blog

South Africa – waste management at a cross roads ….

Thu, 23 May 2013 16:28:54 +0100

The high life in Cape Town

I have been lucky enough to spend the last few days in Cape Town at the southern tip of Africa. A beautiful city, home to 3 million and the hub of tourism and trade for the Western cape province. Cape Town is a sprawling mass of high rise, cultural activities and service industries with huge investment in the redevelopment of the docks. The associated must see items like Table Mountain, the Victoria and Alfred Waterfront, Robben Island, beautiful coast lines, scenic drives and ofcourse, the buffalo!

Making it work?

So why was I in Cape Town? I was invited by the International Energy Agreement Bio-Energy Task Force to attend a Waste to Energy workshop focused on 3 key themes:

* Muncipal Solid Waste management in South Africa and how it compares to the rest of the world;
* Treatment technologies and their suitability to South Africa; and
* Community engagement and appropriate waste management.

I was giving a paper on 'Best practice of waste management in low and medium income countries', drawing on my 20 years of experience of working around the world on integrated strategy development, dumpsite clearance, community engagement and appropriate technology delivery from countries as diverse as Russia, Costa Rica, Mali and Egypt. I was also the last speaker on the day enabling me to adapt my presentation to help contextualise much of the technology focused material presented before me and to ensure the audience knew the right questions to ask before signing up to a shiny new 50,000 tpa gasification plant or such like!

Seminar headlines?

Data on waste management in South Africa is not reliable but approximately around over 100 million tonnes per annum generated and over 90% is landfilled – and not all landfills are fully lined and capped sites. Currently, only Jo’burg, Durban and Cape Town are doing any household recycling collections, everywhere else is straight to dumpsite – and even the urban areas have limited coverage, because of the costs incurred.

Local municipalities don’t have the capacity (staff or budgets) to make informed decisions about infrastructure (including waste) which is holding up progress and as such UNEP have set up a programme in South Africa looking closely at local authority partnerships in waste management. But leading local experts don’t expect to see much positive change for at least another 10 years even though there is a groundswell of interest in overseas technology solutions like EfW, AD, pyrolysis etc. Until the local funding structures are addressed and Government support local municipalities the introduction of any major waste infrastructure is sure to fail.

Perhaps the biggest worry is the current legislative structure which mandates that municipalities are responsible for waste management without providing them with a way of raising income to support this. With municipalities only allowed to let contracts for 3 years, you need a National Government waiver for any longer, investment in waste collection is a distant prospect. I just hope the South African Government hear the outputs from the seminar and act on them!

Key Messages?

The key messages for South Africa from all the discussion and presentations were that they need to first improve collection systems so the majority of waste is collected properly and efficiently to reduce public health concerns; then focus on cleaning up dumpsites to improve environmental impacts. Only then should they drive programmes to deliver recycling, segregation, food waste composting etc through parallel strands of community engagement, informal sector support and good governance and training. After 20 years of building momentum then they should look carefully at the advanced technology options for treating residual wastes, by which time the rest of the world will have learnt some lessons about what works and what doesn’t!.

Looking ahead?

By 2030 South Africa should have a much better handle on its waste arisings, and composition, from which it can set policies and programmes up to drive more sustainable resource and energy recovery. But without good data and a cost recovery system, the shiny new facilities being presented all morning will be a long way from what is needed. Worse they represent a potential risk to South African waste management, undermining local informal recycling and bottom up solutions, with politicians being under-equipped to evaluate the offers from supporting companies and global governments – the world remains full of snake oil salesman looking to sell you the next waste eating enzyme or alchemists dream!

There must be a steady programme of improvement in national and local regulation, enforcement, technology, funding and income generation, and most importantly community and stakeholder engagement. If the UK Government was looking to invest into South Africa in the coming years then up skilling, institutional strengthening and support on collecting quality data to infirm national and local policies and strategies is where the real need is. However, the talk on the street is that with continuing economic development South Africa will no longer be a major receiver of donor funding (at least not UK funds) and will have to make its own decisions about what to fund and what to support – this could prove challenging for the waste, resources and energy sector as job creation, service industries and other sexy issues grip the national agenda.

On the street

Perhaps of more interest for me on a personal level was the degree of recycling happening on the streets of Cape Town, noted as I was strolling along the main shopping parade (Long Street). A pick-up truck with 2 chaps (no branding, no high vis jackets, no protective gloves or clothing etc.) were checking out the bins for valuable materials – some were pulling out old radios and phones to separate the valuable batteries and other metals whilst the majority were collecting glass bottles from the many bars and clubs and filling the back of the pick-up.

This is not the traditional informal recycling I have seen all over the developing world (from street bins to dumpsites) but was more a form of semi-skilled & managed informal recycling service being run by a local company who charge each establishment a small fee to pull out their recyclables. This looked to be working well and could be replicated in other parts of the city and other cities where a cheap and local informal labour force can be put to good use in recovering valuable materials and delivering the message that recycling works to residents and businesses alike. Well done!

So what?

South Africa is a big country and Cape Town is a long way from Johannesburg, Pretoria and Durban. Although much progress is being made in the big cities, much of South Africa remains a rural poor, living off the land where waste management is not a priority. Even in the larger towns, budgets are tight, and waste management is a low priority compared to education, health and jobs. So there is still a long way to go for South Africa to make the next step in terms of developed policies, systems and delivery. They haven’t currently sorted out the finance model, and waste management is heavily subsidised, meaning cheap landfill is always the route of first choice, and businesses and the general public

Waste management is not currently a priority at a local level, but things are changing nationally with a new Environment Act in 2009, a Waste Management Plan in 2009 and recent national strategy and policy statements about recycling, residual waste and composting. So the agenda is being set, the worry is that local municipalities just don’t have the skills, money or drive to make this a reality – might be an opportunity for some consultancy support if we could find a suitable aid agency?

Anyway, back to the seminar…. It was great to be able to see so many South African delegates in attendance (over 50) learning from international best practice, and the discussions over coffee, and lunch provided me with comfort that the big issues were now on the agenda locally. Empowering local communities’, the informal sector and charities is the right thing to do. They can provide job opportunities, retraining and education opportunities to the rural and urban poor and help put recycling firmly on the agenda – which is a step in the right direction and something that is far more important than being sold a large shiny burner thing!

South Africa is now at a cross roads. It’s economic development is taking it from donor-funded to more stand alone, and with that will come the need to develop more innovative funding and support mechanisms to help the country to continue to improve. I think the people, their commitment and their desire to change will take them far, but a little bit of help from some widened old consultants will probably save them a great deal of time and effort, if only to help set up the institutional structures, funding mechanisms and policy agendas.

Good luck South Africa, and thank you cape Town for hosting me these last few days, I have enjoyed myself and I hope you have enjoyed me…….

Are you a criminal?

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:44:56 +0100

We sang songs in primary school assembly about litter, from memory the words went a little bit like this;

Milk bottle tops and paper bags,

Iron bed steads and dirty old rags.

Litter on the pavement, litter on the streets – is this really what we want to see?

No, No, NO!

What I didn’t know when I was ten, is that dropping litter is a criminal offence, nor that I would end up working on waste related issues for a career!

Quite simply, it is an offence to throw down, drop or otherwise deposit and leave any litter in a public place, and it remains so even now, 20 years on!

ASBOs vs ABBA

I find it hard to stand by and witness littering offences without something inside me stirring; I’ve seen people throwing plastic bottles in rivers while I’m out running, and only today I saw a caretaker of a building clear the litter from the car park and drop it over the wall on to the pavement (rather ironically this happened almost opposite the Keep Wales Tidy building!). When was the last time you sat in your car and quietly watched the driver in front of you drop their cigarette butt out of their car window onto the road, or sat stationary on a train marvelling at the litter on the line wondering how it got there?

Challenging litter offenders, something that the hard core environmentalist amongst us often think about doing, isn’t recommended by ENCAMS (the environmental charity that run the Keep Britain Tidy campaign) because of concerns about individual safety etc. However, on the occasions where I’ve surprised myself by standing up for both my profession (I focus on waste prevention within the public sector) and my education, my outbursts have been met by blank stares, disbelief and bewilderment.

Clearly, the offenders caught in the act cannot comprehend that littering is both unnecessary with increasing coverage of residual and recycling bins at work, on the go, and at home, and unacceptable in a modern day society where the environment (in particular our local environment) is considered so important to the general public.

The demise of the school assembly might possibly warrant its own entry in a blog somewhere, and bad behaviour at school (by the other children in my class) was often met with litter duty detentions acting as an obvious deterrent teaching us that fundamentally litter is wrong. So, if I was taught about litter at school (as well as stranger danger and other critical life skills) then wasn’t everyone? Unfortunately it seems a perfectly acceptable social norm for people to drop litter and not feel any guilt or remorse, or any responsibility for their actions, let alone realise they are committing a crime! My how things must change!

When I was a child, and even before my time, Encams ran a number of high profile and popular anti-litter campaigns using great icons like the Wombles, Abba and more recently Atomic Kitten and S Club 7 (remember them?) I thought these were excellent reminders of the need to take our litter home and to behave in a morally and environmentally acceptable manner – is it so tough to put a crisp packet in your pocket or find a local bin?

Clean up your act!

Every day over 2.5 million items are littered in the UK, with an annual clean-up bill of almost £1 billion. The Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse provides a guide for bodies who have a legal duty to keep certain types of land clear of litter and refuse, and sets out the standards to which the land must be cleansed. Duty bound bodies include train and tram operators, transport companies, governing bodies of certain Educational Institutions, local authorities, and Port and Harbour Authorities. Duty bound bodies can be held accountable by the public should the statutory standards fail to be met, which seems odd given that the public are the most likely root of the problem!

So where do we begin in our efforts to reduce littering, and improve and maintain the quality of our surroundings?

In a recent study of the most littered brands, Coca- Cola, Cadbury and Walkers come out on top. While the brand packaging does not create litter, their loyal customers do, and perhaps this is the window of opportunity we need to tackle the repeat offenders?

With drinks cans and bottles a target material of almost every recycling on the go campaign, springing up in shopping centre, educational premises, hospitals and on the high street etc., other solutions are required for confectionary, cigarette and snack packets and wrappers.

McDonalds ranked 4th in the most littered brands demonstrating that fast food / food packaging is now a major (and increasing) source of littering. The Defra Voluntary Code of Practice, published in 2004, sets out a framework for business to implement potential solutions for reducing litter caused by ‘food and drink on the go’, on sale from quick service restaurants, drive thrus, mobile food vans, newsagents, supermarkets and petrol stations.

For all food outlets, a key recommendation is to promote anti-littering through messaging and behaviour change campaigns. McDonalds has done this over the years, but has it been effective and what about other fast food outlets?

McVitie with their used biscuit packaging recycling competition could prove to be a shining example of current best practice. The biscuit wrapper roundup collection contest will incentivise people across the UK to recycle their used biscuit wrappers, which would otherwise end up in landfill, into watering cans, garden benches and other unlikely products (explain). With points and prizes on offer for the top 20 collectors, the power of the brand over the consumer to influence behaviour should not be underestimated, and I expect this to be a driver for change that can be replicated across brands like Tesco, Nestle, Cadbury etc.

