BIO-WASTE SELECTIVE COLLECTION SCHEMES
An ACR+ Publication | March 201 6 The Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling and sustainable Resource management (ACR+) is an international network of members who share the common aim of promoting the sustainable consumption of resources and management of waste through prevention at source, reuse and recycling. ACR+ currently has more than 90 members, mainly local and regional authorities as well as national networks of local authorities representing around 750 municipalities. ACR+ also welcomes other key players in the sustainable resourceproductwaste management, such as NGOs, academic institutions or private organisations, as partner members.
Copyright: No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from ACR+. The only exception is by a reviewer, who may quote short excerpts in a review.
© ACR+, Brussels, March 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 . INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY...... 2
1 .1 . Why this report...... 2
1 .2. Methodological approach...... 2 1 .2.1 . Definitions...... 2 1 .2.2. Data sources and methodology...... 3
2. SUMMARIZED FACTSHEETS...... 5
Catalonia, Spain...... 6 Flanders, Belgium...... 8 Lisbon, Portugal...... 1 0 Milan, Italy...... 1 2 Southern Region, Ireland...... 1 4 Styria, Austria...... 1 6
3. BENCHMARKING AND COMPARISONS...... 1 8
3.1 . Collection systems...... 1 8 3.1 .1 . Scope of collected bio-waste...... 1 8 3.1 .2. Collection method...... 20
3.2. Costs and financing...... 21 3.2.1 . Link between waste generation and waste fee...... 22 3.2.2. No link between waste generation and waste fee...... 23
3.3. Treatment process and infrastructure...... 23
3.4. Share of collected bio-waste, potential and quality...... 24
3.5. Policy framework and external factors...... 27 3.5.1 . Positive influence...... 27 3.5.2. Negative influence...... 27
3.6. Communication...... 28
4. CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 30
4.1 . Challenges...... 30 4.1 .1 . Feedback from Southern Region of Ireland's experience...... 30 4.1 .2. Feedback from the Catalan region's experience...... 30 4.1 .3. Feedback from the Styrian province's experience...... 31
4.2. A few recommendations and conclusions...... 31 1 . INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
1 .1 . Why this report
This report aims to provide cases about how some cities and regions selectively collect and treat biowaste, with the view to help other territories to set up their own biowaste selective collection strategies.
According to calculations from the European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (ETC/SCP), in 2008–2010 biowaste accounted for 37 % of the municipal waste in Europe (EU27 excluding Cyprus, plus Norway and Switzerland)1. The proportion differs from country to country, mainly because of variations in the way that municipal waste is defined in different countries according to the European Environment Agency (EEA). The EEA also mentions that many European Economic Area member countries with a high share of biowaste in their municipal waste still recycle only a limited amount of biowaste, resulting in a relatively marginal effect of biowaste recycling on total municipal waste recycling rates.
According to Eurostat, in 2012 EU28 Member States composted 15% and recycled 27% of their municipal waste (480 kg per person in average were treated in 2012)².
This is a clear indication that a stronger focus on biowaste recycling (composting) is needed. For many countries, there is much room for improving the overall recycling rate of municipal waste through increasing biowaste recycling.
There is no EUwide obligation to recycle biowaste (biowaste falls into the overall objective of 50% recycling and composting by 2020). Instead, EU rules only limit the amount of biodegradable waste that can be landfilled (reduction target of biodegradable municipal waste landfilled set to 35% by 2016 compared to 1995).
In December 2015, the European Commission proposed in its 'circular economy package' to have more ambitious targets for recycling (65% by 2030) and landfilling (10% by 2030). No specific recycling target was proposed for bio waste, however3.
In order to provide local and regional authorities with useful good practices and quantitative data, this report includes a series of synthetic factsheets presenting biowaste collection schemes from six European regions and cities and a comparison of those systems and their performances. 1 .2. Methodological approach
1 .2.1 . Definitions
Bio-waste is defined in the Waste Framework Directive4 as “biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, catering and retail premises and comparable waste from food processing plants”. A distinction is made between biowaste and biodegradable waste in the respect that biowaste does not include paper and cardboard, wood or textile waste.
1 European Environment Agency, EEA Report No 2/201 3 “Managing municipal solid waste - a review of achievements in 32 European countries”, March 201 3 ² Eurostat: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521 /51 80394/8-2503201 4-AP-EN.PDF/a266b63d-3fb3-4b27-8a97-4dcc44c600c1 ?version=1 .0 3 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 1 999/31 /EC on the landfill of waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 201 2/1 9/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment – COM(201 5) 595 final 4 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 1 9 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 2 Food waste is defined as biodegradable kitchen & processing plant waste from households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises composed of raw or cooked preconsumer and postconsumer waste. It is equivalent to “kitchen waste”.
Green waste is defined as biodegradable garden and park waste from households, public & private green spaces composed of grass, branches and similar waste. It is equivalent to “garden waste”.
Bio-waste separately collected: according to the R4R methodology (DREC), it is intended as biowaste separately collected for the purpose of recycling (meaning composting in a centralised facility as opposed to home or community composting that is not the focus of this report) and includes:
• municipal waste streams separated at source & collected separately (one homogeneous waste stream not mixed with other waste streams) with the purpose of recycling,
• the output from MBT installation going directly to facilities for recycling: biological treatment (including composting and anaerobic digestion) may be classified as recycling when compost (or digestate) is used on land or for the production of growing media.
It is to be noted that this calculation method is very much in line with the two methods proposed by the European Commission in December 20155 .
1 .2.2. Data sources and methodology
The report builds on a number of cases and information provided by partners of the R4R project and ACR+ members using the R4R tools and methods. Regions for Recycling (R4R) was a European project (20122014) led by ORDIF, ACR+ and OVAM and aiming to enable cities and regions to improve their recycling performance through consistent comparisons and an exchange of good practices.
Indeed within the R4R project, several good practices were identified and analysed on the topic of biowaste collection, providing detailed information about the implementation, results and lessons learnt from each case. The R4R factsheets covering biowaste collection are related to the following territories: Catalonia (Catalan Waste Agency – ARC), the Southern Region of Ireland, Milan (AMSA) and the Province of Styria (Office of the Federal State Government of Styria).
Also, R4R partners and other territories (including some ACR+ members) are using the R4R online tool to benchmark on biowaste collection and treatment performances, using the DREC methodology that enables comparisons with harmonised indicators. Unless otherwise stated, the quantitative data mentioned in the report is coming from the R4R tool.
R4R factsheets were summarized in order to highlight the main elements of the selective collection schemes implemented, including quantitative data about the biowaste produced and collected for the purpose of recycling/composting and some contextual information about the financing system, the final destination of collected bio waste and the policy framework.
On top of the above mentioned territories, additional data from Flanders and Lisbon municipality allowed to create similar synthetic factsheets with quantitative data.
5 The first method taking into account the quantity of waste entering the recycling process; the second method taking into account the quantity of waste going out from sortig operation provided that this quantity is sent to recycling and that the quantity of impurities remains below 1 0% (source: COM(201 5) 595 final, article 11 a).
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 3 Biowaste recycling potential is also provided, on the basis of the data inserted by the above mentioned public authorities in the R4R online tool, in particular the amount of sorted waste going to landfill or incineration and the amount of residual waste going to landfill or incineration. In order to calculate the second one, the R4R online tool uses a composition analysis provided by each user of the online tool. By multiplying the biowaste fraction mentioned in the composition analysis (%) with the amount of residual waste going directly to landfill/incineration (kg/inhabitant), it is possible to estimate the amount of biowaste in residual waste (kg/inhabitant). No common framework for composition analysis was defined during the R4R project. Therefore it is likely these datasets are based on different methods and some of them might be assessment based on national data. Still, this provides an interesting indication.
