Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A review of global strategies promoting the conversion of food waste to MARK

bioenergy via anaerobic digestion
⁎
Djavan De Clercqa,b, Zongguo Wena,b, , Oliver Gottfrieda, Franziska Schmidta, Fan Feia,b
a
State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (SKLESPC), School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
China
b
Key Laboratory for Solid Waste Management and Environment Safety (Tsinghua University), Ministry of Education of China, Tsinghua University, Beijing
100084, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The objective of this paper is to review policies around the world that promote the conversion of food waste to
Food waste biogas. We review policies and operational projects from a diverse set of case study countries including South
Biogas Korea, China, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Using a four-step analysis methodology that focuses
Anaerobic digestion on each country's (1) food waste background, (2) food-waste-to-biogas policy environment, (3) status quo of
Policy
food waste-to-biogas projects and (4) future policy/project-level challenges, we provide a comprehensive cross-
Subsidies
country review of food waste-to-biogas policy developments. We find that, while each surveyed country has
unique strengths and weaknesses in their policy structure, Asian and European countries also do face similar
bottlenecks in the food waste-to-biogas sector. Some specific findings include: (1) highly centralized policies in
Asian case countries such as China and South Korea have led to the rapid build-up of a food waste-to-biogas
sector; (2) European case countries such as France and the United Kingdom have succeeded in implementing
policies that incentivize the production of multiple outputs within treatment facilities; (3) South Korea is a good
example of how countries can implement smart waste management systems to decrease the volume of FW
generated at the source; (4) South Korea, Germany and France have successfully built many co-digestion
projects treating FW together with other waste sources, indicating that project operators in countries have
understood the multiple benefits of co-digestion. The geographic breadth of the case studies, and the best
practices and challenges identified for each country, should prove highly useful for policy-makers in developing
countries who are seeking to enhance food waste management via anaerobic treatment methods.

1. Introduction waste constitutes about 75% of MSW, and in China on average it

Countries around the world waste enormous amounts of food, and
good strategies are needed to convert this waste into useful resources.
An estimated 1.6 gigatonnes of food waste is produced annually,
accounting for 27% of the 6 gigatonnes of total agricultural production
for both food/non-food uses [22]. Food waste, which is the dominant
part of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW), is
putrescible. This means that when buried in a landfill, food waste
decomposes to form methane, a greenhouse gas with a global warming
potential 25 times greater than CO2 on a 100-year time scale [70]
Effective management and treatment of OFMSW is an increasingly
prominent issue for countries around the world, especially in develop-
ing countries, where FW accounts for the dominant fraction of
municipal solid waste (MSW). In Bangladesh for instance, organic
constituted about 52.6% in 2010, compared to just 25% in the USA or
32% in France [94].
Both developed countries and developing countries are struggling
to deal with these massive amounts of food waste, and as a result,
different regions around the world have devised frameworks for the
appropriate management of this waste. For instance, the European
Union's Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC devised a waste
management hierarchy that recommended – in order of preference –
prevention, preparation for re-use, recycling, other recovery (i.e. energy
recovery) and landfill treatment [20]. Some specific EU countries have
even more stringent standards; in Belgium for instance, the Public
Flemish Waste Management Company proposed the following food
waste management hierarchy: prevention; use for human nutrition;
conversion for human nutrition; use for animal feed; use as raw

⁎
Corresponding author at: State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (SKLESPC), School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
China.
E-mail address: wenzg@tsinghua.edu.cn (Z. Wen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.047
Received 24 March 2016; Received in revised form 12 March 2017; Accepted 11 May 2017
Available online 19 May 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. De Clercq et al.
material in industry; process into fertilizer by anaerobic digestion or
composting; use as renewable energy; incineration; and landfill [86].
Germany, a country that is relatively advanced in the realm of waste
management, still faces problems such as the over-capacity of waste
treatment plants, miscommunication between municipalities and pri-
vate waste management companies, financing the collection and
recycling of biowaste, and continued reliance on incarnation. As a
result, the country is actively devising strategies to increase circular
economy principles regarding waste management [63].
In the developing world, countries are also building frameworks to
deal with food waste. In the Chinese context for instance, food waste
source reduction, centralized recycling, and waste-to-resource recycling
are the development trends of food waste management. Since 2011,
China has launched food waste treatment pilot projects in 100 cities
across five stages [91]. These projects include collection, transporta-
tion, treatment and utilization of food waste. They also propose
integrated solutions for waste oil/fat, solid waste, and liquid waste,
in order to achieve an optimal waste recycling scenario and safe
disposal.
While there has been good progress in some developing regions
such as China regarding food waste management, many other countries
have completely inadequate foundations for enhanced food waste
management. In Nigeria for instance, there exist few policies regarding
food waste management and recycling. Only 8% of food waste (FW) is
recycled for compost, and recycling operations are generally dealt with
by the informal sector [77]. In Ghana in 2010, about 90% of the total
4.5 million tons of generated municipal solid waste (MSW) was
ineffectively dumped through landfill, placing a burden on human
health, despite the fact that 68% of the annual MSW generated in
Ghana is organic matter – mostly food waste [15]. Brazil and Mexico
have poor FW recycling systems due to inadequate legislative frame-
works, low participation by the private sector and limited funding to
enhance FW diversion activities [31]. Jamaica lacks centralized food
waste recycling. India has high levels of FW, but it is mostly disposed of
in dump sites rather than recycled [78].
In this context, there is a strong need to provide policymakers in
developing countries with an update of global strategies that deal with
food waste. This article thus reviews policies that promote the
conversion of food waste to bioenergy, with a focus on anaerobic
digestion (AD), a mature technology for biogas production. In addition,
we examine the status of some AD biogas projects around the world,
which will be useful to benchmark the output performance of projects
in developing countries.
This research is especially timely given that there is increased
awareness on behalf of policymakers around the world regarding the
principles of circular economy (CE). CE represents a sustainable
alternative to the current linear system, primarily by recirculating
material resources for new product development [69]. Initiatives based
on principles are increasingly becoming more important in interna-
tional/regional plans for creating sustainable futures [30]. George et al.
[24] showed that, contrary to the Environmental Kuznets Curve,
environmental quality cannot be maintained via linear economic
growth, but only by an increase in the environmental self-renewal rate
or the recycling ratio.
Given that enhanced FW management fits within the desired
objectives of CE principles, this review should be highly useful for
project developers and policy makers in developing countries. In Asia,
China and South Korea were selected as case study countries. In
Europe, Germany, France and the United Kingdom were examined. In
the Americas, Brazil and the United States were analyzed. These
countries were chosen due to (1) their ambitious and varied policy
mechanisms (or lack of good policies, chosen to provide cautionary
tales of bad management) to enhance food waste treatment and (2)
their varied geographic and economic conditions. The geographic scope
should prove useful for policymakers who seek solutions that are
applicable to their domestic situation.
205
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221
This research is also especially significant because there are no
examples in recent literature providing a comprehensive update on the
status quo of policies regarding biogas production from food waste in
Asia and Europe. Moreover, recent studies give a misleading picture of
the status quo in countries such as China regarding FW treatment
projects. For instance, Thi et al. [78] have claimed that “only seven FW
treatment sites are currently operating in China”, based on a 2011
source. This is no longer the case in China. Moreover, there are no in-
depth comparative treatments of Chinese or European policies.
Other literature has only focused on more technical aspects of food
waste treatment. For example, Dung et al. [19] focused on the
bioenergy potential of FW in 21 different countries by applying five
different methods of bioenergy production. Xu et al. [92] focused on
life-cycle assessment of food waste-based biogas generation using the
ReCiPe model, and found that AD treatment was the preferable
treatment option compared to two other scenario. Iacovidou et al.
[34] discussed policy intervention for household FW disposal (FWD)
units in the UK, finding that FWDs should be either regulated and
banned completely. Halloran et al. [32] highlighted the importance of
multi-stakeholder collaboration in solving food waste challenges,
taking Denmark as a case study. Zhang et al. [99] examined the
combined effect of crude fat content and initial substrate concentration
on batch anaerobic digestion characteristics of food waste. Brancoli
et al. [100] conducted a life-cycle assessment of supermarket food
waste, concluding that bread waste contributes largely to a super-
market's environmental footprint. Fisgativa et al. [101] conducted an
extensive physiochemical characterization of FW and found that
correlations between FW characteristics may help to predict the
performance of anaerobic digestion. Magyar et al. [102] explored the
conversion of sugar-rich food waste to energy; they demonstrated how
food waste could be efficiently converted to ethanol and used for
making biodiesel. Zhang et al. [103] evaluated the enhancement of
biogas production in anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and waste
activated sludge by biological co-pretreatment. De Clercq et al. [104]
performed an in-depth economic performance evaluation of bio-waste
treatment technology at the facility level, using a case study in southern
China. De Clercq et al. [105] conducted a performance evaluation of
restaurant food waste and biowaste to biogas pilot projects in China
and suggested implications for national policy.
The growing body of technical-oriented research about food waste
indicates wide interest in this important field. However, to the authors’
knowledge, there has been no review of policies regarding anaerobic
digestion of food waste specifically. This paper thus represents a vital
addition to the literature.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. Sections 2–8
delve provide deep analysis of food waste-to-biogas developments in
each case country via a four-step analysis that focuses on each country's
(1) food waste background, (2) food-waste-to-biogas policy environ-
ment, (3) status quo of food waste-to-biogas projects and (4) future
policy/project-level challenges. This 4-step methodology was based on
the author's judgement of a logical structure, as previous studies on
this topic have not yet been conducted. Moreover, this four-step
structure should prove accessible to the multiple governmental,
institutional and private sector stakeholders involved in food waste
management. Section 9 discusses best practices/challenges derived
from the analysis and associated policy implications for developing
countries. Conclusions are provided in Section 10.
2. China
2.1. Food waste background
In the Chinese context, “food waste” collectively refers to restaurant
waste, household kitchen waste and discarded expired food. China
produces a lot of food waste, but most of it ends up in landfills. In 2013,
172 million tons of MSW were collected in China, and 55.86% of this
D. De Clercq et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221

MSW – 96 million tons – was household kitchen food waste (HKFW)
[97]. On average, 98% of waste in China is disposed of via incineration
or landfill, while resource recovery methods such as composting and
anaerobic digestion are minimal [13]. In addition, China's State
Council announced in 2013 that there were 350 million restaurants
in 660 cities nationwide in 2013. Restaurant food waste (RFW) daily
production reached 200,000 t/d, or 73 million t/y, compared with an
annual processing capacity of 11,600 t/d, meaning a processing rate of
less than 6%. Based on these figures, HKFW and RFW together
accounted for approximately 169 million tons in 2013.

Table 1
Policies promoting food waste resource utilization in China, 2010–2015.
Sources: [57–61,71–74,12].