Remember you’re a womble!

Increasingly, press coverage includes the names of corporate businesses and citizens that have been issued fixed penalty notices and fines for littering, and I know of a number of local authorities that publish CCTV evidence of litter louts in online name and shame campaigns.

But is this, combined with national awareness raising campaigns enough to deter and inspire frequent litterers to take more responsibility for changing their behaviour and influencing others in turn over the longer term? Perhaps, like speeding fines, fixed penalty notices issued with respect to littering should include a requirement for the recipient to attend an environmental awareness course, and a week’s litter picking duty?

Hopefully, if you’re reading this, you will already have a bit of a ‘Womble’ ethic. As a family of furry, fictional knee-high creatures, they achieved a lot on Wimbledon Common in the mid 1970s, leading by example, picking up litter and encouraging others to do the same. If that’s what can be achieved as a small family unit, then who knows what might be possible if we work together to address litter as a nation….

We sang songs in primary school assembly about litter, from memory the words went a little bit like this;

Milk bottle tops and paper bags,

Iron bed steads and dirty old rags.

Litter on the pavement, litter on the streets – is this really what we want to see?

No, No, NO!

What I didn’t know when I was ten, is that dropping litter is a criminal offence, nor that I would end up working on waste related issues for a career!

Quite simply, it is an offence to throw down, drop or otherwise deposit and leave any litter in a public place, and it remains so even now, 20 years on!

ASBOs vs ABBA

I find it hard to stand by and witness littering offences without something inside me stirring; I’ve seen people throwing plastic bottles in rivers while I’m out running, and only today I saw a caretaker of a building clear the litter from the car park clear the litter from the car park and drop it over the wall on to the pavement (rather ironically this happened almost opposite the Keep Wales Tidy building!). When was the last time you sat in your car
and quietly watched the driver in front of you drop their cigarette butt out of their car window onto the road, or sat stationary on a train
marvelling at the litter on the line wondering how it got there?

Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, the fine for dropping litter can be anything between £50 and £80, and if not paid a magistrates' court can impose a monetary fine of up to £2,500. To put this fine into context, it’s of a similar value to receiving a penalty notice for failing to wear a seatbelt while driving a car, jumping a red traffic light, or speeding. These are criminal acts that are anti-social and unacceptable to the majority of people, yet littering remains somewhat more common and more prevalent to those of us who keep our eyes open whilst walking about town.ark and drop it over the wall on to the pavement (rather ironically this happened almost opposite the Keep Wales Tidy building!). When was the last time you sat in your car and quietly watched the driver in front of you drop their cigarette butt out of their car window onto the road, or sat stationary on a train marvelling at the litter on the line wondering how it got there?

Challenging litter offenders, something that the hard core environmentalist amongst us often think about doing, isn’t recommended by ENCAMS (the environmental charity that run the Keep Britain Tidy campaign) because of concerns about individual safety etc.
However, on the occasions where I’ve surprised myself by standing up for both my profession (I focus on waste prevention within the public sector) and my education, my outbursts have been met by blank stares, disbelief and bewilderment.

The demise of the school assembly might possibly warrant its own entry in a blog somewhere, and bad behaviour at school (by the other children in my class) was often met with litter duty detentions acting as an obvious deterrent teaching us that fundamentally litter is wrong. So, if I was taught about litter at school (as well as stranger danger and other critical life skills) then wasn’t everyone?
Unfortunately it seems a perfectly acceptable social norm for people to drop litter and not feel any guilt or remorse,
or any responsibility for their actions, let alone realise they are committing a crime! My how things must change!

Clean up your act!

So where do we begin in our efforts to reduce littering, and improve and maintain the quality of our surroundings?

McDonalds ranked 4th in the most littered brands demonstrating that fast food / food packaging is now a major (and increasing) source of littering. The Defra Voluntary Code of Practice, published in 2004, sets out a framework for business to implement potential solutions for reducing litter caused by ‘ food and drink on the go’, on sale from quick service restaurants, drive thrus, mobile food vans, newsagents, supermarkets and petrol stations.

Remember you’re a womble!

Spring 2013 – The heat is ON

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:44:56 +0100

We may not have had much sunshine so far this spring but there has been plenty of heat radiating from Energy from Waste projects and facilities – and I’m not just talking about incinerators.

In early March, Edinburgh and Midlothian signed a 20 year contract for a food waste anaerobic digestion facility with Biogen. No heat offtake planned here, but 1.4MW of power to the grid from the capital’s food scraps. A planned gasification scheme in Hull took a major step forward in securing a £20m grant, the biggest so far for an EfW scheme. A second MBT facility opened in Barrow; the plants are spearheading a ‘revolution’ in the way that Cumbria manages its waste.

Meanwhile in projects yet to close, we are witnessing more cautious bidding as major waste contractors pull out of procurement processes rather than continue bidding against one another for some of the proposed new EfW facilities around the country. SITA is now the only bidder for West London Waste Authority after the E.On/Tata consortium pulled out unexpectedly. Some have hailed this as a triumph of common sense, removing the proposal to haul London’s waste to Manchester for treatment. But with SITA withholding the details of its solution for West London, could London’s waste be set to travel even further afield as SRF, possibly from SITA’s planned export hub in Ridham dock? Meanwhile, E.On is now the only contender to operate the Arc 21 MBT + Incinerator facility in Northern Ireland.

After most bidders were eliminated or pulled out of the Prosiect Gwyrydd procurement for a facility in Cardiff, Viridor is set to generate some real heat, of a more literal kind, at Trident Park. As construction begins on the plant, Viridor announces it is exploring a number of potential heat offtakes, including buildings in central Cardiff. In Merseyside, SITA has been chosen as preferred bidder to process 430,000 tonnes a year of residual waste at a new CHP plant in Wilton, Teesside. This is another project with real possibilities of heat offtake, potentially to adjacent industrial units as high pressure steam.

Heated debates continue around proposed EfW facilities in Gloucestershire, Derby, Cornwall and East Anglia with a general trend for the planning process to push ahead in spite of local opposition. Ricardo-AEA’s Dr Mark Broomfield gave evidence at the recent public enquiry into the controversial Kings Lynn Energy from Waste plant, that the proposed facility poses no unacceptable impact on health. If these are not fiery enough, the UK’s largest wood biomass CHP plant has signed a supply contract with SITA for end of life wood chip deliveries to their site in Fife. On the other end of the spectrum, Drax Power Group have announced that it will only be combusting imported virgin wood in the new converted biomass boilers because of the stringent regulations around incineration of waste.

So if you’re feeling a little lacking in your well-deserved dose of sun this spring, take comfort that the UK’s EfW landscape continues to be a hive of exciting activity and temperatures are set to rise. Who needs sunshine with all of this on the horizon?

Operator	Name	Location	WDA/UA/MDA	Primary Tech Type	Current
Progressed
Local Generation Ltd	Westry	March	Cambridgeshire	AD	Operational
Harper Adams Energy	Harper Adams University	Newport	Shropshire	AD	Operational
Malaby Biogas	Bore Hill Farm Biodigester	Warminster	Wiltshire	AD	Operational
Andigestion	Waterbeach	Cambridgeshire	Cambridgeshire	AD	Operational
BiogenGreenfinch	South Shropshire Biowaste Digester	Ludlow	Shropshire	AD	Operational
Bio Group Ltd	Dunsfold Park	Cranley	Surrey	AD	Planning Granted
Agrivert	Preston Crowmarsh	Wallingford	Oxfordshire	AD	Operational
RWE npower renewables	Tulliss Russell Paper Mill	Makinch	Fife	Combustion	Commissioning
Scottish & Southern Energy Ltd (SSE)	Ferrybridge	Knottingley	Wakefield	Combustion	Planning Granted
Cory, Wheelabrator	Willows Power and Recycling Centre	Kings Lynn	Norfolk	Combustion	In Planning
Urbaser Balfour Beatty	Javelin Park	Quedgeley	Gloucestershire	Combustion	Refused
Resource Recovery Solutions	Sinfin Lane, Osmaston	Derby	Derbyshire	ATT	Planning Granted
SITA	Binn Farm	Perth	Perth & Kinross	Mixed	Operational
SITA	Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre (CERC)	St Dennis, Rostowrack	Cornwall	Combustion	In Construction
Veolia	Battlefield Enterprise Park, Vanguard Way	Shropshire	Shropshire	Combustion	In Construction
Viridor	Trident Park	Cardiff	Cardiff	Combustion	In Construction
FCC Environment	Sutton Courtenay Landfill Site	Sutton Courtenay	Oxfordshire	Combustion	Withdrawn
AmeyCespa [Donarbon]	Waterbeach Waste Management Park	Cambridgeshire	Cambridgeshire	Mixed	Closed/Inoperational
FCC Environment	Alfreton	Derbyshire	Derbyshire	Compost	Operational
Added
AC Shropshire LTD	The Green's Farm	Leicester	Leicestershire	AD	Operational
MT-Energie	John Davies Farms Ltd	Swancote	Wolverhampton	AD	Operational
Biotech	Green Lane	Alderley Edge	Cheshire	AD	Operational
Fre - Energy	Lodge Farm Digester	Wrexham	Wrexham	AD	Operational
All waste Services LTD	The Old Sawmills	Carmarthenshire	Carmarthenshire	AD	Operational
HMP Guys Marsh Prison (Burdens)	HMP Guys Marsh Prison (Burdens)	Shaftesbury	Dorset	AD	Operational
SEaB Energy	Chilworth	Southampton	Hampshire	AD	Operational
Recresco	Recresco	Swanscombe	Kent	MRF	Proposed

If you want to find out more about how we track and map these developments with our interactive mapping tool, FALCON, contact Maria on maria.vinogradova@ricardo-aea.com

Is the British public producing less waste or becoming more resource efficient, and does it matter?

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:28:54 +0100

A recent article in The Economist sparked some interesting debate in the office earlier this week, making us think about the way in which household waste is being managed in the UK, particularly the way households and consumers deal with unwanted, broken and discarded products and packaging. The article declares that people are throwing out less than in previous years (at least since sensible records begun in the 1980s) and attributes this to a mixture of changed eating habits and the current economic climate however it fails to reach a solid conclusion, something that could be set for a number of recent research studies and policy papers by Government and their delivery bodies. So what is happening to household recycling in the UK? And is progress continuing to be made?

Stagnation of recycling rate growth is not a bad thing, if overall waste arisings are falling. If consumer decisions are driving this change then even better, however there is still room to help grow household recycling rates. Opportunities include:

[1] extending collection services in hard to reach areas (rural or flats)

[2] targeting new materials (tetrapak, mixed plastics, textiles etc.)

[3] improving the efficiency of residential behaviour through on-going communications and engagement campaigns (helping to ensure all target materials are put out each week and that unwanted items are not included in the recycling bin)

Although you cannot really differentiate one from the other, at least not in the in the eyes of the average consumer, producing less waste, becoming more resource efficient, and increasing separation of recyclables and organic materials may be very different things in the eyes of Government and waste management professionals who are being challenged to deliver a number of targets.

