Climate Justice in Israel

Home , Basma, Beit Jann, Carmit, Ein Qiniyye, Elyakhin, Even Yehuda

Inequality in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Processes of Production and Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste

Position Paper No. 2 2015 By: Tamar Neugarten

Editing: Carmit Lubanov, Dan Rabinowitz Translation: Sagit Porat / Design: Dana Zahavi Climate Justice in Israel

Inequality in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Processes of Production and Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste

Position Paper No. 2 2015* By: Tamar Neugarten

Editing: Carmit Lubanov, Dan Rabinowitz Translation: Sagit Porat / Design: Dana Zahavi

The Climate Justice Research and Policy project is supported by the Rosa Luxemburg t׳Stiftung. The content of the document is the sole responsibility of AEJI and doesn necessarily reflect the position of RLS.

* This document was originally published in Hebrew in 2013. The full English translation is published in October 2015. The Information was up-to-date at the time of the original Hebrew publication. Abstract

This document is part of an extensive research project addressing climate justice in Israel, initiated by the Association of Environmental Justice in Israel (AEJI) and undertaken in collaboration with Tel Aviv University. The goals of the project are to research the socio-economic characteristics of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced from different sources in Israel, and formulate policy tools, including social- and behavioral-economic tools. Between the years 2011-2013, the research focused on four main spheres: domestic electricity consumption; use of transportation (privately owned vehicles); food consumption; and the production and treatment of solid waste – the issue addressed by this document.

Based on availability of data, we had examined quantities of waste production in different localities in Israel and the rate of emissions from waste in each locality; and compared between localities according to their classifications as cities, local councils (smaller towns) and regional (rural) councils, and their classification into socio-economic clusters. The results of these calculations are expressed by carbon inequality coefficients – which reflect the disparity between emission quantities per person in the different clusters as related to the quantity of emissions in cluster 1 (the poorest). The following tables, summarizing the results of the research, indicate that environmental injustice does exist with regard to GHG emissions from waste, but its extent varies in accordance with the type of locality.

Carbon Inequality Coefficients (by locality type and national average)

Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Cities 1 1.148 1.300 1.351 1.580 1.493 1.417 1.943 2.425 - Local councils 1 1.200 1.481 2.273 1.631 2.511 2.066 2.005 1.948 4.018 - Regional councils 1 - - 2.347 3.246 3.087 1.693 3.694 - National average 1 1.138 1.434 1.547 1.806 1.805 1.665 2.155 2.233 3.581

Waste Production by Socio-Economic Clusters – Minimum and Maximum Values (by locality type and national average)

Minimum Maximum C C

Kg emissions luster Kg emissions luster Kg waste Kg waste from waste from waste Carbon per person per person Inequality per day per person per day per person per annum per annum Coefficient Cities 1.11 138.09 1 2.70 334.83 9 2.425 Local councils 0.88 109.47 1 3.55 439.82 10 4.018 Regional councils 0.64 79.26 1 2.36 292.80 8 3.694 National average 0.99 122.83 1 3.55 439.82 10 3.581

The study findings indicate that different population groups have varied contributions to emissions, and that residents of localities in the higher and wealthier clusters contribute more to emissions than residents of the lower and poorer cluster localities. Additionally, clear differences are noted in inequality patterns between different types of localities. In cities, which is the type of locality comprising the great majority of the population of Israel – almost 76% of all residents – a resident of a socio-economic cluster 8 city is responsible for almost twice as many GHG emission originating in waste than a resident of a socio-economic cluster 1 city; and any resident of a socio-economic cluster 9 city is responsible to 2.4 times more emissions originating in waste than a resident of socio- economic cluster 1 resident.

These research findings are important in order to enable an informed examination of the economic and social implications that policies addressing waste treatment will have on different populations in Israel; in order to enable the construction of policy tools that take into consideration the contribution of different population groups to the climate crisis; and to internalize the "polluter pays" principle.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... 1 Table of Contents ...... 3 1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Environmental Aspects of Waste Production and Treatment ...... 5 1.2 Environmental Justice Aspects of Waste Production and Treatment ...... 6 1.3 Waste Treatment Policies in Israel: Review ...... 7 2. Municipal Solid Waste and Its Measurement ...... 9 2.1 Definitions ...... 9 2.2 Indicators for the Measurement of Municipal Solid Waste Quantities ...... 9 2.3 Problems and Challenges in Measurement of Waste Quantity ...... 10 3. Production and Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste in Israel and the World ...... 11 3.1 Municipal Solid Waste Production in Israel ...... 12 3.2 Municipal Solid Waste Treatment in Israel ...... 13 3.2.1 Recycling ...... 13 3.2.1.1 Recycling Habits Survey – 2012-2013 ...... 14 3.2.2 Separation at Source ...... 16 4. Methodology ...... 18 4.1 Conduct of the Research ...... 19 5. Findings ...... 20 5.1 Identifying Waste Quantities per Person Produced in Localities in Israel ...... 20 5.2 Assessment of Waste Composition in Israel ...... 25 5.3 Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emission Coefficients from Different Types of Waste in Israel .... 27 5.3.1 Greenhouse Gases Released by Waste ...... 28 5.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Waste Treatment Processes ...... 29 5.4 Calculating GHG Emissions Coefficients in Different Locality Types ...... 30 5.5 Calculating Total GHG Emissions from Waste in Localities in Israel ...... 31 6. Results – Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste in Israel ...... 32 6.1 Carbon Inequality Index – General ...... 32 6.2 Carbon Inequality Index – by Type of Locality ...... 33 6.2.1 Cities ...... 33 6.2.2 Local Councils ...... 34 6.2.3 Regional Councils ...... 35 6.3 Summary of Results ...... 36 6.4 Comments on the Use of Socio-Economic Clusters as Index ...... 36 7. Recommendations ...... 37 7.1 Improving the Collection of Information and Data ...... 37 7.2 Adopting Policy Measures that Take Environmental and Climate Justice into Consideration ...... 38 7.3 Continued Focus on Organic Waste as Key to Mitigating Emissions from Waste ...... 39

List of Figures

Figure 1: Municipal Solid Waste Production – Kg per Person per Annum (2010 data) ...... 12 Figure 2: Municipal Solid Waste Treatment in Israel – 2000 to 2010 ...... 13 Figure 3: Waste Production Quantities (Kg per Person per Day) in a Locality, in Relation to the Locality's Socio-Economic Rating ...... 25 Figure 4: GHG Flow Resulting from Landfilling Mixed Household Waste ...... 29

List of Tables

Table 1: Quantities of Municipal Solid Waste Transported to Landfill Deposition and to Recycling (Thousands of Tons) – 2004 to 2009 ...... 13 Table 2: Recycling Habits in Israel 2012-2013 (n=611) ...... 14 Table 3: Recycling Habits in Israel – Comparison between 2012 (n-411) and 2013 (n=200) ...... 15 Table 4: Correlations between Socio-Economic Characteristics of Subjects and Recycling Patterns ...... 16 Table 5: Number of Localities and Total Population in Different Clusters (According to the updated cluster rating (2008) and most up-to-date locality data (2011)) ...... 19 Table 6: Average Standard Monthly Income per Person (NIS) in Different Clusters According to CBS data ...... 19 Table 7: Waste Quantities Per Person (kg per person per day) in Localities in Israel by Socio-Economic Cluster – 2011 ...... 21 Table 8: Domestic Waste Composition in Israel (Summer and Winter Average) – as of 2005 ...... 26 Table 9: Waste Survey Results by Locality – 2005 (summer and winter average) ...... 27 Table 10: Summary of GHG Emissions Resulting from Waste Landfill Deposits in Israel (kg CO2eq per ton of waste) ...... 30 Table 11: GHG Emissions Coefficients from Waste (by Locality Type) ...... 31 Table 12: Waste Production Quantities, GHG Emissions and Carbon Inequality Coefficient by Socio-Economic Clusters – 2011 ...... 32 Table 13: Waste Production Quantities, GHG Emissions and Carbon Inequality Coefficients in Cities, by Socio-Economic Clusters – 2011 ...... 33 Table 14: Waste Production Quantities, GHG Emissions and Carbon Inequality Coefficients in Local Councils, by Socio-Economic Clusters – 2011 ...... 34 Table 15: Waste Production Quantities, GHG Emissions and Carbon Inequality Coefficients in Regional Councils, by Socio-Economic Clusters – 2011 ...... 35 Table 16: Summary of Research Results – Carbon Inequality Coefficients ...... 36

1. Introduction

1.1 Environmental Aspects of Waste Production and Treatment

Waste and the modes of its treatment have many implications for the state of the environment and quality of life on the local, regional and global levels. Every stage of waste treatment – retention, collection, transportation, sorting and primarily landfilling – involves negative environmental impacts: land and water pollution resulting from decomposition of waste and leachate; air pollution resulting from substances emitted from waste and from regulated or unregulated waste incineration; air pollution resulting from the transportation of waste to treatment facilities and landfill sites; emissions of hazardous gases; landscape impacts; damage to open spaces and natural habitats; overexploitation of land resources; odor hazards and so forth.

Even when the waste is buried in regulated, advanced landfill sites, severe damages are caused to the landscape and the environment, for several reasons. First, since landfills require large areas of land to bury and cover the waste, and to create a wide protective-radius around them. Secondly, since as Braungart and McDonough coined, waste=food.1 Depositing waste means relinquishing important resources: not only the loss of raw materials, but also loss of the energy that was invested into mining and processing them, which might have been reverted back into the system through other means of treatment.

Another environmental impact of waste and its treatment is the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). A study published by Adam Teva V'din (Israel Union for Environmental Defense, IUED) in 20102 conducted life cycle analysis of alternatives for the treatment of waste in Israel, and indicated that considering an adjusted calculation of all components, landfilling is the only waste treatment option that generates GHG emissions. "Burial is the worst solution in terms of greenhouse gases", write the researchers. "Compared to all other scenarios, the landfill option is the only one in which the emission balance is positive [that is – in which GHGs are emitted to the atmosphere]. The reason 3 for this is the emission of methane". Methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas that impacts the atmosphere

21 times more severely than carbon dioxide (CO2), is emitted from waste landfills as a result of anaerobic decomposition processes of putrescible organic waste, which constitutes some 40% of all landfilled waste.

Waste burial, despite its inherent problems and the steps taken to minimize it, is still the most widespread solution in Israel for the treatment of domestic waste, and some 80% of all household waste is deposited in landfills.4 While the rate of GHGs emitted as a result of waste decomposition

1 Braungart and McDonough's vision seeks to view waste as a resource, or "food", and suggests a paradigm change in human behavior: to replace the one-directional production model of the industrial revolution ("cradle to grave") with a new bi-directional model ("cradle to cradle"), in which materials and energy feed the system and create new products. Braungard, Michael and McDonough, William. 2012 [2002]. Cradle to Cradle. Tel Aviv: Babel Publishing. [Hebrew translation edition] 2 Ostrovsky, Gilad and Kotzer, Roy.2010. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Treatment. Adam Teva V'din. June 2010. [In Hebrew] http://www.adamteva.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/PLITATHAMAMATIPOL10.pdf 3 Ostrovsky and Kotzer. 2010. P.46. 4 Ministry of Environmental Protection. 2012. Policy Document: Producing Energy from Waste (According to Government Decision no. 3484 from 17 July 2011 Concerning Renewable Energies). Written by Naama Ashur Ben-Ari, Head of Solid Waste Management Division, with the assistance of Dr. Yevgenia Bernstein and

and waste treatment is relatively low – between 7%-12% of total national GHG emissions5 – the modification of landfilling and treatment patterns has substantial potential for mitigating emissions and further curtailing other consequential environmental hazards.

Additionally, as this study demonstrates, the responsibility for emissions resulting from waste is not shared equally between all residents of Israel, but rather reflects existing social and economic disparities. We seek to indicate the differential responsibilities for GHG emissions resulting from waste, and believe that the national plans for reduction and treatment of waste should consider these socio-economic disparities and their manifestation in the regime of emissions from waste, and implement principles of in-country environmental- and climate-justice.

1.2 Environmental Justice Aspects of Waste Production and Treatment

Waste production is directly related to aspects of environmental and distributive justice, as well as the issue of government responsibility. In fact, the birth of the global environmental justice movement was in struggles over means of waste treatment and the location of waste sites6.