Year Participants Policy name Policy details and objectives

2010 NDRC, MoHURD, MEP, “On the organization to carry out urban food kitchen 1. Selected portions of the country to carry out food/kitchen waste recycling and
MOA waste recycling and safe disposal of experimental work safe disposal in municipality pilot districts
notice" 2. Explore avenues for food kitchen waste treatment in China
State Council “On strengthening food kitchen waste oil remediation and 1. Establishment of city/county responsibilities, clear division of labor,
waste management opinions" strengthen food waste management, establish and improve regulatory
mechanism.
2. Via pilot cities, explore appropriate kitchen waste recycling and safe disposal
technology processes and management models to improve recycling and safe
disposal level.
MEP, MoHURD. NDRC "On the strengthening of comprehensive solid waste 1. Strengthen food waste generation, collection, transportation, disposal and
disposal and pollution control work" supervision and management.
2. By the end of 2015, 36 big cities (capital cities/municipalities) to achieve food
& beverage industry FW collection/disposal.
3. Support construction FW treatment facilities.
4. Improve collection & transportation capacity.
5. By the end of 2015, achieve “sealed” food waste transportation
6. Establish collection/transportation in counties and townships

2011 NDRC "National Economic and Social Development Twelfth 1. Establish and improve waste separation and recovery
Five-Year Plan People's Republic of China" 2. Improve separation and recovery, closed transportation, centralized processing
system
MoHURD+16 other "Further strengthen the municipal solid waste disposal 1. By 2015, 50% of city districts should have made initial steps towards FW
ministries Work" separation, collection, transportation.
2. Strengthen supervision over F & B/catering industry FW separation/
collection/ transportation
3. Establishment of a FW emission registration system.
4. Organization of urban FW resource utilization pilot.
5. FW, garden waste, manure etc. harmless treatment and resource utilization.
NDRC "Recycling economy development special funds to 1. Food waste project appraisal and subsidies to vigorously promote the food
support the FW recycling and safe disposal of the pilot waste projects
city construction plan" 2. Within 5 years, recycling/safe disposal of kitchen waste achieved assessment
program target of > 90%
3. MOF, NDRC allocate funds; if unqualified, no disbursement of funds, and
recovery of 80% of funds already allocated
4. If no project progress for three years, allocated subsidies can be deducted
NDRC “12th FYP “Integrated energy conservation program of 1. Construction of 100 cities focusing on food/kitchen waste recycling and safe
work" disposal demonstration projects

2012 NDRC, MoHURD, MEP “12th FYP “National urban life garbage treatment 1. Defined the "second five" food waste treatment capacity and construction
facilities construction plan" investment
2. By 2015, comprehensively promote garbage classification pilots
3. Initial realization of food waste collection, transportation and treatment in
50% of city districts.
4. Autonomous regions and municipalities to build more than one model of city
garbage classification.
5. Select a number of conditions of the city and county, on the basis of food waste
treatment has started work, continue to promote food waste collected
separately and transported to an appropriate scale
6. Strive to achieve a processing capacity of 30,000 t/day.
7. During 12th FYP period, China's MSW treatment facilities to reach total
investment of about 263.6 billion RMB. Of which: food waste for special
projects invested 10.9 billion RMB, accounting for 4.1%
Academy of Urban "Food waste treatment Technical Specifications" 1. Food waste treatment directional technical specification
Construction

2013 State Council "State Council on accelerating the development of energy- 1. Proposed to "boost consumption of green products and recycled products, the
saving environmental protection industry opinions" promotion of family kitchen waste processor, to meet consumer demand“
2. According to incomplete statistics, in 2013 there were 350 million restaurants
in 660 cities nationwide. FW daily production reached 200,000 t/day,
compared with an annual processing capacity of 11,600 t/day, meaning a daily
processing rate of less than 6%

2014 NDRC “83 pilot cities” 1. In 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 respectively, four batches of food kitchen waste
pilot cities
2. Government comments:
3. Kitchenware projects generally under BOT mode of operation,
(continued on next page)

206
D. De Clercq et al.
Table 1 (continued)
Year Participants Policy name
2015 NDRC and other “The fifth-recommended food kitchen waste recycling and
ministries safe disposal alternative pilot cities”
2.2. Food waste-to-biogas policy environment
To combat this mounting environmental issue, in recent years,
China has announced numerous policies promoting the comprehensive
utilization of food waste. Table 1 shows that policies implemented in
recent years have been drafted by a range of participants including the
State Council, the National Development and Reform Commission
(NDRC), and various government ministries, strongly indicating the
government's commitment to addressing the food waste problem.
The most important national-level policy is the NDRC's strategy to
develop RFW treatment projects in 5 different batches across 100 pilot
cities around China. According to the 12th five-year plan (FYP), by the
end of 2015 there will be 242 RFW facilities in the country capable of
treating 30,000 t/d of RFW. Moreover, pilot cities under the scheme
will achieve a 50% RWF treatment rate. The 12th FYP investment
budgeted for MSW is about 236.6 billion RMB, of which 4.1% is
allocated to RFW treatment facilities.
Fig. 1 shows the concentration of planned RFW projects (left map)
and the locations of the first 100 pilot cities (right map). On the left
map, the legend shows the concentration of projects (in project units).
In terms of planned RFW treatment capacity, the leading provinces are
Guangdong, Hebei, Beijing, Zhejiang and Liaoning, with 3990 t/day,
2240 t/day, 2095 t/day, 1925 t/day and 1890 t/day respectively. The
right map indicates that pilot cities are largely concentrated in the
Central and Eastern regions of China.
Fig. 1. Concentration of planned RFW projects and location of 100 pilot cities.
207
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221
Policy details and objectives
4. Operational period of 20–30 years
5. Internal rate of return of the project is generally around 8%. Due to
government subsidies and constant efficiency improvements, actual IRR is
expected to increase
1. The central government will allocate special funds to support the food kitchen
waste recycling and safe disposal of the pilot, co-ordinate the use of funds from
the local government, earmarked for the food kitchen waste recycling and safe
disposal system. Support areas include: food kitchen waste collection,
transportation system; recycling and safe disposal projects; capacity building.
2. 17 additional pilot cities, bringing the total pilot cities to 100 across 5 batches.
Based on 2014 data, there appears to be an increasing preference
for anaerobic digestion technology as the primary technology of choice
in pilot cities ratified by the NDRC. In the first, second and third
batches of pilot cities, AD was the principal technology in 63%, 75%,
and 95% of projects respectively [91].
2.3. Status quo of food waste-to-biogas projects
Despite the Chinese government's ambitious goals, objectives to
build 242 facilities are far from being met. In 2014, only 46 pilot
projects were operational, and 34 were under construction, leaving 162
remaining to be built [45]. Table 2 provides some of the technical
parameters of projects that have been constructed in recent years.
Data from 2015 has revealed that AD technology appears to be the
primary technology choice in recent food waste treatment facilities [6].
Based on the confirmed technical roadmaps of 111 projects (above
50 t/day) in operation or under construction, AD technology is used in
80 projects (76.1%); solid compost/liquid fermentation technology is
used in 4 projects (3.3%); aerobic composting is used in 16 projects
(14.1%); and animal feed conversion technology is used in 11 projects
(6.4%).
In addition to the partial list of projects listed above, it is vital to
mention the emergence of public-private partnership (PPP) projects in
China regarding food waste management. One of the earliest examples
of a successful PPP-based project operating for 10 years is the Ningbo
D. De Clercq et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221

Table 2
Partial list of operational food waste treatment projects in China.

Pilot city batch Province Investment Main process technology Scale (t/d) Year

First Kunming, Yunnan BOT Anaerobic fermentation 200 2014

First Weifang, Shandong BOO Anaerobic fermentation 200 2014
First Nanchang, Jiangxi BOT Anaerobic fermentation 200 2014
Second Datong, Shanxi BOT Solid liquid anaerobic compost 100 2014
Second Tai'an, Shandong BOT Anaerobic fermentation 200 2014
Third Jinan, Shandong BOT Anaerobic fermentation 200 2014
Third Hubei Xiangyang BOT Anaerobic fermentation 150 2014
Fifth Linyi, Shandong BOO Anaerobic fermentation 200 2014
Not a pilot city Yantai, Shandong BOT Anaerobic fermentation 200 2014
Not a pilot city Nanjing, Jiangsu / Rapid aerobic fermentation 100 2014
First Erdos, Inner Mongolia / Compost 90 2015
First Hefei, Anhui BOT Composting (liquid + solid) 200 2015
Second Nanning, Guangxi BOT Anaerobic fermentation 222 2015
First Yinchuan, Ningxia BOT Anaerobic fermentation 200 2015
Second Lijiang, Yunnan Government Anaerobic fermentation 50 2015
Second Zunyi, Guizhou Government Anaerobic fermentation 120 2015
Fifth Shaoxing, Zhejiang / High temperature disinfection 100 2015
Not a pilot city Qinhuangdao, Hebei Government Anaerobic fermentation 150 2015
Not a pilot city Zibo, Shandong / Hydrothermal Decomposition 100 2015
Total 2982

Kaicheng Corporation's kitchen waste treatment plant, which has a
capacity of 250 t/d. The Ningbo government provides treatment
subsidies to the company to treat this waste. Similar PPP projects are
emerging across China. In Hainan province for instance, the govern-
ment has recently awarded a PPP contract to a local company to treat
Haikou City's food waste. Such PPP contracts can greatly enhance the
revenue stability of biogas projects treating food waste [98].
2.4. Remaining policy-level and project-level challenges for food
waste treatment in China
2.4.1. Pilot project construction needs to accelerate
There are 118 food waste treatment projects already built, under
construction, or tendered in China, with a total processing capacity of
approximately 21,500 t/day. Under the 12th FYP, the objective was to
reach 30,000 t/day. This means that there is still a shortfall of 8500 t/
day. Moreover, projects being prepared for construction are mostly in
the primary stages. There are currently 43 operational projects and 35
projects under construction. A conservative estimate would be that
there will be 80 operational facilities nationwide by the end of 2017.
2.4.2. Lack of adequate standards
Since the food waste treatment sector is a relatively new in China,
operational management standards, a nationwide supervision system,
and performance evaluation systems have not yet been established in
China. At present, the only standards available for reference are: (1)
food waste treatment technical specifications (CJJ184); (2) MSW
composting plant evaluation criteria (CJJ/T172); (3) MSW composting
plant operation, maintenance and safety technology (CJJ/T86); and (4)
disjointed local standards.
2.4.4. Heavy reliance on government subsidies may lead to
unsustainable sector development
As mentioned in Section 3.3, food waste treatment plants are
heavily reliant on government subsidies. Despite this favorable policy
environment, past mistakes made in the agricultural biogas sector
should not repeated in the food waste-to-biogas sector. China has a
recent history of poorly performing agricultural biogas plants. One
survey of 21 agricultural large to medium-scale biogas plants (LMBPs)
in Jiangsu province, for instance, found that biogas productivity rates
ranged from as low as 0.3–0.6 m3/(m3 day). A major reason for such
operational problems involved the dominant subsidy mechanism in
China's biogas sector. Between 2006 and 2009, China's Ministry of
Agriculture spent 16 billion Yuan to support 23 million new household
biogas digesters and 4000 (mostly agricultural) LMBPs. The capital
expenditure from the government covered more than 50% of the total
construction investment of LMBPs . This investment-subsidy develop-
ment model succeeded in expanding the quantity of biogas plants in
China at the expense of their quality; challenges during operation and
market phases, such as low biogas productivity, uneconomical biogas
end-use and low profitability are now widespread. One explanation is
that once the initial subsidy amount has been received, there are little
incentives left to run a biogas plant economically [50].
China needs policies that put greater emphasis on biogas product
end-use, as is common in countries like Germany and Sweden [26,37].
One possible incentive mechanism that has been suggested for Finland
[55] involves subsidy payments that are tied to the amount of biogas
consumed (in the form of heat, power or as biomethane transport fuel/
grid natural gas), as opposed to the amount produced. Consumption-
linked payments provide a strong incentive for biogas producers to
enter the market, and prevent biogas being dumped at low prices by
biogas projects whose profits mostly depend on waste treatment fees.

