COLLECTORS Work package 3 Quantification of costs and benefits ASSESSMENT OF SOCIO ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF 12 SELECTED CASE STUDIES T. VAN LEEUWEN Copyright © 2020 COLLECTORS PROJECT Disclaimer The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the authors. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 776745. 1 TECHNICAL REFERENCES Grant Agreement N° 776745 Acronym COLLECTORS Full Title Waste collection systems assessed and good practices identified Work Package (WP) 3 T. van Leeuwen (PNO Consultants) M. Siebenlist (PNO Consultants) Authors S. Alnajar (PNO Consultants) J. Hardjopawiro (PNO Consultants) Document Type Deliverable Deliverable 3.2: Assessment of socio economic and financial Document Title performance of 12 selected case studies Dissemination Level Public DOCUMENT HISTORY Version Date Partner Author v1 10-04-2019 PNO T. van Leeuwen v2 24-07-2019 ACR - v3 08-10-2019 WF, ACR, VTT - v4 04-12-2019 ACR, VTT, LDE - v5 29-01-2020 PNO T. van Leeuwen v6 (final) 13-03-2020 PNO T. van Leeuwen 2 SUMMARY This deliverable is part of the European Horizon 2020 project COLLECTORS and provides the financial assessments of 12 COLLECTORS case studies; focusing on 5 paper and packaging waste (PPW) cases, 5 waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) cases and 2 construction and demolition waste (CDW) cases. The report is part of Task 3.2 and will highlight the financial flows for the assessed waste collection practices. The financial and economic assessment is carried out by means of a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). CBA strives to estimate positive and negative effects of a project or policy on the welfare of the region or country in which it is located and thereby provides insight into the financial performance of the waste collection systems. The assessment is initially performed from the perspective of the municipality, but ultimately broadened in order to include relevant costs and benefits further up the waste value chain. The CBAs for the COLLECTORS project have been conducted in accordance with the EC CBA guidelines (Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects, European Commission, December 2014). It is possible and quite common to also include environmental aspects in a CBA. However, the COLLECTORS project has a dedicated deliverable on the environmental performance of the cases – the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) performed in Task 3.1. To prevent double-counting of environmental performance, it is decided to restrict the CBAs to the financial assessments of the CBA. The CBA approach and waste stream scope varies per waste stream and is explained in the sections below. For each waste stream different case studies are selected based on their geography, waste production, tourism, GDP and population density. For this reason, the cases are not directly comparable, as they serve as a good practice in their specific context. Data were provided by stakeholders (interviews or questionnaires) and published data (i.e. in, regional, national or European reports). However, it is important to mention that financial information on the waste collection systems often covers (price-)sensitive information, which is not publicly available or, in some cases not even documented. This means that certain parts of the assessments were made under data uncertainty, especially with regards to financial information. The results and evaluation of the assessment should therefore be understood as preliminary insights into the economic performance of these waste collection systems. In the PPW assessment it was found that it is possible to achieve high performing separate waste collection while maintaining acceptable fees for citizens. However, local authorities are largely dependent on national incentives such as financial contributions from EPR schemes, revenues from sold materials and tax savings or incentives. In the WEEE assessment it was found that PRO’s face many financial challenges; the EEE get smaller and more complex while less valuable materials are used resulting in an less material recovery potential; and competition grows between PRO’s resulting in reducing fees. Despite these challenges all studied cases managed to increase their WEEE collection, however not all were found to have a positive FNPV. The CDW assessment concludes that while separate collection systems can be introduced relatively easily and without large investments, they are largely dependent on the local recycling value chain and gate fees. From the municipal point of view, transport costs and gate fees are the two crucial parameters; meaning that lower gate fees in combination with a nearby demand for recycling will result in the favourable financial option. As CDW consist of many different sub-waste streams, it was found that the options and outcome varies per waste stream. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Technical references ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Document history ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Table of contents .................................................................................................................................................... 4 List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Project background ............................................................................................................................... 9 1.2. The COLLECTORS project....................................................................................................................... 9 1.3. Aim of this report ................................................................................................................................ 10 1.4. Cost Benefit Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.5. Case study selection ............................................................................................................................ 11 2. Background of the Case Studies ................................................................................................................... 13 2.1. Background of the PPW study ............................................................................................................. 13 2.2. Background of the WEEE study ........................................................................................................... 20 2.3. Background of the CDW study ............................................................................................................ 28 3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 30 3.1. Cost Benefit Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 30 3.2. Data sources and overall assumptions ................................................................................................ 31 3.3. Sensitivity analsyis and evaluation ...................................................................................................... 35 4. Paper and Packaging Waste ......................................................................................................................... 39 4.1. Project and reference case.................................................................................................................. 39 4.1.1. Project rationale ............................................................................................................................. 39 4.1.2. Reference case ................................................................................................................................ 41 4.1.3. Shifts in the Financial Flows ............................................................................................................ 41 4.1.4. Project definition ............................................................................................................................ 46 4.2. Cost-benefit analysis Parma ................................................................................................................ 46 4.2.1. Project definition Parma ................................................................................................................. 46 4.2.2. Identification of costs and benefits for PPW collection in Parma .................................................. 49 4.2.3. CBA Results Parma .......................................................................................................................... 53 4.2.4. Sensitivity analysis .........................................................................................................................