Zero Waste experiences around the world

Zero Waste is beginning to be a reality. Around the world there are experiences of different scale and intensity but who share the visión of phasing out disposal and maximising prevention, separate collection, reuse, reciclying, composting, repairing and involving the civil society in resources and waste management.

The aplication of Zero Waste in practice varies from continent to continent and sometimes from country to country due to the different definitions and measurements of what is waste and depending on the development of the society applying the strategy. For instance, a community in India and a community in the US will have very different levels of affluence and consumption, therefore the Zero Waste strategy will need to be adapted to every reality whilst keeping the same philosophy.

The truth is that in a planet with finite resources and which aims (and needs!) to be sustainable there is no alternative to a Zero Waste strategy.

It is imposible to mention all the Zero Waste initiatives in the World. These are just two examples from the EU and 2 practices from the rest of the world.

European Union: ‐ , ‐ Afval Vrij, Holland

Rest of the world:

‐ San Francisco, EEUU ‐ Kovalam, India

EUROPEAN UNION

Capannori, Italy

Zero Waste is becoming a strong concept in Italy, while more and more municipalities adopt this approach. Capannori was the first one, declaring a Zero Waste 2020 goal in 2007, to deepen the waste reduction strategies that the municipality had already been implementing. Capannori is a city with 45,850 population located in the province of . Back in 1997, the community successfully opposed plans to build a waste incinerator. Two years later, the municipality started a new system of door‐to‐door collection of source separated discards, initially covering 3,500 households, and achieving a 77% participation rate in less than a year. This initial program was cancelled when the government administration changed in 2000. In 2005, the new administration restarted the system, and in 2008 the door‐to‐door collection of source separated discards was already covering the entire municipality. Through a combination of this approach and creative strategies to reduce waste production, Capannori managed to reduce per capita waste production by 21% since 2005, and increase participation in the source separation from 34,7% to 78%. In 2009, just 4 years after the new approach started, the municipality registered and impressive 71% waste diversion rate, with 17,326 tons of materials recovered and 6,961 tons still going to landfill (about 0,5 kg/per capita). Source separation and differentiated door‐to‐door collection are a major component of the Zero Waste system. People separate into four streams: paper and cardboard, organics, multi‐materials (glass, plastics, tetra, metals, cans) and non‐ recyclables. Organics are collected three times a week, multi‐materials twice a week and the other two streams once a week. The system is managed by a public company. The materials are separated into different containers provided by the company: white bin for paper and cardboard; blue bin and blue bag for multi‐materials; grey bag for non‐recyclables and a special bin with aeration plus compostable bags for organics. Apart from this, there are special collections for used oil, diapers, bulky waste and yard waste. And items like batteries and expired medicines are returned to retail stores. Another big portion of the plan is based on strategies oriented to prevent waste creation. These strategies have two other positive sides: they also focus on promoting the local economy and strengthen community bonds. They are generally held in partnership with local producers and public interest groups. Some of these strategies are:

‐ A green purchasing policy that the government follows and it also promotes amongst companies and institutions. ‐ Promotion of the use of tap water instead of bottled water, including “route of water” with water fountains distributed for public use, which are also a place to reinforce community bonds. ‐ Promotion of locally and ecologically produced products in bulk, through distribution centers spread through the municipality. Items like milk, detergent and soaps can be bought in bulk with refillable containers from dispensers placed in different parts of the city, including markets and shops. ‐ Home composting program, with discounts in the waste collection fare for the households that participate (over 2000 families participating in 2010). ‐ Use of reusable dishware in school and community cafeterias, to avoid unnecessary waste. ‐ Promotion of washable diapers. ‐ Rules for waste reduction and discards separation in public events. ‐ Second‐hand markets organized by the municipality, in partnership with companies and public interest groups, which also present a nice venue to meet others in the community.

Capannori has taken yet one step further, and in January 2010 launched a Zero Waste Research Center. One of the main tasks of this center is to look into the grey bags to monitor what is still being landfilled. This information is vital to make adjustments in the source separation system and identify the materials that cannot be reused, recycled or composted. Once the non‐recyclable discards are identified, the research center works to find ways to avoid these products or replace them through industrial re‐design, for example actively promoting cotton‐based washable diapers to replace disposable ones and looking into recyclable or compostable materials to manufacture those products. Through this very interesting approach, the municipality – as small as it may seem – is in fact involving producers in the Zero Waste path and implementing the very much needed task of redesigning wasteful and non‐recyclable products.