2.4.3. Inadequate food waste treatment fee system
Currently, there are only very few cities with food waste collection
fees. These include Ningbo, Beijing, Shanghai, Lanzhou, Dalian and
others. Several Chinese cities have drafted clear food waste fee
regulations, but these remain nominal and are not implemented in
practice. Such cities include Shijiazhuang, Fujian, Chongqing,
Kunming, Qingdao, Shenzhen, Shandong, Weifang and others. Cities
without any form of treatment fee include Urumqi, Hohhot, Wuhan,
Guangzhou, and other cities.
3. South Korea
3.1. Food waste background
South Korea has made astounding policy advances in dealing with
food waste in recent years, which is why it was chosen as a case study
along with China. South Korea generated 13,209 t/d of FW in 2012,
which accounted for 27% of the total generated MSW volume of
48,990 t/d. In the past, FW was dumped in landfills together with
other MSW, or discharged into oceans, but landfilling FW has been

208
D. De Clercq et al.
Table 3
Volumromoting food waste resource utilization in Ch Korea.
Source: [43].
Billing system Description
Pre-paid FW garbage 1. FW generator purchases a standard plastic bag to dispose of food
bags waste
RFID system 1. Developed by LG Group based on specifications by local governments.
Waste producers scan their RFID tag on the RFID bin, and the bin's lid
will automatically open
Bar code management 1. Requires the waste generator to dispose of FW in composting bins
system
banned since 2005 and discharge of organic waste into the ocean has
been banned since 2012. Large amounts of organic-rich food waste
leachate (FWL) generated as wastewater from the FW treatment
process were also discharged into the ocean, but this too has been
absolutely banned since 2013 under the London Convention 97
protocol [43]. As a result, the South Korean government has stated
that additional treatment methods are needed for the digested food
wastewater effluent [68]. Unlike China, the South Korean government
has also vigorously encouraged food waste reduction via a volume-
based billing system, details of which are provided in Table 3.
As of June 2014, 142 out of the 145 local governments are
participating in the volume-based FW disposal scheme. The MOE
announced that these measures have been successful. In Seoul for
instance, FW generation decreased by 22.6% from 53,000 kg/d to
41,000 kg/d after the scheme's implementation. Seoul's Gangnam
district in particular installed 136 “smart bins”, featuring an adaptive,
user-oriented charge policy, which resulted in food waste reductions of
33% [33] The effects have also been noticeable in other provinces; in
Gyeongju, household and small restaurant FW generation reduced by
13% and 40% respectively.
3.2. Food waste-to-biogas policy environment
In 2008, the South Korean government announced the “Waste
Resource and Biomass to Energy Plan”, which envisions that biomass
should account for 7% and 10% of primary energy supply by 2030 and
2050 respectively. Moreover, the 2020 target is for 100% of the FW
effluent currently being dumped in the sea to be converted into biogas
for electricity generation or vehicle fuel [36].
As shown in Table 4, there are three major economic support
mechanisms for biogas plants that treat food waste (and other types of
waste) in South Korea: feed-in tariffs, investment grants, and taxes.
Moreover, the government has been active in research and develop-
ment, as evidenced by the participation of two ministries in pilot-scale
Table 4
Support mechanisms related to AD plants treating FW.
Source: Kang (2014).
Economic support
Support type Detail
Feed-in tariff (FiT) and 1. Feed-in tariff has been implemented since 2011.
renewable portfolio 2. Renewable portfolio standard enforced since 2012. The
standards (RPS) government target is to increase the mandatory supply
quantity of biogas to 10% of total power generation in
2022.
Investment grants 1. Government funds 60–80% of agricultural biogas
plants’ capital outlay.
2. All biowaste plants have been built and operated by the
government
Taxes 1. No tariffs or subsidies on biogas. However 10% VAT
and 2% tariff if CNG/biogas mixture.
209
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221
Billing mechanism
1. Fees are collected in proportion to the FW volume through the cost of
buying a bag. The standard bag 10-l bag costs about 190 won in Seoul
1. The waste discarded into the bin is then automatically weighted and
recorded on the user's account; the volume is billed monthly. This is the
MOE's preferred system
1. Pay disposal fees by purchasing bar code stickers attached to the bin, or
bar code cards that are inputted into a reader on the bin
research projects with significant funding.
3.3. Status quo of food waste-to-biogas projects
In 2014, South Korea had a total of 92 biogas plants in operation
producing 2603 GW h/y energy equivalent of raw biogas. Sewage
sludge biogas plants, bio-waste biogas plants, agricultural biogas plants
and landfills accounted for 40.1%, 16.4%, 0.1% and 43.3% of total
biogas energy production, respectively. Electricity generation, heat
generation, vehicle fuel, flaring, and sale of biogas account for 50.7%,
25.5%, 1.0%, 16.6% and 6.2% of biogas end-use respectively.
In the South Korean context, “biowaste” plants mainly consist of
food waste, food waste leachate, and co-digestible substrates. Based on
data from Kang [38,39], the 31 biogas plants treating FW or FWL
(excluding those that produce vehicle gas as a final output) produce
approximately 68.59 million N m3/y of raw biogas. Table 5 provides
greater detail on these plants.
3.3.1. Strong focus on co-digestion
Food waste should be mixed with other types of waste. Mono-
digestion of food waste can lead to process instability or even failure
due to the accumulation of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and ammonia,
and the absence of trace elements required for microbes to thrive
[48,96]. Co-digestion of food waste with other substrates has the
advantages of improving biogas production due to additional nutrient
supply from mixed substrates and cost-sharing via the processing of
different waste streams in a single facility [46]. Viable co-substrates
include cattle, dairy and pig manure [1,44,93,95]; green waste [47];
and fruit/vegetable waste with dewatered sewage sludge [49]. Urban
anaerobic digestion facilities should thus aim to improve biogas output
with other substrates from surrounding areas.
The strong presence of co-digestible substrates in South Korea's
food waste biogas plant inventory in Table 5 demonstrates that the
South Korean government has recognized the strengths of co-digestion.
Research support
Participant Detail
Korean Ministry of 1. Established an Organic Waste to Energy research center.
Environment Total budget $74 million ($56 million Ministry of
Environment-funded, and $17.5 million private sector-
funded) over 7 years (2013–2020).
2. Pilot 1800 m3/d AD plant for FW; up-grading, odor
control, application of digestate.
Korean Ministry of 1. Launched a project to develop optimal anaerobic
Trade, Industry and digestion processes to treat a variety of substrates
Energy including food waste, agricultural wastes, and animal
manure.
2. Final goal is to develop a process control algorithm.
3. Total budget for the 3-year project (2015–2018) is
approximately $5.3 million.
D. De Clercq et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221

Table 5
Food waste biogas plants in South Korea in operation or under construction.
Sources: [38,39,43].

Name of plant Waste types Capacity (t/d) Biogas prod. (N m3/y) Utilization

Dongdaemon (Seoul) FW 98 3,786,444 Electricity, Heat

Ganseo (Busan) FW 200 7,211,045 Electricity
Bangcheon FW N/A N/A Vehicles
Wonju FW N/A N/A Vehicles
Pyuchang FW N/A N/A Vehicles
Songpa (Seoul) FWL 500 653,800 Heat
Nonggong (Daegu) FWL 30 112,800 Heat
Baekseok (Incheon) FWL 700 6,003,913 Electricity, Heat, CNG
Yeonsu (Incheon) FWL 65 632,708 Flare
Bondeok (Gwangju) FWL 160 638,042 Heat
Sunggok (Ansan-si) FWL 160 96,614 Heat
Jail-dong (Uijeongbu-si) FWL 116 915,000 Flare
Jindalrae-gil (Yeosu) FWL 55 1,231,288 Heat
Pungsan (Andong-si) FWL 45 87,600 Heat
Hyuncheon (Goyang-si) SL, FWL 2869 13,320,101 Heat, biogas sale
Anrak (Busan) SL, FW 1680 7,462,652 Electricity, heat
Seobyun (Daegu) SL, FWL 1418 5,532,626 Electricity, heat
Dongchun (Incheon) SL, FW 628 279,568 Heat
Youngyun (Ulsan) SL, FW 780 10,279,793 Heat, biogas sale
Daepo (Sokcho-si) SL, FWL 249 1,356,833 Electricity, heat
Soryong (Gunsan-si) SL, FWL 191 1,982,080 Heat
Kangbyun-ro (Suncheon-si) SL, FWL, LM 500 1,219,980 Electricity, heat
Seokeok (Chilgok) SL, FWL, LM 1150 2,003,755 Heat
Bongam Paju-si LM, FW 110 993,000 Electricity, heat
Jangseung (Ansung-si) LM, FW 5 36,000 Electricity
Jangseung (Cheongyang) LM, FW 20 180,435 Electricity, electricity sale
Dojang (Yeongam) LM, FW 5 42,834 Electricity
Boncho (Kyungnam) LM, FWL 100 1,512,968 Heat, electricity sale
Sangnam (Milyang-si) LM, FW, EX 200 1,017,831 Heat
Sintaein (Jeongup-si) LM, FWL 100 N/A Electricity, heat
Miryeok (Bosung-gun) LM, FW 60 N/A Electricity
Total 11,896 68,589,710

Notes: FW: food waste. FWL: food waste leachate. SL: sludge. LM: livestock manure. EX: excrement.

Table 6
Operational issues with selected plants in South Korea.
Source: [41].

Plant operation issues Description

Substrate Mono-digestion leads to lower gas production and profitability; Mono-digestion of FW induces process instability.
Plant sizing Reception tanks too small, cannot guarantee stable substrate feeding; Digestate storage tank too large, meaning over-investment
Technology selection Over-sized CHP capacity; No flaring of gas, which is a
security hazard; Some parts imported from abroad, leading to high maintenance costs; Some FW/biowaste plants do not have a hygienization
facility.
Plant site selection Unsuitable places like city center.
Energy use Some biogas plants flare all the gas; some plants have high energy consumption, meaning less income; no heat use; digestate can only be applied if
less than 30% of the substrate is FW.
Economics and policy Low electricity price of 110 KRW/kW h; restricted subsidies; overlapping policies between ministries.
Mass balance Some plants do not assess mass balance.

3.4. Remaining policy-level and project-level challenges for food
waste treatment in South Korea
Despite the government's ambitious goals for biogas production,
there are approximately 49 biogas plants in South Korea that are
economically and technically unsuccessful due to lack of know-how,
bad technology and misguided policy. Kim et al. [41] surveyed six
biogas plants and found that challenges could be separated into 1)
plant operational problems and 2) restrictions on overall development
of biogas technology in South Korea. Their findings are summarized in
Table 6.
As shown in the table above, many of the issues identified by Kim
et al. [41] also affect the operation of FW plants in China. For example,
in a study by De Clercq et al. [16], a surveyed food waste treatment
facility in Beijing was found to have the following issues: (1) mono-
digestion of FW, meaning sub-optimal biogas production and lower
revenues; (2) a very high parasitic load, meaning that less energy is
available for sale; and (3) a low level of mass balance monitoring. Like
France (examined further below), South Korea also faces some issues
with restricted subsidies, which impact the economic performance of
treatment facilities.
4. Germany
4.1. Food waste background
According to article 11 of the Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz (KrWG,
"Closed Substance Cycle Waste Management Act") biowaste in
Germany has to be collected on a national scale from 2015 onwards.
The sole collection of green garden waste is not sufficient, because
kitchen and food waste from private households are to be gathered as
well. While biowaste is the biggest fraction of separated waste forms, it
is also the waste form which has the biggest fraction among not
separately collected wastes. The Witzenhausen institute estimates that

