be collected by the council and the occupier charged) - No cages or skips in public place or waste collection area without approval to time) - Occupiers to remove receptacles and uncollected waste by end of collection day (if after 8.30am next day may be collected by Council and the occupier charged) - Recyclables out no earlier than 5.30pm previous day and no later than 7.30 am day of collection - Commercial recyclables/commercial household waste no earlier than 5pm and not later than 6pm on the day of collection - Occupiers to remove receptacles and uncollected waste by end of collection day (if after 8.30am next day may be collected by the council and the occupier charged) - No cages or skips in public place or waste collection area without approval - Ability for the Council to determine provisions from time to time - Provisions for collection of each type of waste - Provisions for collection of each type of waste - No accumulation of waste - Provisions for collection of each type of waste
Auckland City
Manukau City
North Shore City
Rodney District
Papakura District
Waitakere City
7.00 am or as notified - Not to be stored on public land
Franklin District and no later than 7.30am morning of collection - Private collection may be made from kerbside if permission given (under extenuating circumstances) - Occupiers to remove receptacles and uncollected waste after 6.00 p.m. on collection day
Comment on points of difference requirements between Auckland/Manukau and Franklin (only by half an hour), Rodney only allows commercial waste to be placed out by 7am on collection day
Waste collection
- No accumulation of waste - Collection times publicly notified - Placement of wheelie bins at kerbside - Retrieval of uncollected waste - Not mentioned - Not mentioned - Not mentioned
- General waste collection provisions
- Generally similar. Manukau City has the ability to change collection provisions by resolution without the need for a review of the bylaw.
Page 138 of 192
Storage of waste in vehicles
- No waste in vehicle overnight in residential street
- Not mentioned
- Not mentioned
- Not mentioned
Waste management for special events
- Not mentioned
- Organiser to provide waste management plan - Requirements of waste
- Not mentioned
- Organiser to obtain consent from Council and provide waste management plan - Requirements of waste management
- Organiser to obtain consent from Council, and provide waste management plan - Requirements of waste management plan
- Not mentioned
- Organiser to obtain consent from Council and provide waste management plan - Requirements of waste management plan
- Storage of waste in vehicles only Auckland has this provision. This could be covered by a condition of licence in other districts - Waste management for special events no provision in the Auckland, Manukau or Papakura bylaws
6|P a g e
Page 139 of 192
Former Council plan
Auckland City
Franklin District management plan Manukau City North Shore City Rodney District Papakura District Waitakere City - Not mentioned except for requirement to hold a permit (see below) - Council may operate facilities - Licence required by others to operate waste facility - Offences outlined not to deposit any non-permitted waste, must not deposit in a location at the facility designated for another waste, not to deposit hazardous, prohibited, special or trade waste at a waste management facility, not to remove waste without permission of the operator - Council may operate facilities - Licence required by others to operate waste facility - Offences outlined not to deposit any nonpermitted waste, must not deposit in a location at the facility designated for another waste, not to deposit hazardous, prohibited, special or trade waste at a waste management facility, not to remove waste without permission of the operator - Establishment and control of disposal sites - No scavenging at disposal sites - No lighting of fires - Council may operate facilities - Licence required by others to operate waste facility - Offences outlined not to deposit any nonpermitted waste, must not deposit in a location at the facility designated for another waste, not to deposit hazardous, prohibited, special or trade waste at a waste management facility, not to remove waste without permission of the operator - Auckland bylaw mentions the council setting fees and charges at waste management facilities
Waste management facilities
- Council may set aside premises for storage, reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal of waste - Set fees and charges - No entering, removal or depositing of waste unless authorised by the council
- Mentions waste to be disposed to facilities
Licensing/permits Licensing of waste collectors
- Waste collector to be licensed (in excess of 20 tonnes/annum) - Application on prescribed form, with fee, provide information - Conditions set by the council including providing data about waste types and tonnage - Permit required for all collection of waste/ recyclables in a public/private place (no tonnage/annu m specified) - Powers of council to determine information requirements for permit applications, matters when considering permit applications, permit conditions, permit fees and charges and specification of a targeted waste group - Information about the above matters included in attachment to bylaw - Waste collectors to be licensed and authorised that remove, collect, transport excess of 20t/annum - Licence application on prescribed form, licences granted at the councils discretion, matters to be considered in granting a licence. - Licence conditions 5 years and able to be renewed for further 5 years - Licence fee annual - Bond not exceeding $150,000 or such amount determined by the council - Compliance with council standards e.g. removal of litter, days and times of collection - Provision of information including providing waste data - Waste levy provision (this still remains in bylaw although - Waste collectors to be licensed and authorised that remove, collect, transport excess of 20t/annum - Licence application on prescribed form, licences granted at the councils discretion, matters to be considered in granting a licence. - Licence conditions 5 years and able to be renewed for further 5 years - Licence fee annual - Bond not exceeding $150,000 or such amount determined by Council - Compliance with council standards e.g. removal of litter, days and times of collection - Provision of information including providing waste data
- Commercial waste collectors require licence to collect household refuse - Application for licence - Matters to be considered - Licence conditions - Term of five years - Bond may apply of not exceeding $50,000
Page 140 of 192
- Waste collector and transporters to be licensed (in excess of 12 tonnes/annum) - Licence application and fee applies - Terms and conditions as Chief Executive thinks fit - Review of decision to Council can occur - Licence needed within 21 days of commencing operation in the district - Matters to be considered in granting a licence - Terms and conditions of a licence not less than 3 years or more than 5 years,
- Waste collectors to be licensed and authorised that remove, collect, transport excess of 20t/annum - Licence application on prescribed form, licences granted at the councils discretion, matters to be considered in granting a licence. - Licence conditions 5 years and able to be renewed for further 5 years - Licence fee annual - Bond not exceeding $150,000 or such amount determined by the council - Compliance with council standards e.g. removal of litter, days and times of collection - Provision of information including providing waste data - Waste levy provision (this still remains in bylaw although considered ultra vires by the Court of Appeal)
- Licences/permits for waste collectors there are different tonnage thresholds for the requirement to hold a licence or permit to collect e.g. Auckland (20t), Franklin (12t) Manukau (any), Waitakere (12t). There are a licence conditions in the Franklin, Papakura, Rodney, North Shore and Waitakere bylaws to provide a bond but not in the Auckland or Manukau bylaws. The amount of the bond varies between some of the councils. The Papakura Licensing Bylaw applies to collection and transportation of household refuse only.
7|P a g e
Page 141 of 192
Former Council considered ultra vires by the Court of Appeal)
Auckland City
Franklin District bank guarantee required not exceeding $10k - Conditions of bond recovery Manukau City North Shore City Rodney District Papakura District Waitakere City - Permit required for waste disposal facility - Information about permit included in attachment to the bylaw - As per collectors licensing - As per collectors licensing - Not mentioned - As per collectors licensing - Licensing of waste disposal facilities requirement in the Manukau, Waitakere, North Shore and Rodney bylaws only
Licensing of waste operators of waste management facilities
- Not mentioned
- Not mentioned
Page 142 of 192
8|P a g e
Page 143 of 192
Page 144 of 192
COMPARISON OF WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS OF THE FORMER COUNCILS
Page 145 of 192
Page 146 of 192
Comparison of Auckland region waste management plans August 2010

