High diversion - is it achievable?

High diversion - is it achievable? A new report from the Resource Recovery Forum highlights the factors that lead to high diversion rates of household waste from landfill and presents best practice examples from cities and regions in Europe and North America. Ellee Seymour The diversion of municipal solid waste (MSW) from landfill through increased materials recycling and composting is an important policy driver throughout the developed world. In Europe, much of the impetus is provided by the EU Landfill Directive, which sets tough targets for the diversion of biodegradable MSW from landfill. Some of the better-performing Member States already meet these standards, but others - including the UK - fall well short. The better performers are generally accepted to be Austria, the Flanders region of Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and some of the Scandinavian countries. The other Member States of the EU tend to perform less well, as do those countries in Central and Eastern Europe that have recently joined the EU. 'The diversion of MSW from landfill is an important policy driver in the developed world' A new report, High diversion - is it achievable?,1 published by the Resource Recovery Forum (RRF) in June 2004, focuses on best practice case studies in recycling and recovery from the higher-performing regions of Europe and North America. The report shows what makes a successful diversion strategy. It is the first time that an extensive worldwide study has been carried out in such depth using the latest data to demonstrate comparable recycling and composting figures for household and municipal waste, and demonstrates how residual waste2 can be successfully diverted from landfill. Composting at the LINZ AG Deponie Asten plant, Austria. The plant processes around 30,000 tonnes annually PHOTO: SANDBERGER The report shows that the most successful cities and regions are those that have well developed strategies for the management of residual waste that drive this down to levels of around 150 kg/person/year. It is hoped that the report will help poorer-performing authorities and regions to identify problem areas that are likely to prevent them achieving their targets and to learn from the best practice examples. This article summarizes some of the report's key findings and gives examples from its case studies of Austria, Flanders, New York City and the Region of Peel in Canada. Measuring diversion from landfill The diversion of MSW through recycling and composting can be defined and measured in two main ways. It can be expressed as a percentage of the total amount of waste being generated, so that a recycling/composting rate of 30% means that this percentage of the total waste stream is being diverted; this is a relative measure. The second way is to express recycling/composting rates in absolute terms, normally as kilograms per person (capita) or kg per household. Likewise, residual waste can also be expressed as a percentage of the whole or in kg per person. Recycling performance Recycling and composting performance appears to be most strongly influenced by the population density of an area and its affluence. In general, the highest diversion rates are achieved in relatively prosperous rural areas with low population densities, while the diversion rates achieved in major urban areas tend to be much lower. Figure 1 shows comparative recycling/composting rates for selected European locations. The data show how recycling and composting performance is strongly influenced by density of population, with the highest diversion in areas that are mainly rural, with large amounts of biowaste, and much lower diversion rates in densely populated metropolitan areas. FIGURE 1. Comparative recycling/composting achievements atselected European locations. Note: rubble, wood, scrap metal,waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and miscellaneousrecyclables are excluded Many rural areas with small populations and low population densities (typically fewer than 250 people/km2) achieve recycling/composting rates of 60% or more. Examples can be found in several European countries (Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland) and in Canada. Diversion in these communities tends to be characterized by extremely high levels of biowaste3 collection and composting. There are examples of prosperous smaller towns with population densities of less than 1000 people/km2 that achieve recycling and composting rates of around 50%-55%. For example: Münster in Germany has a population density of 882 people/km2 and a recycling rate of 53% the city of Lüneberg in Lower Saxony, Germany (population 67,500) achieves 57% Linz in Austria achieves 51% Halifax Regional Municipality, Canada, with a population density of 65 people/km2 achieves 57% The