Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan · Getting Auckland’s Waste Sorted is the first...

getting auckland’s waste sortedJune 2012

auckland waste ManageMent and MiniMisation Plan

contentsFOREWORD 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

PART A: AUCklAnD nOW AnD InTO ThE FUTURE 12

1 IntroductIon 13

1.1 context for Auckland waste management 15

1.2 Legislative and policy framework 16

2 VISIOn AnD GUIDInG PRInCIPlES 22

2.1 Vision 22

2.2 targets 23

2.3 Strategic objectives 24

2.4 Guiding principles 25

2.5 tangata whenua world view on waste management and minimisation 26

2.6 role of the council 27

2.7 Public health protection 28

2.8 Monitoring and reporting progress 28

3 ThE CURREnT SITUATIOn: FInDInGS FROM ThE AUCklAnD COUnCIl WASTE ASSESSMEnT 28

3.1 Summary of key findings 28

4 lOOkInG TO ThE FUTURE 30

4.1 Future waste projections 30

4.2 Future resource recovery/recycling projections 31

4.3 Summary of future demand drivers 31

PART B: FUnDInG 32

1 oVErVIEW 33

2 ProPoSEd APProAcH 35

3 FInAncIALS 36

PART C: ACTIOn PlAn 38

1 IntroductIon to tHE ActIon PLAn 40

1.1 Strategic context 40

1.2 the action plan process 41

1.3 criteria for identifying and assessing options 41

2 kEY METhODS 41

2.1 Standardise funding methods for domestic waste and recycling services 41

2.2 Kerbside refuse receptacles 43

2.3 Move towards a consistent domestic kerbside recycling service across the region 45

2.4 Introduce a domestic kerbside organic waste collection 48

2.5 regional inorganic collection 49

2.6 develop a resource recovery network (rrn) 50

2.7 Support business - particularly in the construction and demolition industries 52

2.8 Advocate for product stewardship 52

2.9 Advocate for amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 54

2.10 Facilitate local enterprise 54

2.11 Investigate enacting a waste bylaw 55

2.12 Hauraki Gulf Islands 55

2.13 Implement a Strategic Framework for communication, Waste Minimisation Programmes and community development 56

3 ACTIOnS AnD IMPlEMEnTATIOn 59

3.1 Waste policy and operational actions 61

3.2 communications and Waste Minimisation Programmes 73

PART D: APPEnDICES 76

Appendix 1: Auckland council Waste Assessment 77

Appendix 2: Monitoring and reporting Framework 77

Appendix 3: community Grants Scheme Framework 80

Appendix 4: options for domestic Kerbside organic Waste collection and domestic Inorganic Waste Services 81

TABlE OF DEFInITIOnS 86

Printed on cocoon offset recycled, made from 100% FSc certified post-consumer waste, processed chlorine free, using K+E Bio vegetable based inks and citrus cleaners.

PLAcEMEnt to coME FroM PrIntEr

Forewordthe way we deal with waste in the 21st century is challenging cities in every part of the globe in unprecedented ways.

I fully recognise that changes have to be made if we are to protect and enhance Auckland in the future. tackling this complex issue will require courage, creativity and resolve.

this is a challenging task. I will be taking a close personal interest in our progress over the next few years.

this difficult issue touches everyone. It signals change to a smaller or greater degree for every household, but these are changes that we, as Aucklanders, can make together because we know for sure that they are for the good of the city and for all of us.

this plan is about reducing the waste we throw into the bin, and about recycling and reusing more. We know that many of the resources we depend on, which we have often taken for granted, are becoming scarce. Yet there is so much we can do to ensure that resources we previously regarded as of no use – such as food/green waste and industrial waste – are fully used, and reused, reducing what we send to landfills.

We want to aim high but also make sure we take people with us. In particular, the vulnerable must be protected and supported – that is why any changes will be made carefully over a period of four years.

All the actions that this plan will eventually require of us, are ones we would expect of a country that brands itself as clean and green, and of a city that aspires to be the world’s most liveable.

len Brown Mayor of Auckland

executive suMMaryGetting Auckland’s Waste Sorted is the first Auckland-wide waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP). It is driven by a number of pieces of legislation including the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA), the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government (Auckland transitional Provisions) Act 2010. With the amalgamation of the former councils, Auckland council has seized the unique opportunity to create an integrated suite of waste services across the region in order to significantly reduce waste1 in the medium term, with the long-term aspirational goal of Zero Waste. In a world faced with many major challenges now and in the future, this plan takes a precautionary approach to conserving Auckland’s natural resources and doing it in an economically efficient way.

Any potential change will be done carefully and in stages over the next few years. this will allow time for further collaborative discussions with the waste industry and communities, and to enable an extensive education programme before, during and after any change. At all stages the council will remain open to innovative and creative ideas from both industry and the community.

the plan, including a comprehensive list of actions, is based on the findings of the Auckland council Waste Assessment2, and feedback from a range of community and industry stakeholders. It also reflects the goals and directive of the Auckland Plan.

