Chapter 4
Potential new waste management strategies
4.1
This chapter considers the issues under items (c), (d), and (e) of the
inquiry's terms of reference. It deals with new strategies, the benefits and
costs of such strategies, and policy priorities to maximise the efficiency and
efficacy of efforts to reduce, recover or reuse waste from different waste
streams.
4.2
The previous chapter highlighted state-level inconsistencies in areas
such as landfill targets and landfill levies. Many submissions and witnesses raised
concerns about the escalating problems created by this divergent and
inconsistent approach across the country. There was an overwhelming call for
consideration of a national strategy to guide the formulation of policies to
better manage Australia's growing waste generation.
Establishing a national resource efficiency strategy
4.3
Over the past two decades the only national waste minimisation strategy
that has been established was the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling
Strategy (NWMRS). The over-arching goals of the NWMRS are to:
- encourage the ecologically sustainable non-wasteful use of
resources;
- reduce potential hazards to human health and the environment
posed by pollution and wastes; and
- maintain or improve environmental quality.[1]
4.4
Now out‑dated, the NWMRS was adopted in 1992 and included a target
of reducing the amount of waste per capita going to landfill by 50 per cent by
2000 (with 1991 as the baseline year). There were no targets set beyond the
year 2000.
4.5
For completeness, the committee notes the existence of two other
national strategies, but distinguished them from a holistic national strategy
as they focus on specific waste streams or sectors, rather than on the entirety
of waste generation. In the same year the NWMRS was established, governments
agreed to the National Kerbside Recycling Strategy, which amongst other things,
specified agreed recycling targets for municipal waste such as plastic, glass,
aluminium, steel and liquid paper board containers, newsprint and paper
packaging. The other national strategy is the Environment Protection and
Heritage Council (EPHC) National Waste Framework. This strategy, which is
discussed further in chapter 5, provides a systematic framework to assist
the EPHC to identify and address waste management issues of national
importance. Current examples of waste management issues of national importance
under consideration by the EPHC are various e-waste streams, used oil and used
tyres.
4.6
The two key principles of the NWMRS that continue to influence state and
territory policy are the waste hierarchy and targets for the amount of waste
going to landfill. The waste hierarchy specifies a preferred order of waste
management options. It recognises disposal as the last and least desirable
option, with waste avoidance the first and most desirable option. In accordance
with this approach, many jurisdictions have established targets for diverting
waste and include the objective of zero waste to landfill.[2]
Whilst there are variations of the hierarchy, the common structure is
demonstrated in Figure 4.1 below.
Figure 4.1—Typical waste hierarchy structure
4.7
Because of constitutional constraints, the Commonwealth Government's
engagement in the solid waste arena is largely confined to working with the
states through the EPHC and the National Environment Protection Council (NEPC)
in the development of harmonised national approaches for significant waste
issues.[3]
The Commonwealth does not have the constitutional powers to legislate and
implement national strategies. It must work with the states which have the
primary constitutional responsibility for waste management policy.
4.8
With the Commonwealth Government's limited ability to provide national leadership,
the committee heard evidence that the states have tended to develop waste
management policies in an uncoordinated and at times inconsistent fashion. Mr Mike
Ritchie, New South Wales President of the Waste Management Association of
Australia highlighted the problems created through the lack of an overarching
national strategic framework. He told the committee:
In the absence of a national strategy, we have all state and
territory governments going off and doing their own things. From a policy and
infrastructure development and a program delivery perspective we need some
leadership at the federal level.[4]
4.9
Mr Ritchie spoke of the importance of moving away from a pick-and-choose
approach to waste management, towards providing an overarching framework for
all waste streams. He stated that 'we have activity happening around particular
product streams between state governments, but it is not coherent within any
national framework'.[5]
This 'trophy-cabinet approach' to waste management implies that there have been
some successes in pockets, but no overall national strategy to systematically
address resource recovery in Australia.[6]
4.10
More specifically, the lack of a comprehensive national resource efficiency
strategy, one that takes a holistic approach to the entire waste cycle, results
in complexities that arise from the differences across jurisdictions in terms
of legislation, definitions, targets, strategies and policies.
4.11
The widespread support for a national strategy was evident across waste
managers, recyclers, the business sector and governments as the following
quotes demonstrate.