When comparing between countries, it is evident that the more developed a country, the larger the quantities of waste that it generates7. The relationship between economic activity and waste production is reflected on the continent and country levels, as well as within a country. Among the factors influencing the amounts of waste produced in different localities are the level of urbanization in the country, standard of living and lifestyle, patterns of production and consumption and so forth.8 In general terms, it might be stated that the wealthier the population, it will produce larger waste quantities9; it might also be claimed that in the decisive majority of cases, this waste would be treated farther from the affluent population and closer to vulnerable populations. Many studies

Yohanan Burstein. Ministry of Environmental Protection. November 2012. [In Hebrew] http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/Waste/Policy/Documents/waste_energy.pdf 5 OStrovsky and Kotzer. 2010. (See footnote 2 above); Knesset Research and Information Center.2008. Household Waste in Israel. Written by Ori Tal. [In Hebrew] http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m02088.pdf 6 See for instance EcoPopulism: Toxic Waste and the Movement for Environmental Justice, Andrew Szasz's book published in 1994, which acknowledges the importance carried by the struggle around toxic waste in the establishment of the environmental justice movement in the USA, or Garbage Wars: The Struggle for Environmental Justice in Chicago, a 2004 book by David Naguib Pellow that tracks waste treatment in Chicago since 1880, and shows that waste sites were situated in distressed neighborhoods, and that waste treatment workers were also from weakened populations. 7 See also Chapter 3 –Production and Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste in Israel and the World, which addresses waste production in OECD countries. 8 See for instance Shanghai Manual – A guide for Sustainable Urban Development in the 21st Century, a manual published for the Shanghai World Expo 2010, and in particular chapter 5 – Municipal Solid Waste Management: Turning Waste into Resources. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/susdevtopics/sdt_pdfs/shanghaimanual/Chapter%205%20-%20Waste_management.pdf 9 Data of Israel's waste production record-holders demonstrates this well: according to the data of the Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2011 Savyon and Kefar Shemaryahu, both affiliated with socio-economic cluster 10, the highest, were among the top waste producers. Abu Basma, Laqye and Tel Sheva, all belonging to socio- economic cluster 1, the lowest, and Ar'ara-BaNegev, in cluster 2, produced the smallest amounts of waste.

throughout the years have indicated that weakened populations have a far larger likelihood to be living in the proximity of waste sites in general, and hazardous waste that entails health risks in particular.10

An additional component of environmental justice that should be considered is the locality's capability to treat waste and thus diminish its environmental impacts in general, and how it affects residents of the locality in particular. In Israel, the local authority is responsible for waste treatment. While strong municipalities are able to invest resources in collecting waste, distancing it from the locality and treating it, weaker municipalities would find these actions more difficult and attempt to find alternative solutions, including such that might risk residents and the environment, such as generating illegal waste dumping sites in close proximity to the locality, waste incineration, etc.11

1.3 Waste Treatment Policies in Israel: Review

The treatment of waste is under the authority of the national government, which is responsible for developing plans to address waste treatment and designing the policy measures necessary12; and of local government, which is responsible for the collection and disposal of municipal waste13. For many years waste treatment in Israel was problematic – recycling rates were negligible, waste was dumped in pirate sites, and no comprehensive policy was designed to address the issue. In recent years, not least of which following Israel's processes of joining the OECD, the Ministry of Environmental Protection is leading an effort dubbed "The Waste Revolution", which entails a transformation of the perception that considers waste to be a nuisance, into one which recognizes it as a resource. In this framework, a masterplan for the sustainable management and recycling of solid waste was formulated,14 and consequently priorities were defined, ambitious targets were set and a variety of policy measures were introduced – such as legislation, economic tools, informative tools and educational measures – aiming to mitigate landfill burial of waste in particular, and the production of waste in general. The OECD Environmental Performance Review of Israel published in 2011 praises recent policy initiatives in Israel, which "provide a basis for developing a modern waste management policy, in line with good international practices".15

10 See footnote 6 above. 11 Knesset Research and Information Center.2010. Waste Incineration Data. By Ori Tal-Spiro. [In Hebrew] 12 See for example: Maintenance of Cleanliness Law, 1984; Planning and Building Regulations (Building Waste) 1984; Maintenance of Cleanliness Regulations (Maintenance of Cleanliness Levy) 1987; Collection and Disposal of Waste for Recycling Law, 1993; Deposit on Beverage Containers Law, 1999; Deposit on Beverage Containers Regulations, 2001; Tire Disposal and Recycling Law, 2007; Packaging Law, 2011. 13 Article 242 of the Municipalities Order determines that: "With regard to sanitation, public health and wellbeing […] (2) Will instruct with regard to the clearing of filth and garbage from any house and will determine the levies for such clearing, […] (4) Will install and maintain in good and installed condition public garbage bins and other receptacle that are placed and garbage is collected in them, and will ensure that they are maintained in a way that will not constitute a nuisance or health hazard […] (7) will prevent accumulation of filth and garbage in a public or private place". 14 Svardlov, Erez, Dr., Marinov Uri, Prof. and Klein, David. 2006. Masterplan for Solid Waste Treatment in Israel – Summary. Solid Waste Management Division – Ministry of Environmental Protection. [In Hebrew] 15 OECD. 2011. OECD Environmental Performance Review of Israel: Assessment and Recommendations Chapter. Publication, Information and Internet Division – Ministry of Environmental Protection. [Translated to Hebrew] http://www.sviva.gov.il/InfoServices/ReservoirInfo/DocLib2/Publications/P0601-P0700/P0613.pdf English Publication on OECD website: http://www.oecd.org/env/country-reviews/oecdenvironmentalperformancereviewsisrael2011assessmentandrecommendations.htm

Among the steps undertaken are: closure of unregulated waste sites; a substantial decrease in illegal waste disposal; safety improvements in the operation of waste landfills; collection of a landfill levy (based on "the polluter pays" principle), and determining ambitious goals for recycling and waste disposal – 50% recycling by the year 2020.16 The ministry encourages recycling and reuse initiatives, and supports projects promoting the separation of waste into two streams and generating end-of- pipe solutions for wet household waste.17 The Packaging Law, promoting conduct and perception of extended producer responsibility, came into effect in July 201118; and the Electronic Waste Recycling Law, which is based on the same principle, was legislated in July 2012 and took effect in early 2014.19 Additionally, improvements were made to the management of industrial waste, and presently 60% of it is being recycled.20

The OECD also indicates several difficulties encountered in the implementation of the "Recycling Revolution" goals. The cost of landfilling is still too low, and problems and failures of the recycling market are challenging the realization of the principle of extended producer responsibility, so that it has yet to generate a significant increase in rates of recycling or recovery of municipal waste.

The OECD recommendations include suggestions for Israel to act to unify the existing arrangements for waste management as part of a new comprehensive policy framework and action plans; to increase efforts by authorities – in both the national and local levels – to address the implications of unregulated waste disposal; to extend the plans for waste separation into two streams to cover all local authorities; to develop end-of-pipe solution for waste treatment, in cooperation with the private sector; to expand the "extended producer responsibility" mechanisms to include additional waste streams: vehicles, electricity and electronics, batteries and more; to develop legislation addressing historic pollution liability and plans for the rehabilitation of polluted sites, and to prioritize these actions based on criteria pertinent to hazards affecting health and the environment; and to adjust the waste disposal component in municipal taxes to reflect the real costs of waste collection, disposal and treatment.21

16 Ministry of Environmental Protection. 2013. Material Management: Israel's Waste Revolution. Presentation by Naama Ashur Ben-Ari, Head of Solid Waste Management Division. April 2013. [In Hebrew]

http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/Waste/Separation/Documents/waste_management.ppt 17 See also Ministry of Environmental Protection's website: Waste Separation in Authorities [In Hebrew] http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/Waste/Separation/Pages/default.aspx 18 See also Ministry of Environmental Protection's website: Packaging Management Law [In Hebrew]. http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/Waste/Laws/Pages/PackageLaw.aspx 19 Adam Teva V'Din. 2012. Sending the Old Mobile Phone to a Better World: Electronic Waste Recycling Law Approved. (17 July 2012). [In Hebrew] http://www.adamteva.org.il/?CategoryID=1143&ArticleID=1570 20 OECD. 2011. See footnote 15 above. 21 OECD. 2011. See footnote 15 above.

2. Municipal Solid Waste and Its Measurement

2.1 Definitions

This research focuses on municipal solid waste, often also referred to as household- or domestic waste. Following are definitions of the terminology used in this study22:

• "Household Waste" is solid waste of any kind, produced by residents of local authorities. The responsibility for its removal from households and its treatment is in the hands of the local authority. Such waste does not include commercial waste, industrial waste and construction and building waste. • "Commercial Waste" is waste removed from shopping malls, shops and commercial outlets. • "Industrial Waste" is waste removed from industrial factories. • "Mixed Waste", also referred to as "Municipal Solid Waste", is any waste that the local authority is responsible for its removal and treatment. Mixed waste includes primarily household waste, waste originating in offices, waste collected in urban public spaces, as well as commercial, gardening and pruning waste. Components of the waste include organic substances (food scraps, pruning, paper, cardboard) and inorganic materials (plastic packaging, some metals). It does not include hazardous waste, construction and building waste and industrial waste, which are all treated via other channels.

2.2 Indicators for the Measurement of Municipal Solid Waste Quantities

The customary indicator for the measurement of municipal solid waste quantities is the amount of waste per person produced in a given time period. OECD data compares between countries according to the quantity of waste per person produced per annum,23 whereas in Israel the Ministry of Environmental Protection and the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) compare between localities according to the quantity of waste per person produced in a day.24

The data provides an initial indication of the environmental pressures emanating from the production and treatment of waste. The indicator of waste quantity per person does not present information concerning the rates of waste recycling or reuse, nor does it address the manner of waste treatment. However, a comparative analysis over time might suggest trends and processes: thus, for instance, a decrease in the quantity of waste produced might indicate the introduction of measures to encourage recycling.

22 The definitions are based on: Knesset Research and Information Center. 2008. Household Waste in Israel. Written by Ori Tal. [In Hebrew] http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m02088.pdf 23 OECD Factbook 2011-2012: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics – Municipal Waste – Definitions. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2011-en/09/02/03/index.html?contentType=&itemId=%2fcontent%2fchapter%2ffactbook-2011-80- en&mimeType=text%2fhtml&containerItemId=%2fcontent%2fserial%2f18147364 24 See Central Bureau of Statistics Data.

2.3 Problems and Challenges in Measurement of Waste Quantity

A few issues should be noted when relying on the municipal solid waste quantity indicator: first, a unified definition of municipal solid waste is yet to be embraced. This means that different authorities measure – and report about – different types of waste: commercial, office or pruning waste are not always included. This phenomenon can be seen both in the comparison between countries25 and between localities26.

Waste data in Israel is presently based on reports made by the municipalities. This generates two fundamental problems: lack of reporting; or the reporting of partial or biased data. In this context, although authorities are required to report waste quantities generated in their jurisdictions by the Collection and Disposal of Waste for Recycling Law, 1993, and by regulations 2 and 6 of the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations, 199827, in practice, in 2009, more than half of the local authorities in Israel had not reported at all to the Ministry of Environmental Protection with regard to the waste quantities produced and the rate of waste separation and recycling in their jurisdictions.28 According to the State Comptroller, in 2007 only 137 of approximately 250 authorities had reported; in 2008 – 174 authorities; and in 2009 – only 133 authorities.