After analysing current waste services, and the nature of the industry and waste management infrastructure, the Auckland council Waste Assessment concluded that it will be challenging for the council to achieve a significant reduction in waste to landfill under present ownership, governance and operational arrangements. this will need further consideration over time.

this plan focuses on the approximately 17 per cent of the waste stream that the council currently influences (the remaining over 80 per cent is largely controlled by the waste industry, with limited council influence). the plan outlines specific actions that the council proposes to achieve consistent, streamlined, efficient waste services across the Auckland region in the domestic market that it influences and a considerable reduction in waste to landfill. Although the council does not control the services provided by the private sector, it will work collaboratively with the sector in order to achieve an overall reduction in waste to landfill under the legislative requirement to “promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within its district”.

creating a consistent, streamlined service means first addressing the different methods of waste collection, suites of services and funding models operated by the seven former councils. this fragmentation, along with lack of council influence over the waste stream, failed to fully meet the intent of either the WMA or the objectives of the former councils’ waste management plans.

Standardisation of service (with the exception of the Hauraki Gulf Islands, rural areas, some scenic and coastal holiday areas and multi-unit properties) is one way to solve these shortcomings. the council recognises, however, that standardisation does not necessarily mean one size fits all, so will work with local boards and communities to reflect local needs as far as practicable. Working with industry, commerce and the waste sector is also vital, as is understanding the drivers of people’s behaviours. Environmental, economic, social and cultural impacts of changes to waste services must also be considered. the complexity of Auckland’s waste situation needs a multifaceted WMMP. Whatever decisions are made, however, change is inevitable, and the changes Auckland must make need to be managed carefully and progressively, particularly changes to refuse payment. the approach taken in this plan is to help communities across Auckland to reduce, recycle and reuse as much as possible – only then will householders have to directly pay for what is left over that will go to landfill.

A wide range of initiatives are outlined in the plan. Some can be implemented immediately. Existing contracts that expire at various points over the next few years mean other initiatives will have to be introduced over a longer timeframe. the council is conscious that ratepayers, while being mindful of their environmental and wider responsibilities, want rates to be kept as low as possible. the net cost (excluding growth and inflation) of the ultimate package of measures to reduce waste to landfill, including the new measures, is not to exceed the net rates requirement for 2014/2015, bearing in mind that all households will have the potential to substantially reduce the disposer-pays component of their waste if they use the full suite of services.

Local government amalgamation has presented Auckland with an excellent opportunity to redesign the way waste is managed across the region and to become a leader in waste minimisation and resource efficiency. In doing so, Auckland can position itself among other leading edge, innovative cities around the world working towards Zero Waste goals3.

1 the definition of ‘waste’ used in this plan is from the WMA. It refers to anything disposed of or discarded and includes a type of waste that is defined by its composition or source (e.g. organic waste, electronic waste, or construction and demolition waste) and to avoid doubt, includes any component or element of diverted material, if the component or element is disposed of or discarded.

2 the Auckland council Waste Assessment was released in February 2011, updated in July 2011 and formally noted in August 2011.

3 Such as Vancouver (www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste), San Francisco (www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/overview) and Adelaide (www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au).

WAStE MAnAGEMEnt And MInIMISAtIon PLAn I 5

the legislative requireMent that: “a territorial authority Must ProMote eFFective and eFFicient waste ManageMent and MiniMisation within its district” (wMa)

the legislative need to review the seven ForMer local authorities’ waste Plans and the obvious desirability oF ForMing one cohesive consistent wMMP For the region

the council’s adoPtion oF an asPirational goal oF Zero waste.

in brieFthe Plan has three Main drivers:

1

2

3

• 'to become the most liveable city in the world, Auckland will aim for the long-term, aspirational goal of Zero Waste4 by 20405, turning its waste into resources'.

With:

• a short to medium-term target – to reduce domestic kerbside refuse from 160kg to 110kg per capita per year (a 30 per cent reduction) by 2018, subject to the full range of services discussed in this plan being implemented

• a longer-term stretch goal – to reduce total council- and private- sector-influenced waste to landfill by 30 per cent from the baseline of 0.8 tonnes per capita per year over the next 15 years (by 20276) by working with the commercial sector and the private waste industry

• an in-house target – to reduce council’s own in-house waste by 30 per cent per capita by 20187.

• guiding principles

• strategic objectives

• summary of findings from the Auckland council Waste Assessment

• actions/methods.

4 Zero Waste was the vision in the waste plans of five out of seven of the former councils of Auckland.

5 the Auckland Plan.

6 Estimated by Waste not consulting drawing on data from the former councils and available private data and subject to discussions with the waste industry, appropriate regulation and ongoing resource allocation.