Policy/Actions Council plans working towards a goal Zero Waste to Landfill Formally acknowledged the vision and objectives of the New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS) 2002 Introduction and implementation of a waste levy at a local level Investigating and establishing resource recovery centres locally or as a regional initiative Licensing of commercial waste collectors and operators under the Solid Waste Bylaw Adopting staged waste reduction targets Reviewing and reporting on progress against NZWS 2002 targets Provision of an organic waste collection trial or introduction of a collection service Polluter pays funding mechanism for waste collection Provision of rates funded waste collection Provision of inorganic waste collection service by the council Provision of household waste collection service by the council ACC X FDC MCC NSCC X PDC X RDC X WCC X
X X
X -
X -
X X
X X
X -
X X
1|P a g e
Page 147 of 192
Policy/Actions Provision of household hazardous waste management services by the council Provision of household kerbside recycling collection service Provision of kerbside recycling collection service for primary schools Promote and introduce waste minimisation at events Investigate options for reduction and recovery of construction and demolition waste Promote the involvement, awareness and engagement of the whole community in waste reduction behaviour Provision of waste education initiatives Advocate for schemes such as extended producer responsibility, container deposit and other matters that support the cause of waste minimisation Adopt and enforce a waste bylaw to support the WMMP
1
ACC X
FDC X
MCC X
NSCC X
PDC X
RDC X
WCC X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
Although PDC did not have an organic collection trial an initiative was to co-operate with regional and national initiatives to divert organic waste from landfill
2|P a g e
Page 148 of 192
WASTE EDUCATION STRATEGY (DRAFT
Page 149 of 192
Page 150 of 192
Auckland Council Draft Waste Education Strategy August 2010
achieving
results
in the public sector
AUCKLAND SYDNEY HAMILTON PERTH
BRISBANE
Page 151 of 192
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 WASTE EDUCATION STRATEGY STRUCTURE ................................................................3 WASTE EDUCATION STRATEGY .......................................................................................5 1 PART ONE HIGH LEVEL STRATEGIC OVERVIEW ...................................................5 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2 Vision of waste education strategy ..................................................................5 Objectives of waste education strategy ...........................................................5 Principles of waste education ..........................................................................5 Changing role of waste education in waste planning process ........................6 Approaches to waste education ......................................................................9 Action areas ..................................................................................................10
PART TWO PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT ...........................................................12 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Key criteria ....................................................................................................12 Strategic priorities .........................................................................................13 Strategic priority framework ..........................................................................13 Decision making matrix .................................................................................14 What will a successful programme look like? ................................................16 Programmes ..................................................................................................17
PART THREE - STRATEGIC OVERVIEW .................................................................18 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Auckland waste overview ..............................................................................18 Current situation ............................................................................................20 Legislative, strategic and policy context ........................................................21 Key legislation ...............................................................................................22 Development of waste education strategy ....................................................24 Scope ............................................................................................................27 Stakeholder interaction .................................................................................27 Measuring effectiveness (measuring change) ..............................................27
APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................30 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 2-1 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Waste hierarchy ............................................................................................. 6 Range of communication and engagement options....................................... 9 Key criteria tool for decision making ............................................................ 12 Total Auckland waste stream and diverted materials .................................. 18 Auckland Council kerbside composition (Solid Waste Analysis Protocol SWAP) ......................................................................................................... 19 Landfill SWAP national indicator site ........................................................... 19
Morrison Low
Ref: 1779 Waste Education Strategy Report for Auckland City Council July 2010
Page 152 of 192
Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5 Figure 3-6 Figure 3-7 Figure 3-8
Aggregated SWAP at all landfills utilised by Auckland region ..................... 19 Projected waste to landfill Auckland Region ................................................ 20 Waste strategy drivers ................................................................................. 25 Using the waste strategy to examine waste policy and planning ................. 26 Stakeholder interaction ................................................................................ 27
TABLE OF FIGURES Table 2-1 Decision making matrix .................................................................................... 15
Morrison Low & Associates PO Box 9126 Newmarket Auckland 1149 Tel: 09 523 0122 Fax: 09 523 0133 www.morrisonlow.com
Document Status
Approving Director: Date:
Morrison Low Except for all client data and factual information contained herein, this document is the copyright of Morrison Low & Associates Ltd. All or any part of it may only be used, copied or reproduced for the purpose for which it was originally intended, except where the prior permission to do otherwise has been sought from and granted by Morrison Low & Associates Ltd. Prospective users are invited to make enquiries of Morrison Low & Associates Ltd concerning using all or part of this copyright document for purposes other than that for which it was intended.
Morrison Low
ii
Page 153 of 192
INTRODUCTION Waste symbolises economic inefficiency and is the evidence of an unsustainable use of resources. As more waste is produced and landfill space becomes scarcer the cost of disposal continues to rise. Auckland produced an estimated 1.4 million tonnes of waste to landfill last year. This is nearly 1 tonne for each person in the region 20% higher than the national average. Compounding this is the fact that the Auckland Council currently has very little control over waste infrastructure. Consequently it has limited ability to affect major reductions in waste to landfill, as the majority of current waste management activities are focused on kerbside collection of waste and materials for recycling from the residential sector. This accounts for less than 20% of total waste to landfill. This limited control and focus on recovery and disposal options, means the role of waste education is now critical to ensure the top two tiers of the waste hierarchy (reduction and reuse) are considered in waste management planning as required by the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA)1 Over 80% of waste created in the region is attributed to commercial and business waste, compared with only 20% from a household level. Consequently if Council is to meet its obligations under the WMA, a new level of waste education activity with increased scope and resourcing will be needed to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation to a wider audience that now includes businesses and the wider community.
Figure 1.0 Total Auckland waste stream and diverted materials
The Auckland Council will need to consider its wider responsibilities under the WMA, for the whole of the waste stream in the region as the council must promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation, whether or not they are the direct service provider.2 This is a significantly wider scope of responsibility than previous requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). The council is now required to consider new options for delivery of waste minimisation activities well beyond previous levels of engagement. Waste
1 2
ss 44 a WMA 2008 ss 42 WMA 2008
Morrison Low
Page 154 of 192
education programmes can be an effective tool with which to meet legislative requirements providing they are adequately resourced in recognition of the widened scope resulting from the WMA. At the time of writing the New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS) is under review. Therefore there is no specific guidance or waste targets set for the council as in previous versions of the NZWS. However advice from Ministry for the Environment officials has pointed towards two possible goals in the prospective NZWS 2010: reducing the harmful effects of waste and Improving the efficiency in resource use Indications are that previous targets found in the existing NZWS may be replaced by guidance suggesting councils adopt locally appropriate targets. The targets should be centred around these two key goals, whilst still retaining a focus on diversion of waste from landfill as outlined in the WMA. The Auckland Council acknowledges the significant role of the waste education strategy in assisting stakeholders within the region to become both aware of and engaged in the issues associated with waste avoidance, reduction, re-use, recycling and ultimately disposal of waste. The council recognises the vital role the waste hierarchy plays in the consideration of options for waste management and the fundamental role of education in delivering the requirements and intent of the WMA, the NZWS and any locally appropriate goals set by the council.
Morrison Low
Page 155 of 192