best-performing provincial cities and urban areas in Europe and North America achieve recycling and composting rates of around 45%. These are seldom exceeded and not always sustained. Examples include Bonn in Germany (45%), Graz in Austria (46%), Ghent in Belgium (55%), Seattle in the US (44%) and the Region of Peel in Canada (45%). Recycling/composting rates in larger metropolitan areas tend to be lower. Among major European cities, Berlin, Vienna, Zürich, Stuttgart, Hanover, Munich and Geneva are relatively high performers, with recycling/composting rates that lie broadly in the range of 30%-36%. All rely on some degree on energy from waste (EfW) incineration in the management of their residual wastes. Other major cities in otherwise high-performing countries do less well. In the Netherlands, for example, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague all had recycling/composting rates of 16%-17% in 2000. At a regional level, and taking into account the combined recycling/composting performance of high-performing rural areas with that of lower-performing urban areas, the Flanders region of Belgium and Styria (or Steiermark) in Austria were the best-performing of those examined in the RRF study. The apparent diversion rate in Flanders in 2002 was close to 70%, but this falls to 62% if rubble and wood waste are excluded. For Styria, the rate has been steady at 55%-56% since 1998. The Nordrhein-Westfalen region of Germany achieved 45% in 2000 - a performance that is 'pulled down' by the relatively low performance of the densely populated industrial areas of the Ruhr where recycling/composting rates generally lie in the range 25%-35%. FIGURE 2. MSW management in selected European countries.SOURCE: ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATION,JULY 2002; BASED ON EEA, ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNALS 2002 At a national level, the best-performing country of those examined was Austria (see Figure 2), which achieved a recycling/composting rate of 50% as early as 1999. However, with its population of 8.2 million and an average population density of fewer than 100 people/km2, it is little larger than many regions elsewhere in Europe, despite being made up of nine states. Switzerland is also a high performer, where recycling and composting of municipal waste reached 46% in 2001 and appears to have stabilized at or around this level. Residual waste As recycling and composting performance has improved, there has been corresponding reduction in the amounts of residual household waste requiring treatment. However, there is considerable variation across Europe in the amounts of residual waste requiring treatment/disposal. The better-performing cities and regions have reduced their residual waste flows to 150-200 kg/person/year. The UK is among those with the highest residual waste quantities - unsurprising given its relatively low recycling/composting performance. Residual waste from the composting process PHOTO: KOMPTECH FARWICK Flanders is perhaps the region that has had greatest success in achieving a progressive reduction in its residual waste. Meeting targets for the progressive reduction of household residual waste is central to its waste strategy (see the case study later in this article). To date it has exceeded all its targets (see Table 1). Residual waste in 2002 was 169 kg/person/year, and Flanders is well on track to meet its target of 150 kg/person/year by 2007. TABLE 1. MSW management in Flanders, 1993-2002. SOURCE: OVAM INVENTARISATIE 2002 (FLEMISH PUBLIC WASTE AGENCY, INVENTORY OF HOUSEHOLD-LIKE WASTE, 2002) Year Waste recycled/composted (%) Waste toEfW (%) Landfilledwaste (%) 1993 25.8 31.2 43.0 1994 30.3 29.6 40.1 1995 33.9 28.0 38.2 1996 43.0 24.7 32.4 1997 51.1 25.1 23.8 1998 59.3 22.0 18.6 1999 62.9 21.5 15.6 2000 65.8 23.5 10.6 2001 67.7 25.8 6.5 2002 69.5 26.0 4.4 Energy recovery Throughout Northern Europe, incineration with energy recovery plays an important role in diverting residual waste from landfill. The countries with the lowest national reliance on landfill disposal (Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands) are also the countries which have the highest percentage of waste treated by energy recovery. Each also has relatively high recycling/composting rates. EU Member States that are generally considered to have the highest environmental standards also have high recycling/composting rates and high energy recovery rates. The two Member States with the highest national recycling/composting rates are Austria and Belgium, and these countries also rely to a significant degree on energy recovery for the treatment of residual waste (21% in Belgium and 11% in Austria). England incinerated 9% of its MSW in the period 2002-2003 in 14 EfW plants. The position is not dissimilar in the US. For example: Newark, New