ISWA Main Sponsors:

MSW Webinar Series

Part I: Introduction to Organic Waste Management & Treatment Options

Mitigating SLCPs from the Municipal Waste Sector http://waste.ccac-knowledge.net/ Presenters

•ARS ambiente srl •Urban Ecology Agency of Barcelona •CIC – Italian Composting Michele Marta Association Giavini Vila

Marco Ricci

•ISWA

•CIC – Italian Composting Association

2 BIOWASTE: KEY FIGURES FROM THE PRESENTERS Current status of biowaste management in Europe

 Map focusing on food waste only

Source: European Compost Network, updated by authors 4 Italy: High captures with ISSO

• The Italian intensive source separation of organics (ISSO): maximisation of foodwaste capture rate through intensive dedicated kerbside collection •High Food Waste amount sent to composting and AD •Low amount left in the residual

• Central Europe: lower capture rates, collection of co-mingled food and garden waste, home composting for small municipalities. •Low Food Waste amount sent to composting and AD (mainly green waste) •High amount of Food Waste left in the residual Italy: key figures

 More than 30 million people with Intensive Source Separation of Organics (ISSO) out of 60 million

 4,500,000 tonnes/y biowaste composted, 250 plants

 Recently: Milan is the megacity with the highest capture rate of quality food waste across the world – 1,300,000 people – 81% people in multifamily buildings – High population density 7,500 people/sqkm – 90 kg/capita.year of food waste only – Less than 5% contamination – Video: link Catalunya: mandatory since 1993 Waste Law

 A little walk through the history...

 Where do we come from: mass “composting”, poor quality “compost”, bad odours and leachates...

 In 1993, a new Law is approved, obligating to set up the separate collection of the organic waste in >5.000 inhab municipalities.  In 1996, the first composting plant was opened and separate collection of biowaste started. Source: Waste Agency of Catalonia. F Giró 2013

7  Mandatory source separation + objectives in the programs + economic support +landfill/Incineration tax+ infrastructure planning =

Subsidies 45,7 M€

Incineration Waste Waste Law Landfill Tax Law inforce Tax WasteLey de Source: Waste Agency of Catalonia. F Giró 2013 ResiduosLaw

8 Catalunya: key figures

 More than 7 Million people have a container or a door-to-door collection service (95% of the population) in 2012.

 Each inhabitant participates to the separate collection of the organic fraction, on average, with 144 daily grams. (52 kg/y)

 Impurities weighted average is about 14,7%, but…

· 150 municipalities > 200 g/ hab.day · 135 municipalities < 7% impurities

303 OFMSW/dat.hab 7,5% impurities 139 g OFMSW/day.hab 70% Separate Collection 15,3% impurities Source: Waste Agency of (2011) 36% Separate Collection Catalonia. M Pous 2013 (2011) 9 WHAT’S BIOWASTE?

10 BioWaste definition

 Biowaste from municipal waste comprises plant remains from green areas, gardens, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, caterers and local retail.

Normally, biowaste is divided in two categories:

1. Kitchen or food waste: OFMSW (Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste) (from households, restaurants, canteens, food stores, etc.) 2. Green or vegetable wastes from public or private gardens. These are further categorized into little- sized garden waste that can be sometimes included in the previous fraction, and larger woody scraps or pruning with different characteristics. Source: Guía para la implantación de la recogida separada y

11gestión de biorresiduos de competencia municipal. 2012. Link Different biowaste streams - generators

Source separated Source separated Garden waste Agroindustrial (Organic fraction food waste biowaste scraps from •Residential (commingled mechanically •Commercial food + garden selected MSW) •Large generators waste) (markets…)

12 Food waste generators in municipalities

 The main sources of OFMSW are:

. Domestic biowaste: generated in our houses, usually kitchen wastes and little garden green waste...

. Biowastes generated by economical activities: from generators comparable to households to large commerces. Grocery trade such fruit and vegetable shops, bars and restaurants, markets and supermarkets, canteens (schools, businesses, hospitals...)

 Normally come from:

. Food handling or cooking

. Expired food

. Surplus products that have not been sold or consumed.

13 Organic waste sources

14 Organics in MSW across the world

Source: The World Bank, What a Waste, link BioWaste main characteristics

The organic fraction is the most unstable stream of all municipal solid wastes, due to high water contain (about 80% in weight) and readily degradable organic matter (carbohydrates, proteins and fats). It has a pretty high density, but also variable, between 0,6 and 0,8 t/m3, which makes it high weight - low volume, with a low compactability.