The Zero Waste experience in Capannori is but a piece of the exciting Zero Waste journey that Italy is entering to. As of now, 19 municipalities have declared the Zero Waste goal1 and the figure is growing at a fast pace. Furthermore, the Associazione Italiana dei Comuni Virtuosi (Italian Association of Virtuous Municipalities), which gathers about 30 municipalities that implement good practices in different aspects of sustainability, has formally adopted the Zero Waaste goal.

http://www.comune.capannori.lu.it/node/188

The Netherlands– Afval Vrij

AAfval Vrij is the Zero Waste strategy for 2030 that eight municipalities with a total of 500,000 hab have adopted (by Zero Waste they understand 10kg/capita/year). AApeldoorn, Deventer and Epe (285.000hab) and Bronkhorst, Brummen, Doesburrgg, Zutphen and Lochem (150.000hab) are the municipalities that make up this alliance in the Netherlands.

This goal has been commissioned to two public companies (Circulus and Berkel Milieu) who will work in cooperation with social partners.

The zero waste strategy began in 2005 as a reaction to the growing scarcity of raw materials, the pressure to reduce emissions, the influence of the "cradle‐to‐cradle" philosophy and the popular support for prevention and recycling as opposed to landfills and incinerators.

The objective is to transform society so that the recycled material is the raw material of the future, that recycling is done as close as possible (proximity criteria) and that this transformation serves to generate employment for those with difficulty in finding employment. The region is below the levels of average waste per capita in the Netherlands and the

1 Capannori, in Lucca province, 45,850 population; La Spezia (Liguria) 95.000 inhabitants; Aviiano in Pordenone province, 8,000 population; Carbonia, in Carbonia-Iglesias province, 33,000 population; Vinchiioo, in Asti province, a wine producer town with 600 population, Giffoni Sei Casali in Salerno province, 5,600 populatiion; Colorno in Parma province, 8,500 population; Montignoso (-Carrara) 12,000 population; Vico Pisano (near Pisa) 8,500 inhabitants; Monsano (Ancona province), 3000 inhabitants; Calcinaia (Pisa province) 7,300 inhabitants; (Lucca), 13500 population; Somma Vesuviana (Napoli) 35150 population; Corchiano (Viterbo) 3825 population; Boscoreale (Napoli) 26940 population; Monte San Pietro (Bologna) 11000 population; Maiori (SSalerno) 5700 population; Collesano (Palermo) 4250 population, Forte del Marmi (Lucca), 7750 population. trend is to continue reducing the residual fraction to 10kg.

The region is developing the tools and knowledge to transform the current linear system into a circular one in which organic matter is returned to the soil and materials can be reprocessed in the region in order to create jobs. The four main work areas of Afval Vrij are communication, prevention, separation at source and supply chain products.

In the field of prevention there are training programs taking place in schools, there is research on how to decouple consumption from waste generation, reduction of food waste, cooperation with recycling centers and collective cleanup actions in certain given days. http://www.afvalvrij.nl

REST OF THE WORLD

San Francisco, California, United Staates: preaching the Zero Waste gospel from city hall