Jersey, has a recycling rate of 52% and an EfW plant handling 2277 tonnes/day Gloucester County, New Jersey, has a recycling rate of 47% and an EfW plant handling 575 tonnes/day Hennepin County (Minneapolis) in Minnesota has a recycling rate of 46% and two EfW facilities, one handling 560 tonnes/day and one handling 1200 tonnes/day There is little evidence from these data that incineration is 'crowding out' recycling, as is sometimes claimed. On the contrary, what is happening is that incineration is crowding out landfill and replacing it as a strategically important means of residual waste treatment. Incineration is a proven technology that occupies an important and legitimate place in the management of residuals in any integrated urban waste strategy. Variable charging Householder charging is much the most widely used instrument to influence waste generation and reductions in residual waste. Most (but not all) of the cities and regions identified in this report amongst the highest performers have introduced some form of variable charging, or 'pay as you throw' (PAYT) system for residual waste (exceptions are New York and Geneva). In most countries, refuse is collected from households and funded through council tax (as in the UK) or property taxes, or through a flat service fee. This provides no incentive for the householder to reduce waste. Variable charging, or PAYT, introduces a market-based approach under which householders pay a charge directly related to the volume or weight of residual waste they produce. Some municipalities introduce a two-tier charging system, comprising a fixed portion and a variable, PAYT, portion linked to the amount of waste produced PAYT systems are well established in many European countries including Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland. These countries are now focusing on better ways of optimizing their PAYT systems to increase their effectiveness and recalibrating their charging structures. In many of them, PAYT is compulsory. PAYT is also being rapidly developed in Denmark, France, Ireland and Italy. The UK is the only country in the EU where the existing legal framework prohibits the introduction of PAYT. There is little evidence that incineration is crowding out recycling - it is in fact crowding out landfill In the US, PAYT programmes go back to the 1920s, but the 1990s saw a rapid increase in PAYT. More than 6000 communities in the US now have PAYT systems in place, with more communities adopting it every year. PAYT covers 20% of the country's population and exists in all but four states. Case studies from Europe and North America Austria In Austria, recycling/composting rates have grown rapidly since the mid- to late-1980s. In the decade from 1989 to 1999, they more than tripled from a national level of 14% to 50%. Austria's materials recycling rates are amongst the highest in Europe - for instance, 87% for glass and 78% for steel cans. As recycling/composting has increased, the amount of waste landfilled has fallen sharply from 63% to 29%. A federal ordinance on the separate collection of biowaste came into force in January 1995, placing a legal obligation on municipalities to collect and treat organic waste from households. Austria now has more than 500 composting facilities with a combined annual capacity of at least 1.1 million tonnes. It also has 12 mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) plants, with a combined capacity of 390,000 tonnes/year. Austria already meets the targets set by the EU landfill and packaging waste directives. These levels of diversion have been driven by the high levels set for its landfill tax and high landfill gate prices, and by specific Austrian legislative measures. The latter include further restrictions on the landfilling of wastes, which took effect on January 2004 and introduced a limit value of 5% on the maximum organic carbon content. The five major cities in Austria all generate between 450 kg and 500 kg/person/year of household waste. Their recycling/composting performance typically lies in the range 47%-54%, The best performing is Innsbruck (54%, 263 kg/person/year), followed by Graz, Linz and Salzburg, which are all in the 45%-50% band (220-240 kg/person/year). They are, however, relatively small cities with populations of between 110,000 and 240,000. Vienna is the exception. It is a much larger city (1.6 million people) and its recycling/composting performance is lower. Its diversion rate has been stable at 38%-39% (178 kg/person/year) since 1995; this value falls to about 30% if inert wastes are discounted. Vienna has relied for many years on EfW for the treatment of much of its residual waste. It currently incinerates about 47% of MSW at two plants. A third plant is due to come on-stream in 2008. Elsewhere in Austria, four new EfW plants will become