210
D. De Clercq et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221

some 4–5 million tons of bio waste are currently found in residual
waste from households. This makes a doubling of input to German bio
waste fermentation plants until 2020 or even a tripling till 2025 seem
realistic [40].
In the future, the addition of capacity in the commercial waste
sector will be limited by the current saturation of the agricultural waste
substrate market. In the bio and green waste sector, however, about
two thirds of the currently available material cannot be fermented with
the existing 1.9 million tons per year of capacity. In addition, the
amount of collected fermentable material will increase to around 6
million tons per year due to improved waste collection in areas that
currently do not offer a separate bio waste collection or whose
performance is below average. Furthermore, some 1.5 million tons
per year could be separated from the residual waste in all other areas.
Due to a total of 7.5 million tons of waste available for fermentation
every year, the Witzenhausen institute expects an increase of bio and
green waste fermentation capacity to around 5.5 million tons per year,
which more or less equals the amount of collected bio waste today [40].
4.2. Food waste-to-biogas policy environment
In the last decade, there has been strong political support for biogas
production in Germany. The total number of biogas plants doubled
between 2006 and 2011, and in 2013 there were more than 7850
biogas plants with a total capacity of 3543 MW [2] which produced
18% of total renewables-based electricity. Political support for biogas
has resulted primarily in the expansion of agricultural biogas plants: in
2015, 8005 plants were agriculture-based, out of a total 10,020 [4].
However, in recent years more policies have been enacted in Germany
also promoting the use of biowaste and food waste as an energy source
(Table 7).
4.3. Status quo of food waste-to-biogas projects
There are 180 biowaste AD plants operational in Germany (1.8% of
all AD plants) producing 850 GWh/y of electricity (3.0% total AD-
derived electricity) [5]. Competition in the bio waste sector is high,
especially in the area of food waste and commercial solid waste. Around
two thirds of all plants treat bio (from private households) and green
waste (from parks), while only one third treats commercial wastes. In
total, a capacity of about 3.8 million tons per year is available for the
fermentation of bio wastes [40]. Table 8 shows a partial list of 38
projects in Germany treating food waste.
The history of the bio waste fermentation capacity for commercial
waste shows a steadily rising trend. Around 2005/06 a rapid rise
indicates the market's response to the prohibition of the use of bio
waste as feeding stuff. The curve flattens because of a saturation of the
substrate market.
The capacity of plants fermenting bio and green waste from private
households has also been steadily rising since the 1990s. A steeper rise
since 2009 is due to changes in the German Renewable Energy Sources
Act (EEG) and initiatives in the communities [40].
4.4. Remaining policy-level and project-level challenges for food
waste treatment in Germany
4.4.1. Future of food waste treatment
Germany's biogas sector relies on both renewable bioenergy crops
as well as biowaste. Bioenergy crops are generally considered to be
CO2-neutral because they only release the CO2 that was bound while
growing the plants. So far, there is no universally accepted method to
calculate GHG emissions caused by the use of fossil fuels to produce
fertilizers and pesticides, or the emissions of nitrous oxide from
fertilized land [42]. According to the KLU, most of the approaches to
include these factors into the carbon footprint calculation show that
doing so might result in some biofuels having a carbon footprint that is
even larger than that of commonly used fossil fuels. Therefore, the
Federal Environmental Agency (UBA) recommends to focus on the use
of organic waste and biowaste in biogas plants and to gradually phase
out bioenergy crops.
4.4.2. Regulatory challenges
The UBA demands that it be demonstrated for all types of bioenergy
sources that their use would reduce GHG emissions compared to fossil
fuels, which has been stipulated for liquid biomass [7,8], but not yet for
solid and gaseous biomass [42]. As mentioned above, a complete
documentation of the carbon footprint might show that several renew-
able biomass sources are unsustainable and boost the use of food
waste.
With structural changes in the biogas sector the tariff-system has to
be overhauled and continuously adapted in order to avoid mistakes
made in the past, namely cross-subsidy of renewable biomass through
the so-called "slurry bonus" which was meant to discourage its use by
rewarding plants that fed in slurry to an amount of at least 30% of the
total mass. Instead of reusing slurry present in the area, there are
several cases where this incentive led to additional intensive livestock
farming in order to produce enough slurry for the already existing
biogas plant [42]. The bonus was abolished with the amended EEG of
2012, but is still valid for already existing installations.
Another opportunity for improvement is the increase of CHP.
According to the 2012 version of the EEG, a new biogas plant has to
use 60% of the generated heat (internal and external use). A higher rate of
effective heat use would further improve the sustainability of German
biogas plants. An alternative to this procedure would be the upgrading of
biogas to biomethane, a process that is not yet highly developed with only
107 plants that were capable of this transformation in 2012 [25].

Table 7
Policies on biowaste in Germany, 1994–2012.
Sources: [9,66,67,88]

Year Name Details and objectives

1994 Kreislaufwirstschafts- und Abfallgesetz (KrW-/AbfG) Waste can be used for material recycling or the recovery of energy; priority is to be given to the more
[1] environmentally sustainable process.
1998 Bioabfallverordnung (BioAbfV) [2] Definition of 'bio-waste' as waste originating from animals or plants which can be decomposed by
microorganisms, soil-borne organisms, or enzymes.
1999 Directive 1999/31/EC (European Union Directive) [3] The amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills must be reduced to 75% of the total amount (by
weight) produced in 1995.
2008 Directive 2008/98/EC (European Union Directive) [4] Definition of 'bio-waste' as "biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households,
restaurants, caterers and retail premises and comparable waste from food processing plants”. Moreover,
member states commit to encouraging "the separate collection of bio-waste with a view to the composting and
digestion of bio-waste.”
2012 Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz (KrWG) [5] The government is entitled to set rules for the separation of waste. Leads to separate bio-waste collection in all
German households from January 1st, 2015.
2012 Zu gut für die Tonne! ("Too good for the bin!") [7] Increase awareness regarding the production of food waste, especially in households

211
D. De Clercq et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221

Table 8
Partial list of projects in Germany treating food waste.
Source: [40]

Project location CDW FWC (%) TC (t/y) AT (t/y) MLD (t/y) SBP (N m3/t FM)

Schleswig-Holstein 4 9 17,800 0 80–100

Brandenburg 1 100 30,000 37,600 100–120
Bayern 2 70 35,000 0 > 120
Baden-Württemberg 4 2 6500 0 80–100
Thüringen 3 62 33,202 21,600 > 120
Baden-Württemberg 2 50 5000 0 > 120
Niedersachsen 2 42 33,000 0 > 120
Bayern 3 90 4800 0 > 120
Rheinland-Pfalz 3 7 32,509 0 80–100
Hessen 3 60 17,500 13,000 < 80
Baden-Württemberg 2 70 18,000 18,000 > 120
Bayern 3 25 17,160 0 > 120
Bayern 5 33 18,000 17,000 80–100
Hessen 3 55 18,000 15,000 > 120
Baden-Württemberg 2 27 15,000 0 80–100
Sachsen-Anhalt 3 72 49,676 39,886 100–120
Nordrhein-Westfalen 4 22 17,500 9200 100–120
Brandenburg 3 9 110,000 95,000 < 80
Hessen 3 22 – 0 100–120
Sachsen-Anhalt 5 15 85,000 50,000 80–100
Hamburg 1 100 18,927 20,150 > 120
Brandenburg 1 100 27,523 0 > 120
Brandenburg 5 10 15,500 1500 100–120
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 4 12 16,000 16,000 < 80
Baden-Württemberg 2 50 17,500 0 –
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 1 100 36,000 0 –
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 3 90 58,000 50,000 80–100
Nordrhein-Westfalen 1 100 26,056 26,057 80–100
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 3 25 50,000 40,000 –
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 4 7 76,759 0 –
Niedersachsen 3 47 22,000 22,000 > 120
Bayern 2 49 11,800 9500 > 120
Bayern 2 59 12,000 10,000 > 120
Thüringen 2 65 79,432 60,000 100–120
Bayern 3 1 11,000 0 –
Bayern 2 30 35,000 0 > 120
Sachsen 5 5 21,800 0 100–120
Average (to 2 d.p.) 3 46 44,555 30,526 15,446

Notes: CDW: co-digested wastes. FWC: food waste content. TC: total capacity. AT: actual throughput. MLD: marketed liquid digestate. SBP: specific biogas productivity. FM: fresh
matter (waste).

Table 9
Policies regarding food waste in France, 1978–2014.
Sources: [29,62].

Year Policy name Policy details and objectives

1978 Sanitary ordinance for municipalities 1. Food waste must not be abandoned and open burning of waste is forbidden
1997 Health and sanitary law for contract catering 1. Food waste storage and frequent collection system must been set up in all contract catering restaurants
2009 National plan for waste prevention 2009– 1. Double capacity for bio-waste sorting and recycling over the period
2013 2. Reduce by 7% household waste production over the period
2010 "Grenelle de l′environnement" laws 1. Encourages bio-waste sorting:
2. 45% of household waste recycled
3. 75% of non-hazardous waste generated by economic activities (excluding construction, agriculture and agro-business
sectors) must be recycled
4. Reduction by 15% of waste storage and incineration
2012 Biowaste management law 1. First time the word "bio-waste" is defined in French laws
2. Producer or holder of big volume of waste made of at least 50% of bio-waste must sort and recycle the waste
2014 National plan for waste prevention 2014– 1. Reduce household waste production by 7%
2020 2. Bio-waste management is a priority: promote low-waste gardening; differentiated management of green waste; home-
based management of bio-waste; tools and trainings for local waste management; supporting companies and
municipalities engaged in local waste management
2015 Fighting Food Waste: Proposals for a Public 1. Reduce food waste by 50% by 2025.
Policy 2. Action to be taken by producers, processors, retailers, restaurants and other food system stakeholders.
3. Proposed new models of policy/governance regarding EU and international institutions.

4.4.3. Technological challenges integration of material streams (substrate provision, composting,

Various kinds of feasible technologies for the fermentation of etc.) [63].
biowaste are available on the market. However, the construction of a An increase of CHP would require the extension of small-scale heat-
plant requires location-specific planning in order to improve the exchange infrastructure. Alternatively, existing plants could be up-

212
D. De Clercq et al.
graded to produce biomethane which would then have to be stored,
transported, and converted into electricity at a central facility to avoid
losses in local conversions [42]. Not only the infrastructure necessary
for transport and conversion, but also the upgrades of the plants
themselves would have to be developed further.
5. France
5.1. Food waste background
In France, 20–30 kg/y of FW is produced per person, or approxi-
mately 1.3–1.9 million t/y. However, when if accounting for FW
generated across the entire value chain, from production consumption,
the total FW generated in France is approximately 5.8–9.0 million t/y
[29]. France has a long way to go in terms of recycling waste. Paris, for
instance, recycles only 16% of its MSW, while the rest is incinerated or
landfilled.
5.2. Food waste-to-biogas policy environment
While information on France's general biogas policies are widely
available (refer to IEA Task 37), information on specific policies
regarding food waste bio-gasification are less accessible. Recent
policies in France have been summarized in Table 9.
5.2.1. Strict limits on biowaste that can be generated without
resourcification
Collection of adequate quantities of FW is essential for AD project
operation. In order to meet EU directives on food waste reduction,
France recently adopted a decree that encourages catering waste to be
recycled. In France, for instance, the decree of 12th July 2011 in article
R-543225 of the code of the environment stipulates that producers of
bio-waste and waste oil must put in place source separation of food
waste and engage in resource recovery. The law stipulates a decreasing
threshold for the amount of bio-waste that waste producers can
generate without having it converted into resources. For example, a
caterer that produced 120 t/year of bio-waste and 1500 l/year of waste
oil would not be legally required to have that waste source separated or
converted to resources in 2012 (Fig. 2). By 2016, the rule will apply to
all establishments that produce 10 t/year of bio-waste and 60 l/year of
waste oil; initial estimates show that by 2016 the law will apply to 25–
30% of all caterers [23].
The initial effect of the policy was that about 80 restaurants, in
anticipation of the law's decreasing threshold, have signed up to a Paris
pilot project to collect their waste. The waste gets transported at a cost
of 200 euros/t to Bioenerval, a 40,000 t/y facility which converts the
FW to biogas for cogeneration and to compost.
Fig. 2. Permissible amounts of bio-waste and waste oil without waste-to-resource treatment until 2016 in France.
213
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221
5.3. Status quo of food waste-to-biogas projects
Of the total biogas plant inventory in 2014 of 502 facilities, only 11
(2.2%) were treating MSW. However, food-derived wastes are pre-
dicted to become a more important contributor to the total waste-
derived biogas output by 2030. By 2030, 202,500 GW h/y of biogas is
forecast to be generated, with 15.8% deriving from MSW, the agro-food
industry or kitchen waste/supermarket waste. These projects are
summarized in Table 10.
5.4. Remaining policy-level and project-level challenges for food
waste treatment in France
5.4.1. Lack of source separation
France, similar to the other case countries in this article, is facing
severe issues regarding food waste source separation. As a results, in
recent years some projects have adopted mechanical-biological separa-
tion technology on project sites. However, out of the 11 projects that
treat MSW, only four employ this technology. Moreover, according to
the head of the waste prevention and management service at the
French Environment and Energy Management Agency, there are more
installations that operate badly than well [90]. Similarly, agricultural
biogas plants that co-digest agri-wastes with food waste from nearby
canteens often encounter unwanted objects such as spoons and yogurt
pots.
5.4.2. Lack of a common European policy and underdeveloped biogas
sector leads to waste escaping France
Significant amounts of waste with high methane potential are
leaving French borders to Belgium and Germany, where biogas projects
receive higher electricity tariffs (30 c€/kW h maximum) compared to
France (20 c€/kW h maximum) [90]. Biogas projects in these neigh-
boring countries can afford to pay more to acquire this waste, leaving
French domestic biogas projects with a waste shortage. This problem
has been acknowledged by the French Minister of Agriculture, and also
private sector companies like Veolia [11], which has raised the
possibility of making a formal complaint at the EU level.
6. The United Kingdom
6.1. Food waste background
15 million tonnes (Mt) of food and drink was wasted in the food
chain in 2011–2012 in the UK; of this amount, 7 Mt were derived from
households. Furthermore, of the 7 Mt of household food and drink
waste, 1.6 Mt were unavoidable, 1.2 Mt were possibly avoidable and
4.2 Mt were avoidable [17].
D. De Clercq et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221

Table 10
Partial list of food waste projects in France.