It is to be noted that biowaste prevention measures can have a significant impact on the overall quantity of collected biowaste. No quantitative data about home and community composting was analysed in this report but the policy framework section in each factsheet mentions the main measures promoting decentralised composting.
Additional information about biowaste prevention can be found in ACR+ work:
• ACR+ technical report “Management options for 6 composting strategies” (2014) • Miniwaste project: good practices, monitoring tool, protocols on assessing the impact of decentralised composting: www.miniwaste.eu • Prewaste project: good practices, monitoring tool methodology on waste prevention planning: www.prewaste.eu • ACR+ initiative Circular Europe Network and its database of good practices: www.circulareuropenetwork.eu
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 4 2. SUMMARIZED FACTSHEETS
The report includes 6 factsheets describing various strategies for biowaste selective collection in the following territories:
• Catalonia (Spain) • Flanders (Belgium) • Lisbon (Portugal) • Milan (Italy) • Southern Region (Ireland) • Styria (Austria)
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 5 Catalonia - Spain 201 2
General Data
Bio-waste and Municipal waste generation
Collected MSW (201 2) Tonnes kg/capacity
Bio-waste separately collected 481 ,982 63.67
Bio-waste in residual waste 463,360 61 .21
Other collected waste 2,274,1 79 300.42
Total 3,21 9,521 425.30
Bio-waste collection
Responsible organisation: municipalities. The household bio-waste fraction comprises mostly kitchen waste (including meat, fish bones and seafood shells) and light garden waste. Commercial bio-waste comes mostly from grocery stores, restaurants and canteens as well as markets where the major components are the rests of food preparing and expired/discarded food.
Due to climate reasons, organic waste stream is collected separately in compostable bags made up of vegetal polymers stocked in aerated bins. Collection happens via road containers or on kerbside basis.
Financing system The ‘Waste Management Fund’ is conceived to economically assist municipalities that have implemented selective collection of bio-waste. The Fund exists as part of the budget of the ARC and is bankrolled from tax on landfilling and incineration of MSW.
Tax per tonne of MSW Municipalities with selective Municipalities without selective waste collection service waste collection service*
Safe disposal 1 2.40 € 21 .60 €
Incineration 5.70 € 1 6.50 €
*But that encounter the necessary treatment facilities / infrastructures within their territory.
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 6 Local authorities that have implemented both selective collection of the organic fraction as well as proper treatments (anaerobic digestion or composting) for this stream are eligible to receive economic support from the Waste Management Fund. The Fund serves two purposes: financing the maintenance of the collection service and promoting new actions to improve the running system. Local authorities are refunded of part of the tax according to the quantity and the quality of the bio-waste delivered to the treatment plants.
Final destination
The bio-waste stream selectively collected (for municipalities having provided citizens with separate collection for the bio-fraction) undergoes a compulsory treatment in an anaerobic digestion plant or a composting facility. The refuse output resulting from treatment procedures is conducted to disposal.
By the end of 201 2, 663 out of 947 municipalities had completed the implementation of separate collection of bio-waste. By the end of 201 3 the number had increased to 697.
Policy framework
• Law 9/2008, 1 0 July, amending the Law 6/1 993, of 1 5th July for the region of Catalonia establishing selective waste collection system for all municipalities and the sorting of the organic waste stream as a separated fraction.
• Law 8/2008, 1 0 July, concerning the financing of waste management infrastructures and waste disposal taxes. Regulation of the ‘Waste Management Fund’ and establishment of the incineration/disposal tax for municipalities in Catalonia Region.
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 7 Flanders - Belgium 201 2
General Data
Bio-waste and Municipal waste generation
Collected MSW (201 2) Tonnes kg/capacity
Bio-waste separately collected 753,953 11 8.1 4
Bio-waste in residual waste 293,629 46.01
Other collected waste 1 ,807,477 281 .23
Total 2,842,352 445.38
Bio-waste collection Responsible organisation: (Inter)municipalities (i.e municipalities that have joined together)
In Flanders, intermunicipal associations have to choose to collect separately either green waste or a fraction composed of vegetable, fruit and garden waste (excluding wood and waste from animal origin). The choice depends on the differences in local conditions.
The bio-waste is separated at source and is collected door-to-door in containers. Green can also be brought to recycling parks.
Financing system
The system includes two elements: firstly, the implementation of a “Pay as you throw” scheme charges households based on the amount of waste they throw away. Secondly, differentiated tariffs for the various waste streams encourage separate collection of fractions that can be recycled, reused or composted. Highest tariffs are applied to residual waste, giving incentives to households to separate bio-waste as much as possible from the residual waste fraction.
Final destination
The separately collected biodegradable waste is treated either in composting installations or digestion plants. Green waste is composted.
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 8 Policy framework
• Incineration and landfill ban for separately collected waste streams
• Subsidies for composting installations and composting bins to encourage home and community composting
• Waste management plans
• Environmental agreements between municipalities and the Flemish authorities to stimulate home composting and the use of compost
• Establishment of the Flemish Composting Organisation, non-for-profit organisation responsible for promoting the production and sale of quality compost in Flanders, for stimulating separate collection and for implementing a quality assurance system
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 9 Lisbon - Portugal 201 2
General Data
Bio-waste and Municipal waste generation
Collected MSW (201 2) Tonnes kg/capacity
Bio-waste separately collected 21 ,367 39.01
Bio-waste in residual waste 77,1 97 1 40.94
Other collected waste 1 75,937 321 .21
Total 274,501 501 .1 6
Bio-waste collection
Responsible organisation: Câmara Municipal de Lisboa.
In Lisbon, only food waste generated by some restaurants, canteens, hotels and markets is collected selectively. Bio-waste coming from households is collected mixed with the residual waste.
Residual waste is collected kerbside and via bring bank system, but there is no separate bin for the bio- waste stream. Bio-waste can also be collected on demand against a charge depending on the quantity.
Financing system
Until 201 4 waste management was financed through the general budget of the municipality, part of which was coming from a sanitary tariff applied to citizens. From the beginning of 201 5 new waste tariff will be established which will be indexed to the water consumption. This tariff will cover all management costs related to waste services. In the case of big producers (more than 11 00 litres per day of waste), a PAYT system will be implemented based on the collection frequency, the capacity of the bins and the percentage of delivered recyclable materials.
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 1 0 Final destination
The bio-stream selectively collected is conducted to an Anaerobic Digestion plant, which produces biogas and a product suitable for use in agriculture (digestate). There is no composting scheme.
Policy framework
• Strategic Plan for Municipal Waste at national level: one of its strategic goals is the promotion of the bio-waste collection and its valorisation, in order to achieve the target of landfill deviation
• Municipal Plan for Waste Management under preparation by the municipality: foresees important measures related to bio-waste prevention and valorisation (such as home composting, green waste valorisation in municipal parks and green areas, enlargement of the bio- waste collection in the non- household and also household sector, improvement of the green waste collection and treatment).