With regard to the issue of credibility, a report published by Adam Teva V'Din in January 2013, titled "What is Being Thrown in the Trash? A Review of Waste Legislation, Mapping of Deficiencies and Emphasizing the Need for Transparency of Information to the Public"29, mentions that "naturally, the reporting body is a factor that might slant the reported data", and that "in many cases, the reports that the regulator relies upon originate from a body that has a clear interest in slanting data in its favor". The Knesset Research and Information Center also points to credibility issues in the reports, and notes, for instance, that some municipalities had reported 100% recycling in their jurisdictions – an evidently unlikely outcome.30

Presently the use of control measures over the quality of reported data is not methodic. Control mechanisms must be established to substantially improve the reliability of data. Nonetheless, it is important to consider the inherent difficulties. An external body such as the Ministry of Environmental Protection would have difficulties confirming the local authorities' recycling data,

25 Thus, for example, the OECD indicates that the waste data received from China does not include waste in the rural sector, data received from New Zealand refers only to waste intended for landfilling, and the data received from Australia and Canada only refers to household waste, and excludes commercial waste. (See footnote 23 above). 26 Knesset Research and Information Center. 2008. (See footnote 22 above). The report indicates that the reporting form featured in the regulations is not clear enough, and inconsistencies are created between the definitions of waste and actual reporting. For example, regional (rural) councils included recycling of agricultural waste in their reports, whereas urban councils referred to municipal solid waste only. 27 Regulation #2 states: "(a) The mayor of a local authority will deliver by message to the minister, no later than 30 days after the defining date, the amount of waste that the local authority had by the end of the year prior to the defining date. (b) Such notice will be delivered in writing according to form 1 in the addendum and will include full and accurate detailing of the data regarding the waste of all types as detailed in the form." In case of no-reporting, the Minister of Environmental Protection is required to determine the quantity of waste produced in the local authority according to the data available to him. 28 State Comptroller. 2011. Local Government Audit Reports for 2010. Chapter One: Local Authorities' Treatment of Waste for the Purpose of Recycling. Pp. 417-436. 29 Rosenbloom, Asaf and Ostrovsky, Gilad. 2013. What is Being Thrown in the Trash? A Review of Waste Legislation, Mapping of Deficiencies and Emphasizing the Need for Transparency of Information to the Public. Adam Teva V'Din – January 2013. 30 Knesset Research and Information Center. 2008. (See footnote 22 above).

without detailed analysis that accounts for the number of collection days, number of trucks, volume of trucks, seasonal variations and other information for each locality – a process that might necessitate personnel allocations beyond what is deemed reasonable.31 An additional problem is that the Ministry of Environmental Protection presently lacks the power to compel municipalities to submit their reports. It can, however, stipulate the provision of assistance to the authorities for the development and planning of alternatives to waste burial, by the submission of full reports on their behalf.32 A final challenge is the need to integrate between data from several sources of information – municipal waste collection, private contractors, different transition sites etc.33

3. Production and Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste in Israel and the World

According to data published by the OECD in early 2013, Israel is one of the prominent waste producers among the organization's member countries.34 Based on 2010 data, Israel is positioned 28th of the 32 members, and produces a quantity of 610 kg waste per person per annum (1.67 kg waste per person per day), whereas the OECD average is 540 kg per person per annum (1.48 kg waste per person per day). The countries producing more waste than Israel are Ireland, Denmark, Luxemburg, Switzerland and the waste production per person record-holder – the United States, produces 720 kg waste per person per annum (1.97 kg waste per person per day, on average).

The lowest producer of waste per person among OECD member countries is Estonia – with 310 kg waste per person per annum (0.85 kg waste per person per day).

31 See also reports by Forum 15 member authorities in the framework of their signatory status of the Convention for Reducing Air Pollution and Climate Protection. The authorities were required to report GHG emission quantities from various sources, including waste. Reading the appendices that report of municipal waste inventory survey findings, provides insights concerning the complexities of information collection processes. http://www.forum15.org.il/article_page.asp?id=111&scid=119 32 Knesset Research and Information Center. 2008. (See footnote 22 above). 33 For example, the national waste survey indicates that municipal waste included household and commercial waste that arrived at a treatment facility, and pruning waste, which was referred to a compostation site. See – Shaldag – Environmental Management and Solutions Ltd. 2005. Household Waste Composition – National Survey 2005. Solid Waste Management Division – Ministry of Environmental Protection. December 2006. 34 OECD. 2013. OECD Factbook 2013: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics – Municipal Waste Generation.

Figure 1: Municipal Solid Waste Production – Kg per Person per Annum (2010 data)

Israel – 610 kg waste per person per annum OECD Average – 540 kg waste per person per annum

35 Source: OECD, 2012.

3.1 Municipal Solid Waste Production in Israel

According to the OECD Environmental Performance Review of Israel Published in 2011,36 the amount of municipal solid waste in Israel grew by 15% between 2000 and 2010. While the increase in waste quantities is lower than the growth rate of private consumption in Israel and the Gross National Product growth rate, yet, as could have been observed in figure 1, the quantity of waste produced in Israel is still much higher than the OECD average.

35 OECD. 2012. Municipal Waste Generation: KG per person, 2010 or latest available year. Graph 182. Last updated December 19, 2012. 36 OECD. 2011. (See footnote 15 above).

Figure 2: Municipal Solid Waste Treatment in Israel – 2000 to 2010

37 Graph source: OECD, 2011.

3.2 Municipal Solid Waste Treatment in Israel

3.2.1 Recycling

As can be seen in figure 2, the vast majority of municipal solid waste in Israel (more than 80%) is disposed in landfills, a solution with very severe environmental implications. Table 1 indicates that while between the years 2004 and 2009 a slight increase was registered in the percentages of municipal waste recycling, still as a whole the rate of recycling is extremely low – less than 15%. More up-to-date data from the Ministry of Environmental Protection indicates that in 2013 the recycling percentage was approaching 20%, and landfill burial was close to 80%.38 Most recycling is carried out following the disposal of waste to designated recycling bins – for paper, cardboard and plastic waste; or by returning glass and plastic waste in exchange for a bottle deposit refund.

Table 1: Quantities of Municipal Solid Waste Transported to Landfill Deposition and to Recycling (Thousands of Tons) – 2004 to 200939

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total 4,245.1 4,403.6 4,206.4 4,574.0 4,251.5 4,890.7 Landfill Deposit 3,743.1 3,910.6 3,696.8 4,205.4 3,717.5 4,196.1 Recycling 502.0 493.0 509.6 548.6 534.0 694.6 % Recycling 11.83% 11.20% 12.11% 11.54% 12.56% 14.20%

37 OECD. 2011. OECD Environmental Performance Review of Israel: Main Findings. P. 7. (See footnote 15). 38 Ministry of Environmental Protection. 2012. Policy Document: Producing Energy from Waste. (See footnote 4 above). 39 Source: Diagram 16a, Municipal Waste Quantities, 2004-2009, Ministry of Environmental Protection Website. http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/Waste/Documents/psolet_ironit_1.xls

The involvement of the local authority in waste recycling processes is still partial: the State Comptroller's Report published in December 2011 notes: "Approximately one quarter of local authorities had taken no action at all to sort waste for recycling; most authorities that had acted to recycle did not meet the stipulations determined by regulations; and the rate of waste recycled by these authorities in 2009 was approximately half of the target rate set for the end of 2007".40 The Comptroller also notes that 26% of local authorities in Israel have not made any arrangements to separate waste for recycling, and that 44% of authorities that were awarded financial support from the Ministry of Environmental Protection, intended to promote recycling processes, implemented only a small portion of the plans approved for them, and have not taken advantage of the funding allocated for them.

3.2.1.1 Recycling Habits Survey – 2012-2013 In the framework of a study addressing GHG emissions from food consumption, a designated survey was conducted during May-June 2012, reviewing the food consumption habits of 411 subjects. In April 2013 a completion survey was conducted, interviewing 200 additional subjects.41 As part of the same survey, the interviewees were also presented by several questions concerning their recycling habits: subjects were asked whether they tend to throw various materials to recycling bins (plastic bottles, electrical appliances and electronics, glass, paper and/or cardboard, batteries and organic waste), and at what frequency.

Table 2 presents a summary of the interviewee answers in 2012-2013 to questions addressing their recycling habits. The survey indicates that waste types most commonly recycled are plastic bottles (64% of interviewees replied that they recycle bottles either often, very often or always), paper and/or cardboard (53%) and batteries (45%). Only 18% reported the recycling of electricity and electronics, 23% reported the separation of domestic waste and 35% reported glass recycling. Table 3 presents the differences in results between the first part of the survey which was conducted in the spring of 2012, and its second part, undertaken in spring 2013. A slight rising tendency in recycling can be observed with regard to all material types that the subjects were asked about.

Table 2: Recycling Habits in Israel 2012-2013 (n=611) Often / Always Seldom / Never Plastic Bottles 64% 36% Electricity and Electronics 18% 82% Glass 35% 65% Paper and/or Cardboard 53% 47% Batteries 45% 55% Domestic Waste Separation 23% 77%

40 State Comptroller. 2011. Local Government Audit Reports for 2010. (See footnote 28 above). 41 The surveyed population was selected according to a probabilistic sample of statistical regions, in effort to ensure their representation as a sample of various population groups, and in particular groups of relatively small proportion. The survey was conducted as part of the "Climate Justice in Israel" research project by the AEJI; full detailing of the conduct of the survey will be featured in Guy Milman's paper (soon to be published) Climate Justice in Israel: Examining the Impacts of Standard of Living Deciles and Different Socio-Economic Status in Israel on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Food Consumption. Surveyor and academic advisor Dr. Anat Oren, B.I. and Lucille Cohen Institute for Public Opinion Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tel-Aviv University.

Table 3: Recycling Habits in Israel – Comparison between 2012 (n-411) and 2013 (n=200)

Often / Always Seldom / Never 2012 2013 2012 2013 Plastic Bottles 63% 65% 37% 35% Electricity and Electronics 15% 24% 85% 76% Glass 35% 36% 65% 64% Paper and/or Cardboard 53% 55% 47% 45% Batteries 45% 45% 555 555 Domestic Waste Separation 23% 25% 77% 75%

Unsurprisingly, the types of waste which were discovered to be most recycled are the ones with convenient and simple public accessibility to their recycling bins – bins for plastic bottles and for paper and cardboard are dispersed on the streets of cities and towns, and battery recycling bins can be found on the plastic recycling bins as well as in educational institutions, workplaces and shopping centers. The percentage of reports regarding battery recycling was surprisingly high, but it might also be interpreted by responders answering they were recycling batteries in cases of using rechargeable batteries. The relatively high reported recycling percentage for glass bottles is astounding, given the absence of an easily accessible solution for glass recycling. It is possible that the users had interpreted the question as referring also to the reuse of glass products (such as jars and bottles). Also surprising is the high percentage of responders who have reported on household waste separation, considering the low rates of domestic waste recycling in Israel at present, and the question might have been misunderstood. Generally, it is possible that there is an upward deviation in survey results due to the will of subjects to report a more environmental behavior than the way they actually act. Either way, the survey results are preliminary only, and require further deepening and research if any significant conclusions are made regarding recycling habits in Israel, and in particular regarding the connections between socio-economic status and recycling.

It should further be noted that in the framework of survey result analysis, we had also examined whether a statistical correlation might be made between various socio-economic characteristics of the responders (income level, standard of living, gender, education level, religious inclination, age, economic status, environmental affinity and belonging to the Jewish or Arab sector) and their recycling habits.

Significant results were only obtained with regard to some of the characteristics and some of the waste types for recycling. Table 4 summarizes these results. A "plus" sign indicates that a significant correlation was identified between the socio-economic feature and the recycling pattern, whereas a "minus" sign indicates that no such relationship was observed. It is evident that there is a clear correlation between affinity to environmental issues of subjects and their willingness to recycle – subjects who have defined themselves to have a higher affinity to environmental issues ("the subject of the environment is close to their hearts") have also shown a much higher willingness to recycle different materials – plastic bottles, glass products, paper and cardboard and household waste. Another link was observed between education levels and recycling – higher recycling rates (of plastic, paper and cardboard and batteries) were identified among subjects who had higher education levels. Further research is required to explain some of the relationships discovered (such

as the correlation between level of religiousness of responders and their inclination to recycle), as well as further study to examine where links can be made between income levels, economic status and standard of living to recycling patterns – correlations which were not found to be significant in the current survey.