4.12
Mr Ritchie told the committee that an overall national strategic
framework for waste is required with clear principles and goals rather than a
piecemeal approach:
At the moment we have activity happening around particular
product streams between state governments, but it is not coherent within any
national framework. What are we trying to achieve here? What are our goals in
terms of resource recovery, recycling, emissions, climate change
et cetera? It is a complete vacuum.[7]
4.13
The Australian Council of Recyclers (ACOR) stated:
ACOR is calling for a national strategy for resource recovery,
as opposed to waste disposal, that seeks to maximise the recovery of resources
while continuously improving resource efficiency.[8]
4.14
The Cement Industry Federation also supported a nationally consistent
approach to resource recovery:
The most significant issue that is preventing a higher uptake [alternative
fuels and alternative raw materials] is the inconsistent environmental
regulations across all states. That is why we have said in the submission that
we are interested in a nationally consistent approach to resource recovery to
address the regulatory impediments to the uptake of secondary materials. We
want to clarify ‘resource recovery’ with definitions and classifications that promote
the recycling of materials and not the old adage of ‘everything is a waste’. We
regard materials as a resource; they have a value, so they are not a waste.[9]
4.15
The Queensland Environmental Protection Agency highlighted the benefits
of national action:
Many strategies to reduce, recover or reuse wastes would benefit
from a national approach, particularly end-of-life products where there are
national or international companies involved in production or distribution
where movement between jurisdictions may be impacted by a system in one
jurisdiction or where economics of scale would result from national action.[10]
4.16
At the most practical level, greater national consistency would counter
any 'jurisdictional' shopping undertaken on the part of companies to identify
the lowest level of regulation.[11]
4.17
In light of widespread support from both business and government, and acknowledging
growing community expectations about reducing the environmental damage of waste
generation and disposal, the committee considers that it is time for the
establishment of a principles-based national strategic framework for waste
which emphasises the objectives such as sustainability and resource efficiency
rather than waste disposal.
Recommendation 8
4.18
The committee recommends that the Environment Protection and Heritage
Council develop a national resource efficiency strategy. The strategy should seek
consistent policies between the states and adopt a principles-based approach;
including sustainability, the waste hierarchy, extended producer responsibility
and user pays cost reflective pricing as guiding principles.
Fundamental principles of a
national strategic framework
4.19
In the committee's view, a national resource efficiency strategy should
be a principle-based tool providing guidance for all participants in the waste
sector. The committee recognises that these principles are not absolutes. They
must be balanced with each other as well as other social, economic and
environmental goals.
4.20
Based on the evidence received throughout this inquiry the committee now
enunciates a number of principles it sees as fundamental to a national resource
efficiency strategy. Many of these principles were succinctly conveyed by the
Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF):
ACF believes the need for ecological sustainability requires
waste minimisation and pollution prevention to be the core drivers for a new
national waste management strategy. Waste should be viewed primarily as a
resource to be utilised by current or future generations, rather than as
material for which society has no further use. The management of waste matter
should be assessed within the hierarchy of avoidance, reduction, reuse and
recycling. The environment does not have unlimited capacity to assimilate waste
and pollution.[12]
Resource efficiency
4.21
One of the key issues repeatedly raised throughout the inquiry was the
need to shift away from a linear extraction-production-consumption-disposal approach
to waste management, to a life-cycle, closed-loop, resource efficiency model. According
to many witnesses this will require a paradigm shift to valuing as a resource
what is currently seen as a 'waste'. As Mr Timothy Rogers from the New South
Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change succinctly put it 'waste
represents a loss of valuable resources to the economy'.[13]
Representatives from the cement industry told the committee:
We want to clarify ‘resource recovery’ with definitions and
classifications that promote the recycling of materials and not the old adage
of ‘everything is a waste’. We regard materials as a resource; they have a
value, so they are not a waste.[14]
4.22
To a large degree this will require a change in the incentive structure
of current waste management practices. According to Hyder Consulting, there is
currently limited commercial benefit derived from the voluntary resource
recovery activities encouraged by government for many businesses.[15]
This reality is reflected in the sale of recyclables which accounted for only
two per cent of the total revenue in the Australian waste management industry
in 2002–03.[16]
Without adequate financial incentives, the waste sector will continue to adopt
the most cost-effective option, which is often disposal in landfill. As
discussed elsewhere in this report, one of the key constraints is the
non-inclusion of certain environmental and social costs in current waste
management pricing structures. Allowing the market to target cost‑effective
resource efficiency options has the potential to improve the productive
capacity of the Australian economy.