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 11 Milan - Italy 201 3
General Data
Bio-waste and Municipal waste generation
Collected MSW (201 3) Tonnes kg/capacity
Bio-waste separately collected 76,562 56.55
Bio-waste in residual waste 64,688 47.78
Other collected waste 522,91 0 386.23
Total 664,1 60 490.56
Bio-waste collection Responsible organisation: Waste Management Department for Milan. Run by public agency Amsa. The bio-waste stream includes food waste as well as light garden waste.
Kitchen 1 0 litres vented caddy
Bags 35 litres compostable bags according to EN 1 3432 standard
Collection Wheelie bins 1 20l/240l
Food waste Collection 2/ week (households) collection scheme frequency 6/ week (Ho.Re.Ca.)
What to separate? Fruit and vegetables waste, meat, fish, kitchen waste, food leftovers, rice, bread, biscuits, pasta and baked food, perished food without packaging, grounds from coffee/ tea, used paper napkins/ tissus or paper towels, seeds, cut flowers, remains and leaves from homeplants
Green waste Collection Citizens must bring their garden waste to civic amenity sites collection scheme (limit of 2 entries per month)
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 1 2 Financing system The municipality of Milan has provided the funds necessary to implement the system. In addition, special containers as well as an “introductory kit” were provided free of charge to households. Kerbside selective collection system acts as the milestone to evolve towards the implementation of a Pay As You Throw scheme (currently under consideration). Citizens pay a new waste tax (TARI) that entered into force in 201 4. This tax is conceived to cover costs of waste collection, transportation and disposal/recovery of MSW and assimilated waste. TARI is calculated on the basis of a fix part (square meters of the household) and a variable part (number of inhabitants).
Number of Fix part - €/square meter and Variable part* - Number of TARI (year basis)** inhabitants year inhabitants of the household
1 1 ,46908 53,50655 78,60 €
2 1 ,7261 7 96,311 79 1 66,25 € *It is compulsory for citizens to report on the number of inhabitants that live within the property. **This calculation method is available via the following link for more cases. *** A reduction for commerce, schools and other collectives is already foreseen.
Final destination The food waste selectively collected is send to the Montella Anaerobic Digestion facility 60km away from Milan. The adopted plant solution consists in an initial waste pre-treatment phase, followed by anaerobic digestion (aimed at the production of biogas used for the generation of electrical and thermal energy), and a subsequent aerobic composting phase of the sludge coming from the dehydration of the digested waste, aimed at the production of quality organic fertilizer, complying with the Italian legal product status and used in agriculture. Green waste is sent to a composting plant.
Policy framework
• Legislative Decree 36/2003 transposed the EU Landfill Directive. The Decree included targets based on the quantity (kilograms) of BMW produced per capita, instead of transposing the percentage- based targets set out in the Landfill Directive. It also introduced a landfill ban for waste with a calorific value exceeding 1 3 megajoules per tonne with effect at the end of 2008
• Mayor Ordinance of the City of Milan about collection of household bio- waste and the introduction of a “door-to-door” commercial bio-waste collection service. Four-step implementation programme.
• Landfill tax was introduced 1 996 based on Law 549/1 995. Its scope covers the regional level: landfill operators pay directly to the regions. Although the tax has increased on average since 2009, its level is still low when compared to western European countries.
• Legislative Decree 22/97 introduced a waste tariff that was then replaced by a new waste tariff named TARI proportional to waste quantity and quality produced per floor area unit in relation to uses and different typologies of activities. It was introduced by Law 1 47 of 27 of December 201 3
• Italian Plastic Bag Application Decree. In force since May 201 3, this decree bans the use of single use plastic carrier bags unless they are 1 00% compostable (bio-plastic based). However, it accepts the use of PE single use plastic bags for food purpose if they have a certain percentage of bio- plastics in their composition.
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 1 3 Southern Region - Ireland 201 2
General Data
Bio-waste and Municipal waste generation
Collected MSW (201 2) Tonnes kg/capacity
Bio-waste separately collected 7,699 1 6.94
Bio-waste in residual waste 1 4,299 31 .46
Other collected waste 1 02,11 9 224.68
Total 1 24,11 7 273.08
Bio-waste collection Responsible organisation: Private sector companies.
Waste collection in Ireland is primarily undertaken by the private sector based on contracts between households and commercial premises and the private collectors. These collectors are controlled by the Local Authorities via the issuing of a Waste Collection Permit (WCP), a binding authorisation which requires them to provide selective segregated collection service for commercial and household bio-waste. Some very rural areas of the region are still not covered by the collection routes.
The collection system is based on a door-to-door system and bio-waste is collected in a brown bin provided to households and commercial premises by the authorised waste collector responsible for the selective collection. . Garden waste is composted or collected in civic amenity sites.
Financing system
When household premises subscribe to a waste collection service with a waste collector they are invoiced based on a PAYT model (in accordance with the collector’s WCP). The PAYT cost is normally incurred on the residual bin with the bio-waste bin incurring a nominal charge based on number of lifts or in some cases no charge is incurred. Details of the authorised collector’s charging system for commercial premises are not readily available; however the charging system must incentivise the use of the bio-waste bin.
Final destination The selectively collected organic waste stream is brought to an anaerobic digestion plant or in-vessel composting facility in Ireland with subsequent energy and compost production.
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 1 4 Policy framework
• National strategy on biodegradable waste (Ireland 2006): sets out measures aimed at progressively diverting biodegradable municipal waste from landfill in accordance with the Landfill Directive. The measures include prevention and minimisation, as well as the separate collection, recovery and recycling of biodegradable waste.
• Waste Management (Food Waste) Regulations 2009: require commercial producers of food waste to source segregate their food waste and have it appropriately treated or collected for subsequent treatment.
• EU (Household Food Waste & Bio-waste) Regulations 201 3: establish the duty for waste collectors to provide a separate collection of household bio-waste, on a phased basis based on agglomeration size. It also establishes the duty for householders to source segregate food waste arising as household waste.
• Landfill tax, introduced as a consequence of the targets fixed for Ireland in the EU Landfill Directive (1 999/31 /EC) in order to encourage the diversion of waste from landfill. The tax was set at €1 5 per tonne in 2002 and increased progressively using powers under the Waste Management Regulations 201 3 (SI No. 1 94 of 201 3) to €75 in 201 3.
• Waste Management (Collection Permit) Regulations, 2007 as amended: require waste collectors, other than local authorities, to obtain a WCP. The WCP specifies the type of waste the collector can collect (EWC Codes), the recovery/disposal facilities which they can use and lists the vehicles they can use for the purposes of waste collection.
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 1 5 Styria - Austria 201 2
General Data
Bio-waste and Municipal waste generation
Collected MSW (201 2) Tonnes kg/capacity
Bio-waste separately collected 92,705 76.84
Bio-waste in residual waste 1 6,022 1 3.28
Other collected waste 31 8,965 264.38
Total 427,692 354.50
Bio-waste collection
Responsible organisation: Municipal or private waste collectors.
In Styria the collection of bio-waste includes the bio-waste from households and bio-waste originating in gardens and green spaces. In most municipalities collection intervals vary according to the seasons: once weekly in the summer months and every two weeks in winter.
Bio-waste from households is collected in dedicated containers integrated in the separate collection system. Green waste from gardens and green spaces is collected via municipal structures or other organisations on behalf of the municipalities.
Financing system
The bio-waste collection is financed via the municipal waste fee (tariffs are determined in the municipal waste removal ordinances). In the initial phase the treatment of the bio-waste was financially supported via fundings of the Province of Styria.