Biowaste Green waste – Prunings Humidity High ( 85%) Low ( 40%) Organic Matter 85% 80% Organic Nitrogen 5,50% 1,20% C/N Ratio 17 32 Density 0,8 t/m3 0,4 t/m3 (shredded) Odors/Leachates Yes No Generation Constant (but not uniform in Seasonal type and composition)

Source: Guía para la implantación de la recogida separada y gestión de biorresiduos de competencia municipal. 2012.

Link 16 BENEFITS OF ORGANIC DIVERSION

18 Benefits of Biowaste diversion

 Separate collection of biowaste converts a

WASTE into a RESOURCE

Impacts Benefits

19 Health and pest problems (Mosquitoes, flies, rats…) Soil, groundwater and surface water Atmospheric pollution. pollution

Open dumping practiced in most of the cities, is the cheapest and easier solution for them, but… Also open burning of waste  one of the largest sources of air pollution some cities +carcinogens emissions. Source: Waste Concern, Bangladesh COMPOST

Environmental & health problems due to unmanaged waste in Urban areas

Depletion of Organic matter in soil of Rural areas

Photos: Waste Concern Short-lived Climate Pollutants and organic fraction of MSW  Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) are agents that have short atmospheric lifetimes and a quick warming influence on the climate.

 The key SLCPs emitted from the municipal solid waste (MSW) sector are: – Methane (from landfills and dump sites): from the decomposition of the organic fraction In Europe , major contributor to GHGs from inappropriate management of MSW (4 to 11% of total GHGs come from landfills)

– Black carbon (e.g. from open burning of dump sites) - Black carbon is a byproduct of incomplete combustion and a component of particulate matter.

Dhaka, Bangladesh (Photo source: Stratus Consulting) Benefits of Biowaste diversion Production / Sustainable Combating Soil Energy use of climate protection  Besides the direct savings resources change benefits of not Use of compost landfilling organic Replacing the use of mineral fertilizers (N, P, K) and other amendments (avoids CO2 √ √ √ wastes, with the and GHG and saves energy) associated methane Recovery and contribution of organic matter and nutrients contained in √ √ reduction, biowaste amendment separate collection Siequestration of Carbon in soil √ √ √ and composting / Biodiversity Increase √ anaerobic digestion Resilience of soils √ √

results in other Erosion reduction √ √ Biological activity support prevention important benefits. √ √ of “desertification” Slow release of N sources √ √ Improve the land working √ √ √ √

Soil water retention increase √ √ √

Substitution of pesticides √ √ √ Substitution of peat √ √ √ √ Production and use of the Biogas (obtained on anaerobic digestion process) Substitution of fossil fuels √ √ √ Source: Guía para la implantación de la recogida separada y gestión de biorresiduos de competencia municipal. 2012. Link

23 Benefits of Biowaste diversion

Some Data

Methane Production in landfills 100-150 kg CO2 eq/tonne

But not only this…

Replacement of mineral fertilisers  30-50 kg CO2 eq/tonne

Peat replacement  300-400 CO2 eq/tonne

C sequestration 11 to 326 kg CO2 eq/tonne

24 Benefits of Biowaste diversion

25 Example of impact assessment (SIMUR) Separate collection indicators

Wet 5 fractions Bicomparti Separate collection DtD 5 fractions Dry (not 100% mented indicators (Biowaste) (Biowaste) (Biowaste) Biowaste) (Biowaste) Total net separate 57% 23% 34% 19% 23% collection

Indicadors de recollida selectiva

80% Different collection systems Rec Sel paper-Cartró Rec Sel Vidre 70% Rec Sel Plàstic film Rec Sel Plàstic rígid present different grades of Rec Sel Brics Rec Sel Metalls Fe 60% Rec Sel Metalls No Fe separation. 50%

40% Models where BioWaste is

30%

%recollida selectiva %recollida not fully implemented 20% present the lowest grades of

10% separate collection, both 0% PaP Residu Mínim 5 cont (FORM) 5 cont Bicompartimentat (no100%FORM) global and nearly all of the fractions.