WASTE EDUCATION STRATEGY STRUCTURE The structure of the waste education strategy is dependent on a range of factors. These factors include the: councils Waste Assessment and Waste Management and Minimisation Plan revised NZWS outcome of transition arrangements to one Auckland Council With this in mind it has been written in three parts. Part One Strategic Overview Part One is a high level overview and can be considered as the core waste strategy document. It is a high level document to be used as a guide for implementing waste education. It is informed by existing waste strategy, policy, regulation and key criteria developed by council officers. It examines and promotes various waste education actions, interventions and programmes. As a result Part One will provide an overview and strategic direction for the delivery of waste education. It will highlight the vision, objectives, principles of waste education and key criteria used to prioritise and promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the Auckland region. Part Two Programme Development Guide Part Two builds on the strategic aims in Part One and policy relevant to the former councils and anticipates the future needs of a waste education strategy. It uses the vision, aims, objectives and the key criteria to deliver a methodology with which to design and construct a range of waste education programmes, interventions and initiatives that will support the council to fulfil the aims, aspirations and intent of the WMA and the NZWS. Part Two is essentially a tool kit with which the council can use to assess and create new waste education programmes. It should be noted that it is intended to provide a consistent methodology to assess existing or future programmes and gauge what a best practice waste education programme will look like. With this in mind the key criteria and option matrices are an aide to decision making and are not considered compulsory attributes for waste education programmes each key criteria is equally weighted to reflect the content of it for evaluation purposes and it should be noted that operational, organisational, political and financial factors may be weighted differently in practice and may result in different priorities when implementing programmes, however it should be noted that a number of aspects are required by legislation such as waste hierarchy and duty to promote effective and efficient waste minimisation and management. Other aspects such as the NZWS should be regarded as highly persuasive. It is expected that as time progresses more options will be included as future actions in the WMMP and existing programmes are developed further. Part Two will both support and feed into the WMMP process. It is anticipated that the waste education strategy will develop alongside the WMMP and it is recommended that it be reviewed when the WMMP becomes due for review. Part Three Background and Strategic Information Part Three contains information and discussion regarding current legislation, the NZWS, and key information relevant to waste education. It is intended to be an informative document for the council staff, stakeholders and interested parties to assist with decision making processes and positioning of waste education within the Auckland Council. It is intended to both inform and support the development of the WMMP.
Morrison Low
Page 156 of 192
This part will discuss the role of education in the WMMP and examine the significance and position of education in supporting the councils obligations and responsibilities under the WMA, LGA and other legislation and policy. It will highlight how education programmes will be created, implemented, monitored and measured, and will highlight the vital role they play in the successful delivery of the councils WMMP. Whilst of strategic importance now, after the transition to the new Auckland Council and the adoption of a new WMMP, Part Three may be removed from the strategy as the majority of waste data and information will be included in the WMMP.
Morrison Low
Page 157 of 192
WASTE EDUCATION STRATEGY 1 1.1 PART ONE HIGH LEVEL STRATEGIC OVERVIEW Vision of waste education strategy
Auckland Councils vision for waste education is: Aucklanders possess the knowledge and skills to take personal responsibility for the way they see, think and act towards waste, so that environmental harm from waste is reduced, resource efficiency is improved and waste is viewed as a recoverable resource. 1.2 Objectives of waste education strategy
A number of objectives have been set that will assist the council to deliver successful waste education. This waste education strategy will provide waste minimisation leadership to businesses, community, schools, the council and its Council Controlled Organisations to: provide people with the knowledge and skills to take steps to avoid or reduce waste consistently act according to the waste hierarchy encourage and support people to take personal responsibility for their waste encourage and support efficient use of resources to minimise environmental harm from waste increase diversion of waste from landfill support the council in the delivery of its waste services and operations demonstrate and promote examples of best practice in waste management and minimisation collaborate with other council departments, iwi and other stakeholders identify and promote links and alignment between waste and other environmental issues effectively measure and evaluate waste management/minimisation programmes, interventions, initiatives and services seek appropriate balance of resources for waste education to support the expanding role of education in meeting intent of the waste hierarchy. Principles of waste education
1.3
The development of this waste education strategy is based on the following two core principles: (i) Leading by example
People are influenced by the behaviours of others. The council will provide waste education programmes that are aligned with the councils services, WMMP, and Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP). Auckland Council and its subsidiary organisations will endeavour to reinforce key messages and intent of the WMA and the NZWS internally and externally by considering the principles of the WMA, and giving regard to the NZWS in its own decision making.
Morrison Low
Page 158 of 192
(ii)
Waste hierarchy
Waste should be avoided where possible. The council will advocate the waste hierarchy through all its education efforts giving emphasis to each of the following:Figure 1-1 Waste Hierarchy
Reduction : Reuse:
lessening waste generation further using of products for their original purpose or a similar purpose
Recycling: Recovery:
reprocessing waste materials to produce new products extraction of materials or energy from waste for further use or processing
Treatment:
subjecting waste to any physical, biological, or chemical process to change the volume or character of that waste so that it may be disposed of with no, or reduced, significant adverse effect on the environment. final deposit of waste on land set apart for the purpose.
1.4
Disposal:
Changing role of waste education in waste planning process
Waste education is a cornerstone in building the communities knowledge, understanding, and skills in waste minimisation and recycling. Education is critical in promoting positive changes in attitude and behaviour by assisting individuals to make conscious decisions to avoid waste. Intrinsic links exist between an informed and motivated community and the success of waste management initiatives at any level.
Morrison Low
Page 159 of 192
In order to achieve the desired outcomes, educational programmes need to be coordinated with operational programmes, council policy and government legislation, policy, guidance and regulations. The waste education strategy will combine these areas into one document to assist in the governance of the councils waste education programmes and initiatives. Following the enactment of the WMA the council must respond to new legislative requirements that have changed the way councils must approach waste minimisation and management planning. Due to changes in legislation the role of waste education has changed accordingly. The scope of waste education must now include promoting efficient and effective waste management and minimisation throughout the region. This includes business and community sectors where councils may not have been very active previously. Another consideration of equal importance in the absence of control of waste infrastructure is the ability of waste education to play a leading role in WMA requirements under s 42 (a) and s 42 (b) to provide:
o
(a) objectives and policies for achieving effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the territorial authority's district:
o (b) methods for achieving effective and efficient waste management and minimisation
within the territorial authority's district, Furthermore, s44 (a) places an obligation on councils to consider reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery, treatment and disposal in descending order of importance. Waste education programmes have the ability to meet a number of the councils obligations regarding reduction and reuse that would otherwise be challenging without control of waste management infrastructure. Essential a new emphasis on the importance of waste education is required leading to a shift in waste management planning compared to traditional operational interventions such as kerbside collection for recycling or disposal, particularly as council waste operations have not traditionally operated in commercial or business waste sectors. It is recognised that operational programmes such as kerbside collection are critical to waste management and minimisation planning, but without more direct waste minimisation efforts centred on the waste hierarchies reduce and recycle waste in the region will continue to grow and the councils kerbside operations will merely respond by collecting more waste for recycling or disposal as can be observed in graph 1.1 below. Graph 1.1 Projected waste to landfill
Morrison Low
Page 160 of 192
Councils are enabled through legislation to use various tools to influence, promote and implement measures to reduce and minimise waste. A WMMP is intended to be the guiding document for a council when directing its efforts towards achieving effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within its district. The waste education strategy is to be regarded as a supporting document to the WMMP. It is intended to both support and influence options within the WMMP particularly as a WMMP must specifically include details of any waste management and minimisation activities, including any educational or public awareness activities, provided, or to be provided, by the territorial authority.3 Consideration needs to be given to the scope of the waste education strategy in terms of both actions and sphere of operation and the degree in which the waste education strategy targets residential, community, schools or business waste. The WMA states A territorial authority must promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within its district.4 Consequently the primary audience for this waste education strategy is the Auckland Council. Within the Auckland Council, it is acknowledged that the solid waste business unit will have a significant role to play in both oversight and delivery of the waste minimisation and management objectives outlined in the WMMP. As a result they will have primary responsibility for this waste education strategy and programmes that sit under the WMMP. However, it is also recognised that other areas of the council may also have a role to play in delivering elements of waste education. So this strategy is written with a wider targeted audience in mind. Other audiences for the waste education strategy may include: Other parts of council, CCOs, councillors and internal council staff Local boards General public - households, consumers, Schools Community and voluntary groups Business sector
The activities of the solid waste business unit will be varied and concerned with all aspects of waste management and minimisation. As a result the scope of the waste education strategy encompasses all waste activities in addition to those activities with specific education content. The reason being, it is recognised that under all waste management planning options there will be a degree of education support needed. For the purposes of this strategy the scope of waste education activities includes, but is not limited to: behaviour change promotion of community understanding and use of existing (and future) waste and recycling services encouraging active participation in waste minimisation schemes and programmes encouraging business participation in waste minimisation / resource efficiency initiatives increasing the community awareness of waste minimisation and waste management issues such as recycling, illegal dumping, hazardous waste.
3 4
ss 43 Waste Minimisation Act 2008 Part 4 ss 42 WMA 2008
Morrison Low
Page 161 of 192
1.5
Approaches to waste education
It is recognised that waste education programmes and initiatives will vary in the degree of community engagement option or involvement depending on the desired outcome. Figure 1.2 shows the relationships between outcomes and communication approaches.
Figure 1-2 Range of communication and engagement options
The figure above depicts the range of communication and engagement options that will be utilised for waste education options compared to outcomes for a range of methods and approaches. The Auckland Council will utilise a range of methods and approaches to waste education, including: Community involvement and participation Social/ demographic approach: Recognise diversity, and develop diverse forms of education programmes and tools which are inclusive and responsive to cultural and generational diversity. Community based social marketing: This approach presents a holistic strategy for developing interventions that are targeted to specific communities, social contexts and behaviour types, thus incorporating an individuals worldview. It has four phases identifying barriers and benefits to desired behaviours, implementing a strategy (education programme or campaign), using specific tools to overcome these, then piloting and monitoring (evaluating) a programme in the chosen community. Likely to result in an increased chance of behaviour change resulting from collaboration and empowerment.