7 this figure is extrapolated out from waste audits done by Waste not consulting for the former Auckland and north Shore city councils. A baseline for the new council was established in June 2012.

the Plan includes:A vision:


WAStE MAnAGEMEnt And MInIMISAtIon PLAn


key actions/Methods ProPosed in this Plan include:1. a move towards consistent funding of domestic

waste and recycling services throughout the region (in terms of public-good, private-good and disposer-pays8)

2. provision of consistent domestic waste and recycling services and receptacles across the region from 2015, where practicable, including:

• a fortnightly disposer-pays kerbside refuse collection using wheelie bins in urban areas – with choice of bin size/capacity ranging from 60 to 240 litres, costing about $2.50 per lift9 for an 80-litre bin. this charge per lift will be commercially competitive

• a fortnightly disposer-pays kerbside refuse collection using a mix of wheelie bins (60 to 240 litres) and prepaid bags in rural areas, the Hauraki Gulf Islands and certain holiday and scenic areas, with pricing reflecting the additional cost of this service

• a fortnightly kerbside recycling collection using wheelie bins – with choice of bin size/capacity ranging from 140 to 360 litres. this service would be private-good-funded (through rates and/or other funding sources).this would include collecting a wider range of recyclables than currently, with potential to expand the range even further over time

• a 240-litre wheelie bin recycling service for the former rodney area as soon as practicable

8 See Part B, section 2 of this report for definitions of public-good, private-good and disposer-pays.

9 this includes GSt but does not take into account the start of the Emissions trading Scheme charging regime and is dependent on the council retaining 90 per cent market share.

• a kerbside collection of organic waste for urban areas only. this service would also be private-good-funded (through rates and/or other funding sources). this collection would be complemented by an intensive drive to encourage home composting, including in areas where the organic service is not provided. If the council were to provide a food waste only collection, or a combined system where the disposal of green waste would be minimal, that would be accompanied by a determined effort to work with the green waste industry to reduce the 10 per cent of green waste still in domestic refuse and other green waste which currently finds its way to landfill.

• an inorganic collection to dispose of bulky items and retrieve reusable and recyclable items

• provision of disposer-pays kerbside refuse and private-good-funded (through rates and/or other funding sources) recycling collection services for domestic-type waste from commercial properties.

If ratepayers adopt the full suite of services, thereby minimising their disposer-pays costs, over the longer term the average ratepayer/household will be no worse off financially and will enjoy more services. Concurrently, there will be a net environmental benefit10.

Note that the council does not intend to run any of the above services itself but would contract for provision.

10 In terms of less waste to landfill and improved resource efficiency.


3. development of a resource recovery network – including facilities for hazardous waste and construction and demolition material drop-off

4. supporting business waste reduction – particularly in the construction and demolition industries

5. advocacy for container deposit Legislation subject to further discussion with industry, and development of product stewardship schemes for products such as electronic waste, tyres, batteries, nappies etc

6. advocacy for changes to the WMA to give industry the same responsibilities for waste reduction as local authorities

7. facilitating local enterprise through the council developing initiatives and handing them to local enterprises to run at an appropriate time and by community grants and innovation competitions

8. investigating enactment of a waste bylaw by 31 october 2012 to support the intent of the plan and actions detailed within it, including a cleanfill regulation

9. introduction of a comprehensive waste minimisation programme to support the changes including education, community engagement and community development.

other actions ProPosed in the Plan include:• developing waste and recycling services

for multi-unit dwellings

• providing schools with recycling services

• developing and enhancing waste exchange and waste brokering services

• piloting a ‘sell-on-behalf-of’ service for unwanted items of value

• providing public place recycling bins

• working towards all events organised by the council and run on council properties to be run as Zero Waste events

• providing consistent loose litter collection across the region and reducing litter and illegal dumping

• developing comprehensive monitoring and reporting systems.

concurrent with these actions Auckland council will work with the waste industry and landfill owners to reduce private sector-controlled volumes of waste to landfill. It will also encourage innovative ideas for specific waste streams (e.g. wood waste) which could be recovered for reuse or energy conversion.

Auckland council, including its council-controlled organisations (ccos), must also ‘walk the talk’ by demonstrating good ‘waste-wise’ practice in its own operational processes, rules, practices and procurement policies. the council’s preliminary in-house waste assessments indicate potential to reduce waste. It will, therefore, undertake to mirror the community kerbside refuse target, by committing to a 30 per cent reduction in waste per capita (from a 2012 baseline tonnage) from its in-house activities by 2018.

drAFt WAStE MInIMISAtIon & MAnAGEMEnt PLAn

Part aauckland now and into the Future

auckland sent 1.174 Million tonnes oF waste to landFill in 201011.

this rePresents aPProxiMately 0.8 tonnes oF waste For every Person in auckland12. this waste includes a signiFicant quantity oF Material that, iF seParated, could be recycled and Put to beneFicial use. For exaMPle, around 65 Per cent oF kerbside reFuse collected FroM households could be recycled or coMPosted (or Processed in soMe other way) instead oF being sent to landFill13.

11 KPMG data collection report, 24 June 2011. 1.174 million tonnes divided by 1,522,000 (high population projection) equals 0. 77 tonnes per capita, rounded up to 0.8 tonnes per capita.

12 This figure is an average across the entire waste stream, not just the part the council influences.

13 Auckland Council Waste Assessment Appendix F: Auckland Council Waste Assessment Data Update Table 2.5. Waste Not Consulting. August 2011.