Ultimately we should be aiming for greater resource efficiency, above and beyond the clamour for increased recycling, which may inadvertently increase the consumption of resources and result in additional carbon emissions due to transportation etc.

Becoming more resource efficient is about making a conscious effort to effect they ways in which we generate and then manage waste, from cradle to grave, including designing out waste from the supply chain and minimising the materials consumed that ultimately end up as waste – excess food, unnecessary packaging etc. It is a far wider agenda than simply separating your recyclables for collection, albeit this is very worthwhile activity and one that can build consumer confidence and engagement. Anything that reduces waste needing to be collected for end treatment and disposal, whether it be through changing consumer patterns, packaging design, or participation in local recycling collections, is a good thing , and is the ideal strategic goal for an advanced society like ours. So I am not worried if households and businesses are simply producing less waste unconsciously due to the current economic climate, rather than embracing the principles of resource efficiency, so long as these actions become deep embedded habits that aren’t lost once the economy bounces back.

The current economic situation has not only forced everyone to make cuts (so people are buying less and therefore wasting less) but it also promotes a reuse culture which means that people are less embarrassed about hitting charity shops or buying products from online retailers such as ebay, which have become extremely popular over the past few years.

There is currently less of a stigma associated with second hand buying and this allows various items, including, clothing, furniture and electrical appliances to be reused, thus extending their operational lifetime and reducing their prevalence in the residential wheelie bin. This is a key theme for WRAP’s business plan this year, supporting re-use, partnership working and the delivery of solutions higher up the waste management hierarchy; preferably prevention and re-use wherever practicable.

Since the decline in household / business waste is often the result of unconscious decisions we can take the following steps to encourage these trends.

• First, identify if reduction in waste arisings over the past few years are due on the whole to the current economic climate (which most of us believe) and to test how embedded these actions are (has there been a fundamental change in society?)

• Secondly, waste prevention is intangible and is hard to measure by its very nature. You know what you have recycled – it’s in your recycling bin. You know what you have thrown away – it’s in your bin. But it is hard to know how much waste you have prevented from actually becoming waste through your consumer choices and behaviours. There are ways of calculating prevention impacts and more evidence needs to come forward to support the impact of the economy, campaigns and other factor.

• Finally, we need to make it clear to people that recycling is not the greenest thing you can do. Prevention is better, finding other uses for your belongings and not letting them become waste is probably the greenest thing you can do. But re-educating the public that recycling and composting are not the only game in town after 20 years of central and local campaigning will not be easy, and countries around the world have struggled to do this adequately without the associated influence of the global recession, charging for waste by weight, and stricter enforcement at the kerbside. These may not be politically palatable things to implement during the recession, so perhaps we all need to help that the recession’s impacts on consumer attitudes and waste behaviour are longer lasting than the recession itself!

These trends are likely to continue as unfortunately the economic crisis is not going anywhere anytime soon. However, even though the reduction in waste is more unconscious then conscious, nonetheless, it is the ideal outcome and one we would encourage and embrace!

Energy futures – is Australia missing out?

Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:28:54 +0000

October’s Energy White Paper, produced by the Australian federal government, sets out a new strategic policy framework to address the challenges in Australia’s energy sector and further position the Australian economy for a long-term transformation in the way energy is produced.

It also outlines the critical factors of Australia’s energy future, with electricity price, energy exports to Asia and carbon reduction taking focus.

Is Australia missing out on an important opportunity to utilise its waste and biomass feedstock to improve energy generation? Three leading experts from Australia and Britain, including Ricardo-AEA’s Dr Adam Read and Simon Gandy, dissect the details in Australian publication Inside Waste click here to read to complete article.

Waste infrastructure capacity

Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:00:00 +0000

An article published by MRW yesterday (“Row over residual waste capacity”, 6 March 2013) paints an adversarial picture of Ricardo-AEA and Eunomia concerning future waste infrastructure need and delivery in the UK. Whilst I understand that it is sometimes a journalist’s job to accentuate a story, this article overstates the differences between our positions. We do not intend to discredit Eunomia’s calculations, which we have not examined (nor intend to examine) in any detail. Infrastructure capacity estimates and projections are inherently uncertain, so that we reach different conclusions is no great surprise. For the record, we believe the analyses differ in their treatment of RDF export projections, the relevance of large planned biomass burners, probabilities of delivering different technologies and the projections of arisings. All valid differences for technical consultancies to have and something we would not want to change.

My concern regarding the discussions of this issue stems from the belief that they rock a boat which is already unstable. What the recent EP0W programme workshops concerning the barriers to waste infrastructure have demonstrated is that any statements made with an illusion of certainty, forewarning, or sensationalism have dramatic ripple effects throughout an already shaky market, where good, valid and needed projects are struggling to reach close because funders are worried about returns on their investment. Readers without the background to critique the data become spooked and decisions are changed – we know this is happening.

The other critical factor is that projects are developed not nationally but on an individual basis, in their local market. Our analysis is simply that, taking that regional perspective, fewer proposed plants will reach operational status, even if granted planning, because others will start operating sooner and a local capacity analysis will show the developers that they will struggle to find the necessary feedstock. Our FALCON database has about 3.7Mtpa of potential capacity that has been sitting for over two years with planning granted and got no further. How much of this is really live?

I hope that, as the analysis continues, the urge to deliver headline grabbing news will diminish. National summary statistics are a convenient way to present an overall picture, but are too simplistic. At Ricardo-AEA, we have no hidden agenda, other than wanting to see the waste management industry deliver the appropriate infrastructure to enable the UK to avoid landfilling its waste unnecessarily. Whatever picture is presented in the press, I can’t believe that is a real point of contention.

Does the UK have over capacity issues?

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:31:12 +0000

Ricardo-AEA has been involved in discussions about the state of the
UK’s waste infrastructure landscape.

Despite developers saying they do not view the supply of residual waste foodstock as a risk to future developments, why do recent reports predict the UK is heading for excess residual treatment capacity?

We support the views of industry experts that the UK will not suffer the predicted serious over capacity issues being forewarned by some commentators. We acknowledge that there are large numbers of facilities in the development pipeline, but anticipate that the economies of supply and demand will stem the progress of less developed facilities, as their more advanced competitors reach completion and begin operation, thus suck.ing up any available feedstock and undermining the business plans of the less developed options

That said, we are certainly not ruling out such capacity issues at a more local and regional level, and that is why we recommend that contractors, technology providers, and investors perform detailed market research of the local picture around their planned developments.

Our experience is that these focussed studies, looking at competing local and regional drivers and existing facilities, etc. provide a much more reliable picture of the feedstock landscape, its threats and opportunities.

Such independent studies can provide critical value and impetus to developers needing to secure funding to progress their projects.

In order to reach these conclusions, we have assessed a surprisingly large number of contributory factors, which can be broadly associated with two overarching considerations: the amount of residual waste needing waste treatment facilities and the capacity of treatment facilities needing residual waste.

These factors are discussed in detail in an article written by Simon Gandy, Maria Vinogradova and Dr Adam Read, originally featured in Recycling and Waste World's February 2013 issue. Click here to read the full article.

Waste facilities progress – a bird’s eye view

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:52:30 +0000

Perhaps in other jobs there is time to contemplate post-festive January blues and gently ease in to the new
calendar year.

Not so in the waste industry. The first few weeks of 2013 have seen a flurry of activity regarding waste treatment infrastructure planning and delivery.

Two major energy from waste facilities received planning permission in Leeds, as local planning officers tackled their household and commercial waste loads in one swift move. Leeds is now likely to become the test platform for the increasingly heated overcapacity debate; in reality will both plants be delivered to their planned capacity and will they be able to source enough feedstock regionally to satisfy their hungry kilns?

The Essex MBT facility, which Ricardo-AEA helped to procure, has also been given the green light and is well on the way to breaking ground on site.

Eric Pickles has been in the news again, calling in a controversial incinerator proposal in Hertfordshire, but then not doing so in North Yorkshire, whilst criticising Europe’s biggest waste project in Greater Manchester as a waste of taxpayers’ money. When does he take a break? And doesn’t he have other things to worry about?

There’s been progress on long awaited residual waste treatment contracts in Wakefield, South Wales and Peterborough, whilst AmeyCespa managed to deliver the first piece of good news since the breakdown of the Cambridgeshire MBT by opening their nearby MRF.

Monitoring developments over the past month, I can say with confidence that our FALCON online waste infrastructure map is getting more crowded. Whilst some of my peers in other organisations are ringing alarm bells about surplus capacities, I remain convinced that this infrastructure surge is a good thing. Most of the plants described above are the fruition of long term PFI plans initiated more than five years ago, which have been held up by a variety of factors, and which are now finally on the way to delivering suitable and robust technologies for the much needed diversion of waste from landfill.

The situation for merchant facilities designed to capture commercial and industrial wastes looks far more complex, and new plans are coming to market, but most are a long way from securing finance, planning consents or feedtsock.

Here is a table of our most recent infrastructure updates.

Operator	Name	Location	WDA/UA/MDA	Primary Tech Type	Current
ReFood (PDM Group)	Desoto Road	Widnes	Halton	AD	7-In Construction
Emerald Biogas	Newton Aycliffe Industrial Estate	County Durham	Durham	AD	7-In Construction
BiogenGreenfinch	Bygrave Lodge Farm	Baldock	Hertfordshire	AD	7-In Construction
Shanks	South Kirkby Business Park	South Kirkby	Wakefield	MHT	3-Proposed
Spencer Group	Energy Works	Hull	Kingston-upon-Hull	ATT	5-Planning Granted
Viridor	GRREC, Polmadie	Rutherglen	Glasgow City	Mixed	5-Planning Granted
SITA	Charlton Lane Eco Park	Shepperton	Surrey	Mixed	5-Planning Granted
AmeyCespa	Allerton Waste Recovery Park	Harrogate	North Yorkshire	Mixed	5-Planning Granted
Veolia	New Barnfield	Hatfield	Hertfordshire	Combustion	5-Planning Granted
Combined Power & Heat Highlands Ltd	Invergordon	Highlands	Highland	Combustion	5-Planning Granted
Cory, Wheelabrator	Willows Power and Recycling Centre	Kings Lynn	Norfolk	Combustion	4-In Planning
Energos	Knowsley Business Park	Kirkby	Knowsley	ATT	6-Permit Issued
SITA	Billingham	Teesside	Stockton-on-Tees	Combustion	9-Operational
SITA	North East Energy Recovery Centre	Billingham	Stockton-on-Tees	Combustion	7-In Construction
SITA	Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre (CERC)	St Dennis, Rostowrack	Cornwall	Combustion	7-In Construction
FCC Environment	Whisby Road	North Hykeham	Lincolnshire	Combustion	7-In Construction
Viridor	Trident Park	Cardiff	Cardiff	Combustion	6-Permit Issued
Covanta	Rookery Pit	Stewartby	Central Bedfordshire	Combustion	5-Planning Granted
FCC Environment	Greatmoor (Calvert)	Greatmoor Farm	Buckinghamshire	Combustion	5-Planning Granted
Biffa	Skelton Grange	Leeds	Leeds	Combustion	5-Planning Granted
Viridor	Fourth Drove	Fengate	Peterborough	Combustion	5-Planning Granted
Veolia	Pontecraft Lane	Cross Green	Leeds	Combustion	5-Planning Granted
AmeyCespa [Donarbon]	Waterbeach Waste Management Park	Cambridgeshire	Cambridgeshire	Mixed	2-Closed/Inoperational
Hills Waste Solutions	Northacre Resource Recovery Centre	Westbury	Wiltshire	MBT	7-In Construction
Urbaser Balfour Beatty	Courtauld Road	Basildon	Essex	MBT	5-Planning Granted
DS Smith [SCA]	Hounsdown Business Park, Totton	Southampton	Hampshire	MRF	9-Operational
AmeyCespa	Waterbeach Waste Management Park	Cambridgeshire	Cambridgeshire	MRF	9-Operational
SITA	Binnegar Quarry	Wareham	Dorset	MRF	9-Operational
Neath Port Talbot Recycling Ltd	Crymlyn Burrows	Neath Port Talbot	Neath Port Talbot	Mixed	2-Closed/Inoperational
Origin Renewable Energy	Magnetic Park	Desborough	Northamptonshire	ATT	5-Planning Granted

If you’d like to find out more about these plants, how their progress could impact on your regional plans, or how we go about tracking them, contact maria.vinogradova@ricardo-aea.com.