Morrison Low
Page 162 of 192
Community Education Facilitation: This is where the council intervenes in waste management or waste minimisation initiatives to achieve a better outcome, for example if a problem exists in a particular area the council may facilitate change by deploying a range of waste education and waste enforcement messages. Direct facilitation could also be in the form of the council entering into negotiations between parties to guarantee a better outcome e.g. finding local markets for waste and letting people know about them. Incentive programmes: Incentive programmes can take a variety of forms; user pays or pay-as-you-throw schemes whereby reducing waste has a direct cost saving. Other incentives may be the use of subsidies or equipment to promote a desired behaviour, such as giving households free or subsidised compost bins. Incentives can be in the form of less regulation for businesses or subsidised participation in resource efficiency schemes.
Public Information Written materials: Structuring written communication tools effectively will greatly enhance the uptake of waste reduction behaviours. Communication that is effective emphasises not only the content or message, but also the way in which it is delivered and received, as this will have a large impact on the adoption of waste reduction behaviours by the target audience. Attention needs to be given to issues such as the demographics that are targeted. Mass media: this generally refers to such media sources as television, radio, national press, magazines, newspapers, as well as outdoor advertising and signage such as that found on billboards, street furniture and vehicles. Campaigns which use mass media tools work on the premise that people need to see or hear a message multiple times and from multiple sources in order for the message to be internalised and acted upon. Disincentive programmes: Examples of disincentive programmes include penalties or enforcement options such as fixed penalty fines to persuade people to work within the terms of a bylaw or regulation. Councils have the ability to stipulate certain behaviour as part of their bylaw process; as a solid waste bylaw must not be inconsistent with a WMMP. Opportunities exist to investigate where waste education objectives can be supported by bylaws, whilst recognising that most people or businesses respond better to proactive waste education methodologies than enforcement options.
It is likely that a successful waste education programme would include a variety of action areas and approaches to waste education throughout the course of the programme starting with lesser degrees of community engagement and understanding of the message (inner arc fig 1-2) and improving the understanding of key messages as community engagement increases until community collaboration and empowerment results in successful behaviour change. 1.6 Action areas
The Auckland Council will employ waste education in six key action areas: Awareness: passive resources consists of providing effectively communicated information to target audiences, to overcome internal and external barriers to action and enhance social norms Participation: active resources consists of providing direct assistance to engage target audiences, such as personal facilitation, courses, competitions
Morrison Low
10
Page 163 of 192
Partnerships: networking including partnering with target audiences and external agencies to enhance programme outcomes Advocacy: equates to influencing or promoting particular behaviours or ideologies to influence waste decision making Programme support: consists of additional actions that are essential for programme success, including programme branding and promoting health and safety issues Monitoring and evaluation: includes documentation of programme progress and outcomes, formal verbal and/or written evaluation during and on completion, and programme improvement feedback mechanisms.
Morrison Low
11
Page 164 of 192
PART TWO PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT
2.1
Key criteria
Figure 2-1 shows the key criteria tool for decision making. By considering a range of factors with which to ascertain a potential programmes suitability, the council can ensure an objective evaluation of the programme occurs and that it will provide effective support and integration of waste management and minimisation education initiatives aligned with the WMMP, ensuring that the councils WMMP and waste education initiatives are complimentary. It is recognised that the council will explore a range of waste management and minimisation options; consequently the waste education strategy will have to be responsive to wider operation and political requirements. All criteria are given equal weighting in the tool, but it is recognised that political, economic and operation constraints will effect final outcomes, the tool and decision making matrix has been designed to be able to accommodate this as theres comments boxes and the tool is an aid to decision making so is non-binding but will allow transparency in waste education development and will result in a picture of what ideal waste minimisation programmes may look like. It is anticipated that this part of the waste education strategy will be responsive and will be developed further over time to ensure a detailed suite of future programmes to support the WMMP.
Figure 2-1 Key criteria tool for decision making
Morrison Low
12
Page 165 of 192
2.2
Strategic priorities
Whilst the WMA, NZWS and the councils LTCCP will all provide guidance and inform the development of strategic options for waste minimisation and management. What was formerly lacking was a comprehensive and integrated framework for decision making on the provision of waste management and minimisation education. Typically waste education has been seen as an afterthought or a bolt on process rather than a fundamental part of the WMMP process. This waste education strategy seeks to elevate waste education as a key component of the WMMP process. It underpins and contributes to a range of options and processes, crucial to the councils delivery of waste management and minimisation. In order to do this a structured process is essential that incorporates a full range of social, environmental, political, technical, legislative and financial criteria with which to execute strategic prioritisation and delivery of waste education programmes. For the purposes of this waste education strategy the following key criteria (depicted in Figure 2-1) have been developed as a decision making tool to aid selection, design, implementation and evaluation of waste education programmes. 2.3 Strategic priority framework
The strategic priority framework is built upon eight key criteria. These criteria will be used to assess a range of waste education options and programmes and develop strategic priorities. This prioritisation process will result in the selection of programmes for waste education delivery. The framework also identifies the key criteria with which to evaluate existing and future schemes. It aims to achieve a degree of balance between the various drivers or criteria of the waste education programmes. These strategic criteria will form the basis of any decision support instrument and can be used at key decision points to assist in ensuring the objectives of the education strategy and wider WMMP are considered at the most appropriate time. The key criteria used for assessing strategic priorities include: Waste hierarchy as outlined in the WMA. This must be followed when considering of waste management and minimisation options. Consequently the waste education strategy places due emphasis on applying the waste hierarchy to decision making regarding both the high level intent and the detailed programmes in part two. Key goals outlined in the NZWS. Goals for minimising environmental harm from waste and improving resource efficiency will form key considerations as will the overarching legislation and government direction as outlined in the new NZWS. Operational drivers Any planned programmes will need to be synchronised with operational aspirations to ensure the correct messages are being used. Furthermore it is anticipated that this synchronisation will work both ways and education will inform operations as operations will inform education. In this way both operational programmes and educational programmes and initiatives will be complementary. Diversion potential All programmes and initiatives will consider the diversion potential for diversion of waste from landfill as part of the decision making process. Whilst its not expected to be specifically mentioned in the new NZWS, it is expected that councils will continue to set and make progress on locally applicable targets, including those for diversion. Efficient and effective waste management does imply that continued diversion from landfill is an essential aspect. Specific waste streams and specific sectors may be targeted as part of the waste education strategy.
Morrison Low
13
Page 166 of 192
Social / demographic issues - Auckland is a diverse metropolitan area, therefore education schemes will recognise this and target key sectors of society accordingly. Recognition of different lifestyles and attitudes to waste management will be considered, with potential programmes assessed and targeted accordingly. Economic factors will be considered. Simplistically this will include cost of schemes but will also examine the economics at a deeper level looking at how waste management plans and programmes interact with the economy. An example of this is if local markets for waste can be created then there will be increased employment opportunities. Likewise as outlined in the WMA the economic impacts of TA decisions and WMMPs on local waste management businesses will need to be considered. Kaitiakitanga, Tikanga, Mana Whenua - The principles of Tikanga, traditional custom, rule and way of doing things will be addressed in waste education programmes. Waste education schemes will adopt the principles of kaitiakitanga, stewardship of the land and resources is an integral part of the waste education message. Mana Whenua will be given appropriate status in decision making and planning of waste education programmes. Effectiveness will be considered. It will be vital to measure any scheme or programme and look at how effective it will be or has been. This will incorporate a range of factors from diversion potential to population reached with regards to cost. It may used to consider how a particular programme has been received or has resulted in a significant behaviour change. Decision making matrix
2.4
The decision making matrix (Table 2-1 below) has been formulated to consider the key criteria and record particular waste education programmes ability to deliver according to the key criteria outlined. It must be recognised that programmes will have different aims and objectives so they will all perform differently according to the criteria. An example of this is a scheme to let people know when their new bin is arriving. This is information only and will not need a high degree of public participation or engagement so will score low (0), but it will be essential to delivery of programmes so will score highly (5) in this regard. The scores are added together to give an overall score for the programme. Whilst this is not the only evaluative method available it will be used to assess suitability and provide an objective tool with which to consider future and existing options and inform the WMMP process.
Morrison Low
14
Page 167 of 192
Table 2-1
Decision making matrix