Project name Year Waste Capacity (t/d) BP (N m3/y) DC (m3) SFP (N m3/m3)

Etampes 2012 FW 110 13,973 8000 1.75

Arras 2012 FW, MSW, AG 68 – – –
Passel 2009 FW, AG 104 12,329 6000 2.05
Saint-Gilles-du-Mené 2010 AG 205 15,068 6000 2.51
Auch 2014 FW, AG, MSW 121 10,137 – –
Ecuelles 2016 FW, AG, MSW 82 – – –
Calais 2006 MSW, AG 82 8688 3100 2.80
Ribeauvillé 2012 FW, AG, MSW 75 10,959 8000 1.37
Varennes Jarcy 2002 FW, MSW 274 7671 12,900 0.59
Noirlieu 2015 FW, AG 199 27,397 10,000 2.74
Issé 2012 FW, AG 159 – – –

The collection of food waste for recycling has steadily been
increasing over the years. In 2012, 537,000 t of food waste, represent-
ing 12% of the total food waste amount, was collected by local
authorities to be recycled. This represents a 690% increase over the
68,000 t of FW collected 2006, which was only 1% of total FW amount
[17,89].
6.2. Food waste-to-biogas policy environment
The UK Government's Structural Reform Plans of July 16th, 2010
were designed to “set out steps to promote increased energy from waste
through anaerobic digestion”. The UK Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) estimated that the potential for AD to
provide heat and electricity in the UK is between 3 and 5 TW h by
2020.
Currently, the UK's major policy mechanism driving AD plant
growth has been the feed-in tariff (FIT), which provides a predictable
level of return for renewable energy installations. In addition to
financial incentives for power generation, in 2010 the UK government
introduced the Quality Protocol for AD digestate, with digestate being
labelled “bio-fertilizer”, provided that it is produced using source-
separated feedstock, meets PAS 110 standards, and is destined for use
in specific market sectors. Moreover, the UK has also implemented the
Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) in November 2011 which aims to
bridge the gap between the cost of fossil fuel for heat installations and
renewable heat alternatives. For food waste specifically, the Waste
Reduction Action Plan (WRAP) established a loan fund in 2011 which
supports the construction of food waste digesters with loans of up to 1
million GBP [51].
6.3. Status quo of food waste-to-biogas projects
There are 91 food waste AD facilities operational in the U.K. [54]
which is 31.9% of the 285 CE plants treating biowaste, agricultural
waste and industrial waste (not including landfills and sewage sludge)
[51]. Table 11 shows a partial list of these food waste-based biogas
plants. The 30 projects listed have an average waste input of 39,783 t/y
and an average electrical capacity of 1,529 kWe.
6.4. Remaining policy-level and project-level challenges for food
waste treatment in the United Kingdom
Despite advances in the development of food waste biogas plants,
many challenges remain for the conversion of food waste to biogas.
Bates [3] identified 12 risks across there categories, shown in Table 12.
The policy challenges identified are similar to those faced by China,
Korea, France and Germany.
7. The United States
7.1. Food waste background
Americans throw out more food than any type of waste. The total
amount of FW in the U.S. is estimated at between 30% and 40% of the
total food supply in the country. Approximately 60 million metric tons
of food goes to waste each year in the U.S., with a value of about $162
billion. 53% of that amount, or 32 million metric tons, ends up in
municipal landfills, costing local governments $1.5 billion per year
[64]. On a household level, the average family of four wastes more than
two million calories of food each year, worth about $1500 [81].
7.2. Food waste-to-biogas policy environment
In September 2015, the USDA and US EPA jointly announced the
US’ groundbreaking target of reducing FW by 50% by 2030. Under this
initiative, the US federal government will take the lead in forming
partnerships with charities, faith-based organizations, local/state gov-
ernments and the private sector to reduce food waste [82]. Many
private/public sector organizations such as Kellogg Company, Sodexo
and the World Resources Institute have voiced support for the
ambitious imitative.
One major policy contributing to the momentum in achieving FW
management goals in the U.S. in recent years is the U.S. Food Waste
Challenge, announced jointly by the USDA and the US EPA in 2013.
This initiative calls upon stakeholders across the food chain to engage
in three main efforts: (a) reduction of FW (via improved product
development, labelling, storage, cooking methods, etc.); (b) recovery of
FW (by directing wasted food to hunger relief organizations such as
food banks); and (c) recycling of FW (to feed animals, create compost/
natural fertilizer, and produce bioenergy). The initial goal was to
include 1000 partner organizations under this initiative by 2020;
however, by 2014, the Food Waste Challenge had over 4000 active
participants, well surpassing the initial objective [81].
The US EPA estimates enough electricity could be generated to
supply 2.5 million homes per year if 50% of FW in the US was treated
via AD. However, the U.S. currently does not have a focused, nation-
wide effort to promote the anaerobic digestion of FW on the scale seen
in countries such as China, where the government is actively involved
in scaling-up FW treatment via AD. Nevertheless, several initiatives
exist on a federal level, and also on an individual state level. On a
federal level, the US EPA has provided support such as biogas plant
manuals, technical assistance, case studies, etc. State governments
have also implemented some specific initiatives. Some recent impor-
tant/relevant examples are in Table 13.
7.3. Status quo of food waste-to-biogas projects
The US EPA publishes data on operational anaerobic digesters
across the country (US EPA 2016), most recently updated in May 2016

214
D. De Clercq et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221

Table 11
Partial list of food waste treatment AD projects in the United Kingdom.

Project/developer Year built Feedstock Input (t/y) Energy output (kWe) Biogas end use

Rothwell Lodge / FW 30,000 499 CHP

AC Shropshire 2013 LM, FW 86,000 2000 /
Adnams Bio Energ 2010 IOW, FW 12,500 548 Biomethane grid injection
APS Salads 2008 FW 15,000 75 /
Tamar Energy 2013 LM, FW 40,000 1500 CHP
Bygrave Lodge Farm 2014 FW 45,000 2000 CHP
Battle Farm (Agrivert Ltd) 2013 FW, SIL 45,000 2400 /
Biogen Gwyri AD Plant / FW 11,500 500 CHP
Bourne Park Estate 2013 LM, FW 37,500 1200 /
Branston AD Plant 2009 FW 10,000 400 /
Brocklesby Ltd 2013 EFF, FW, WO 40,000 / /
Cannington Bio-Energy 2009 CR, FW 50,000 1300 /
Cassington AD Facility 2010 FW 45,000 2100 /
Ceder Energy Ltd. 2011 LM, FW 25,000 495 CHP
Codford Biogas 2014 IOW, LM, FW 45,000 3000 CHP
Coleshill 2015 CR, FW 48,500 2400 CHP
Cory Environmental (Glos) Ltd / FW 12,000 500 CHP
Deerdykes Facility 2009 IOW, LM, FW 30,000 1000 /
Fairfield Bio Energy (FBE) 2014 FW 25,000 / Biomethane grid injection
Fernbrook Bio 2010 LM, FW 30,000 500 /
Oxford Renewable Energy Ltd 2010 LM, FW 45,000 2100 /
Rogerstone 2009 IOW, FW 8500 500 /
Sandhill Biogas Plant (GWE) 2010 FW 50,000 2100 /
SSE Barkip Biogas 2011 FW 75,000 2200 /
South Shropshire District Council 2006 FW 5000 200 CHP
TEG Dagenham 2014 FW 30,000 1400 CHP
Twinwoods 2005 LM, FW 42,000 700 /
Walpole Landfill Site / FW 45,000 1000 CHP
Poplars AD Plant 2011 FW 120,000 6000 /
PDM Group (Granox) 2014 FW 90000 4200 CHP

at the time of this publication. Based on their most recent dataset, there
are currently 258 operational agricultural anaerobic digesters in the
US, of which 44 (17%) include food waste as a co-digested waste input.
The chart below provides details on the digesters involved in treating
food waste. Projects are classified by state, type (digester type), year put
into operation, animal type (the primary type of animal waste being
treated), co-digestion (the types of waste being co-treated), biogas
output, biogas end use, and methane emissions reductions (MER) as a
result of the plants’ operation. Data on these plants is shown in
Table 14.
Of the 44 projects where FW is co-digested, the major digester
technology type is complete mix (59%), followed by mixed plug flow
(30%), horizontal plug flow (9%), and covered lagoon (2%). The top 3
leading states with regard to amount of FW co-digestion projects are
Pennsylvania (13 projects), Washington (7 projects), and New York (5
projects).
Regarding the biogas end-use, out of the 44 projects, 20 projects
employed cogeneration (45%); 17 projects produced electricity only
(39%); 2 projects employed boiler/furnace fuel only (5%); 2 projects
flared biogas only (5%); 1 project produced both electricity and CNG
(2%); 1 project produced both electricity and boiler/furnace fuel (2%);
and 1 project produced electricity, boiler/furnace fuel and CNG (2%).
7.4. Remaining policy-level and project-level challenges for food
waste treatment in the United States
One major issue regarding US FW management plans is the non-
binding nature of federal government initiatives. Led by the USDA and
the US EPA, the federal government seeks to build partnerships with
various organizations across the country to reduce FW. However, these
partnerships are non-binding, and currently there are no plans for
serious, nationally implemented fines (as is the case in France) for FW
value chain stakeholders who fail to meet government objectives.
Currently, the US EPA has adopted a “carrot” rather than “stick”
approach in incentivizing various organizations to better manage their
FW. For example, the US EPA recently issued “Food Recovery
Challenge Regional Achievement Certificates” to 24 organizations.
For example, in Massachusetts, Salem State University won an award

Table 12
Key barriers to conversion of FW to biogas.
Source: [3].

Constraints that are easy to overcome Constraints of medium difficulty to overcome Constraints of high difficulty to overcome

Perception of risks and uncertainty linked to
bankability of AD projects.
Lack of market experience (would be overcome by
successful demonstration of pilot schemes)
Lack of standards
Planning and licensing requirements
Lack of processing facilities for wastes (Need to
facilitate separate collection of food waste)
Perception of market complexity (markets perceived as complex
by financiers, particularly issues related to grid connection)
Difficulty in obtaining project finance (high return expected due
to lack of experience with AD)
Regulatory and policy uncertainty
Integration into energy supply markets (current use of biogas
restricted by access to heat demands and energy markets).
Competing cost-related feedstock uses
(particularly where waste contracts in place
already)
Returns insufficient (needs generous gate fee,
energy return not sufficient).
Regulatory and policy uncertainty (Quality
standards for after use of residue)

215
D. De Clercq et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221

Table 13
Policies regarding food waste management in the US.
Sources: [80,81,52,10,27,75,76,87].

Year Participants Policy/Initiative Name Policy/Initiative details and objectives

2013 USDA, US EPA Food Waste Challenge 1. Calls upon stakeholders across the food chain, including producers, processors, manufacturers, retailers,
communities, schools, universities, and other government agencies, to invest resources in reducing,
recovering, and recycling food waste.
2. Aims to include 400 partner organizations by 2015 and 1000 partner organizations by 2020.
3. Participants list key activities they will practice to reduce, recover or recycle FW.
4. Partner organizations benefit from technical assistance provided by the EPA to attain specific FW management
goals.
5. Initiative already had 4000 active participants by 2014, surpassing initial goal

2014 Vermont State Universal Recycling Law 1. All residents must divert food scraps from solid waste management facilities by 2020. AD is expected to play a
vital role in processing this organic waste.

2014 Massachusetts State Diversion of organic waste 1. Massachusetts: organizations that dispose of a minimum of one ton of organic waste per week are obliged to
(a) donate usable food and (b) divert remaining food waste to AD projects, composting facilities or animal feed
production.

2014 Rhode Island State Diversion of organic waste 1. Businesses that generate two or more tons of FW per week must divert such waste to AD plants, composting
facilities, or animal feed production.

2014 Connecticut State Source separation 1. Businesses generating large quantities of food scraps are required to source separate such waste, under the
condition that they are located within 20 miles of an accepted treatment facility.

2014 California State Source separation 1. Businesses that generate a minimum stipulated volume of food scraps or yard trimmings are required to
source separate the waste beginning in April 2016 or January 2017, depending on the quantity.