4.23
The Productivity Commission held that waste management policy should not
be used to promote resource efficiency because such measures often involve
aggregated quantities of different materials which does not take into account
their individual market values or environmental impacts.[17]
However, the government response emphasised that resource efficiency is an
important goal fundamental to environmentally sustainable policies:
Considerations such as potential improvements in the pattern of
how materials are used within the economy, reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions, water and energy savings, or recycling are important considerations
in making decisions about optimal waste management solutions. They can help
inform policies aimed at achieving long term environmental sustainability and economic
efficiency and help achieve productivity gains. Policy in any given area should
not be developed and implemented in isolation from other relevant policy goals.[18]
Waste hierarchy
4.24
The waste hierarchy was supported by many as a meaningful tool to guide
waste management as it seeks to minimise waste generation and maximise resource
recovery. As Councillor Samantha Dunn stated:
The waste hierarchy—refuse, reuse, recycle, recover energy,
treat, contain, dispose—should be used to guide all community consideration and
management of waste products.[19]
4.25
In commenting on the Victorian Government's waste management policy, Sustainability
in Action: Towards Zero Waste Strategy, Dr Ruth Lane and
Associate Professor Ralph Horne from RMIT University, reminded the
committee that the waste hierarchy is already included in state government
waste management policies:
In common with equivalent policies in other Australian states,
it [the Victorian Government's waste management policy] also reiterates a commitment
to the ‘waste hierarchy’ as a guiding principle, with its options based on
environmental impact, ranking ‘reduction’ over ‘reuse’, over ‘recycling’, over
‘recovery’, with ‘disposal’ the last resort. Recycling, despite being only the
third most desirable option in the waste hierarchy, has received the most
attention to date with support for the establishment of bulk materials
recycling industries.[20]
4.26
Although the Productivity Commission recommended against using the waste
hierarchy[21]
it was supported as a principle to guide policy-making by the government
response which stated that:
...whilst the
waste hierarchy should not be the sole guide to policy making it is a useful communication tool when used to provide information to the
community about a range of alternative options for
waste management...[22]
Sustainability
4.27
In the committee's view, another guiding principle that ought to be
adopted as part of a national resource efficiency strategy is sustainability.
The committee was often reminded that waste management policy must be viewed in
the broader context of sustainability, including its contribution to climate
change, water scarcity and the management of renewable and non-renewable
resource. In this regard Ms Mary Harwood, First Assistant Secretary, Environment
Quality Division, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
stressed:
In the past, the main focus of waste policy has been on
preventing or minimising the environmental impacts of particular waste on
health and on the environment. Increasingly, other drivers are influencing
waste policy—for example, sustainability, climate change, green design,
resource recovery and resource efficiency.[23]
4.28
Submitters acknowledged the importance of developing waste policy within
a sustainability paradigm linking issues such as energy efficiency, resource
efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and water conservation to the waste agenda.[24]
User pays, cost-reflective pricing
4.29
As a general principle those who benefit from activities which generate
pollution and waste should bear the full costs associated with those activities.
When the costs of waste management are either not reflected in the price (as is
the current situation with greenhouse gas emissions) or alternatively spread
across society more generally (such as the inclusion of municipal waste
treatment cost in council rates) users and consumers do not experience a price
signal for the waste they are generating. The Productivity Commission
recognised this point and the resulting adverse environmental consequences:
Charging for waste services at less than the full cost, and
failing to charge according to the quantity of waste disposed, tend to
encourage too much waste generation and disposal, and can unnecessarily add to
environmental impacts.[25]
4.30
There are a range of market-based instruments (such as unit pricing or
levies on disposal, advance disposal fees, deposit-refund schemes and tradeable
property rights), that enable more cost-reflective pricing and provide more
direct financial incentives to encourage the appropriate treatment of end‑of-life
materials.[26]
One approach which encapsulates many aspects of a user pays, cost-reflective
pricing principle is Extended Producer Responsibility which is discussed at
length in chapter 5.