26 (Cálculo: inventario de emisiones gestión (+clasificación y caracterización mediante Impact Indicators- WWP metodología de ACV)

Models that destine fraction remainder to MBT or directly to the landfill and don’t have total collection of Biowaste avaliable have a bigger affectation to the GWP 27 Impact Indicators - WWP Emisions due to the whole model

Source: http://www.arc-cat.net/en/publicacions/pdf/agencia/programes/progremic/simur_resum.pdf

28 KEY CONSIDERATIONS

29 Key boundary conditions for biowaste collection programmes: landfill gate fee, legal framework citizen sensitization

1-Legal framework 2-Treatment cost (drivers, (landfill gate fee) obligations, bans)

Biowaste collection

3-Public 4-Collection awareness and system involvement

30 Key boundary conditions for organics collection programmes. 1- Legal framework

 Clear obligation for Municipalities, District and citizens (waste producers) need to be defined

 Economical instrument can act as incentives or penalities towards producers and stakeholders so to steer them toward recycling (targets)

 Bans on disposal & obligation drive MSW from disposal to separate collection and material recycling

 The goods obtained from biowaste recycling need to be addressed by proper legislation – Legislation on compost and fertilizers – Legislation on Digestate and fertilizers – A clear framework for biogas production and use

31 The regulatory context: drivers from EU env policy

 Revised Waste Framework Directive – waste hierarchy – Recycling/reuse targets – prevention programmes

 Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) – diversion targets for biodeg waste – obligation for pretreatment

 EU Climate Change Programme

 EU Soil Strategy

32 Targets of the EU Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC)

125%

100% „Slow“ Member-Countries 75% „Fast“ Countries (EU-10, UK, Spain) (Germany, Austria, 50% Benelux, Poland,...)

25%

0%

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Year Implementing Directive 99/31 (and art. 11 of WFD - material recovery targets!)

 Obligation on separate collection – NL: compulsory schemes for separate collection – AT: obligation upon households to either take part in separate collection or to compost in the backyard – GER: KrW-AbfG revised in 2012  separate collection for all municipalities – Catalunya (Spain): ley 6/93  compulsary for all Municipalities with a pop. > 5000; Now, compulsory for all municipalities – SK (Act 24/04): Garden Waste to be separately collected by 2006; biowaste by 2010

Pros/contra: – On Municipalities (e.g. NL) – may be deceived with poor performing / low participation systems – On households (e.g. AT) – very effective, if stringent control possible – May require phased implementation

34 BIOWASTE INSIDE Residual waste

Albairate Albiate Arese Biassono Brugherio Buccinasco Castano P. Cinisello B. Cologno M. Corbetta Desio Lainate Melegnano Misinto Monza Novate M. Paderno D. Rosate Trezzo s/A Trucazzano Varedo Villasanta Vimercate

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Germany NL

Source: Provincia di Milano 1998 Key boundary conditions for organics collection programmes: 2- Disposal costs and landfill gate fee

 Biowaste and organics are the main reason for landfill environmental impacts

 Rising disposal cost makes all alternative option (i.e. separate collection and recycling) economically attractive

 Landfill taxes can be designed to promote/rise funds for separate collection schemes for biowaste

 Long-term trend makes the disposal of waste more cost-intensive (even with incineration + energy recovery)

36 Drivers for landfill diversion

Poor landfill acceptance by citizens Increasing population Environmental • Raising land price policies and and less regulations availability for new landfills Landfill bans / taxes Implementing Directive 99/31 (and art. 11 of WFD - material recovery targets!)

 Bans on biodegradables to landfills (e.g. BR, US) – Most stringent provisions – May lack flexibility – Requires codified thresholds for acceptance at landfills

 Targets for sep collection / composting / recycling – Specific biowaste processing targets (e.g. Sweden) – General recycling + composting targets (IT & UK) – Result-oriented + flexible

38 Key boundary conditions for organics collection programs: 3-citizen awareness

 The collection systems must be user-friendly (bring r pick-up schemes?)

 Public awareness and communication campaigns are part of the game!

 Introducing separate collection  change in habits, behaviors

 Doing separate collection  change in everyday live (5 min/day)

inform, convince and involve

Public awareness is a key element of separate collection schemes and it must be conceived (and budgeted) like other advertising initiatives (f.ex. on health, education, politics, etc.)

