Implementation with monitoring
OPTION 1. SPECIFICATION (FEATURES) OPTION 2. FUNCTION (PERFORMANCE)
BOX 4.7 CONTRASTING LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES TO CONTROLLING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS OF WASTE FACILITIES
Waste governance 139
It is important to note that environmental legislation has a higher chance of serving its purpose and achieving policy goals if it is designed and implemented in stages, with progressively more stringent standards, as this allows time for the actors in the system to develop expertise and raise the necessary financial resources.
Copying environmental performance standards from a very advanced, high-income country or going even further to compile a set of the most stringent criteria from several countries – as some countries have done in the process of developing their environmental legislation on, for example, leachate discharge standards to surface water bodies – is actually likely to be counterproductive under the circumstances of limited financial and other resources and will thus fail to deliver envisaged environmental gains.45 That notwithstanding, the regulations should establish a clear path and stipulate that standards will gradually be raised over time, thus creating regulatory certainty for the parties affected.
4.3.5 Legislation for resource recovery
46In order to promote resource recovery from waste, countries may opt to ban disposal (landfilling) of municipal waste or certain waste fractions from which resources such as materials and energy can be recovered, including organic waste, recyclable material streams or combustible waste. For example, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland have had some form of landfill ban in place since 2005 or earlier.47 Instead of outright bans, a legislator may prescribe landfill diversion targets, which specify the percentages of waste to be processed in a way different from disposal. In order for the diversion targets to actually contribute to resource recovery, they need to be accompanied by explicit requirements to that end and penalties for non- compliance.
Legislation may also explicitly set target recycling rates for specific waste streams, to be reached within a certain timeframe. For example, legislation may stipulate that a (minimum) rate of 50% recycling of metals in packaging waste has to be achieved by the end of 2018. This kind of legislation not only sends a clear signal to local administrations and the public about the importance of recovery of resource value as a policy goal but also provides the legal certainty required for future private sector planning and investments in recycling and energy recovery facilities. It should be noted though that recycling targets could be unrealistic if there are no existing viable markets for recyclables. If this is the case, other measures may be needed to create them.
© Ainhoa Carpintero
Recycling waste container, PRC
45 For example, if there are no financial resources or qualified staff to install a low permeability liner or operate leachate treatment at a waste disposal site, there is no benefit to having legislation in place that requires both. Bringing waste disposal under control and gradually upgrading the technology, even if it is not up to the ultimately desirable standard, is still much better in terms of its benefits to public health and the environment, than waste being dumped in rivers and the sea while very advanced legislation sits on the shelf, unused.
46 The term ‘resource recovery’ refers to the resources that are recovered from waste include both materials and energy sources, and either of them may be addressed by such legislation. Materials include recyclables such as metals, plastics, glass, paper, nutrients and organic matter.
47 For example, in Austria it is prohibited to landfill waste with TOC (total organic carbon) content higher than 5%; in Sweden, landfilling is banned for organic waste (waste containing carbon in organic form, such as food waste and plastics); in Switzerland, landfilling of municipal solid waste is banned.
BOX 4.8 LAW ON FOOD WASTE RECYCLING, JAPAN
Japan’s Law for Promotion of Recycling and Related Activities for the Treatment of Cyclical Food Resources (2001; revised 2007) aims to increase recycling rates of waste generated during the manufacture, distribution and consumption of food. The law stipulates the responsibilities of food-related businesses and of consumers and provides specific criteria for reducing the generation of waste, reducing the waste volume and recycling. The competent Ministry is to provide guidance and also facilitate the process by, for example, establishing stable transactions among different parties or linking registered food waste-producing businesses to other registered businesses which can reuse or recycle the food waste.48
The recycling is often done by means of processing the waste into animal feed (usually for pigs) under strictly controlled industrial conditions, thereby ensuring safety for consumption. This kind of food waste recycling is a big industry in Japan and the Republic of Korea contributing to resource (nutrient) recovery. Use of food waste for animal feed is forbidden in the EU, due to fear of mala fide processing practices that could spread into the feed any pathogens that may be present in the input materials and thereby infect animals.49 The EU also bans the feeding of catering waste (swill) to pigs. A UK-based civil society movement ‘The Pig Idea’ is aiming at lifting the ban and reinstating this time-honoured practice. The movement has gained popularity and support by celebrity chefs, cooks and farmers around the country.50
© L. Rodic © J.W.F. Wiersma
‘Ugly’ vegetables at reduced price Students gleaning ‘too big’ vegetables,
in supermarket, France. Netherlands.
In addition to national legislation, or in its absence, smaller administrative entities such as states or (large) cities may enact local legislation, aiming to increase resource recovery. For example, the state of South Australia, and several cities in the U.S., including San Francisco (California), Portland (Oregon) and Seattle (Washington), are examples of good practice of not only enacting such legislation but also – and more importantly – following through and implementing it successfully. In 2005 Buenos Aires City, Argentina, passed a local law (Law 1854/05), commonly known as the ‘Zero Waste Law’, which requires the waste quantities sent to landfills be reduced by 50% in 2012 and by 75% in 2017 in comparison to 2004 levels; in addition, this law bans waste incineration, with or without energy recovery. While the level of performance is still far below these ambitious targets, the city’s waste management system has nevertheless been transformed, with intensified recycling of construction and demolition waste, construction of an MBT plant and the introduction of organized separate collection of dry recyclables by informal recyclers, cartoneros,51 accompanied by communication campaigns. This leaves 55% of the waste to be directly disposed, which constitutes a 20% reduction compared to 2004 levels.52
48 http://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/recycle/10.pdf
49 There have been cases where such practices are believed to have contributed to spread of the foot-and-mouth disease in the UK.