Don’t recycle! Redesign

Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:36:00 +0000

The UK has made great strides in recycling. Most local authorities provide a range of recycling services allowing householders to recycle a range of materials, including glass, paper, card and food. Businesses are also making progress. Recycling rates for commercial and industrial wastes has increased from 42% in 2002/03 to over 50% today.

This progress has had many positive effects. It has reduced our demand for landfill space, reduced our reliance on virgin materials; and it has reduced the carbon emissions associated with waste management. It has also, importantly, created jobs.

But, by addressing problems at the end of the pipe are we really making progress or are we embedding systems which, ultimately, will work against our need to eliminate waste and conserve valuable resources?

The so-called path to zero waste will require us to develop processes which allow materials and products to be recirculated, not just recycled. How many discarded iPads will end up in the black bin? And even those that are recycled are broken down into a myriad of different fragments, resulting in significant material loss and expenditure of energy to both sort and reprocess into a new products. Whilst it is true that a plastics drinks bottle might be recycled into a new drinks container, it is unlikely that your old iPod will become a new iPad.

And we need to be careful that we pay close scrutiny to the concepts of closed and open loops, even for materials which we commonly consider to be associated with high levels of resource efficiency. Aluminium drinks cans contain two types of aluminium: the walls are composed of aluminium manganese, the top of aluminium magnesium alloy. Recycling these materials together creates a material which is of lower quality and value compared to the separate alloys used in the original can. The same is true of the types of steel used in car manufacture. Steel used for body panels contains different blends of additives to the steel used in other parts of the vehicle, such as the engine. When a car is recycled, these materials are normally smelted together, limiting the end use of the recycled metals.

In their book Cradle to Cradle, Braungart and McDonough state the need for reinventing our approach to using materials and products. They put for the case for being eco-effective as opposed to eco-efficient. The later, they say, is just less bad. Reducing the toxicity of individual products and focusing on recycling materials, often in open loops, won’t bring about a significant change in resource depletion and the environmental (and social) impact caused by our current patterns of materials consumption.

Consider the issue of detergent manufacture. A conventional resource efficient approach to detergent production might consider measures such as how the detergent could be made less polluting by using more environmentally benign chemicals? Perhaps the packaging could be made from recycled materials? Maybe even the detergent could be delivered in dried, pellet form to reduce transport costs associated with the liquid content? However, this is surely just less bad, rather than good for environment, society and economy. It is eco-efficient rather than eco-effective.

Using this same example, a cradle to cradle (or C2C) approach might consider the potential to lease washing machines to customers preloaded with detergent for, say, two thousand washes, and incorporating systems which allow internal recovery of used detergent. A very attractive concept for all concerned (customer, manufacturer, society and environment), particularly if you consider that as little as 5% of detergent may be consumed in a typical wash cycle.

There are already good examples of our approach to materials use changing through innovative business models and new methods of consumption. On the consumer front, the concept of collaborative consumption is gaining hold. You can rent out your car (whipcar.com) and there are websites where you can rent out your stuff and even your time (ecomodo.com). In terms of new business models, leasing services and circular materials systems are evolving. Xerox has leased printing facilities rather than sold printers for some time. The company A Shade Greener offers customers to option to rent a boiler for heating their homes rather than own one. The carpet manufacturer Desso reprocesses its used flooring tiles, providing the recovered yarn to its suppliers. Caterpillar has remanufacturered its industrial plant engines for over 30 years, estimating that it saved over 59,000 tonnes of steel in 2010 through this approach. The list is growing, as illustrated by WRAP’s innovative business model map.

I was particularly struck by Braungart and McDonough’s consideration of the triple bottom line approach to accounting. To be truly eco-effective in the twenty first century, we need to start with a triple top line. We need to incorporate the three aspects of conventional sustainability thinking into the design process or, as the authors put it, we need to consider the dimensions of economy, equity and ecology before developing any new service or product (see figure) not after. That way we have the potential to create services that contribute to society and environment and deliver economic growth.

Based on Braungart and McDonough (2008)

Overall, unless we design systems which are based on encouraging the consumption of services rather than materials and ensuring the circulation of materials rather than the consumption of them, we are not on the road to zero waste, we're on the road to nowhere.

A Game of Facilities – Falcon updates go live….. how fantasy TV inspires data capture and usage…

Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:30:00 +0000

As an avid science fiction and fantasy book reader and film goer, you won’t be surprised to hear that I can be found on Monday nights settling down to watch the latest instalment of the award winning series ‘Game of Thrones’ on Sky Atlantic. This interpretation of the George R. R. Martin novels is great escapism from the daily thrust of waste policy, infrastructure procurement and community engagement, or so I thought …….. there is far more to this show than you might expect, and lots of commonality with the UK waste sector.

Watching the title sequence the other night of Series 2 re-runs I became captivated by the opening credits, something I usually fast forward when on Sky+. But sitting there, I was mesmerised by the intricate design of nuts and cogs twisting and turning to form castles and keeps reminiscent of medieval British architecture, and it made me think of the developing UK waste infrastructure landscape new families, dynasties and city states, the waste sector is now ebbing and flowing with the often rapid and parallel delivery of multiple projects, the stagnation and disintegration of others, and the progress of sites from proposal to operational.

Between October and November 2012, the UK waste realm has seen many significant changes, which we have been tracking, and some of which we have been more intricately involved with as technical advisors or permit specialists. These have included the epic conclusion of major procurement tournaments, with winners announced and confirmed for residual waste treatment contracts in Milton Keynes, South London and Leeds, and the identification of preferred sites and technology types. This has removed some uncertainty from the market and projects or sites coming through the system now have a better appreciation of local competition and feedstock security etc.

Anaerobic digestion facilities continue to take over the kingdom, with recent progress by Biogen in North Wales, Agrivert in Oxfordshire and Energen in Dorset. On the whole, new and in some cases major, infrastructure projects and plants have triumphed over the planning dragons, including Veolia’s New Barnfield EfW, and it seems that the long and painful battle in Cornwall over their EfW facility may be drawing to a close, even with new reports being commissioned to challenge the site, the scale and the costs.

The rival “houses” of the industry are realigning, with the closure of Sterecycle and the acquisition of most of Countrystyle’s business by relative newcomer to the sector Tamar. In parallel, territorial control has been ceded, and exchanged between major collection contractors like Biffa, Serco and Kier in Kent and Sussex for example.

The UK waste map is a turbulent sea of changing tides, new developments and undercurrents, which isn’t always easy to track. Taking your finger off the pulse of infrastructure growth can have far reaching consequences resulting in short-sighted business decisions, facilities with no feedstock, and unwanted local competition. Getting good data, having regular updates on projects, contracts and site changes, and understanding what your competitors are doing is becoming more critical than ever before. At Ricardo-AEA, we keep ourselves and our clients ahead of the game through our in-house mapping tool FALCON, tracking developments in facilities, arisings, locations and contracts. The last six weeks have seen over 40 updates to our records, just check out the table below to see some of the changes we have captured, did you know about them all?

If you’d like to know more about the updates, how we keep track of changes and how you can benefit from this service, get in touch with maria.vinogradova@ricardo-aea.com. She won’t strike you down by sword or axe, but what she can do is ensure that any insurgency or uprising by peripheral players, kingdoms and families is on your radar early, which might just save your life or your business.

So for those of you doubting whether fantasy television is in touch with reality, think again!

Operator	Name	Location	WDA/UA/MDA	Primary Tech Type	Current

Shanks	Cumbernauld	Glasgow	North Lanarkshire	AD	Operational
Tamar	Holbeach Hurn		Lincolnshire	AD	In Construction
BiogenGreenfinch	Llwyn Isaf	Clynnog	Gwynedd	AD	In Construction
Tamar [Countrystyle]	Halstead Renewable Power	Bluebridge Industrial Estate	Essex	AD	Planning Granted
ReFood (PDM Group)	Desoto Road	Widnes	Halton	AD	In Planning
Tamar [Countrystyle]	Swanley	Bromley	Bromley	AD	In Planning
BiogenGreenfinch	St Asaph	Waen	Denbighshire	AD	In Planning
Scottish Waster Horizons, Kelda	Millerhill Marshalling Yard	Dalkeith	Midlothian	Mixed	Proposed
Bio Group Ltd	Dunsfold Park	Cranley	Surrey	AD	Refused
Viridor	Beddington Lane	Sutton	Sutton	Mixed	In Planning
AmeyCespa	Old Wolverton	Milton Keynes	Milton Keynes	Mixed	Proposed
AmeyCespa	Allerton Waste Recovery Park	Harrogate	North Yorkshire	Mixed	In Planning
Tamar [Countrystyle]	Otterpool Quarry	Sellindge	Kent	Mixed	Planning Granted
Treenergy Ltd			Monmouthshire	Other	Proposed
UPM Kymmene	Shotton	Deeside	Flintshire	Mixed	Operational
MVV Environment Devonport	Whitecleave Quarry	Buckfastleigh	Devon	Other	Refused
Veolia	Bernard Road	Sheffield	Sheffield	Combustion	Operational
Veolia	New Barnfield	Hatfield	Hertfordshire	Combustion	Planning Granted
Cory, Wheelabrator	Willows Power and Recycling Centre	Kings Lynn	Norfolk	Combustion	In Planning
FCC Environment	Cardiff Road	Barry	Vale of Glamorgan	Combustion	Withdrawn
FCC Environment	Bowling Back Lane	Bradford	Bradford	Combustion	Planning Granted
Veolia	Padworth Sidings		West Berkshire	Compost	Operational
SITA	Cornwall Energy Recovery Centre (CERC)	St Dennis, Rostowrack	Cornwall	Combustion	In Construction
Veolia	Rufford Colliery	Rainworth, Notts	Nottinghamshire	Combustion	Withdrawn
FCC Environment	Gallymoor Landfill	Holme on Spaldimg Moor	East Riding of Yorkshire	Mixed	Planning Granted
Veolia	Pontecraft Lane	Cross Green	Leeds	Combustion	In Planning
Tamar [Countrystyle]	The Hangar	Tempsford	Central Bedfordshire	Compost	Operational
Tamar [Countrystyle]	Stanton Composting Facility	Bury St Edmunds	Suffolk	Compost	Operational
Countrystyle Group	Ridham Dock	Ridham	Kent	Compost	Operational
Tamar [Countrystyle]	Parham Recycling Centre	Parham	Suffolk	Compost	Operational
Tamar [Countrystyle]	Lackford Composting Site	Bury St Edmunds	Suffolk	Compost	Operational
Glendale	Hillbarton	Exeter	Devon	Compost	Operational
AmeyCespa [Donarbon]	Waterbeach Waste Management Park	Cambridgeshire	Cambridgeshire	Mixed	Operational
Mid UK	Station Road	Caythorpe	Lincolnshire	MRF	Operational
Site Service	Llandow	Cowbridge	Vale of Glamorgan	MRF	Operational
Veolia	Rainham Landfill Site	Rainham	Essex	MRF	Operational
Las Recycling		Lampeter	Ceredigion	MRF	Operational
CWM Environmental		Carmarthen	Carmarthenshire	MRF	Operational
SITA	Withyhedge	Haverfordwest	Pembrokeshire	MRF	Operational
Cae Post	Welshpool	Powys	Powys	MRF	Operational
James Cropper (paper manufacturer)	Burnside Mills	Kendal	Cumbria	Other	Proposed
Tamar [Countrystyle]	The Watering Farm	Creeting St Mark	Suffolk	Compost	Operational

The Pickles Fund - inappropriate and misguided or giving the public what they want?

Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:00:00 +0000

The cat is finally out of the bag (and the pickles are out of the jar), as the months of waiting and the constant delays are finally over. As of the 22nd November 2012 some 90 projects will be ‘benefiting’ from the £250 million DCLG grant programme, which was designed some 12 months ago to return local authorities back to weekly collections. For over a year Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has waged his campaign for the “human right” of a weekly bin service and against pretty much the entire waste sector, its collection contractors and industry commentators. The evidence from the sector has been pretty clear to date, alternate weekly collections work, they are publically acceptable and the efficiencies they deliver allow additional services like weekly food waste scheme to be delivered. But Pickles and his team continued to wade against the tide of industry opinion, including that of WRAP and DEFRA, albeit having to give way on occasion as the number of original bids was down on expectation and many authorities were asking for weekly food waste collections as an enhancement rather than a specific return from AWC to weekly as the Secretary of State would have wanted.

Now the post-mortem begins. The twittersphere is already alive with immediate reactions and opinions, the trade and national press has collected comments from a strong chorus of opponents, and more than one consultant is burning the midnight oil looking for logic and flaws in the list of winners. Clearly some authorities will be building momentum and looking to implement their changes in service, but the majority will not, having not even entered the lottery all those months ago.

But let’s not lose sight of a key issue. Cash strapped councils are in the middle of a recession, and have been forced by Government funding restrictions to cut and / or reduce several frontline services over the last 2 years. On the upside, DCLG is committed to investing real cash (£250 Million over the next 3 years) into authorities who want to improve the most universal of services – waste and recycling collection. This is a good news story, and I am sure that DCLG and their press machine will be promoting this story in full force over the coming days as they get attacked from all quarters about what a waste of money this has been!

So back in reality land, we have the majority of English authorities not engaging or being rewarded through this fund. I am sure they will look on with some degree of envy, but perhaps they will have the last laugh in this on-going and very public debate……

Several reputable studies, including those of WRAP, have proved that fortnightly collections of black bag waste, combined with a weekly or alternate weekly collection of recycling and a weekly food waste collection, reduce the amount of valuable materials thrown away. Contractors like Biffa have been very vocal about the benefits of such schemes, and this is not because they are looking to save money on reduced collection frequencies, but because they can see the savings from reduced disposal costs and the increase in revenue from additional materials collected for recycling / composting etc.

Mr Pickles’ main point of concern has been the decomposition of food scraps over a fortnightly collection frequency. Fair point, and one that the industry as a whole would agree with. This is why AWC has been so popular over the last decade, enabling collection budgets to be redistributed from weekly recycling and residual collections to weekly food waste collections, thus addressing public concerns about smells, flies, vermin etc. If Mr Pickles was really interested in reducing methane emissions from landfill sites and protecting local amenity he would have set up his fund to support segregated food waste collections and encourage residents to reduce wastage, not provide a weekly food to landfill service! And yes, he did give ground on this issues, allowing these types of proposals to be considered by the expert panel, but only where weekly food waste collections were not linked to the introduction of AWC.

As such, grant recipients need to monitor their recycling diversion rates, even if they are currently running strong material capture collections, and fully analyse the risks of introducing a food waste collection. The likely uptake and material capture rates for food waste on weekly residual collection schemes is less than for those authorities using fortnightly residual waste collections. This may be a problem that some of the successful applicants have to face up to this time next year, and the reporting on how the fund is working could prove a more than interesting read in 12 and 24 months from now……. What happens if the predicted impacts from the local authority applications aren’t delivered, what will Mr Pickles have to say then?

Crucially, yet not widely publicised by DCLG, the fund imposes the condition of sticking to the service you asked for (including maintaining a weekly black bag service) for five years, although the grant only stretches to the first 3 years of the 5 year period. How much additional cost will the successful applicants incur in years four and five? And how much could have been saved through the introduction of a more modern approach to collection? One client asked us this precise question last summer, and our only conclusion was that the benefits of the fund just don’t stack up and that AWC would provide larger and longer lasting improvements.

A brief analysis of the list of winning projects has revealed a strong flavour of grants being awarded to councils collecting weekly from flats. Lack of in-flat storage and the traditional role of communal bins in high rise developments make weekly, or even biweekly collections the obvious option for flats and hard to reach properties yet the DCLG fund has not kick-started any innovations in this area.

Most of the successful applications do however, demonstrate significant plans for increasing or modifying their existing recycling and food waste collections “whilst supporting a weekly collection of residual waste”. This mantra flows through almost all of the winning bids, identifying this (their weekly status) as a qualifying feature of their bid. Anyone who innovated was excluded, with only those with weekly residual waste collections being eligible.

Hardly seems fair when many authorities have had to innovate in service design, collection frequency and contract type to deliver efficiencies, improve diversion and enhance public acceptance. We are simply rewarding authorities for not having progressed sooner. And now the winners’ hands are tied for five years to maintain the current service regardless of recycling performance or operational costs. Is this sounding more than a little mad? Sounds a lot like politics in general – a policy idea comes out and the party / person can’t back down for fear of losing face. At this rate Eric Pickles will never be credible in the waste sector, not in my generation anyway!

About a third of the grants has been given to plans for incentivised recycling and reward schemes. This is an interesting development, reflecting the swing of opinion in the sector over the last 12 months, as many councils have long wanted to start up a similar scheme, but have never had the cash. The best historical example has been Windsor and Maidenhead in partnership with Veolia and Recyclebank which offers shopping vouchers to participating residents. Although successful in raising volumes for a couple of years, the Royal Borough found its recycling rate stalling earlier this year. Now with close to 30 authorities with cash to implement schemes we will be able to test their effectiveness on a significant scale for the first time. And then we can compare it to the success of AWC, and let local authorities make better informed decisions in 5 years time, or whenever they next go out to tender.

What surprised me about the DCLG grant, was its total allocation. Observing the confused evaluation process (which would have been frankly illegal were it subject to European procurement rules), the hostility in the press and the pessimistic attitude of many bidders, I had assumed that the total size of the pie would be reduced. But it seems the fund has been exhausted almost in its entirety, that’s £250 million sterling distributed to schemes, some of which will do very well but most of which will probably end up costing their recipients extra in terms of operational fees, landfill tax, missed efficiency savings and material incomes. To put it in context, £250 million pounds could have built about 20 anaerobic digestion plants, or a couple of small CHP facilities, or maybe five MRFs, or countless community reuse and refurbishment schemes all around the country. Add to this hundreds of waste prevention programmes and a myriad of other community activities which could improve recycling, reduce waste and cut costs, and the rationale for the fund seems even less sound.

To add insult to injury, Mr Pickles has been in the papers, effectively threatening progressive councils that their formula grant funding may be reviewed if they do not provide a weekly service in the near future. I’m eagerly waiting to catch the breakfast news over the coming days as this message ‘hits the fan’ and council leaders and contractors respond in varying degrees of disbelief. So much for DCLG and UK Government being about ‘local’. They promoted local decisions, local solutions, local engagement and local opportunities, so why is it that one of their flagship programmes is taking the local out of decision-making and forcing authorities to do it my way or get no funding? It must be no surprise that so many authorities didn’t submit entries, they could face up to the pain it would create.

It’s been a bleak day for the waste management industry. I genuinely congratulate all the grant recipients and sincerely hope they will put the funds to good use without suffering unnecessary costs in three years’ time. But overall, Mr Pickles is singlehandedly undermining a lot of good work done by this industry over the last few years, and I wish he would let the sector do the right thing, after all we are the professionals!

Global commodities and the need for a closed loop European Economy - the challenge has been set!

Mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:30:00 +0000

Resource risks and closed loop economies are hot topics for waste and resource professionals and the wider media at present, with coverage in all the major newspapers of late concerning restrictions on exports of recyclables from the UK. Just last week the Chinese President Hu Jintao confirmed the importance of a circular economy, just days before it emerged that China was cracking down on imports of poor quality recyclates – most of which are shipped from the EU (in particular the UK). Recyclate markets, international trade and the substitution of virgin materials for secondary source materials are not new issues for professionals in this space, but they are now some of the biggest challenges facing local authorities and large corporates alike. Investments in new processing technology or collection infrastructure can quickly be undermined by changing global prices for paper or aluminium, and given the uncertainty of private finance any small market fluctuation in prices can cause chaos throughout the proposed supply chain, leaving plans on the drawing room floor.

Clearly secondary commodity markets have never been as topical as they are today, which is why I was fortunate to have been asked to present at the Scrapex Secondary Commodities Market Conference on Tuesday this week, where 70 delegates discussed a range of issues critical to global commodity trading and the future of closed loop economies including recyclate quality, financing, EU policy and international trade restrictions. At times I felt a little bit like a fish out of water, considering global markets for the first time since leaving university 16 years ago, but these issues are absolutely key for waste professionals, recyclers, manufactures, reprocessors, and those responsible for the growth of the UK economy, including our elected politicians. And as such, it was a shame that there was so little representation from Defra, WRAP or BIS at the event, but I hope they get to see the materials and are kept informed of the debates through tweets, blogs and articles in the trade press – of which I am assured there will be many. After all these issues are fundamental to the future sustainability of the global economy and our current standard of living!