39 Different tools for public awareness and involvement

Teaching HC in schools Different tools for public awareness and involvement

Teaching HC in schools Key boundary conditions for organics collection programs: 3- collection

 What BW we can collect

 User-friendliness

 Collection schemes. Advantages/Disadvan tatges

 Other

42 Key boundary conditions for organics collection programs: user-friendliness

 Option 1  Option 2

43 Collect biowaste more frequently than residual waste Different ways to collect biowaste

• “VGF” (Vegetable, Garden, Fruit or “GFT”): only uncooked food residues

NL, B, sometimes D, A

• “Biowaste” (“biogene Abfälle”): food waste + yard waste D, A

• “Food waste”: food residues including cooked stuffs (e.g. meat, fish) I, E, UK, SW Best practise approach for FOODWASTE collection – Italy/Spain/UK

 Foodwaste collected separately from garden waste – Cooked food and meat&fish included in SS – High frequency (1, up to 4/wk) – Clean and comfortable (bags&caddies) – FW bins taylored to HH size (from bin to wheely-bin) – Vehicles: cheap open lorries

 Gardenwaste: – Delivered to Municipal Collection Centers – Door-to-door at low frequency (1/month; on demand; seasonality) – Homecomposting

 Residual waste: with low content of organic waste – Lower frequency (1/week up to 1 /month) – Possibly charged through PAYT fees

. ORGANIC WASTE fruits and vegetables meat fish and seafood uneaten food from your plates and dishes bread eggs shells and dried fruits tea bags and coffee grounds corks used napkins garden waste (leaves, weeds and branches)

Nappies Separate plastic bag Make the system easy … starting from the kitchen

www.compost.it Key element:

 Bring schemes  collection at road containers or bring-banks

 Take-up schemes  collection at the curbside or door to door

The type of collection scheme chosen will be the key-element for :

 amounts of biowaste diverted from residual/mixed MSW

 quality of the biowaste (i.e. contamination by non-compostable materials)

 participation rates

50 ISWA Main Sponsors: ISWA Main Sponsors: ISWA Main Sponsors: Key element:

 Bring schemes  collection at road containers or bring-banks

 Take-up schemes  collection at the curbside or door to door

The type of collection scheme chosen will be the key-element for :

 amounts of biowaste diverted from residual/mixed MSW

 quality of the biowaste (i.e. contamination by non-compostable materials)

 participation rates

54 Specific amounts of biowaste collected for different schemes (Catalonia)

55 Resuming: tools for intensive SS of foodwaste:

 Buildings up to 6 families (HH)

Compostable bags vented kitchen-caddy 20-30 liter buckets

Buildings with Flats/appartments

Compostable bags vented kitchen-caddy 120/240 liter HDPE wheelbins Collection tools appropriate for separate collection of food waste for commercial activities (big producers)

vented kitchen-bin (6-10lt) Bucket (20-30 lt) Wheelbins (120-240 lt)

For offices and small For bars and coffe-shopes For restaurants, canteens, businesses schools, supemarkets, etc. with a kitchen-cornes

Communication with citizen: inform and check What we do when the separation is incorrect? The effects of source separation of organics in boosting collection of other recyclables

 Introducing separate collection of biowaste puts attention also on other recyclables

 Normally the collection of packaging waste and bulky waste strongly gets enhanced

 (residual waste collection must be lowered)

59 The effects of source separation of organics in boosting collection of other recyclables

60 Simplify collection of residual waste

 Residual waste composition with different schemes for biowaste collection

Source: ISWA Study Tour 2013, Sweden, M. Ricci

www.compost.it Question time

63 OVERVIEW BIOWASTE TREATMENT STRATEGIES: COMPOSTING, AD, MBT

64 Treatment options

Mixed, Dry recyclables unsorted MSW

Source separation by Clean Organic citizens fraction

Mechanical sorting (shredding, screening) Composting Anaerobic digestion MBT Dirty Organic fraction (Dry recyclables) Anaerobic Post - Biostabilization digestion composting

COMPOSTING

67 Composting: basic operational steps

 Pre-treatment

 Preparing mixture

 Active Composting Time (ACT)

 Curing

 Screening Composting at different scales

Home composting 1 Home composting 2 Community based composting

Decentralized plants Modular industrial plants Centralized industrial plants

Source: Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza, link, integrated (Surabaya method + Waste Concern) Composting technology: boundary conditions

Transportation cost Tolerance to Compost odor nuisance market value

Biowaste Land price quality

Landfill gate Composting Availability of fee technology bulking agents Two key factors: compost value, land price

Dhaka: difference in total costs, decentralized vs. centralized +$30 -30 $/t (decentralized +$20 compost: free, centralized: 30$/t) +$10 0 $/t (both decentr. And centr. @30 $/t) +$0 -$10 +30 $/t (decentr: 60, centr: 30) -$20

US$ per tonne)perUS$ +60 $/t (decentr: 90, -$30 centr: 30)

Difference decentralized vs. -$40

centralized (collection+treatment, 100 300 500 700 Land price ($/sqm)