Improving waste data
4.31
Understanding and quantifying the impact of waste streams and their
economic, social and environmental costs is central to effective national waste
policy development. In this regard the Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts (Environment Department) submitted:
...it is important that governments have access to sufficient
data to support policy making for emerging government priorities, including the
contribution that wastes and recycling make to national greenhouse accounts.[27]
4.32
However, there is currently a lack of national data on many waste issues
that would otherwise underpin the sustainable management of Australia's waste
streams.[28]
The Environment Department noted:
Understanding the extent of the problem, or determining whether
there is, in fact, a problem with particular waste streams in Australia
requires good information. However, while there is some good sectoral
information and some jurisdictions have better information than others, at a
national level Australia lacks reliable, comprehensive, contemporary waste
information.[29]
4.33
The department noted the consequences of inadequate data:
In the absence of a full understanding of life cycle impacts,
strategies may be selected which may move us away from more sustainable
outcomes.[30]
4.34
Initiatives to provide nationally consistent data and reporting have faced
a series of obstacles in the past for reasons including the different
regulatory and methodological approaches operating in each state.[31]
The Australian Waste Database (AWD) is one such initiative which was put on
hold in 2005 because some jurisdictions were unwilling to release their data to
the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).[32]
Originally designed to provide information to allow national reporting and facilitate
the matching of waste generators and processes with potential opportunities for
use of waste streams, the AWD provided three primary benefits identified by
Professor Stewart Burn, Stream Leader, CSIRO:
The database has benefits for policymakers in that it provides
the information needed to make valid policy decisions. It provides information
to local manufacturers in that they can identify synergistic relationships for
waste reutilisation—where you have a waste generator, it can be reutilised in a
local area—and it also provides major benefits to the community in that
landfill and other waste disposal processes should be minimised.[33]
4.35
National waste policy should be informed and underpinned by national
waste data derived from a national waste data system. Such a system, which could
draw on the AWD model and lessons emanating from it, could provide not only
standardisation in terms of definitions and classifications but also include
methodologies to calculate volumes of waste generation.[34]
In addition, such a database could be used as an eco-efficiency tool. Professor
Stewart Burn, Stream Leader CSIRO noted of the AWD in this regard:
The Australian Waste Database is a project that is on hold at
the moment. It was originally designed to provide information to allow national
reporting and to provide information to allow eco-industrial applications, which
means you link up waste suppliers and waste users at a postcode level.[35]
4.36
The work undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in relation
to establishing consistency in frameworks and standards and to facilitate the
provision of consistent information across jurisdictions could also be drawn
upon in the development of a national database.[36]
4.37
The reinvigoration of a national data system should take into
consideration the ongoing work of the Waste Management Association of Australia
in relation to its review of the AWD.[37]
4.38
The diversity and lack of consistency in relation to waste
classification and methodology in calculating waste generation volumes is highlighted
by the debate around national beverage container deposit legislation. Numerous
studies and analyses over years and across jurisdictions have fed into the
ongoing debate over the potential impact of national container deposit
legislation (CDL) and of the actual volume of container waste generated that it
would impact upon.[38]
Comprehensive nationally agreed data sets and application across all waste
streams have the potential to provide greater clarity to such debates and the policy
decisions emanating from them.
Recommendation 9
4.39
The committee recommends that the Environment Protection and Heritage
Council re-establish the national waste data system. Once the Waste Management
Association of Australia's review of the Australian Waste Database is complete,
governments should consider whether to fund the CSIRO and/or the Australian Bureau
of Statistics to re-establish the national waste data system.
Infrastructure
4.40
A number of submitters emphasised the importance of providing adequate
infrastructure across the country to support resource recovery initiatives. The
need for infrastructure for recycling initiatives as well as specifically in
relation to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes are discussed in
more detail in chapter 5.
4.41
In evidence before the committee, Mr Trevor Hockley, Consultant for Recyclers
of South Australia, stated that national EPR schemes require a network of
transfer stations which would serve as the infrastructure for the recovery of
targeted materials.[39]
4.42
The need for adequate infrastructure was highlighted by other witnesses
before the committee including Mr David West, National Campaign Director of Boomerang
Alliance, who stated that the establishment of necessary infrastructure was
central to EPR schemes. Using an EPR scheme for packaging as an example,
Boomerang Alliance maintains that the infrastructure required can serve for
other waste reduction programs:
Because packaging is the most pervasive and widespread “waste of
concern” it can provide the “critical mass” to develop recycling centres and
new collection infrastructure. This infrastructure in turn allows governments
to introduce cost-effective schemes for electronics, batteries, paint and
chemical residuals, mobile phones etc. Our research indicates that if a national
container deposit system was introduced over 2,000 convenience collection
points would be established to collect common recyclables and a further 400
large scale “Drive Through Recycling Centres” to accept all forms of
recyclables and problem wastes would be established at no cost to all 3 tiers
of government. This level of infrastructure and investment would lead to the
single largest improvement in recycling in Australia.[40]
4.43
The benefits of national schemes in relation to EPR are not limited to
coordination and consistency across jurisdictions. EPRs should also provide
opportunities to improve broader resource recovery infrastructure. The
committee encourages the EPHC to consider options that will provide waste
generators with a convenient and accessible location to return a range of
end-of-life products, in its current deliberations over products of national
significance.