Key highlights from the conference included hearing that:

- Secondary commodities market will decline in value by 15% over the next 3 years (copper will be worth $5000/ tonne in 2014 compared to $7600 today);

- Changes in the supply (volume) of recyclate have little impact on the price – it is very much driven by the price for virgin commodities and the costs of substitution (i.e. labour, energy etc);

- Currency risk can also have a significant impact, as changes in the exchange rate between the dollar and British pound can result in significant changes to the income received for recylate;

- China dominates the export market for UK recyclate, in particular paper and plastics, at the expense of the traditional European market – China has traditionally accepted poorer quality materials, but this is now changing with more stringent requirements being imposed;

- UK paper quality is falling, making our material less desirable. UK paper can contain up to 30% moisture – this is not what the market wants;

- UK MRFs continue to be built with external stockyards – which significantly impacts the quality of material (in particular paper); and

- There is insufficient domestic reprocessing capacity. Wales and Scotland have a preference for local closed loop solutions, and this will quickly overwhelm existing markets. Until new infrastructure is developed this may end up being landfilled as international markets are also becoming saturated.

There was a lengthy and heated debate about the role of MRFs in delivering quality feedstock to end users (reprocessors) both in Europe and further afield. Ricardo-AEA’s MRF specialist Nia Owen explained in detail how the whole supply chain is important for ensuring quality feedstock reaches the end reprocessor from the home-owner or business through the collection crew and MRF. Better enforcement is needed, standards need to be consistent and their level raised, and greater communication and engagement are required if everyone is to play their part in improving feedstock quality. Without better quality our global markets for paper, aluminium and plastic will quickly disappear as the growing middle classes in China, India and Brazil provide growing volumes of materials for their domestic markets.

The closed loop economy concept is not only a current debate for China, but is equally on the agenda in the EU and UK. I was asked to present my thoughts on what this might mean for secondary commodity markets in Europe, and I took the chance to explore how it might work with the support of the UK waste sector (see my presentation). The EU Resource Efficiency Roadmap was issued in 2011 and sets out clearly the steps to be taken in each Member State to achieve a more resource efficient economy, including targeting sectors like transport, food and manufacturing, and setting out key milestones for 2020 and beyond. This is an excellent vision of what needs to happen, but it lacks the teeth to impose change, and whilst a resource efficient Europe makes sense to most rationale individuals it makes less sense to national politicians in each country who are trying to improve resource productivity and economic development in their own nation. This is not going to be an easy roadmap to follow, and given the difficult economic conditions across the globe we cannot expect much in the way of investment in new closed loop solutions anytime soon. The ideal of closed loop systems in Europe will be reliant on the waste industry capturing the target materials at source, which for paper and metals is OK at present, but for some future target materials is a long way off…..

However, the current economic climate is driving businesses to rethink their supply chains, assess resource scarcity risks and plan for material substitution so that UK businesses are not left floundering when China stops exporting rare earth metals for example. As far back as December 2010 we undertook a study on behalf of Defra to understand the risks that resource scarcity may have on UK industry and economic prosperity. The findings remain true today: Antimony, Cobalt, Indium, Lithium, Niobium, Platinum, Rare earth metals, Tin and Tungsten are all at risk in the near future to the UK and Europe, with China controlling 50-90% of all of the global production of these elements.

According to Liz Goodwin CEO of WRAP last week - “In a recent survey 80% of UK based CEOs of manufacturing companies said raw material shortage was a risk to their business. A 147% surge in real commodity prices since 2000, and the uncertainty being caused by historically high levels of price volatility are hampering investment and economic growth.”

If our plans for a high-tech, low carbon future are to come true (hybrid cards, renewable energy, lean manufacturing etc.) then we will need batteries, products and machinery reliant on these increasingly scarce materials. The challenge facing the EU and the UK is to ‘urban mine’ the bins of UK homes and businesses for metals, electronics, and other items that contain these materials – however small they are. We need to invest in new collection infrastructure and whether it be in the UK or in Europe we need appropriate reprocessing facilities to segregate these valuable commodities for use in our (re)manufacturing sectors.

The future will be tough, and we need to take hard decisions soon about how we secure these materials and how we reduce our reliance on international markets. We need a strong European secondary materials market supporting European businesses and that needs Government leadership, Industry leadership and funding. The UK Government has published its Resource Security Action Plan (May 2012) and with this there is some expectation that the leadership we need is on the horizon. I hope that the UK Government embraces what the UK waste sector has to offer and works with them to design new opportunities to segregate, collect and reprocess these valuable materials in a way that enables economic growth, job creation and greater synergy between private, public and 3rd sectors all of whom are key to this business model transition that we all accept we need. The waste sector is transitioning into the resource logistics sector and this transition is key for our transition from a linear to circular economy – the bin men of yesteryear will be at the heart of our new resource efficient Europe.

Thankfully, with investors, technology providers, local authorities and community representatives all in attendance, the discussions and debate from this conference could help pave the way for greater syenergies, joined-up thinking, dialogue and implementation. But only time will tell. According to the experts in the room, we are running out of time (and resources) pretty fast – so someone needs to act now!

Junior Apprentice from rags to riches?

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:00:00 +0000

Yes I own up to being a self-confessed Lord Sugar fan, my previous blogs
pay testament to this. He is not everyone’s cup of tea, but this is a chap
that makes business happen and likes to keep it simple, he is also keen
to develop a new portfolio of entrepreneurs to help UK plc escape the
recession. As such, I was delighted to settle down in front of the TV
last night to see the opening episode of the Junior Apprentice,
with a £25,000 prize for the winner, and I was even happier when the task in hand for the budding entrepreneurs was to generate income from bags of old textiles, rags and clothing – another topic close to my heart as a waste and resource consultant.

There are over 1 million tonnes of textiles currently being re-used, recycled and utilised in the UK each year, and this figure is growing as the recession makes consumer choices that little bit easier (lets visit a local charity shop to get a bargain) and encourages local authorities and 3rd sector organisations to collect these materials for income and for obvious environmental benefits – after all the carbon footprint of used clothing is exceptionally high. The contestants were
divided into 2 teams (boys and girls, no surprise there) and delivered at one of two depots
in central London to sort bags full of old clothing etc.

The task was easy, identify stuff that could be sold for profit, or which with a quick wash, some tailoring or repair, could be turned around in 24 hours and sold on to customers at a number of designated pitches in London. This is where it all started to go wrong for the boys as their designated Project Manager (Patrick McDowell) decided to focus on how to accessorize (possibly a form of up-cycling for the waste industry specialists) a wetsuit with a sarong to create ‘real fashion statement’ without understanding who the customers would be in the retail outlets they would be selling from and more importantly what they might want to buy – good clean brands – Levis, Diesel etc. The boys’ approach flew in the face of the advice given my one trendy retro clothing store manager who stated ‘don’t over-modify the garments, people want to buy authentic and the cost of modifications will almost always outstrip any additional income derived from the sale.’ Unfortunately the boys weren’t listening…..

Unsurprisingly the more commercially astute girls team (led by trainee accountant Ashleigh Porter-Exley) focused on well-known brand items and avoided the temptation to create new items (or worse hybrid items), favouring the simple approach of identify brands, wash and sell. As a result the girls came up trumps. They sold £554 of garments and made an overall profit of £453, whilst the boys sold only £501 and made a profit of £330.Lord Sugar rightly identified that the girls’ had ‘kept a better eye on their costs’ (the girls spent £102 compared the boys £171), and the girls had focused on getting the best out of what they had rather than trying to increase the value of what they had – and it worked. Perhaps more worrying for the boys was the fact that their iconic ‘wetsuit come sarong’ fashion statement was nothing more than an eyesore, it never looked like being sold!

As always the best bit about the Apprentice (and the junior version) was the Boardroom. Max ‘the academic’, David ‘the rough and tumble’ and Patrick ‘the fashion designer’ all staked their claim to stay and expressed their concerns about their peers. Patrick was clearly out of his depth, he should have been perfect for the role, but struggled commercially. However, Lord Sugar found fault in them all in terms of people skills, team work and commitment. It was ‘dog eat dog’ in the board room and Max was fired for his lack of ‘delivery’ and because on the whole he was note suited to a sales environment. Probably the right choice, but to be honest any of them could have gone!

Reflecting back on the show, I think the key message for those of us in waste and resource management is that old clothing and textiles do have a value and if you apply sound business principles to their collection and resale you can make money. The budding apprentices have learnt their first business lesson and I look forward to seeing how they progress and develop over the coming 7 weeks. As a business manager currently looking for new recruits and opportunities, I will be watching this crop of teenage talent closely; who knows one of them may have been bitten by the recycling bug and find their way into our sector in a few years’ time, I hope so, we need some new blood!

Role on next Thursday, it’s the cookery book challenge, and I intend to relax and enjoy the trials and tribulations without thinking too hard about it. After all like the rest of us in the sector, whenever a waste programme is on TV we can’t just enjoy it, we are looking at the inaccuracies of the reporting, the things that should have happened and how we as the ‘experts’ would have done things. You know it’s true…..

So credit where credit is due, these 17 year olds are really applying themselves to some awkward situations and are constantly looking for commercial opportunities – good luck to them all, and keep up the entertainment!

The real ale question: can it or bottle it?

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:00:00 +0100

When the dinner conversation turns to the life-cycle benefits of using aluminium cans versus glass bottles for real ale (or ‘craft beer’ as our American cousins would say), you know you're in the company of waste geeks. This was the thought that passed through my head whilst relaxing with ERG colleagues over a tasty meal in Boston last week. Clearly though, as I am sure those of you who appreciate good beer would agree, it's an important question.

On the face of it, glass seems to be the ideal material for manufacturing drinks containers. It's relatively easy to recycle (that is, there is a well-established system and market for recycling container glass) and, even better perhaps, there is the potential to actually reuse the bottles which, intuitively, might suggest a much enhanced materials and environmental benefit. And surely, aluminium is an environmental evil due to the enormous environmental burden of its mining and refinement?

However, this question is not as straight forward as it might seem. Glass drinks containers are heavy. They require energy to transport and appropriate packaging to ensure that they arrive at the customer unbroken. The energy required to recycle these containers is not insignificant either and, if the containers are down cycled into lower value products such as aggregates, then the resulting benefit of recycling is not particularly high.

But, what about reusing containers? Well, that's not straightforward either. Returning used glass containers has a burden in terms of energy use, more packaging and the energy and water quality impacts of the washing process. This approach also suffers from practical constraints. Your average corner shop does not have the space to collect and store large volumes of glass bottles. Add to that, the requirement to send bottles back to specific suppliers because each glass is different and the practical problems can start to get insurmountable.

Now if we consider aluminium, then we are dealing with a very different set of burdens and impacts. Aluminium is a costly material to mine but it now has a big recycled content and, contrary to plastics, can be recycled back into its original use relatively effectively. Aluminium cans are also light, which means that they are easy to transport and return to an appropriate point for recycling.

So, the quandary is not as simple as it seems. What you need to use is a life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach, and that's where the waste management geeks come in or, more specifically, where we need the input of some excellent life-cycle analysts like my colleagues at AEA and ERG. The LCA team at ERG has developed a powerful web-based tool which can be tailored for just this type of quandary (see screen shot below). Also, AEA and ERG are running a series of webinars on LCA discussing the issues associated with making complex decisions about different packaging systems and other products. I’d highly recommend joining or viewing one of these very informative sessions.

