This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The Road to Zero Waste
o Wa er 2020 s
Strategies for Sustainable Communities
Prepared for Zero Waste New Zealand Trust by Envision New Zealand August 2003
With Support from Community Employment Group
About the Authors
Warren Snow works in the area of sustainable community development. He has helped create local business and employment initiatives in waste reduction, recycling, habitat protection, energy efficiency, low-income housing and local revolving loan funds. He is a founder of the Zero Waste New Zealand Trust and has helped municipalities, businesses and institutions develop Zero Waste strategies. Warren is manager of Envision New Zealand. Julie Dickinson is an associate of Envision New Zealand and former manager of Zero Waste New Zealand Trust. She is now coordinating the establishment of Zero Waste International Alliance, an organisation that will help link Zero Waste campaigns around the world and which will help set international benchmarks and standards for Zero Waste.
Editorial review by Richard Tong, Tong and Associates
PO Box 33 239 Takapuna Auckland email@example.com
PO Box 33 1695 Takapuna Auckland firstname.lastname@example.org
With support from:
Introduction Section One: The Zero Waste Journey So Far 1. 2. 3. 4. The Zero Waste story About Zero Waste The New Zealand story so far Who else is going for zero?
Section Two: The Road to Zero Waste for Communities 1. 2. Introduction Seven key strategies for communities: • Adopt a Zero Waste target • Plan for success •Put the incentives in the right place • Develop the infrastructure for recycling and resource recovery • Engage the community • Walk the talk • Lobby to change the rules Section Three: The Road to Zero Waste for New Zealand The 5 key recommendations for New Zealand 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A national target of Zero Waste by 2020 A landfill levy Landfill bans Industry stewardship programmes A national Zero Waste Agency
Section Four: The Vision for the Future 1. The Vision 2. Who should do what 3. Alternative industrial systems Section Five: Appendices Section Six: Resources and links
In 2002 New Zealand became the first country in the world to adopt a national policy of Zero Waste. The vision “Towards Zero Waste and a Sustainable New Zealand” resulted from an extensive, community-led campaign that has so far resulted in 38 of New Zealand’s 74 local authorities adopting Zero Waste targets.
Fifty nine percent of the public submissions to the Governmentappointed Working Party called for a national Zero Waste policy – many also wanted a target date of 2020.
The Government’s Waste Strategy has received wide acclaim for both its vision and the sound principles upon which it is based such as Extended Producer Responsibility, Kaitiakitanga 1, and the Precautionary Principle, but has also attracted wide criticism for being a “wish list without any teeth”.
This document offers a suggested pathway for communities in New Zealand to help them realise the Government’s vision of Zero Waste. It also provides feedback and input from the best Zero Waste experts around New Zealand and the world on the tools and strategies that will keep the vision alive.
The Maori concept of Kaitiakitanga expresses an integrated view of the environment and recognises the relationship between all things. Kaitiakitanga represents the obligation of current generations to maintain the life sustaining capacity of the environment for future generations.
Growing numbers of communities around the world are adopting Zero Waste policies, having become frustrated with the progress of governments and businesses to deal with the waste crisis. By doing so they are sending a powerful message to decision-makers and business that communities no longer want to be the final dumping ground for the outputs of the industrial system - and that cheap, easy disposal is coming to an end. At the time of writing, over half of New Zealand’s City and District Councils have adopted Zero Waste policies. This guide is based on the experiences of people around New Zealand who have contributed to local Zero Waste campaigns and international Zero Waste campaigners and experts who are working for Zero Waste in their countries. Purpose of this guide This guide is designed to assist communities develop practical strategies that will help them work towards Zero Waste. Local Government elected members and staff, community organisations, recycling operators, entrepreneurs and activists should all find something to help them understand and communicate the big picture, as well as ideas on developing effective Zero Waste strategies for their communities. The guide does not attempt to provide specific or detailed “how-to” instructions or the precise details of particular technologies or processes. What it does do, is provide an overview of the best information to date from New Zealand and around the world, and guidance on taking the first critical steps towards Zero Waste. There is no detailed road map yet to get to Zero Waste, however, many communities have taken the first steps and much has been learned in the process. This guide will also direct you to further resources and expertise. The key sections for those who want to get straight to the heart of the guide, are Sections 2 – The Road to Zero Waste for Communities and Section 3 – The Road to Zero Waste for New Zealand.
Notes on the language used in this report
The tools and strategies within this document are designed to drive the journey to a Zero Waste society - but we must also challenge the language of ‘wasting’ if we want to cement long-term change. Throughout this document we have tried to revisit and where necessary change language that reinforces the status quo and works against the vision and target of Zero Waste. Wherever possible we have tried to use the expression, wasted resources instead of waste throughout the text. Equally, where possible, we have moved from the use of waste stream to that of material flows. Waste is currently looked on as a stream flowing from society (commerce, households, institutions etc) to landfill - a liability that needs to be got rid of. Material flow indicates that there is value in this wasted resource and it has the potential to move, or flow back upstream as well as down. Using the expression Waste Stream may still be useful at times, as long as it is understood within the broader context of material flows. At times we have followed the lead of Dan Knapp and Mary Lou DeVenter in using the expression discards as a replacement for waste. As Dan says “it’s not waste until it’s wasted”- until then it’s a discard looking for a place to go. Dan and Mary Lou also exhort us to see disposal as not necessarily meaning the end of life of a product or material - pointing out that the point of disposal is the point where materials are passed to another party either to be reused, repaired recycled, remade, buried or, as in many countries, burned. The expression resource efficiency is a term used to describe how efficiently materials are being used by society, a community or a business.The aim is to increase the efficiency of a resource or material - either by making it last longer or by recycling it and using it again and again. A business for example can increase its materials efficiency by reducing material use whilst increasing income and profitability. Companies can measure their resource intensity by comparing material usage to annual sales. We question the concept of Integrated Waste Management that is currently associated with the dominant waste management practice of landfilling and, has actually marginalised waste reduction and recycling initiatives. An Integrated Zero Waste Strategy on the other hand, puts waste elimination as the core focus and marginalises landfilling - as the last and absolutely last resort for dealing with wasted resources. New language will not bring about change without supporting policy, infrastructure and incentives to bring about the desired waste reduction outcomes - as part of an Integrated Waste Elimination or Zero Waste Strategy.
SECTION ONE: THE ZERO WASTE JOURNEY SO FAR
1 THE ZERO WASTE STORY
Recycling It’s unclear where the term Zero Waste was first conceived, but the move towards Zero Waste probably started in the late 1960s on at least two important but unconnected fronts. On the one hand, pioneers began setting up community recycling programmes in an attempt to put into action their concerns for the environment and as a result of their efforts recycling has become a household word and daily activity for people all around the world. Over the years recycling initiatives have come and gone as commodity prices have risen and fallen with many businesses falling by the wayside. Meanwhile municipalities have continued to build better and bigger systems to cope with ever increasing flows of waste.They have tended to see recycling as an activity that had popular appeal but not as a serious core option to landfilling3. Their view was encouraged and supported by the powerful international waste industry that has gradually consolidated and gained control4 of an increasingly valuable waste stream. Cleaner Production The other development was the concept of Cleaner Production5 for business.This modern approach to the management of materials, energy and waste within companies saved manufacturers both money and valuable resources and led to significant reductions in waste and energy costs – and is an accepted concept for business efficiency today. But there are only a handful of companies that have taken Cleaner Production principles beyond their own factory walls to ensure that the products they manufacture do not themselves become waste.
The problem is, that the principles of Cleaner Production in industry are not linked to the bigger issues of consumption and wasting. Communities are still left with the final responsibility for waste disposal–– even from products made under Cleaner Production principles.
Where it began The Zero Waste story starts and ends with Nature itself and the world we live in. Over time Nature has devised a system where waste from one organism becomes resources for others, creating cyclical material flows in a state of constant equilibrium and balance. Highly sensitive feedback systems ensure that whenever wastes (used resources) begin to accumulate, the opportunities to utilise them are quickly taken up by other organisms to build more abundance and common wealth. It has taken Nature hundreds of millions of years to perfect Zero Waste and it is a fundamental principle of the natural world2. However mankind is in the process of rapidly destroying the very system that sustains us. Our one-way, linear material flows are depleting finite resources and treating Nature as an enormous sink for our increasing volumes of waste. The human economic system operates within the much wider framework of the natural economy (the environment), but we have taken Nature’s capacity to absorb waste for granted.
Our industrial system is predicated on the extraction of’‘cheap’ resources to make products that are largely designed to end up in landfills.
We have invested so heavily in waste disposal and the supply chain system that feeds it, that attempts to change it over the past 30 years have made little impact. The increasing pressure of consumerism over the last 50 years, exacerbated by the forces of globalisation has resulted in massive increase in waste volumes. The toxicity of the wasted resources we are producing is increasing and combined with the development of materials like plastics the“waste” problem has become intractable in some people’s minds. It’s time to return to the system that Nature has perfected and once more act as part of the natural system on which we ultimately depend.
The lack of integration between progressive ideas such as Cleaner Production near the top of the waste pipeline, and community recycling near the end, not to
An exception is volcanic/geothermal activity that produces wastes that take a very long time to re-integrate back into natural cycles. In most cases throughout this report the emphasis is on landfilling as the main residual disposal option. New Zealand does not have any commercial municipal or industrial waste incineration facilities. 4 The Impact of Waste Industry Consolidation on Recycling. P Anderson et al MSW Magazine June 2001 5 It is interesting to note that the original name for Cleaner Production was No Waste Technology (NWT).A NWT conference was organised by the United Nations in 1976
mention product design and supply chain management, created a vacuum and the perfect environment was created for the waste industry to grow fat on society’s discards. As a result, a whole generation has grown up with little awareness of the correlation between consumption habits and the rubbish they put out at the gate - waste will simply be picked up by someone, taken away and safely hidden in a distant landfill. Total Recycling Frustrated with the growth and power of the wasting system, and the inability to gain financial resources for waste reduction and recycling, a few environmental activists started promoting the idea of “Total Recycling”. Their idea was to change the mindset amongst local authorities by proposing that instead of spending millions of dollars on landfilling and incinerating, to spend it instead on “total recycling”. Their pleas were largely unheard – both by industry who had a vested interest in cheap waste disposal, and by waste managers who felt more confident dealing with large waste companies that could guarantee service than with a mix of recyclers and community organizations with limited capital equipment and resources. It didn’t matter that in doing so they were creating larger problems – they were doing what their communities were demanding of them – sanitary and ‘cost effective’ waste disposal.
ABOUT ZERO WASTE
THE PROBLEM New Zealand, with a population of just four million, is littered with landfills – often near or over sensitive marine and freshwater systems. Many of these are closing and being replaced with larger regional landfills that we are told will be safer. This contradicts studies that show there are significant health risks associated with landfilling and the knowledge that all landfill liners will eventually leak (for further information see Wasted Opportunity; A Closer Look at Landfilling and Incineration7). Regardless of their safety, these large facilities present a clear danger because increased investment and capacity actually encourages increased materials flows. In attempting to solve one problem - informal and unsafe landfills, we are creating a new one – overcapacity that requires ongoing waste flows to justify capital costs and give a return to investors. We have the absurd situation now where communities are looking for more waste to help them fund the costs of the ‘waste hiding’ infrastructure that they have built. The idea of “managing” waste isn’t working For too long we have put our faith in the idea of “managing” waste but it hasn’t solved the problem, and a tragedy is unfolding as the hidden long term costs of waste accumulate. Cheap waste disposal to landfills (and, overseas, to incinerators) threatens our materials efficiency and, as has been discovered by many manufacturers around the world, our industrial competitiveness. In the final analysis landfills destroy valuable resources. Even if they were proved ‘safe,’ this destruction of resources would be enough reason to condemn them as outmoded disposal technologies. The final goal for a sustainable society is to create a 100% materials-efficient economy – based on the same principles that Nature has successfully proven for millions of years. The whole idea of “Integrated Waste Management” has served to maintain the interests of the dominant players, industries that want society to be responsible for their waste outputs, for example the packaging industry - and those that profit from burying waste, the waste industry. But few would disagree that these agendas have brought us to the point of crisis we now face and that society is demanding change.
“Recycling has not reduced waste either. Even after the enormous exertions of America’s cities and towns to recycle bottles, cans, newspapers and other consumable products, 70% of the products we buy are still going to landfills and incinerators. The total quantity of throwaway products and packaging going to America’s landfills was actually larger in 2000 than in 1990.” Helen Spiegelman6
Although Zero Waste had already taken hold in business for some years, it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the radical idea of ‘No Waste’ - or ‘Zero Waste’ took hold in municipalities. It started in Canberra, Australia’s capital city, where citizens asked the State Government to consider a ‘no waste’ policy. A community consultation process followed which resulted in Canberra becoming the first city in the world to adopt an official target of ‘No Waste by 2010’. This was the start for Zero Waste and was followed not long after by the Zero Waste campaign in New Zealand. Since then it has spread to communities and other countries around the world.
No liner, however, can keep all liquids out of the ground for all time. Eventually liners will either degrade, tear, or crack and will allow liquids to migrate out of the unit. Some have argued that liners are devices that provide a perpetual seal against any migration. EPA has concluded that
Beyond Recycling:The Future of Waste. Enough! Spring 2000.The Centre for the New American Dream’s quarterly magazine Zero Waste New Zealand Trust , 2002. www.zerowaste.co.nz
the more reasonable assumption …is that any liner will begin to leak eventually.”8
BENEFITS TO NEW ZEALAND OF ZERO WASTE Tourism Our clean environment is our nation’s biggest asset inextricably linked to the success of our export and tourism industries. The international perception of New Zealand as a clean green country and a clean source of food for the world is worth fighting for. Exports Zero Waste is a powerful signal to our overseas markets that New Zealand’s primary produce comes from an environment with less of the health hazards associated with landfill leachate contamination. Even the perception of food contamination is a serious threat. Imports
A crisis demands action - a breakthrough! And the breakthrough strategy for solving our waste crisis is a very simple one - Zero Waste is a “whole system” approach to redesigning resource flows comprised of an underpinning philosophy, a clear vision, and a call to action - all based on the notion that we CAN eliminate waste. Zero Waste is a clear vision for eliminating waste that: 1. Has concrete goals 2. Is a single call to action 3. Engages the national psyche 4. Predicts and redesigns the future 5. Creates a climate of continual improvement 6. Out - competes existing waste disposal methods 7. Creates a new economic model enabling the market to drive the change
By recycling and reusing the maximum amount of materials and products we will significantly cut down on imported materials and make sure that those we do import are used to the full.
Global Warming/Climate Change Landfills are a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Large-scale waste elimination will help us meet our Kyoto Summit obligations by reducing CO2 and methane emissions. For every tonne of waste diverted from landfill 0.8 metric tonnes of carbon equivalent are saved10. No other avenue for reducing these emissions provides such a range of other positive outcomes. Local Economic Development Hard-hit communities are already taking control of a huge untapped, and increasingly valuable resource - to create local businesses, and wealth, from waste11. Employment An economic sleeping giant will be awakened through reuse of the vast quantities of separated materials that will come on stream - creating a huge labour market. The recovered-materials industry in New Zealand is already a significant part of the economy12. Reduced Liability Our long-term waste disposal costs will be greatly reduced - and we will take the burden of cleaning up leachate- contaminated waterways and polluted beaches from future generations.
Zero Waste is a whole-system approach to addressing the problem of society’s unsustainable resource flows. Zero Waste encompasses waste elimination at source through product design and producer responsibility, and waste reduction strategies further down the supply chain such as Cleaner Production, product dismantling, recycling, re-use and composting. Communities that implement Zero Waste strategies are aiming to switch from wasteful and damaging waste disposal methods to value-added resource recovery systems that will help build sustainable local economies. As such Zero Waste is in complete opposition to landfilling and incineration.9
A National Vision of Zero Waste By setting a national target of ‘Towards Zero Waste’, New Zealand became the first country to aim to eliminate, rather than manage waste. We can potentially gain immense rewards from being at the front but we must take the next steps now before we lose our leadership role and the benefits that will follow.
8 US EPA 1981. Quote from keynote speech to the Colorado Summit for Recycling, 2002.‘Can Recycling Succeed When Landfills are Permitted to Pollute? ‘ Peter Anderson, President, Recycleworlds Consulting 9 Wasted Opportunity: A Closer Look at Landfilling and Incineration. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust, 2001 10 Zero Waste . Robin Murray. Greenpeace Environmental Trust. 2002 . Wasted Opportunity: A Closer Look at Landfilling and Incineration. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust 2001 11 Creating Wealth from Waste. Robin Murray. Demos 1999 12 Survey of Recycling Businesses in the Auckland Region. Waste Not Ltd Auckland. 1998
Knowledge Economy Experimentation and Kiwi innovation will flourish in an environment open to new ideas and the resulting technology will be able to be exported around the world. National Pride and a Leadership Role New Zealand will take pride in pioneering an innovative environmental/social policy that becomes established as a global precedent. WE ARE ALREADY ON THE ROAD TO ZERO WASTE As of August 2003, 38 of New Zealand’s 74 local authorities have set targets of Zero Waste to landfill by between 2010 and 2020. Other countries and communities have been inspired by the scale of the movement in New Zealand. International leaders in sustainability such as Paul Hawken, author of ‘The Ecology of Commerce’, Robin Murray from the London School of Economics and author of’‘Creating Wealth from Waste’ and Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface Carpets, are also advocating Zero Waste as a new way of creating economic wealth and addressing a host of other social and environmental problems. WHAT IS ZERO WASTE? Zero Waste: • Aims to eliminate rather than just “manage” waste. • Is a whole system approach that aims to completely change the way materials flow through society - resulting in NO WASTE. • Is both an end of pipe solution which encourages waste diversion through recycling and resource recovery, and a guiding design philosophy for eliminating waste at source and at all points down the supply chain. • Is a unifying concept or “brand” for a basket of existing and emerging technologies aimed at the elimination of waste. • Resets the compass with new tools and new ways of thinking so that normal, everyday activities contribute to the answer rather than the problem. • Is a way to transform the current cost-plus waste industry - whose existence is dependent on the destruction of more and more resources, into a value-added resource recovery industry. • Redesigns the current, one-way industrial system into a cyclical system modelled on Nature’s successful strategies.
• Helps communities develop local economies, sustain good jobs, and provide a measure of selfsufficiency. • Reduces consumption and ensures that products are made to be reused, repaired or recycled back into nature or the marketplace. • Is a powerful new concept that enables us to challenge old ways of thinking and inspires new attitudes and behaviour - the hallmarks of a breakthrough strategy. • Is a competing waste disposal option to landfilling (and incineration) and is consistently showing to be a more economically viable option.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE ZERO WASTE? At first, Zero Waste seems impossible. How could we expect to eliminate all waste and, if we could, wouldn’t it be prohibitively expensive? Even if we could afford it, where would we start? Fortunately, Zero Waste isn’t something that we need to invent from scratch. After all, it builds on the longestrunning, most successful Zero Waste model of all Nature. Even in our human-made world, many of the building blocks are already in place, with many successful models throughout the world. Zero Waste is a goal - like the manufacturing goals of Zero Emissions, Zero Accidents and Zero Defects - or like the ‘Smoke Free’ and ‘Nuclear Free’ campaign goals. All of these were adopted as impossible targets at the beginning but have since brought about dramatic changes in industry and society. It’s important not to get hung up on the zero. No system is 100% efficient. But we know that we can get ‘darn close’. Zero Waste as a goal enables public and private organizations to focus creativity and resources on a journey of continuous improvement that will completely change the way we think about and deal with waste.
EMERGING TRENDS IN SUPPORT OF ZERO WASTE Zero Waste integrates with a number of fast emerging international trends: • Selling service rather than product: Most photocopiers, some carpets, some computers and now some washing machines are leased to clients rather than sold. As a result the manufacturer has a vested interest in building higher quality, longer lasting products - thus helping society use less materials. • Design for the Environment: A new discipline initiated by designers ensuring that all costs, including the environment, are considered and internalised at the design stage. • Design for Disassembly: Another design discipline aimed at ensuring products are designed for ease of disassembly so that the parts can be reintegrated into new models and materials can be recycled. • Remanufacturing: Taking parts that have been be used again for the same or similar purpose (at its simplest, restoring the thread of a screw) • Factor 4 and Factor 10: Where society aims to get an increase in the amenity or service of a resource by a factor of 4. Factor 10 came soon after and now there is talk of the need to go for much greater increases in resource productivity. • Cleaner Production: An efficiency concept used mainly by business to reduce the impacts of production on the environment. Now in common practice right throughout industry worldwide. There are numerous success stories where significant savings have been made over quite short periods of time. • De-materialisation: An expression used extensively by Paul Hawken, The Natural Step founder Karl Herick Robert and Amory and Hunter Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute to describe the concept of using less materials to provide the same service. • Dynamic Modularity: Where products are made in modules, so that only some modules need to be replaced to lengthen product life (for example the ‘skin’ of a product) • Extended Producer Responsibility: Where manufacturers take responsibility for the entire life cycle of products and packaging. • Reverse Logistics: Where retail chains use their distribution systems in reverse to move all broken or unsaleable merchandise to specialised locations for repair, reuse or breaking down into components for recycling. Retailers report huge cost savings from reverse logistics. Reverse logistics also
helps in redesign as manufacturers get better feedback about product failures. • The simplicity movement: A fast growing movement aiming to reduce the emphasis of materialism in return for greater quality of life. Over 40 magazines are available in the USA alone extolling and providing tips for living more simply with more time for family hobbies and personal growth rather than the current time deficient, career oriented materialistic lifestyles of the 90s. Each of these trends is having an impact on society. Each will have an effect on the products that we buy and the waste we create. Each is completely compatible with, and supports, the power of a unifying concept such as Zero Waste.