4.44
The need for greater investment in recycling infrastructure was also highlighted
as a means of providing a more environmentally appropriate alternative to
landfill. Adequate landfill levies were recognised as a means of contributing
to investment in resource recovery infrastructure. Using the UK landfill
avoidance scheme as one such example, Mr Nicholas Harford, General Manager,
Environment, of VISY Industries Australia Pty Ltd noted:
That kind of scheme is about putting a price signal around the
landfill to create that incentive for the investment in infrastructure not only
to keep the material out of landfill but to manufacture it into some valuable
product.[41]
4.45
Similarly, Mr Mike Ritchie of SITA Environmental Solutions, made the
point that infrastructure and planning are fundamental:
We believe there needs to be a much more coordinated approach to
waste and recycling infrastructure, both planning and funding, and we do not
have a consistent planning regime for waste infrastructure in any state.[42]
4.46
Evidence before the committee emphasised the importance of recognising
waste within its wider environmental, social and economic context in order to
understand and address its ramifications on the community. Similarly, such
evidence focused on recognising the interrelationship between waste policy with
other policy spheres such as infrastructure. The committee recognises that
without adequate infrastructure, the potential and effectiveness of resource
recovery initiatives will be limited. Indeed, without adequate infrastructure
to support resource recovery initiatives, landfill is likely to remain the
country's primary response to waste generation.
Recommendation 10
4.47
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government, and state and
territory governments audit the adequacy of existing resource recovery
infrastructure and commit funding or implement policy changes which will
address any deficiencies.
Organic waste management
4.48
Organic waste (comprising timber, paper, cardboard, green waste
and food) disposed in landfill is recognised as one of the 'big-ticket items'
of waste due to its significant carbon impact.[43]
Table 4.1 provides a breakdown of the various types of organic waste including
the weight and proportion recycled and landfilled. It shows that in aggregate,
more than two-thirds of organic waste is currently disposed of in landfill
rather than recycled. None of the sub-streams of organic waste achieve a
recycling rate of greater than 50 per cent. The recycling rate of food waste, which
makes up nearly one third of the total of organic waste, is extremely low (10
per cent).
Table 4.1—Organic
waste generation in Australia 2002–03
|
|
Total Generated (million tonnes
p.a.) |
Total Recycled (million tonnes
p.a.) |
% Recycled |
Total Landfilled (million
tonnes p.a.) |
% Landfilled |
|
Paper & cardboard |
5 |
2.31 |
46 |
2.7 |
54 |
|
Garden organics |
3.8 |
1.55 |
41 |
2.25 |
59 |
|
Food & other organics |
3.2 |
0.3 |
10 |
2.89 |
90 |
|
Wood / timber |
2.1 |
0.44 |
21 |
1.63 |
79 |
|
Total Organics |
14.1 |
4.6 |
32 |
9.5 |
68 |
Warnken ISE, Potential for
Greenhouse Gas Abatement from Waste Management and Resource Recovery Activities
in Australia, March 2007, p. 3, submitted by Boomerang Alliance, Submission
46, Attachment F.
4.49
The committee acknowledges the strong commitment of certain
councils which are bucking the national trend. For instance, the NSW Port
Stephens Council composts approximately 81 per cent of its domestic
waste, thereby diverting 16 200 tonnes (or 60 per cent) of its overall domestic
organic waste from landfill.[44]
The committee also heard evidence of three council areas in South Australia working
with residents to separate organic waste out and to collect it separately.[45]
4.50
Approximately half of the 20 million tonnes of waste going to landfill
in Australia each year is organic material. Approximately half decomposes into
methane which has up to 25 times the carbon impact of carbon dioxide.[46]
Organic waste disposed of in landfill is primarily responsible for the 15 million
tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) each year of the waste sector.[47]
Mr Vaughan Levitzke, Chief Executive, Zero Waste South Australia, explained
what happens to organic waste in landfill:
If it goes into landfill it is an anaerobic environment. So this
material is covered, usually within 24 hours, with soil. More waste goes in the
next day on top and it is like a layer cake. Finally it is capped. Whilst it is
being filled this material is breaking down, and the deeper you go in the
landfill the more anaerobic the conditions and the more likelihood you have of
methane generation. Landfills generate methane.[48]
4.51
In comparison, aerobically composed organics have a carbon neutral
impact as Mr Mike Ritchie, New South Wales President, Waste Management
Association of Australia explained:
If the plant matter, the organics, are aerobically composted in
the presence of oxygen then it has zero effect on the carbon cycle. It is a
natural process that would have happened in a forest anyway, so its effect is
zero. If you put those same organics into landfill, half of that organic matter
decomposes into methane. That methane has a 25 times carbon-forcing effect.