1 introduction


FIGurE 1: coMPoSItIon BY WEIGHt oF An AVErAGE rEFuSE BAG/BIn In AucKLAnd14

the PurPose oF the waste MiniMisation act 2008 (wMa) is to “encourage waste MiniMisation and a decrease in waste disPosal in order to:

Protect the environMent FroM harM; and

Provide environMental, social, econoMic and cultural beneFits”.

14 Food and green waste figures have a margin of error of 5 per cent. (Auckland council Waste Assessment. Appendix c. Waste not consulting.

composition of kerbside refuse from residential properties in Auckland. october 2010).

40%Food waste

10%green waste

15%recyclables

35%reFuse

12


It also aims, through the waste levy, to increase the cost of waste disposal so it better reflects the cost of waste to the environment, society and the economy.

A waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP) documents the goals and actions adopted by a council to achieve effective, efficient waste management and minimisation, as well as the funding rationale for waste services and where the council’s waste levy funding will be spent. Most new Zealand councils already have a waste management plan which, if reviewed, would not require major changes in waste management practices. However, the amalgamation of the Auckland councils means the status quo – seven completely different waste systems – is not a preferred or viable option.

A new, more equitable, efficient and effective approach is needed. the first Auckland council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is an opportunity to design an integrated suite of systems that will meet the council’s legislated waste minimisation responsibilities and steer Auckland on its journey towards Zero Waste.

1.1 context For auckland waste ManageMentthe Local Government Act 2002 states that solid waste collection and disposal is one of the five core services that the council needs to consider in performing its role, in particular with regard to the contribution that it makes to its community. Before the 1990s, the rationale for waste management was protection of public health. However, the perceived need for councils to be involved lessened as waste management standards improved, and as landfill engineering and operation became more specialised and capital-intensive. consequently, councils in the Auckland region, unlike those of other large metropolitan areas, withdrew almost entirely from waste infrastructure ownership.

In recent years, as the focus broadened to include sustainability and waste minimisation, this lack of involvement constrained Auckland’s former councils in meeting their waste minimisation obligations. Auckland council now only influences approximately 17 per cent15 of the waste stream, with the remainder controlled by private waste operators.

15 refer to Appendix F of the Auckland council Waste Assessment. the 17 per cent is based on 2008-2010 updated tonnage data as a percentage of current regional waste to landfill.

this will remain a barrier to significant waste reduction unless the waste industry and business, in collaboration with the council, is able to voluntarily increase diversion from landfill.

change could be driven in three ways:

1. the government could amend the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to give industry the same waste minimisation obligations as local authorities

2. Auckland council could negotiate with infrastructure owners to gain more influence over the waste stream

3. in combination with option 1 or 2, the council could establish additional resource recovery infrastructure to overcome logistical hurdles for new service provisions.

these scenarios need to be explored and all would take some time to accomplish.

consequently, this plan works on two fronts: working with the private waste sector and the business community to reduce waste volumes, and reducing waste to landfill by focussing on the 17 per cent the council currently influences.

of the four landfills and 17 transfer facilities servicing the Auckland region, Auckland council has full control of only one – the Waitakere refuse and recycling transfer Station. It has no operational control of any landfills apart from the small claris landfill on Great Barrier Island. And through its property cco, the council owns a 50 per cent share of the Whitford landfill via a joint venture with transpacific Industries Ltd.

Most of the former Auckland councils were the principal collectors of domestic kerbside waste in their areas through contracts with the private sector. the exception was the former rodney district council which left residents to arrange their own collection services from private waste operators. All former councils provided a kerbside recycling service. Service levels differed considerably in terms of receptacle used (bags or bins), capacity (ranging from no restriction in the former Manukau city council to a cap of 120 litres in the former Auckland city council), and funding method (from disposer-pays to fully rates-funded).


15 refer to Appendix F of the Auckland council Waste Assessment. the 17 per cent is based on 2008-2010 updated tonnage data as a percentage of current regional waste to landfill.

drAFt WAStE MInIMISAtIon & MAnAGEMEnt PLAnWAStE MAnAGEMEnt And MInIMISAtIon PLAn

1.2 legislative and Policy FraMework1.2.1 the waste MiniMisation act 2008

the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) is the key piece of legislation regulating waste management in new Zealand. the sections of the WMA most relevant to this WMMP are:

Section 3: Purpose of the Act

the purpose of the WMA is: to encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal to:

• protect the environment from harm; and

• provide environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits.

Section 8: Product stewardship

the purpose of this part is to encourage (and, in certain circumstances, require) the people and organisations involved in the life of a product to share responsibility for:

• ensuring there is effective reduction, reuse, recycling or recovery of the product; and

• managing any environmental harm arising from the product when it becomes waste.

Section 25: Waste disposal levy

the purpose of this part is to enable a levy to be imposed on waste disposed of to:

• raise revenue for promoting and achieving waste minimisation; and

• increase the cost of waste disposal to recognise that disposal imposes costs on the environment, society and the economy.

Section 42: Responsibilities of territorial authorities

A territorial authority must promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within its district.