Name Overview Method Outcomes and key performance indicators Evaluation Culture - Kaitiakitanga, Tikanga Maori, Mana Whenua, Stewardship Economic - cost of programme/ population reached service delivery, added value/ savings Social - demographic key groups specific challenges Landfill diversion potential - volumes / mass Operational drivers - supports service delivery, links to other council projects/ initiatives Minimising harm from waste, resource efficiency Waste hierarchy, avoidance, reduce, re-use, Recycling recovery and disposal Effectiveness education / behaviour change achievability. Cost, time coverage etc Criteria Culture Economic Social Landfill diversion potential Operational drivers Minimising harm to environment Waste hierarchy Effectiveness TOTAL SCORE Additional comments Once programmes have been scored accordingly then additional comments can be included. Programmes can then be considered for future development where detailed business plans, implementation programmes and evaluation methods will be developed. Comments Score Range Yes -5 to No -0 Low cost -5 to very expensive -0 All demographic groups -5 to very small demographic group -0 Significant diversion in mass -5 to negligible diversion -0 Essential support -5 to no connection with services -0 Very hazardous -5 to not hazardous -0 Avoidance -5 to illegal dumping -0 (disposal -1) Behaviour change -5 to awareness raising -1 Score Audience
Morrison Low
15
Page 168 of 192
2.5
What will a successful programme look like?
A successful waste education programme will contain a variety of attributes depending on the scope and intent of the waste education programme. In general a successful programme may score highly in each of the key criteria or in the particular areas it was intended to support (for example an operational education programme would be expected to score highly under operational but also score in other areas (e.g. demographics) to ensure it reached the widest possible audience) Whilst all programmes may share common themes such as those required by legislation or by councils WMMP they will differ in their approach depending on a number of aspects such as audience, key messages, resources and intent of programme. But in general a comprehensive well planned waste education programme will follow the same route regardless of scope size or audience as the following diagram shows. 1. General information on compliance, scope of services, campaigns awareness raising etc. 2. Tools services facilitation, workshops, site visits etc 3. Workshops, detailed programmes, private sector or third party engagement or partnerships.
It is worth noting that the council may not provide services or involvement at all levels for example it may produce guidance on recycling methods (Part 1 above), but require a contractor such as MRF operator to facilitate community education (Part 2) and participation through an education centre at a MRF. Part 3 may occur in schools as teachers work with pupils following a visit or they may take part in Enviroschools or a similar programme that complements the councils key messages.
Morrison Low
16
Page 169 of 192
2.6
Programmes
The following programmes have been considered using these tools: (Council to fill in) and collate scores. Programme name Score Comments
Morrison Low
17
Page 170 of 192
PART THREE - STRATEGIC OVERVIEW
Part Three aims to provide an overview of the strategic context of waste education; it draws upon the waste assessment and draft WMMP, national legislation, regulation, policy and guidance. It is intended to provide a background with which to consider waste education options and initiatives. 3.1 Auckland waste overview
Auckland generates more waste than any other region in the country. Auckland Council also has less direct control of waste infrastructure (landfills and resource recovery network/ transfer stations) than any other metropolitan council in New Zealand. The role of education cannot be underestimated if greater reductions in waste to landfill are to be achieved in areas outside the councils direct control. Efforts such as the introduction of kerbside recycling have made a measurable impact on reducing waste. But even with these initiatives, the general trend has been an increase in waste to landfill on a per capita basis. Figure 3-1 to Figure 3.4 is an aggregated SWAP based on landfills where Auckland sends waste, as it is made up of SWAPs from a number of sites it can be viewed as the average waste composition for Auckland. Figure 3-5 provides an overview of waste in the Auckland region.
Figure 3-1 Total Auckland waste stream and diverted materials
Figure 3-1 shows that, at present, the council only has direct control over the kerbside domestic/ household waste collection and disposal. This leaves a further 90% of the regions waste stream outside of direct control. As the council now has a wider responsibility to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation it must seek to develop new opportunities to extend its area of influence where it cannot gain control. The waste education strategy will seek to maximise opportunities for increased influence in areas outside direct Council control.
Morrison Low
18
Page 171 of 192
Figure 3-2 SWAP)
Auckland Council kerbside composition (Solid Waste Analysis Protocol
Figure 3-2 depicts the composition of kerbside waste within the councils direct control. It must be noted that the councils kerbside collection of domestic waste results in less than 20% of all waste disposed to landfill with over 80% coming from other sources.
Figure 3-3 Landfill SWAP national indicator site
Figure 3-3 depicts waste proportions of all waste disposed of to landfill using the National Indicator Site. This includes commercial, business and household domestic waste.
Figure 3-4
Morrison Low
Aggregated SWAP at all landfills utilised by Auckland region
19
Page 172 of 192
Figure 3.4 is an aggregated SWAP based on landfills where Auckland sends waste, as it is made up of SWAPs from a number of sites it can be viewed as the average waste composition for Auckland.
Figure 3-5 Projected waste to landfill Auckland region
Figure 3.4 is an aggregated SWAP based on landfills where Auckland sends waste, as it is made up of SWAPs from a number of sites it can be viewed as the average waste composition for Auckland. Figure 3-5 shows that with current population predictions, without increased intervention the amount of waste disposed of to landfill will almost double within 10 years. 3.2 Current situation
In Auckland waste management and minimisation services are very fragmented. Few key facilities are owned by the council, with two large commercial waste companies owning the
Morrison Low
20
Page 173 of 192
majority of landfills and transfer station facilities. Without access to the waste value chain, the council has limited options for taking direct action to reduce waste to landfill. Also, the commercial waste industry does not have the legal imperative like the council to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation. Over 30% of material in landfill could be diverted to beneficial use (recycling or composting), but there is little incentive for the private waste industry to take further action to reduce this waste. This makes the role of waste minimisation education even more important. As a strategic programme of waste education offers opportunities to reach and affect areas outside the councils previously accepted areas of control. 3.3 3.3.1 Legislative, strategic and policy context New Zealand Waste Strategy
Strategic documents and legislation are combined in New Zealand to form the basic framework for waste management and minimisation. This section contains a brief summary of the national policy context and key legislation that councils must consider in the development of their waste assessment and Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, consequently the same legislation will need to inform the waste education strategy. Waste management and minimisation in New Zealand is underpinned by the Governments core policy, The New Zealand Waste Strategy the NZWS sets the framework, strategic vision, objectives and targets for achieving waste minimisation. The strategy is under review at present but it is expected that it will be published by MfE by October 2010. Indications and advice so far indicate that it will include two key goals: reducing the harmful effects of waste Improving efficiency in resource use. Diversion of waste from landfill is still a theme of WMA and MfE assumptions are that diversion initiatives by councils will continue but regard will also be given to new goals in addition to diversion. It is expected that the new strategy will also allow councils to set their own goals as are locally appropriate. Whilst s44 of the WMA requires that TAs have regard to the NZWS or other such policy that is subsequently developed, when preparing a WMMP, this does not mean that they are legally required to fully adopt the NZWS. The NZWS is a strategic document and any targets or goals are voluntary. However, there is now a strong signal that councils are expected to carefully consider adopting the NZWS vision, objectives and goals in a manner suitable for their local circumstances and desired community outcomes. 3.3.2 Auckland Council Policy
The Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) currently has oversight of waste management for the new Auckland Council. It is currently undertaking a waste assessment to gather background information regarding levels of waste, existing services and future needs to enable the council to determine a logical set of priorities and inform its activities. The waste assessment also includes a summary review of reasonably practicable options available to the council in terms of how it can meet future demand for services as well as how it might achieve its waste management and minimisation objectives. Preferred options are considered in this waste assessment for the purposes of later incorporation into a draft WMMP that will be prepared for public consultation prior to formal adoption and implementation. This waste assessment has been drafted during a time of major change; that of the amalgamation of the seven former territorial authorities and the Regional Council into a
Morrison Low
21
Page 174 of 192
single unitary authority for the Auckland region, the new Auckland Council. It has been completed at the request of the (ATA), and input has been provided by all of the current waste officers who are members of the Auckland Waste Officers Forum. 3.4 Key legislation
A number of Acts of Parliament provide the legal framework for waste management and minimisation in New Zealand, with the primary legislation driving waste management and minimisation planning being the (WMA), the LGA, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the Emissions Trading Amendment Act 2008. Additional legislation applies in Auckland in the form of Local Government Auckland Reform Act 2010 (at the time of writing this is waiting royal assent.). Taken together these Acts provide the legislative imperative and tools to support progress toward the strategic vision outlined in the NZWS. Because the NZWS and legislation is cornerstone to waste management and minimisation, careful attention should be given to these in developing waste policy. 3.4.1 The Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) 2008
The WMA represents an update and modernisation of waste legislation to emphasise and promote waste minimisation. The purpose of the Act (s3) is to encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal in order to protect the environment from harm; and to provide environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits. A key provision of the WMA is the imposition of an initial $10 plus GST levy on each tonne of waste to landfill to be paid by landfill operators. The levy will be used to fund waste minimisation projects, as it will be partly distributed to councils (50%) with the rest provided to a contestable Waste Minimisation Fund. The levy will be reviewed in 2012. Initial estimates, based on population and the anticipated total waste levy to be collected, indicate the Auckland Council will receive approximately $5 million per year that must, according to the WMA, be spent on waste minimisation activities in accordance with its WMMP. While obviously benefiting from the waste levy, the council must carefully consider its own responsibilities under the WMA. Part 4 is fully dedicated to the responsibilities of TAs which must promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their districts (s 42). 3.4.2 The Local Government (Auckland Reform) Act (2010)
The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Act (2010) provides for the existing TAs waste management plans to be deemed to be the Auckland Councils waste management and minimisation plan (ACWMMP) from 1 November 2010. It also provides for the council to review the ACWMMP, before 30 June 2012, in the manner required by the WMA. 3.4.3 Climate Change (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008