That contributes 15 million tonnes of emissions to Australia’s emissions
profile today.[49]
4.52
A number of stakeholders are successfully engaged in efforts to extract
methane gas generated in the current landfill stock. In 2005, gross waste
sector emissions were reduced by about 3.9 Mt CO2-e through the
capture and flaring of methane gas from landfill sites.[50]
An estimated 26 per cent of methane emissions from landfill sites is either
flared or used to generate renewable electricity.[51]
4.53
There are around 450 active solid-waste handling sites in Australia, however
most waste volume is managed by the larger landfill sites. Fewer than 100 sites
(around 20 per cent) account for more than 80 per cent of waste volume.[52]
4.54
However, many landfills have inadequate gas capture and management
systems, which are not a regulatory requirement of some jurisdictions, whilst
other landfills have no gas capture system at all.[53]
In Western Australia, for example, whilst there are commitments on the part of
the State Government to require landfill sites to capture or destroy methane
gas emissions, there is no regulatory requirement for gas extraction systems in
Western Australian landfills.[54]
4.55
The committee was told that even the most effectively run landfill
cannot capture enough gas to be carbon neutral.[55]
Mr Gerry Gillespie of Zero Waste Australia told the committee of recent research
in the United States which estimates that capture rates may be as low as eight
to fifteen per cent.[56]
The overall effect is that an estimated 15 million tonnes of GHGE are
generated from landfills each year.[57]
4.56
However, a contrary opinion was presented by LMS Generation who stated
that emissions from well run landfills were now minimal:
The United States Environment Protection Agency (1998)
calculated that with a 75% gas collection efficiency (which is low compared to Australia)
and where electricity generation from landfill gas replaces fossil fuels, it is
possible to reduce the net greenhouse gas emissions from landfilled municipal
waste by as much as 92%.[58]
4.57
The committee questions the logic of continuing to put organics in
landfill without restraint and thereby creating an environmental liability for
future generations. This is particularly so given the available alternatives which
are either carbon neutral or carbon negative, including converting organics to
compost, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis to form biochar, and alternative waste
treatment.[59]
As long as price signals dictate that sending organic waste to landfill is the
cheapest option, it will remain the primary response. Yet, the environmental
costs are substantial as Mr Lawson, President of the Australian Council of
Recyclers submitted to the committee:
The issue with putting organics into landfill is that about a
third of the mass of those organics decays anaerobically into methane. It has
23 to 25 times the carbon impact of carbon dioxide. So by landfilling those
organics in the first place you are purposely designing to multiply your
impacts by at least eight times if you do not convert that gas to something or
other. Even if you capture 75 per cent of the gas—75 per cent of that eight times—you
still have double the [climate change] impact of recycling those organics,
using the nutrients on land, building organic matter in Australian soils,
stopping the acidification of soils and holding water...[60]
4.58
The committee takes the view that a range of measures are required to
utilise rather than dispose of organic waste. As a first step, national
standards in relation to gas capture of landfills must be established and
applied to all landfill sites above an agreed threshold. The committee
recognises the efforts of the Western Australian Government at the EPHC in this
regard and encourages the EPHC to develop a nationally consistent approach for
regulating landfill gas emissions.[61]
Recommendation 11
4.59
The committee recommends that the Environment Protection and Heritage
Council establish national minimum environmental standards in relation to emissions
from landfill operations including the reduction, capture and use of landfill
gas emissions. Such standards should be applied to all landfill sites above an
agreed threshold.