“Zero Waste is an extraordinary concept that can lead society, business, and cities to innovative breakthroughs that can save the environment, lives, and money. Through the lens of Zero Waste, an entirely new relationship between humans and systems is envisaged, the only one that can create more security and well being for people while reducing dramatically our impact upon planet earth. The excitement is on two levels: it provides a broad and far-reaching vision, and yet it is practical and applicable today.” Paul Hawken
THE NEW ZEALAND STORY SO FAR
The Zero Waste campaign began in earnest in New Zealand in 1997 with the founding of Zero Waste New Zealand Trust, a not-for-profit organisation with the vision for New Zealand to become the first Zero Waste society. The campaign built on the work of many small local groups trying to create sustainable jobs and businesses through resource recovery and waste minimization activities Funds were raised so that seed grants could be given to assist local initiatives and a campaign began to promote Zero Waste as a national and local strategy. The campaign aimed to unify the various waste elimination initiatives into an easily understood vision and to provide a rallying point for the community sector. In 2002 New Zealand became the first country in the world to adopt a vision of Zero Waste.The new national Waste Strategy adopted a vision of ‘Towards Zero Waste and a sustainable New Zealand’. Of the 251 submissions made to the Government on the Waste Strategy 59% called for a vision of Zero Waste – many also calling for a target date of 2020.
By adopting Zero Waste, the New Zealand Government recognised the validity of the Zero Waste campaign and took the first step away from management, to elimination of waste. No other country had gone so far as to make Zero Waste a national goal. The Zero Waste campaign in New Zealand has been supported by three key strategic initiatives. 1. Supporting the Community Sector There is an active community sector in New Zealand led by practical, far-sighted individuals who have tried to fill the vacuum resulting from the ‘hands-off’ Government style of the 1980’s and taken ownership of problems in their communities. These people intuitively understand the power of Zero Waste as a motivator - and the need for urgent change.They have an urgency to stop wasted resources filling up landfills - and instead use them to create local jobs and small businesses. These people know that recycling and resource recovery on their own are not enough to create a Zero Waste society. They see and deal with a growing avalanche of non-recoverable materials on a daily basis and know that the solution lies with product design and Extended Producer Responsibility. But they also know that action must be taken to recover materials and products that can be reused and recycled, and that each community must build the infrastructure for a sustainable materials economy at the local level. The community pioneers have been under-funded and, in the past, often dismissed as fringe elements. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust with the support, and often alongside, Community Employment Group has given these groups recognition, technical support, mentoring, networking, and seed-grants. The national network and campaign has helped validate their work and given them encouragement in an often isolated and unsupportive environment. This growing credibility has enabled other funders and local authorities, to recognise the potential of these groups to create sustainable jobs and added their support and credibility to the community groups’ work. There are over 40 community groups working in some way towards Zero Waste and they have become significant players in waste reduction in New Zealand. A number of these groups are currently establishing the Zero Waste Community Enterprise Network (ZWCEN) under the umbrella of Zero Waste New Zealand Trust. 2. Challenging and Supporting Local Authorities The second main strategy has been to promote the vision of Zero Waste to decision makers in local authorities. The adoption of Zero Waste strategies by city and district councils has been one of the most visible successes of the campaign.
The first councils to adopt Zero Waste targets (in 1998) were Opotiki District Council and Christchurch City Council – the early adopters in the Zero Waste story, and two of the most successful. Christchurch adopted Zero Waste independently of the Zero Waste campaign. As part of the campaign, presentations were made to councils, Rotary Clubs, public meetings, workshops and conferences around the country and the Zero Waste message began to filter out to other communities. In 1999 Zero Waste New Zealand challenged the rest of New Zealand’s 74 district and city councils to adopt ‘Zero Waste by 2015’ targets, offering the first ten that accepted the challenge, technical, networking and financial support. The response was enthusiastic and by mid 2000, 25 councils had committed to Zero Waste. No further funding was provided after this time but councils kept on adopting Zero Waste targets and now 51% have done so. The momentum continues with more councils indicating their intention of adopting Zero Waste targets in the near future.
Criteria for Councils adopting Zero Waste policies developed by Zero Waste New Zealand Trust in 1999: a) A minuted resolution from a full Council meeting confirms Council’s commitment to a target of zero waste to landfill by 2015, with a review in 2010 (to allow Council to re-evaluate the Zero Waste target in relation to its obligations under the Local Government Act, Amendment No. 4) b) A commitment is made to full and open community consultation and ownership of a Zero Waste strategy involving community, council and business sector partnerships.
Key to the success of the Zero Waste New Zealand campaign has been the requirement for councils to adopt a Zero Waste target with a date at a full Council meeting to ensure there is a high level of understanding and commitment at all levels. By adopting it at political level, and documenting it in council minutes, the policy remains firm, even if staff members move on. Political support empowers staff to think outside the square and to innovate in ways not previously possible. A survey of the first 20 councils found five key reasons13 why councils have chosen to adopt Zero Waste. • The Zero Waste philosophy itself – 10 out of the 20 gave this as being the main reason • Funding – 6 gave this as the main reason. For many councils this funding provided the only source of discretionary funding that they could access to implement change. • Necessity – 5 cited the necessity of finding alternatives to landfill disposal, particularly due to the imminent closure of local landfills • Public support – 3 cited public support for the Zero Waste philosophy • To support existing waste reduction efforts – 3 saw the adoption of Zero Waste as a logical extension of their existing waste minimisation activities. Other reasons that have been cited since the survey include environmental protection (especially important in tourist areas), job creation, and a growing acceptance of Zero Waste as a legitimate and effective motivator for change. 3. Lobbying Government The third strategy of the Zero Waste New Zealand campaign has involved lobbying Government on behalf of the Zero Waste Network. This has involved all sorts of activities over the years including: • Compiling ‘Zero Waste New Zealand: Profile of a National Campaign’, a document to provide up to date information from the Zero Waste Network as input for the government’s draft waste Strategy ‘Towards a National Waste Minimisation Strategy’14 • Taking part in the Government appointed Waste Minimisation and Management Working Group (Don Riesterer and Warren Snow). • Providing best practice international examples to the Waste Minimisation and Management Working
Group eg The Western Australian Government’s ‘WAste 2020 Draft Strategy: Towards zero waste by 2020’, ‘Creating Wealth from Waste15, etc. • Establishing the Zero Waste Working Party, with representatives from Zero Waste councils, community groups and recyclers to provide feedback and input for the Waste Minimisation and Management Working Group. • Supporting‘The Road to Zero Waste’ series of workshops organised by Russ Louden and Gerard Gillespie of Waste Works Ltd in 1999. • Inviting the Minister for the Environment to launch the draft Waste Strategy for discussion at the Zero Waste New Zealand conference in Kaitaia (December 2000). • Writing ‘The End of Waste; Zero Waste by 2020’ as resource material to assist the Zero Waste Network make submissions on the Waste Strategy. • Bringing international Zero Waste experts16 specialising in areas such as economics, waste legislation, resource recovery systems, community sector involvement, local authority leadership and industry programmes, to New Zealand to speak at workshops and conferences and meet with Ministry for the Environment staff. SO WHERE ARE WE AT? Over half the councils in New Zealand have adopted Zero Waste, a large number of community initiatives are working towards Zero Waste and a national vision of ‘Towards Zero Waste’ is in place - but how well are Zero Waste communities really doing two, three or four years down the track? The results are varied17. Some communities have rocketed ahead, adopting the vision, involving community, developing infrastructure, changing the language and doing everything within their power and resources to work towards the goal – but a small number have done very little, carrying on with business as usual. In between these extremes there are many communities that started off well but lost enthusiasm after the New Zealand Waste Strategy was shelved as a priority issue for Government. A lot of energy and goodwill went into the submission process by people from all over the country (and overseas) proposing ideas and strategies for New Zealand to move towards sustainability. The end result of this process was a document that provided, as one Canadian waste legislation expert put it, a ‘wish list’ but no real measures to actually reduce waste. The
Zero Waste New Zealand: Profile of a National Campaign. September 2000 Ministry for the Environment. December 2000 15 Robin Murray. Demos 1999 16 Robin Murray (UK) Dominic Hogg (UK), Tom Galimberti (Canada), Andy Moore (UK), Mal Williams (Wales),Tachi Kiuchi (Japan), Robert Joy (Australia),Vaughan Levitzke (Australia), Eric Lombardi (USA), Gary Liss (USA), Dan Knapp (USA) Jim Malcolm (Australia) 17 Zero Waste Council Report, July 2002. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust
burden for this failure has fallen firmly and squarely on the shoulders of communities at the end of the pipe. Three years after the release of the Government’s draft Waste Strategy New Zealand seems little further down the track towards introducing the necessary legislative and economic incentives to move’‘Towards Zero Waste and a sustainable New Zealand’ than when the process started. Despite disappointment at the lack of progress, communities throughout New Zealand are doing what they can to move towards Zero Waste and some are having outstanding success. Waste diversion figures of 60% 85% are being quoted by a small number of communities. The questions that now most worry industry observers are whether these communities will be able to sustain their success if key people burn out due to lack of resourcing and disillusionment. Others are asking whether the waste industry will put aside the work of repositioning itself as responsible resource managers and get back to the profitable business of burying waste now that there’s little political will to back up the Waste Strategy. Section 3, the Road to Zero Waste for New Zealand, gives recommendations for taking the Waste Strategy to the next phase of action. LESSONS LEARNED What happens when a community adopts a Zero Waste policy? It inspires new thinking Adopting a Zero Waste goal creates the opportunity to re-think the way waste is viewed and managed. Support at the political level for what may previously have been seen as a radical idea, provides permission for staff to begin with a clean sheet and redesign local systems and infrastructure to enable the community to work together towards the new goal. This approach helps remove obstacles that may have been perceived to be there before. There is a surprising degree of agreement on what has to be done once there is agreement on Zero Waste as the goal. Every community takes a different approach There is no recipe for getting to Zero Waste – each community around New Zealand has taken a different route – and this is healthy as there are so many variables to be considered in each region and district. A lot has been learned by sharing of ideas and visits between Zero Waste communities. It may take time After a Zero Waste policy has been adopted, it may take time to see much change, and its effects filter down
through the planning process. It can take time for research to be carried out, existing contracts to expire, pilot projects to be implemented and tested, new infrastructure to be built and resources allocated. Some communities that have taken the longest time to implement their Zero Waste strategies have turned out to be amongst the most effective. A good example is Mackenzie District that adopted its policy in November 1999 and launched its impressive Zero Waste programme in June 2002. Roles change Zero Waste challenges the whole focus of ‘waste management’’– including the roles of waste managers of Council staff. For example, engineers may still be responsible for managing existing landfilling activities, but are given free reign to think outside the box and develop completely new systems and processes. Engineers from a number of Zero Waste councils have taken up this challenge, and are proving to be significant change - makers within their communities. Opotiki, Dunedin and Mackenzie demonstrate this. Sometimes even job titles change. For instance in Porirua, Rodney and Tauranga, Waste Minimisation Officers have become Zero Waste Coordinators and Palmerston North now has a Zero Waste Strategy Leader. These changes signal a major shift in thinking. Waste becomes a community issue A whole new range of constituencies are brought into the ‘waste arena’ once Zero Waste is adopted as the goal. Waste suddenly becomes an issue and responsibility for the whole community rather than just council staff. The solution requires the participation of all members of the community so new linkages and partnerships need to be formed – council, community and private sector. This isn’t always an easy process but it results in improved community ownership of the problem and the best results. Support comes from surprising places As a holistic (or systems) approach to changing resource flows, Zero Waste attracts the attention of people working in areas not normally associated with waste. For example, the New Zealand Institute of Architects recently endorsed the principle of working towards Zero Waste Cities18. Others who have endorsed Zero Waste professionally include the Engineers for Social Responsibility, the Tourism Industry Association’s Green Globe 21 programme and the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women. Parliament also has embraced the concept and is beginning to ‘walk the talk’ by implementing its own Zero Waste strategy for Parliament buildings.
Architext. Issue 93, April 2003
Innovation flourishes The road to Zero Waste is not yet fully mapped and there are many blind spots and obstacles ahead. However once the goal has been set, the obstacles become challenges. All around New Zealand innovation is flourishing in communities that have adopted Zero Waste. At grassroots, council, private and corporate level, solutions are emerging in response to the setting of the Zero Waste goal. Good examples are the in-vessel composting units developed in Kaikoura and Palmerston North providing low cost solutions for green and food waste processing. New jobs are created Many new jobs have been created as a result of Zero Waste policies. This is because recycling and resource recovery are job-rich compared to landfilling. As the Grass Roots Recycling Network’s report, ‘Wasting and Recycling in the USA’, puts it “On a per-ton basis, sorting and processing recyclables alone sustains ten times more jobs than landfilling or incineration.”19 A survey of councils with Zero Waste policies in 2002 pinpointed the creation of over 280 full-time and 17 part-time new jobs as a result of their policies.20 The figure is higher now. Investment shifts to resource recovery One of the most visible results of many councils’ Zero Waste policies has been the investment in new resource recovery infrastructure. Local authority waste managers and planners have diverted or allocated significant financial resources into many new purpose-built recycling and resource recovery centres – many run by community groups. Some major facilities are currently going through the planning process. For further information on these see the recently released report - ‘Resourceful Communities. A Guide to Resource Recovery Centres in New Zealand’.21 But communities can only achieve so much Communities aiming for Zero Waste are aware that there is only so much they can do. Without intervention upstream through government legislation and industry responsibility there is no way to get to Zero. Much of the progress to date has been at the expense of enthusiastic individuals and their communities. There is an increasing expectation that manufacturers must play their part – and that government must take a leadership role to make sure this happens.
FOUR CASE STUDIES
OPOTIKI – leading from the front (population 9,200) Opotiki District Council was the first council to take up the challenge and in September 1998 adopted Zero Waste to landfill by 2010, starting on a journey that has seen waste plummet from 10,000 tonnes to 1,500 tonnes to landfill per annum – an 85% reduction in five years. The driver behind Opotiki’s decision was the imminent closure of its landfill and the no-win decision it faced of either developing a new landfill site at a cost of over $2 million, or trucking waste out of the district at a cost of around $100/tonne. Adopting a Zero Waste policy enabled Council staff to take a fresh look at the problem and start looking for solutions to eliminate waste rather than just manage it. A secondary driver was the potential to create new self-supporting local jobs and businesses, and so far five full-time and four parttime unsubsidised positions have been created within council and another two positions by a private contractor. The main reasons for Opotiki’s success are that Council took a strong leadership role, developed a whole system approach, and invested the necessary resources to make its programmes work. Specifically it: • Imposed charges at the landfill (1999) • Established a kerbside collection of recyclables (2000) • Reduced the size of the residual rubbish bag from 75 litres to 25 litres (2001)
Residual waste and recyclables collection
• Established a resource recovery infrastructure network throughout the district starting with a satellite drive through centre in Waihau Bay (107 km from Opotiki) in 2001, then the main Resource Recovery Centre in Opotiki township in 2002, and finally a second satellite drive through centre in Te Kaha (65 km away) in 2002.22 The total cost of their Zero Waste strategy ($460,000 to establish 3 resource recovery facilities) was approximately $3,000 more than what it would have cost to continue to landfill waste. For that $3,000, they have created local jobs; massively reduced waste and have
Wasting and Recycling in the USA. 2000 Brenda Platt and David Morris.The Economic Benefits of Recycling. Institute for Local Self Reliance. February 1993 21 See Zero Waste and Envision New Zealand websites 22 For further information on Opotiki’s resource recovery facilities see ‘Resourceful Communities; A Guide to Resource Recovery Centres in New Zealand’. Envision New Zealand, July 2003
purchased a number of community assets. Opotiki District Council is now aiming for a 90% diversion from landfill by June 2004. KAIKOURA – Partnering with the community (population 5,000) Kaikoura District Council was the third council to adopt a Zero Waste policy in March 1999. Driving this decision was a rapidly filling landfill, a strong environmental ethos (driven by the income derived from the over one million visitors who come to enjoy the environment) and the need to create employment for individuals at the bottom of the social heap. Kaikoura responded to its Zero Waste challenge by forming a joint venture company with local community group, Kaikoura Wastebusters. The new venture, called Innovative Waste Kaikoura (IWK), was given responsibility for managing all the town’s waste services and implementing its Zero Waste policy. Kaikoura faces a problem common to all small tourist towns – how to stretch income from its narrow rating base to cover the infrastructure requirements of a booming tourist trade – including waste services. Innovation has been the key, and IWK has lived up to its name developing low cost solutions to drive waste diversion to its current level of 56.8% by volume (and increasing). These include: • Weekly kerbside recyclables collection for town residents (residual waste has to be self-hauled to the resource recovery centre or a bin-hire company employed) • Fortnightly recyclables pick up for outlying areas
Enclosed Composting Unit
• Mining of old parts of the landfill to extract recyclable material and create more space. • IWK has the support of the community in its drive for Zero Waste and has created nine full time jobs through its activities, when there were only two people employed at the landfill four years ago. MACKENZIE – Planning for a whole system approach (population 4,000) MacKenzie District Council was the thirteenth council to adopt Zero Waste in November 1999, choosing a target date of 2014. Like Kaikoura it has a seasonal tourist influx necessitating a waste minimisation strategy that worked as well in the high volume tourist season as in the off season. Council staff spent a significant amount of time running financial models, to assess its options and the financial impact of each option. Each option was also compared to how well it would deliver on the Zero Waste goal. The outcome of this planning was the launch of a range of new waste minimisation systems in June 2002 including: • A new 3-bag kerbside collection system for household residents – one for recyclables, one for organics and one for residual waste. This is the first of its kind in New Zealand. • The construction and in-house operation of three new Resource Recovery Centres in each of the main townships of Twizel, Tekapo and Fairlie. • A comprehensive education programme (developed by Mid Canterbury Wastebusters) • The installation of a Vertical Composting Unit to process large volumes (47% of the waste stream) of food waste and green waste into compost. This includes a large amount of seasonal food waste originating from the hermitage in Mt Cook National Park. • Financial incentives to separate waste Key to the success of MacKenzie’s system has been its meticulous planning and its utilisation of the full range of skills at its disposal from the political skills of the Mayor to the communication skills of Ashburton’s Mid Canterbury Wastebusters, the engineering skills of the Solid Waste
• Twice weekly recyclables collection for business • Skip-bin hire for the construction industry • IWK designed and built enclosed composting unit to handle greenwaste and foodwaste • Landfill cell storage for those materials that are currently uneconomic to recycle but could have value in the future • A thriving re-use shop • Use of crushed recovered glass as a filter medium for leachate control. • Compaction and baling of residual waste once recyclables have been removed to maximise landfill space
Manager and the financial skills of the Accountant. MacKenzie’s strategy has truly been a team effort and is already resulting in waste diversion of around 70%, just one year after implementation.23 DUNEDIN – Taking the long term approach (Population 120,000) Dunedin City Council adopted its Zero Waste goal in October 1999 and set about developing a long-term strategic implementation tool to help it achieve this. Staff worked in partnership with Zero Waste Advisors from Waste Not Ltd and Meritec to develop the ‘Dunedin Zero Waste Strategy Tool’, a computer spreadsheet system that provides a framework for turning the vision of zero waste into practical initiatives. A suggested implementation programme was devised for Dunedin and the tool’‘genericised’ for use by other councils, becoming’‘ZAP - Zero Waste Action Plan (see Appendix 4 for further details). One of the priorities identified through the process was the establishment of a Resource Recovery Centre. An upgrade of the Green Island Landfill to include this and a Transfer Resource Recovery Centre Station had been on the books for a number of years but the adoption of a Zero Waste target and implementation plan changed the emphasis towards more resource recovery. In 2002 a purpose-built Resource Recovery Centre was opened at the Green Island landfill24. This was followed in March 2003 with the launch of a new kerbside collection of recyclables. With these initiatives in place Dunedin City Council now estimates that it is recovering around 28% of its residential waste.
TOWARDS ZERO WASTE - THE DANGERS AHEAD! If nurtured and supported by Government the community and council-led Zero Waste campaign could put New Zealand in the forefront of sustainability. But dangers lie ahead if Government continues a hands-off approach and leaves waste to the ‘market’ forces. These dangers include: • Mission fatigue on the part of councils and community groups that have been leading the charge but are out of energy and finances to carry on • Consolidation of the waste industry as it fights the threat posed by increasingly effective community waste reduction initiatives • Ineffective use of resources as national communication campaigns fail to capitalize on established community campaigns and the national Zero Waste movement • Cynicism by the public at the lack of integrity between the vision of the Government’s Waste Strategy and its commitment to achieving it • Loss of New Zealand’s lead. Zero Waste is taking off overseas - and New Zealand’s example has played a big part in this. It has been’‘the inspiration’ for many other countries.
The “MacKenzie Model” of solid waste management. MacKenzie District Council 2002 See Dunedin Case study in ‘Resourceful Communities. A Guide to Resource Recovery Centres in New Zealand.’ Envision 2003
WHO ELSE IS GOING FOR ZERO?
• Zero Waste Ireland • Zero Waste New Zealand Trust www.zerowaste.co.nz • Zero Waste North (Canada) www.footprintbc.com/zerowastenorth/ A new organisation, Zero Waste International Alliance, is also being formed to link these campaigns, towns and cities and to help establish internationally recognised benchmarks and standards for Zero Waste. www.zwia.org BUSINESSES Major international businesses that have adopted Zero Waste targets include: • Ricoh Group
Zero Waste is rapidly spreading around the globe. Its clear and uncompromising message is being embraced by different cultures – and at all levels of society – from NGOs and recycling industry coalitions to local municipalities, state, regional and national governments (see Appendix 2 for more information). Zero Waste policies have been adopted in: Australia: Canberra ACT, Western Australia, South Australia, Eurobodalla Shire Council, in New South Wales Canada: Toronto, Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (British Columbia) , Regional district of Nanaimo (British Columbia) England: Bath and North East Summerset Council
• Toyota India: Kovalam • Interface Carpets Philippines: Candon City- Ilocos Sur, Municipality of San Isidro- Nueva Ecija, Municipality of Pilar –Sorsogon, Municipality of Linamon- Lanao del Norte, Municipality of Sigma- Capiz USA: California, San Francisco City, Del Norte County – California, Santa Cruz- California, Seattle-Washington, Carrboro – North Carolina Growing numbers of campaigns run by NGOs and recycling organisations are also promoting the Zero Waste message around the world: • Californian Resource Recovery Association www.crra.com/newmill.html • GAIA - Global Anti Incineration Alliance www.no-burn.org • Grass Roots Recycling Network (USA) www.grrn.org • KWMN and waste Movement (Korea) www.waste21.or.kr/ or www.grrn.org/zerowaste/ kwmn.htm • Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, Australia. www.nccnsw.org.au/waste/context/ • Target Zero Canada www.targetzerocanada.org/ Towards Zero (Scotland) www.towardszero.com/ • Waste Not Asia www.grrn.org/zerowaste/articles/ waste_not_asia.html • ZERI Institute www.zeri.org • Zero Waste Alliance (USA) www.zerowaste.org • Zero Waste America www.zerowasteamerica.org
• Bell Canada • Kimberley Clark • DuPont Inc • Hewlett-Packard • Honda Motor Corp • Xerox Corp These companies are becoming more competitive than their competitors - not only by drastically reducing waste disposal costs but also by promoting sustainable business practices and capturing customer loyalty.