2015 USDA, US EPA 50% food waste reduction goal 1. Federal government leadership in the formation of partnerships with multiple organizations across the food
by 2030 value chain.

for the highest percent increase in FW prevention/diversion by a
college/university. Clark University also won an award for reducing FW
at the source. US EPA [83].
It has yet to be seen whether the non-binding nature of these
agreements and the “carrot” mechanism of reward-based incentives
will allow the US to meet the 2030 target of 50% reduction in FW.
8. Brazil
8.1. Food waste background
In 2012, Brazil's food waste per capita production was 0.17 kg/day
[78], which, based on the 2015 population leads to an estimated
35,334 t per day, or 12,896,968 t per year [81,82], an amount that
could feed approximately 19 million people. The per capita FW
production represents a significant fraction of the total solid waste
generation per capita in Brazil, which is 0.74 kg/day. According to the
Brazilian Company of Agriculture research, 50% of food waste occurs in
factories while food is being processed or transported. Moreover, 30%
is lost in supply centers, while 10% of food losses occur at farm and
producers during harvesting. The remaining 10% losses occur at the
consumer level. This amount represents spoiled food, leftovers, and
eatable parts of the food products, such as vegetable leaves [84].
8.2. Food waste-to-biogas policy environment
The last comprehensive research in Brazil relating to waste manage-
ment was conducted in 2008 by the Brazilian Institute of Geography
and Statistics. The 2008 report found several issues: (a) although
99.6% of Brazilian municipalities had a waste management plan that
year, over half disposed waste in open dumps; (b) only 12% of cities in
Brazil had institutions that sorted recyclable litter from organic waste;
and (c) only 0.61% of Brazilian municipalities had compositing
facilities [35,78,85]. The relative backwardness of Brazil's waste
management prompted the Brazilian government to launch the
National Solid Waste Policy in 2010, which encourages cooperation
between the federal and state governments, municipalities, private
sector and civil society to find waste management solutions.
Several years later, however, more recent studies have demon-
strated that MSW is still not being treated in environmentally sustain-
able ways. For example, landfilling is still the dominant mode of waste
management in some of Brazil's megacities; in Rio de Janeiro, 98% of
MSW is currently landfilled [56], despite the fact that organics
represent 52.68% of the total waste generated in the city [28].
Regarding policy mechanisms to alleviate these problems from an
anaerobic digestion perspective, the Brazilian has few policies con-
cerning conversion of FW to biogas. However, the government has
several initiatives to support biogas on the whole, outlined in Table 15.
One broad initiative is that National Policy on Climate Change, which
aims to use anaerobic digestion to treat 4.4. million m3 of agricultural
residues, providing savings of 6.9 million tons of CO2.
8.3. Status quo of food waste-to-biogas projects
The MSW to biogas industry in Brazil is still largely in its infancy,
and depends heavily on external technology [65]. As of 2014, there
were only two plants operating in Brazil treating food industry waste
with a total installed capacity of 0.9 MW. However, the interest in the
biogas market is steadily growing due to: (a) the huge availability of
biomass waste, including food waste; (b) the 2010 Brazilian National
Policy on Solid Waste, initially planned to enter full force by the end of
2015, and (c) increasing energy prices for fuels such as CNG and LPG
in the last decade in Brazil [21]. Table 16 lists some of the initial biogas
projects in Brazil, including those treating FW.
8.4. Remaining policy-level and project-level challenges for food
waste treatment in the Brazil
Overall, Brazil has a low degree of national coordination in food
waste treatment strategy when compared to countries like China, the
United Kingdom or South Korea. Enhanced strategies for MSW
management are in the early stages.
One potential future challenge is that biogas utilization as a fuel for
electricity generation may be less attractive in Brazil for several

216
D. De Clercq et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221

Table 14
List of projects including food waste treatment in the United States.
Source: US EPA 2016 data.

State Type Year Animal Type Co-Digestion Biogas (m3/d) End Use (s) MER (t CO2E/y)

CA MPF 2014 D AR; BDW; DPW; FOG; FOG; FW; SW; PW N/A C 12,640
ID MPF 2011 D AR; BDW; DPW; FOG; FOG; FW; SW; PW N/A E 120,920
IL HPF 2002 D FOG; FW N/A C 8565
IN MPF 2014 D AR; FW 25,674 E N/A
MA CM 2011 D FW N/A C 3748
ME CM 2011 D FW N/A E 7294
MI CM 2013 D DPW; FOG; FOG; FW 4471 E 1975
NC CL 1997 S FW 792 B/FF 1937
NC CM 1997 S FW N/A B/FF 47
NY HPF 2007 D FW 660 C 932
NY CM 2012 D FW 6102 C 4795
NY CM 2009 D DPW; FW; PW 3292 C 3997
NY CM 2011 D AR; FW 19,697 E 12,609
NY CM 2012 D AR; DPW; FW; PW 5162 E 5286
OH CM 2010 D AR; FW 7075 E; CNG 3114
OH CM 2012 S FW 5686 E; B/FF; CNG 6903
OH CM 2012 D FW; PW N/A E 5200
OR MPF 2012 D AR; BDW; DPW; FOG; FOG; FW; SW; PW N/A E 17,823
OR MPF 2013 D AR; BDW; DPW; FOG; FOG; FW; SW; PW N/A E 23,076
PA HPF 2006 D FW 934 C 1007
PA CM 1986 D FW N/A C 2749
PA HPF 2006 D FW; PW 1251 C 854
PA CM 2009 D FW; PW 6990 C 4954
PA CM 2007 D FW; PW 2547 C 2364
PA CM 2011 D FW N/A E 2328
PA CM 2010 D FW N/A C 1760
PA CM 2011 B; S FW N/A E 951
PA CM 2011 S FW N/A C 11,325
PA CM 2013 D FW; PW 1896 C 2030
PA CM 2013 D FW; PW 4817 C 5792
PA CM 2013 D FW; PW 2229 E 1161
PA CM 2013 D; S; P FW; PW 1389 C 2009
VT CM 2015 D FW N/A C N/A
WA MPF 2009 D AR; BDW; DPW; FOG; FOG; FW; SW; PW N/A E 13,497
WA MPF 2010 D AR; BDW; DPW; FOG; FOG; FW; SW; PW N/A C 16,777
WA MPF 2006 D AR; BDW; DPW; FOG; FOG; FW; SW; PW N/A C 32,091
WA MPF 2008 D AR; BDW; DPW; FOG; FOG; FW; SW; PW N/A E 15,314
WA CM 2011 D DPW; FW N/A E 3469
WA MPF 2012 D AR; BDW; DPW; FOG; FOG; FW; SW; PW N/A E 14,717
WA MPF 2012 D AR; BDW; DPW; FOG; FOG; FW; SW; PW N/A E 20,057
WI MPF N/A D FW; PW N/A E; B/FF 7801
WI CM 2006 D DPW; FOG; FW; SW 82,296 F 6426
WI CM 2005 D FW; PW N/A F 1509
WI MPF 2007 D FW 10,273 C 10,629

Notes:
In the “Project Type” column, CM: Complete Mix; MPF = Mixed Plug Flow; CL = Covered Lagoon; HPF = Horizontal Plug Flow
In the “Animal Type” column, D = Dairy, S = Swine, P = Poultry, B = Beef.
In the “Co-digestion” column, AR = Agricultural Residues; BDW = Beverage & Distillery Waste; DPW = dairy processing waste; FOG = Fats, oils & grease; FW = Food waste; SW =
Slaughterhouse waste; PW = Process Water
In the “Biogas end-use” column, C = Cogeneration; E = Electricity; B/FF = Boiler/Furnace Fuel; F = Flared; CNG = Compressed Natural Gas.

reasons: (a) guaranteed, fixed feed-in tariffs are non-existent for
renewable energy in brazil; (b) there is constant variation in electricity
prices in Brazil, and often below break-even points for biogas plants;
(c) Brazil already produces 74% of its overall electricity with hydro-
power [21].
9. Cross-country analysis
This research has provided a comprehensive update of develop-
ments in food waste-to-biogas treatment via anaerobic digestion across
five major global economies. Based on a four-step analysis that focuses
on each country's (1) food waste background, (2) food-waste-to-biogas
policy environment, (3) status quo of food waste-to-biogas projects and
(4) future policy/project-level challenges, we found that each surveyed
country has unique strengths and weaknesses in their policy structure.
Table 17 summarizes the main key findings of our review.
Table 18 summarizes what the authors deemed to be some of the
best practices and also problems associated with the conversion of FW
to biogas. This analysis may provide useful insights to policymakers,
the private sector and also research institutes regarding how FW might
best be converted into biogas via AD around the world. Developing
countries who are seeking to build-up FW-to-biogas sectors of their
own may learn from the countries analyzed in this research and draw
upon experiences that correspond most closely to their own domestic
situation.
The geographic scope of the study should be helpful for developing
country policymakers to implement strategies based on domestic
realities. Moreover, policymakers should focus on addressing high-
impact challenges that appear to be a common issue in several
countries. Lack of source separation, for instance, is an important
obstacle to optimal project operation faced by both China and France.
Such common cross-country issues indicate a certain degree of

217
D. De Clercq et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221

Table 15
Policies regarding food waste management in the US.
Sources: [14,28,18,21].

Year Participants Policy/Initiative Name Policy/Initiative details and objectives

2010 Brazilian government National Policy on Solid 1. Closure of all open dumps by the year 2014.
Waste 2. Separation/collection of wet organic waste and recyclable waste are aimed at 53% and 36%
respectively by 2031.
3. Law defines environmentally friendly final disposal as waste disposal that includes reuse, recycling,
composting, recovery, and energy recovery or other destinations that avoid damage or risks to
public health and safety and minimize adverse environmental impacts.

2012 National electric energy agency R & D program 1. Technical and trade arrangements for inset generation for electric energy produced by biogas from
landfill and wastewater in the Brazilian energy matrix.

2013 Financier of Studies and Strategic investments into 1. Strategic investments into innovation in energy, agriculture, and sustainability.
Projects (FINEP) innovation

2014 Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Resolution number 1807 1. Approves the auction f contracts for the supply of energy from biomass/energy, among other
Agency renewable sources.
2. This bioenergy may be generated from municipal solid waste, biogas, biogas from landfills, and also
biogas plants treating animal waste.

Table 16 concerns due to less technological expertise when compared to

List of projects including food waste treatment in the Brazil.
Source: [21].
Substrate Number of plants Installed capacity (MW)
Landfill gas 7 77
Wastewater 3 4
Manure 10 2
Food industry 2 0.9
Total 22 84
difficulty in resolving these issues, so they must be addressed seriously
by both the private sector and public sector before resolving more
trivial issues.
China and South Korea provide startling examples of how devel-
oping countries can rapidly accelerate the construction of FW-to-biogas
plants. The Chinese government's focused national planning of this
sector has resulted in the construction of dozens of operational projects
in the space of just a few years. Moreover, the pilot-city based
approach, which has aimed to build pilot projects across the country,
is resulting in the balanced development of biogas projects across the
nation, rather than just in one specific region. Moreover, the Chinese
government, universities, and private corporations often work closely
together to implement biogas projects, providing strong foundations
for the sustainable development of this sector. In China, this rapid
scale-up has partly come about due to urgent necessity: China produces
colossal amounts of FW which pose a significant environmental threat.
South Korea, which although has taken a slightly less centralized-
planning approach compared to China, has also seen heavy govern-
ment involvement in the building of biogas projects and the setting of
ambitious national targets, and has achieved similar successes in
rapidly scaling up FW treatment capacity across the country. Both
China and South Korea, however, suffer from engineering quality
European countries such as Germany, France, or Sweden. Many biogas
projects in these countries have sourced components from abroad. In
China, however, vertically integrated companies that are capable of not
only building/operating projects but also producing high-quality
equipment are emerging. In South Korea, the government successfully
implemented FW reduction policies, which provide an important
lesson for other countries attempting to reduce waste as well as convert
the unavoidable remainder into useful resources.
France, Germany and the United Kingdom have implemented
balanced subsidy mechanisms from the perspective of incentivizing
biogas plants to produce a diverse range of outputs, for example the
production of electricity, heat and bio-fertilizer. This is one policy area
in which countries like China, the United States and Brazil are lacking.
Incentivizing project operators to produce a diverse range of outputs is
vital to ensure revenue stability in the face of market shocks.
10. Conclusion
This study presented a detailed assessment of the status quo
regarding the conversion of food waste to biogas in 7 countries across
the world, covering 3 continents: China, Korea, Germany, France, the
United Kingdom, the United States, and Brazil. The research provided
a structured analysis focusing on each country's (1) food waste back-
ground, (2) food-waste-to-biogas policy environment, (3) status quo of
food waste-to-biogas projects and (4) future policy/project-level chal-
lenges. The geographic breadth of the case studies, and the best
practices and challenges identified for each country, should prove
highly useful for policy-makers in developing countries who are seeking
to enhance food waste management via anaerobic treatment methods.
This research provides a foundation for further analysis into how
specific countries can promote the construction of a healthy food

Table 17
Cross-country summary of FW generation, policy modes and operational projects with some FW input.
Sources: [97,43,40,17,64,79], Garot (2015).