50 http://thepigidea.org
51 In order to emphasise the inclusion of cartoneros in MSWM system, they are now officially referred to as recuperadores urbanos. Informal waste sector in MSWM is elaborated in Topic Sheet 14, found after Section 4.7.
52 The amount of waste landfilled in 2004 was 1.5 million tonnes. Currently the city generates about 6,000 tonnes per day, of which 3,250 tonnes are directly landfilled.
Waste governance 141 BOX 4.9 TOWARD ZERO WASTE IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, U.S.
Among U.S. cities at the forefront of change, shoulder to shoulder with San Francisco, California, the city of Seattle in King County, Washington State, adopted zero waste as a ‘guiding principle’ in its Integrated SWM Plan of 1998, which emphasizes managing resources instead of waste and conserving natural resources through waste prevention and recycling. However, its history shows that the policy has developed over almost 40 years.
As early as 1981, Seattle introduced volume-based waste collection charges, supported by measures to tackle the temporary side effect of illegal dumping. In the 1980s, its two landfills closed, leaving the city with an acute waste disposal problem. Although a large incineration plant was considered, the siting process met with considerable public opposition. The mayor decided to put the incineration project on hold and called on the residents to show their commitment and source separate their waste so as to divert it from disposal. A diversion target was set at 60% under the city’s 1988 Integrated SWM Plan and reaffirmed in subsequent plans.53 Similar ambitious targets were set across the entire King County, with home (backyard) composting as an integral part of the plans; the county provided residents with compost bins at subsidized rates as well as with technical assistance. The pre- existing waste collection fee structure helped encourage backyard composting. In parallel, a recycling programme was launched in 1988, to become the cornerstone of the upcoming comprehensive recycling system. Costs were closely monitored and a number of measures were also introduced to cut the costs for the city. Interestingly, each step in the process was supported and informed by invited studies by consultancies and proposals from competing private companies, accompanied by extensive feedback from citizens and other stakeholders.54
Zero waste goals, source separation and composting of yard and food waste are embraced by various groups in the city. For example, having started from a 12% waste diversion rate at its stadium in 2005, the Seattle Mariners baseball team approached 85% waste diversion in 2012 through various measures, including compostable food service ware and snack food packaging; it also distributed “Kitchen Catcher” composting kits and other useful items to promote composting to the fans.55
Recently Seattle has focused on reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. Based on an extensive 2011 report,56 the City Council passed resolutions calling for zero net GHG emissions by 2050 in the three sectors that account for the majority of emissions in Seattle and offer the greatest opportunities for the city to influence through direct policies, programmes and investments, namely transportation, buildings and waste. To that end, the 2030 target waste diversion rate was increased to above 70%.57 In Seattle citizens separate their waste and place it in three different bins located outside of their houses: a green bin to hold yard clipping and food waste, a blue one for recyclables and a black one for residual waste. From January 2015 source separation of organic waste has been made mandatory. Efforts by the city to increase source separation and recycling by the residents have been supported by a system of fines for those who repeatedly demonstrate poor waste separation practices. The system has primarily an educational function – it starts with a friendly reminder through an ‘educational ticket’ affixed to the waste bins, followed by a symbolic fine.
Education of the public is generally seen as important, thus school programmes on waste practices are organized.58
The city’s waste authorities are looking into waste streams that are currently still difficult to recycle, such as cooking oils, wet or dirty produce bags, cat litter, painted or treated wood etc.
Related to the end-of-waste criteria are the quality protocols and standards for recycled materials and compost produced from waste, as presented in Topic Sheet 12 below.
A number of economic instruments (such as landfill and incineration taxes) as well as information-based instruments have been used or proposed to promote resource recovery; these instruments are discussed in subsequent sections. Obviously, legislation has to be enacted so as to mandate their implementation.
53 Seattle Zero Waste Resolution 30990 of 2007, available at http://www.seattle.gov/parks/docs/zero%20waste%20resolution.pdf
54 USEPA (1994). Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons from 30 Communities. EPA530-R-92-015; Bagby, J. (1999). City of Seattle: Past, Present and Future and the Role of Full Cost Accounting and SWM. Seattle Public Utilities.
55 Farrell Tucker, M. & N. Goldstein (2012). Seattle Mariners Push the Zero Waste Envelope. Biocycle 53(12): 25.
56 Getting to Zero: A Pathway to a Carbon Neutral Seattle, available at http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OSE/CN_Seattle_Report_May_2011.pdf 57 http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/carbon_neutrality.htm
58 Hickman, M. (2014). Seattle residents with too many table scraps in their trash can now be fined. Mother Nature Network, 23 September 2014. Available at http://www.
mnn.com/lifestyle/recycling/blogs/seattle-residents-with-too-many-table-scraps-in-their-trash-can-now-be. The explanatory guide for Seattle residents is available at www.seattle.gov/council/bagshaw/attachments/compost%20requirement%20qa.pdf