Clearly, we have the tools available to help us use a rationale, evidence-based approach to a wide range of environmental quandaries, whether that is assessing the benefits and disbenefits of a particular packaging system, or considering the environmental burdens associated with the manufacture, use and disposal of an iPad.

But wherever this evidence trail leads, we also have to remember that there is still a strong consumer behaviour component to choosing your preferred beverage container, and this is perhaps an issue where UK and US consumers are literally an ocean apart. When it comes to real ale, whilst the Americans will always choose to can it, I certainly would prefer to bottle it. It just tastes better!

My thanks to Simon Gandy for his help in composing this blog post.

Social media: why it's good to talk

Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:00:00 +0100

Driving dialogue and debate on key waste issues through the use of twitter or facebook is both valuable and cost-effective. So get connected.

The internet is where things are happening, from product launches to new relationships. At a recent conference in Washington DC where we presented our thoughts on community engagement and waste infrastructure delivery, a significant amount of time was dedicated to communications and engagement issues, in particular the role of social media.

Social media is about people - one in five couples today meet online and the same number of divorces are blamed on Facebook. More than 66% of adults are connected to one or more social media platforms and use them daily to 'keep in touch'. YouTube is the second largest search engine in the world, and if Facebook were a country it would be the world's third largest after China and India in terms of population.

In the UK there were 38.3 million Internet users in 2010 - that's 77% of the population. Over 60% access the internet every day, 45% of them accessing it via mobile phones, laptops and other Wi-Fi enabled devices. Half of mobile internet traffic in the UK is related to Facebook, making it an ideal platform to reach target audiences for public and private sector organisations alike.

Recent data suggests that 90% of consumers trust peer recommendations whilst only 14% trust advertisements. Ninety-three per cent of marketers use social media for their routine business, and 80% of companies use social media for recruitment, with 95% using LinkedIn. Is your business actively engaged in the social media revolution?

Social media isn't some passing fad, it's a fundamental shift in the way that we communicate, as revolutionary as the invention of the printing press. It isn't a question any longer of whether our industry adopts social media, it is about how much resource should we dedicate to it, what messages should we target and how can we improve our reach?

In Canada, the Regional Municipality of Halton embraced the social media zeitgeist and its approach is enlightened and full of momentum. It has a comprehensive social media strategy spanning newsfeeds, Twitter, Facebook, blogging and YouTube across eight different municipal services. Their approach is enshrined in their corporate and waste management strategies - it's a core activity, not an add-on.

The waste management team of 10 each works a half-day social media 'shift' once every week to fit in with their day jobs. The team uses the following social media platforms: blogging with regular entries including descriptions of events, service videos, and coverage of topical issues; and twitter tweeting on average 10 times per day across a wide range of subjects, providing 'live information' when needed.

They blog and tweet about everything, sometimes with tenuous but topical links to recycling or waste stories as they follow what's trending online and around the world. The tone is deliberately kept personal and non-corporate. Importantly, the staff have the freedom, within the guidelines, to use their initiative and can be spontaneous. Their blogs and twitter account are widely promoted on all their other communications material, thus driving new followers to these constantly updated feeds.

And the results? Well it's still early days in terms of tonnage impacts, but since January 2012 HaltonRecycles made 925,524 new impressions from 1,572 Twitter mentions, whilst twitter followers have increased by 111%. Their recycling rate is nearly 60% and rising. Halton isn't stopping here either, it's now looking at how to use YouTube more effectively.

By comparison, in the UK the social media revolution associated with the waste and recycling industry feels heavier and more cumbersome - restricted by corporate nervousness about the technology and the openness of the messaging. However, there are some great examples of innovative use of social media and mobile apps by the UK waste sector.

Essex County Council has Gritter Twitter which provides updates on roads that have been gritted and cleared supported by interactive maps. The service also provides information on collection day delays due to poor weather. Many local authorities have dedicated recycling campaign pages with innovations like searchable maps for services and facilities (mainly banks).

In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough the 'Wear it, Love it, Share it' campaign has its own facebook page with all sorts of news and information about textile reuse and recycling. Angus Council in Scotland has a facebook page which ran two posts on the recent launch of its trail food waste collection scheme. And Viridor uses social media as part of its communications suite for proposed infrastructure, including a proposed energy recovery facility in south London. A twitter feed provides updates on progress and answers any questions posed.

So what are the benefits of using social media for an organisation? Does it make a difference? Well yes - according to a SocITM survey, the web is quicker and cheaper for a local authority to convey information (avoided contact) than using the phone or face to face: web transaction = 27p; phone transaction = £3.22; face -to-face transactions = £6.56.

Social media can also help you to connect with traditionally hard to reach groups, in particular young people, from teenagers to professionals. The platforms can also be localised so that messages and campaigns can be tailored for the whole UK or a single block of flats as required.

It can also increase engagement and ownership, by developing dialogue and debate rather than just information giving. It encourages partnership development and can link organisations or parts of the community that were not previously in touch. With increasing organizational engagement in social media, best practice continues to be showcased and new businesses and local authorities turn their hand to the internet to help get the most from their dwindling marketing budgets.

If your organisation is considering social media, then think carefully about what platform would best suit your needs, how much time you can dedicate to it and how it fits in with your current communications plan.

Gareth Morton’s colleagues Sarahjane Widdowson and Adam Read also contributed to this article which was originally featured on Edie.net (5 October 2012)

Highlights from the International Solid Waste Association's annual conference

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:30:00 +0100

If you have attended the International Solid Waste Association's annual conference, or similar conferences, you’ll be familiar with the general sense of these events - the scale of organisation needed to get so many people organised around a complex agenda, the gentle background chatter of presentations being translated live, the huddles of delegates from different parts of the world and sector. Think United Nations meets a refuse vehicle sales event meets an academic coffee morning.

The number and diversity of topics and presentations at this year’s congress in Florence was mind boggling. At times the event felt like a speed dating session for waste management geeks. If you had the stamina, you could potentially pack in 25 seminars in a single day!

Along with my colleague, Maria Vinogradova, I attended this year’s conference to speak about the approach to zero waste that is being taken by the different nations of the UK, and on the communications toolkit which AEA developed for Wales. Both were well received and contributed to the vibrant debate taking place on these issues in the sector. It is clear that the approach to zero waste taken by different nations and policy makers varies widely. Time will tell where the oft cited ‘path to zero waste’ actually leads.

I also attended other sessions on landfill, WEEE, communications, waste prevention, climate change and on waste management in rapidly developing low income countries. I heard from some truly inspiring speakers and gained a global picture of a sector which is often seen as a local issue. Here are the digested highlights and key themes:

1) Waste prevention could save EU business billions
David Wilson, the master of conceptual frameworks for waste policy analysis, gave a well evidenced presentation on his review of waste prevention research for Defra. The evidence suggests that waste prevention has the potential to save EU businesses something in the region of 600 billion USD! But it appears to be a missed opportunity due to a lack of leadership, resources and awareness. Maybe it’s time, especially given the legal requirement, for each EU nation to publish a National Waste Prevention Plan?

2) Waste management solutions need to be tailored to the local context
There is no 'one size fits all'. We heard about several energy from waste facilities that have fallen into disuse or have been deactivated because of operating costs or on-going maintenance issues (e.g. the Efw in Lagos was dismantled for scrap because the waste stream was too organic to support economic combustion).

3) Environmental education and communication is essential
You cannot change practice overnight. A particular highlight for me was the case study given by a speaker from Bolivia who illustrated the power of environmental education in schools. A survey they conducted indicated that residents of Cochabamba in Bolivia, where open tipping is prevalent, are not particularly concerned with waste issues and a more worried about health and water supply issues. The project therefore decided to introduce education on environmental issues in schools to raise awareness. The presentation included a powerful video showing the teachers in action.

4) View waste management sector in the context of climate change
The waste management sector has the potential to make a big contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so it's important we reinforce that link to ensure that waste projects deliver the wide range of benefits which they can. One case study illustrated how composting, anaerobic digestion and biochar projects in Ghana were developed and assessed to see whether they could potentially be supported by trade in carbon credits. In short, the price of carbon credits is too low but perhaps this will change. Interestingly, the biochar option was the best in terms of carbon balance.

Finally, whilst landfill may be a bad word in Europe, it is clearly very important in large parts of the globe. In fact, it was shockingly apparent from a number of presentations that the key need in many parts of the developing world is for properly engineered sanitary landfill as a replacement for uncontrolled dumping.

The case study presented by one speaker on landfill rehabilitation in Guatemala City will stay with me. In this city, waste is typically tipped into deep ravines. Sewage from houses also drains into these channels. However, there are still valuable materials in the refuse so scavengers pick over the pools of waste materials, including some brave (and desperate) individuals who dive into the putrid cocktail with magnets to retrieve valuable metals. Against this backdrop, it is easy to appreciate the message delivered by Derek Greedy in his presentation: properly engineered landfill still has its place and, in many parts of the world, it is an essential step.

4 key messages for the sector: Alistair Campbell, RWM 2012

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:00:00 +0100

When Alistair Campbell (@campbellclaret), advisor and friend to former Prime Minister Blair,
is just one of a number of high profile speakers at RWM 2012, you know that the sector is
being taken seriously.

RWM is the UK’s (and possibly Europe’s) biggest waste and recycling event and this year attracted bigger than ever crowds and delegations from all over the world, including a delegation of Australian waste specialists which AEA facilitated. I was lucky enough to attend with AEA colleagues who were exhibiting new AEA services and presenting at several plenary sessions. And while it's fair to say that Campbell is not a waste, resource or even environmental specialist (he is a self-confessed science-phobe), he did have some powerful insight to share with the sector.

Campbell reminisced on his experiences with Tavistock Wastesavers in the eighties, the small West Devon town where he cut his teeth as a journalist at the Tavistock Times (no, I'm not kidding). Interestingly, West Devon District is still one of the best performing councils in England in terms of recycling.

However, Campbell's view on the sector is interesting as it gives a political and media perspective. If we don't pay close attention to how the sector is perceived and fits into this world, especially the unique world of Westminster, then we are surely doomed to the wheelie bin of uninteresting topics and, as a sector, we will lose out in the increasingly competitive fight for policy priority, support and, crucially, funding.

Campbell had four main messages for the sector:

1) Environmental and waste issues are now central to policy-making and have a key influence on policy thinking. We have come a long way in the 30-odd years since Tavistock Wastesavers.

2) The sector's relationship with the relevant government minister is key. A popular minister who is seen to be doing a good job by the sector and the public is difficult to shift in a reshuffle!

3) To form that powerful link with the minister and influence the development of policy, we need to speak to their agenda. A minister and his or her advisors do not necessarily want to hear about the nuances of anaerobic digestion technology, but they do want to hear about job creation associated with waste treatment.

4) Despite the significant progress we have made in the past three decades, there is a real danger that waste and wider environmental issues, such as climate change, are back-sliding. Environmental issues are no longer in the top five of key issues in public poles. This is not too surprising given the global economic crisis but still a concern.

Overall, Campbell's message was that, as a sector, we need to be proactive. We need to influence policy, maintain visibility with decision-makers in government and ensure that environmental and waste issues are kept in the public (and media's) consciousness. In Campbell's words, we need 'to be the change. Not waiting for the change'.