“The whole concept of industry’s dependence on ever faster once through flow of materials from depletion to pollution is turning from a hallmark of progress into a nagging signal of uncompetitiveness.” Paul Hawken, Natural Capitalism
SECTION TWO: THE ROAD TO ZERO WASTE FOR COMMUNITIES
As with all successful endeavors, once you know where you are going the rest is relatively easy. By being clear and sure about your overall goal you can communicate the vision to the people you need to bring along with you. Then, and only then will the actions of everybody in their daily lives ensure rapid movement towards the goal. The vision is uncompromising - a Zero Waste society – one that mimics Nature and abides by natural principles – that guides us towards sustainability.
Zero Waste is no longer a fringe concept that only a few radical activists are promoting – it’s a permanent and key part of the international sustainability movement.
trial system. Almost the total output of our industrial system is waste, but we have paid little attention to the final resting place for used materials and the products that are made from them– in this country landfill. All natural systems have conditions or principles that provide information on the best way to manage and optimise the human interface with the system.These systems are largely self refreshing and don’t need human intervention except to repair previous system violations. Components are synergistic in that each part works to optimise the performance of the whole. Feedback gives us the information to help us adjust our actions. If we don’t read or listen to this information then we suffer the consequences. It would be a mistake to be too prescriptive on the route each community should take to Zero Waste. If you want a step by step approach you can use one of the planning tools mentioned in–‘Plan for Success’ and explained further in Appendix 4. System Principles System principles can help guide decisions without prescribing specific strategies. The following list is a first attempt to identify system principles as part of an overall Zero Waste framework. 1. The Precautionary Principle: Basically,“it’s better to be safe than sorry”.’The Precautionary Principle says that you don’t use a technology unless you have very firm safeguards and reasons to believe that there is no real hazard associated with that technology.”25 2. The Proximity Principle: Nature follows the proximity principle by ensuring the maximum number of needs (for each organism) are met within the shortest distance. This means short supply chains with few long distance transactions. From a local development point of view it is often said,“the closer you are to the problem the more likely you are to solve it”. For resource recovery, the proximity principle suggests that we seek “the highest use (for used materials and products) within the shortest possible distance”. 3. The Diversity Principle: In Nature diversity and complexity lend stability. The more diverse and complex a system is, the more stable it is and more able to withstand shocks. The diversity principle suggests that we need complex and flexible options for dealing with wasted resources as opposed to relying on large, simple, capital-intensive structures.
Feedback from the experts The following strategies have emerged from the ongoing quest to define a roadmap for Zero Waste by Zero Waste Council staff, Zero Waste Advisors, community groups and recyclers throughout New Zealand and around the world. Our first attempt to define the road to Zero Waste was “The End of Waste“– Zero Waste by 2020” which can be found on the Zero Waste New Zealand website, www.zerowaste.co.nz. To compile ‘Getting There! The Road to Zero Waste’, we surveyed local and international Zero Waste enthusiasts and experts for their recommendations on developing a roadmap to Zero Waste (Appendix 3). It’s time to get on with it! The issue of whether Zero Waste is possible or not is simply no argument for an increasing number of people – now it’s time to actually get started. Charting the course There are many different approaches to Zero Waste and a number of New Zealand and overseas communities have designed excellent strategies. Some of these are summarised in section 1.They may also be found on www.zerowaste.co.nz, www.envision-nz.com and www.grrn.org and can be used as a starting point for building your community’s Zero Waste strategy. Key Principles Materials from Nature create the wealth for our indus25
David Suzuki and Holly Dressel quoting Brian Goodwin in ‘Naked Ape to Superspecies’, 1999.These underlying principles can be kept in mind when developing implementation strategies.
SEVEN KEY STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES
The following key strategies are not a sequential formula for working towards Zero Waste, but rather an outline or framework to help guide planning and decision making.
Like any journey you need to set a date or timeframe within which to reach the target destination. Most New Zealand local authorities that have adopted Zero Waste policies have set target dates of between 2010 and 2020. Without a date there is no way to plan and no way to measure success. Zero Waste simply becomes a nice idea. Some suggestions to help set your Zero Waste target and policy follow. Be inspirational. Create the community’s Zero Waste vision in such a way that it will inspire people. Create a logo (as Porirua City and Tasman District Councils have done) and write a visioning document that articulates the goals and principles of Zero Waste (as Mackenzie District Council has done) and will act as a compass to guide decisions in council and in every organisation and household in the community. Set a target date, for example 2015 or 2020 - with a review date (eg 2010) to either confirm or re-set the target date. The review takes some of the risk out of the goal without lessening the strength of the target date. Set intermediate or stretch targets, such as 50% within 3 years, 80% in 5 years etc26. Once you have a big picture target that sets the compass for your strategy, then you need to set realistic intermediate or stretch targets along the way. These will keep people focused on early gains and keep interest high. If you are traveling to Christchurch from Nelson and are clear about the final destination, you need intermediate targets to aim for, to break up the trip - such as Kaikoura or Amberley by lunchtime! Once these intermediate destinations are reached you can stop and stretch, fill up the car, and build up energy for the next leg of the journey. You can also reassess the next stage. Maybe your timeframe is unrealistic and needs adjusting. Intermediate targets help break the journey up into manageable chunks. Align your Zero Waste and intermediate targets with the Government’s Waste Strategy targets. The New Zealand Waste Strategy sets’“national targets for priority waste areas”. It makes sense to ensure that local and regional strategies fit in with and at the very least match the Government’s targets. Some of the targets will be too ‘soft’ for Zero Waste communities that are going at a faster pace.
1. Adopt a Zero Waste target 2. Plan for success 3. Put the incentives in the right place 4. Develop the infrastructure for recycling and resource recovery 5. Engage the community 6. Walk the talk 7. Lobby to change the rules
o Wa er 2020 s
7 Key Strategies for Communities
S T R AT E G Y 1
ADOPT A ZERO WASTE TARGET
The most important part of any long journey is having a clear and unwavering vision of the final destination. A vision of a distant or unknown place (sustainability) must be powerful and inspiring. The Zero Waste vision sets the compass for a new way of managing materials. It’s possible to create a great waste strategy without Zero Waste as the vision or target. But without a clear goal there is always the danger of entrenched vested interests working against your strategy. Zero Waste has come along way since the first New Zealand councils adopted it in 1998. Zero Waste is now a legitimate goal worldwide that goes well beyond any other waste minimisation strategy or concept. The key reason for setting a Zero Waste target is to get everyone lined up with the same goal. Industry has proven the benefits of setting seemingly unreachable targets such as Zero Waste, Zero Emissions and Zero Accidents. These targets create constant dissatisfaction with the present and result in more and more improvements previously thought impossible. With a national vision of Zero Waste in the Government’s new Waste Strategy there are no philosophical impediments to taking your community along the path to Zero Waste.
Robin Murray suggests 50% in 5 yeas, 70% in 10 years, 85% in 15 years and zero waste in 20 years in his book ‘Zero Waste’
S T R AT E G Y 2
The New Zealand Waste Strategy sets targets for following waste categories: 1.Organic wastes – 95% of commercial and over 95% of garden waste by 2010 2.Special wastes – EPR pilot programmes introduced in at least 8 categories (oil, tyres and batteries etc) by 2005 3.Construction and Demolition Wastes – 50% (by weight) of 2005 levels by 2008 4.Hazardous wastes – 20% for priority hazardous waste by 2012 5.Contaminated sites – All high risk sites managed or remediated by 2015 6.Organochlorines – 90% reduction in dioxins by 2020 7.Trade Wastes – All trade waste permits have a recognized waste minimisation and management programme by 2005 8.Waste Disposal – All local authorities have addressed their funding policy to ensure full cost recovery can be achieved for all waste treatment and disposal processes by December 2003. By this date all landfill operators will be phasing in landfill charges based on full cost recovery – in a timeframe acceptable to the local community.
PLAN FOR SUCCESS
Once you have agreement on the vision and targets, the next problem is how to get there. What are the tools and how should they be implemented to get you to your final destination – no waste? This section outlines different planning approaches and the key considerations that need to be taken into account to ensure optimum planning results. The emphasis changes from managing waste as the core focus, to that of eliminating waste – preferably by designing it out at source, but also by reduction, reuse, recycling and all of the methods outlined in other parts of this report. Up until now communities have had little influence on the ‘up stream’ decisions and practices that create the waste they have to deal with. Zero Waste empowers communities at the end of pipe to influence and optimize the whole system. At the same time, we must not fall into the trap of thinking that end of pipe resource recovery initiatives are less important than ‘up stream’ measures such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) or Cleaner Production. But as part of a wider Zero Waste vision and policy, integrated with’ ‘downstream’ resource recovery initiatives, EPR and Cleaner Production will help produce “whole-system” change. The Integrated Waste Management hierarchy or, as it’s often described, the “waste hierarchy” of prevention, reduction, recycling, disposal, has been adopted in a number of countries and used as a guide for local waste planning. The three R’s: Reduce Reuse, Recycle are a slightly different version with residual disposal often added at the end. The problem with these hierarchical approaches is that they can be seen as a priority list causing local authorities to support interventions further up the list, dismissing recycling as less important, while in fact most of their financial resources are going to the bottom of the hierarchy – residual disposal. Many recyclers have suggested that the Waste Hierarchy should be treated as a menu of options that are acted on in unison – rather than in priority order. Zero Waste Planning Tools. The complexity of integrating all the necessary initiatives, in optimum order, to achieve an effective Zero Waste plan has led to many different approaches in the development of local Zero Waste plans – usually based on strategies that address waste either by: • Category, (steel, plastic, reusables, tyres, etc) • Sector (manufacturing, tourism, farming, residential, institutional etc). • Initiative (kerbside collection, drop-off, composting, Resource Recovery Park etc.)
Set targets for different sectors of the community. Different sectors of the community may choose to develop targets to meet the Zero Waste goal – or alternatively council may choose to do this for them. For example businesses, schools, universities, and other institutions may set recycling or waste minimisation targets that are monitored and reviewed on a regular basis. Change the language. Start using the right language in contracts and in communications to help animate your community’s Zero Waste strategy. Make sure that job descriptions are written so that staff know you’re serious about achieving Zero Waste. Give them titles such as Zero Waste Manager or Zero Waste Coordinator rather than Waste Manager or Waste Minimization Officer and talk about “resources” and “material flows” in communications rather than waste and waste stream. Waste plans and strategies should be renamed so that they project a vision that drives change from the very beginning. A community that has adopted a Zero Waste policy might consider calling its Waste Management Plan a Waste Minimisation Strategy or a Zero Waste Plan - as Rodney, Otorohanga and Tasman District Councils have done.
• Party responsible (council, community group, government, householder) - or a combination of the above. A number of tools have been developed to help the decision making process. For experienced Zero Waste Managers there may not be any need to follow any particular planning approach. A review of these tools will increase understanding of the range of interventions and initiatives that can be undertaken and how other sectors of the community can take part. Each tool attempts to view and solve the problem in a different way but all have the same goal of breaking through the current inertia caused by old thinking, lack of infrastructure and lack of influence and change further up the supply chain. Three examples of planning tools are included in Appendix 4: • Urban Ore’s Clean Dozen- the 12 Master Categories • ZAP – the Zero Waste Action Plan • The Californian Resource Recovery Association’s Zero Waste Workbook: A Toolkit for Zero Waste Communities There are also a number of others being developed around the world. So, whether you use a planning tool or not, what are the keys to planning for success? Here are some suggestions. Involve the community in the planning process From our experience and that of many Zero Waste proponents, it starts with people. As Dan Knapp puts it “People are our most valuable resource”, This is contrary to the traditional waste approach that basically designs people out of the problem and waste out of sight. If people are at the core of the strategy ask them for their opinion. Many councils and community groups have done attitude surveys to gauge the community’s willingness to recycle if facilities are provided. Waiheke Resource Trust did this prior to forming a joint venture company and winning major contracts to manage Waiheke Island’s kerbside collections and waste management. Otorohanga District Council has also done this with a simple response form at the end of its draft Zero Waste Strategy (posted on www.otodc.govt.nz) Involving the community in the consultation process will draw out the champions and motivators. These people may well have been critics of the council‘s previous policies, but consultation will help harness their energies in support of council’s new direction. Local solutions will best meet local needs and people
are far more likely to do things if they think of the idea themselves. “The closer you are to the problem, the more likely you are to solve it””– is one way of putting it (a version of The Proximity Principle). The Canberra “NoWaste” strategy was a result of community consultation and a number of Zero Waste councils have consulted and even partnered with their communities with great success. Kaikoura and Porirua are good examples of this.
‘Involve the community in a meaningful dialogue about the search for solutions. Really ask and listen. Once you have a community based plan, work to develop public and political support for the plan’. Elizabeth Citrino, Californian Resource Recovery Association
Develop a Zero Waste task force, including community, recyclers and industry to turn council policy into an implementation plan There will be local knowledge and experience in the community that can be utilized to develop an implementation plan. Calling for input from those with the motivation to achieve Zero Waste, increases council’s ability to meet the community’s goal and provides opportunities for local businesses and organizations to benefit from the increasing flow of resources. Bringing the players together and asking them for their ideas is probably the most effective way to obtain professional help from the experts. Build public and political support for the plan It is important to keep the wider community (those not necessarily involved in the planning process) and key council staff and politicians informed as it progresses. Regular updates in council communications and high profile updates on council websites will help keep support high. Employ the right people to turn the plan into action Aiming for Zero Waste is a huge change from the status quo so those given the task of driving the plan have to have the seniority to push past the obstacles put in their way. Giving the job to a junior waste minimization officer may doom the plan to failure. But even more important than seniority is passion - the essential ingredient to mobilize the community. There are numerous ‘Zero Heroes’ working in councils around New Zealand - passionate and committed individuals who are making huge differences with the limited resources at their disposal. As explained by one engineer, his council’s adoption of Zero Waste
revolutionized his job – changing him from a landfill expert to a sustainability systems planner. Map the Recycling and Resource Recovery Industry A first step in the process of engaging the recycling and recovered materials industry is to understand who they are by researching and mapping the industry. Who are the players? Where are they situated? What services do they provide? What do they need to enable them to activate council’s new direction?
building the strategy. Support for Cleaner Production programmes combined with creating or linking with an existing waste resource exchange are possible strategies for working with large waste sources. Identify the service gaps Once you know the composition of the wasted resources in your community the next step is to find out where the gaps in recycling and waste reduction lie. These are the opportunities for new initiatives and business ventures, that might be easily encouraged by council. Maintain community ownership of the waste (resource) stream If the community maintains ownership or control over its wasted resources, it can manage them for local benefit. This may not be possible if long term contracts have been let or if waste disposal has been privatized. Without ownership or control27 of the discard supply it’s very difficult to initiate change and capture the maximum benefit the community. Large waste companies have a direct interest in ensuring that the maximum amount of material flows to their facilities. Long contracts especially those that guarantee a minimum supply of wasted resources, mean that the community has little incentive to reduce waste and when it does, the savings in disposal costs don’t accrue to the community.
‘Identify community groups that can work with council and develop robust working relationships with these groups.’ Marian Shaw, Waitaki Resource Trust
Know your community’s waste stream Whilst most communities in New Zealand have similar waste compositions, there will be differences between rural and urban communities and between communities with different industrial bases. Communities with a well developed recycling and waste minimisation infrastructure will have a different waste composition to those that focus on disposal to landfill. Map resource flows in the community This sounds difficult but doesn’t need to be. A picture of major waste resource flows will help identify opportunities for waste reduction programmes and initiatives. It’s not possible to identify every aspect of resource flows but it is important to have a picture of the major sources. The other aspect of resource flows that should be understood is where it all ends up. Where are all the waste disposal sites in the community? Where would resource recovery opportunities such as recycling dropoff centres and Resource Recovery Parks be best placed to optimise the system? Knowledge of neighbouring and even regional resource flows can all be fed in to paint the most comprehensive picture. Identify - and work with, the big wasters There are industries and activities in each community that produce large quantities of waste. It’s worth working directly with these to identify problems and find solutions. Who are the larger waste generators in the community? Do they have easily reusable or recyclable waste outputs? Who else in the community can utilise their waste resources? This information will complement the waste composition data and help in
“Local or public ownership of recycling facilities is one effective escape hatch for avoiding the coming garbage monopoly” Peter Anderson et al 28
“You need to have control of the waste streams to achieve your overall waste reduction objectives” Nick Roozenburg, Solid Waste Engineer, Tauranga District Council
Learn from the leaders
Communities around New Zealand are making great strides towards their Zero Waste goals. A number of councils that have recently adopted Zero Waste, have sent council and community representatives to visit other Zero Waste communities to find out what is working and share ideas.
27 The idea of control of the waste resource stream does not preclude local authorities from contracting out various aspects of the Zero Waste infrastructure and residual management. It does mean though, making sure that each contract achieves the optimum benefits to the community in terms of added value, and waste reduction. 28 Fighting Waste Industry Consolidation with Local Ownership of Recycling Facilities. Peter Anderson, Brenda Platt and Neil Seldman. Facts to Act On. No 42, November 2002
Understand the Economics of Zero Waste One of the most commonly asked questions is whether it will it cost more to implement a Zero Waste strategy than the current waste management system. This needs to be answered in three parts: 1.The increasing costs of the current “waste management” system It’s no secret that waste costs are soaring – especially if we take a full cost accounting approach. Most communities have a relatively short horizon before their existing landfills are full and are either looking for new sites or combining with other communities to build regional landfills. The ongoing costs of managing landfill outputs may end up raising the disposal costs by a significant quantum. This combined with the absurdity of spending enormous funds on landfilling valuable and recyclable resources is driving change the move to Zero Waste - as a cost reduction strategy. 2.The longer term economic benefits of alternative systems The resource recovery industry is still relatively immature and has a long way to go before it can take us to Zero Waste. It has to compete not only against the existing wasting infrastructure that has been built over many years with huge subsidies by local authorities but also with entrenched attitudes that assume wasting is cheaper than resource recovery, that landfilling is safe, and that we have a right to have our waste taken away at low or no cost. At the end of the day regardless of whether the council pays for disposal or it’s completely user pays, funds spent on landfilling waste are a direct cost - and loss, to the community. When we look at the effort and resources that have gone into building the infrastructure for our industrial system and compare that with the infrastructure for dealing with the final outputs of that system – waste, we can only conclude that society is not yet serious about averting the environmental crisis we face. The amount of investment in the resource recovery infrastructure of New Zealand would probably be less than 1% of the investment that creates the waste. Given sufficient investment we could easily be diverting 80—90% of waste from landfill. John Ransley of Innovative Waste Kaikoura puts it succinctly when he says “give me a million dollars and I’ll give you Zero Waste “ (in Kaikoura). The reality though is that recycling is proving to outcompete wasting on all fronts, not the least economic. The difficulty is to get communities to make the initial investment required to achieve long term savings and returns to the community in terms of jobs and business opportunities.
The following graphs show that in both giant (London) and tiny (Kaikoura) communities a recycling and waste reduction-focused waste strategy provides significant savings in the long run although it requires additional investment at the outset.
Kaikoura Landfill Options
14,000,000.00 12,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 8,000,000.00
IWK Plan Landfill/Transfer
6,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Graph explanation: ‘IWK Plan’ is Kaikoura’s Zero Waste by 2015 programme. ‘Landfill/Transfer’ is the extrapolation of Kaikoura’s waste management programme prior to the adoption of Zero Waste.
3. The wider economic and social implications for the local economy Waste is a social and economic issue as much as it is a technical issue and planning should embrace wider considerations to achieve wider waste reduction, outcomes such as environmental protection and local economic development. Waste Managers have in the past seen their job as simply to dispose of waste in a sanitary and cost effective manner. Some have openly claimed that they are not responsible for creating jobs in their community or that they are ‘not economic development agencies’. However many councils are proving that it is possible to work with the community to create more local jobs and business opportunities whilst at the same time reducing overall waste costs and risks to the community. But to achieve these seemingly diverse aims, communities must move from the concept of single, large scale, capital intensive technologies, to a diverse range of often labour intensive projects and initiatives that provide flexibility to meet new trends and outcomes.
(the things they have to do) and may (the things they can do if they want). It is worthwhile reading bits of the Local Government Act, especially Part XXXI related to Waste Management, to see the mandatory bits and those where councils have discretion. Copies of the Local Government Act can be picked up at any Government book store.
“Recycling is seen by many local authorities as an extra cost, an“‘add-on’ to existing waste services. However our analysis shows that, over time, intensive recycling programmes actually reduce the cost of waste management, regardless of subsidies. Achieving this requires a long-term view of the whole system of waste management and materials supply”. Robin Murray. Creating Wealth from Waste. Demos 1999.
Ensure all waste disposal fees reflect the true cost of wasting Put an end to cheap waste disposal by gradually raising landfill charges to reflect the true cost of waste disposal plus the ongoing maintenance and eventual remediation of old sites. All waste disposal points should reflect this cost – from household residual waste bags to bulk commercial disposal.
Disposal of waste to landfill the core function
“The bottom line is that wasting currently produces higher profit margins in most cases than does sustainable zero waste.” Peter Anderson, President, Recycling Worlds Consulting.