The Climate Change Amendment Act 2008 provides the basis for a New Zealand Greenhouse Gas ETS. The Act will require landfill owners to purchase emission trading units to cover methane emissions generated from the landfill. Should any future solid waste incineration plants be constructed, the Act would also require emission trading units to be purchased to cover carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions from the incineration of household wastes.
Morrison Low
22
Page 175 of 192
The waste sector will not formally enter the ETS until 1 January 2011, at which time voluntary reporting can occur. Mandatory reporting requirements will apply from January 2012 and emission units will need to be surrendered as of 2013. The method to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from landfills (methane) and incinerators is yet to be regulated, and the expectation is that Government would work with industry to do this beginning in 2010. It is expected that waste sector reporting requirements under the ETS would build upon those developed to support the WMA. 3.4.4 The Local Government Act 1974 Part 31 (now repealed) and the Local Government Act 2002
Together these Acts required councils to assess how well they provided collection and reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery, treatment and disposal of waste in their district, and made councils responsible for the effective and efficient implementation of their waste management plan. The provisions of the LGA 1974, Part 31, and the sanitary assessment provisions for refuse (i.e., solid waste) contained in Part 7 of the LGA 2002, have been repealed, and these provisions are now largely embodied within the WMA. Existing waste management plans prepared under the LGA 1974 are deemed to be waste management and minimisation plans under the WMA (s 43[4]). These existing plans must be revised under the WMA before 1 July 2012 (s 50). 3.4.5 The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)
The RMA provides guidelines and regulations for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Although it does not specifically define waste, the Act addresses waste management and minimisation activity through controls on the environmental effects of waste management and minimisation activities and facilities through national, regional and local policy, standards, plans and consent procedures. In this role, the RMA exercises considerable influence over facilities for waste disposal and recycling, recovery, treatment and others in terms of the potential impacts of these facilities on the environment. 3.4.6 The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the HSNO Act)
The HSNO Act addresses the management of substances that pose a significant risk to the environment and/or human health, from manufacture to disposal. The Act relates to waste management primarily through controls on the import or manufacture of new hazardous materials and the handling and disposal of hazardous substances. 3.4.7 The Health Act 1956
The Health Act 1956 places obligations on TAs (if required by the Minister of Health) to provide sanitary works for the collection and disposal of refuse, for the purpose of public health protection (Part 2 Powers and duties of local authorities, s 25). It specifically identifies certain waste management practices as nuisances (s 29) and offensive trades (Third Schedule). 3.4.8 The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 outlines health and safety responsibilities for the management of hazards in relation to employees at work. This could potentially include working with hazardous substances and the collection and management of waste. The Act requires employers to identify and manage hazards present in the workplace, provide adequate training and supervision, and supply appropriate protective equipment.
Morrison Low
23
Page 176 of 192
Employers must take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of employees while at work, and in particular must take all practicable steps to (amongst other things) ensure employees are not exposed to hazards arising out of the arrangement, disposal, organisation, processing, storage, transport or use of materials in their place of work. 3.5 Development of waste education strategy
Because of the current transitional nature of local government in the Auckland region as a result of the Auckland governance process, and constrained timescales within which, local government officers are working it has been necessary to write a waste education strategy at the same time work is progressing on the waste assessment, the WMMP and the development of options for waste management for the new Council. With this in mind it is intended that the waste education strategy in the first instance will be a high level document with which to ensure a targeted and strategic examination of current and future waste education programmes can be evaluated. Waste education programmes, and future programme proposals that can deliver and support wider waste management and minimisation objectives will be considered and proposed for further consideration. The waste education strategy has been developed in conjunction with waste education options and it is expected that both of these will inform the development of options within the waste assessment and WMMP, and that WMMP planning will give regard to the waste education strategy and options assessments carried out. It is expected that upon formal adoption of these documents the waste education strategy will be revised to reflect options in the adopted WMMP. With this in mind the following two pages outline current drivers and influences regarding development of a waste education strategy and the role of the strategy as a lense with which to examine and inform current waste assessment and WMMP development.
Morrison Low
24
Figure 3-6
Waste strategy drivers
Figure 3-6 shows influences and key drivers of the waste education strategy arising from two main sources:-
Central government drivers arising from either legislative, regulatory, or policy approaches
Local government drivers as a result of local government requirements and the key criteria
Page 177 of 192
Morrison Low
Ref: 1779 Waste education Strategy Report for Auckland City Council July 2010
25
Figure 3-7
Using the waste strategy to examine waste policy and planning
Figure 3-7 shows the relative position of waste education strategy and its role as a lens using the key criteria to examine future options / draft waste assessment and providing input into WMMP, finally resulting in both specific waste education programmes and supporting roles in other waste minimisation and management programmes.
Page 178 of 192
Morrison Low
26
Page 179 of 192
3.6
Scope
Solid waste management is a highly interactive process between multiple stakeholders. The Auckland Council holds a central role to promote the efficient and effective management of waste within the region. It however, is not obliged to provide these services itself and relies on the private sector to play a critical role in service delivery. Central government is another key stakeholder and has a role to play in so far as they provide the governance models legislative and regulatory drivers such as the WMA, ETS and NZWS. Figure 3.8 depicts the interactions between the Auckland Council, the community and the private waste sector. The waste education strategy needs to be able to respond to all three spheres.
Figure 3-8 Stakeholder interaction
3.7
Stakeholder interaction
The Auckland Council will need to engage a range of stakeholders to ensure effective waste education outcomes. In addition to expected stakeholders such as householders, businesses, communities, and the waste management sector the council will need to develop a list of stakeholders for each project or waste education programme. It may be useful to draw upon the list of consultees for the WMMP as this may prove a useful starting point for considering interested parties. 3.8 Measuring effectiveness (measuring change)
Evaluation attempts to measure if, and to what degree, programme objectives are achieved. Measures of behaviour change and the effects this has on waste generation
Morrison Low
27
Page 180 of 192
(volumes and composition) should be undertaken, rather than simply campaign outputs. If a programme is first piloted, as recommended by this strategy a campaign can be designed to achieve a distinct measurable change in behaviour as a result. Evaluation should be built into the programmes and campaigns at the planning stage. A range of evaluation tools exist. It is best to use a selection of these for each campaign in an attempt to determine whether the objectives have been met. Specific objectives an evaluation measures for each programme and campaign should be incorporated into the individual programme plans that will form part two of the strategy. 3.8.1 Evaluation tools
The type of tool used to evaluate a campaign will depend on the objective to be measured. To directly measure waste minimisation objectives the following (physical auditing) measures can be used: tonnage of waste to landfill (domestic and commercially generated) tonnage of waste diverted from landfill through systems and programmes tonnage/volume of materials recycled composition study (SWAP) of household waste litter surveys
To measure behaviour change objectives the following measures can be used: direct observation of the proportion of the population using waste minimisation systems or participating in programmes (Participation studies) interviews / questionnaires to determine the proportion of the population participating in waste minimisation activities that cannot be easily observed (self-report studies) surveying to determine the proportion of resident satisfaction with, awareness and knowledge of waste reduction activities 3.8.2 Formative evaluation
This type of evaluation occurs before or during a campaign. A draft creative concept can be trialed on members of the target audience before it is fully developed. The final product or media tool may also be tested, through focus groups before it reaches the actual target audience, enabling the concept to be refined, increasing its chances of achieving the campaign objectives. Focus groups can also provide a great source of information about perceived barriers and benefits to specific waste reduction behaviour, as can observational studies. 3.8.3 Programme outputs
It is also important to measure and track the outputs and observations from each campaign, as these contribute to the overall picture of how a community is responding to waste minimisation programmes. These measures can include, but is not limited to:
Morrison Low
28
Page 181 of 192
range and distribution of waste reduction education resources and programmes within the Auckland Council region. number of people using waste minimisation systems i.e. kerbside recycling (biannual survey), organic waste disposal (annual survey) and HazMobile collections (annual survey). customer satisfaction with Council collection services (annual Council ratepayers survey) number and quality of responses to competitions and awards number of waste minimisation courses run, i.e. composting and smart shopping number of attendees at waste minimisation courses number of attendees at displays/shows and events featuring waste minimisation messages number of new residents packs distributed number of responses to advertising and articles number of residents/ businesses who participate in particular initiatives number, type and frequency of waste minimisation advertising placed Number and diversity of organisations participating in waste minimisation initiatives within Councils area number of community groups contacted and assisted number of schools with waste minimisation systems and programmes number of businesses operating successful environmental management systems
Morrison Low
29
Page 182 of 192
APPENDIX A
Decision Making Matrix Sheets
Page 183 of 192
Name
Kids for Drama 2 hour WasteWise workshop
Engage students hearts, hands and minds on the importance of Overview avoiding and reducing waste using drama techniques (NZ curriculum) Method Process drama Audience Year 5 8 students Outcomes and Students take action to avoid and or reduce waste in their Key school and daily home life Performance indicators Evaluation: Teacher evaluation of programme, delivery and resource