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 1 6 Final destination
In Styria, waste management associations are responsible for the treatment of the collected bio-waste. The main form of biological treatment is composting which is practically carried out in municipal, agricultural and commercial composting plants. The aim is to generate a product rich in humins (compost) from bio-waste. There are also biogas plants where organic raw materials (waste and/or agricultural residues and, to some extent, sewage sludge) are biologically converted into biogas and remaining fermentation residue.
Policy framework
• Styrian Waste Management Concept 1 989: the separate collection of bio-waste and its recovery were introduced as pilot projects in Styrian waste management from 1 987 to 1 989
• Styrian Waste Management Act 1 990 (StAWG): as first Austrian province, Styria legally implemented the separate collection of bio-waste
• In rural areas and households with gardens, bio-waste is recovered by home or community composting, which has been encouraged by the Provincial Government of Styria according to the slogan “as centralised as required and as decentralised as possible”.
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 1 7 3. BENCHMARKING AND COMPARISONS
3.1 . Collection systems
3.1 .1 . Scope of collected bio-waste
There are generally two main fractions of biowaste that are considered for collection: kitchen waste and green waste from gardens and parks.
Kitchen (or food) waste can include a wide range of materials (such as fruit and vegetable peelings, coffee grounds, teabags, eggshells, meat and fish bones, cooked meal leftovers) or be restricted to specific fractions. For instance, in the Belgian region of Flanders, only raw vegetables and fruits are accepted, while in Milan also cooked food (i.e. pasta, meat, fish, etc.) is included. In cases where food waste includes or potentially includes waste from animal origin, it is subject to specific EU health regulations6 and therefore stricter standards are applicable to the subsequent treatment processes and infrastructure.
As part of the municipal solid waste (MSW) collection, kitchen waste can be collected from households and/or from smallscale commercial premises such as restaurants, hotels, canteens, grocery shops and markets (commonly referred to as HoReCa). In case the commercial premises are already part of the municipal waste collection system, it makes sense to also integrate them into the municipal biowaste collection system. The reason is that such smallscale shops generate kitchen waste comparable in its composition to that of a common household and, therefore, synergies can be realised through combined collection and treatment of the waste from the two sources. The situation might be different if shops are using private collectors to take care of their waste.
While the composition of household and assimilated kitchen waste is generally comparable, some differences between the two can be noted. Selectively collected biowaste from commerce is generally more uniform in its composition and of higher purity7. It occurs in larger quantities and therefore has the potential to be separated at source more easily and effectively, as it can more easily be traced and corrective actions taken if needed. In Barcelona kerbside selective collection of assimilated kitchen waste from commerce was introduced in the early 2000s. Since then the percentage of impurities of commercial kitchen waste has been lower than for household kitchen waste. As an example, in 2013 collected kitchen waste from restaurants was estimated to have 8.2% impurities compared to 21.1% from households8 (the issue of quality will be elaborated in more details in a later section of this report).
Collecting big volumes of high purity kitchen waste is important to make investments in collection and treatment infrastructure more profitable. This is especially true in the beginning stages of a biowaste collection system, as individual citizens might need time to learn how to sort this waste fraction in the correct way.
The case studies in this report have made different decisions related to the collection of biowaste from the two sources (see Table 1).
6 Regulation (EC) No 1 069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by- products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1 774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) 7 Arcadis/Eunomia, “Assessment of the options to improve the management of bio-waste in the European Union”, p.79, November 2009 8 Barcelona City Council, « La gestion de déchets dans les centres urbains denses. Le cas de Barcelone » ORDIF conference: Waste Management in dense urban centres, 6 November 201 4
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 1 8 Catalonia (ES) Flanders (BE) Limerick/Clare/Kerry Lisbon (PT) Milan (IT) Styria (AT)
Household √ √ √ √ √
Assimilated √ √ √ √ Table 1 : Scope of collected kitchen waste in terms of origin
All case studies with the exception of Lisbon collect kitchen waste from households. It can be noted that the two cities – Lisbon and Milan – have comparable population density that is relatively high (6,444 inh/km2 and 7,038 inh/km2 respectively). Yet, both of them have adopted very different approaches in terms of the kitchen waste that is collected. In Lisbon, only assimilated kitchen waste is collected from some selected premises (restaurants, markets, canteens and the like) whose participation has to be previously analysed and approved. The service is restricted in order to guarantee the high quality of the collected material through the provision of adequate information and equipment to the participating premises. In Milan, kitchen waste is collected both from households (participation for citizens is mandatory) and from small commercial activities so that collection covers the whole territory of the city. In 2014, households account for 67% of the total collected food waste and the HoReCa sector makes up around 19% (the remaining 14% being food waste found in the residual waste)9.
Catalonia and the Southern Region of Ireland have implemented comprehensive collection systems for food waste. In Ireland, collection is performed by private operators who are obliged by law to provide separate collection of household kitchen waste. Similarly, both households and commercial producers of food waste have the legal duty to separate their food waste. In Catalonia, since 1993 the separate collection of biowaste was compulsory for municipalities with more than 5,000 inhabitants. This obligation was extended in 2008 to all Catalan municipalities. Further, a set of economic instruments at regional level is applied (in form of landfill and incineration taxes and tax refunds) to incentivise municipalities to achieve quantitative and qualitative performance.
Both Flanders and Styria have an approach targeting only households and in both cases sorting kitchen waste at source is made mandatory for the citizens. Alternatively, citizens can and are even encouraged to practice home composting.
Green waste can consist of leaves, branches, flowers, tree and bush cuttings, generally occurring in private households’ gardens. Additionally, green waste from public parks and cemeteries can also be collected as is the case for Milan and Styria.
Several factors have to be taken into account when deciding whether to collect kitchen and green waste comingled or whether it is more beneficial to collect the two separately.
Although to some extent also applicable to kitchen waste, an important characteristic of the garden waste generation is its seasonality. The exact amounts can vary from country to country and within countries themselves, depending on climatic conditions and the time of the year. By contrast, while the quantities of food waste might also vary (for instance, more food waste generated around holiday), the pattern for food waste is generally much more stable than for green waste. This variation and seasonality have to be taken into account to avoid disturbances of treatment operations and capacities10. Further characteristics of green waste is its low putrescence and moisture level which means that, as opposed to food waste, green waste has lower density, does not emit as much odour or leachate and does not attract as much pest11.
9 Italian Biogas and Composting Association, Power Point Presentation, “Food waste collection in metropolitan areas: Milan”, July 201 4 1 0 Arcadis/Eunomia, “Assessment of the options to improve the management of bio-waste in the European Union”, p.93, November 2009 11 ACR+, “Analysis of municipal waste management practices in Europe”, p.54, June 2008
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 1 9 In terms of treatment, green waste requires simpler and less costly infrastructure than kitchen waste12. For a successful treatment through composting, a specific ratio of both fractions is needed. Such ratio can be easily controlled if the two fractions are collected separately. In the case of joint collection, the ratio has to be constantly monitored and adjusted during the treatment process. For treatment through anaerobic digestion, preferably only food waste will be chosen, since lignine and cellulosis cannot be degraded by anaerobes.