Introduce extended operator liability
Waste Reduction and recycling the core function S T R AT E G Y 3
Ensure operators of waste (resource) disposal sites accept permanent responsibility for the environmental and human health safety of waste disposal facilities (landfills and incinerators). Set differential pricing to create financial incentives that encourage resource recovery and discourage wasting This is linked to establishing the full cost of wasting. It is important to ensure that at every opportunity there is a financial benefit to recycle – large enough to encourage the right behavior. Introduce ‘Pay as You Throw’ Ensure that wherever waste is produced, the waste generator pays directly for that wasting behavior. Including waste charges with the general rates cancels any opportunity for residents to benefit from reducing waste. Pay as you throw (PAYT) is one of the best ways to educate the public on the fact that there is a cost to wasting.
PUT THE INCENTIVES IN THE RIGHT PLACE
A continuous and continually changing flow of initiatives, solutions and ideas are going to be required to achieve Zero Waste and these have to be based on a solid framework of policy and incentives to ensure they all work towards the same goal. Local Government and the Law It does not take much to come to grips with the basics of local government in New Zealand. Private citizens or businesses can do anything that is not against the law while councils are directed by Parliament towards the things they have to do and those that they may do if they feel so inclined. Recent changes have opened this up somewhat but local government law is still full of the word, shall
Ban recyclable materials from landfill Ban all materials that are currently recyclable from landfill. Follow this up with progressive bans on materials for which markets can be found or created. Councils have very clear powers when it comes to deciding what can and what cannot be deposited in waste facilities that they own or operate. Most councils already have bans of one sort or another on hazardous wastes or dead animal carcasses and no one challenges these. The same legal authority can be used for other types of waste and tyres and car hulks are two of the most common starting points. Section 542 of the Local Government Act gives councils the powers to make bylaws related to waste and, in subsection (1)(a) specifically includes the following: “Prohibiting or regulating the deposit of waste or of waste of any specified kind:” There is no obvious reason why this power cannot be used for any other kinds of waste, especially if other facilities are provided for these. Garden waste and construction and demolition waste would be the most obvious large parts of the waste stream that could be diverted this way. The situation may not be so clear for facilities that are operated by private businesses, as distinct from those that are operated under contract to the council. Provided these businesses are meeting whatever conditions are required of them under the various resource consents that apply to the site in question, the council might be perceived as being very heavy handed to dictate what materials they should take. This can take on very real implications in some settings. If a council wanted to establish a resource recovery park with an emphasis on construction and demolition waste it might ban this material from its transfer station and direct the material to the new park with tipping fees set to cover a significant portion of the costs of recovering material from this waste stream. Down the road a business might well establish a competing transfer station that takes all the demolition material to be dumped at a clean-fill site or landfill out of town. Their tipping fees are likely to be lower and much of the material will go their way. There is no obvious power that the council has to control this situation, although they can license the operators and require returns of the volumes of material being handled - and also request better coordination for the wider community interest. Ban toxic materials from landfill Ban all materials that will create toxic leachate problems in the future. If the material is not currently recyclable, store it until pressure can be brought to bear on manu23
facturers to either take it back or stop manufacture. Don’t allow the landfill to be an easy way out for manufacturers – a way to sweep their problems under the carpet for the community to deal with in the future. Communities have to be able to see what’s being thrown away in their back yards – and say no if they don’t want it. We have to get rid of the notion of privacy when it comes to wasting – especially for some manufacturing and waste industries who rely on privacy to avoid taking proper responsibility for their wasting behaviors and outputs. Ensure all waste contracts encourage recycling and discourage wasting. Waste contracts need to be reworded as Resource Recovery contracts. A good example is the Cleanstream ‚ concept from Wales where contracts are written as total resource recovery contracts based on three clean streams and one residual stream. See appendix 5. Service payments should be the norm for resource recovery contracts with income from commodities split between council and contractor. Break up contracts where they enable waste companies to gain control over the entire waste resource stream. Whilst it’s important to make sure that the waste industry is not vertically integrated it may be beneficial in some situations for recyclers or community groups to control both the resource recovery system and residual waste management. In other words vertical integration is bad if wasting is the core focus but more acceptable if resource recovery is the core focus.
License waste collectors License waste collectors so that performance standards can be enforced and accurate data collected on the quantities and types of waste going to landfill. The example in the section on landfill bans highlights the perils facing councils planning in a mixed economy with some private sector operators. Councils are
obliged to prepare waste management plans but may not have access to information on the amounts of material going through private facilities. This can raise problems if the private operators go out of business for whatever reason leaving the council to handle the increased quantities of material. Section 542 of the Local Government Act covers this by giving powers to councils to pass bylaws to require all persons (or businesses) involved in the collection and transportation of waste, or specified types of waste, to be licensed. Furthermore, in subsection (2)(b) it gives councils the specific powers to require license holders to provide the council with a return of “the quantities and types of waste collected under the license.” In other words, the council can require all waste collectors to be licensed and require paperwork noting the volumes and types of material moved. Rodney District has had a licensing system for waste collectors for many years and Western Bay of Plenty has indicated in their Waste Management Plan that licensing, with mandatory returns, is going to be required. Any council considering this approach would be well advised to get alongside the private operators in their area and try and design a simple type of return that hopefully fits in with the existing record-keeping rather than impose something that is a new tier of bureaucracy. Establish a local landfill levy or surcharge We hear a lot about landfill levies from overseas. In these cases central or state governments have required across the board payment of a flat rate per tonne on top of other charges to fund developments in the waste reduction area. Councils have been lobbying governments in New Zealand for a levy of this type since the 1970s with no success but this need not be the end of the story. Councils have very wide powers to make and levy rates and charges and do this all the time. It is quite within their powers to include their own landfill levy to promote waste reduction initiatives. The Local Government Act goes as far as providing for just such a situation in the language of legal drafts-people. Section 544(2) reads as follows: “Where the waste management plan so provides, the costs incurred in the implementation of the plan may be allocated by the territorial authority in a way that establishes economic incentives and disincentives that promote any or all of the objectives of the plan.” In other words, if the plan promotes waste reduction, and they all do, the council can allocate the costs as a set of incentives and disincentives to promote waste reduction. It could not be simpler. Cheaper bulk rates for truckloads of waste can become a thing of the past.
Charges for dumping green-waste for composting can be subsidised by tipping fees for material destined for landfill. Develop deconstruction standards Create guidelines and standards for building deconstruction to ensure maximum capture of reusable materials. A good model is Canberra’s ‘Development Control Code’ which directs engineers, architects, planners and developers on how to ensure their demolition, refurbishment and construction projects comply with best practice and the ACT No Waste policy. See http://www.nowaste.act.gov.au Require deconstruction plans Make deconstruction plans a prerequisite for obtaining a building consent – or for tearing down an existing building. Change zoning and incentives for resource recovery facilities Local governments can investigate using their zoning authority to encourage the development of recycling business zones where recycling businesses and resource recovery parks can be sited. They can also create incentives for new businesses to establish resource recovery operations in the community. In the experience of the authors it often doesn’t take much to assist new businesses in the recycling and recovered materials arena. Many complain that their biggest impediment is a lack of support or even understanding by their local council. Fast tracking planning and building consents or rent or rates breaks can make all the difference. To small businesses, just being asked how they are doing and taking an interest or showing appreciation for their contribution can be an enormous morale booster. Encourage recycling plans for businesses Local governments can encourage and support local businesses to provide simple recycling plans and reports. A number of councils are already providing waste reduction advice and support to local businesses that is resulting in significant changes in the way waste is managed in businesses, resulting in volume and cost reductions.The idea of planning for waste reduction by the filling out of an annual report could result in more consistent and long term measurable changes. Develop resource recovery facility standards Create facility standards (and possibly permits) for resource recovery facilities to ensure they operate to the highest standards.
S T R AT E G Y 4
DEVELOP THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR RECYCLING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
It takes a huge range of skills, expertise and technology (design, manufacturing, retailing, marketing, supply chain management, transport infrastructure, etc), to make sure that goods and materials flow into and through society in the most efficient way possible. This is the ‘plus economy’. Now we need to design similar systems and infrastructure to return goods and materials productively back into the market or nature - the ‘minus economy’. The complete infrastructure for the minus economy in a Zero Waste society will not emerge spontaneously through the power of market forces, but if the incentives are in the right place the market will certainly assist in building it. In the interim the community must allocate the necessary financial resources to ‘prime the pump’ and start the flow of recovered materials back into the economy. This means investment in waste reduction infrastructure.
Reduce the capacity of residual waste bags and bins Reducing the capacity to waste – while at the same time increasing capacity to recycle, is a powerful incentive to encouraging the right behaviour. Both Opotiki District Council and Auckland City Council have done this to good effect. Opotiki reduced it’s residual waste bag from 75 litres to 25 litres and at the same time introduced kerbside recycling plus three resource recovery centres’– and is now diverting 85% of waste from landfill. Auckland City reduced the size of its wheelie bin from 240 litres to 120 litres and provided extra recycling bins – resulting in a 30% reduction in waste.
Increased disposal capacity will act as a sink to which materials will flow. This rule applies as much to disposal to resource recovery as it does to landfilling.
Provide kerbside collections to all householders Kerbside collections make recycling convenient to the householder and utilise their ‘free’ labour to sort resources into separate streams. They also provide a very important educational role, helping householders make the link between buying behaviour and wasting. People that recycle at home are more likely to support Cleaner Production and waste minimisation efforts at work. Kerbside collections can be run very successfully in areas that also have container deposit legislation - as seen in South Australia and British Columbia. Develop multiple stream collections Increasing numbers of towns and cities are implementing multiple stream – or Clean-Stream kerbside collection systems where householders do more of the initial sorting than with a standard ‘blue bin’ system. The simplest form is the ‘2 stream’ or ‘wet and dry’ system. Rakaia is a good example of this. Residents are given a green bag for ‘wet’ materials including organic wastes, wet paper, tissues etc and a blue bag for the remaining’‘dry’ fraction of the waste stream. The organic fraction is composted in an innovative, converted concrete mixer, and the dry fraction is hand sorted on Saturday mornings by the local community group to remove recyclables.
Match the wasting infrastructure The resource recovery system must, wherever practical, match the current wasting system. For every waste outlet (eg transfer stations, street side litter bins, industrial skip, office rubbish bin, household wheelie bin etc) there should be an opportunity to re-use, recover or recycle resources.
The 3 stream collection separates the recyclables from the residuals. MacKenzie District Council provides residents with a clear bag for recyclables, a green bag for compostables (which are processed through an in-vessel composter), and a black bag for residual waste. This system can be taken one step further by adding a bulky item collection to create a 4-stream collection. For more information see Appendix 5.
Develop Resource Recovery Centres and Parks (recycling business development centres) with feeder facilities Each town and city should have at least one Resource Recovery Centre where wasted materials are collected, processed, repaired, dismantled and marketed back into the economy. Materials from satellite centres, recycling drop-off points, industry, retail, and construction and demolition businesses will feed into these materials processing and trading hubs. Recovery facilities can trade with each other, the recycling sector, industry and the public in each community. The concept of a central hub fed from outlying facilities is already occurring in some smaller centres such as Opotiki and Kaitaia, and in larger cities such as Christchurch, Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney. More information on Resource Recovery Centres and Parks can be found in ‘Resourceful Communities. A Guide to Resource Recovery Centres in New Zealand’ (on Envision New Zealand, Ministry for Economic Development and Zero Waste New Zealand Trust websites). Get organic waste out of the system as a priority Removing organics from the waste stream will dramatically reduce the amount of material going to landfill, help prevent methane gas and leachate production in landfills - and return much needed organic material to the land. It’s also important from an economic point of view as it reduces contamination of the inorganic fraction of the waste resource stream, increasing returns on commodities. One of the concerns about organic waste diversion is the potential increase in collection costs. It has been shown29 that when kerbside collections for all wasted resources are integrated – or optimised, and basic features such as receptacle size, collection frequency and collection vehicle type, have been properly considered, overall collection costs, including source separation of food waste, can be similar to traditional co-mingled waste collection. For example food waste with its high bulk density only requires small receptacles, making it possible to hand-pick (no specialized lifting equipment required) and to use small open trucks. Once food waste is removed from the waste stream, collection schedules for green waste, recyclables and residual waste can be reduced, driving costs down. Thousands of municipalities throughout Italy and Europe have taken these factors into account and are yielding high recycling rates (up to 70-75%) with no increases in overall collection costs.
Foodwaste collections: An increasing number of towns and cities around New Zealand are establishing food waste collections. Some like Rakaia are reliant on a local community group and some are totally council – run such as MacKenzie District Council’s 3 stream kerbside collection, with some in-between. Christchurch City has completed a pilot food waste collection and Auckland councils are currently investigating a regional food waste collection programme. Large city-wide food waste collections are already running successfully in a number of cities overseas – including Toronto and San Francisco. Green waste diversion: There are many opinions on the best ways to divert green waste from landfill. Some towns have gone for regular kerbside collections while others encourage home composting as the priority. The proximity principle would support the latter, however in built-up areas kerbside collection – or establishment of a network of drop-off points may be the best option. Whatever system is used, there must be strong economic and convenience incentives for the public to use them. Organics Processing: Local processing of organics is the best option from an economic and environmental standpoint. There are an increasing number of technologies being developed to deal with organic waste processing. The key consideration must be to produce a quality product free of contamination that can be returned safely to the land to help its productive capacity. There is no future in investing in technology that produces low value product unsuitable for land application. Composting and worm farming techniques are improving all the time and in-vessel systems are being developed at both the low tech (as in Kaikoura and Rakaia) and high tech (eg the Hot Rot and VCU) ends of the scale. Establish or support local processing plants for recovered materials Resource recovery provides communities with raw materials that can be value-added locally to create new jobs and businesses. This requires investment in processing equipment and promotion of local use of the resource - including reuse, remanufacture into new products and integration back into new materials. Much of this could happen on-site in a Resource Recovery Centre or Park.
29 Drivers for separate collection in the EU, optimisation and cost assessment of high capture schemes. Enzo Favoino, Working Group on Composting and Integrated Waste Management , Monza, Italy
Establish recyclable collection systems for business, schools and other institutionsas Recycling at home isn’t enough – there have to be opportunities for people to recycle at work and at school – wherever waste is produced. Recycling systems in educational institutions are important as part of the learning process – especially those teaching on sustainability issues. Massey University in Palmerston North is a good example of this. It has adopted a Zero Waste policy and is now home to the Zero Waste Academy. It has installed recycling bins in public areas and food waste collections from the cafeteria and is aiming to establish resource recovery initiatives throughout the whole University and the student hostels. Provide convenient household hazardous waste recovery It’s easier to deal with toxics at source than as part of a mixed waste stream. Once in the waste stream they destroy the value of recoverable material and disperse into the environment. Systems can be put in place to encourage householders to keep hazardous products out of drains and residual bins.These may include easily accessible local drop-off points with convenient opening hours or regular mobile collections. Establish waste exchanges Set up a local waste exchange, or link into an existing exchange, to enable business to utilise each other’s waste products. A good example is the Enviromart run by the Wellington Regional Environmental Agency – www.enviromart.wcc.govt.nz/ that has a vision of ‘Zero Waste through waste exchange’. To access the network of waste exchanges spread throughout New Zealand go to the WasteMINZ website - www.wasteminz.org.nz. Provide recycling and resource recovery facilities in public places and at events These provide reduced waste disposal costs, public education and access to recycling for tourists and visitors. Public recycling facilities yield high recovery of certain materials – such as drink containers where a large proportion are discarded away from home. For events, apartments and other specialised locations, specially designed lids that fit over the top of standard wheelie bins have been developed. One example is Waste Works Ltd’s ’Bin Lid’ - see www.zerowaste.co.nz. Developing recycling guidelines for event holders is a good way to educate the public about reducing waste. These may include recommendations on what kinds of food and drink containers to use (and what not to use), recommendations on bin types and systems, local suppliers of materials and services and communications.
A good example is ‘A Guide to Recycling at Public Events’ – www.nowaste.act.gov.au/publicplacerecycling.html Regular pick up of bulky goods The move from wasting to valuing resources means replacing inorganic collections with regular collections of bulky goods, which can feed into a Resource Recovery Centre (RRC) or a network of drop-off facilities. Although inorganic collections provide an opportunity for people to informally redistribute goods, huge volumes of recyclable and reusable materials are destroyed by the elements and by scavengers seeking high value metals and components. Inorganic collections are popular with the public so there may be a need to provide other options – like Canberra’s ‘Second Hand Sunday’ programme where residents register to participate in these community events which help redistribute large quantities of unwanted goods. They work very successfully in conjunction with Canberra’s network of Resource Recovery Centres and drop-offs points. For more information see www.nowaste.act.gov.au/styles/2001progressreport.pdf Stockpile resources above ground – rather than below ground Stockpiling is a proven strategy for managing commodity price fluctuations, or waiting for markets to emerge, but it does require space. Robin Murray observed30 the enormous demand for storage in places he visited in Germany and suggests strategies for what he calls ‘distributed stockholding’, utilising cheap storage to allow materials to gradually slip down the ‘value hierarchy’ until there is finally a market for it. It may be cheaper and more practical to ‘distribute’ storage to lower cost locations such as old government or industrial sites with redundant buildings. Communities around New Zealand have utilised stockpiling as a mechanism to manage commodities market price swings. Manage residuals through the transition to Zero Waste Going for Zero Waste has enormous appeal, but as long as we haven’t achieved Zero Waste there will be a residual fraction that must be disposed of in the safest possible manner. If we see the landfilling of untreated, unseparated waste as the very last and most undesirable disposal option, what do we do with residuals during the transition period to Zero Waste? The current option of carting and burying unsorted, untreated mixed waste is no longer an option and the quest is on to find better transitional options for the final residual component. One option is Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). MBT is a process which involves the processing or
Creating Wealth from Waste, Demos 1999
conversion of municipal wasted resources which include biologically degradable components, by a combination of mechanical processes (crushing, sorting, screening) and biological processes (aerobic “rotting”, anaerobic fermentation). See Appendix 5. The other option is to better utilise existing landfills for the residual material. If we introduce Zero Waste concepts, technologies and initiatives mentioned throughout this report so that no hazardous, reusable, recyclable or organic materials are going to landfill, and reach reduction levels of 85–90%, then properly managed existing landfills, redesigned where necessary, will be able to receive the greatly reduced supply of residual waste.
S T R AT E G Y 5
• Adapts the message to the audience – no ‘one-sizefits-all’ • Integrates the campaign into the community vision • Builds on previous campaigns – not ignoring what’s gone before • Is more ‘pro’ than ‘anti’ • Educates the media • Reports results regularly so everyone knows how well they’re doing • Involves local recyclers, educators and community groups who will be driving the waste minimisation plan Provide Zero Waste advisory service for businesses Most businesses give very little consideration to their waste outputs – seeing them as unavoidable with their focus solely on increasing income by adding more business. Many are surprised when they are shown through a waste audit, just how much waste costs them as a percentage of their turnover. This is particularly the case for building and construction companies. A Zero Waste Advisory service would help them see what they are wasting and also help them design waste out of the system. BusinessCare already provides this service in many communities – see–www.businesscare.org.nz Promote consumer buying power and behaviour As we attempt to solve the seemingly intractable waste problem – the finger of blame inevitably points to unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. It would be futile to aim for Zero Waste without addressing the source of the problem – the way we live and consume. Communities at the end of the pipe, with the support of industry doing their bit, can theoretically achieve 80% – 90% waste reduction31. The rest is up to the people that design, make and sell the products - and those that buy them. If we look at the whole supply chain the point of greatest leverage is the point of purchase. We must empower people to understand that they can make a real difference, simply by making the right choices when they purchase products and services. People can: • Use their buying power to support the local economy • Choose to buy products with recycled content • Buy second hand goods.