Section 46: Funding of plans

1. A territorial authority is not limited to applying strict cost recovery or user pays principles for any particular service, facility, or activity provided by the territorial authority in accordance with its waste management and minimisation plan.

2. Without limiting subsection (1), a territorial authority may charge fees for a particular service or facility provided by the territorial authority that is higher or lower than required to recover the costs of the service or facility, or provide a service or facility free of charge if:

• it is satisfied that the charge or lack of charge will provide an incentive or disincentive that will promote the objectives of its waste management and minimisation plan; and

• the plan provides for charges to be set in this manner.

this plan considers waste and diverted materials in keeping with the waste hierarchy, as required by the WMA. the waste hierarchy states that waste actions are to be addressed in priority order so as to extract maximum benefit from resources and to produce the least possible residual waste.

drAFt WAStE MInIMISAtIon & MAnAGEMEnt PLAn I 17

other sections oF the wMa that are relevant to this wMMP areSection 43: Waste management and minimisation plans

Section 44: requirements when preparing, amending, or revoking plans

Section 45: Joint plans

Section 46: Funding of plans

Section 47: Grants

Section 48: Governor-General may give directions to territorial authority

Section 49: Minister may set performance standards for territorial authorities

Section 50: review of waste management and minimisation plan

Section 51: requirements for waste assessment

Section 52: Waste management and minimisation services, facilities, and activities

Section 53: Proceeds from activities and services must be used in implementing waste management and minimisation plan

Section 54: Waste must be collected promptly, efficiently, and regularly

Section 55: Health Protection officer may serve notice on territorial authority for causing nuisance

Section 56: Bylaws


reduction - lessening waste generation

reuse - further using of products in their existing form for their original purpose or a similar purpose

recycling - reprocessing waste materials to produce new products

disPosal - final deposit of waste on land set apart for the purpose

treatMent - subjecting waste to any physical, biological, or chemical process to

change the volume or character of that waste so that it may be disposed of with no, or reduced, significant adverse effect

on the environment

recovery - extraction of materials or energy from waste for further use or processing, and includes, but

is not limited to making materials into compost

waste diversion

MA

xIM

uM

co

nSE

rVAt

Ion

oF

rESo

urc

ES

waste disPosal

FIGurE 2: WAStE HIErArcHY16

16 From the Ministry for the Environment website www.mfe.govt.nz



the purpose of the WMA is to “encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal in order to protect the environment from harm, and provide environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits”. It also requires councils to “promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their districts” even if, as in Auckland, over 80 per cent of waste and diverted materials are collected, recovered and disposed of by private operators. these legislative requirements are the main reason for council’s desire to explore, with industry and government, ways to substantially reduce waste to landfill.

the waste disposal levy introduced by the WMA is currently set at $10 per tonne of waste disposed to landfill (imposed at disposal facilities)17. this is very low by international standards and is likely to increase over time. the intention of the levy is to put the cost of waste disposal (including economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts of landfilling) onto the disposer, creating an economic incentive to divert and recycle.

the waste levy also creates a funding pool for waste minimisation initiatives. Half of the money collected is put into a contestable Waste Minimisation Fund and the other half is split among local authorities on a population basis. Local authorities must use levy funds for waste minimisation in keeping with their WMMPs. Funds can be withheld if the Minister for the Environment believes the territorial authority has not adopted a plan, reviewed it as required, has not spent funds appropriately, or has not met performance standards. Auckland council currently receives approximately $4.2 million annually from waste levy funds.

1.2.2 new Zealand waste strategy

In adopting a WMMP, the council is required by the WMA to have regard to the new Zealand Waste Strategy.

the first new Zealand Waste Strategy, towards Zero Waste and a sustainable new Zealand, released in 2002 sets out the government’s long-term priorities for waste management and minimisation.

17 this amount remains unchanged following a recent high level national review by the Minister for the Environment.

It includes specific targets for reducing various types of waste including organic, special, construction, demolition and hazardous waste. For example, one of the targets for organic waste was to divert at least 95 per cent of garden waste from landfill by december 2010. this, and other targets, were not achieved and specific targets have since been dropped from the revised 2010 strategy. However the council considers that they remain valid goals to aim for within an updated timeframe, as without targets the focus is diluted.

the revised 2010 Waste Strategy, ‘Reducing harm, improving efficiency’, provides direction to local government, businesses (including the waste industry), and communities on ways to:

• reduce the harmful effects of waste

• improve the efficiency of resource use18.

the WMMP defines ‘waste’ as ‘waste to landfill’. ‘diverted materials’ means discarded materials not sent to landfill – such as those collected for recycling and composting. the plan’s primary focus is solid waste. However, it also takes into account the potential harm of all wastes: solids, liquids and gases (but not the collection or treatment of human bio-solid waste – although treatment of the residual sludge for reuse might be explored in future in collaboration with Watercare Services Ltd).

the plan covers all aspects of waste management from collection to treatment and disposal. In the waste hierarchy landfilling is the least desirable outcome –however, it is not technically or economically feasible to divert all materials from landfill at this time.