Catalonia (ES) Flanders (BE) Limerick/Clare/Kerry Lisbon (PT) Milan (IT) Styria (AT)
Kitchen √ √ √ √ √ √
Green √ √ √ √
Table 2: Scope of collected waste in terms of composition
It is possible that collection of garden waste is not relevant in all circumstance. For instance, in densely populated urban areas, generation of this type of waste might be too limited to justify the logistics involved by kerbside collection and therefore limiting collection to bring banks or civic amenity sites could be enough. In Lisbon, which is one such area, garden waste is not collected reflecting the general approach of focusing more on commercial kitchen waste than on biowaste generated by households. In Milan, green waste is collected either at civic amenity sites or at kerbside with very low collection frequency (once a week or once every two weeks as opposed to 26 times/week for kitchen waste). However, the quantity of green waste separately collected in Milan is negligible when compared to the quantity of food waste (4 kg/inh/year of green waste compared to 90 kg/inh/year of food waste in 2014. In the Southern region of Ireland, collection of food waste in a brown bin is mandatory. Most territories advise to use garden waste either for home composting or for mulching. Occasionally, some service providers can also accept to collect light garden waste (plants, flowers, hedge clippings) in the same bin as the one for kitchen waste or can offer separate specially dedicated bin.
3.1 .2. Collection method
Source separated vs. mixed collection
Biowaste can be collected either separated at source or mixed with other types of waste. In practice, the second case often means that biowaste is part of residual waste and has to undergo subsequent separation operations. However, biowaste is both easily contaminated and contaminates other potentially recoverable materials from the residual waste fraction. Different literature sources and practical examples suggest that it is more beneficial to collect and treat bio waste separately from other fractions in order to extract the valuable nutrients and energy that it contains. Research has shown than in composting schemes where separation has taken place at the source, there is a sharp decrease of heavy metals and organic pollutants and that compost made from such waste does not significantly differ from traditional soil improvers13.
Further, separate collection of food waste from households has empirically proven to have a “waste prevention effect”. Although the link has not yet been established in quantitative terms, it is suggested that the effect results from the fact that separate collection is a very visible way to make households aware of the quantities of food they waste (and related costs) that would otherwise be hidden in the general waste fraction14. In Milan, a reported side effect of the introduced separate collection of biowaste was a rise in the quantities of separately collected packaging waste15.
1 2 ACR+, “Municipal Waste in Europe”, p.1 57, 2009 1 3 Amlinger F., Pollack M., Favoino E., Report for the European Commission, “Heavy metals and organic compounds from wastes used as organic fertilisers”, 2004 1 4 EU Commission, “Preparatory study on food waste across EU27”, p.20, October 201 0 1 5 Italian Biogas and Composting Association, “Bio-waste Management in Italy and Quality Assurance”, 201 3
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 20 Mode of collection
Separate kerbside collection might appear more costly and require a higher degree of coordination (also from households’ part), especially when there are already a number of other fractions that are separately collected. On the other hand, if the practice of separate collection is already established and known by the citizens, this might make the additional separate collection of biowaste more effective and acceptable for them.
Kerbside often involves a choice of collection in containers, plastic or biodegradable bags, or a combination of those. The choice has to take into account issues such as storage, space, concerns about the odour, etc. (the effect of different choices on the quality of collected waste will be elaborated in more detail in a further section of this report).
Bring banks might be a valid option in densely populated areas where space is limited. In a similar manner, garden waste can also be brought to a civic amenity site. These options are suitable especially for green waste which is easier to transport by individuals and easier to manage afterwards. Bring bank is generally more difficult to implement for food waste because of the inconveniences (odours, rodents, etc.).
Collection on request is less common for biowaste as it is for other waste fractions such as bulky waste. In cases where it is practiced (Lisbon, Styria), the collection service is performed against a charge.
Catalonia (ES) Flanders (BE) Limerick/Clare/Kerry Lisbon (PT) Milan (IT) Styria (AT)
Kerbside √ √ √ √ √ √
CAS √ √ √ √
Bring bank √
On request √ √ Table 3: Collection methods
The different modes of collection can be conceived in a complementary way in order to capture as much recyclable material as possible. In Milan, where the territory of the city is covered by kerbside collection of food waste, citizens are free to bring garden waste and pruning in one of the 5 recycling centres situated around the city.
3.2. Costs and financing
The exact costs and financing depend on several factors: chosen collection method, collection frequency, possibility for synergies with existing collection of other waste streams, etc. Each choice usually implies a tradeoff that has to be assessed according to the individual situation. For instance, because of the warmer climate in countries situated in Southern Europe, biowaste should be collected more frequently than in more Northern countries. If viewed isolated, higher frequency would result in increased costs for waste collection. It would be more appropriate to take an integrated approach and also consider the wider implications of a more frequent biowaste collection on the waste management system.
Indeed, while the costs for separate collection of biowaste vary across Member States according to national specificities, they seem to be generally comparable to the treatment costs of mixed waste16. Further, it has to be taken into account that one of the effects of introducing separate collection of biowaste is the reduction of the volume and
1 6 Eunomia (2007), as cited in EU Commission, p.20-21 , 201 0
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 21 weight of residual waste17. As a consequence, the costs related both to collection and treatment of residual waste are expected to decrease compared to a situation where biowaste is not collected separately. When the system of separate collection of biowaste was introduced in Milan, frequency of residual waste collection was reduced. Regarding treatment of biowaste, even if not immediately, there is a high probability that a cost decrease occurs in the long run (given the trend in policy and legislation of favouring the higher levels of the waste hierarchy).
In Catalonia, the operational costs for biological treatment of biowaste are initially higher than those for residual waste. According to estimates from the Catalan Waste Agency, separate collection of biowaste has an average operation cost of approximately 80.00–100.00€/t. Biological treatment costs mount to 50.00–60.00€/t in the case of composting and 70.00–80.00€/t in the case of the combined processes of anaerobic digestion and composting. This sums up to a total cost of 130.00–160.00€/t and 180.00€/t respectively. However, a number of factors will make the existing cost advantage of residual waste management disappear in the years to come. Among those factors is the existence of a landfill tax that is expected to steadily increase. In view of the targets in the European Landfill Directive in terms of diversion of landfilled waste, this consideration is likely to become increasingly relevant.
Collection costs of biowaste in Styria amount to 64,1–155,5€ per tonne, while treatment costs amount to 47,4–84,9€ per tonne, so in total 114,0–359,1€ per tonne (compared to 229,6–327,0 per tonne for collection and treatment costs of residual waste).
Financing biowaste collection can generally take two different forms: through fees that are related to the amount of waste generated or through fees where there is not such a link. It is to be noted that PAYT and differentiated tariffs can help increase selectively collected quantities and reduce residual quantities (since they give a signal to households and commercial activities)18. On the other hand, financing collection and treatment via the general budget or taxes can lighten the burden on some stakeholders (e.g. low income households).
3.2.1 . Link between waste generation and waste fee
• In the Southern Region of Ireland, the system is operated by the private sector, meaning that each household needs to contract waste collection to a private operator. Since 2005 all household collectors have to provide a paybyuse (PBU) charging system for collection of household waste (by weight, number of lifts, bin size, combination of several). However, since several operators are active on the same territory, prices per quantity or frequency might not always be comparable.
• In Styria, biowaste collection and treatment is financed via the municipal waste fee that is determined in the municipal waste removal ordinances. This fee is linked to the quantity of collected waste. In the initial phase the treatment of biowaste was financially supported via funds from the Province of Styria.
• In Lisbon, biowaste collection for big producers is funded by a specific tariff based on water consumption and the quantity of waste generated.