Table 4: Correlations between Socio-Economic Characteristics of Subjects and Recycling Patterns

Environ- Education Age of Religious- Economic Standard mental Sector Income Gender subject ness Status of Living Affinity Plastic + + + + + - - - - Bottles Electricity & + ------Electronics Glass - - + - + - - - - Paper and/or + + + + + - - - - Cardboard Batteries - + - + + - - - - Household Waste + ------Separation

3.2.2 Separation at Source

In the framework of the "Waste Revolution" announced by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the effort to mitigate landfill deposits and expand recycling, recuse and recovery of energy from waste, the ministry set an ambitious goal: 50% recycling by 2020.42 In order to advance adherence to the target, the Ministry of Environmental Protection uses a carrots-and-sticks system. The stick is the level of the landfilling levy, the price local authorities must pay for depositing waste in a regulated landfill; and the carrot are a series of grants offered by the ministry to authorities, aiming to encourage them to implement plans for waste separation, and grants offered to entrepreneurs who will establish facilities for waste treatment.43

42 Ministry of Environmental Protection. 2013. Material Management: Israel's Waste Revolution. (See footnote 16 above). 43 See Call for Proposals 30/2010 to promote the transition to separation at source to two waste streams, which provides support for 31 authorities in a total sum of NIS 342,325,298; Call for Proposals 31/2011 to establish or upgrade municipal organic waste treatment facilities, which provides support for 11 projects in a total sum of NIS 105,917,050; Call for Proposals 32/2011 to establish or upgrade municipal waste sorting facilities, which provides support for 9 projects in a total sum of NIS 143,533,391; Call for Proposals 33/2012 to establish or upgrade facilities for the treatment of municipal biologically degradable waste, which provides support for 7 projects in a total sum of NIS 128,379,362; and Call for Proposals 2012/1964 to assist local authorities in the periphery to establish small facilities for the treatment of household organic waste

In this manner, for example, in 2012 the Ministry of Environmental Protection awarded financial support in the total sum of NIS 342 million to "advanced" local authorities, to start the promotion of transition to separation at source into two waste streams. According to the ministry's data, 438,455 households reside in these authorities. The number of households separating waste in these authorities is constantly rising: in May 2012, the ministry reported 49,192 households (based on reports by the authorities), in June 2012 Adam Teva V'Din reported 56,000 households that separate waste,44 and in August 2012 the ministry reported 83,588 households, which are 18.6% of total households in the "advanced" authorities partaking in the program,45 and 10,120 more households that separate their waste in additional authorities.46 The most updated report, as of May 2013, reports 215,563 households that separate their waste, including authorities that received support either in the framework of the 30/2010 call for proposals, other calls for proposals by the ministry, or independently.47 The separating authorities are dispersed throughout the country, and include cities, local councils and regional councils from varied socio-economic levels.48

We emphasize that further in this paper we will not be addressing data regarding the waste separation plans, since they are still very new, and it is too early to examine the impacts of the waste separation programs on waste production and treatment. Therefore, this work is based on the most updated data concerning quantities of solid waste produced in Israel, which have been published in January 2013 and refer to 2011 – prior to the implementation of the program to encourage separation at source.

separated at source (compost), which provides support for 18 projects in 7 regional councils (38 localities) and 2 local councils at a total cost of NIS 3,619,000. 44 Ostrovsky, Gilad and Adomi, Karen. 2012. Organic Waste Separation in Local Authorities: Situation Report – June 2012. Adam Teva V'Din. [In Hebrew] http://www.adamteva.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/haf.pdf 45 Ministry of Environmental Protection. 2012. The Local Authorities Awarded Financial Support by the Ministry of Environmental Protection to Advance the Transition to Separation at Source to Two Streams – Call for Proposals 30/2010. Updated August 2012. [In Hebrew] http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/Waste/Separation/Documents/waste_separation_winners.pdf 46 Ministry of Environmental Protection. 2012. Local Authorities that Entered the Process of Separation at Source to Two Streams Independently or in the Framework of Calls for Proposals by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Except for Call for Proposals 30/2012. [In Hebrew] http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/Waste/Separation/Documents/waste_separation_auth.pdf 47 According to the Waste Separation in Authorities page, on the Ministry of Environmental Protection Website. [In Hebrew] http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/Waste/Separation/Pages/default.aspx 48 The list of separating authorities, and number of households that entered the process in each authority thus far (as of May 2013): Cities: Ofaqim (7,200); Ashdod (31,000); Ashqelon (9,295); Be'er Sheva (3,500); Bat Yam (3,000); Dimona (6,500); Hod HaSharon (9,500); Hadera (8,000); Haifa (1,700); Yavne (750); Yoqne'am Illit (2,450); Kefar Sava (12,200); Migdal HaEmeq (7,390); Modi'in-Makkabbim-Re'ut (12,200); Nes Ziyyona (5,260); Netanya (3,500); Afula (8,150); Qiryat Ono (5,800); Qiryat Bialik (4,842); Rosh HaAyin (2,000); Ramla (5,676); Ramat Gan (2,500); Ramat HaSharon (3,500); Ra'annana (15,000); Tel Aviv-Yafo (2,500). Local Councils: Zikhron Ya'aqov (3,020); Savyon (1,200); Rosh Pinna (780); Shoham (4,500). Regional Councils: Brenner (2,206); Golan (1,0266); Gush Ezyon (1,250); Derom HaSharon (850); Hof HaKarmel (795); Megiddo (1,600); Matte Asher (4,700); Menashe (1,950); Misgav (4,163); Emeq Hefer (12,700); Ramat Negev (520); Sedot Negev (570); Sha'ar HaNegev (320). Link to map of authorities that separate at source on the Ministry of Environmental Protection website: http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/Waste/Separation/Pages/Map.aspx

4. Methodology

This study was conducted in the framework of an extensive research and policy project of the Association of Environmental Justice in Israel that addresses climate justice in Israel, in cooperation with the Institute for Social Research at Tel Aviv University. The research aims to examine the relative contribution of different population groups in Israel to greenhouse gas emissions from various sources, and to formulate policy recommendations based on research findings and a comparative analysis of policy tools that are being promoted in other countries such as EU members, Canada and others.

The methodology used by the initial three studies undertaken – addressing electricity, transportation and food, was an exploration of the relative contribution of each income decile to total emissions. This research, addressing waste in Israel, cannot undergo a similar process, because the data presently available refers to waste collection on the municipal level, and not the production of waste in the individual level. There are no obtainable details regarding waste quantities produced and discarded by each household, nor even data on the street, neighborhood or city-quarter levels. The only available data presents total municipal solid waste amounts in a given locality, and cannot be cross-referenced with the socio-economic status of disposers of the waste. For this reason, the smallest analysis unit in this research is the locality (or, in the case of regional councils that amalgamate a number of rural localities – the entire regional council), and the research is based on the classification of localities into ten socio-economic clusters – that is, the rating of localities according to the standard of living in them.

The determination of the socio-economic cluster of cities, local authorities and regional authorities is executed by the Central Bureau of Statistics once every few years. The most updated rating was published in April 2013, based on population data in 2008, and therefore reflects the socio-economic level of the population in that year.49 In the determination of the socio-economic rating, 16 variables are examined for each local authority, addressing demography, standard of living, education, employment and welfare benefits.50

It is important to emphasize that the division of localities into ten clusters does not create clusters of equal sizes (not in terms of number of localities, nor the number of residents in each cluster), unlike the division of individuals and households into deciles. Table 5 presents data regarding the number of localities and the number of residents in each socio-economic cluster.

49 See also: Central Bureau of Statistics. 2013. Geographical Unit Characterization and Classification According to Socio-Economic Level of the Population in 2008. Press Release – 13 April 2013; and Central Bureau of Statistics. 2013. Table A2: Local Authorities by Increasing Order of the Socio-Economic Index – Index Value, Rating and Cluster Attribution – Cluster Change in 2008 Compared with 2006. [In Hebrew] 50 Variables used to determine the socio-economic level of local authorities are – demographic variables: age median, dependency, average number of persons per household; standard of living variables: standard average monthly income per person, average number of vehicles used by the household for persons aged 18 and older, average room numbers per person in household, average bathrooms per person in household and percentage of household with computer and internet connection; education variables: average years of study of persons aged 25 to 54, percentage of academic degree holders of persons aged 25 to 54, percentage of employees in academic or administrative occupations; employment and benefits variables: percentage of wage earners among persons aged 15 and older, percentage of women aged 25 to 45 not in the civilian workforce, percentage of wage earners earning more than double the average salary, percentage of wage earners under minimum wage, percentage of minimal income benefits. Based on Central Bureau of Statistics. 2013. Table A1: Local Authorities in Alphabetical Order – Index Value, Rating, Cluster Attribution, Population, Variable Values, Standard Score and Rating by Variables Used to Calculate the Index.

Table 5: Number of Localities and Total Population in Different Clusters (According to the updated cluster rating (2008) and most up-to-date locality data (2011))

Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Population in 150.9 647.0 704.9 1326.9 1909.5 1014.0 710.6 1197.1 84.2 12.0 Thousands Total 7 49 29 26 52 27 23 31 7 3 Localities Cities 2 5 12 13 22 7 5 9 1 - Local 3 43 17 12 12 7 8 14 6 3 Authorities Regional 2 1 - 1 18 13 10 8 - - Authorities

Table 6 presents the average income per person in the different clusters, as an indication only – this type of data is but one component in a complex formula used to calculate socio-economic clusters (see also footnote 50).

Table 6: Average Standard Monthly Income per Person (NIS) in Different Clusters According to CBS data51

Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average Monthly 1,789 2,396 2,986 3,757 4,577 5,483 6,522 7,932 10,478 16,900 Income

4.1 Conduct of the Research

The present research aims to formulate a carbon inequality index, based on the relative contribution of localities from different socio-economic clusters in Israel to GHG emissions from waste. The following chapters will present the research findings, and results and conclusions of the research, according to the following methodological process: a. Identification of waste quantities per person in Israeli localities. These quantities are presented by the CBS tables and are based on self-reporting of authorities to the Ministry of Environmental Protection, who then transfers the data to the Central Bureau of Statistics.

51 According to the data of the Central Bureau of Statistics, April 2013: Table A3: Population Size and Averages of Variables Used to Calculate the Local Authority Index, by Socio-Economic Cluster.

b. Evaluation and analysis of waste composition in different localities, based on the waste survey conducted in Israel, in 2005 (this was the latest survey available at the time of writing this paper. Since then, in May 2014, a new waste survey was published, based on work conducted in 2012- 2013). c. Calculation of waste GHG emission coefficients from different waste types in Israel, based on estimations by the scientific department of Adam Teva V'Din, as published in the document "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Treatment".52 d. Calculation of waste GHG emission coefficients in different locality types in Israel (based on items b – the waste survey in Israel, and c – GHG emissions coefficients from waste deposits). e. Calculation of total GHG emissions from waste in localities in Israel, based on data obtained in the previous four items, and analysis of waste production data and GHG emissions from waste treatment, according to socio-economic clusters and by types of localities.

5. Findings

5.1 Identifying Waste Quantities per Person Produced in Localities in Israel

The Central Bureau of Statistics annually publishes data regarding waste quantities per person being produced in localities in Israel.53 The source of the data is by self-reporting of local authorities to the Ministry of Environmental Protection, as required by the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations (see also paragraph 2.3 regarding reporting problems of waste quantities in Israel).

The most updated relevant data (published in January 2013) refers to waste quantities in localities in Israel at the end of 2011. The data is based on reporting by 209 authorities (of the 254 local authorities in Israel). For the purposes of completing the missing data we have referred to the authorities' reports from the years 2010 and 2009.54

52 Ostrovsky and Kotzer. 2010. (See footnote 2). 53 The data is presented as part of extensive information tables about local government in Israel, which include information about demographic, economic and other aspects of an authority. 54 The 2011 data lacked information for 44 localities. We completed the data by using 2010 waste production per person data (Abu Sinan, Umm Al-Fahm, Elyakhin, Bir El-Maksur, Bet Shemesh, Jish (Gush Halav), Dimona, Hura, Haifa, Yafi, Yeroham, Kefar Kama, Laqye, Matte Binyamin Regional Council, Emeq Hefer Regional Council, Metar, Ar'ara, Ar'ara BaNegev, Fureidis, Pardes Hanna-Karkur, Tel Sheva). In 12 additional localities, for which there was no data available for 2010 either, we completed the information by using 2009 waste production per person data (Bet Dagan, Binyamina-Giv'at Ada, Giv'at Ze'ev, Har Adar, Tayibe, Migdal, Megillot Dead Sea Regional Council, Ramat Negev Regional Council, Tamar Regional Council, Ein Mahel, Qiryat Arba, Rahat). Regarding 11 additional localities data was missing for the last three years (2009, 2010, 2011) and they were therefore excluded from this study. These localities are: Baqa Al- Gharbiyye, Bustan El Marj Regional Council, Bu'eine-Nujeidat, Bi'ne, Jatt, Deir Al-Asad, Daliyat Al-Karmel, Yanuh-Jat, Mas'ade, Meshhed, Isifya, Qiryat Atta

Table 7: Waste Quantities Per Person (kg per person per day) in Localities in Israel by Socio-Economic Cluster – 2011 (In localities that did not published data for 2011, we noted that we relied on data from previous years: 2010 and 2009)