18 these are the two goals of the new Zealand Waste Strategy 2010.

the Plan covers all asPects oF waste ManageMent FroM collection

to treatMent and disPosal.


While Auckland council accepts that landfilling will remain the main waste disposal option for some time, its WMMP establishes Zero Waste as a long-term aspirational goal and the key driver of council services.

council’s decisions on the plan must also accord with the following Acts of Parliament:

Local Government Act (LGA) 2002

The Health Act 1956

Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991

Emissions Trading Amendment Act 2008

The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO)

Climate Change (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008

Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

Waste collection, treatment, and disposal has been highlighted as a source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and is believed to be responsible for 6 per cent of Auckland’s overall emissions (based on 2009 levels19). It is estimated that in 2009 GHG emissions from waste totalled 618 ktco2e (kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent). under a ‘business as usual’ scenario, emissions are projected to increase a further 35.8 per cent by 2031. council’s goal is a 40 per cent reduction in human generated GHG emissions20 by 2031 (based on 1990 levels). the WMMP must contribute to the target by creating and identifying waste minimisation, collection and treatment services and single-stream (e.g. waste wood) waste-to-energy opportunities. the council is currently developing a GHG emission reduction strategy for discussion.

19 AruP (2011) Potential Policy options to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: draft technical report (2011). client report for Auckland council.

20 the Auckland Plan

19 AruP (2011) Potential Policy options to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: draft technical report (2011). client report for Auckland council.


wMMP establishes Zero waste as a long-terM asPirational goal and the key driver oF council services.

to becoMe the Most liveablecity in the world, auckland will

aiM For the long-terM, asPirationalgoal oF Zero waste by 2040, turning

its waste into resources.



2 vision and guiding PrinciPles 2.1 vision “to becoMe the Most liveable city in the world, auckland will aiM For the long terM, asPirational goal oF Zero waste by 2040, turning its waste into resources.”

Zero waste Means changing the way we think about waste, treating it as a resource rather than a disPosal ProbleM.

Put another way, Zero waste is about Moving FroM linear to cyclical resource Flows.


FIGurE 3: LInEAr And cYcLIcAL rESourcE FLoWS

the Zero Waste philosophy encourages redesigned resource life cycles in which almost all products and materials are reused – as in the natural world. Minimal waste is sent to landfills. the following working definition, often cited by experts in the field, came from a working group of the Zero Waste International Alliance in 200421.

“Zero Waste is a goal that is ethical, economical, efficient and visionary, to guide people in changing their lifestyles and practices to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are designed to become resources for others to use. Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them. Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all discharges to land, water or air that are a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health.”

Encouraging waste reduction at source through informed purchasing and producer responsibility, and establishing resource recovery and recycling systems further down the supply chain, gives Auckland the potential to significantly reduce waste to landfill and become a resource efficient city.

21 www.zwia.org

2.2 targetsAuckland council, underpinned by the plans of the former councils, wishes to work towards a substantial reduction in the entire waste stream sent to landfill. this plan provides:

• details on how the council proposes to deal with the waste it directly influences

• an outline of council’s intentions towards reducing total waste to landfill.

this plan focuses on the 17 per cent of the waste stream that the council influences (made up of domestic kerbside waste collections). therefore, the one short to medium-term target chosen to measure the effectiveness of the plan over the next six years is also in the area of domestic kerbside waste collections.

Each person in the Auckland region produces, on average, approximately 160kg22 of kerbside refuse per year (including refuse collected by the private sector).

the former Auckland councils with disposer-pays funding methods sent the least waste to landfill – as little as 104kg per person per year. those that used rates funding and unrestrained volumes sent as much as 199kg per person per year. While this comparison does not take into account other variables such as the size of the bin or bag, the range of recyclables collected23, waste minimisation initiatives or socio-economic factors, it still suggests that introducing disposer-pays across the Auckland region will significantly reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill.

the initiative expected to produce the largest waste reduction, if introduced with disposer-pays funding for refuse, is kerbside organic waste collection (food waste only or food waste plus green waste). Because around 50 per cent (by weight) of the contents of kerbside refuse bins and bags is organic material24 (with food waste being about 40 per cent of the bin, and green waste about 10 per cent), this action has the potential to almost halve the domestic kerbside waste stream.

22 Based on 2010/2011 data. total council-collected kerbside residential tonnes divided by population using council services. this does not relate directly to the figure of approximately 0.8 tonnes per person given in the introduction section as this larger figure includes waste from all sources – including commercial waste, household hazardous waste, waste dropped off at transfer stations and inorganic collections.

23 this does not include the inorganic collection.

24 Auckland council Waste Assessment – Appendix F: Auckland council Waste Assessment data update table 2.5. Waste not consulting. August 2011.

design

raw Materials

ManuFacturer

consuMPtion

Marketing

Processing

sorting

collection source seParation

landFill disPosal

cyclical

linear

CURREnT (2010/2011), 160kg per person per year

TARGET (2018) 110kg per person per year


If the council were to provide a food waste only collection, that would be accompanied by a determined effort to work with the green waste industry to reduce the 10 per cent of green waste still in domestic refuse and other green waste which currently finds its way to landfill.