• In Flanders, citizens can bring their green waste ) to the local civic amenity site, sometimes for free up to a certain amount (depending on the municipality). The management of such civic amenity site is funded both by the mandatory contributions of the municipality to the intermunicipality in charge of waste collection and the contributions from EPR schemes. In addition, food waste collection is funded by a payasyouthrow system (PAYT), based on paying collection bags. In order to incentivise separate collection of food waste, the DifTar system sets up different tariffs for sorted and residual waste, making residual waste collection more expensive than
1 7 ACR+, “Bio-waste composting: Management of 6 composting strategies”, p. 9, 201 4 1 8 European Commission report, “Use of Economic Instruments and Waste Management Performances”, p.99, April 201 2
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 22 separate collection. However, collection of biowaste from households is more expensive than other recyclable fractions in order to stimulate home composting.
3.2.2. No link between waste generation and waste fee
• In Catalonia, collection and treatment are funded via ARC’s general budget, i.e. local taxes not related to waste generation but to the quantity of MSW going to landfill or incineration. Municipalities without an approved plan for the separate collection of biowaste have to pay an increased disposal tax for the landfilling and incineration of residual waste. There is a disposal tax refund scheme for the delivery of biowaste to biological treatment plants. The refund depends on the quantity and quality of the delivered biowaste.
• In Milan, collection costs are covered by a waste tax calculated on the basis of square meters of the household and number of inhabitants.
• In Lisbon, collection of biowaste from regular households is funded by the general budget.
3.3. Treatment process and infrastructure
There are three main options for biological treatment of organic waste depending on the exact type and composition of the waste: composting, anaerobic digestion and mechanical biological treatment.
Composting is a process where biologically degradable waste is broken down by microorganisms in the presence of oxygen. The remaining products are CO2, water and compost. The compost is rich in nutrients and its texture makes it very suitable as a soil improver and/or for the production of topsoil that can be used in agriculture. For composting a mixture of both wet (food waste) and dry matter (green waste) is needed in order to achieve the right balance of carbon and nitrogen necessary for the process.
In anaerobic digestion (AD) the organic material is broken down by microorganisms in an anaerobic (i.e. oxygenfree) environment inside a digestion chamber (e.g. in silos or underground tunnels). The process has two main outputs – gas and digestate. The gas which is formed (referred to as “biogas”) can be used for the production of electricity and/or heat, or as vehicle fuel. The digestate is a substance highly rich in nutrients and can be used as biofertiliser, making it appropriate as a substitute to conventional fertilisers in agriculture. In principle, kitchen waste and grass cuttings would be well suited for fermentation and can thus be directed to this type of treatment. Wooden parts are not biodegradable during anaerobic processes and should better be composted.
While both methods recover nutrients from the collected waste, anaerobic digestion also allows for a recovery of the energy through the biogas produced during the process.
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) is also a treatment option implemented in some territories. MBT can be an interesting technology only if it intervenes at the end of pipe and not as a pretreatment, this is to say after upstream measures such as separate collection of recyclables, biowaste and hazardous waste have been taken. However, nowadays most MBT facilities are rather used for various forms of pretreatment carried out before landfill disposal. In practice two distinct technologies are used, both having different aims: MBT to produce a landfillable or combustible fraction with a minimum of unstable biowaste (RDF), not destined for agriculture, or MBT to produce a stabilized bio waste fraction that can be recycled, e.g. in agriculture, with an acceptable maximum level of pollutants and physical impurities (only allowed in certain Member States).
The choice of treatment method(s) has to be assessed with regards to the local conditions and taking into consideration elements such as the quantity and type of generated waste, transport distances, presence of agricultural areas where compost can be used. A composition analysis might reveal the proportion of the two biowaste fractions (kitchen & garden waste) in total municipal waste and might give a good indication of the appropriate treatment facilities. For the
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 23 good functioning of the system, it is important that there is coordination between collection and treatment. This means that collected material should be sufficient to fill the existing capacities of treatment facilities. The other way round, capacities have to be decided in a way so as to address both present and future needs for adequate treatment of bio waste. Another important factor to consider is the impact of the regulation on animal byproducts19 that imposes specific constraints and sanitary measures to such byproducts and therefore to kitchen waste that include these byproducts.
Catalonia (ES) Flanders (BE) Limerick/Clare/Kerry Lisbon (PT) Milan (IT) Styria (AT)
AD √ √ √ √ √ √
Composting √ √ √ √
MBT √ √
Table 4: Treatment of collected bio-waste
In the two cities of Lisbon and Milan collected biowaste is directed to anaerobic digestion and no composting is performed. This reflects the fact that the focus is put on kitchen waste which, on its own, is more suitable for AD.
MBT plants are in function in Flanders (1 facility) and in Catalonia (7 facilities). The plant in Flanders is intended as a final treatment step of the mixed residual waste fraction after different recyclable materials have been separated at source and directed to appropriate treatment. The output of the MBT is used as refusederived fuel (RDF). If organic matter is still present in the residual waste, it can be dried and also used as RDF. The situation is different in Catalonia, where a lot of potentially recoverable fractions are found in the residual waste along with large proportion of biowaste. Thus the degree of impurities of the material going to MBT in Catalonia is too high to produce compost the quality of which is good enough to be used for agricultural purpose. Consequently, the output product ends up in landfill20.
3.4. Share of collected bio-waste, potential and quality
Figure 1 presents the share of selectively collected biowaste (food and/or green waste, depending on the case study) out of the total collected municipal solid waste. The figure reveals wide variation in terms of percentage of selectively collected biowaste and shows that there is no link between geographic characteristics (location in North/ South) and performance.
Figure 1 : Share of selectively collected bio-waste out of total collected waste for 201 2
1 9 Regulation (EC) No 1 069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by- products and derived products not intended for human consumption 20 Source: ARC – Catalan Waste Agency
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 24 The separate kerbside collection of food waste in Milan was introduced stepwise starting from November 2012. The implementation consisted in four phases, each phase lasting half a year and covering ¼ of the city. Since the beginning and within a relatively short period of time, significant progress has been achieved. Figure 2 shows how collected quantities of biowaste tripled by 2014 when the implementation was completed. Figure 2: Separate collection of food waste in Milan
For the moment, all analysed territories selectively collect a limited amount of potentially recoverable biowaste. An estimation based on composition analysis of the residual waste reveals that there is still an important potential to be exploited. This is especially the case for cities and regions situated in Southern Europe (Lisbon, Catalonia, Milan), where organic waste traditionally represents a high proportion of the overall MSW stream.
Figure 3 presents the data in absolute terms. The Southern Region of Ireland stands out as a territory generating very low amounts of biowaste. Such low generation is difficult to explain with geographical reasons (the region of Flanders is situated in the North, but generates much higher quantities of bio waste, despite the fact that there are wide spread practices of decentralised composting which are not reflected in the figures). One possible explanation can be related to data reporting – in Ireland data is provided by the public administrations based on the information that they receive from the private sector which might be incomplete. Figure 3: Bio-waste in residual waste in 201 221
The recycling potential must further take into account what is already implemented to prevent biowaste production, in particular via home and community composting as well as strategies to fight food waste. More information on biowaste prevention can be found in specifically dedicated ACR+ activities, as mentioned at the end of section 1.2.
Apart from the quantity of food waste available for biological treatment, its quality is also very important. Various factors related to the collection of the biowaste have an effect of the quality:
• Collection frequency. For instance in the larger South Waste Region of Ireland, it is reported that collection intervals are too long. As a result, both the quality of the collected material is compromised as the material begins to decay, and the motivation of households to participate is negatively affected as they often do not have an adequate storage capacity for such a long period of time.