Historically progressive, and an important center of the U.SS. environmental movement, it is no surprise that San Francisco is a leader in Zero Waste. What is surprising is how comprehensive the program has become in a relatiively short time. Today, San Francisco, with a resident population of almost 800,000 people, recovers 77 percent of the materials it discards, surpassing the first goal of achieving 75 percent waste diversion by 2010, and getting very close to the ultimate goal of zero waste by 2020. Underlying San Francisco’s program is the notion that separating discards for composting and recycling should be made more convenient than putting trash out for the landfill. This need is met through a simple and convenient system, with color‐ coded collection containers and signage with descriptive picturres; multilingual education to meet the needs of the diverse population; and different kinds of attention given to the different sectors: residential, business, and city government. Another key element of San Francisco’s Zero Waste plan is that it encourages waste preveention throughout the system: the fewer citizens’ waste, the less they pay; the less collection company waste, the more it gains. Waste reduction and reuse are encouraged by programs such as legislation that requires food vendors to eliminate extruded polystyrene foam in favor of compostable or recyclable containers; and banning the use of disposable plastic bags by supermarkets, which must now use either durable (reusable) bags or bags made of compostable plastic or recyclable paper, labeled accordingly; an education campaign against bottled water (and in favor of tap water); residents’ option to refuse an updated telephone book each year (phone books are given for free in most U.S. cities). The city government also holds its own materials exchange, making city‐owned furniture, computers, electronics, and other materials available for exchange between government agencies. Lastly, it has a website with links to help people learn about toxics use reduction, in home cleaning and personal care products. Rather than just telling people to reduce their use of toxic materials, the city of San Francisco offers viable alternatives. But the city recognizes that creative reuse and consumer responsibility is but a small part of the solution. In 2006, San Francisco passed the Extended Producer Responsibility Resolution in conjunction with a state ban on putting hazardous products in the waste bin. The resolution exhorts manufacturers to establish a "producer responsibility ethic" to supplement the civic "recycling ethic." As yet there is no clear mandate to force local producers to take on extended product responsibility – but the City government’s purchasing policy, based in the Precautionary Principle encourages it. Residents and businesses are provided with three containers: green for compostable waste, black for waste, and blue for all recyclables, including paper, plastic, glass, and metal. The separation is encouraged by a pay as you throw system, by which citizens only pay for the black bin, which comes in different sizes and gets more expensive as the size increases, and do not pay for the blue and green bins. Several private companies, contracted by the city, are responsible for collecting and processing the three streams. By instituting a simple “three‐cart” separation system, while leaving separation of recyclables up to the private contractors, residents are given a simple and convenient way to participate. The discards are collected by two trucks: one for organic material and another one with two compartments, for the recyclables and waste. One of the collection companies, that covers 2/3 of the city, employs 400 people only for the collection service. San Francisco was the first large U.S. city to collect food scraps for composting. Today, hundreds of thousands of residents and about 3,000 businesses send about 360 tons of organic material each day to a composting facility, where food scraps, plant trimmings, soiled paper, and other compostables are turned into nutrient‐rich soil amendment that helps produce organic food and wine. The facility is located in a rural area near San Francisco, in a field of 7 hectares, and employs 11 people. The company charges from 41 to 51 USD per ton of organic material received, and that income pays the maintenance and operation of the plant. The revenues are made by selling of compost, which is certified as organic, and they sum about 42,000 m3 of compost annually. As part of the compost program, the city also provides kitchen pails, subsidizes home compost bins and offers free, multilingual classes in urban composting (including worm composting) and organic gardening. The discards in the blue bin are sorted in a quite mechanized Materials Recovery Facility that was classifying over 650 tons of materials per day in 2008, 90% of which is recovered for recycling, and employs 180 people, residents of the surroundings of the plant. In reaching its diversion goals, San Francisco employs a unique principle of “highest and best use of discarded materials”, which establishes a hierarchy for preferred uses for each material, prioritizing those which preserve resources. For example, San Francisco’s highest and best use of organic material system follows this hierarchy: Food Redistribution: edible food is donated to meal programs; Animal Feed: food processing discards are processed into animal feed or used by farmers directly; Rendering: fats, oil & grease are processed into tallow or animal feed; On site composting: in households, schools, parks, etc. Large scale composting of organic material separated at source. Anaerobic digestion and conversion into bio fuels: Collection and centralized anaerobic digestion into biogas energy; grease is collected from restaurants and turned into fuel for the city’s collection vehicles and hybrid diesel‐electric buses.

San Francisco devotes resources to demonstration programs that start with simple steps and build from there, coupled with an effort not to develop too many pilot programs which have a high risk of failure; offering recognition for excellent participation and results with cash prices and other awards. Another unique feature of San Francisco’s program is the way that the private waste contract has built‐in incentives for progressive waste minimization. The contract with the collection companies is designed to increase diversion with a set of four target goals for each year. Two annual goals are aimed toward decreasing disposal tonnage, and two are based on an increased percentage of materials diverted. If all four goals are met, the waste company receives a higher profit rate (total 2% difference, 0.5% per goal), equivalent to about US$ 5 million per year total. These funds sit in a separate diversion incentive account, from which the waste company can only withdraw the portion equivalent to the goals achieved, as verified by the city. Finally, San Francisco’s program is marked by an almost missionary zeal: part of the city’s explicit goal is to spread Zero Waste, so city Zero Waste officials give talks and presentations to share their strategies with diverse audiences, from nearby municipalities to foreign countries.

San Francisco Department of Environment http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/overview.html?ssi=3