ENGAGE (AND INSPIRE) THE COMMUNITY
Having already consulted with the community and sector groups it’s going to be easier to engage them in the implementation of the Zero Waste strategy. Engaging the community is much more than just advertising or educational programmes - it includes a range of options and initiatives as outlined below. Publicise the community’s Zero Waste policy and communicate the vision Communicate to the community at large that a Zero Waste policy has been adopted, and what this will mean for the future. The key message is that we are doing things differently, that it’s a whole system approach to changing the way we manage resources and waste, and that it will be rolled out continuously, across all sectors over a period of time, keeping in mind the overall vision and target. It’s easy to spend a lot of money on education and marketing – and too often it’s wasted. The tendency is often to go to mainstream advertising agencies for creative oversight and campaign management. This can be counter-productive – especially if existing community groups and businesses that have been doing the bulk of the communication work without resources are ignored. There is a huge amount of work that can be done locally – often for very little. Features of a good public promotional campaign • Uses talent used to develop the campaign • Links with nationally run campaigns and messages • Carries out community research to find out what messages will be responded to best • Encourages people to action only when the infrastructure is in place
• Choose products with less packaging • Choose quality products that can be repaired instead of cheap ones designed for obsolescence
Robin Murray, Zero Waste conference, Kaitaia, December 2000
• Get things repaired rather than throw them away • Reduce their demand for stuff they don’t really need –things that don’t enhance their lives • Reduce junk mail by: 1.Contacting the Direct Marketing Association and asking to be put on their removal register. People listed on the register (along with 30,000 other New Zealanders) will no longer receive direct marketing by fax, mail, phone or email from all members of the Direct Marketing association of New Zealand. For more information contact the Direct Marketing Association on 09 303 9470 or www.dma.co.nz 2.Placing a “No Circulars” or “No Junk Mail” sign on their letterbox”– perhaps provided by Council as a free service. This will eliminate most non-personal junk mail as deliverers are required as part of their contracts not to place mail in letterboxes that have these signs in place. Both of these actions create a win-win for everyone. Residents reduce bothersome junk mail, marketers don’t waste advertising money on people who don’t respond to this type of advertising and the community has less waste to manage or recycle. This is an important point – recycling is still a cost to the community and the environment - although much less than disposal to landfill. There are many websites providing information on consumer buying power and consumerism in general. Some examples are: • The Simple Living Network – www.simpleliving.net/newsletter27.htm • The New Roadmap Foundation www.newroadmap.org • Envision New Zealand – www.envision-nz.com • The Centre for a New American Dream www.newdream.org • The Green Consumer Guide www.greenconsumerguide.com
“Packaging is the ultimate symbol of our consumer culture. It tells the story of our technological achievements preserves our food, protects what we buy, and raises our standard of living…At the same time, packaging is also the largest single contributor to one of our nation’s most troubling environmental problems: the municipal solid waste crisis.”Stilwell et al 33
Collaborate nationally, regionally and with neighbouring councils to provide consistent information Many local programmes duplicate the work of others sometimes in the community next door, wasting time and money– especially if the messages conflict. On the other hand we shouldn’t rush in and use a one-size-fitsall programme for every community in New Zealand. A good example of community collaboration is MacKenzie District Council’s use of Mid Canterbury Wastebusters (from nearby Ashburton) for its community education programme. Be creative! It’s easier said then done but creativity is the key to good marketing and communication. Make it interesting and make it fun. Quite often the best ideas come from within the community – seek out these ideas and get the public thinking about the problem, and the solutions. Many Zero Waste communities run regular events such as wearable art awards and sculpture from junk competitions. In Raglan, local community group X-treme Waste runs an annual trolley derby (trolleys are made from recycled materials) and publishes a unique annual report that gets distributed to every household. This year the annual report was in the form of a board game – with the goal of Zero Waste. Local creativity helps focus the attention of the community on the value of used materials and products and fosters community spirit. Encourage local innovation and participation through a Zero Waste fund Create a Zero Waste fund (possibly funded through a waste levy or surcharge) to help local entrepreneurs develop new ideas and waste minimisation activities. For example North Shore City Council recently developed a ‘Waste Wise fund’ to assist education, research, feasibility studies and community waste reduction initiatives. (http://www.northshorecity.govt.nz\our_environment\ waste_minimisation\wastewise-fund.htm)
“There is no getting around the fact that material consumption is at the heart of the sustainability crisis – the aggregate ecological footprint of humanity is already larger than the earth.” W. E. Rees32
Rees W E (1995) More jobs, less damage: a framework for sustainability growth and environment, Alternatives, 21 (4) 33 Stilwell et al. 1991. Packaging for the Environment: A Partnership for Progress. New York, American Management Association
Develop joint ventures Joint ventures can be useful in areas of potential risk and especially where a pilot project would suit the need to trial a new system of waste reduction. Community groups CBEC from Kaitaia, and Waiheke Resource Trust formed a joint venture that won a contract to manage Waiheke Island’s recycling programme. Kaikoura District Council and Kaikoura Wastebusters have formed a joint venture company, Innovative Waste Kaikoura to operate their landfill and all recycling and waste reduction programmes under a Zero Waste banner. Once communities have control over the resource stream, they are able to utilise local creativity and commitment to change. And through the income from operating council contracts they have the cash flow to make it happen. Monitor, measure and publicise the results When there’s a crisis such as a water or power supply failure we all like to see how our conservation efforts are making a difference. Keep the community informed with feedback on the progress towards Zero Waste. Opotiki’s signage on the side of its main Resource Recovery Centre is a good local example. Canberra is also doing an excellent job with its regular Progress Reports. Opotiki sign Regular features and notices in the media and messages explaining the status of the campaign and the next steps will keep interest and participation high. In a single day we see thousands of messages and advertisements– so it’s important to keep the campaign constantly refreshed and vital.
S T R AT E G Y 6
Establish recycling systems within all council operations The other way for council to “walk the talk” is with its own in-house resource recovery systems. Some Zero Waste councils have made great strides including Timaru District Council which has reduced waste by 74% since putting in place a complete programme involving all employees. Councils can also be proactive in other ways such as: • By developing purchasing polices that favour service over products through leasing and manufacturer take back options • Promoting Zero Waste architecture34 Link with (and enhance) other initiatives Zero Waste offers innovative councils the opportunity to use their Zero Waste policies to link in with and enhance other initiatives such as: - Green or EcoTourism - Mayors for Jobs - Energy efficiency - Regional development initiatives (Industry New Zealand) - Greenhouse Gas Emissions targets - Organics movement
S T R AT E G Y 7
LOBBY FOR NEW RULES
The whole idea of Zero Waste is to integrate all players along the supply chain into one conceptual vision and call to action. The problem up until now for communities, who are at the end of the supply chain, is that they have had to curb waste with little or no support from the people that design and produce, sell and buy the products. There is only so much that communities can do to optimise the efficiency of materials and reduce waste at the end of the chain. To eliminate waste they need the cooperation of industrial designers, manufacturers, retailers, consumers, the waste industry and last but not least, government. By adopting Zero Waste, communities are signalling the end of waste and timeframes and intermediate targets for industry and society to change. The clear message is that communities at the end of the pipe no longer want to be the helpless recipients and custodians of the entire output of the industrial society.
WALK THE TALK
Adopt Green procurement guidelines Green Purchasing Guidelines will help all departments within Council adopt purchasing policies that favour products and materials with recycled content and other environmental advantages. By supporting local businesses that make these products Council will help to ‘prime the pump’. There are too many stories of local businesses not being able to supply their local Council with environmentally superior products – even when it has a clear environmental policy. A commitment by councils to walk the talk and throughout all their operations – with clear guidelines on purchasing, will help drive resource recovery and public credibility.
Architext. Issue 93, April 2003
Councils, community groups and citizens, must remind designers, manufacturers, marketers and retailers of their responsiblity to redesign material flows, and that there is not an endless supply of cheap waste disposal available and paid for by communities. There is nothing more powerful in terms of the flow of anything – whether it is water, oil, effluent or waste materials than the threat to close off the pipe. It gets the immediate attention of those at the other end who may otherwise have no interest in change.To put it simply, back pressure is a very powerful motivator for upstream change. Here are some of the things that communities can demand to effect change. In most cases it’s going to have to be the local council that coordinates the lobbying of government on behalf of the community. Even more powerful would be the collaboration of councils around the country at regional and national level to insist on change. (see section 7 -Strategies for New Zealand for more information on these) • National landfill levy to help fund community waste initiatives • Extended Producer Responsibility including Industry Stewardship Programmes, and container deposit programmes • National landfill bans for recyclable and toxic materials • Full cost accounting for waste disposal • National Zero Waste communication campaign linking with community campaigns • Packaging levy • Minimum recycled content standards • Research & Development grants/tax incentives • Mandatory corporate reporting • Support for Design For the Environment programmes • Investment in jobs through local reuse, recycling and reprocessing • Low interest loan fund • National school education programme • Green procurement guidelines for the public sector • Application of the precautionary principle (including incineration bans)
• Plastic bag levies • National measuring, monitoring and reporting on our journey towards Zero Waste
KEY STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES – SUMMARY TABLE
1. ADOPT A ZERO WASTE TARGET
2. PLAN FOR SUCCESS
3. PUT THE INCENTIVES IN THE RIGHT PLACE
4. DEVELOP THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR RECYCLING AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
Match the wasting infrastructure Reduce the capacity of residual waste bags and bins
Involve the community in the planning process Develop a Zero Waste task force including community, recyclers and industry to turn council policy into an implementation plan. Build public and political support for the plan
Ensure all waste disposal fees reﬂect the true cost of wasting. Introduce extended operator liability
Set a target date
Set intermediate or stretch targets
Set differential pricing to create ﬁnancial incentives that encourage resource recovery and discourage wasting Introduce Pay as You Throw
Provide kerbside collections to all householders.
Align your Zero Waste and intermediate targets with the government’s Waste Strategy Set targets for different sectors of the community Change the language
Employ the right people to turn the plan into action
Develop multiple-stream collections
Map the recycling and resource recovery industry Know your community’s waste stream
Ban recyclable materials from landﬁll Ban toxic materials from landﬁll
Develop Resource Recovery Centres (or Parks with ‘feeder’ facilities Get organic waste out of the system as a priority (foodwaste and greenwaste) Establish or support local processing plants for recovered materials Establish recyclable collection systems for business, schools and other institutions Provide convenient household hazardous waste recovery Establish waste exchanges
Identify – and work with the big wasters Identify the service gaps
Ensure all waste contracts encourage recycling and discourage wasting. License waste collectors
Maintain community ownership of the waste (resource) stream Learn from the leaders
Establish a local landﬁll levy or surcharge Develop demolition standards
Understand the economics of Zero Waste
Require deconstruction plans
Provide recycling facilities in public places and events Regular pick up of bulky goods Stockpile resources above ground – rather than below ground Manage residuals through the transition to Zero Waste – eg mechanical biological treatment
Change zoning and incentives for resource recovery facilities Encourage recycling plans for businesses Develop resource recovery facility standards
5. ENGAGE (AND INSPIRE) THE COMMUNITY
6. WALK THE TALK
7. LOBBY FOR NEW RULES
Publicise the community’s Zero Waste policy and communicate the vision Provide Zero Waste advisory services for businesses
Adopt green procurement guidelines
National landﬁll levy to help fund community waste initiatives Extended Producer Responsibility including industry stewardship programmes and container deposit programmes National landﬁll bans for recyclable and toxic materials
Establish recycling systems within all Council operations
Promote consumer buying power and behaviour
Link with (and enhance) other initiatives – eg eco-tourism
Collaborate nationally, regionally and with neighbouring councils to provide consistent information
Full cost accounting for waste disposal
National Zero Waste communication campaign linking with community campaigns Packaging levy
Encourage local innovation and participation through a Zero Waste fund Develop joint ventures
Minimum recycled content standards
Monitor, measure and publicise the results
Research and development grants/tax incentives
Mandatory corporate reporting
Support for Design For the Environment programmes Investment in jobs through local reuse, recycling and reprocessing Low interest loan fund
Green procurement guidelines for the public sector National measuring, monitoring and reporting on our journey towards Zero Waste
SECTION FOUR: THE ROAD TO ZERO WASTE FOR NEW ZEALAND
The launch of the New Zealand Waste Strategy by the Minister for the Environment, Marion Hobbs represented the first step on the road to Zero Waste for New Zealand. The strategy has a powerful vision, sound underlying principles, targets for various waste streams and other requirements for local authorities that will gradually bring about change. But the Waste Strategy is unlikely to bring about much more than gradual incremental change. A recurring theme is simply that it lacks teeth. To give the strategy ‘teeth’, we have come up with 5 key recommendations that, if implemented in unison, will make immediate change in the way materials flow and are managed in New Zealand. It will achieve significant reductions in waste and put New Zealand on a much firmer footing on the road to Zero Waste. The overall objective must be to facilitate a shift from an “end of pipe” approach where the community carries the bulk of responsibility to a producer (and consumer) responsibility approach.
Landfill levies or surcharges are being used in a number of countries and in several New Zealand communities to increase the cost of wasting and to divert funds to build the infrastructure for a resource efficient, sustainable society. Levies are a simple, direct and effective way of achieving these goals. 49% of submissions to the government on the Waste Strategy commented on waste levies. Of these 82% were in favour (many strongly) of implementing a national waste levy and only 17% were against. A landfill levy should not be looked on as a tax – rather an increase on top of the landfill fee to fund activities that will actually reduce the need for, and costs, of ever more expensive landfills in the future - and the associated costs of ongoing management of emissions. Unlike taxes, the landfill levy can be avoided – simply by using the current know-how and resource recovery infrastructure to reduce, divert or recover resources from the waste (resource) stream. The funds raised should be used to fund a Waste Reduction (Zero Waste) Agency to animate the Waste Strategy and an associated fund dedicated to building the local infrastructure for resource recovery and materials efficiency. Christchurch City has a landfill levy that is used to fund a range of waste reduction programmes through the Recovered Materials Foundation (www.rmf.org.nz). Most countries in Europe now have landfill levies ranging from $20 per tonne (France) to nearly $130 per tonne (Netherlands).The UK has signalled that its landfill levy will rise via the “landfill tax escalator” until it reaches about $100 in the medium to long term (on top of the landfill fee). Closer to home, South Australia recently doubled its landfill tax to $10/tonne to fund a new agency, Zero Waste South Australia, which will help support community and industry waste minimisation initiatives (www.environment.sa.gov.au/epa/). Sydney also has a waste levy of $35 per tonne. It is recommended that the landfill levy be set at a modest $10 per tonne for one to three years progressively rising by $1 per annum as the resource recovery infrastructure for New Zealand develops to provide alternatives to wasting. The levy should raise about $30 million per annum, of which $10million should go to the Zero Waste Agency (see below). The balance would be shared between district and city councils on a pro rata basis to develop local waste reduction initiatives, community education and match-funding for essential infrastructure projects such as Resource Recovery Parks.
1. A national target of Zero Waste by 2020
2. A landfill levy
3. Landfill bans
4. Industry stewardship programmes
5. A national Zero Waste Agency
5 Key Recommendations for NZ
NATIONAL TARGET DATE FOR ZERO WASTE OF 2020
As of July 2003, 38 of New Zealand’s local authorities have adopted Zero Waste policies. Apart from a couple, all have set target dates of between 2010 and 2020. By adopting a date of 2020 the New Zealand Government would synchronise better with over half of its local authorities and take a stronger leadership role. A target date is essential in order to motivate change. Including a review date of 2015 would provide the necessary ‘breathing space’ to allow us to stop, take stock, and move the goal out further if required.
Landfill Levy Fund Allocation 1 Total raised 2 Local Authorities 3 Zero Waste Agency Notes: 1. Based on 3million tonnes @ $10 per tonne 2. Allocated on a population-related, pro-rata basis to all councils that have a full Zero Waste action plan. To be used to fund the development of resource recovery infrastructure alternatives to landfill, research and development, pilot projects and education programmes 3. Zero Waste Agency – see budget below 4. Revenue from cleanfill sites has not been included - for which a levy could also be set $30 million (approximately) $20 million $10 million
1990s on gypsum board. The ban created an opportunity for a local business, New West Gypsum Recycling (www.nwgypsum.com) to establish a gibboard recycling plant. Since 1986 this company has recycled 1.7 million tonnes - in a city about the size of Auckland. Owner Tony McCamly points out that without the ban he wouldn’t be in business. There are already trends in New Zealand for landfill operators to be selective about what they will accept. Wellington for example bans used oils and tyres. However there needs to be a requirement for all landfills to ban certain materials to ensure exporting does not occur between districts. Bans need to be enforceable to ensure operators take them seriously. Alongside landfill bans, we need technical support for local authorities to design new and more appropriate treatment options for residual wastes. These are covered in section 5 – Developing the Infrastructure for Recycling and Resource Recovery.
LANDFILL BANS (OR EXCLUSIONS)
INDUSTRY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMMES
The time for landfill bans has come in New Zealand. As well as keeping toxics out of landfill they are an effective means of diverting materials that have economic value. They can also create incentives for the establishment of new businesses - that in turn create demand for the banned materials. Local government does not need to wait for central government policy on this issue – under existing regulations (refer to section 5 – Strategies for Communities) they have the power to implement landfill bans. However proactive councils would be hugely empowered by national landfill bans - and less proactive ones would have a reason to act. Bans should be applied progressively - starting immediately with hazardous materials including all TV and computer monitors (which can have up to 2kg of lead). A ban on TV and computer monitors going to landfill in California enabled Resource Recovery Centres to charge the public to receive monitors that made it economically viable to recycle them.
To ensure that the principle of EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) contained within the Waste Strategy is fully implemented, New Zealand must put in place regulations to ensure specific industry sectors take responsibility for their products from cradle to cradle. Canada is the shining example of just how much can be achieved in this area and has developed more industry stewardship initiatives than any other country. British Columbia, for example, has industry stewardship regulations for beverage containers, lead acid batteries, medications, paint, scrap tyres, used motor oil, and solvents, flammable liquids, gas and pesticides. Stewardship programmes for scrap car tyres and used motor oil exist in virtually every province and territory in Canada and voluntary paint collection and household hazardous waste collection days are prevalent in most provinces. They are administered in BC under Product Care (http://www.productcare.org), an industry sponsored association. The next phase for Canadian Product Stewardship agreements is in the area of electronic equipment recycling regulation. Whether legislated or voluntary, it is apparent that Canada’s industry stewardship programmes are keeping huge volumes of beverage containers, toxic (hazardous waste, pesticides) and problematic materials out of the country’s landfills. For example, these regulations have prevented 20 million equivalent litres of household paint, 300 thousand equivalent litres of household flammable products, and 70 thousand equivalent litres of household pesticides from entering British Columbia’s environment since being put in place in 1994 and 1996.
“Urban Ore previously could not afford to receive TV and computer screens, because we then had to pay for them to be recycled. Now that there’s a ban in place people have nowhere to take them, so they are happy to pay $30 to get rid of them – especially if they know that they will be responsibly handled and dismantled” Dan Knapp, Urban Ore, Berkeley, California
Similarly, Vancouver imposed a landfill ban in the mid-
Alberta has eliminated tyres from going to landfill. The Tire Recycling Management Association of Alberta is an industry run organisation that receives and distributes a $3 per tyre levy paid by the purchasers of new tyres. The Director of Operations, Kevin O’Neil pointed out recently that the levy has enabled the association to support the development of a tyre recycling industry, which in turn has resulted in almost 100% of all tyres being recycled in Alberta. Over 200 people are employed in this emerging industry and Alberta is a leader in tyre recycling technologies. For further information see www.trma.com Beverage Container Deposits Although beverage container deposits or, as they are commonly known, ‘bottle bills’ can be implemented as part of industry stewardship agreements they are summarised here separately because of their unique advantages as a stand-alone strategy regardless of how other regulations are implemented. The term ‘bottle bill’ is commonly used to describe a law that requires a minimum refundable deposit on beer, soft drink and other beverage containers in order to insure a high rate of recycling or reuse. Deposits on beverage containers are not a new idea. The original deposit-refund system was created by the beverage industry as a means of guaranteeing the return of their glass bottles to be washed, refilled and resold. Our neighbours in South Australia have been running a container deposit refund system since 1975 and have recently expanded it to cover all drink containers apart from milk bottles (see ‘Who else is going for Zero’). Canada also has excellent schemes (see appendix 3 for further information)
5. A NATIONAL ZERO WASTE AGENCY
Robin Murray in his book ‘Creating Wealth from Waste’ eloquently puts the case for A Zero Waste Agency for the UK and makes the comment that “Any profound change needs an entrepreneurial force to drive it”. Sixty eight percent of the submissions on the New Zealand Waste Strategy were also in favour of establishing a central agency to drive new policy. The Zero Waste Agency would be responsible for making sure that the intermediate national targets are met and that New Zealand is on target to achieve Zero Waste by 2020. The Zero Waste Agency would essentially be a cheerleading organisation, preferably just outside of government in the same way that WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme), a government organised, non government organisation (GONGO) is separate from the UK Government. Closer to home the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is also a model. The Zero Waste Agency would have a clear mandate to empower and harness the entrepreneurial forces within the community, business and institutional sectors to work together for the common goal of Zero Waste. The agency would also operate a fund to help develop the infrastructure for resource recovery around New Zealand, funded by a percentage of the national landfill levy. No country in the world has had the conditions for aiming for Zero Waste more clearly established than New Zealand. The recommended budget for the agency would be $10 million per annum - of which $1million would be for administration, $1milllion for research and internally driven projects, reports and studies, $1 million for training – eg via the Zero Waste Academy, and the balance of $7million for funding local projects and infrastructure on a matching grant basis. 50% of all grants made by the agency ($3.5million) must be for development of ‘up stream’ extended producer responsibility initiatives, such as design for the environment, reverse manufacturing, supply chain and logistics projects, and stewardship programmes. Of the remaining funds ($3.5 million), 50% ($1.75million) would be targeted at assisting recycling businesses and the remaining $1.75 million for local community based initiatives.
No country in the world has had the conditions for aiming for Zero Waste more clearly established than New Zealand.
“Society is telling us in unmistakeable terms that we share equally with the public, the responsibility for package retrieval and disposal… This industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars….in the attempt to dispute, deflect, or evade that message. It is interesting to speculate on the state of our public image, and our political fortunes had that same sum been devoted to disposal or retrieval technology.” Dwight Reed, President National Soft Drink Association
The Ministry for the Environment would be responsible for negotiating the Industry Stewardship Agreements with Industry and could require a seat on the board of each industry established Stewardship council.