21 The data for Milan are from 201 3
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 25 • Collection method. The Italian Biogas and Composting Association has investigated the link between quality of collected biowaste and the type of collection system in place. The results indicate that a shift from a bring bank system to a kerbside scheme significantly increases both the amounts and quality of the collected biowaste22.
• Collection infrastructure at household level. Biowaste has a number of characteristics that may pose an inconvenience to households that collect and sort this fraction at source (high degree of moisture content, risk of leakage, odour, etc.). Therefore, in order to ensure that citizens are motivated and willing to participate in the system, it is important to address possible concerns. In Catalonia and Milan, the approach has been to provide a special type of waste bin with an airy structure combined with compostable bags. In Milan the use of compostable plastic bags in particular has been seen as a key to the success of the system, for several reasons. First, the bags are impermeable, hygienic and breathable thus minimising inconveniences at household level. Secondly, bags made from bioplastics can be processed in anaerobic digestion and composting facilities and can enhance the recovery process. According to data from the Italian Biogas and Composting Association, if food waste is collected from households in conventional plastic bags, the expected content of noncompostable materials is around 9%. In contrast, if compostable bags are used, the content is 1.4%23.
Picture 1 : Bio-waste bins in Milan Picture 2: Door-to-door Bio-waste collection in Catalonia
In order to improve the system in time, feedback and quality control mechanisms along the different stages of collection and treatment of waste should be envisaged. These can take various forms:
• Visual inspection can take place already at the stage of collection. In Ireland, waste collectors check each brown bin before it is emptied into the collection truck. If a material that cannot be composted is found in the bin (for instance plastic), the bin will not be emptied and a tag will be attached to it signalling that it is contaminated. If this is case, households are advised to check the contents of their bin and remove any contamination. The bin can then be presented for the next collection as usual24.
• Similar effect was sought in Milan with the introduction of a transparent bag to replace the traditional black bag for residual waste, in order to check if not too much recyclable and biowaste remains in the residual waste bag. The action reportedly led to an increase in the share of other selectively collected fractions (plastics, paper and glass).
• Checks of batches of collected material in order to identify the nature of nonbiodegradable materials and determine the strategy on how to minimise and eliminate their presence. In Milan, Styria and in the South Waste Region of Ireland plastics have been identified as the biggest source of contamination.
22 Jürgensen M.R., Article in Waste Management World magazine, “Italian lessons in bio-waste collections”, January-February 201 4 23 Ibid. 24 However, this is not always happening in practice as the private collectors are competing and are afraid to lose customers (source: Southern Region of Ireland)
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 26 • Compost can be certified according to standards, which is a guarantee that the product is traceable and its quality has been carefully checked. This, in turn, assures environmentally safe application and successful marketing. In Flanders, an integrated quality control system and a quality label for compost have been set up and in Styria a series of standards and technical guidelines establish common requirements for an independent quality assurance scheme.
3.5. Policy framework and external factors
Comprehensive approach achieves the best results
3.5.1 . Positive influence
A set of legal and economic incentives for the actors responsible for collection can be aimed at making separate collection and recovery of biowaste more attractive than for residual waste. This can be achieved through landfill bans or taxes on the one hand to discourage disposal. On the other hand, composting and anaerobic digestion can be actively encouraged through grants or financial support for infrastructure. In Catalonia the two are combined in a “carrot and stick” approach – municipalities that have not implemented separate collection of biowaste are subject to higher taxes for disposal whereas those that have are granted financial support from the regional government. In Flanders, separate collection of recoverable materials is made mandatory and landfill and incineration bans for separately collected waste streams have been introduced.
Soil degradation is a problem that gains increased attention in European countries with estimated 45% of European soils having low organic matter content25. Ensuring proper collection, treatment and use of organic waste is seen as a way to address this problem and improve soil conditions26. In Catalonia and in Flanders almost 50% of the soils are below the target for organic matter, constituting an important motivation behind their biowaste management strategy.
3.5.2. Negative influence
Studies point to negative relation between garden waste collection offered free of charge and home and community composting. Given the convenience of free garden waste collection, households are discouraged to deal with the material themselves27. Inversely, if households are encouraged to practice home or community composting, fewer quantities of biowaste will be available for separate collection. This is not to say that decentralised composting and selective collection of biowaste cannot coexist, but it is important to take both of them into account when designing the system.
It has to be noted that while decentralised composting decreases the amounts of biowaste available for municipal waste collection, it is in itself a practice of waste prevention and should be regarded positively if there are enough guarantees that it is adequately performed. Several ACR+ reports focus specifically on such practices and their impact on (bio)waste minimisation28.
25 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection [SEC(2006)620] [SEC(2006)11 65] 26 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - The implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy and ongoing activities 27 Arcadis/Eunomia, “Assessment of the options to improve the management of bio-waste in the European Union”, p.94, November 2009 28 ACR+, “Miniwaste inventory of good practices”, 2011 ; ACR+, “Bio-waste composting: Management of 6 composting strategies”, 201 4
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 27 3.6. Communication
Involvement of citizens is decisive for the success of the biowaste collection system. Experience shows that interaction with the citizens plays an important role in that respect.
Especially in cities and regions where sustainable waste management practices are yet to be established, it is important to address citizens’ concerns related to the biowaste fraction (odour, leakage, space, etc.). Case studies illustrate that (free) provision of the necessary infrastructure at household level facilitates the acceptance of the system. In Catalonia, households were provided with aerated bins of a size related to the number of household members and corresponding compostable bin liners. In Milan, in the startup phase of the system a biowaste kit containing 25 free biodegradable bags was given to households. Small kitchen bins with an airy structure and large containers were also distributed according to the type of dwelling. In case special bags for collection are chosen, their price should not be too high so as not to dissuade the public from buying such bags. In the South Waste Region of Ireland, compostable bags are perceived as expensive and this has deterred some households from participating in the system.
Communication is always important but will have a different focus depending on the stage of the collection system. Communication prior to the introduction of a system can be especially decisive for the participation of the citizens in the system later on. Such preliminary communication mainly aims to inform the citizens about how to correctly sort out their waste and explanations of why such actions are important. Once the system is in place, it is important to maintain citizens’ interest and motivation to participate. Subsequent communication can therefore involve information about what has been achieved so far and what are the targets for the future. Longterm communication strategy should be aimed at incorporating elements on waste prevention so as to also address behavioural change and attitudes to food waste.
The following pictures illustrate some of the communication material used in Catalonia, Southern Region of Ireland and the province of Styria in support of the implementation of biowaste collection schemes in those territories.
Picture 3: Communication material from Catalonia
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 28 Picture 4: Communication material from Ireland
Picture 5: Communication material from Styria
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 29 4. CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 . Challenges
4.1 .1 . Feedback from Southern Region of Ireland’s experience
Several challenges have been identified by the Southern Region office. In particular, there are indications that the actual cost of collection and treatment of source segregated food waste maybe greater than the residual waste disposal cost, even though large quantities of residual waste are currently being exported. However, the exact investment costs, running costs and savings are not available as this information is commercially sensitive and in the hands of the private operators in charge of waste collection and treatment.
In addition, waste audits undertaken within the region have shown the following elements:
• High levels of contamination within the brown bin particularly with plastics. • Storage of food waste on site for prolonged periods prior to presentation for disposal. • Health Service Executive restrictions regarding storage of food waste in kitchen areas appear to be a barrier in some cases. • Reluctance to use source separation due to expensive cost of compostable liners. • The rejection of food bins by the collectors where contamination is an issue does not appear to be happening as collectors are afraid to lose customers due to the competitive nature of the private collection business.