Based on these and other initiatives in the action plan (and subject to economic viability assessments), the short to medium-term target for council and private sector domestic kerbside refuse sent to landfill is a 30 per cent reduction from the current regional average of 160kg per person per year to 110kg per person per year by 2018.

FIGurE 4: doMEStIc KErBSIdE rEFuSE SHort to MEdIuM-tErM tArGEt oF 30 PEr cEnt rEductIon PEr cAPItA PEr YEAr

this target can be achieved by combining:

• a different charging regime

• potential investment in new infrastructure for collecting and processing organic waste

• a reduction in overall organic volumes to landfill through collaboration with the waste industry

• an intensive, incentivised drive for home composting

• a restriction of organic waste (green waste and food waste) from domestic refuse collections

• a substantial investment in a comprehensive waste minimisation programme, including education (e.g. reducing food waste, alternatives to disposable nappies), community engagement and community development.

Before amalgamation, the royal commission on Auckland Governance25 noted that the fragmented nature of the region meant opportunities were being lost, including public education programmes using television and other media. With amalgamation, Auckland can now roll out a major regional public education campaign to support the significant changes proposed.

Longer-term, and subject to the collaborative programmes with the private sector outlined in the action plan and ongoing discussions with the waste industry, the council aims for a stretch goal of 30 per cent reduction in waste going to landfill (council and waste industry influenced) over the next 15 years from a baseline of 0.8 tonnes per capita per year.

2.3 strategic obJectivesto most effectively reduce waste, Auckland council has adopted Strategic option 3 in the Auckland council Waste Assessment26 as its preferred strategic direction. one of the parts of this option refers to either gaining more influence over the entire waste stream to encourage separation and resource recovery (and reduce waste going to landfill), or advocating for changes to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) to give industry the same waste minimisation responsibilities as local authorities.

negotiations with industry to secure more council influence over the waste stream could be a medium to long-term exercise. the focus of this plan is, therefore, primarily on the part of the waste stream that the council influences, made up mainly of domestic kerbside collections, with a smaller amount from transfer station drop-off and inorganic collections.

25 royal commission on Auckland Governance 2009 report – www.royalcommission.govt.nz

26 http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/En/Services/documents/ wasteassess-report.pdf


With this in mind, the strategic objectives of this plan are:

• reducing Auckland’s reliance on landfills

• achieving operational efficiencies in domestic waste and recycling services

• reducing harm from waste

• restricting organic waste going to landfill

• developing an infrastructure and processes to maximise resource recovery

• reducing council’s responsibility for dealing with end-of-life consumer products and packaging through appropriate advocacy

• maximising local economic development opportunities; e.g. jobs created by diverting waste from landfill

• reducing litter and illegal dumping and related costs.

2.4 guiding PrinciPlesthis waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP) draws on key principles to guide decision-making. the plan:

• is based on the internationally recognised waste hierarchy (figure 2), the goal of which is to move up the waste hierarchy as far as possible

• recognises kaitiakitanga27 and stewardship, which takes an integrated view of the environment and the relationship between all things. Kaitiakitanga and stewardship represent the obligation of current generations to sustain the environment’s capacity to support life for present and future generations

• is integrated, meaning it addresses all legislative requirements and is aligned with council’s own policies and bylaws

• incorporates the principles of sustainability by considering the social, cultural, environmental and economic impacts of its decisions

27 “the exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Ma-ori in relation to natural and physical resources; and includes the ethic of stewardship” (resource Management Act 1991, s.2.1).

• is underpinned by mauri as a key concept for indigenous resource management and waste so that land, water and food gathering sources are protected from the inappropriate disposal of waste28

• is built on the premise that innovation and lateral thinking are needed to solve intractable waste problems

• supports the idea that, wherever possible, the generator of waste should be responsible for paying the true cost of managing waste, thereby encouraging waste reduction

• signals that communities need to understand and be involved in solutions. A strong emphasis is placed on promoting waste reduction behaviour by engaging the community through direct involvement, education and community-based programmes

• is also open to developing partnerships with tangata whenua in order to:

- support sustainable development of Ma-ori outcomes, leadership, community and partnerships

- enable tangata whenua to co-manage natural resources29

• aims to deliver the most cost effective and efficient solutions to meet the requirements of the WMA and the new Zealand Waste Strategy while maximising waste diversion and minimising costs to ratepayers

• will be monitored and evaluated, and reported on each year. Accurate data is essential to track progress and enable future decision-making

• supports improving energy efficiency and carbon sequestration and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

28 As acknowledged by the new Zealand Waste Strategy 2002, inappropriate waste disposal can damage the relationship Ma-ori have with their lands, waters, food gathering areas, and wa-hi tapu. dumping waste into mahinga kai diminishes the site’s mauri and mahinga kai values. the interdependence of mahinga kai ecosystems means any contamination, even of one species, has a negative flow-on to all species in the ecosystem, including people. (draft regional Policy Statement 2010.)