Locality Type Population Waste Locality Type Population Waste CLUSTER 1 CLUSTER 2 (Continued) BETAR ILLIT City 39,700 1.0 IMMANU'EL Local 3,000 0.9 MODI'IN ILLIT City 52,100 1.2 JALJULYE Local 8,700 0.9 JISR Local 12,900 JUDEIDE- Local 19,000 AZ-ZARQA 1.4 MAKER 0.8 LAQYE Local 9,600 0.5 2010 KABUL Local 12,500 1.0 KAFAR TEL SHEVA Local 16,400 2010 Local 19,700 0.7 KANNA 1.5 KAFAR ABU BASMA Regional 13,300 0.4 Local 17,000 1.3 MANDA KAOKAB AL BATOF Regional 6,900 Local 3,000 1.1 ABU AL-HIJA 1.5 KISRA- Local 7,600 SUMEI 1.2 CLUSTER 2 KUSEIFE Local 17,200 0.5 EL'AD City 39,800 MA'ALE Local 13,200 1.0 IRON 1.0 MAJD AL- QALANSAWE City 19,800 Local 13,800 1.2 KURUM 1.0 MAJDAL RAHAT City 54,900 2009 Local 9,900 1.3 SHAMS 0.9 SAKHNIN City 27,100 1.3 MAZRA'A Local 3,500 1.3 UMM AL- City 48,500 2010 MUGHAR Local 20,700 FAHM 1.5 1.0 ABU GHOSH Local 6,300 1.4 NAHEF Local 11,200 1.2 AR'ARA Local 22,800 1.0 2010 REKHASIM Local 9,800 1.3 AR'ARA- SEGEV- Local 13,600 2010 Local 7,800 BANEGEV 0.6 SHALOM 0.7 ARRABE Local 22,200 1.4 SHA'AB Local 6,100 0.8 SHIBLI-UMM BASMA Local 8,100 Local 5,300 1.4 AL-GHANAM 0.8 BASMAT Local 7,000 0.9 TUBA- Local 5,900 1.0 TAB'UN ZANGARIYYE BEIT JANN Local 10,800 1.1 YIRKA Local 15,300 1.6 BIR EL- Local 8,000 2010 Local 6,700 MAKSUR 0.7 ZARZIR 1.4 BU'EINE- Local 8,300 NUJEIDAT 1.1 BUQ'ATA Local 6,000 1.3 CLUSTER 3 DABURIYYA Local 9,300 1.5 BENE BERAQ City 163,300 1.3 BET EIN MAHEL Local 11,700 2009 City 84,200 2010 0.7 SHEMESH 1.4 Local 1,800 KAFAR City 20,000 EIN QINIYYE 1.2 QASEM 1.2 FUREIDIS Local 11,500 1.5 2010 NAZARETH City 73,700 1.4 HURA Local 17,000 0.4 2010 NETIVOT City 28,000 1.9 IKSAL Local 12,700 1.1 OFAQIM City 24,400 1.5 ILUT Local 7,100 1.0 TAMRA City 30,100 1.9 Locality Type Population Waste Locality Type Population Waste

CLUSTER 3 (Continued) CLUSTER 4 (Continued) TAYIBE City 38,200 1.4 2009 FASSUTA Local 2,900 1.6 PEQI'IN TIRE City 23,300 1.5 Local 5,500 1.3 (BUQEI'A) QIRYAT SHEFAR'AM City 37,700 Local 7,400 2009 1.7 ARBA 1.3 ABU SINAN Local 12,900 1.1 2010 RAME Local 7,300 1.4 DEIR HANNA Local 9,200 1.7 YAVNE'EL Local 3,700 1.5 GHAJAR Local 2,300 1.3 YEROHAM Local 8,300 2.2 2010 HAZOR Local 8,700 2.3 NAHAL Regional 6,300 1.5 HAGELILIT SOREQ HURFEISH Local 5,700 1.3 I'BILLIN Local 11,900 1.0 CLUSTER 5 JULIS Local 5,900 1.0 AFULA City 41,300 1.9 KA'ABIYYE- TABBASH- Local 4,600 0.9 ARAD City 23,400 1.9 HAJAJRE KAFAR BARA Local 3,000 1.2 ARI'EL City 17,800 1.2 QIRYAT Local 3,200 ASHDOD City 212,300 YE'ARIM 1.9 1.6 REINE Local 17,500 1.0 ASHQELON City 117,400 1.9 SAJUR Local 3,800 1.1 BAT YAM City 128,200 1.5 TUR'AN Local 12,400 1.2 BE'ER SHEVA City 196,300 1.8 YAFI Local 17,200 1.7 2010 ELAT City 46,700 3.3 ZEMER Local 5,900 0.8 HADERA City 82,500 1.8 HOLON City 182,600 1.8 CLUSTER 4 KARMI'EL City 44,700 1.2 AKKO City 46,500 MA'ALE City 36,100 1.8 ADUMMIM 1.6 MA'ALOT- BET SHE'AN City 16,900 1.9 City 21,000 1.3 TARSHIHA MIGDAL DIMONA City 32,400 2010 City 24,100 1.6 HAEMEQ 1.7 JERUSALEM City 804,400 1.3 NAHARIYYA City 52,600 1.9 NAZERAT LOD City 70,300 City 40,600 2.0 ILLIT 1.4 OR AQIVA City 15,900 2.0 NETANYA City 189,700 1.7 QIRYAT GAT City 47,800 1.7 OR YEHUDA City 35,000 2.2 QIRYAT City 20,900 QIRYAT City 23,000 MAL'AKHI 1.9 SHEMONA 2.0 RAMLA City 67,900 1.9 QIRYAT YAM City 38,200 1.4 SEDEROT City 21,100 1.6 YAVNE City 33,300 2.6 TIBERIAS City 41,700 2.2 BENE AYISH Local 7,000 1.2 TIRAT KARMEL City 18,300 1.9 BET EL Local 5,800 0.9 ZEFAT City 32,200 2.0 ELYAKHIN Local 3,100 1.6 2010 KAFAR YASIF Local 8,900 2.3 GIV'AT ZE'EV Local 12,600 1.2 2009 JISH (GUSH KAFAR KAMA Local 3,000 2010 Local 3,000 2010 1.0 HALAV) 2.3 MA'ALE KAFAR QARA Local 16,300 3.2 Local 1,200 1.1 EFRAYIM MIZPE Local 4,900 MI'ELYA Local 2,900 RAMON 1.8 1.7 EILABUN Local 5,000 1.4 MIGDAL Local 1,600 2.5 2009

Locality Type Population Waste Locality Type Population Waste

CLUSTER 5 (Continued) CLUSTER 6 (Continued) PARDES QAZRIN Local 6,600 1.7 HANNA- Local 33,500 2.6 2010 KARKUR QEDUMIM Local 3,900 1.0 PARDESIYYA Local 5,500 1.8 QIRYAT Local 10,300 2.2 ARVOT Regional 3,600 1.5 EQRON HAYARDEN BE'ER SHELOMI Local 6,100 Regional 20,600 0.6 TUVEYA 2.4 EMEQ Regional 11,400 4.3 ESHKOL Regional 11,200 1.5 HAMA'AYANOT EMEQ Regional 11,700 GOLAN Regional 13,200 HAYARDEN 2.6 2.0 EMEQ LOD Regional 13,500 HAGALIL Regional 16,100 2.3 HAELYON 2.7 HOF GUSH EZYON Regional 17,000 Regional 14,100 1.2 ASHQELON 2.3 MATTE HAGILBOA Regional 26,700 Regional 24,200 1.3 ASHER 2.1 MATTE HAR HEVRON Regional 6,300 2.0 Regional 45,400 1.6 YEHUDA HEVEL ELOT Regional 3,600 7.6 MEGIDDO Regional 10,600 2.8 LAKHISH Regional 9,000 1.9 MENASHE Regional 14,000 1.7 MEVO'OT MA'ALE YOSEF Regional 9,000 Regional 6,400 1.7 HAHERMON 1.2 MATTE QARNE Regional 50,500 2010 Regional 6,400 BINYAMIN 1.9 SHOMERON 1.0 MEGILLOT SHA'AR Regional 1,100 4.0 2009 Regional 9,900 1.6 DEAD SEA HANEGEV MERHAVIM Regional 11,800 1.2 ZEVULUN Regional 12,000 1.9 MEROM Regional 14,000 HAGALIL 2.3 RAMAT Regional 5,100 2009 NEGEV 1.8 CLUSTER 7 SEDOT NEGEV Regional 8,400 1.5 HAIFA City 270,300 1.5 2010 NES SHAFIR Regional 9,900 City 41,300 1.6 ZIYYONA 1.6 SHOMERON Regional 27,800 1.8 NESHER City 24,000 1.3 TAMAR Regional 1,300 16.7 2009 RAMAT GAN City 148,000 1.7 YEHUD City 27,600 1.9 CLUSTER 6 BET ARYE Local 4,100 1.5 PETAH TIQWA City 210,400 1.5 BET DAGAN Local 7,000 1.0 2009 QIRYAT BIALIK City 37,600 1.5 EFRAT Local 7,700 1.2 QIRYAT City 38,300 KEFAR YONA Local 19,500 MOTZKIN 1.3 1.7 REHOVOT City 118,100 1.8 METULA Local 1,600 1.8 RISHON City 232,400 1.9 QAZIR Local 3,300 1.2 LEZIYYON HARISH ROSH HAAYIN City 39,900 1.4 ROSH PINNA Local 2,700 7.9 YOQNE'AM City 19,500 Regional 2,000 ILLIT 1.3 ALLONA 1.7 BENE AZOR Local 11,600 Regional 7,500 2.6 SHIM'ON 2.2 BE'ER Local 14,500 EMEQ Regional 33,600 YA'AQOV 3.6 YIZRE'EL 1.0 GAN YAVNE Local 20,500 1.5 GEZER Regional 22,500 2.4 HAARAVA GEDERA Local 24,400 Regional 2,800 1.7 HATIKHONA 2.8 Locality Type Population Waste Locality Type Population Waste CLUSTER 7 (Continued) CLUSTER 8 (Continued)

HAGALIL Regional 10,100 2.2 RAMAT Local 7,100 1.9 HATAHTON YISHAY HEVEL Regional 21,200 SHOHAM Local 19,400 MODI'IN 2.7 1.3 YESUD HEVEL YAVNE Regional 5,700 1.9 Local 1,500 4.3 HAMA'ALA ZIKHRON MISGAV Regional 23,600 Local 20,200 1.3 YA'AQOV 1.9 YO'AV Regional 6,900 2.3 BRENNER Regional 7,200 4.5 DEROM Regional 26,900 HASHARON 1.5 CLUSTER 8 EMEQ HEFER Regional 39,000 2.0 GIV'AT City 23,100 1.3 GAN RAWE Regional 5,200 2.5 SHEMU'EL GIV'ATAYIM City 54,700 1.4 GEDEROT Regional 4,800 1.4 City 88,700 HOF Regional 26,400 HERZLIYYA 2.4 HAKARMEL 2.8 HOD City 49,900 HOF Regional 13,600 HASHARON 1.7 HASHARON 3.5 KEFAR SAVA City 87,300 LEV Regional 22,000 1.7 HASHARON 2.3 MODI'IN- MAKKABBIM- City 80,200 1.3 RE'UT QIRYAT ONO City 22,400 1.4 CLUSTER 9 RA'ANNANA City 69,100 RAMAT City 42,300 1.9 HASHARON 2.7 TEL AVIV – City 404,800 2.7 HAR ADAR Local 3,600 1.2 2009 YAFO ALFE Local 7,400 KEFAR Local 5,600 MENASHE 1.3 WERADIM 1.5 BINYAMINA- KOKHAV Local 13,600 2009 Local 9,200 GIV'AT ADA 2.9 YA'IR 1.9 ELQANA Local 3,700 2.1 LEHAVIM Local 6,100 1.4 EVEN YEHUDA Local 11,900 2.1 METAR Local 6,600 2.1 2010 GANNE Local 13,900 TEL MOND Local 10,800 TIQWA 1.3 1.8 KEFAR TAVOR Local 3,000 1.8 MAZKERET Local 10,100 2.2 CLUSTER 10 BATYA MEVASSERET Local 25,300 1.5 KEFAR Local 1,800 5.2 ZIYYON SHEMARYAHU ORANIT Local 6,600 1.5 OMER Local 7,100 2.1 QIRYAT Local 17,100 SAVYON Local 3,100 TIV'ON 1.5 5.9

Figure 3: Waste Production Quantities (Kg per Person per Day) in a Locality, in Relation to the Locality's Socio-Economic Rating

The following graph (Figure 3) indicates the link between the socio-economic rating of localities in Israel and the quantity of waste per person that is being produced in them. The X axis (ranges between 1 and 10) represents socio-economic clusters; the Y axis represents the quantity of waste per person per day, in kilograms, and the size of the dot represents the number of localities producing a given amount of waste. The graph clearly shows the tendency: in localities of higher socio-economic level, more waste is being produced.