4.60
Organic waste can also be recycled for fertiliser and soil
conditioner. The benefits of compost in terms of improving plant growth and
soil structure are well known. According to the Environment Department, modern
agricultural techniques have depleted organic carbon levels in Australia's soil
from an estimated three per cent to less than one per cent.[62]
In addition to replenishing organic carbon levels, applying recycled organic
material can provide water savings in excess of 25 per cent, reduced chemical
and fertiliser inputs, reduced run-off and consequent soil erosion and waterway
pollution, and increased plant vitality.[63]
4.61
Organic waste returned to the food chain through farmland application as
a quality composted product would eliminate the problem of landfill
contamination, create local employment, provide some relief to the degradation of
soils through the overuse of chemical fertiliser, boost agricultural production
and save money.[64]
As Mr Gerry Gillespie, President of Zero Waste Australia noted in relation to
the state of the country's agricultural land:
Seventy-five per cent of the agricultural land in this country
has less than one per cent organic material, and farming is a mining,
extractive industry. It takes between 60 to 90 minerals, nutrients and trace
elements to grow a plant. So we are taking out to 60 to 90 and we are putting
back three [nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium by way of chemical fertilisers].[65]
4.62
According
to the Fertiliser Industry Federation of Australia, around 50 per cent of the five to six million tonnes of
fertiliser used in Australia each year is manufactured in Australia with the
remainder imported.[66] The cost of
high-nitrogen phosphate fertiliser has risen in the last twelve months from $600
a tonne to $1,700 a tonne.[67] Initiatives such
as Zero Waste's City to Soil Project, demonstrate that organic waste in
the form of compost could be substituted for expensive fertilisers. However, current
price signals remain a critical obstacle to increased composting, as they indicate
that it is more cost-effective to dispose of organics in landfill. As Mr Mike Ritchie, National General
Manager, Marketing and Communications, of SITA stated in relation to the use of
organics for compost:
At the end of the day, that is of course the solution that Australia
needs. It is amazing that, in the driest continent with the worst quality soils
in the world, we did not wise up to that 50 years ago. Hopefully, as part of an
emissions-trading scheme and a debate about waste and elevating these issues,
that kind of cost economics would come to the fore. At the moment, it is so
much cheaper to dispose of green garden waste into a dry-waste landfill in Sydney
or leave it in the residual waste and send it to a putrescible landfill than it
is to take it out, compost it and transport it those distances.[68]
4.63
Increasing fuel costs have ensured that it is even harder for compost to
compete with nitrous fertilisers. According to Mr Gillespie, there is a
stockpile of 680 000 tonnes of Australian Standard certified compost in Sydney
without a market primarily because of the transportation costs.[69]
Price signals need to change if compost is to become more economically viable.
4.64
The committee is of the view that the evidence adduced provides
compelling reasons to reduce the large quantities of organic material going
into landfill. The committee notes that there is a range of policy options that
would achieve this outcome. Consideration should be given to these various
options, including utilisation of Alternative Waste Technology and a landfill
cap and trade scheme. These options are discussed below. The committee makes a
recommendation in this regard at the end of this chapter.
Alternative Waste Technology
4.65
Warnken ISE has claimed that Alternative Waste Technology or Advanced
Waste Treatment (AWT) has better GHGE performance than landfill.[70]
AWT applies a combination of mechanical, biological and in some instances,
thermal processing to recover resource value from mixed municipal waste. In Australia,
AWT has generally focused on addressing the organic fraction, which is
comprised of approximately half food and half garden organic waste.[71]
The various options compared to landfill and their respective GHGE per 1000
tonnes of food waste are detailed in Table 4.2. This demonstrates that
landfilling organic matter, even with very high levels of methane capture, are
approximately twice as greenhouse intensive as the best AWT technology. Whilst
AWT and other initiatives which divert waste from landfill have a demonstrated greenhouse
gas benefit, the scale of the benefit will depend on the nature of the
alternative.
Table 4.2—Comparative
GHGE for processing 1000 tonnes of food waste
|
|
Aerobic Compost (including AWT Mechanical Biological
Treatment) |
AWT Mechanical Biological Treatment combination of
compost and Anaerobic Digestion |
AWT Anaerobic Digestion |
Landfill with 70 per cent gas capture |
Landfill with best practice cap and no gas capture |
|
Gross GHGE (tCO2-e) |
275.0 |
353.2 |
431.3 |
521.4 |
1,096.3 |
Warnken ISE, Potential for
Greenhouse Gas Abatement from Waste Management and Resource Recovery Activities
in Australia, Prepared by Warnken ISE for SITA Environmental Solutions,
Draft for Review, March 2007, p. 33 submitted by Boomerang Alliance, Submission
46, Attachment F.