Country FW generation estimate Primary policy mode Operational projects with FW input

China 169 million tons (2013) Focused national planning At least 46 (2014)
South Korea 4.82 million tons (2012) National coordination and incentive schemes At least 31 (2015)
Germany 4–5 million tons (2014) Incentive schemes At least 38 (2015)
France 5.8–9.0 million tons (2015) National coordination and incentive schemes At least 11 (2014)
United Kingdom 15 million tons (2012) National coordination and incentive schemes At least 30 (2015)
United States 60 million tons (2015) Incentive schemes At least 44 (2016)
Brazil 12.9 million tons (2015) National targets At least 2 (2015)

218
D. De Clercq et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221

Table 18
Major best practices and challenges faced across the studied regions.

Best practices/problems Relevant countries Implication for developing country policy-makers

Best practice: pilot-based national sector development
Best practice: volume-based billing
Best practice: build-up of co-digestion projects
Best practice: obligation of large bio-waste producers to
send their waste to resourcification channels
Best practice: Balanced incentive subsidy mechanisms
that promote marketization of various outputs
Best practice: strong technical support and information
platforms for project developers.
Problem: lack of source separation
Problem: cross-border waste treatment and inadequate
waste pricing
Problem: Heavy reliance on subsidies
Problem: lack of adequate standards
Lack of national planning
China, South Korea 1. Strong government coordination of pilot projects can ensure that best practices are
replicated and errors reduced.
2. Balanced regional development of food waste treatment plants.
South Korea 1. Achieves the double-benefit of waste reduction and enhanced waste separation.
South Korea, France, 1. Both the private sector and public sector must bear in mind that biogas yields can
Germany increase significantly with co-digestion of various substrates.
France 1. Targeting major waste producers can quickly alleviate waste management challenges,
since their food waste will be more concentrated. Mandatory bio-waste treatment for
catering enterprises can rapidly redirect food waste away from landfills and into AD
facilities
United Kingdom, South 1. Combination of feed-in tariffs, heat use subsidies and incentives for digestate utilization
Korea, France mean that biogas project developers/operators are incentivized to minimize financial
risk of projects by having multiple revenue sources.
United States, United 1. The US EPA's agStar program provides a wealth of information to project developers,
Kingdom for instance how to conduct feasibility studies, the details on the benefits of co-
digestion, tools for economic modelling of biogas plants, etc. These resources are
especially useful where food waste is being considered as a co-digested substrate. This
greatly enhances the ability of project to operate efficiently through strong planning
before construction. The UK has similar easily accessible resources on the data.gov.uk
website.
France, China, Brazil, 1. Contamination of organic waste with non-organic matter can hinder project operation.
United States Governments must enforce source separation and project developers can be subsidized
for advanced separation equipment.
France, China 1. Domestic/regional policy schemes must factor in financial support schemes of
neighboring regions to ensure that local FW treatment plants can remain competitive
and avoid waste shortages.
2. Lack of government control over the pricing of waste to be treated can significantly hurt
the economic performance of treatment facilities.
China, France, UK, 1. Subsidy schemes should emphasize operational performance rather than construction
grants in order to incentivize healthy long-term project operation.
China 1. Nationwide operational management standards, supervision mechanisms, and
performance evaluation systems should be implemented to ensure sustainable sector
development.
Brazil 1. Weak government coordination in promoting new waste management technologies
means that traditional modes of treatment such as landfill will continue to dominate
waste management.

waste-to-biogas system with robust policies. One key limitation in this
article, however, is that an in-depth study of the applicability of the
mentioned policies to specific developing country case studies has not
been conducted. Future research should thus be targeted at examining
feasible national strategies via an in-depth case-study approach which
takes local economic, social and environmental circumstances into
account.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the
National Key Research & Development Program of China
(2016YFC0502802, 2011BAC06B10), National Natural Science Fund
for Outstanding Young Scholars of China (71522011) and special fund
of State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution
Control (15L02ESPC). The contents of this paper reflect the views of
the authors and do not necessarily indicate acceptance by the sponsors.
References
[1] Agyeman FO, Tao W. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and dairy manure:
effects of food waste particle size and organic loading rate. J Environ Manag
2014;133:268–74.
[2] Appel F, Ostermeyer-Wiethaup A, Balmann A. Effects of the German Renewable
Energy Act on structural change in Agriculture – the case of biogas. Uti Policy
2016.
[3] Bates J. Biomethane for transport from landfill and anaerobic digestion.
RICARDO-AEA 2015:1–33, [Available at] 〈https://www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416002/biomethane-for-
transport.pdf〉.
[4] Bern Linke Leibniz-Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim.
Country report, Germany. In: IEA Bioenergy Task 37, Berlin, Germany; Oct 29–
30. 2015.
[5] BLLIE (Bernd Linke Leibniz-Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-
Bornim). Germany country report. In: IEA Bioenergy Task 37 Country Reports Oct
29–30; Berlin, Germany; 2015.
[6] Bi Z. [2014 kitchen food waste treatment progress report]. Solid Waste Observer;
2015. [Chinese].
[7] Biofuel Sustainability Ordinance (BSO) of 30 September. (I, p. 3182), last
amended by Article 334 of Regulation of 31 August 2015 (I, p. 1474); 2009.
[8] BESR. German biomass electricity sustainability regulation of 23 July 2009 (I, p.
2174), last amended by Article 3 of the Law of 20 November (I, p. 1740); 2014.
[9] BO. Biowaste Ordinance in the version published on 4 April (I, p. 658), last
amended by Article 5 of the Regulation of 5 December 2013 (I, p. 4043); 2013.
[10] CLI. California Legislative Information. Assembly Bill No. 1826: solid waste;
organic waste. Legislative Counsel’s Digest; 2014.
[11] Chauvot M. [France has a waste shortage for methanization]. Les Echos. French;
2014.
[12] CFWN. Tianjin: the establishment of a sound food waste disposal system. China
Food Waste Network; 2015.
[13] China Statistical Yearbook; 2016. Available from: 〈http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/
ndsj/2016/indexch.htm〉.
[14] Corsten MAM, Worrell E, Van CM. The potential for waste management in Brazil
to minimize GHG emissions and maximize re-use of materials. Arnhem, The
Netherlands: Utrecht University; 2012, [Available from] 〈http://www.abrelpe.org.
br/arqfonts/The%20potential%20for%20Waste%20Management%20in%20Brazil
%20to%20Minimize%20GHG%20emissions%20and%20Maximize%20Re-use
%20of%20Materials.pdf〉.
[15] Cynthia OB, Keat Teong L, Moses M. The prospects of electricity generation from
municipal solid waste (MSW) in Ghana: a better waste management option. Fuel
Process Technol 2013;110:94–102.
[16] De Clercq D, Wen Z, Fan F, Caicedo L. Biomethane production potential from
restaurant food waste in megacities and project level-bottlenecks: a case study in
Beijing. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2016;59:1676–85.
[17] DEFRA (Department for Environmental Food & Rural Affairs). Food statistics
pocketbook; 2014. Available from (〈https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/
food-statistics-pocketbook-2014〉).
[18] Deus RM, Battistelle RAG, Silva GHR. Current and future environmental impact
of household solid waste management scenarios for a region of Brazil: carbon
dioxide and energy analysis. J Clean Prod 2016:158.
[19] Dung TNB, Sen B, Chen CC, Kumar G, Lin CY. Food waste to bioenergy via
anaerobic processes. Energy Procedia 2014;61:307–12.
[20] EC. Directive 2009/28/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council of 23