Proposed Budget for the Zero Waste Agency Administration & information resources Research & internally driven projects, reports & studies Zero waste Academy ‘Up Stream’ grants ‘Down stream’ grants & loans (business) Total $1 million $1 million $1 million $3.5 million $1.75 million $10 million
‘Down stream’ grants & loans (community) $1.75 million
Other tasks the Zero Waste Agency would address include: • Mandatory full cost accounting for waste disposal (changing the economics in favour of resource recovery) • National Zero Waste communication campaign linking with community campaigns • Packaging levy • Minimum recycled content standards • R&D grants/tax incentives • Mandatory corporate reporting • Investment in jobs through local reuse, recycling and reprocessing • National school education programme • Green procurement guidelines for the public sector • Implementing a ban on all forms of incineration and destructive pyrolysis technologies • Plastic bag levies • National measuring, monitoring and reporting on our journey towards Zero Waste
SECTION FIVE: A VISION FOR THE FUTURE
1. THE VISION
Let’s imagine that it’s now the year 2020 – and our Zero Waste by 2020 target was set in the year 2004. The first thing we will notice is that there is no weekly rubbish collection, as we know it. Instead, there will be a regular collection of reusable containers, household bulky items and kitchen waste with a monthly collection for the miniscule amount of residual waste (for most households this will be zero). Sophisticated methods for composting and vermiculture will be practised at home by those with sufficient space, and garden centres will provide landscaping ideas to reduce garden waste . Apartment and multi-occupant buildings will have inbuilt organic waste recovery systems. In-vessel composting systems will be placed near shopping centres, clusters of restaurants and supermarkets and make a profit for the owners from the sale of high quality compost. Farmers will invest in these systems to return high quality compost to the land to ensure their ability to produce fine natural food without loss of soil structure and fertility. At the local stores, there will be almost no packaging, as we now see it – many bottles will be returned for refilling and often refilled at the store for a considerable discount that includes a refund of the Advanced Recovery Fee. Packaging will be minimal, reusable, compostable or infinitely recyclable. Each city will have a network of branded drop-off and re-use centres that will be as easy to identify and as high profile as gas stations. Some will operate as chains and some as “independents”.They will trade with each other as well as feeding used materials and goods into purpose built Resource Recovery Parks or directly into secondhand dealer networks. All of these centres and parks will be licensed and part-funded through Advance Recovery Fees (previously called Advance Disposal Fees). They used to be part-funded by the landfill levy but the amount of waste has reduced so much that this funding has all but dried up. A myriad of recycling, remanufacturing, processing, and disassembly businesses will be based at and around these centres. Many of the businesses (local or community owned) will have started from loans provided by dedicated recycling loan funds, as well as through land being made available in “Recycling Market Development Zones” with special tax incentives. The businesses will also have received technical advice from a range of advisors specialising in all aspects of Zero Waste technologies and systems. The export of recycling and materials handling technologies along with reverse logistics, remanufacturing concepts, and Zero Waste know-how will have risen to over $1billion per annum. Most people running recycling, resource recovery and remanufacturing businesses will
have attended one of the Zero Waste Academies that were set up back in the early 2000s. They will now be running courses for people from all over the world and people will flock to New Zealand to see how its communities have all but eliminated waste. There will be comprehensive reverse logistics systems funded by advance recovery fees for all vehicles, appliances, electronic goods and furniture. Retailers will also have their own collection systems, resulting in intense competition for discarded products and materials that will contribute almost as much to their business as the sale of new products. All products will be designed for disassembly. Local recyclers will bid for franchises to dismantle products for various manufacturers. All products will be made in ‘Zero Waste’ factories using’‘Clean Production’ principles. Products will have embedded codes identifying type and composition of the materials they are made from for ease of disassembly and recovery. Schools and universities will be completely Zero Waste, as will all construction sites. New buildings will be made from a range of natural and recyclable materials. Many products, including some parts of vehicles will be made from organic materials purpose grown under ecologically sustainable conditions that can be composted under special conditions or recycled at the end of their lives. The remaining small number of oil derived plastics will be able to be recycled on a permanent basis without ‘downcycling’. Complex assembly processes will include the use of bonding materials that will collapse under micro-wave for ease of disassembly. Many of the parts in products will transcend numerous model changes and be returned to factories for integration into new models. Most products will be leased rather than sold and will remain the property of the manufacturer who will be accountable for ensuring that there is no waste in their manufacture. In a Zero Waste society many materials will be “eternal” within the human economy and will only exit into nature if they are totally benign. Old furniture and many other products will be “remanufactured” at dedicated plants - this will become core business for many manufacturers and sold alongside their new products. The deconstruction industry will be as big as the building industry, with no parts of dismantled buildings or structures wasted. Each new building will need a full dismantling plan as part of the building consent process. The ‘plus’ and’‘minus’ economies A whole new “minus” economy will emerge and grow to almost the size of, and integrate into, the”“plus” economy. Through application of the”“proximity principle” which can be largely stated as “the highest use
within the shortest distance”, local economies will once again experience economic growth through development of a range of recycling, processing, manufacturing and remanufacturing industries. The manufacture of materials handling and processing equipment alone will contribute significantly to some economies. A range of government led policies and economic instruments progressively applied since 2003 will power the whole system. The first policy will have been to set Zero Waste by 2020 as the target, along with the establishment of a national Zero Waste Agency to drive and animate the transition. Escalating landfill levies will be applied along with a range of advanced resource recovery fees on a wide range of products.There will be industry stewardship agreements where each industry sector will take full responsibility for the full life cycle of their products, taxes on non-recyclable products, removal of subsidies for extraction of virgin materials, full cost accounting procedures for all disposal facilities and progressive bans on landfilling of a wide range of materials starting in 2004. From 2005 onward there will be absolutely no organic matter going to landfills. Current and historical waste flows By 2020 all current waste flows will be eliminated and we will have achieved a 100% materials efficient industrial economy. We will still need safe secure land storage facilities although nowhere near the number we have at present. This is because there are historic material flows stored within society that will be released slowly and over a much longer time frame than the Zero Waste goal of 2020. Historic waste includes materials embedded in buildings that were not designed for recovery, incompatibly bonded materials and unidentified or noncoded materials. New processes will be designed for dealing with these materials such as processing old composite building materials (chipboards and particle boards) into new quality building materials. As more new technologies for dealing with, processing and extracting value from old materials and products, historic waste flows will be reduced to less than 2% of current volume. Landfill space may be well over $1, 000 per tonne with an annual fee payable to cover the internalised costs of disposal and storage - and all landfills will be in public ownership. All landfilled material will be itemised and mapped for future treatment as new technologies emerge. Landfill space rents will only cease once materials have been uplifted for reuse. The last hospital incinerator was closed in 200535. There will be change in societal values as people question the disparities of modern society and the consumer ethos that will be seen as shallow and meaningless. There will be many training courses on creating a Zero Waste society and how to live simply. Simplicity will not only become fashionable, but also a new
measure of prestige in the same way that conspicuous consumption is at present. There will be a return to the values of community and a deep understanding by each citizen that nature has limits. Companies will prepare and publish annual independently audited environmental, social and financial accounts and will require a “Social License to Operate” in every community that they do business. It will be the end of the age of waste! Predicting the Present Although the scenario painted above may seem improbable, almost every aspect of it is either happening right now or in the process of being implemented. Some of the ideas are in the development stage and others, whilst sounding a little far fetched, will surely be achievable within the next 16 years. The power of Zero Waste lies in its simplicity and potential to popularise and animate change, but also in its potential for communities and ordinary people to join with business and government to redesign the industrial system and bring an end to the age of waste – Zero Waste!
2. WHO SHOULD DO WHAT
In a Zero Waste Society: Central Government will take the leadership role, develop legislation to support the Zero Waste target and provide national coordination of key activities through the Zero Waste Agency. It will create and maintain a level playing field so that environmentally and socially responsible businesses and industries are not disadvantaged. Transitional funds to communities and local authorities to support development, innovation and communication will be provided through economic instruments enacted by the government – such as the landfill levy. It will fund networking and exchanges of experience and information at all levels through all kinds of agencies. As a result it will be able to continue to promote New Zealand to the world as an innovative nation that remains credibly and tangibly clean and green. Regional Councils will have a major planning role to fulfil. Vision will be required to encompass what the future may hold and need. New reprocessing plant and new bulking facilities must be located. Secondary material flows will need to be carefully anticipated and monitored. There will be many players from all sectors involved and the regional councils will need skills of coordination and diplomacy as well as those of planning, monitoring and removing bottlenecks to progress in their region.
Gary Cohen of the Environmental Health Fund states that in 1988 there were approximately 6,200 medical waste incinerators in the U.S. In 2003, the number had reduced to 107. For more information see www.noharm.org
“Zero Waste poses a fundamental challenge to ‘business as usual.’ ... It has the potential to motivate people to change their life styles, demand new products, and insist that corporations and governments behave in new ways. This is a very exciting development.” Peter Montague, editor of Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly
of scale, particularly with reference to use of fossil fuels. They will find and develop new markets for New Zealand’s high quality secondary resources. Recyclers will form partnerships with the community waste sector and local authorities, working closely and innovatively to recycle even low-return waste streams. Universities and Schools will teach Zero Waste principles as part of their basic curriculum and have their own recycling systems in place to ensure that students gain first hand experience. Emphasis in the technical field will be placed on refinement and design of systems for reuse or dismantling of goods and packaging and on the development of packaging. Priority will also be given to developing modules looking at how waste is socially constructed and the behavioural and cultural changes needed to achieve the targets. Consultants/Engineers will retrain and gain new systems of understanding around waste. They will train in the Zero Waste technologies and systems and exploit this new professional niche, deploying imaginative services and providing inspired proposals that work towards the goal.
Local Authorities will guard community ownership of the waste stream, implement legislation and devise further measures which favour material and resource recovery over disposal. Local authorities will enter into partnerships with each other and the community and private sectors, tailoring contracts and structures that provide incentives for waste reduction and diversion from disposal. These partnerships will devise local resource recovery facilities and depots, which will be built or commissioned by local authorities. Community and householder participation will be encouraged as will education and promotion of Zero Waste through schools. Good practice and intelligence in all things pertaining to Zero Waste, from contract design and recovery facility layout through to bin stickers and schools programmes, will be networked and exchanged between authorities with the guidance and support of the Zero Waste Agency. Industrial Designers have a key part to play in Zero Waste. In the first instance, they will design products that are durable, repairable, easily disassembled for recycling and made of materials that can easily be incorporated back into either nature or into the industrial system. Just as importantly, they will design these products in such a way that the surplus material and byproducts are easily reintegrated back into the manufacturing process. Any unavoidable emissions to water or air will be measured and progressively eliminated. Manufacturers will invest in new design. They will create products with minimal waste, reduce packaging to a minimum and take responsibility for both the recycling or reuse of the packaging and for the product for its whole lifecycle through extended producer responsibility. Retailers will stock products that are recyclable and repairable, encourage their suppliers to use minimal packaging, provide systems for consumers to recycle excess packaging, and vigorously promote products that are environmentally sustainable.They will facilitate extended producer responsibility by moving from retail into both leasing and servicing of products. Secondary Materials Handlers will continue to provide high quality services that out-compete waste disposal services. They will drive toward new economies
“Intensive recycling and waste reduction depends on changing whole systems. It relies on distributed intelligence rather than centralized knowledge and on innovation that is widely dispersed across collection, processing, materials technology and product design.” Robin Murray, Creating Wealth From Waste
Community Organisations will work with local authority partners, creating sustainable employment opportunities. They will contract to educate and promote local waste reduction and recycling schemes. They will work closely with recycling companies to exploit niches that will open up as recycling is increasingly seen as a resource for job and business creation. They will operate together as a country-wide network to gain best market prices for commodities and to gain buying advantages for plant and equipment. The Householder will be seen as the basic unit in any national strategy because, although household waste often makes up less than 40% of the total waste-stream, it constitutes more than 90% of public consciousness of waste as an issue. Whatever else we may do in our lives, every one of us is a producer of domestic waste. Householders can buy products that are durable, repairable and recyclable, participate in local kerbside and recycling schemes and install recycling systems in workplaces
3. ALTERNATIVE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS
Current Industrial System • Linear • Focus on increasing product throughput, creating financial wealth • Depends on large-scale, centralised, capital-intensive resource extraction industries and waste disposal facilities • Most products and packaging are used once before destruction in large waste facilities Public Policies Public Policies • Goal is to manage waste • Subsidies (current and historical) benefit extraction and waste industries Product Design Product Design • Tendency towards ‘tried-and-true’ materials, particularly natural resources • Attention principally on production and sales • Short product lifespan increases sales Zero Waste Industrial System • Cyclical • Focus on increasing service quality and efficiency, maximizing natural, social and financial capital • Depends on smaller-scale, decentralised, knowledgeintensive businesses • Most products and packaging are recycled back into commerce or the biosphere
Public Policies • Goal is to eliminate waste • Subsidies for wasting eliminated, policies encourage resource conservation and limit resource wast Zero Waste Industrial System Product Design • Attention to waste minimization, durability, repairability, recyclability, including packaging • Plan for ultimate disposal, including return systems, recycling processes, collection for reuse • ‘External’ costs, including environmental, are critical part of design considerations
Materials • Use cheapest materials, without regard for unaccounted ecosystem impacts • Subsidies for natural resource extraction, below-cost energy and water • Limited corporate responsibility for environmental impacts • Considerable waste left Manufacturing Manufacturing • Assumption that bigger companies making more products for an ever-expanding market is best • Focus on end-of-pipe hazard management • Belief that application of technology will solve problems • Continually improving efficiency, but still considerable waste produced • Manufacturers’ product responsibility generally stops here, except for unusual safety impacts
Materials • Use recycled feedstock materials • Sustainable, minimum-impact sources for necessary natural or agricultural resources • Non-toxic chemicals and materials • Minimal waste, with scraps recycled or used in other industrial systems Manufacturing • Emphasis on local and regional production, with global information-sharing • Plan for avoiding pollution and toxics • Minimal waste, with scraps recycled or used in other industrial systems • Design or contract for ultimate disposal of products after consumer use • Establish influential feedback systems from valueadded businesses, distributors, customers • Re-evaluate manufacturing impacts and most effective product or service to provide
Current Industrial System Value-Added Businesses • Converting and production processes often make scrap materials non-recyclable • Some waste sent back to manufacturers for recycling
Zero Waste Industrial System Value-Added Businesses • Educated by manufacturers about how to avoid contaminating processes • Educated by manufacturers on quality of recycled products, when necessary • Send all scraps back to manufacturers for recycling, or to other industrial uses
Distribution • Emphasis on long-distance and global distribution Customers Customers • Product popularity considered sufficient customer feedback • Expectation that product should be ‘thrown away’ after use
Distribution • Emphasis on local and regional distribution
Customers • Maximise reuse, repair opportunities • Educated about convenient recycling opportunities, proper source separation • Have effective feedback mechanisms to manufacturers Discarded Products • All products can be dismantled, with materials separated into recyclable streams • Governments, businesses collect discarded products • Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) send materials to repair and reuse businesses or to appropriate recyclers and manufacturersing
Discarded Products • Waste is ‘managed’ centralised, capital-intensive technologies • Most discards are landfilled or incinerated • Limited amount of energy is generated from incineration and landfill methane gas, but otherwise residual material value is destroyed
SECTION FIVE: APPENDICES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Zero Waste Councils in New Zealand Zero Waste Around the World Responses to Zero Waste Strategy Survey. Zero Waste Planning Tools Clean-Stream Contracts Mechanical Biological Treatment The New Zealand Waste Strategy Bottle Bills (Container Deposit Legislation) Zero Waste - Job creation and local economic development.
ZERO WASTE COUNCILS
COUNCIL Opotiki District Council GOAL 2010 DATE POLICY ADOPTED September 1998 MAJOR NEW INITIATIVES -Capacity of rubbish bags reduced - 3 Resource Recovery Centres (RRCs) -Kerbside recycling. - Recovered Materials Foundation established -Extensive resource recovery facilities throughout the city - Innovative Waste Kaikoura established - Resource recovery facilities at landﬁll - Financial incentives to recycle - 3 stream collection and RRC planned - RRC at landﬁll - Financial incentives to recycle - Diversion of greenwaste from landﬁll - Investigation of regional resource recovery - RRC established with local community group -Slash Trash communication campaign -Support for local community group -In-house Zero Waste programme - Developing RRC - Zero Waste strategy -New RRC -Kerbside recycling -Education centre -Full user pays landﬁll costs -Kerbside recycling - Pilot organic waste collection programme -Community education - RRPark planned -Regional recycling strategy developed -Kerbside recycling -Regional recycling strategy developed -Kerbside recycling -Regional recycling strategy developed -Zero Waste Plan -3 stream collection -3 RRCs -Upgrade of RRC at Transfer station -Community education -Public education - Development of low-tech recycling systems -Weighbridge at landﬁll -Recycling facilities at landﬁll -Kerbside recycling - Zero Waste strategy - Kerbside recycling -Community education -Support for local community group -Education centre at RRC -Kerbside recycling
Christchurch City Council
www.ccc.govt.nz/waste/ managementplan/wastemanagementp lanforsolidandhazardouswaste.pdf *
Kaikoura District Council
Selwyn District Council Kawerau District Council
August 1999 August 1999
Nelson City Council
Far North District Council
Timaru District Council Dunedin City Council
October 1999 October 1999
www.timaru.govt.nz www.cityofdunedin.com/city/ ?page=feat_zero_waste * www.gdc.govt.nz
Gisborne District Council
Palmerston North City Council
Masterton District Council
Carteron District Council
South Wairarapa District Council Mackenzie District Council
Adopted with Masterton as a regional strategy Adopted with Masterton as a regional strategy November 1999
Hastings District Council
Westland District Council
Wairoa District Council
Otorohanga District Council
www.otodc.govt.nz/aspcommon/ layout1/ * www.ashburtondc.govt.nz
Ashburton District Council
COUNCIL Central Otago District Council
DATE POLICY ADOPTED March 2000
MAJOR NEW INITIATIVES - Support for local community group - RRC -Kerbside recycling -Public communication campaign - RRC planned -Community education -Support for local community group - RRC -Community education - Planning in progress
Whakatane District Council
Tasman District Council
www.tdc.govt.nz/servicesandfacilities .asp?page=Zero%20Waste *
Thames Coromandel District Council Buller District Council
Hurunui District Council
Porirua City Council
Ruapehu District Council
North Shore City Council
Central Hawkes Bay District Council Kapiti Coast District Council
June 2001 May 2001
Waitaki District Council
Waimate District Council
Tauranga District Council
Western Bay of Plenty District Council Rodney District Council
-Focus on removing greenwaste from waste stream -Education programmes -Support for local community group -RRC -Community education - Zero Waste Coordinator employed -Kerbside recycling - RRC - Resource recovery facilities at landﬁll -Education campaign -Community education programme -Community waste minimisation fund -Focus on C&D waste - New contracts to encourage source separation -Modular drop-off designed - RRC planned -Diversion of greenwaste -Kerbside recycling -Education in schools - RRC -Resource recovery facilities being built -Kerbside recycling -Resource recovery facilities at transfer stations -School education programmes -Kerbside recycling - Greenwaste processing facilities planned -Kerbside recycling - Zero Waste Plan -Kerbside recycling -Zero Waste Coordinator employed
www.northshorecity.govt.nz/our_ environment/waste_minimisation/ default.htm *
www.rodney.govt.nz/documents/ zero%20waste%20plan.pdf *
Waimakariri Queenstown Lakes District Council
March 2003 May 2003 - New Waste Minimisation Ofﬁcer employed www.qldc.govt.nz
* Good websites. For further information on Zero Waste councils see www.zerowaste.co.nz (under ‘What New Zealand’s doing’)
ZERO WASTE AROUND THE WORLD
AUSTRALIA: Canberra was the first city in the world to set a goal of achieving ‘no waste’ going to landfill in 1996. Canberra’s NOWaste by 2010 strategy was the result of extensive community consultation that identified a strong community desire to achieve a waste free society by 2010. (www.nowaste.act.gov.au/styles/ nowasteby2010strategy.pdf) The strategy established a framework for sustainable resource management and listed broad actions needed to achieve the aim of a waste-free society including: • Community Commitment • Avoidance and Reduction • Resource Recovery • Residual Waste Management •Creative Solutions Major initiatives that the strategy has launched or been involved in include: • The ACT Resource Guide – a tool to help local government, industry and the general public identify and locate recyclers and markets for recycled materials • Resource recovery facilities throughout the city including recycling depots, greenwaste facilities, paint recycling, Resource Recovery Centres and a major Resource Recovery Estate (under construction) • Deconstruction standards – the–‘Development Control Code for Best Practice Waste Management in the ACT ‘ • The ‘Drum muster programme - collecting and disposing of rigid metal and plastic containers. • ‘Eco-business’ - a series of workshops where business can learn how to improve environmental performance. • Community recycling initiatives such as ‘Secondhand Sundays’, and public event recycling. In March 2000, ‘The Next Step in the No Waste Strategy was released (www.nowaste.act.gov.au/styles/ thenextstepinthenowastestrategy.pdf), evaluating the progress of the No Waste by 2010 Strategy and identify46
ing ten major categories of action required to achieve the Strategy’s goals: • Targets for waste reduction • Government leadership • Education and community programs • Waste pricing • Infrastructure and services • Market development • Collection systems • Building and demolition waste • Legislation and Regulation • Future Technologies Progress reports are produced each year and delivered to every household, to keep the community up to date with how Canberra is going in the push towards No Waste by 2010. Canberra is currently diverting 64% of its waste from landfill.
Western Australia released its ‘Towards Zero Waste by 2020’ document (www.environ.wa.gov.au/downloads/ 1038_W20200101.pdf) in January 2001. It outlines a strategic vision for Western Australia for the next twenty years and proposes five interdependent goals to reach Zero Waste – (1) Sustainability, (2) Commitment, (3) Prevention, (4) Resource Recovery and (5) Integration. South Australia is currently developing its ‘Metropolitan Waste to Resources Plan’ (www.environment.sa.gov.au/epa/pdfs/ metro_adelaide_plan.pdf) to provide a new strategic direction for the state. The South Australian Government is adopting a Zero Waste vision and creating Zero Waste South Australia, a new statutory body, to coordinate efforts to work towards the goal. South Australia already has a variety of successful waste minimisation initiatives including:
• A landfill levy - which has just been raised from $5/ tonne to $10/tonne and which will be used to fund Zero Waste South Australia’s activities. • Container deposit legislation which has been in effect since 1975. Public demand has recently enabled the deposit to be extended to all drink containers (excluding milk) which should push return rates up even further from the current return rates of 74% for PET, 86% for glass and 90% for cans. There are 36 licensed depots in South Australia that containers can be returned to – a mixture of privately and publicly owned facilities. Around 600 people are employed in South Australia (population 1.5 million) as a direct result of the container deposit legislation. With these and many other initiatives in place, Adelaide (the main population centre of South Australia with just over 1 million residents) is diverting approximately 23% of domestic waste, 40% from other council services, 50% of commercial waste and 65% of building and demolition waste from landfill. New measures for waste diversion that are being considered are: • Mandatory waste management plans • Kerbside service performance targets • Landfill bans for some materials • Enhanced domestic collection, processing and residual waste disposal options - possibly including food and greenwaste collection Eurobodalla Shire Council adopted a Zero Waste target in 2001, committing itself to 90% waste reduction to landfill by 2011 and aiming for Zero Waste by 2015. A list of 24 initiatives as been drawn up to help it work towards its goal. CANADA: Toronto created its Waste Diversion Task Force 2010 in 2001 to consult with the people of Toronto and come up with a comprehensive waste diversion plan. Specifically it was asked to make a ‘designed-in-Toronto’ solution for meeting the following targets: • 30% diversion of waste by 2003 • 60% by 2006 • 100% by 2010 The plan was required because the City-owned landfill site closed in 2002 and waste has to be trucked to a private landfill in Michigan, increasing disposal costs by more than 300%.