Kovalam, Kerala, India: Rebuilding a community flooded with tourism discards

Until the mid‐1980s, disposable plastics were not common in India. But after the Indian economy was liberalized in the early 1990s, the composition of garbage changed dramatically. From a predominantly organic waste stream, Indian trash began to contain a growing quantity of disposable plastics. For places like Kovalam, a former fishing village turned beach resort in the southern Indian state of Kerala, the change was drastic. The growth in tourist infrastructure in Kovalam was unplanned and unregulated, leading very quickly to mounds of garbage and plastic‐clogged cesspools, marring the otherwise breath‐taking beauty of the area. In 1999, when the Kerala Tourism Department proposed an incinerator to address the garbage crisis, residents and environmental groups rose up in protest. The proposal was shelved, but the garbage and plastics problems remained. In response, Zero Waste Kovalam was born to not merely address the garbage problem, but to also change the mindset of regulators, industry, and common people about the mistaken notion that discards are waste. Even within the world of Zero Waste, Kovalam is unique. It was begun not by a government entity, but by a local non‐profit environmental organization called Thanal, which had ties both to local community groups and to an international community of environmental experts. From the beginning, it emphasized materials substitution and job creation, as well as “the ‘community’ element of Zero Waste” – “the challenging task of changing minds, and bringing people together in rebuilding a community and an economy.” The Zero Waste plan was also reconnecting to the roots of the village: “Unlike many Western models that do not place a premium on simplicity, the Kovalam campaign attempts to prioritize fundamental needs over luxury applications.” In starting the program, Thanal declared that its interventions would: ∙ Involve local people and the generators of discards; ∙ Boost the local economy by generating entrepreneurial livelihood activities that are healthy, remunerative, meaningful and self‐sustaining; ∙ Not be wasteful or propagate the use of wasteful material; ∙ Not transfer the problem to a different community; ∙ Not consider recycling as an option if that operation has the potential to pollute or affect worker health; ∙ Re‐establish Kovalam as a tourist destination of choice.

The program began with a focus on resource recovery and material substitution. Resource Recovery facilities were set up within existing institutions or in public areas to serve clusters of organizations. Each Resource Recovery facility has an anaerobic digestor with a drying yard for the slurry coming out of it, a storage room for recyclable discards, and a compost pit. Organic material is converted to fuel‐gas by the anaerobic digestion unit, while other discards are separated and sold as scrap. The integration of anaerobic digestion to produce clean energy from biodegradable discards is a salient feature of the Kovalam project. An anaerobic digestion unit set up at the Institute of Hotel Management and Catering Technology was diverting nearly 300 kg of food scraps daily, resulting in a savings of 5000 Rupees (100€) per month. This led to the establishment of two more anaerobic digestors, resulting in the diversion of more than 1 ton of organic material out of the total waste of 7 tons per day. Both were paid for by the respective beneficiaries. Kovalam’s material substitution program aims to extend the useful life of eco‐ friendly discards (paper, coconut shell, cloth waste) to displace products made using unsustainable material. This program was developed together with an “Entrepreneurship Development and Support” program, through which local people are trained to develop and manage small enterprises. The livelihoods program began in 2002 with a discussion among about 100 women. Encouraged by the interest, a seven‐day training program for making paper bags, cloth bags (using tailors’ cloth scraps), jute bags, and bamboo products was organized, and more than 380 people participated. In the years that followed, several more trainings were held on designing and making products from coconut shell, clay and terracotta, patchwork using tailor waste, and organic household agriculture. Marketing support and training assured that entrepreneurs would find support for a limited time during which they were expected to become self‐sufficient in terms of writing project proposals, book‐keeping, work‐planning, and seeking out markets. Kovalam’s livelihood program follows a simple formula: 1. Assess opportunities for replacing products made using unsustainable material with locally available, locally made products. 2. Train local people in making these products and innovating new ones. 3. Provide them with training to access government funds and loans to set up entrepreneurial units. 4. Help them develop accounting and marketing expertise. 5. Continually expand the program’s circle of influence by organizing vocational trainings and general environmental and social awareness trainings to new audiences. All of Zero Waste Kovalam’s trainings have resulted in important transformations in both waste management and livelihood opportunities. At least three entrepreneurial units, run solely by women, now make products out of coconut shell, paper and tailoring wastes, employing dozens of women. These projects are so successful that other non‐governmental efforts now seek Zero Waste Kovalam’s expertise. With the consolidation of its first phase of work, the program added three new components to its portfolio: Poison‐Free Farming, Water Conservation, and Community Capacity Building, all of which expand the concept of Zero Waste to embrace other important aspects of sustainability. While Zero Waste Kovalam has used its international connections to good effect, not least in attracting funding, it has taken care to ensure that the program has a substantial component of local contribution, especially in programs that directly benefit communities or local interest groups. Zero Waste Kovalam has raised money to defray its expenses for surveying, identifying technologies, and helping maintain long‐ term support for, say, popularizing biogas. But it does not pay for setting up or maintaining anaerobic digestion plants, which is seen as the responsibility of the beneficiary. As a promising continuation of Kovalam´s experience, the state government of Kerala (31 million inhabitants) adopted a policy for Solid Waste Management that follows most of the Zero Waste principles consolidated by Zero Waste Kovalam. The state policy focuses on participatory planning and capacity building, decentralized systems, waste reduction, source separation and resource recovery. www.thanal.co.in www.zerowastekovalam.org