4.66
AWTs generally recover more resources than materials recovery facilities
(MRFs). However, the principal advantage of AWTs over landfill is the environmental
benefit of stabilising the material to reduce leachate formation and landfill
gas generation and the production of outputs including energy, compost and
other recyclables, and gas. Indeed, the New South Wales Department of
Environment and Climate Change expect that their investment in twelve AWT
facilities will provide 'substantial gains in both reduction to landfill and
greenhouse gas capture.'[72]
4.67
AWT have generally focused on diverting municipal waste from landfill
and whilst there are substantial opportunities for diversion of C&I waste,
the price signals are currently discouraging. According to WSN Environmental
Solutions, AWT can recover approximately 70 per cent of materials from
household residual waste by extracting recyclables whilst creating products
including compost, combustible fuel, water and green energy.
4.68
The waste management industry argues that economic incentives are
required if the industry is to invest in AWT facilities in any substantial way.[73]
Estimates suggest that Australia requires approximately $4 billion of
investment in modern waste infrastructure if it is to meet the various state
government waste reduction and recycling targets.[74]
This would amount to approximately fifty 100 000-tonne C&I material
recovery facilities and at least fifty 100 000-tonne AWT.[75]
In other words, without a substantial paradigm shift to resource recovery, and
away from disposal, coupled with significant investment in infrastructure such
as AWT, jurisdictions are unlikely to achieve their diversion from landfill
targets.[76]
4.69
Advanced waste processing and treatment technologies designed to
decrease the volume of waste disposed of in landfill are largely dependent upon
the minimisation of the input of hazardous waste into the domestic waste stream.
Campbelltown City Council has recently entered into a contract for the
construction of an advanced waste processing and treatment facility which is
expected to result in the re-use or recycling of 88 per cent of domestic waste.
However, the success of this project, like any other of its kind, will depend
on minimising inputs such as paints, oils, treated timber, computer hardware,
motor vehicle tyres and batteries.[77]
The presence of hazardous waste in the municipal waste stream can contaminate
otherwise re-useable waste. One solution to addressing this potential risk is
the introduction of extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes involving
take-back arrangements where waste generators can return hazardous items free
of charge to the point of sale. EPR schemes are addressed specifically in chapter
5.
Landfill cap and trade schemes
4.70
The Productivity Commission established that initiatives imposing a cap
on activities such as landfill disposal, when strengthened with penalties for
non-compliance would 'effectively guarantee that the target is reached.'[78]
Such initiatives, termed tradeable property right (TPR) mechanisms, work by setting
a quota or cap on the aggregate level of a certain activity and allocating shares
of that quota to those undertaking the activity. One such initiative identified
as a possibility during the course of the inquiry was the UK Landfill Allowance
Trading Scheme (LATS).
4.71
Initiated in 2005, LATS sets a cap on the volume of biodegradable
municipal waste sent to landfill. It was initiated as part of the European
Commission Landfill Directive which sets targets for the total volume of
landfilled biodegradable waste of 75 per cent by 2010, 50 per cent by 2013 and
35 per cent by 2020 relative to the 1995 level. The Schedule to the Landfill
Allowances and Trading Scheme (England) Regulations 2004 determine the
proportions of certain waste types deemed to be biodegradable. These range from
card, paper and putrescible (green) waste at 100 per cent, to
footwear, furniture and textiles at 50 per cent, to glass, plastic and metal
waste at 0 per cent.[79]
4.72
Under the LATS, allowances are allocated to local government bodies responsible
for municipal waste on the basis of historic landfill volumes. These allowances
can be traded and surplus entitlements can be banked for future use except in
target years. A credit of five per cent of entitlements from the following
year's allowance is permitted except in target years. The penalty for
non-compliance is £150 per tonne (equivalent to AUD $324 in August 2008).
However, at the end of each scheme year (1 April to 31 March), authorities have
the opportunity to trade or borrow allowances over a six month reconciliation
period to ensure that they comply with their obligations.[80]
4.73
Whilst the committee recognises that differences apply in the Australian
context, it recommends the consideration of a cap and trade scheme for landfill
of organic matter drawing on the lessons learnt from the LATS scheme.
4.74
As noted above the committee considers there is strong evidence that
authorities should seek to reduce the quantities of organic material going into
landfill, and that there are different policy options that would achieve this
outcome. In the committee's view, the relative merits of each of these options
should be given due consideration, including environmental, economic and social
externalities.
Recommendation 12
4.75
The committee recommends that the Environment Protection and Heritage
Council recommend measures to reduce the quantities of organic material going
into landfill. The options considered should include utilisation of alternative
waste technologies and a cap and trade scheme.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page