operational in 2004, providing the necessary treatment capacity to meet the new landfill restrictions. The total amount of MSW landfilled in Austria, including residues from EfW and MBT plants, was 75% of the total waste stream in 1989, falling to 43% by 1999. By 1995, it had already achieved the Landfill Directive target for 2016. This is a measure of Austria's success in achieving high diversion of household waste from landfill; a feat partly brought about by increasing the cost of landfilling through state-imposed fiscal measures. The federal landfill tax for MSW is currently €43.60/tonne. It increases to €65/tonne in 2004 and to €87/tonne from 2006. Graz In 2002, Graz in Austria produced 120,000 tonnes of household waste. This is equivalent to 504 kg/person/year - much higher than the regional average. The recycling/composting rate in Graz increased from 14% in 1986 to 49% by the end of the 1990s. Since then, it has fallen slightly, settling at 46%-47% (see Figure 3). FIGURE 3. Recycling/composting performance in the city of Graz Householders are generally expected to deliver recyclable materials to 'bring' sites across the city. This applies to paper, glass, cans and difficult wastes such as used food fats and oils. The only materials collected at the kerbside are residual waste, biowaste and, in some areas, light fraction packaging. Biowaste is collected weekly from April to November, and fortnightly at other times of the year. The Flanders strategy focuses on achieving progressive reductions in residual waste Householders pay a charge for the collection of residual waste. The cost depends on the frequency of collection and the size of container, with a 15% reduction if kitchen and garden waste is segregated for separate collection. Typical charges from July 2003 were €134/year for alternate weekly collection of a 120 litre container, or €268 for 240 litres. The charge is €151/year for the removal of 26 refuse sacks. Flanders In 2000, Flanders produced 3.3 million tonnes of 'household-like waste', equivalent to 556 kg/person/year; growth in per capita output has averaged just over 3% per annum. However, the region does achieve some of the highest levels of recycling/composting in Europe. There has been a progressive increase in the diversion of household wastes, as can be seen from Table 1. The rate of diversion has increased from 18% in 1991 to almost 70% in 2002 (62% if wood waste and rubble are excluded). Waste output per person has been stable for three years, and the growth rate is expected to be reduced, and possibly reversed, in the next planning period, 2003-2007. Flanders has a well balanced strategy that successfully delivers very high levels of recycling, with incineration playing a strategic role in the management of residual waste. In 1994, 40% of the region's household waste was landfilled but, by 2002, this had fallen to 4% (see Table 1). TABLE 2. Targets for residual waste reduction in Flanders Year Actual residual waste(kg/person/year) Target (kg/person/year) 1997-2001 plan 2003-2007 plan 1991 332 - - 1992 330 - - 1993 333 - - 1994 335 - - 1995 325 - - 1996 280 - - 1997 258 - - 1998 216 255 - 1999 202 - - 2000 191 - - 2001 180 220 - 2002 169 - - 2003 - - 180 2005 - - 165 2007 - - 150 2010 - 150 - Flanders has had more than 20 years' experience in developing a regional approach to waste management, and has put in place a structured rolling five-year plan for the sustainable management of household waste, which aims to achieve continuous, year-on-year improvement in performance. The Flanders strategy focuses on achieving progressive reductions in residual waste. The first five-year plan (1997-2001) set a target for Flanders as a whole to reduce its residual household waste, to 220 kg/person/year by 2001, and 150 kg/person/year by 2010, from a starting level of around 330 kg/person/year in the early 1990s (see Table 2). The 2001 target was reached early, and so the second five-year plan (2003-2007) set 2007 as the deadline for reaching the 150 kg/person/year target. Flanders' success is also due to an extensive combination of policy instruments including landfill and incineration taxes, landfill bans, subsidies and financial incentives to municipalities, producer responsibility 'covenants' with key industry sectors, and direct charging of householders. New York City Waste management throughout New York City is the responsibility of the City of New York Department of Sanitation (DSNY). It is the largest department of its kind in the world and is responsible for collecting over 12,000 tonnes/day of recyclables and refuse (non-recyclables) from the city's residential and institutional sectors (that is, nearly 4.4 million tonnes/year). New York's businesses generate another 13,000 tonnes of refuse each day, which is collected by private sector companies. New