Despite the awareness campaigns by both government bodies and the private waste collectors there was a significant number of commercial and householders unaware of the requirement to source segregate food waste when enforcement was undertaken. It is very difficult to motivate people to change their behaviour, particularly in relation to waste management, unless there is an actual monetary gain. Lack of enforcement of both the collectors and producers of the waste leads to a slow roll out of the bins and their subsequent use, there is a need for consistent enforcement across all local authorities to ensure specific collectors or businesses do not have a competitive advantage over areas where the requirements are not enforced.
The issue of collection frequency also needs to be addressed – currently household food waste and some food waste from the retail sector is only collected every 2 weeks which raises the issue of the quality of the material presented for composting, particularly during the summer months. It is also seen as a barrier to participation as householders/commercial premises do not have adequate capacity for storage of 2 weeks food waste resulting in food waste been disposed of in the residual bin.
4.1 .2. Feedback from the Catalan region’s experience
The additional occupation of public space by another container for separate collection can be perceived as a problem, especially in densely built areas. Some municipalities opted therefore for containers with two compartments, one for bio waste, the other one for residual waste. The collection trucks for this type of container also were subdivided. This did not always work properly as the citizens did not perceive correctly the physical separation of the two waste streams.
Therefore the separation was not respected by the users and the organic fraction resulted highly contaminated. A clear separation in differently coloured containers proved to be more efficient. Citizens initially were reticent to another bin in their homes, fearing nuisance as odors and leaking. This problem is solved by providing aerated bins of a size
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 30 according to the number of family members with compostable bin liners to the households. The combination of these to items reduces odors to a minimum and allows the organic matter to dry and lose volume while still in the household. The measure has raised the acceptance significantly.
As any separation at source, the separation of biowaste in the households requires personal efforts in form of awareness and change of habits of the citizens. Therefore it is important to convey to them the benefits of composting for agriculture and the relation between the organic matter they produce and the vegetable and fruit that can be grown thanks to the resulting compost. Ecological school orchards with small scale composting units are a good way to educate students in that way, who tend to bring their experience home and act as multipliers of the information. With respect to local authorities competent for the waste management it has proven more effective and motivation to encourage separate collection and at the same time discourage disposal of mixed waste by making the latter more expensive than the first, rather than fining noncompliance with the obligation to draw up Deployment plans. This is achieved by the combination of the disposal tax and its refunding for the quantity and quality of biowaste collected and delivered to biological treatment plants.
However, when considering the whole territory of Catalonia, separately collected biowaste to be considered DREC only accounts for 10.8 % of the total MSW generation, whereas the average biowaste generation is estimated to be 3540 % of the total MSW generation. This indicates that there still is a high potential for improvement. Nevertheless, when looking into biowaste data broken down to the municipal level, there are striking differences in performance. High collection rates of 4045 % biowaste DREC in small municipalities with doortodoor separate collection stand in contrast to much lower rates, generally in areas of high population density, where the separate collection is based on bring systems.
4.1 .3. Feedback from the Styrian province’s experience
Especially during summer odour nuisance is a problem. In order to overcome this issue, the collection intervals are shortened and the collection bins get washed regularly.
A future topic will be the improvement of the quality of the collected biowaste, meaning the reduction of impurities like plastic bags. A possible solution is the provision of biodegradable plastic bags to be provided for the biowaste collection (Verpackungszentrum Graz).
4.2. A few recommendations and conclusions
On the basis of the aforementioned case studies and the expertise of other European territories and organisations29, the following recommendations can be made:
• Gathering all stakeholders of the territory, including in particular the political level, collection technical staff, agriculture professionals (to create a market for the outputs of the collection scheme) and local associations. When possible, including food waste from professionals (hotels, restaurants, food retailers, markets, etc.) in the collection scheme will also help collecting bigger amounts of food waste.
• Setting up appropriate drivers for prevention, reuse, separate collection and recycling of biowaste as part of the local/regional strategies for MSW management, including specific recycling targets for biowaste, focusing in priority on food waste, since green waste is usually easier to manage at a decentralised level
29 In particular the EU-funded SCOW project (www.biowaste-scow.eu) and the practical guide from Compostplus and ADEME (www.compostplus.org; www.ademe.fr)
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 31 (home or community composting, shredding). This also includes the use of instruments like tax refund and/or payasyouthrow scheme favouring waste sorting.
• Adapting the collection scheme to the territory, in particular regarding the frequency, the type of collection (doortodoor, bring scheme) and the collection vehicle, and testing the scheme at a pilot level before implementing it full scale, by enlarging progressively the territory and promoting biowaste prevention in areas where there is low quantity/potential. This also includes adapting the type of bag and/or container to be used for biowaste collection, depending on the user (household or professional), as well as the collection frequency of other steams, in particular reducing the collection frequency of residual waste and adapting the size of residual waste bags/bins.
• Communicating on a large scale and regularly, by meeting the population also at school and at work, by disseminating a comprehensive message (also regarding the purpose of biowaste collection, the destination of the collected material, the quality of the output material from treatment facilities and the complementarity between decentralised composting and separate collection of biowaste).
• Developing a marketing strategy taking into account the potential quantities of collected biowaste via partnerships with agriculture professionals and other sectors and a qualitative certification of the output material from treatment facilities.
• Setting up monitoring tools and practices, in particular by using an informatics based monitoring (in order to optimise collection roads, communication and followup of performances), implementing waste composition analysis campaigns (addressing food wastage, consummable fractions and compostable fractions) and monitoring the costs.
Biowaste amounts to approximately one third to almost half of the average EU citizen’s bin. The quantity of biowaste generated in the urban territory, especially food waste, is even greater when food professionals are considered. This quantity can be reduced with efficient waste prevention strategies, such as the ones described in ACR+ activities mentioned at the end of section 1.2 of this report. However, it is likely that these waste prevention strategies are not enough to completely solve the issue of biowaste generation. In that case, biowaste collection can help to divert bio waste from landfilling and put an important source of nutrients back to the earth via compost made of high quality organic material. In addition to composting, anaerobic digestion is treatment alternative that can generate biogas on top of digestate, but works only for food waste. However, the purity of the needed input material cannot be achieved via comingled collection. The Catalan experience in particular showed that MBT plants are unable to provide an output material of a sufficiently good quality that it could be used for agricultural purpose. Selective collection of biowaste has been experimented as the most efficient strategy to provide an input material that will allow good quality compost, with minimal contamination.
Time is an essential factor in the successful implementation of a biowaste selective collection scheme, since the best performing territories are also the ones where such schemes have been running for the longest time.
ACR+ encourages cities and regions to develop and implement biowaste selective collection strategies. This report can help preparing such strategies, by comparing various selective collection schemes and providing recommendations. Additional information is of course needed, in particular a full analysis of the territory where biowaste selection collection would be planned. Other quantitative data and detailed experiences would also be useful. This is why ACR+ encourages the use of the R4R online tool in order to fill in quantitative and qualitative information about biowaste selective collection, including in terms of supportive instruments. ACR+ also encourages direct sharing of information between its members, in order to provide specific answers to local and regional authorities’ questions about the implementation of efficient management strategies of organic resources.
Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 32 Bio-waste selection collection schemes | Page 33 www.acrplus.org