Culture- Kaitiakitanga , Tikanga Maori, Mana Whenua , Stewardship Economic- Cost of programme/ population reached service delivery, Added value/ savings Social- demographic key groups specific challenges Landfill diversion potential- volumes / mass Operational drivers- Supports service delivery, Links to other council projects/ initaitives Minimising harm form waste , resource efficiency Waste hierarchy, Avoidance, reduce, re-use, Recycling recovery and disposal Effectiveness education/ behaviour change achievability. Cost, time coverage etc Yes 5 to No-0 Low cost-5 to very expensive-0 All demographic groups-5 to very small demographic group-0 Significant diversion in mass-5 to negligible diversion-0 Essential support-5 to no connection with services-0 Very harzardous-5 to not hazardous-0 Avoidance-5 to illegal dumping-0 (disposal-1) Behaviour change-5 to awareness raising-1
Criterias
Culture
Comments
Score
0
Economic
Social
Landfill diversion potential Operational drivers Minimising harm to environment Waste hierarchy Effectiveness 2.5 19
2.5 4 2 5
TOTAL SCORE Additional comments
Page 184 of 192
Name Overview
WasteWise Schools All school communities in the Auckland Region actively model best waste minimisation practices Facilitation from a technical and educational perspective School communities teachers, principal, support Audience staff and students Regional
Method
Annual audit results No. of graduating schools Outcomes and Key Intending to develop survey to measure behaviour Performance indicators change in school families Evaluation Teacher evaluations on programme, facilitation and workshops.
Culture- Kaitiakitanga , Tikanga Maori, Mana Whenua , Stewardship Economic- Cost of programme/ population reached service delivery, Added value/ savings Social- demographic key groups specific challenges Landfill diversion potential- volumes / mass Operational drivers- Supports service delivery, Links to other council projects/ initiatives Minimising harm form waste , resource efficiency Waste hierarchy, Avoidance, reduce, re-use, Recycling recovery and disposal Effectiveness education/ behaviour change achievability. Cost, time coverage etc Yes 5 to No-0 Low cost-5 to very expensive-0 All demographic groups-5 to very small demographic group-0 Significant diversion in mass-5 to negligible diversion-0 Essential support-5 to no connection with services-0 Very harzardous-5 to not hazardous-0 Avoidance-5 to illegal dumping-0 (disposal-1) Behaviour change-5 to awareness raising-1
Criterias
Culture
Comments
An area to develop ie. Develop resources in different languages and different perspectives.
Score
0
Economic All (1-10) decile schools represented in programme. All TA regions represented
Social
Landfill diversion potential Operational drivers Minimising harm to environment Waste hierarchy Effectiveness
2 4 3 5 4 26 The audience for this programme are future ratepayers. This programme focuses learning best waste minimisation practices at a young age with the intention that these practices become second nature at home and at school. Therefore in the future the need for such extensive community and business education will be reduced. Increase in resource efficiency and harm to the environment will be significantly reduced as well.
Page 185 of 192
Name Overview Method
WEAAR Level 1 Respond to requests for information and waste education resources Phone/email/mail outs Secondary/primary Audience schools/Early childhood centres
Outcomes and Key Performance indicators Evaluation: ?
Record requests and resources sent
Culture- Kaitiakitanga , Tikanga Maori, Mana Whenua , Stewardship Economic- Cost of programme/ population reached service delivery, Added value/ savings Social- demographic key groups specific challenges Landfill diversion potential- volumes / mass Operational drivers- Supports service delivery, Links to other council projects/ initaitives Minimising harm form waste , resource efficiency Waste hierarchy, Avoidance, reduce, re-use, Recycling recovery and disposal Effectiveness education/ behaviour change achievability. Cost, time coverage etc
Yes 5 to No-0 Low cost-5 to very expensive-0 All demographic groups-5 to very small demographic group-0 Significant diversion in mass-5 to negligible diversion-0 Essential support-5 to no connection with services-0 Very harzardous-5 to not hazardous-0 Avoidance-5 to illegal dumping-0 (disposal-1) Behaviour change-5 to awareness raising-1
Criterias
Culture
Comments
Score
1
Economic
Social
1 4 0 2 2 16 Very little resources that cater for different cultures and languages.
Page 186 of 192
Name
WasteWise Fund for Schools The WasteWise fund for schools is available for projects that aim to reduce waste. Schools can apply for funding to assist them develop waste minimisation systems and initiatives, such as purchasing compost bins or worm farms (or materials to build them with); producing an educational waste minimisation resource or display; Trash to Fashion shows; school purchasing policies and reuse projects. Schools apply to School students, school council for funding via Audience staff an application form. Implementation of waste minimisation systems/initiatives to reduce school waste from going to landfill
Overview
Method
Outcomes and Key Performance indicators Evaluation
Criterias
Culture
Comments
Score
1
Economic
Social
We cap the funding to each school at $2000 and in the past year we have had 12 schools receive funding. This doesnt mean that every school applies for the full $2000 some just apply for the cost of a large worm farm. Targets primary and intermediate schools. All deciles represented.
Can vary dramatically depending on which waste minimisation system is implanted and the size of the school etc. Main types of waste diverted include organic waste, recyclable materials and paper. Supports all kerbside service messages and the waste hierarchy
3 1
Definitely promotes the messages from the waste hierarchy of avoidance (litterless lunch initiatives), reduce and reuse. Generally really good results with staff and students being very proactive with implementing their system of choice and taking ownership 23
4 4
Page 187 of 192
Name
Overview
Method
Waitemata Harbour Clean Up Trust The Waitemata Harbour Clean Up Trust is a region-wide partnership (between Waitakere, Manukau, North Shore, and Auckland city councils; Auckland Regional Council and the Ports of Auckland) to remove litter that has entered Waitemata Harbour. The project primarily addresses litter removal but has some awareness raising elements. Contractor hired to remove litter from Awareness raising harbour and Audience elements target the school surrounding student audience. waterways on a daily basis. Removal of litter Litter prevention messages to students
Criterias
Culture
Comments
Score
0
Economic
Social
Landfill diversion potential Operational drivers Minimising harm to environment Waste hierarchy Effectiveness Connects to other council initiative of Be a tidy Kiwi
1 1 1 1 1 9 To be fair, there havent been a lot of resources thrown at this project to specifically target different audiences with litter abatement messages.
Page 188 of 192
No junk mail To reduce the amount of unwanted advertising material by issuing residents with No junk mail stickers. Residents provided with No junk mail sticker upon request Audience Residents
Reduction of wind blown litter resulting from unwanted advertising material Reduction of household waste by residents choosing not to accept unwanted/unsolicited advertising materials.
Criterias
Culture
Comments
Score
0
Economic
Social
Landfill diversion potential Operational drivers Minimising harm to environment Waste hierarchy Effectiveness There needs to be a review of existing Bylaws and potential enforcement of Bylaws to ensure deliverers of advertising materials are complying/honouring the letterbox stickers/signs. 23
2 3 0 5 4
Page 189 of 192
Name Overview
Waste Brokerage Provision of a service to actively identify large scale waste materials being taken to landfill, and work with the waste create to identify a reuse or recycling option. Council worker or contractor visiting businesses and working with them (one on one).
Method
Audience Businesses
Measurable reduction of waste to landfill
Culture- Kaitiakitanga , Tikanga Maori, Mana Whenua , Stewardship Economic- Cost of programme/ population reached service delivery, Added value/ savings Social- demographic key groups specific challenges Landfill diversion potential- volumes / mass Operational drivers- Supports service delivery, Links to other council projects/ initiatives Minimising harm form waste , resource efficiency Waste hierarchy, Avoidance, reduce, re-use, Recycling recovery and disposal Effectiveness education/ behaviour change achievability. Cost, time coverage etc
Criteria
Culture
Comments
Score
0
Economic
This service requires staff time dedicated to identify large scale waste and proactively seek solutions. Targets businesses with large scale waste issues
Social
Potential for king hits diverting large scale volumes from landfill in an ongoing manner. If targeting organics or other hazardous materials could minimise harm on a large scale. Focus on re-use / recycle High level of one-on-one support for businesses to facilitate behaviour change is expected to lead to a high level of behaviour change among targeted businesses 23
4 4 3 3 4
Page 190 of 192
Name Overview
HazMobile Provision of household hazardous waste collection services in the Auckland region. Includes the drop off services at Snells beach and Silverdale RTS, and management of on-farm agricultural chemical collections. Mobile collection services, drop off point services. Audience All urban residents, + rural / farmers
Method
Safe disposal of hazardous substances from households and farms. 14-17 HazMobile collections annually.
Yes 5 to No-0 Low cost-5 to very expensive-0 All demographic groups-5 to very small demographic group-0 Significant diversion in mass-5 to negligible diversion0 Essential support-5 to no connection with services-0 Very harzardous-5 to not hazardous-0 Avoidance-5 to illegal dumping-0 (disposal-1) Behaviour change-5 to awareness raising-1
Criteria
Culture
Comments
Score
0
Economic
The mobile service is quite expensive to run when costed on a per resident basis due to the cost of providing a mobile service and the high cost of disposal for hazardous materials. Drop off points and agricultural collections are relatively costs efficient.
Social
1 4 5 1 2 19 The benefits of removing the hazardous materials out of the community is considerable as in many cases there is no other disposal mechanism available for these materials. The service could be improved by increasing the number of drop off points available and eventually phasing out the mobile service (which is expensive). Supporting product stewardship of hazardous materials will also enable the mobile service to eventually be phased out as industry based disposal services become available.
TOTAL SCORE
Additional comments
Page 191 of 192
Name
Recycling Directory / RENEW waste exchange The RENEW waste exchange and recycling directory provide online services where those who produce waste materials can get in contact with those who can re-use or recycling that waste. RENEW and the recycling directory are linked and managed as one services although the public face is of two services. Online searchable databases RENEW businesses only Audience Recycling directory Businesses and / or householders
Overview
Method
Waste producers are put in contact with recyclers and those who can reuse materials. KPIs still being developed as sites are not yet complete.
Criteria
Culture
Comments
Score
0
Economic
A very cost effective program. Minimal costs associated with running the websites and promotion. Targets both all residents (householders) and also targets businesses
Social
Diversion attributed to the sites is difficult to quantify. The sites have the potential to divert significant volumes of business waste from landfill. Diverts organic material, some chemicals, and C&D waste The site promotes both Re-use and recycling but focuses on re-use.
4 4 3 3 4
28
Page 192 of 192
Public Place Recycling Purchase, Maintain and Service recycling bins in public places. Services & Awareness Audience Community Tonnages of recyclables collected from public place recycling bins. Contamination rate of public place recycling bins Geographic coverage of public place recycling bins
Criteria
Culture
Comments
Score
Economic
Social
Landfill diversion potential Operational drivers Minimising harm to environment Waste hierarchy Effectiveness Reinforce Councils educational messages to recycle