York is the only US city to provide a full kerbside recycling service to all its households Over 25,000 tonnes of recyclables and refuse are collected from New York City each day PHOTOS: ZI YING (SELENA) CHEN Each day, the DSNY fleet of nearly 1500 trucks collects more than 11,000 tonnes of refuse - a total of around 3.5 million tonnes each year. For more than 50 years, this waste was shipped to the Fresh Kills Landfill located on the western shore of Staten Island. However, the site closed in March 2001, and New York City no longer has any operating waste disposal facilities (landfills or incinerators) within its borders. All waste produced in New York City that is not recycled or composted is now exported, travelling 80 miles or more to disposal facilities located outside the city. Costs have consequently doubled. In 2003, the total tonnage sent for disposal was 3.8 million tonnes, all of which was delivered to private sector transfer stations. Recycling in New York began in 1986, with newspaper recycling in one district in Manhattan. It was voluntary and was co-ordinated by the municipality. New York now has the largest recycling programme in the US, and is the only US city to provide a full kerbside recycling service to all its households (3.2 million), including high-rise apartment buildings. This service started in 1993, and a weekly collection frequency was achieved across the whole of the city by 2000. It thus provides an important benchmark against which to assess the recycling performance of other large metropolitan conurbations. Recycling of newspapers, magazines, corrugated cardboard, metal/glass and plastics was made mandatory in 1989. Repeated non-compliance is met with fines. In 1995, the 'expanded recycling' programme was introduced, which added mixed paper, beverage containers and household/bulk metals to the mandatory list. Alongside refuse collection, New York City provides a dual-stream commingled collection of recyclables: a paper or fibre stream comprising newspapers, magazines, corrugated cardboard, catalogues, writing paper and envelopes, food boxes and cartons and phone books a metal-glass-plastics (MGP) stream that includes milk and juice cartons, aluminium products, metal cans, plastic and glass bottles, detergent bottles, plastic milk containers, wire hangers and large metal appliances (such as cookers and refrigerators) In 2001, New York City generated about 4.2 million tonnes of household waste of which 743,300 tonnes was recycled, and 3.5 million tonnes was residual waste. The recycling rate increased from 13% in 1997 (the first year that 'expanded recycling' was implemented citywide) to 21% by 2000. It has stabilized at around 20% (see Table 3) and is not expected to increase much further. TABLE 3. Recycling rates for household waste in New York City, 1994-2002 Year Recycling rate (%) 1994 12.6 1995 12.7 1996 12.6 1997 13.4 1998 16.3 1999 18.0 2000 21.2 2001 20.1 2002 19.8 Region of Peel, Ontario The Region of Peel, Ontario's second largest municipality, is located on the western edge of the Greater Toronto Area. Peel's longer-term waste management strategy includes: an assumed increase in diversion from 45% in 2002 to 70% by 2016 (53% by 2005 and 68% by 2012) continuing reduction in landfill disposal from 104,000 tonnes in 2002 to 38,000 tonnes by 2016 the introduction of 'new technologies' by 2012 As an element in the strategy, householders in Peel pay for residual waste collection over a three-bag limit. This charging system was fully implemented in September 2002, after a three-phase transitional period to allow residents to adapt to the new user-pay requirement. The Region of Peel is one of only two regions in Ontario (the other is Hamilton) that has incineration with energy recovery as part of its waste management strategy. Peel plans to implement source-separated organics collection on a region-wide basis from 2005. Since 1996, a pilot in-vessel composting system has processed household organic wastes collected from about 10,000 households. Total household waste arisings during 2002 amounted to 398,000 tonnes or 396 kg/person/year. Total diversion through recycling, composting and energy recovery in 2002 was 291 kg/person/year (74%); recycling and composting diversion amounted to 177 kg/person/year (45%) - see Table 4. Residual household waste was 219 kg/person/year (55%), of which 114 kg/person/year was incinerated (29%), and 105 kg/person/year was landfilled (26.5%). Between 2000 and 2002, diversion through recycling and composting rose from 28% to 45%. This was achieved through increases in both recycling and composting, but with a significant new contribution from bottom ash recycling (see Table 4). A large materials recovery facility (MRF) with a capacity of 130,000 tonnes/year for the processing of commingled dry recyclables will be