5.2 Assessment of Waste Composition in Israel

The composition of waste in Israel is important information for two main reasons: first, estimating contemporary and future waste quantities is required in order to plan formations of waste collection and treatment; secondly, understanding waste composition is essential for the formulation of effective waste treatment solutions – its reduction, recycling and final channeling – which would minimize its environmental and health damages. The composition of waste can be determined by conducting a waste survey – a sample examination of waste, which is transported to treatment and landfill facilities, and its analysis according to its various components. The Ministry of Environmental Protection had conducted two extensive waste surveys thus far – in 199555 and 200556. In December

55 Biotech Environmental Co. Ltd. 1995. National Waste Composition Survey 1995. 56 Shaldag – Environmental Management and Solutions Ltd. 2005. Household Waste Composition – National Survey 2005. Ministry of Environmental Protection – December 2006.

of 2012 the ministry began conducting an additional survey, the most comprehensive to date. Its results are expected in 2014 or 2015.57

In 1995 the survey examined the composition of waste in seven localities: Ashdod, Hadera, Haifa, Matte Yehuda, Zikhron Ya'qcov, Abu Ghosh and Jisr Az-Zarqa. These localities, representing a population of more than half a million residents, were selected as representatives of various locality types: big city, medium-sized city, small city, regional council (of small rural localities), local council (smaller town) and Arab localities. In 2005 the waste survey also reviewed seven localities: five of those reviewed in 1995 – Ashdod, Hadera, Haifa, Zikhron Ya'aqov and Jisr Az-Zarqa, and two new ones – Menashe Regional Council and the municipality of Umm El Fahm. The new survey being conducted presently by the ministry examines 20 localities, six of which have been reviewed before: Ashdod, Hadera, Haifa, Jisr Az-Zarqa, Umm Al Fahm and Menashe Regional Council, and an additional fourteen are being reviewed for the first time: Tel Aviv-Yafo, Ramat Gan, Afula, Ramat HaSharon, Qiryat Gat, Hazor Hagelilit, Be'er Yaaqov, Lehavim, Emeq Hefer Regional Council, Bene Shimon Regional Council, Kafar Qasem, Rahat, Basmat Tab'un and Segev-Shalom Regional Council. Additionally, the survey will also be undertaken in some IDF army camps.

The methodology used by both initial surveys is similar: after selecting sample localities, the surveyors manually examined trash arriving at the waste sites servicing the localities, using the following method: unloading waste from the collection vehicles; creating a waste heap comprised of contents of up to 5 trucks; shuffling it using a horizontal shovel; taking a 0.5 m3 volume sample, sorting it to 20 main components; weighing each component and determining its volume. The waste surveys examined waste both in winter and summer, and dedicated 6 days in each season to each of the localities sampled.

In this paper we rely on the 2005 waste survey as an indication for waste composition in different localities.

Table 8: Domestic Waste Composition in Israel (Summer and Winter Average) – as of 200558

Weight average Volume average Organic matter 39.% 9.6% Paper 17.4% 14.7% Plastic 13.5% 47.3% Misc. 7.7% 5.2% Cardboard 7.5% 13.0% Diapers 5.0% 2.6% Textile 3.8% 2.9% Glass 2.9% 0.7% Metal 2.6% 4.0%

57 See also Ministry of Environmental Protection Website. 2013. Israel Waste Composition Survey. [In Hebrew] * Translator’s Note: In September 2015, at the time of translation, the 2012-2013 Comprehensive Waste Survey results were already published and are available online http://www.sviva.gov.il/subjectsEnv/Waste/SolidWaste-Data/Pages/ComprehensiveWasteSurvey.aspx 58 Shaldag – Environmental Management and Solutions Ltd. 2005. Household Waste Composition – National Survey 2005. Ministry of Environmental Protection – December 2006. P. 50.

Composition of Household Waste in Sample Localities – 2005

Below is the domestic waste (summer and winter average) data in percentages in the sample localities, as identified by the national waste survey. The numbers represent the relative ratio of waste weight out of total domestic waste in the locality.

Table 9: Waste Survey Results by Locality – 2005 (summer and winter average)

Zikhron Menashe Umm Jisr Haifa Ashdod Hadera Ya'aqov Reg. Council Al Fahm Az-Zarqa Putrescible organic matter 38.07 41.24 40.58 36.86 38.73 42.75 39.94 Paper 21.85 14.34 15.92 16.63 20.09 9.63 6.66 Plastic 12.70 14.38 13.69 15.21 12.79 13.22 14.94 Cardboard 6.77 8.07 8.60 7.20 7.34 7.91 8.39 Glass 3.64 2.41 2.79 3.58 1.59 1.63 1.96 Textile 3.46 4.24 3.22 2.94 3.70 5.43 7.16 Diapers 3.24 5.77 6.66 7.81 6.43 7.94 8.27 Metals 2.38 2.74 2.51 2.72 2.57 3.73 3.44 Misc.59 8.09 7.61 6.61 7.55 7.00 8.26 10.18

5.3 Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emission Coefficients from Different Types of Waste in Israel

In order to calculate the GHG emissions coefficients from waste, considering the unique conditions in Israel, we referred to a document published by Adam Teva V'Din in the summer of 2010 – GHG Emissions from Waste Treatment60. In this document, the writers Ostrovsky and Kotzer seek to explore alternatives for waste treatment, based on the quantities of GHGs that they emit. The emission assessment is based on Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)61, and based on research conducted for the European Union in 2001, while adjusting emission calculation to Israel's data.

The Life Cycle Analysis of GHG emissions from waste conducted by Ostrovsky and Kotzer referred to the following components62: direct emissions from waste treatment, energy used for treatment and

59 According to the surveyors, the "miscellaneous" component includes the following waste types: processed wood, other organic materials (leather and rubber), other inorganic materials (building waste, sand, soil, gravel and stones, styrofoam), special waste (detergent and chemical containers) and electronic waste. 60 Ostrovsky, Gilad and Kotzer, Roy.2010. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Treatment. Adam Teva V'din. June 2010. [In Hebrew] http://www.adamteva.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/PLITATHAMAMATIPOL10.pdf 61 "Life Cycle Analysis quantifies the entirety of environmental impacts of the waste all the way from the production stage of a product throughout to waste treatment, rather than sufficing with direct emissions emanating from the treatment of waste alone". For example, in the calculation of GHG emissions resulting from landfilling, "we will not suffice with direct emissions from the site, but will also calculate carbon sequestration within the landfill. In such case, the inclusion of carbon sequestration dramatically changes the emissions balance from landfill sites". See Ostrovsky and Kotzer. 2010. P.8. 62 Ostrovsky and Kotzer. 2010. P.8.

disposal of waste and its emissions, energy saved by means of using recycled materials, energy saved in the process of production and transportation of recycled raw materials, emissions prevented as a result of recovered energy (such as by means of waste incineration and use of the energy being released), and carbon sequestration as a result of landfill deposit and compostation processes. The writers noted that they chose not to address emissions resulting from construction of facilities and equipment, because studies found that their share of total emissions is minuscule.

5.3.1 Greenhouse Gases Released by Waste

The primary greenhouse gas emitted from waste is Methane (CH4). Methane is a product of anaerobic fermentation processes of organic waste, and the conditions for its generation exist in waste landfills. In Europe methane emissions are 89% of total waste emissions, and Ostrovsky and Kotzer estimate the rate to be similar in Israel. The impact of methane gas on global warming is 21 63 times higher than that of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also emitted during waste treatment processes: in waste incineration, while transporting or treating waste (as a result of fuel combustion) and as part of anaerobic fermentation processes. Ostrovsky and Kotzer suggest, however, that by appropriate treatment, CO2 emissions from waste might be averted – by means of carbon sequestration in the ground64, by generating energy from waste (as an alternative to burning fossil fuels), and by recycling (which reduces the use of fossil fuels).65

An additional greenhouse gas found in waste is nitrous oxide (N2O). Its atmospheric impact is 310 times greater than that of CO2, but it only comprises a very small percentage of total waste, and is emitted to the air as a result of one of two processes: decomposition of organic waste (which contains organic nitrate that might turn to nitrous oxide as part of the chemical processes that occur during waste decomposition), or incineration of mixed waste.

63 It is customary to calculate the impacts of different greenhouse gases on the atmosphere in terms comparable to the impact of carbon dioxide. The conventional units, which are also used in this paper, are CO2eq (carbon dioxide equivalent). 64 In the process of carbon sequestration, biogenic carbon (see also footnote 65) that remains confined in the ground for longer than 100 years, is unavailable to the natural carbon cycle and considered to be "sequestered" – and as such it generates mitigation in GHG emissions. Waste landfilling processes might cause carbon sequestration, for example when paper and cardboard (which are opulent with lignin, a substance that does not decompose easily) are introduced into anaerobic conditions. 65 Ostrovsky and Kotzer also expand about the differences between "new CO2", the emissions of which do not contribute to increasing GHG concentrations, and "old CO2", or fossil CO2 – carbon which was sequestered by Earth's crust. When it is released into the atmosphere it increases CO2 concentrations, therefore contributing to the greenhouse effect. Old carbon can be found in plastic and some of the textile in waste. In most cases it does not decompose in biological processes, but is released into the atmosphere following combustion processes. On the other hand, new carbon is part of the natural carbon cycle. This carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis by plants and algae, and is emitted back into the atmosphere by biological or chemical processes. Releasing new carbon (also dubbed biogenic carbon) into the atmosphere does not contribute to the rising concentration of GHGs. However, if biogenic carbon is released as methane, its impact is 21 times greater, and then it is calculated as a contributor to global warming. With regard to the matter at hand, old carbon emitted as a result of fuel combustion (resulting from the transportation or treatment of waste) is considered as adding GHGs. Carbon released from plastic (originating from crude oil and its byproducts) is also considered to be a greenhouse gas. Carbon released from cardboard is not counted, because it is part of the carbon cycle.

5.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Waste Treatment Processes

The waste treatment process is comprised of several stages: collection and transportation of waste, waste treatment, and an end-of-pipe solution – landfilling, incineration, anaerobic digestion or compostation. At the collection and transport stage, waste is collected from retention bins in localities and is being transported to the treatment or landfill sites. The transportation entails CO2 emissions as a result of the use of fossil fuels. At the waste treatment stage, waste undergoes actions such as sorting and separation, compression etc. Emissions at this stage are primarily direct emissions from waste, of emissions due to the use of fuels.

The final stage is the end-of-pipe solution. In Israel it is almost always landfill burial: as of 2011 (the reference year of this study), at least 85% of the waste produced in Israel had been landfilled, and the rest was transported to recycling facilities (elsewhere in their report, Ostrovsky and Kotzer mention that 94% of household waste is landfilled and only 6% are collected in recycling centers). Landfilling entails greenhouse gas emissions, in particular methane. The majority of GHGs in the process are emitted as a result of the decomposition or organic matter, which constitutes two-thirds of total waste in Israel: 40% of waste is putrescible organic waste (food and gardening waste) which decomposes at a rapid rate, since its organic components are available for biological decomposition, and 25% of waste is organic waste that is more difficult to break down (paper and cardboard), in which the organic component is not available for immediate disintegration, and decomposes slowly. However, in the inorganic segment of waste there are certain organic components – for instance wood, textile, diapers and organic substances appended to other elements.

It is important to note that the landfill burial processes and other end-of-pipe solutions also contribute to GHG mitigation: by sequestering carbon in the ground and by generating alternative energy – whether by means of utilizing landfill gases, or in other ways.66

Figure 4: GHG Flow Resulting from Landfilling Mixed Household Waste

CO2 from Methane transportation emitted into

and deposits atmosphere

Organic matter Biogas Methane CO to the containing Landfill burial (Methane Collected and 2 atmosphere carbon and CO2) Incinerated

Emission Carbon savings from sequestration CO2 to the energy in landfill atmosphere generation Source: Ostrovsky and Kotzer 2010, p. 18)

66 For Ostrovsky and Kotzer's calculation of the energy recovered, substituting electrical energy, see ibid. p. 17.

According to Ostrovsky and Kotzer, "most GHG emissions attributed to landfill deposition emanate from the anaerobic decomposition of putrescible organic waste, during which methane is released. A very small part of emissions emanates from the transport of waste and use of mechanical equipment for burial, which cause emissions of old CO2. Nitrous oxide emissions are negligible in landfilling. In conjunction with savings in emissions, carbon sequestration occurs as a consequence of organic waste deposition and energy savings resulting from the utilization of landfill gases for electricity or heat production".67

Below is a summation of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from landfilling:

Table 10: Summary of GHG Emissions Resulting from Waste Landfill Deposits in Israel 68 (kg CO2eq per ton of waste)

Transport and Methane Carbon Energy Total mechanization emissions sequestration recovery Putrescible organic matter 8 1025 -272 -53 708 Paper and cardboard 8 1032 -787 -53 200 Inorganic waste69 8 150 108 -8 42

5.4 Calculating GHG Emissions Coefficients in Different Locality Types

Based on the national waste survey data regarding waste composition on the national level (see table 8) and in different localities (see table 9), and GHG emissions coefficients of different materials (as calculated by the Adam Teva V'Din research and presented in table 10), we wanted to calculate GHG emissions coefficients from waste. The calculation seeks to identify one emission coefficient for each type of locality, and takes into account the composition of waste in the locality.