‘Beyond Landfill: A Diverting Future’ (www.city.toronto.on.ca/ taskforce2010/report.pdf) made a number of recommendations, one of the key ones being the introduction of kerbside collections for organic material’– which makes up around one third of the waste stream. The Green Box system is now being rolled out across Toronto, providing weekly pick-up services for organics with residual waste pick ups now every other week. Food scraps, soled paper and tissues, paper plates, diapers and sanitary products, animal waste and bedding and pet food are collected. This new ‘three stream collection system involving source separation of organics, will be key to helping the City achieve its goal of 60 % waste diversion by 2006. Other policies and practices suggestions from the task Force include: • Advance disposal fees • Bag limits – introduce set out limits and introduce pay as you Throw system for additional bags • Clear residual waste bags • Demolition standards • Deposit returns • Developer waste management plans • Diaper recycling programme • Education programmes (school and community) • Grants programmes • Green procurement guidelines • Landfill bans (organics, wood, cardboard, toxics) • Levy on plastic shopping bags • Low interest loan funds • Packaging legislation See www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/ swm/net/polprac.htm Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. The Board of Directors of the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (British Columbia) endorsed the concept of Zero Waste in November 2000.“In doing so they stated that they believe that Zero Waste can be achieved and that they are willing to take the path to a waste free, resource-full future. This small step has great implications for the communities and residents of Kootenay Boundary. It holds out the promise of a day when there are no landfills with their associated social,
environmental costs. It opens the door to a multitude of possibilities for the community to transform what were once liabilities into benefits.” Kootenay has already taken a number of significant steps on the Zero Waste path including banning recyclable products and yard and garden waste from landfill, establishing Reuse Centres, charging variable tipping fees and producing marketable compost from greenwaste. The Kootenay Boundary Zero Waste strategy (www.rdkb.com/recover/media/zerowast.pdf) includes: Local initiatives: • Build the concept of Zero Waste into all local government undertakings • Work with other agencies such as Community Futures and Economic Development Commissions • Ensure that our tipping fee schedules encourage waste elimination and new resource recovery businesses • Invest in jobs through reuse and recycling
faced with significantly increased costs if all its waste had to be exported. The RDN and its member municipalities passed a major milestone in 2000 by meeting and exceeding British Columbia’s Ministry of Environment goal (set in 1989) of 50% waste reduction by 2000. This was achieved by user pays residential waste collection, kerbside recycling programmes, bans on paper, metal and other recyclable materials to landfill, and promotion of backyard composting throughout the region. British Columbia. The Recycling Council of British Columbia’s Zero Waste Working Group has developed two Zero Waste Toolkits’– one for local authorities to help them evaluate the benefits and feasibility of Zero Waste (Zero Waste Tool Kit for Local Government, May 2002) and one for retail businesses (Zero Waste One Step at a Time, May 2002). www.rcbc.bc.ca/hot/zeroframe.htm ENGLAND:
• Phase out open burning at landfills • Establish centralized in-vessel composting facilities • Educate consumers about the high cost of waste. Shift the focus from industrial parks to resource recovery facilities Local efforts to influence the Provincial government • Lobby the Provincial government to make Zero Waste a British Columbia objective • Continue to promote Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) • Encourage and support design for the Environment (DFE) • Lobby for, or if possible, enact, appropriate legislation and economic instruments • Continue to lobby for minimum recycled content standards • Encourage and support full cost accounting and life cycle analysis • Create a level playing field in the marketplace • Lobby to implement tax shifting • Support campaign finance reform Regional District of Nanaimo. In 2001 the Regional District of Nanaimo (RDN) on Vancouver Island, BC adopted the goal of zero waste to address its urgent disposal capacity shortfall. Already exporting one quarter of its waste to the mainland, residents were
Bath and North East Somerset Council adopted a Zero Waste target with intended waste policies for the next six year to: • Aim for “Zero Waste” for Bath & North East Somerset, which will steer the development of future policies and services. • Maintain waste reduction and recycling as a strategic focus of the council. • Work in partnership with the voluntary sector, the community sector, and the private and public sectors to pursue more sustainable waste management practices. • Attract external funding to carry out further trials and research work in partnership with outside organisations. • Seek to manage waste (including recyclables) on a local/sub-regional basis, adhering to the proximity principle where possible, to reduce transportation impacts. www.bathnes.gov.uk/wasteservices/ Policies/Strategy.htm INDIA: Kovalam is a small fishing village and a significant tourist destination in South India. It adopted a Zero Waste vision as a means to solve major environmental and economic crises it is facing. Tourism is being
severely threatened by increasing pollution caused by waste discarded by tourists. A local campaign and local initiatives are starting to create a waste-free environment. One example is trying to find alternatives to bottled water so that tourists can drink safely without littering the beaches with discarded containers. www.zerowastekovalam.org PHILIPPINES: Communities in the Philippines that have official Zero Waste goals include: • Candon City, Ilocos Sur • Municipality of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija • Municipality of Pilar, Sorsogon • Municipality of Linamon, Lanao del Norte • Municipality of Sigma, Capiz USA: California has a Zero Waste goal set by the Californian Integrated Waste Management Board in 2001.The plan mandates that Californian cities and counties must divert 50% from landfills. Alameda County has gone further and set itself a goal of achieving 75% by 2010. In 2002 San Francisco adopted a goal of 75% landfill diversion by 2010, with a long term goal of Zero Waste, with the date set once 50% diversion is met (www.grrn.org/zerowaste/resolutions/ sf_zw_resolution_9-29-02.pdf). High level strategies that have been identified are to: • Establish a goal of Zero Waste, with an interim goal of 75% waste diversion by 2010, for City government and the city as a whole • Develop programs in all sectors (i.e., residential, commercial/industrial and City government) with only recycling and/or composting streams (i.e., eliminate the “trash” stream) • Improve material processing and develop new markets to minimize “residuals” requiring disposal • Launch additional outreach campaigns to educate generators and decision makers about waste prevention (i.e., source reduction, reuse, boycotting “residual” items), new programs and legislation, and buying recycled • Increase incentives for generators and service providers to separate materials properly for highest use • Pass legislation (e.g., mandatory diversion participation by all organizations, building managers,
janitors, employees and residents; require use of recyclable and compostable materials and ban them from landfill; and expanded recycled content purchasing requirements) and enforce any penalties as necessary • Demand cradle to cradle producer responsibility for all products, starting with the most hazardous and those constituting the largest share of “residuals” • Level the playing field for Zero Waste by supporting efforts to eliminate subsidies and internalize externalities for virgin material production and wasting Del Norte County, California adopted the Del Norte Zero Waste Plan in 2000.The plan describes programmes for Del Norte’s continual movements towards Zero Waste, including market incentives and contract provisions to encourage waste reduction, mechanisms to encourage and expand waste prevention, development of resource recovery infrastructure and advocacy of life cycle design use www.grrn.org/reports/zwap/zwap.pdf Santa Cruz County, California , adopted its Zero Waste resolution in 1999 www.grrn.org/zerowaste/ resolutions/santa_cruz_110299.html Seattle, Washington adopted Zero Waste as a guiding principle in 1998, aiming to recycle 60% of all waste generated by 2008. www.ci.seattle.wa.us/util/solidwaste/ SWPlan/default.htm Carrboro -North Carolina resolved to create a Zero Waste Plan in 1998. www.grrn.org/zerowaste/CZWRes.html
RESPONSES TO ZERO WASTE STRATEGY SURVEY JULY 2003
The following question was put by Envision New Zealand to Zero Waste experts from New Zealand and around the world: You’ve recently been appointed Waste Manager for a city that has adopted a target of Zero Waste by 2015. What are the key actions that you would put in an action plan to help the city animate its Zero Waste strategy? Replies from 26 respondents (names at end): • Implement full user pays for waste (10) • Introduce producer responsibility – including take back schemes etc. (9) • Provide community education (schools, businesses etc) (9) • Introduce differential pricing structures at transfer and landfill to encourage source separation of materials (8) • Ensure there are kerbside systems so householders can sort at source (8) • Establish a resource recovery park (economic development park) (6) • Establish pick-up systems for foodwaste (6) • Establish systems to keep greenwaste out of the landfill (6) • Involve the community in a consultative process (6) • Establish processing plants for recyclables and organics (5) • Establish local infrastructure for resource recovery (4) • Get the organic waste out of the waste stream first (4) • Know your community’s waste stream (4) • Employ the right people to turn the plan into action (4) • Landfill bans for certain materials that are toxic or that are easily recycled. (4) • Develop a waste minimisation advisory service for public and business that can answer all their questions (4) • Implement a Zero Waste awareness raising campaign (3) • Publicise the zero waste target and action plan (3) • Alter contracts so incentives in place for resource recovery (3) • Establish a local levy on waste to landfill (3) • License waste collectors (to provide information on the quantity and composition of waste that they handle) (3) • Develop a plan (3)
• Maintain community ownership of the waste stream (3) • Identify the sources of major waste streams and work with these (3) • Accurately measure the success of zero waste initiatives (3) • Reduce size of residual waste bag (3) • Introduce landfill levies (3) • Communities and councils need to collaborate to push for new legislation (2) • Establish pick up systems for commercial sector (2) • Establish a waste exchange (2) • Re-sort residual material to landfill to get recyclables out (2) • Establish free household hazardous waste collection or drop-off facilities (2) • Instigate regular pick-ups of bulky items eg fridges, beds etc. (2) • Collaborate with neighbouring councils and regional council (2) • Unlimited free recycling (2) • Establish local research and development fund (2) • Make sure your trade waste bylaw enshrines waste reduction as a licence condition and get rid of contaminants that will make bio-solids useless (2) • Network with other similar communities to find markets (A cooperative of recyclers would be able to achieve better prices) (2) • Find local solutions (2) • Support community initiatives and develop robust working relationships (2) • Develop a Zero Waste team that has skills to turn council policy or vision into an implementation plan (2) • Promote consumer buying power within the community (2) • Collaborate nationally and regionally with other councils to provide consistent information to residents on waste reduction and recycling (2) • Council should adopt green purchasing policies (2) • Council should implement in house council recycling systems (2) • Create a visioning document to guide decisions at every level of the community. (1) • Set realistic interim targets (1) • Set yearly targets of waste diversion from the landfill (1) • Both the local council and regional council need to fully support Zero Waste (1) • Once you have a community-based plan, work to develop public and political support for the plan (1) • Take action rather than making resolutions (1) • Keep the politicians involved and well informed. (1) • Involve the local recycling industry – find out who does what and support them. (1)
• Treat each waste stream as separate and concentrate on finding one solution at a time (1) • Budget for developing alternative uses for wasted materials (1) • Concentrate on things that have other drivers (eg energy efficiency) (1) • Plan for all disposal (recyclables and residuals) having a cost (1) • Pick the easy waste minimisation initiatives first (1) • Consider the implications of the Special Consultative Procedure of the Local Government Act (1) • Tailor recycling contracts as “partnerships” with council. Build service provision base price structure offset with commodity profit share.(1) • Change zoning rules to encourage the development of recycling businesses and resource recovery parks. (1) • Require recycling of construction, demolition and land-clearing materials.(1) • Require recycling plans and reports as a condition of operating a business in the community.(1) • Ban compactor trucks to landfill – as they are not compatible with full resource recovery (1). • Recycling targets and systems for schools and other public institutions (1) • Impose Cleaner Production requirements on the manufacturing sector with a target date of compliance (1) • Impose heavy fines on those found dumping illegally (1) • Free disposal for all household hazardous waste (1) • Develop complete strategies to eliminate hazardous wastes from all waste streams (1) • Remove free inorganic collection (1) • Take the whole basket approach to recyclables (1) • Payment for returned packaging. (1) • Incentives for collectors if organics less than 10% of residual. (1) • Require public drop-off facilities to be clean and professionally run (1) • Establish woodwaste and concrete recycling operations (1) • Introduce user-pays refuse collections (1) • Establish public place recycling bins (1). • Establish markets for recyclables and organics (1) • Initiate organic gardening within the city (1) • Use an advanced pyrolysis waste destruction plant (1) • Kerbside collection of specified materials (batteries, waste oils, paints; clothes, Christmas tree, new or nearly new items, unwanted presents) (1) • Put residuals through an MBT process (1) • Instigate a 2-sort system,“wet” for composting and “dry” for sorting and recycling. (there are no more trash cans!) (1) • Instigate a 3 stream waste collection - organics, recyclables and residual waste (1) • Be creative (1)
• Develop an Enviroschools programme (1) • Community initiatives fund for waste reduction activities and research etc.(1) • Encourage householders to buy a cloth shopping bag from the super markets, instead of plastic bags (1) • Publicise results of waste minimisation (1) • Council should design Zero Waste architecture (1) • Council should publish data on its waste produced, department by department (1) • Levy on plastic bags (1) • Eliminate environmental and tax subsidies for disposal (1) • Retail stores to offer customers the option of “depackaging” their purchases (1) • More government effort to stimulate local commodity reprocessing (1) Respondents: Andy Budd, Manager, Kahurangi Employment Trust Anne Lister, Environmental Health Assistant, Gisborne District Council Ben Somaratne, Solid waste Engineer, Waitakere City Council Bill Sheehan, Coordinator, Grass Roots Recycling Network Danielle Kennedy, Refuse and Recycling Officer, North Shore City Council Dave Hock, Asset Manger, Urban, Selwyn District Council Duncan Wilson, Eunomia Consulting, UK Elizabeth Citrino, Californian Resource Recovery Association Eric Lombardi, Managing Director, EcoCycle, Boulder, Colorado Gary Kelk, Manager, Cleanstream, Waiheke Ltd Gunter Pauli, Managing Director, ZERI Institute Ian Bywater Jan Burberry, Auckland City Council John Ransley, Manager, Innovative Waste Kaikoura Kim Heck, Administration Manager, Central Otago Wastebusters Mal Williams, Manager, Clych Recycling, Wales Mahlon Aldridge, EcoAction, Santa Cruz, California Marian Shore, Manager - Waitaki Resource Recovery Trust Miles Hibbert Foy Peter Anderson, Anderson Consulting Peter Fredericsen, Managing Director, Materials Processing Ltd Richard Tong, Tong and Associates Robert Brodnax, Environment Waikato Robin Murray Sonia Mendoza, Mother Earth Unlimited, Philippines Tony Watkins, New Zealand Institute of Architects
ZERO WASTE PLANNING TOOLS 1. URBAN ORE’S CLEAN DOZENSM – THE 12 MASTER CATEGORIES
Dan Knapp and Mary Lou Van Deventer of Urban Ore, Berkeley California, have studied the theory and practice of resource recovery for 24 years and have segmented the discard stream into 12 distinct master categories – the Clean DozenSM, as they call them. Their primary focus for achieving Zero Waste is on addressing the materials flows themselves – to make sure that systems are in place to tackle everything within each of the 12 master categories which are: • Reusable goods (items useful as-is in their manufactured form) • Metals • Chemicals • Glass • Paper • Polymers • Textiles • Wood • Plastics • Ceramics (stone, tile, brick, concrete) • Plant debris • Soils • Putrescibles (food, animal bodies, sludges and manures) Dan and Mary Lou have tested the validity of the 12 master categories at Urban Ore and believe the categories profile all commodities in the resource supply efficiently, with “nothing left out and nothing left over”. The master categories may be subdivided many times into sub-streams.The more sub-streams there are, the more commercial niches, and the more niches, the more economic development as measured by income. Also, the purer the sub-flows are, the more they are worth. Reuse businesses alone may have up to a hundred itemised categories in the cash registers of their combined retail departments, narrowing down even to types of doors. Dan and Mary Lou believe that the emphasis must go on developing the infrastructure for resource recovery before anything else. After more progress has been made in developing Resource Recovery Parks and other resource recovery facilities, recycling-resistant products”– such as those where incompatible materials are bonded and cannot be separated may have to be banned from commerce or landfills by regulation.
2. THE ZERO WASTE WORKBOOK: A TOOLKIT FOR ZERO WASTE COMMUNITIES
The California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA) is working in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Nine, to develop a “Zero Waste Tool Kit”, to help communities interested in implementing comprehensive waste reduction and recycling plans. The project started at a planning session at the CRRA conference in July 2002 and the final document is due for completion in mid 2004. Elizabeth Citrino is the author of the document and completed sections will be posted on her website www.home.inreach.com/lcitrino Although aimed primarily at California communities the Toolkit will provide useful guidelines for all Zero Waste communities. It sets a series of tasks to work through as a practical way of helping communities find the tools and strategies that will work best for them and covers areas such as Planning, Policies, Programmes, Problems, and Resources.
3. ZAP (ZERO WASTE ACTION PLAN)
After Dunedin City Council adopted its Zero Waste policy it employed Zero Waste consultants Waste Not Ltd and Meritec Ltd to develop a planning tool to assist the selection, prioritisation and implementation of initiatives to help it achieve its goal. While recognising that effective waste minimisation involves a partnership between central government, local government, private business, community groups and the general public, the ZAP tool concentrates on operations at a local authority level and how these interact with those of other sectors. The tool has since been‘genericised’ for use by other councils. Forty nine waste minimisation initiatives were identified, and grouped in 5 key areas or ‘themes’ to allow quite different initiatives to be prioritised and implemented concurrently. The key areas being: The prioritisation process then follows a sequence of: • Stage 1: - Assigning all identified waste minimisation initiatives to one of the 5 key areas. • Stage 2: - Prioritising each initiative within each of the 5 key areas. Initiatives are ranked against the 3 ‘sustainability assessment’ criteria: environmental, social, and economic outcomes, along with a fourth category ‘other’ to cover such issues as’‘risk’. The ‘interactiveness’ of the ranking system is useful for public consultation.
• Stage 3: - Assessing each initiative for: waste diversion; costs for investigation, set up and operation; employment opportunities; landfill savings and funding sources. The costs are expressed as total project costs, yearly costs, and cost per tonne over a 20 year timeframe. • Stage 4: - Prioritisation of the waste minimisation initiatives using: -Tabulated summary of initiatives, waste diversion, costs, employment and funding source. -Specific local conditions. -Timing considerations (some initiatives require others to have started). -Public consultation.
ZAP helps planners and engineers, particularly those in larger councils, steer a path through the complexity involved in taking all potential waste minimisation initiatives into account - plus implementation timeframes, budgets and other factors. It provides opportunity for interaction so can also potentially assist collaborative council-community decision making. However it may be too complex for small communities where a simpler approach may work better. For more information on ZAP contact Waste Not Ltd email@example.com
Take Direct Action
Initiatives that deal directly with the waste stream. (16 initiatives).
Initiatives (some examples)
Kerbside Collections Compost Operations Cleaner Production Recycling Facilities Extended Producer Responsibility Landﬁll Bans Landﬁll Levy Purchasing Policies & Contracts Awards for Waste Minimisation Research & Development Pilot Schemes Educational Courses Buy Recycled Campaign Festivals & Events Public Consultation Education Material & Programmes Waste Analysis Data Participation Rate Surveys Interim Goals Waste Operator Licensing & Reporting
Change the Rules
Legal and economic incentives to incentivise waste minimisation rather than disposal. (14).
Foster New Ideas
Creation of mechanisms to develop and test new social, technical and economic solutions. (5).
Communicate & Educate
Informing the community of the issues, providing opportunity for input and participation. (8).
Monitor and Feedback
Assessment and reporting on waste stream characteristics and the success (or not) of zero waste initiatives. (6).
CLEAN-STREAM CONTRACTS FOR OPTIMUM WASTE DIVERSION
CONTRACTS TO FOCUS MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATE SECTOR RESOURCES ON WASTE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY.
Introduction Mal Williams from Clych Recycling in Wales first proposed the idea for ‘Clean-Stream36 Contracts’- a comprehensive system of total resource recovery using the Clean-Stream brand.
A council would write a Clean-Stream contract and put it out for tender. Contractors would tender on the basis of a clear understanding and interpretation of CleanStream contracts based on Clean-Stream specifications and performance standards. The four streams would be: 1.Organic waste (green waste and food waste ) 2.Normal kerbside recyclables (glass, paper, cans, aluminum cans, plastic etc) 3.Reusable, repairable or recyclable household bulky items (furniture, appliances etc) 4.Residual waste for disposal to landfill. The contractor would undertake to collect the four streams but could sub-contract parts out, for example household bulky items, composting or the public education element. High Diversion Rates The successful contractor would be chosen not only on demonstrated ability to carry out the work based on attributes and price, but also on projected diversion/ reduction rates. There would be an expectation of a high diversion rate with a maximum37 residual waste component – perhaps between 20 -25%. If, after a settling in period, the contractor is shown to be exceeding this amount, then notification would be given. If after a period of grace for improvements, performance is still unsatisfactory the contractor would be penalised for non-performance. Communication The contractor would be expected to manage the communication strategy for the Clean-Stream Contract, in conjunction with the local authority. Continual Improvement Clean-Stream contracts would be based on continual improvement. Contractors would undertake to achieve a total reduction rate for the period of the contract. If for example it was 75%, he/she may only divert 35-45% in the first year of the contract. But as diversion systems, technologies, markets and the results of public education have an impact there should be increasing opportunities to improve performance in subsequent years.
“We do not have a waste problem we have a MIXED-WASTE problem. Just as we create waste when we mix materials in our waste bins we can abolish it by putting materials out separately.” Mal Williams
The aim is to create a culture of resource recovery within the waste industry by building in incentives that will allow the market to achieve rapid waste reduction results. It is hoped that by performing within the CleanStream contract environment, industry will automatically achieve waste reduction results that are more aligned with the interests and desires of the wider community. At present, partly due to the way contracts are written, disposal to landfill is inevitably the core activity with recycling often seen as a marginal “nice to do if you can””activity. The aim is to make it more profitable to reduce waste than to dispose it to landfill.
“In this industry landfill is top of the profit hierarchy but bottom of the sustainable waste management hierarchy.” Mal Williams
For Clean-Stream contracts to work effectively, in most areas there would be just one contract for recycling and residual waste based on four streams of materials collected from kerbside.
36 Several community based recycling initiatives in New Zealand have used the name CleanStream – for example Clean Stream Waiheke.These should not be confused with the Clean-Stream brand for contracts. 37 There may need to be a progressive reduction in residual amounts starting at 60% and each year reducing by between 10 and 20% or whatever the successful bidder undertakes to divert over and above council’s guidelines. 38 By taking the “basket approach” operators can use high value commodities to subsidise low value ones and spread risk to the benefit of the community.This is les likely with several different collection contracts.