in operation in 2005. Conclusions Magnetic separation of metals for recyclingPHOTO: ERIEZ MAGNETICS EUROPE LTD The report High diversion - is it achievable? focuses on best practice case studies in recycling and recovery from the higher-performing regions of Europe and North America, and shows quite clearly what makes a successful strategy for diverting household waste from landfill. In Europe, Austria, the Flanders region of Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and some of the Scandinavian countries are generally counted as the best performers. The other Member States, including the Eastern and Central European nations that have recently joined the European Union, tend to perform less well. TABLE 4. Waste management in the Region of Peel, 2000-2002 Waste management approach Proportion of total household waste stream by year (%) 2000 2001 2002 Landfill 50.2 26.1 26.5 EfW 22.1 30.9 28.8 Other diversion from landfill Kerbside dry recyclables 14.7 18.5 19.3 Organics 10.9 12.0 13.3 Bottom ash and metals - 7.2 8.8 Community recycling centres (CRCs) and white goods 2.0 5.3 3.3 Total recycling/composting 27.6 43.0 44.7 The report demonstrates that recycling and composting performance is strongly influenced by population density. The highest diversion rates are found in areas that are largely rural, with large amounts of biowaste, while much lower diversion rates are achieved in densely populated metropolitan areas. Affluence is another important factor in determining the degree of diversion. Diversion rates of 60% are achieved worldwide in a number of largely rural areas with low population densities. However, the best-performing provincial cities and urban areas in Europe and North America achieve recycling and composting rates of around 45%. In contrast, recycling/composting rates in larger metropolitan areas tend to be lower, and seldom exceed 30%-35%. Those countries and regions that have been most successful in achieving high diversion of household waste from landfill are those with well balanced and integrated strategies, with incineration playing a key role in the management of their residual waste. One of the most successful strategies for driving high levels of diversion is also the most simple: setting a clear target for achieving progressive reductions in residual waste (in terms of kg per person). The launch of the report High diversion -is it achievable? This study provides a framework of factual guidance for waste managers on the level of recycling or composting that could realistically be achieved in the areas, or communities in which they work and the factors that influence performance. Strange though it may seem, such guidance is largely lacking, and certainly so in the UK. In the resulting vacuum, there is the danger that policymakers and practitioners will develop strategies that are fundamentally unsound. There are examples in the UK where major cities and counties have adopted over-ambitious recycling strategies driven more by political aspiration than reality, and reinforced by the blandishments of the 'zero waste' lobby and anti-incineration pressure groups. False beliefs that very high diversion rates are readily achievable in densely populated areas and that waste growth can be reversed through waste avoidance measures fly in the face of the evidence. The main danger is that insufficient recognition is given to the continuing amounts of residual waste that will need to be managed, leading to a failure to make timely provision for the non-landfill infrastructure needed to treat this waste stream. Notes High diversion - is it achievable? was researched and written by David Davies Associates. The report was launched by The Resource Recovery Forum (RRF) in London on 24 June 2004. Copies of the full three-volume report can be obtained, price £95, from The Resource Recovery Forum (e-mail: [email protected]; web: www.resourcesnotwaste.org). The project was funded mainly through UK landfill tax credits provided by Cory Environmental Ltd, with additional funding from Valpak Ltd. An innovative RRF WasteFlow tool was launched with the report. This unique software has been designed as a waste management 'accounting' system to monitor the flow of materials through the entire MSW cycle. It can make future projections taking into account the growth of households and waste arisings, while making provision for the expansion of recycling programmes. Residual waste is the amount of waste that remains to be treated or disposed of after recycling/composting has taken place. Biowaste is waste produced from organic matter, such as food scraps and peelings. Ellee Seymour is with David Davies Associates, an independent UK waste management and recycling consultancy advising clients in both the public and private sectors. Fax: +44 1353 648 564 e-mail: [email protected]