The coefficients, calculated for each form of locality, represent the ratio between GHG emission quantities per person from all substances (kg) comprising the waste per annum, and the amount of waste per person per annum. The result is a unit-less number, which reflects the ratio between the amount of waste produced in a locality and the quantity of emissions generated by its waste. In other words, multiplying the coefficient in the quantity of waste produced in a locality will produce the estimated quantity of emissions in the locality.

67 For a full discussion of emissions resulting from landfilling, and explanations of the calculations presented in table 7, see ibid. pp. 18-23. 68 Ostrovsky and Kotzer. 2010. P. 23. 69 To calculate emissions from the organic segment of inorganic waste, data of the 2005 waste survey was used. According to Ostrovsky and Kotzer (2010, p.91), the major components are diapers (4.6% of waste), textile (4.0% of waste) and miscellaneous (7.9%). By their calculation, diapers generate emissions of 150 kg CO2eq per ton of waste (the source of emissions is secretions and cellulose in diapers); textile does not generate GHG emissions (as a result of balancing the decomposition of the available organic component with carbon sequestration originating by the component which is not available for decomposition); and the "misc." segment is divided to inorganic components, electronic waste and special waste, which do not contribute to emission, as well as 0.865% wood (the emissions of which are calculated like paper and cardboard) and 0.54% organic waste (the emissions of which are calculated like putrescible organic waste).

Table 11: GHG Emissions Coefficients from Waste (by Locality Type)

National average 0.339 Large city Based on data from Haifa 0.336 Medium city Based on data from Ashdod 0.345 Small city Based on data from Hadera 0.344 Local council (town) Based on data from Zikhron Ya'aqov 0.317 Regional council (rural) Based on data from Menashe Regional Council 0.337 Arab city Based on data from Umm Al Fahm 0.347 Arab local council (town) Based on data from Jisr Az-Zarqa 0.323

As can be observed, the coefficients for various locality types calculated have quite similar outcomes, and they all resemble the national average. This can be explained by the fact that the primary waste component in all localities is organic waste, which constitutes some 40% of total waste (see table 8), and its contribution to total GHG emissions generated from waste in a locality (see table 10) is higher than 75%.

In light of the coefficients calculation results, we ultimately chose to present in this paper the outcomes of emission calculations as based on the average waste quantity in Israel (the first coefficient), rather than the division into locality types. There are several reasons for this: a difficulty in classifying cities in Israel into "large", "medium", "small" (for example Ashdod, which represented a medium city in the 2005 survey, is presently the 5th largest city in Israel); the great similarity between the coefficients; and the results of a test-run based on the locality-based coefficients that produced practically identical outcomes to the use of the national average coefficient.

5.5 Calculating Total GHG Emissions from Waste in Localities in Israel

For the purpose of calculating total GHG emissions from waste in localities in Israel, we used the following data: kg waste per person per day, by locality, in 2011, based on the CBS and as detailed in table 7 above; waste composition (by weight) in Israel, as determined in the national waste survey, 2005 and detailed in table 8 above; GHG emissions coefficients, as calculated by Ostrovsky and Kotzer, 2010 and as detailed in table 10 above; GHG emissions coefficient (national average) as detailed in table 11 above.

6. Results – Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste in Israel

6.1 Carbon Inequality Index – General

Below are results of the calculated household waste produced per person (on average) per annum, and the average quantity of emissions per person per annum, by distribution to socio-economic clusters. The calculation is based on the entirety of data specified in paragraph 5.5 above. The most updated categorization into socio-economic clusters (published in April 2013 and referring to 2008 – see explanation in chapter 4 – methodology), kg waste per person per day by locality in 2011 (see table 7), waste composition (by weight) as determined in the national waste survey in 2005 (see table 8), and GHG emissions coefficients (see table 11).

Table 12: Waste Production Quantities, GHG Emissions and Carbon Inequality Coefficient by Socio-Economic Clusters – 2011

Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kg waste per person per 0.99 1.13 1.42 1.53 1.79 1.79 1.65 2.13 2.21 3.55 day Kg waste per person per 361.5 411.5 518.5 559.4 653.0 652.4 601.8 779.1 807.4 1294.5 annum Kg emissions (CO2eq) from waste 122.83 139.80 176.16 190.07 221.85 221.66 204.48 264.69 274.31 439.82 per person per annum Carbon inequality coefficient 1 1.138 1.434 1.547 1.806 1.805 1.665 2.155 2.233 3.581 (compared to cluster 1)

* Kg waste per person per day – weighted average, according to locality size in each cluster.

* Kg emissions – waste composition is based on the national waste survey (2005). Calculations of emissions coefficients are based on Ostrovsky and Kotzer (2010) (see paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 above).

* Carbon Inequality Coefficient – the ratio between quantity of emissions in each cluster and the quantity of emissions in cluster 1.

In order to calculate the carbon inequality coefficient, we divided the quantity of emissions in each cluster by the quantity of emissions in socio-economic cluster 1 (the poorest). Cluster 10's carbon inequality coefficient relative to cluster 1 is 3.581. In other words, the impact of a resident in a socio-economic cluster 10 locality on GHG emissions from waste is 3.581 times higher than that of a resident of a socio-economic cluster 1 locality.

6.2 Carbon Inequality Index – by Type of Locality

We also calculated carbon inefficiency coefficients by locality types: cities, local councils (towns) and regional councils (group of rural localities).

6.2.1 Cities Table 13: Waste Production Quantities, GHG Emissions and Carbon Inequality Coefficients in Cities, by Socio-Economic Clusters – 2011

Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Residents 91.8 190.1 522.9 1236.3 1686.8 696.2 511.2 891.2 42.3 - (thousands) Number 2 5 10 13 21 7 5 9 1 - of cities surveyed Kg waste per person 1.11 1.28 1.45 1.50 1.76 1.66 1.58 2.16 2.70 - per day Kg waste per person 406.4 466.4 528.3 549.3 642.2 606.7 576.0 789.6 985.5 - per annum Kg emissions (CO2eq) from waste 138.09 158.46 179.50 186.61 218.20 206.11 195.71 268.28 334.83 - per person per annum Carbon inequality coefficient 1 1.148 1.300 1.351 1.580 1.493 1.417 1.943 2.425 - (compared to cluster 1)

In the 73 cities reviewed by this research70 reside 5,768,600 inhabitants. They constitute 75.8% of the entire populations researched, and are responsible for the emissions of nearly 1,200 ton CO2eq from waste per annum – 77.9% of total emissions (based on 2011 data). The ten largest cities in Israel71 are responsible for the emission of nearly half of GHG emissions originating from waste in the urban sector (49.61%), and more than a third of total emissions originating in waste in the country (38.66%).

The minimal quantity of waste per person in a city is produced by residents of socio-economic cluster 1 cities – Betar Illit and Modi'in Illit – and is 1.11 kg of waste per day on average. The maximal quantity is produced by residents of the city rated to be in socio-economic cluster 9 – Ramat HaSharon – 2.70 kg per day on average, followed by residents of socio-economic cluster 8 cities – Giv'at Shmu'el, Giv'atayim, Hod Hasharon, Herzliyya, Kefar Sava, Modi'in-Makkabbim-Re'ut, Qiryat Ono, Ra'annana and Tel Aviv-Yafo – and is 2.16 kg waste per day on average.

The maximal carbon inequality coefficient in cities (in other words – the largest gap between any of the clusters and cluster 1) is in cluster 9, followed by cluster 8. On average, any resident of a socio- economic cluster 9 city is responsible for 2.425 times more emissions than those of a socio-

70 All cities in Israel excluding Baqa Al-Gharbiyye (cluster 3) and Qiryat Atta (cluster 5), for which no waste production data was published. 71 Jerusalem, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Haifa, Rishon Leziyyon, Ashdod, Petah Tiqwa, Be'er Sheva, Netanya, Holon and Bene Beraq.

economic cluster 1 city resident, and any resident of a socio-economic cluster 8 city is responsible for 1.943 times more emissions than those of a socio-economic cluster 1 city resident.

6.2.2 Local Councils

Table 14: Waste Production Quantities, GHG Emissions and Carbon Inequality Coefficients in Local Councils, by Socio-Economic Clusters – 2011

Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Residents 38.9 421.1 124.2 73.2 64.1 116.4 45.90 160.8 41.90 12.0 (thousands) Number of councils 3 39 15 11 12 7 7 14 6 3 surveyed Kg waste per person 0.88 1.06 1.31 2.01 1.44 2.22 1.82 1.77 1.72 3.55 per day Kg waste per person 322.2 386.9 477.2 732.4 525.5 809.0 665.7 645.9 627.6 1294.5 per annum Kg emissions (CO2eq) from waste 109.5 131.38 162.13 248.85 178.55 274.85 226.16 219.45 213.21 439.82 per person per annum Carbon inequality coefficient 1 1.200 1.481 2.273 1.631 2.511 2.066 2.005 1.948 4.018 (compared to cluster 1)

In the 117 local councils reviewed by this research72 reside 1,098,500 inhabitants. They constitute 14.4% of the entire population researched, and are responsible for emissions of nearly 178 ton

CO2eq from waste per annum – 11.71% of total emissions from waste in Israel (based on 2011 data).

The minimal quantity of waste per person is produced by residents of socio-economic cluster 1 local councils – Jisr Az-Zarqa, Laqye and Tel Sheva – and is 0.99 kg of waste per day on average. The maximal quantity is produced by residents of the councils in socio-economic cluster 10 – Savyon, Kefar Shemaryahu and Omer – and is 3.55 kg per day on average.

The maximal carbon inequality coefficient in local councils (in other words – the largest gap between any of the clusters and cluster 1) is in cluster 10. On average, any resident of a socio-economic cluster 10 council is responsible for 4.018 times more emissions than those of a socio-economic cluster 1 council resident.

72 All local councils in Israel, excluding Bi'ne (cluster 2), Deir Al-Asad (cluster 2), Mas'ade (cluster 2), Meshhed (cluster 2), Daliyat Al-Karmel (cluster 3), Ya)nuh-Jat (cluster 3), Isifya (cluster 4) and Qadima-Zoran (cluster 7), for which no waste production data was published.

6.2.3 Regional Councils

Table 15: Waste Production Quantities, GHG Emissions and Carbon Inequality Coefficients in Regional Councils, by Socio-Economic Clusters – 2011

Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Residents (thousands) 20.2 - - 6.3 238.1 201.4 135.9 145.1 - - Number of councils 2 0 0 1 18 13 10 8 0 0 surveyed Kg waste per person 0.64 - - 1.50 2.07 1.97 1.86 2.36 - - per day Kg waste per person 233.3 - - 547.5 575.4 720.1 677.3 861.8 - - per annum Kg emissions (CO2eq) from waste 79.26 - - 186.02 257.31 244.67 230.12 292.80 - - per person per annum Carbon inequality coefficient 1 - - 2.347 3.246 3.087 1.693 3.694 - - (compared to cluster 1)

In the 52 regional councils reviewed by this research73 reside 747,000 inhabitants. They constitute 9.8% of the entire population researched, and are responsible for the emissions of nearly 157 ton

CO2eq from waste per annum – 10.36% of total emissions from waste in Israel (based on 2011 data).

The minimal quantity of waste per person is produced by residents of socio-economic cluster 1 regional councils – Abu Basma and Al Batof – and is 0.64 kg of waste per day on average. The maximal quantity is produced by residents of councils in socio-economic cluster 8 (the highest socio- economic cluster in which regional councils are rated) – Brenner, Gederot, Gan Rawe, Derom HaSharon, Hof HaKarmel, Hof HaSharon, Lev HaSharon and Emeq Hefer – and is 2.36 kg per day on average.