Reducing global carbon emissions by improving waste management systems - is it just a lot of methane?

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:30:00 +0100

The waste sector is estimated to account for 5% of global carbon emissions and a staggering 50%
of methane emissions. The lion’s share of these methane emissions are associated with the escape of this powerful greenhouse gas from waste decomposing in landfills; the majority of landfills at a global level are not lined and have no landfill gas capture systems – unlike current UK practices.

Addressing this source of climate changing emissions has been, and continues to be, a priority for action. Capturing landfill gas and, where possible, using it for power generation has a double benefit: reducing direct emissions and displacing the use of some fossil fuels to create energy.

Global action

Much has been done on this issue since the development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). For instance, the well-established Clean Development Mechanism, developed under the UNFCCC, provided a framework for the funding and development of landfill gas capture systems at landfills in the developing world. The Bandeirantes Landfill Gas to Energy plant in Brazil is an example of one such scheme funded through this mechanism and is one of the largest in the world. In developed nations, much has been achieved using conventional regulatory approaches; the European Union, for example, has reduced the carbon emissions from its landfill activities to half the level in 1990 through the implementation of the Landfill Directive. The Global Methane Initiative is also been very active in this field, supporting activities to reduce methane emissions from a range of sectors, including landfills in the waste sector.

But there are also a range of other actions focusing on wider waste management practices beyond landfill which have a part to play in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from improving recycling systems through to product design issues and waste prevention activities. Recycling one tonne of waste plastic for instance, can save around a tonne in carbon emissions when compared with the impacts of landfilling this material. Even more strikingly, preventing this waste plastic in the first place, through better product or packaging design, could save almost three times this level.

So does the international community incentivise, fund and facilitate these wider activities?

The relative new concept of ‘NAMA’ may provide the potential framework for these activities. A NAMA is not, as a quick Google search would suggest, a forum for American mushroom enthusiasts (the North American Mycological Association).

No. In this context, it refers to Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions. These are actions that a nation takes to reduce its carbon emissions. They can take all sorts of forms, ranging from broad policies supporting the development of low carbon technologies to projects focused on a particular city or region to improve infrastructure at a local level. Essentially, the concept of a NAMA provides a flexible framework for a nation to develop activities for reducing its carbon emissions and, importantly, allow these actions to be recognised in the context of the international climate change agenda and thus gain support from developed nations, the private sector or carbon markets.

I was lucky enough recently to be involved in undertaking a review of NAMAs in the waste sector for the Global Methane Initiative. Working with colleagues at ERG, we undertook a review of existing NAMAs in the waste sector to understand how they are developing and to see where the gaps in activity and knowledge exist.

There are a number of NAMAs being developed across the world in waste, including in Peru, Jordan, Tunisia and Thailand. Overall, we found that the nature of NAMAs which have been developed to date for the waste sector vary widely. Jordan, for instance, is developing a NAMA focused upon improving waste infrastructure in the city of Amman as part of a wider Green Growth Programme. Peru meanwhile is developing what would be called a ‘top-down’ NAMA, a wide suite of activities to reduce carbon emissions from waste management. Interestingly, all the NAMAs have support of one sort or other with institutions in developed nations, with supporters comprising a diverse range of organisations such as the World Bank, the Japan’s Ministry of Environment, GIZ, Ecofys and the Inter-American Development Bank.

The diversity of supporters and types of NAMAs being developed explains the wide variation in the approaches which have been used in the development of the NAMAs and the approaches being developed to monitor, report and verify (MRV) the effect of the NAMAs in carbon terms. There is clearly a need to build capacity in this area and to rationalise the approaches being used to develop, facilitate and monitor these activities.

Tailored approaches for reducing emissions

It is early days for NAMAs and for the development of these activities in the waste sector in particular. But overall, the NAMA concept represents an excellent opportunity to drive forward a range of activities which reduce the carbon emissions associated with waste management.

And the attraction of a NAMA approach is that activities can be tailored to the individual circumstances in a particular country or locality and, at the same time, allow this action to be recognised and supported in line with international climate change agreements. So a country that is still largely dependent upon landfill can focus on improving landfill gas capture. A country which has access to mature markets for recyclate materials can target the development of systems and infrastructure for capturing recyclable materials. When it comes to taking action to reducing carbon emissions across the world, there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Talking Trash in Texas

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:38:45 +0100

Adam Read, Mark Broomfield and I have just returned from the US Air and Waste Management Association annual conference in Texas. It was a very hot and sunny week in San Antonio, home of the Alamo, the San Antonio Spurs and as much Tex Mex as one could ever eat. It wasn’t all fajitas and margaritas though, with conference sessions starting at 8am, and going on until 6pm in the evening.

We presented six papers (available at www.slideshare.net/AEA_Europe) across four different conference sessions, enabling us to get into some interesting debate about what’s hot and what’s not in the US waste management sector.

Trash, garbage, yard waste, and tipping fees were all foreign sounding terms at first, but there were many familiar terms too. Zero Waste, MRFs, Kerbside recycling (or curbside!), and alternate weekly collections and were all very much on the agenda for debate.

Certain peculiarities raised a few eyebrows though, such as the ability of states to pass ‘Flow Control’ laws which protect their investment in landfills by passing state laws banning all waste from leaving the state, even to recycling sites!

One interesting presentation outlined a study being done in Canada to maximise methane production from a landfill where for much of the year waste is placed in sub-zero temperatures. A valid piece of research perhaps, but led us to ask the question that perhaps it would be more useful to remove the biodegradable waste from the waste stream in the first place?

Perhaps the most striking difference between the US and the UK is our attitudes to landfill. With so much space, landfill is still king in the US. We were surprised that a map of US EfW plants showed only 86 plants in total. These are mainly clustered around the heavily populated East coast states. Texas is almost 3 times the size of the UK, and has none.

It wasn’t difficult to understand why there were less than we thought though. As well as the abundance of space, landfill tipping fees can be as low as $21 (£14). There is also no equivalent of the EU landfill directive or other similar legislative drivers to divert waste from landfill. Perhaps a bit surprising that any EfW plants get built at all?

When they do get built, it seems a much less tortuous process – with some recent examples of planning being awarded in as little as ten months!

We got a great welcome from our ERG colleagues and the people of Texas in general. Many of us are guilty of stereotyping Americans as being our gas-guzzling, mass-consuming, un-environmentally friendly cousins. So, what was the reality? Emboldened by a few beverages one evening, we put the question to some of our new American friends and fellow conference-goers. Was their idea of environmentally friendly turning the air-conditioning up? Or was waste management simply making sure the waste disposal system in the kitchen sink worked OK? Worryingly, they seemed to agree with our assumptions, and estimated that 75% of Americans matched the stereotype.

One thing that the US does do much better than us is doggy bags! In all the restaurants we visited, it was a common sight to see waiters delivering polystyrene containers to neighbouring tables for every scrap of leftovers to be taken home. Whilst we may get away with this in a pizza restaurant, it’s hard to imagine most restaurants at home doing this. Of course, it could be that if US portions were a little smaller, there would be no need for doggy bags, but that is a whole other issue!

Our overall conclusion was that the US is working towards many similar goals to the UK, and there are some good steps in the right direction. However, progress is slower and perhaps more than a couple of years behind where we are.

Given the lack of state or federal legislation, it was heartening to hear that some states are making improvements and efforts to reduce and recycle. Our host city of San Antonio has a Zero Waste policy, and has recently piloted food waste collections in 30,000 homes in the city. At the same time though, a feasibility study undertaken on behalf of the city concluded emphatically that there was no viable and proven EfW currently on the market that could compete economically with landfill. Cost remains the sole driver, as the charismatic 6”8’ ex-basketball player who is now Director of Waste at San Antonio cheerfully admitted. So, if anyone has a solution that can beat $21/tonnes, we recommend you get on a plane to Texas, y’all be very welcome!

Can waste contract procurement be simple?

Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:30:00 +0100

Gone are the days of the Private Finance Initiative and with it perhaps the preference for long-term waste management contracts procured through complex, lengthy and expensive procurement processes.

Experience has shown that councils have sometimes been lumbered with long term contracts which are not suited to the fast moving world of waste management, resource efficiency and wider environmental policy. Only this week Cheshire West and Cheshire Councils announced their intention to procure a short-term contract for managing their residual municipal waste and they are not alone in this experience. Other councils which have faced a similar need to revise their long-term waste contracting plans as a result of changing circumstance include Gloucestershire, Buckinghamshire and Derbyshire.

Similarly, the private sector has also lost confidence (and money) by bidding for contracts which may, in the end, not be let or which change markedly from that which was originally intended. These experiences are certain to make the private sector more cautious in its bidding activities and lead to it proposing more risk averse solutions. Clearly, the planning system has played a role in the delay or abandonment of a number of energy from waste projects, Cornwall and Derbyshire to name but two. A number of schemes have hit the buffers as a result of failure to obtain planning for the solution which the council bought. However, it can also be argued that there are other systemic reasons for the failure of contracts.

Big is not always beautiful

All these factors are beginning to drive a change in the way in which councils procure solutions. Big contracts and commensurately long procurement processes are not the only answer. Short-term contracts, if designed well, can give councils much needed flexibility and reduce procurement costs. It’s an approach which is particularly appropriate for smaller authorities. Councils also know that there are other factors and options available including partnering with neighbours and linking with community organisations to deliver services.

If a council needs a solution for managing its waste and recyclables then, in today’s market, it is possible to use a smart procurement process to go out and buy this solution. In the UK, we have benefitted over the past decade from the development of a state-of-the-art and competitive waste market. There are numerous large and small operators who can respond to an individual Council’s needs and provide the solution they need.

Keep it simple stupid

The procurement of municipal waste services has become a lengthy process of numerous stages and acronyms, requiring significant resources from the client and from bidders, not to mention the platoon of advisors which all parties need to martial in order to find a solution to their particular waste quandary.

On the surface, this would seem to be because developing and delivering waste infrastructure and services is an increasingly complex process. The sector has changed beyond all recognition over the last three decades. Gone are the days when local, cheap landfill was the disposal option of choice for a most councils. The market is filled with a plethora of operators offering tried and tested or weird and wonderful solutions for managing municipal waste and recovered materials. Waste and recycling in the UK has evolved into one in which the most successful operators are the ones who can master the nuances of process engineering as well as the logistics of haulage operations.

But this complexity does not mean that the overall objectives of any particular service are complex and, as a result, it is possible to use a procurement process which is similarly based on simple principles, processes and stages. This doesn’t mean increasing the risk of legal challenge. Challenges to the procurement process launched by unsuccessful bidders and other interested parties are commonly based on a lack of consistency in the procurement process and a council’s wider policies. Ultimately, simplicity has many virtues and can serve to reduce risk rather than increase it.

Procurement Lite?

If a council’s requirements and priorities can be defined and expressed clearly and married to a logical and fair procurement process, then the market will respond by offering competitive, effective and perhaps even elegant solutions. And if this approach can be founded on the bedrock of robust support from elected members and put into action by capable, well-resourced council officers, then local authorities can obtain excellent solutions to their waste management needs and, at the same time, save money and resources.

So maybe it’s time for ‘procurement-lite’?