219
D. De Clercq et al.
April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and
amending and subsequently repealing directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.
Off J Eur Union; 2009.
[21] Esparta ARJ. Technical assistance to the low carbon business action in Brazil:
mapping report Part 2 – biogas and biomethane. Service Contract for European
Union External Actions. Report No.: PI/2015/363-952. Contract No.: EuropeAid/
136478/DH/SER/BR; 2016.
[22] FAO, Food Wastage Footprint. Impacts on natural resources; 2013. Available
from: 〈http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf〉.
[23] ADEME (French Environment and Energy Management Agency). National report
on biogas projects. ADEME; 2013. Available from: 〈http://www.ademe.fr/
entreprises-monde-agricole/reduire-impacts/produire-utiliser-energies-
renouvelables/energies-renouvelables-electriques/dossier/production-
delectricite/cogeneration-biogaz〉.
[24] George DAR, Lin BC, Chen Y. A circular economy model of economic growth.
Environ Modell Softw 2015;73:60–3.
[25] Gelsenwasser A. Cooperation project sustainable biogas at the lower Rhine – a
decentralised, cooperative and sustainable biogas feed-in system. Energ-Wasser
2010:56–62.
[26] GIZ. Closing plenary discussion about large scale biogas plant development in
China. In: GIZ/FECC training VII on ‘Performance and Support Policy of Biogas
Energy generating Biogas Plants' for biogas plant designers and decision makers,
No. 4; 2012.
[27] GMI, Global Methane Initiative Agricultural Subcommittee. A global perspective
of anaerobic digestion policies and incentives. Global Methane Initiative; 2014.
Available from: 〈https://www.globalmethane.org/documents/tools/A-Global-
Perspective-of-AD-Policies-Incentives.pdf〉.
[28] Goulart Coelho LM, Lange LC. Applying life cycle assessment to support
environmentally sustainable waste management strategies in Brazil. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2016.
[29] Guillaume Garrot. Fighting food waste: proposals for public policy. Office of the
Deputy of Mayenne; 2015. Available from: 〈http://www.
ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/154000257.pdf〉.
[30] Hobson K, Lynch N. Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: radical
social transformation in a resource-scarce world. Futures 2016;82:15–25.
[31] Hoornweg D, Gianelli N. Managing municipal solid waste in Latin America and
the Caribbean. Gridlines; 2007. Available from: 〈https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/10639/
417030LAC0Muni1ridlines02801PUBLIC1.pdf?Sequence=1 & isAllowed=y〉.
[32] Halloran A, Clement J, Kornum N, Bucatariu C, Magid J. Addressing food waste
reduction in Denmark. Food Policy 2014;49(Part 1):294–301.
[33] Hong I, Park S, Lee B, Lee J, Jeong D, Park S. IoT-Based smart garbage system for
efficient food waste management. Sci World J 2014.
[34] Iacovidou E, Ohandja DG, Voulvoulis N. Food waste disposal units in UK
households: the need for policy intervention. Sci Total Environ 2012;423:1–7.
[35] IEAR, Institute of Applied Economic Research. Diagnosis of municipal solid waste.
IPEA Brasilia; 2012.
[36] Jang J. Exploring opportunities for biogas as a vehicle fuel in South Korea:
learning from Sweden. IIIEE Theses; 2009. Available from: 〈http://lup.lub.lu.se/
luur/download?Func=downloadFile & recordOId=1512554 & fileOId=1512560〉.
[37] Jiang X, Sommer SG, Christensen KV. A review of the biogas industry in China.
Energy Policy 2011;39(10):6073–81.
[38] Kang H. South Korea country report. IEA Bioenergy Task 37. In: IEA Bioenergy
Task 37 country reports; 2013. Available from: 〈http://www.iea-biogas.net/
country-reports.html〉.
[39] Kang H. South Korea country report. IEA Bioenergy Task 37. In: IEA Bioenergy
Task 37 country reports; 2015. Available from: 〈http://www.iea-biogas.net/
country-reports.html〉.
[40] Kern M, Thomas R. Biogas-Atlas 2014/15 – investment guide of fermentation of
organic waste in Germany and Europe. Witzenhausen, Germany: Witzenhausen-
Institute; 2015.
[41] Kim YS, Yoon YM, Kim CH, Giersdorf J. Status of biogas technologies and policies
in South Korea. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2012;16:3430–8.
[42] Position Paper KLU. Dessau-Roßlau: on the future of biogas generation and
utilisation – suggestions for comprehensive ecological improvement. Agriculture
Commission at the German Federal Environment Agency (KLU); 2013.
[43] KMOE, Korea Ministry of Environment. Special management plan for prohibition
of food waste leachate dumping in the sea; 2013.
[44] Li R, Chen S, Li X. Biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste
with dairy manure in a two-phase digestion system. Appl Biochem Biotech
2010;160:643–54.
[45] Li E, Li A. Standard chartered equity research: capital environment holdings –
time to get excited about this rising waste player. Stand Chart 2014.
[46] Lin J, Zuo JE, Gan LL, Li P, Lin FL, Wang KJ, et al. Effects of mixture ratio on
anaerobic co-digestion with fruit and vegetable waste and food waste of China. J
Environ Sci 2011;23(8):5.
[47] Liu G, Zhang R, El-Mashad HM, Dong R. Effect of feed to inoculum ratios on
biogas yields of food and green wastes. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:5103–8.
[48] Liu X, Gao X, Wang W, Zheng L, Zhou Y, Sun Y. Pilot-scale anaerobic co-digestion
of municipal biomass waste: focusing on biogas production and GHG reduction.
Renew Energy 2012;44(0):463–8.
[49] Liu X, Gao X, Wang W, Zheng L, Zhou Y, Sun Y. Pilot-scale anaerobic co-digestion
of municipal biomass waste: focusing on biogas production and GHG reduction.
Renew Energy 2012;44(0):463–8.
[50] Lu H, Yan J, Xue B, Heck P. Cooperation challenges of developing centralized
biogas plant in China – a material flow management approach. Int J Energy Sci
220
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221
2013:3.
[51] Lukehurst C. UK country report. IEA Bioenergy Task 37. In: IEA Bioenergy Task
37 country reports; 2015. Available from: 〈http://www.iea-biogas.net/country-
reports.html〉.
[52] MassDEP, Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection. Revised
guidance for solid waste handling and disposal facilities on compliance with
MassDEP’s waste bans. In: Support of 310 CMR 19.000, Solid Waste Management
Regulations, 310 CMR 19.017 Waste Bans; April 2014.
[53] MEP, (China Ministry of Environmental Protection). On the strengthening of
comprehensive solid waste disposal and pollution control work. MEP; 2010.
[Chinese].
[54] Morton C. Anaerobic digestion in The UK—2015 update. BioCycle 2015;56:43.
[55] MTT. From waste to traffic fuel project, final report: Finnish case regions. Agrifood
Research Finland; 2012. Available from: 〈http://www.mtt.fi/mttraportti/pdf/
mttraportti50.pdf〉.
[56] MSERJ, Municipal Secretary of environment of Rio de Janeiro. Preliminary
diagnosis of solid waste management in the city of Rio De Janeiro. MSERJ; 2015.
[57] NDRC, National Development and Reform Commission. The general office of the
state development and reform commission and other departments on the
organization to carry out urban food kitchen waste recycling and safe disposal of
experimental work notice". National Development and Reform Commission,
Central Information Office; 2010. [Chinese].
[58] NDRC. National economic and social development twelfth five-year plan People’s
Republic of China; 2011. [Chinese].
[59] NDRC, National Development and Reform Commission. Recycling economy
development special funds to support the FW recycling and safe disposal of the
pilot city construction plan; 2011. [Chinese].
[60] NDRC, National Development and Reform Commission. 12th FYP Integrated
energy conservation program of work; 2011. [Chinese].
[61] NDRC, National Development and Reform Commission. The fifth-recommended
food kitchen waste recycling and safe disposal alternative pilot cities; 2015.
[Chinese].
[62] NRDC, Natural Resources Defence Council. France moves toward a national policy
against food waste. NRDC; 2015. Available from: 〈https://www.nrdc.org/sites/
default/files/france-food-waste-policy-report.pdf〉.
[63] Nelles M. Technical challenges for biogas production. In: Proceedings of the
international symposium biogas goes (Far) East. BiogasWorld, Berlin; 2014.
Available from: 〈http://www.biogasworld.de/Downloads/DBFZprogram_english.
pdf〉.
[64] Nixon R. Food waste is becoming serious economic and environmental issues,
report says. New York Times; 2015 Feb 26. Available from: 〈http://www.nytimes.
com/2015/02/26/us/food-waste-is-becoming-serious-economic-and-
environmental-issue-report-says.html〉.
[65] Quadros R, Santos GV, Tavares AN, Bajay SV. Brazilian research in municipal
solid waste biogas: how large is it and how far has it gone? In: Proceedings of the
30th international conference on solid waste technology and management,
Philadelphia, USA; 2015.
[66] Recycling and Waste Act. (Act on the Promotion of recycling and ensuring the
environmentally friendly disposal of waste) Article 1 of the Law of 27.09.1994
(BGBl. 2705) repealed entered because the Law of 24.02.2012 (I, p. 212) MWV 01.
06; 2012.
[67] Recycling Law. (Law to promote recycling and ensuring the environmentally
friendly management of waste) Article 1 of the Law of 24.02 (I, p. 212), entered
into force on 01.03.2012 and 01.06.2012 as last amended by Act of 20:11 .2015 (I,
p. 2071) MWV 11/26/2015; 2012.
[68] Shin DY, Cho HU, Utomo JC, Choi YN, Xu X, Park JM. Biodiesel production from
Scenedesmus bijuga grown in anaerobically digested food wastewater effluent.
Bioresour Technol 2015;184:215–21.
[69] Singh J, Ordoñez I. Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: important
lessons for the upcoming circular economy. J Clean Prod 2016;134:342–53.
[70] Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, et al.
Intergovernmental panel on climate change. climate change 2007: the physical
science basis; contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of
the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press: New
York; 2007.
[71] State Council. On strengthening food kitchen waste oil remediation and waste
management opinions. China State Council; 2010. [Chinese].
[72] State Council. Notice on further strengthening of the municipal solid waste
disposal work. China State Council; 2011. [Chinese].
[73] State Council. Notice on the 12th FYP on national municipal solid waste treatment
facilities construction plan. China State Council; 2012. [Chinese].
[74] State Council. Notice on accelerating the development of energy-saving environ-
mental protection industry and opinions. China State Council; 2013. [Chinese].
[75] SC, State of Connecticut. Chapter 446d: solid waste management. Connecticut
General Assembly; 2014.
[76] SRI, State of Rhode Island. An Act Relating to Health and Safety – Food Residuals
Recycling. General Assembly January Session, House Environment and Natural
Resources; 2014.
[77] Ogwueleka TC. Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Nigeria.
Iran J Environ Heal 2009;6(3):173–80.
[78] Thi NBD, Kumar G, Lin CY. An overview of food waste management in developing
countries: current status and future perspective. J Environ Manag
2015;157:220–9.
[79] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population division.
world population prospects, the 2015 Revision. United Nations; 2015. Available
from: 〈http://esa.un.org/wpp/〉.
D. De Clercq et al.
[80] USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). USDA and EPA launch U.S.
food waste challenge: calls on both public sector and private industry to reduce
food waste. USDA Office of Communications; 2013. Available from: 〈http://www.
usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?Contentid=2013/06/0112.xml〉.
[81] USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). USDA and EPA join with private
sector, charitable organizations to set nation’s first food waste reduction goals.
USDA Office of Communications; 2015. Available from: 〈http://www.usda.gov/
wps/portal/usda/usdahome?Contentid=2015/09/0257.xml〉.
[82] USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Food retailers, agriculture
industry, and charitable organizations support first national goal to reduce food
waste by 50% by 2030. USDA Office of Communications; 2015. Available from:
〈http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?Contentid=2015/09/0258.
xml & navid=NEWS_RELEASE & navtype=RT & parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES
& edeployment_action=retrievecontent〉.
[83] US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). New England institu-
tions recognized for diverting food waste. US EPA News Releases; 2015. Available
from: 〈https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-recognizes-new-england-
institutions-diverting-food-waste〉.
[84] Utsumi I. Food waste sector in Brazil. The Brazil Business; 2014 Dec 18. Available
from: 〈http://thebrazilbusiness.com/article/food-waste-sector-in-brazil〉.
[85] Utsumi I. Solid waste policy in Brazil. The Brazil Business 2015 May; 2015.
Available from: 〈http://thebrazilbusiness.com/article/solid-waste-policy-in-
brazil〉.
[86] Vandermeersch T, Alvarenga RAF, Ragaert P, Dewulf J. Environmental sustain-
ability assessment of food waste valorization options. Resour Conserv Recycl
2014;87:57–64.
[87] Vermont Waste Management & Prevention Division (VWMPD). Act 148,
Vermont’s Universal Recycling Law; 2014.
[88] Von Georg I. From 2015 everyone needs a compost bin. The World; 2014.
[89] WRAP, Waste & Resources Action Programme. Synthesis of food waste compo-
sitional data. waste & resources action programme; 2012. Available from:
〈http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/hhfdw-synthesis-food-waste-
composition-data.pdf〉.
[90] Weiss B, Fevrier H. Biogas and anaerobic digestion: will they encourage
speculation and the proliferation of factory farms? Basta Magazine; 2015.
[91] Xu W. Municipal biomass waste management technology and policy development
trends. In: Third annual biomass gasification industry forum, Beijing, China;
2015.
221
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 79 (2017) 204–221
[92] Xu C, Shi W, Hong J, Zhang F, Chen W. Life cycle assessment of food waste-based
biogas generation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2015;49:169–77.
[93] Zhang C, Xiao G, Peng L, Su H, Tan T. The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste
and cattle manure. Bioresour Technol 2013;129(0):170–6.
[94] Zhang DQ, Tan SK, Gersberg RM. Municipal solid waste management in China:
status, problems and challenges. J Environ Manag 2010;91(8):1623–33.
[95] Zhang L, Lee YW, Jahng D. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and piggery
wastewater: focusing on the role of trace elements. Bioresour Technol
2011;102(8):5048–59.
[96] Zhang W, Wu S, Guo J, Zhou J, Dong R. Performance and kinetic evaluation of
semi-continuously fed anaerobic digesters treating food waste: role of trace
elements. Bioresour Technol 2015;78(0):297–305.
[97] Zhou H, Meng A, Long Y, Li Q, Zhang Y. An overview of characteristics of
municipal solid waste fuel in China: physical, chemical composition and heating
value. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2014;36:107–22.
[98] Zhu JB. Deepening reforms and the early start of Ningbo kitchen waste disposal.
Zhejiang Online; 2016. [Chinese].
[99] Zhang W, Lang Q, Fang M, Li X, Bah H, Dong H, et al. Combined effect of crude fat
content and initial substrate concentration on batch anaerobic digestion char-
acteristics of food waste. Bioresour Technol 2017;232:304–12.
[100] Brancoli P, Rousta K, Bolton K. Life cycle assessment of supermarket food waste.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2017;118:39–46.
[101] Fisgativa H, Tremier A, Le Roux S, Bureau C, Dabert P. Understanding the
anaerobic biodegradability of food waste: relationship between the typological,
biochemical and microbial characteristics. J Environ Manag 2017;188:95–107.
[102] Magyar M, da Costa Sousa L, Jayanthi S, Balan V. Pie waste – a component of food
waste and a renewable substrate for producing ethanol. Waste Manag 2017,
[citation without volume number].
[103] Zhang W, Lang Q, Fang M, Li X, Bah H, Dong H, et al. Combined effect of crude
fat content and initial substrate concentration on batch anaerobic digestion
characteristics of food waste. Bioresour Technol 2017;232:304–12.
[104] De Clercq D, Wen Z, Fei F. Economic performance evaluation of bio-waste
treatment technology at the facility level. Resour Conserv Recycl
2017;116:178–84.
[105] De Clercq D, Wen Z, Fan F. Performance evaluation of restaurant food waste and
biowaste to biogas pilot projects in China and implications for national policy. J
Environ Manag 2017;189:115–24.