The maximal carbon inequality coefficient in regional councils (in other words – the largest gap between any of the clusters and cluster 1) is in cluster 8. On average, any resident of a socio- economic cluster 8 council is responsible for 3.694 times more emissions than those of a socio- economic cluster 1 council resident.

73 The data refers to all regional councils in Israel, excluding Bustan El Marj Regional Council (cluster 2), for which no waste production data was published.

6.3 Summary of Results

In summation, this research aimed to indicate the contribution of different population groups to the production of waste and waste emissions. Based on available data, we examined the quantities of waste production in different localities in Israel and the rate of emissions from waste in each locality, and compared between localities based on their classification into socio-economic clusters. The outcomes of these calculations are carbon inequality coefficients – which are disparities between quantities of emissions per person in different clusters, in relation to the quantity of emissions in cluster 1 (the poorest). Table 16 presents the summation of findings, and indicates that environmental injustice in GHG emissions from waste does exist, and its extent varies depending on the type of locality.

The research findings indicate that different population groups have different contributions to emissions. The most conspicuous inequality is in smaller towns, or local councils – 4.018 (this is the only form of locality that includes localities rated in socio-economic cluster 10 – the wealthiest); followed by regional councils – 3.694. In cities, the form of locality which comprises the vast majority of the population of Israel – almost 76% of the country's resident, the maximal carbon inequality coefficient (in cluster 9, which consists of but one small city – Ramat HaSharon) is 2.425. The carbon inequality coefficient in cluster 8, comprised of nine cities (Giv'at Shemu'el, Giv'atayim, Hod HaSharon, Herzliyya, Kefar Sava, Modi'in-Makkabbim-Re'ut, Qiryat Ono, Ra'annana and Tel Aviv- Yafo) is 1.943. In other words, every resident of a city with a socio-economic rating of 8, is responsible for almost twice as many emissions as any resident of one of the 2 cluster 1 cities (Betar Illit and Modi'in Illit).

Table 16: Summary of Research Results – Carbon Inequality Coefficients

Minimum Maximum

Kg emissions Cluster Kg emissions Cluster Kg waste Kg waste from waste from waste Carbon per person per person Inequality per day per person per day per person per annum per annum Coefficient Cities 1.11 138.09 1 2.70 334.83 9 2.425 Local councils 0.88 109.47 1 3.55 439.82 10 4.018 Regional councils 0.64 79.26 1 2.36 292.80 8 3.694 National average 0.99 122.83 1 3.55 439.82 10 3.581

6.4 Comments on the Use of Socio-Economic Clusters as Index

It should be noted once more, that while other studies undertaken in the framework of the climate justice research project have presented their findings according to income deciles, this is not a possibility regarding the issue of waste due to lacking pertinent data, and therefore we made use of the socio-economic cluster rating of localities.

There are several problems associated with using the socio-economic cluster classification. First, classifying localities into socio-economic clusters – and in particular cities, the population of which is 76% of the entirety of the country's population – does not consider the human complexity and population diversity within cities.74 Basing the analysis on a singular socio-economic classification for each city "flattens" cities, making any discussion about them shallow.

Another problematic issue related to the use of cluster ratings, is that the clusters are not of equal size. Thus cluster 10 is comprised of only three localities (Savyon, Omer and Kefar Shemaryahu), in which 12,000 inhabitants reside. Cluster 5, in comparison, is comprised of 52 localities, with a population of 1,909,500 people – almost 160 times as many. Nonetheless, the data clearly reflects the personal contribution of each resident in the locality to the emissions balance.

Two additional reasons for the relatively low disparities between localities emanate from waste composition and treatment methods. While waste composition indeed varies between locality types (as can be observed in the 2005 waste survey and paragraph 5.2), yet the main component of waste, in all locality types, is putrescible organic waste, which comprises some 40% of the entirety of waste and has the most substantial contribution to emissions. Another component that supports non- variance between localities is the fact that in 2011, all Israeli localities still used – in a practically absolute manner – landfilling as almost the only waste treatment method; and that there is no available organized database of treatment methods unique to particular localities, or of recycling rates subsequent to waste sorting in transition facilities.

7. Recommendations

7.1 Improving the Collection of Information and Data

• There is an essential need to improve the quantity and quality of information concerning household waste in Israel. Presently there is a severe shortage of information in the field of waste: not all authorities report on a regular basis what waste quantities are being produced in their locality, and the reliability of information is not high (as detailed in paragraph 2.3, this results from lack of consistency in reporting, mistakes and deviations originating in self- reporting).

• With regard to data published by local authorities, the publication of reliable data is needed concerning waste quantities produced in the authority's constituency, waste quantities transferred for recycling by the authority, and the rate of recycling in reprocessing facilities.

74 It should be mentioned that with the publication of the most up-to-date classification into socio-economic clusters, in April 2013 (referring back to 2008), the Central Bureau of Statistics intends to publish a classification into clusters within cities. This data was yet to be published at the time of writing this paper, nonetheless its publication will be of no use for our purposes, as long as waste data is only presented by municipal resolution, rather than by statistical area.

• The frequency of data collection should be increased, and modified from publication of an annual summary of waste data to monthly presentations on the websites of local authorities and the Ministry of Environmental Protection, in addition to the annual summary published by the Central Bureau of Statistics.

• In light of the social implication of waste emissions, and in light of the implementation of neighborhood and city-quarter recycling and separation-at-source projects, the unit of analysis – the locality – should be narrowed, and authorities should be demanded to report waste collection data by neighborhoods, streets or statistical areas.

• Data should be collected correlating between socio-economic status of individuals / households and the amount of waste produced and its modes of treatment. It is suggested that the CBS introduces to the household surveys it conducts some questions or measurements regarding the quantity and weight of domestic waste, as well as regarding recycling habits. This data would be attributable with higher reliability than data relying on self-reporting by authorities. It would additionally enable cross-referencing between income decile data and waste production.

• Standardization should be promoted with regard to local authority reporting of waste quantities being transported to landfilling and quantities transferred to recycling, as well as detailing the composition of waste and modes of treatment in various waste types. It should also be ensured that all authorities address the same waste types in their reports.

7.2 Adopting Policy Measures that Take Environmental and Climate Justice into Consideration

In the document "Climate Justice and Economic Policy, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies and Recommendations for Advancing Climate Justice in Israel"75, which was published in 2014 as part of the same research project that also includes this document, the writer asserts that a reform in waste treatment would have distinct social impacts. Levy writes: "The costs will be reflected in the increasing price of waste treatment, whether due to the higher landfill levy or the high cost of collecting separated waste for recycling. […] Likewise, if municipal taxes are raised in order to fund waste recycling, regressive consequences are expected. Therefore, measures that increase the costs of waste treatment will have negative social consequences, unless they are accompanied by measures to aid vulnerable populations. In the long term, the cost of waste treatment may not go up at all due to revenues from the sale of collected waste, but weaker municipalities would still be more vulnerable due to funding obstacles, which will make it difficult for them to make the necessary initial investment for separation at source and to withstand the volatility of waste prices."

Hefer (2011) further suggests that "authorities with a majority of their population being from low socio-economic status, or distant authorities, will find it difficult to enter into the process. […]

75 Ro'ee Levy. 2012. Climate Justice and Economic Policy - Report No. 1 – Social Prism Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies And Recommendations for Advancing Climate Justice in Israel. The Association of Environmental Justice in Israel. August 2012.

Payment of the landfill levy that keeps rising might drag them into fiscal difficulties."76 She writes that in practice, according to current planning, "these authorities [who are yet to respond to the calls for proposals published by the Ministry of Environmental Protection] will carry the weight of the landfill levy, and would in fact be financing the grants awarded to wealthier authorities".

In light of the above:

• A mechanism should be formed to grant subsidized loans to local authorities that promote waste separation projects. As Levy (2012) indicates77, "weaker local authorities sometimes find it difficult to promote waste separation projects due to funding difficulties, even if these projects are beneficial in the long term. Therefore, it is suggested that the state will assist these localities to establish the initial infrastructure and be refunded from the long term savings for the authority in the long term. Presently the state already assists authorities to separate waste as a pilot project. In the next stage it is suggested that a significant rate of the support would be provided as a loan rather than grant, making it possible to assist many more localities, as well as focusing the support on weaker localities that find it difficult to promote such projects without state support."

• Policy tools should be adopted, taking into consideration the differential contribution of various population groups to GHG emissions from waste. Thus, for instance, the manner of execution of the OECD recommendation to assimilate the real environmental cost of landfill deposits into municipal taxes should be carefully considered. For weaker localities it might generate an excessive burden, which does not reflect their comparative weight in contributing to the problem. However, it should be remembered that the externalities of waste treatment refer not only to GHG emissions, but rather a long list of environmental hazards that need to be addressed, a need shared by all authorities.

7.3 Continued Focus on Organic Waste as Key to Mitigating Emissions from Waste

• The investment in organic waste mitigation processes should be expanded, as it is the primary cause of GHG emissions from waste (organic waste constitutes almost 40% of all household waste, and is responsible for some 75% of emissions from waste). Investments by the Ministry of Environmental Protection in projects for separation at source and the establishment of end-of- pipe solutions should be substantially expanded, to respond for the great demand,78 and to generate additional economic tools in support of these processes.

76 Shiri Hefer. 2011. An Integrative Model for Solid Waste Treatment. Research no. 47 in the framework of the Koret Fellows Program – Milken Institute. [In Hebrew] 77 Levy. 2012. (See footnote 75 above). 78 According to Shiri Hefer. 2011 (see footnote 76 above), the response to the ministry's call for proposals was far greater than anticipated. The ministry, after first allocating grants in the sum of NIS 200 million to authorities, was faced with demands adding up to NIS 600 million, and ended up providing support in the total sum of NIS 350 million.

• The investment in establishing end-of-pipe solutions for organic waste treatment should be increased, from the level of an individual household and neighborhood to the district level. Neighborhood and municipal solutions based on "cradle to cradle" perceptions should be encouraged, such as community based and municipal compost sites. Gardens of building committees, educational institutions, youth movements, communities and local businesses should be included in this process.

• Quantitative targets should be determined with regard to waste amounts per person – on the national and locality levels – and an array of positive incentives for authorities should be devised. When formulating disincentives, care should be taken to not harm weak authorities, which have a (relatively) small contribution to emissions, and their economic circumstances do not enable them to adopt a set of solutions to mitigate emissions from waste.

• A national publicity campaign should be promoted addressing the importance of waste separation at source. As noted by Ro'ee Levy in the document "Climate Justice and Economic Policy"79, in waste projects publicity campaigns are of particularly great importance, because their success depends on public cooperation: "lack of cooperation by part of the public can ruin the entire project". Additionally, writes Levy, "Since there is no economic incentive to separate waste, it is probable that a public with higher environmental values would separate waste in higher rates. In other words, in order to guarantee the success of projects for separation at source, a campaign to encourage people to separate waste at source is necessary".

• The campaign should be accompanied by recommendations for concrete action in the household level, with emphasis on minimizing consumption and ideas for reuse of leftover food. A Spanish research published in 2010 found that the rate of "kitchen waste" out of total organic household waste is some 90%, and that 23% of entire food purchased in Spain is discarded.80 This data emphasizes the great potential embedded in the encouragement to minimize consumption as a preliminary and complementary step for separation at source.

79 Levy. 2012. (See footnote 75 above). 80 Muñoz, Ivan, Llorenç Milà i Canals & Amado R. Fernández-Alba. 2010. Life Cycle Assessment of the Average Spanish Diet including Human Excretion. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15: 794-805.

The Association of Environmental Justice in Israel (AEJI) is a non-partisan, independent body, set up in 2009, focusing on basic issues of environmental justice. It focuses on the inter-connectedness of society, environment and the decision-making framework in Israel to produce policy recommendations that are real and acceptable while promoting the strengthening of democracy, equality and environmental justice values. It also aims to promote active deliberated civic participation especially of minorities and residents of the periphery. The Association is active in three main fields:

A. Data collection, initiation of research and working papers that attempt to elucidate the core issues of society, environment and the decision-making framework and develop acceptable solutions. B. Development of policy tools that promote a policy based on the values of democracy, equality and environmental justice. C. Increasing civic participation in matters of environmental justice and decision-making processes regarding environment and society, as well as empowering civil society especially among vulnerable groups such as minorities and residents of the periphery.