Impact on Existing Players Clean-Stream contracts would be most effective as one contract (because of opportunities to cross-subsidise within the same contract by the contractor38) which may give rise to fears that monopolies could develop, eliminating opportunities for smaller local companies. It is presumed that smaller operators would, in many instances, get sub-contracts to handle commodities and down-stream processing activities. There may be ways of de-linking collection from processing and other aspects of the waste reduction system through the contract process to avoid a monopoly over the waste resource stream. The system would be weighted against landfill disposal which might provide a more level playing field for local operators who are currently unable to compete because of the fees charged by their landfill-owning competitors. Landfills would last much longer and if prices rose for disposal, they would become more valuable to investors. The Clean-Stream concept is still being developed for use in New Zealand. For updates on progress see the Envision website www.envision-nz.com
MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
The original concept of Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) was to provide a pre treatment technology for residual waste before landfill. The idea was to achieve reductions in the volume, toxicity and biological reactivity of waste, to minimise environmental problems associated with landfilling untreated waste such as landfill gas and leachate. In Nova Scotia an MBT solution was introduced as a result of local opposition to increased landfill or an alternative incinerator proposal. Local action groups raised sufficient funds to hire their own consultants who proposed the MBT plant. The result was that the local councils turned down the incinerator plant and agreed to the plan put forward by the action groups. They also involved the groups in designing the scheme and came up with a conclusion that no organic waste, toxic waste or recyclable material should go to landfill. They created a 3 stream system with all households being provided a kerbside collection of dry recyclables, kerbside collection of organics (for 72% of households) plus home composting education and a collection of residuals. This meant that the MBT process was seen as the very last step for the material that could not be recovered or diverted. The residual waste is screened for bulky items, recyclables and toxics and then stabilised using a trough system with 14 bays. From a Zero Waste point of view MBT is only appropriate when all other options have been used and as a final treatment for the residual fraction. Flexibility is the key and large plants wth high capital costs that require ongoing flows of material are still seen as an end of pipe “draw” on resources. Dominic Hogg of Eunomia, a Zero Waste consultancy in the UK, makes the following comments:“We must never see MBT as a substitute for source separation. As far as materials quality is concerned, we will never make ‘compost’ of the same quality, or extract paper of the required quality for mills, from residual waste. This is why Europeans are seeking more and more to: a) Set standards for the quality of recovered paper grades (so that now, mills are not accepting paper from collections where paper is co-collected alongside glass, for subsequent MRF separation); and
b) Distinguish clearly between stabilised biowaste (a waste) and compost (a product) through more or less well defined limit in terms of levels of impurities (plastics, inerts etc), potentially toxic elements (such as heavy metals) and organic contaminants (such as plasticisers). The recent European Communication on a Soil Strategy considers this in terms of ‘prevention of build up’ of these elements in soil.”39 MBT facilities will potentially help to extract materials that were not totally extracted through source separation - but they are not a substitute. The key point is that large - scale MBT plants such as in Alberta and the new one proposed for Sydney, are of such a vast scale that they may not be viable if the community reduces the feedstock of wasted materials through application of Zero Waste technologies and initiatives. It has to be said that these large scale MBT plants are still considerably better than landfills or incinerators but do not provide the flexibility and system optimisation of smaller local MBT plants built as part of an integrated Zero Waste strategy.
“The amazing thing about Novia Scotia’s landfills it that there are no Seagulls” Paul Connett
Eunomia has written a major report for WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) that is downloadable in stages from the website – www.wrap.org.uk
THE NEW ZEALAND WASTE STRATEGY
“TOWARDS ZERO WASTE AND A SUSTAINABLE NEW ZEALAND”
1. BACKGROUND The New Zealand Waste Strategy began at a workshop convened by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) on 24 May 2000. Around 100 people representing local government, recyclers, industry and community groups came together in Wellington to give their ideas on a new National Waste Strategy. The day-long meeting inspired huge optimism that New Zealand was finally going to address its long neglected waste issues. Then, in July 2000 a multi-sector Waste Minimisation and Management Working Group was established to advise MfE and LGNZ on the development and implementation of a National Waste Strategy. Advice from this group was included in a draft discussion document called “Towards a National Waste Minimisation Strategy”. This was launched by the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Marian Hobbs, at the Zero Waste conference in December 2000 in Kaitaia. The document called for submissions into the final Waste Strategy. Submissions on the Strategy By March 1st 2001, 251 submissions had been received by MfE. Of these, 59%, called for the adoption of a Zero Waste vision – many also calling for a target date of 2020. 68% called for the establishment of a central agency to coordinate waste prevention and minimisation initiatives. 49% commented on the need for a national waste levy with 82% in favour and 17% against. The New Zealand Waste Strategy was launched by the Minister for the Environment Marion Hobbs, in March 2002.
2. KEY FEATURES The Vision The vision of the New Zealand Waste Strategy is Towards Zero Waste and a Sustainable New Zealand, and it is a recurrent theme throughout the document. One section asks “what are the impediments to achieving Zero Waste?” while another says that”“Towards Zero Waste and a Sustainable New Zealand” is “a vision for a society that values its environment and resources”. Other references include:“Towards Zero Waste and a Sustainable New Zealand requires new ways of thinking at every level of the community” and”“Towards Zero Waste and a Sustainable New Zealand will require an upgraded information base for future waste management and minimisation” Core principles The Strategy has 6 core principles to guide central and local government in its implementation.
In response to this request Zero Waste New Zealand Trust wrote and released ’The End of Waste, Zero Waste By 2020’ as a resource to help the Zero Waste Network make submissions on the Waste Strategy. The document provided up to date information on overseas trends and initiatives and painted a picture of what New Zealand could achieve if it were bold enough to adopt a Zero Waste policy. Three key recommendations were made: 1.Adopt a national vision of Zero Waste by 2020 2.Adopt intermediate targets, such as 50% waste reduction within 3 years and 80% within 5 years 3.Establish a Zero Waste Agency to drive the change.
1.Global citizenship The effects of waste aren’t confined to our backyard. We must take responsibility for its global consequences 2.Kaitiakitanga/stewardship We’re all responsible for looking after our environment. Maori believe all living things are related and that kaitiaki, or stewards, are obliged to maintain the life sustaining capacity of the environment for present and future generations 3.Extended producer responsibility Those who make goods and deliver services should bear some responsibility for them and any waste they produce, throughout a product’s entire life-cycle. 4.Full – cost pricing The environmental effects of making, distributing, using and disposing of goods and services must be properly costed and charged where they occur 5.Life-cycle principle Things should be designed, made and managed so all their environmental effects are accounted for and minimised, until the end of their lives. 6.Precautionary principle Lack of scientific certainty must never be used as a reason for ignoring serious environmental risk. Core goals The document claims that reducing New Zealand’s waste is as a cornerstone of Government’s commitment to sustainable development and that it has three core goals; The strategy covers solid, liquid and gaseous wastes and has three core goals: • Lowering the social costs and risks of waste • Reducing the damage to the environment from waste generation and disposal • Increasing economic benefit by more efficient use of materials National Targets The strategy sets national targets for: 1.Waste minimisation, with specific targets set for: Organic wastes Special wastes Construction and demolition wastes
2.Hazardous wastes, with specific targets set for: Contaminated sites Organochlorines Trade wastes Core Policies The Strategy has five core policies that form the basis for action: 1.A sound legislative basis for waste minimisation 2.Efficient pricing 3.High environmental standards 4.Adequate and accessible information 5.Efficient use of materials Supporting Policies and Tools The implementation of the Core Policies are said to involve the development and use of a range of tools and methods to assist businesses, community groups and other parties contribute to achieve the targets and significantly reduce waste. These include: 1.Financial encouragement of innovation 2.Government leadership programmes 3.Economic instruments (other than pricing) such as levies 4.Extended Producer Responsibility 5.Voluntary agreements with industry Programmes The Strategy also lists key actions for putting policy into effect under four programmes with specific objectives outlined for each programme 1.Institutions and legislation 2.Waste reduction and materials efficiency 3.Information and communication 4.Performance standards and guidelines Strategy Monitoring and Evaluation The Ministry for the Environment in collaboration with Local Government New Zealand is responsible for tracking progress and identifying any changes that may be required and targets were first to be reviewed in 2003.
BOTTLE BILLS OR CONTAINER DEPOSIT LEGISLATION
The Bottle Bill Story After World War II, cans began replacing glass bottles in the beer industry. The convenience and disposability of cans helped boost sales at the expense of refillable glass bottles, and by 1960 approximately 47 percent of beer sold in the U.S. was packaged in cans and no-return bottles. Soft drinks, however, were still sold almost exclusively in refillable glass bottles requiring a deposit. Can market share was just 5 percent. With the centralization of the beverage industry, the decade of the sixties witnessed a dramatic shift from refillable soft drink ‘deposit’ bottles to ‘no-deposit, no-return, one-way’ bottles and cans. By 1970, cans and one-way bottles had increased to 60 percent of beer market share, and one-way containers had grown from just 5 percent in 1960 to 47 percent of the soft drink market. British Columbia enacted the first beverage container recovery system in North America in 1970. In 1971, Oregon passed the first bottle bill in the USA, requiring refundable deposits on all beer and soft drink containers. By 1987, ten states (over one-quarter of the U.S. population) had enacted some form of beverage container deposit law or bottle bill. The so-called ‘bottle bills” were intended not only to reduce beverage container litter, but to conserve natural resources through recycling and reduce the amount of solid waste going to landfills. They proved to be extremely successful in achieving those goals. Seven states reported a reduction of beverage container litter ranging from 70 to 83 percent, and a reduction in total litter ranging from 30 to 47 percent after implementation of the bottle bill. High recycling rates were also achieved. Today, ten states and eight Canadian provinces have a bottle bill requiring refundable deposits on certain beverage containers. No state bottle bill or deposit law has ever been repealed. In fact, several states and provinces have expanded their laws to cover beverages such as juice and sports drinks, teas and bottled water — beverages that did not exist when most bottle bills were passed. Once again Canada stands out for the way it has worked with industry to come up with solutions that work. In 1970 British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in North America to establish a mandatory deposit-refund
system for soft drink and beer containers. Almost every other province or territory now have container deposit legislation with recovery rates varying from 78 to 94%. But with no deposit at all, Ontario’s soft drink container recovery languishes at between 35 and 50%. Saskatchewan uses the money from it’s beverage container deposit to fund curbside recycling programs that accept the containers as well as other recyclables. Prince Edward Island prohibits non-refillable containers, and Alberta and Nova Scotia have developed dairy industry agreements for all milk containers. Deposit programs on refillable bottles generate the best recovery rates in Canada. Ontario’s beer bottles and Prince Edward Island’s soft drink containers both sport a 98% recovery. www.container-recycling.org
ZERO WASTE - JOB CREATION AND LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Studies around the world show that the recycling and recovered materials industries are major new areas of jobs and economic development with many low to medium skill level jobs being created – important for communities that have lost their manufacturing base. Unemployed people often still have the work ethic but lack of opportunity puts them in the high-risk category in terms of social problems and crime statistics. The basic knowledge of materials and use of handling equipment that many of these people have are valuable for the operation of RRCs. Also the wide range of skills involved in the many aspects of an RRC enables beginners to staircase their way into more complex and interesting work. Because resource recovery initiatives are by their very nature local, these positions cannot be lost to bigger towns or overseas. Wages stay in the town, circulating in the economy. Once materials have been recovered there are more jobs created by processing, disassembly, deconstruction and remanufacturing. In Germany the waste and recycling sector is bigger than either steel or communications. In his book, Creating wealth from Waste, Robin Murray estimates that an intensive programme of recycling in the UK could create 40,000 and 55,000 new jobs. In a New Zealand context the same increase would result in 2,711 - 3,389 new jobs. • ‘Recycling is an economic development too as well as an environmental tool. 10X as many jobs just sorting recyclables. 25X as many jobs remanufacturing from recycled materials.” Neil Seldman, president, Institute for Self reliance. • “Recycling is an engine of urban job creation.” Reinventing Waste – Towards a London Waste Strategy.” Ecologika. August 1998 • A survey of just 64 recycling businesses in Auckland in 1998, carried out by Waste Not Ltd, found that: The 64 businesses collected 641,649 tonnes of material for reuse and recycling; 69% of the tonnage collected was post consumer materials; Gross annual turnover of the 64 businesses was at least $132 million, And at least 1,736 people were employed. The average wage was $12 per hour (well above the national average at the time). • A study by R.W. Beck Inc in 2002, prepared for the
USA National Recycling Coalition showed that there are currently 56,000 recycling businesses operating in the country. These businesses operate in 26 recycling and reuse categories. They employ over 1.1 million people. They generate an annual payroll of $US37 billion and gross annual revenues of $US236 billion. (By comparison the total annual revenue of the US waste industry is less than $US50 billion.) This clearly shows that the recycling industry is a value-added business, generating much higher revenue than the waste industry – with only a fraction of the volume of material handled.
SECTION SIX: RESOURCES AND LINKS
A Rural Cooperative Recycling Tool Kit: Regional Purchasing, Recovery, Processing and Market Development. Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority. April 2002 A Zero Waste Tool Kit for Local Government. Recycling Council of British Columbia’s Zero Waste Working Group. May 2002. (www.rcbc.ca) Bath and North East Somerset Waste Strategy www.bathnes.gov.uk/wasteservices/default.htm Beyond Landfill: A Diverting Future. Toronto City. Task Force 2010. 2001. New Policies and Practices. Toronto City. www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/ involved/swm/net/polprac.htm Beyond Recycling: The Future of Waste. Enough! Spring 2003. Helen Spiegelman Bringing Zero Waste to Kootenay Boundary. Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, Canada. www.rdkb.com/recover/media/zerowast.pdf Building a Deconstruction Company. D Livingston and M Jackson, Institute for Loacal self Reliance. 2001 Building Savings. Strategies for waste Reduction of Construction and demolition Debris from Buildings. US Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.gov/osw Can Recycling Succeed When Landfills are Permitted to Pollute?. Peter Anderson. Keynote speech to the Colorado Summit for Recyclin.2002 Community Waste Prevention Toolkit. INFORM. www.informinc.org/cwp_00.php Cool waste Management. A State of the Art Alternative to Incineration for Residual Municipal Waste. Greenpeace Environmental Trust. 2003 Creating Wealth from Waste. Robin Murray. Demos 1999 Del Norte Zero Waste Plan. Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority. 2000. www.grrn.org/reports/zwap/zwap.pdf Don’t Throw Away That Food. Strategies for Record Setting Waste Reduction. US Environmental protection Agency. www.epa.gov/osw Draft Metropolitan Adelaide Waste to Resources Plan – Infrastructure and Kerbside Services. Prepared by Nolan- ITU for the Environmental
Protection Authority. April 2003.www.environment.sa.gov.au/epa/pdfs/ metro_adelaide_plan.pdf Drivers for Separate Collection in the EU, Optimization and Cost Assessment of High- Capture Schemes. E. Favoino, M. Ricci, A.Tornavacca.Working Group on Composting and Integrated Waste Management, Monza, Italy Envisioning Resource Recovery Parks: Twelve Strategic Imperatives. Dr Dan Knapp and Mary Lou Van Deventer, Urban Ore. 2001 Eurobodalla Shire Council. Waste Minimisation Strategy Initiatives. 2001 Executive Summary of Dunedin’s Zero Waste Strategy. Dunedin City Council, Waste Not Ltd and Meritec Ltd. October 2001 Extended Producer Responsibility: Container Deposit Legislation Report. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust. 2002 Fighting Waste Industry Consolidation with Local Ownership of Recycling Facilities. Facts to Act On. No 42, November 2002. Institute for Local Self Reliance Independent Review of Container Deposit Legislation in New South Wales. Executive Summary. Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation Program Overview , Sept 2002 Maximising Recycling Rates: Tackling Residuals. Community Recycling Network.2000 More jobs, less damage: a framework for sustainability growth and environment. Rees W E (1995) Alternatives, 21 (4) No Time to Waste. MacKenzie District Council- community flyer. 2002 No Waste by 2010. 2002 Progress Report. ACT NoWaste. www.nowaste.act.gov.au/strategy/ thestrategy.html Nova Scotia: Too Good to Waste. A Summary of the Nova Scotia Solid Waste-Resource Management Strategy. www.gov.ns.ca/enla/emc/wasteman/strasumm.htm Otorohanga Zero Waste Strategy. Towards a cleaner, healthier and environmentally friendly way of life. September 2002 Packaging for the Environment: A Partnership for Progress. New York, Stilwell et al. 1991. American Management Association
Porirua City Council Zero Waste Resolution. www.pcc.govt.nz Putrescibles Report Summary. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust . 2002 Recycling in New Zealand: A $100 million + Export Industry. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust 2001 Re-Inventing Waste. Towards a London Waste Strategy. Ecologika. 1998 Resourceful Communities. A Guide to Resource Recovery Centres in New Zealand. W. Snow and J. Dickinson, Envision New Zealand. July 2003. Rodney District Council Draft Zero Waste Plan. March 2002. San Francisco Resolution for Zero Waste and 75% Diversion Goal by 2010 grrn.org/zerowaste/ resolutions/sf_zw_resolution_9-29-02.pdf San Francisco Zero Waste Implementation Plan. City and County of San Francisco Department of the Environment. 2003 Social Enterprise Guide to Recycling. Social Enterprise London. 2002. Survey of Recycling Businesses in the Auckland Region. Waste Not Ltd Auckland. 1998 Tasman District Council Strategy Brochure. February 2001. The End of Waste – Zero Waste by 2020. W Snow and J Dickinson, Zero Waste New Zealand Trust. 2000 The “MacKenzie Model” of Solid Waste Management. MacKenzie District Council. 2002 The Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation Business Plan 2001-2004. The New Zealand Waste Strategy. Towards zero waste and a sustainable New Zealand. Ministry for the Environment. March 2002 The Impact of Waste Industry Consolidation on Recycling. Peter Anderson, Joan Edwards, Michael Garfield, Judi Gregory, Gary Liss, Eric Lombardi and Peter Montague. MSW Magazine. June 2001 The Ten Cent Incentive to Recycle. Container Recycling Institute. 2003 The WRAP Business Plan. Creating markets for recycled resources. Waste and Resources Action Plan. June 2001. The Zero Waste Workbook: A Toolkit for Zero Waste Communities. Prepared by Elizabeth Citrino for the Californian Resource Recovery Association and the USEPA, Region 9. Completion date 2004.
Towards a Framework for Evaluating Packaging Stewardship Programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 39 (4) 1996 Towards Zero Waste. A Materials Efficiency Strategy for Victoria. EcoRecycle. March 2003 Towards Zero Waste Kovalam. A Draft Report. Greenpeace 2001. www.zerowastekovalam.org/ zerowaste%20final%20report.pdf Town of Carrboro. A Resolution Supporting the Creation of a Zero Waste Plan. 1999. www.grrn.org/zerowaste/CZWRes.html US Recycling Economic Information Study. Prepared for the National Recycling Coalition by R. W, Beck Inc. 2001 WAste 2020 Draft Strategy. Towards Zero Waste by 2020. WAste 2020 Taskforce. Department of Environmental Protection. September 2000 Wasted Opportunity: A Closer Look at Landfills and Incineration. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust 2001 Wasting and Recycling in the USA. Grass Roots Recycling Network. 2000 We Can Go Beyond Recycling to Zero Waste. Grass Roots Recycling Network. 2001 Working Towards Zero Waste (Media Release). Government of South Australia. 22nd January 2003 Zero Waste. Robin Murray. Greenpeace. 2001 Zero Waste – Motion put to New Zealand Institute of Architects AGM. Architext. April 2003. Zero Waste – A new target and new approach for a new century. Regional District of Nanaimo, British Columbia.–www.rdn.bc.ca/garbage_recycle/garbage.asp Zero Waste - A Powerful Driver for Sustainability. Warren Snow. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust. 2000 Zero Waste by 2010. An Integrated Waste Elimination Strategy for New South Wales. Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales. http:// www.nccnsw.org.au/waste/context/ Zero Waste Council Report. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust, July 2002. www.zerowaste.co.nz Zero Waste New Zealand Campaign. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust, September 2000 Zero Waste One Step at a Time. Recycling Council of British Columbia’s Zero Waste Working group. May 2002. www.rcbc.ca
Bath and North East Somerset Council www.bathnes.gov.uk BusinessCare- www.businesscare.org.nz Canberra ACT NoWaste. www.nowaste.act.gov.au City of Toronto - www.city.toronto.on.ca Community Employment Group - www.ceg.govt.nz Container Recycling Institute www.container-recycling.org Envision New Zealand - www.envision-nz.com Health Care Without Harm - www.noharm.org GAIA - Global Anti Incineration Alliance www.no-burn.org Government of Nova Scotia - www.gov.ns.ca Grass Roots Recycling Network - www.grrn.org Institute For Local Self-Reliance www.ilsr.org KWMN and Waste Movement (Korea) www.waste21.or.kr Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation. www.mpsc.com Ministry for the Environment - www.mfe.govt.nz Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, Australia. - www.nccnsw.org.au Regional District of Nainaimo, British Columbia. www.rdn.bc.ca Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, Canada. www.rdkb.com San Francisco Environment - www.sfenvironment.org South Australia EPA - www.environment.sa.gov.au/epa Recycling Council of British Columbia -www.rcbc.ca Recycling Operators of New Zealand - www.ronz.org.nz Resources for the Future - www.rff.org Target Zero Canada - www.targetzerocanada.org The Bottle Bill Resource Guide - www.bottlebill.org The Product Stewardship Institute, University of Massachusetts/Lowell - www.productstewardshipinstitute.org Towards Zero (Scotland) - www.towardszero.com United States Environmental Protection Agency - Product Stewardship - www.epa.gov/epr/index.htm Waste Not Ltd - www.wastenot.co.nz WasteMINZ - www.wasteminz.org.nz West Australia EPA - www.environ.wa.gov.au ZERI Institute - www.zeri.org Zero Waste Alliance (USA) - www.zerowaste.org Zero Waste America - www.zerowasteamerica.org Zero Waste International Alliance - www.zwia.org Zero Waste Kovalam - www.zerowastekovalam.org Zero Waste New Zealand Trust - www.zerowaste.co.nz Zero Waste North (Canada) - www.footprintbc.com
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.