M. Giavini, personal calculations and elaborations on Waste Concern data Decentralized composting

 Valuable practice also in urban areas, in lower middle income countries – Dhaka, Bangladesh: Waste Concern case study (rickshaw collection, barrel composting for slums, decentralized small composting facilities) – Surabaya, Indonesia: Takakura Home Method (home composting with aerated baskets, decentralized small composting facilities)

 Better described in webinar part 2

72 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

73 Anaerobic digestion: basic operational steps

Biomethane

Digestate

Aerobic composting Liquid fraction to sewage treatment Source: DEFRA, link, adapted Anaerobic digestion at different scales

“Biogas backpack”: link AD and agriculture: “energy Household AD for crops” home cooking: link

Large scale AD for source separated food waste (or for mechanically sorted organic fraction) Anaerobic digestion technology: boundary conditions

Availability of sewage treatment Digestate market plants value • National End of Waste Opportunity of policies district heating • Agricultural / MSW derived digestate

Type of Biowaste National subsidies • Collection scheme • Feed In Tariffs (only food waste / • Renewable Obligations commingled with • Renewable Heat Anaerobic garden waste) Incentives • Type of bags • Biomethane Incentives digestion (compostable / non / biofuel for compostable) transportation technology • Source separated / • Etc… selected from MSW Decentralized small scale AD? Also in urban areas…

 Household AD in urban areas: – India ARTI and others – Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: ARTI TZ, SimGAS – See EAWAG reports Source: HEEB (2009) Source: VOEGELI & LOHRI (2009)

M. WAFLER Insights: EAWAG report, link , link and link Chang Mai …Though most municipalities do not support the initiatives, neither financially nor ideologically, many private investors are convinced that this rather new treatment option will solve the urban waste problems and also produce energy…. Y. VOEGELI AND C. ZURBRÜGG, EAWAG, link 77 MECHANICAL – BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT

78 Mechanical – Biological Treatment: MBT

Mixed, unsorted MSW

Mechanical sorting (shredding, screening) MBT Dirty Organic fraction (Dry recyclables)

Biostabilization Anaerobic n digestion MBT: key features

PROS CONS Quick and prompt solution after Centralized solution; may not be implementing nation-wide landfill feasible in transitional megacities bans in developing countries, with high transportation cost Can be easily converted to The biostabilized product is not treatment of selected OFMSW in quality compost. Can be used the future when its collection will mostly for land reclamation in one- be implemented off application. Can include advanced automatic Don’t encourage citizens in doing sorting lines for recovering dry separate collection recyclables (MRBT) MBT as a transition

MRBT for the residual Anaerobic digestion Composting for source separated MBT organics

Subsidies for Landfilling renewable energy Landfill bans / taxes Drivers for landfill diversion

Poor landfill acceptance by citizens Increasing population Environmental • Raising land price policies and and less regulations availability for new landfills Landfill bans / taxes What next?

Source separation of organics and Northern Italy, composting 1999

Cross Landfill border Incineration shipping bans Germany, UK, 2010 1993

MBT

Many other places What’s changing?

1960 1980 2011 2025

Source: United Nations, link  Think about all possible solutions for urban areas and particularly transitional megacities

 Don’t focus only on large and centralized facilities. Key factors: – Urban land price – Compost market value

 This will be addressed particularly Urban and rural population as percentage of in Webinar Part 2. world population (Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, 2007). Question time

89 WEB RESOURCES

90 ISWA knowledge base

http://www.iswa.org/media/publications/knowledge-base/

91 Additional sources

 Hyperlinks inside these slides

 CCAC MSW website – Resource Library: More than 150 selected reports, guidelines, info sheets – Databases Directory: 32 databases, 50-500 documents each!

 SSWM : Mainly solutions for low income countries, with open source copyright: – Composting: link – AD: link – Landfill management: link

92 Our organizations links

 Urban Ecology Agency of Barcelona: www.bcnecologia.net

 Waste Agency of Catalonia: ARC www.arc-cat.net

 European Compost Network: ECN www.compostnetwork.info

 SCOW Project www.scow-biowaste.eu

 CIC- Italian Composting and Biogas Consortium www.compost.it

 ISWA : www.iswa.org

 ARS ambiente www.arsambiente.it

93 Thank you

 For any further information from the presenters:

– Marco Ricci: [email protected]

– Marta Vila: [email protected]

– Michele Giavini: [email protected]

94 Your feedback is welcome, please take the time to fill in this quick questionnaire

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9QM5MDM

95