Meet community desire to be able to recycle in more areas than home or workplace.

Appendix A - Supporting Research Background Papers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Appendix A - Supporting Research Background Papers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

pg 6 pg 34 pg 52 pg 64 pg 82 pg 92 pg 110 pg 126 pg 144 pg 148

FUNDING DISCUSSION PAPER - BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND PAPER NO. 1

Former council Services provided Tonnage*

Rates, est. $30,000/yr Rates, est. $5,000/yr

Funding Polluter-pays-est. $140,000/yr

Rates - est. $180,000/yr Rates

Summary of current services and costs per household

Additional private services (domestic)

North Shore City

Additional private services (domestic)

Tonnage (household refuse, council Funding RRP collection)

65,635 63,769 5,554 5,368

Tonnage 18,000 23,500 41,000 30,000 8,050

Papakura District Council Franklin District Council

2.2.3. Organic waste

Rates Rates Rates Polluter-Pays

Papakura District Council Franklin District Council

Hazardous waste (domestic)

Papakura District Council Franklin District Council

Rates est $30,000/yr Rates est$5,000/yr

CURRENT FUNDING AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ANOMALIES

Amount $ (per month)

2 x weekly (Mon and Wed) 3 x weekly

Weekly Monthly Weekly Daily 3 x weekly weekly

Funding of services in remote areas

4. 4.1. FUNDING POLICIES AND EFFECTS Funding mechanisms

(Source: Auckland Waste Officers Forum minutes 310310)

5.2.1. Waste levy and ETS impact

Average price at transfer station (as at Jan 2011)

EXAMPLES OF WASTE MANAGEMENT FUNDING BY OTHER COUNCILS IN NEW ZEALAND

7.2. What are the limitations/issues?

Polluter-pays Discussion Paper (2004)

Source: ATA Discovery Information *Incorporates transfer station charges

Waste levy funding

FUNDING OPTIONS ASSESSMENT RESIDUAL WASTE

Social/cultural impact Operational issues

Economic issues, costs/benefits

Contribution to NZWS and Council targets/Hierarchy position

Only ratepayers pay the charge - indirect for tenants.

Uniform targeted rate

Social/cultural impact Operational issues

Economic issues, costs/benefits

Contribution to NZWS and Council targets/Hierarchy position

Targeted rate with a pay per lift charge

Combination targeted rate with a pay by lift and a pay by weight

Social/cultural impact Operational issues

Economic issues, costs/benefits

Contribution to NZWS and Council targets/Hierarchy position

HOUSEHOLD RESIDUAL WASTE COLLECTION

BACKGROUND PAPER NO. 2

Residual waste collected2 (kg/ annum/head of population)

Collection service description

Manukau City Auckland City

Rodney District Papakura District North Shore City Franklin District

161 162 142 133

Source: Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment11

Estimate of uptake of private services

SWAP Composition of Kerbside

Economic issues, costs/benefits

POLLUTER-PAYS CHARGING FOR HOUSEHOLD COLLECTED REFUSE