2.5 tangata whenua world view on waste ManageMent and MiniMisation2.5.1 introduction

the tangata whenua world view encapsulates multi-layered concepts in relation to environmental knowledge. At the heart of the tangata whenua/mana whenua world view is a belief that everything and everyone is interconnected and, therefore, should be valued and cared for30. to be consistent with this view, waste management and minimisation cannot be regarded in isolation from environmental management31. this is an essential feature of te Ao Ma-ori. this section summarises those tangata whenua ethics, values and principles that inform waste management and minimisation32.

2.5.2 tangata whenua high level ethics and values

tangata whenua ethics and values stem from a belief system about the origin of the universe in which humans and nature are not separate, but related parts of a unified whole. descended from the union of ranginui (the sky father) and Papatuanuku (the earth mother) and their offspring, humans share a common whakapapa (genealogy) with other animals, plants and geographic locations. According to whakapapa, the natural world is our kaitiaki (guardian) who nurtures and cares for us. the concept of reciprocity and reverence means we in turn are also kaitiaki with a responsibility to care for te ao turoa (environment). As a result there are functional relationships between tangata whenua and particular ecosystems that are unique to iwi, hapu and wha-nau. the primary responsibility for mana o te whenua (status of the land) in this context resides with ahikaa or mana whenua from specific geographical areas.

30 Auckland regional council (2007) te Kohao o te ngira, Mana Whenua response to the draft long term Sustainability Framework for the Auckland region.

31 Ministry for the Environment (1993) Planning in Waste Management, te Whakaari o takitimu. Guidelines for Ma-ori.

32 Auckland regional council (2007) te Kohao o te ngira, Mana Whenua response to the draft long-term sustainability framework for the Auckland region.

As the people are intrinsically linked with the natural world, the mana of the iwi, hapu, or wha-nau is directly related to the wellbeing of the natural resources within their rohe, or region33.

For Mana Whenua in the Auckland region, Mana Motuhake (absolute sovereignty) is the term that best describes sustainability in te ao turoa as it focuses on the value of:

• manaaki tangata: care and regard for the people

• manaaki whenua: care and regard for the land

• manaaki atua: care and regard for taonga Ma-ori (natural resources) bestowed upon the whenua by Io (creator).

2.5.3 waste ManageMent and MiniMisation

there is no waste in nature and there was very little waste in the early society of tangata whenua. In fact, the Ma-ori language does not have a word that aligns directly to the meaning of ‘waste.’ the waste produced by tangata whenua was of a high organic content and was disposed of onto or into the land, where it would slowly decay and not come into contact with water sources. Waste was viewed as a resource which would return to Papatuanuku (earth mother) as compost. Everything was biodegradable, or could be reused, recycled or viewed as a recoverable resource.

the traditional handling of waste was organised so that waste associated with specific activities was handled through a complex set of rules34. these practices required different disposal methods for different types of waste, for example human waste was not mixed with food waste. A closed loop approach ensured that material was separated appropriately for composting or further use. Body waste was kept separate from solid waste and disposed of back into the ground at a great distance from water.

Advances in technology mean that waste produced by all sectors of society has become more difficult to deal with, due to:

• increased volume brought on by an increased population and behavioural changes

• an increase in non-organic and potentially hazardous components to the waste stream35.

33 department of conservation (2002) nZ Biodiversity Strategy.

34 Ministry for the Environment (1993) Planning in Waste Management, te Whakaari o takitimu. Guidelines for Ma-ori p73.

35 Southland regional council (1996) regional Solid Waste Management Plan.


Modern solid waste management and minimisation can incorporate a tangata whenua world view. there are also specific realities which need to be considered particular to tangata whenua when developing waste management and minimisation plans. For example, it is well documented that tangata whenua have strongly voiced the need to keep waste (and the leachate from waste) out of surface, ground and coastal waters and to ensure that refuse disposal facilities are not sited on waahi tapu (areas of cultural or historical significance).

tangata whenua ethics and values can provide the framework to explore strategies and techniques to deal with solid waste in the Auckland region, as modern concepts of valuing natural resources, reusing, recycling materials, and care with disposal of residual waste have many synergies with the tangata whenua world view.

2.6 role oF the council the purpose of the WMA is to encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal. the council’s role under the act is to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within its district. Although the council has adopted Strategic option 3 in the Auckland council Waste Assessment as its preferred strategic direction, it does not intend to run its own collection services, but wherever practicable, provide them via waste operator contracts. In addition, the council is keen to encourage innovation within the private sector such that waste is seen as a valuable resource.

the council is focused on the end goal and on how services are provided to achieve this goal. Who delivers the services is a secondary consideration. the council will support and encourage industry when it is working proactively towards the same goal.

Auckland council’s governance, policy development and operation of waste management are conducted as follows.

governing body

Auckland council’s governing body and local boards share decision-making responsibilities. the governing body focuses on region-wide strategic decisions,

such as regional landfill contracts, the shape of regional waste services, preparing a solid waste bylaw, and setting regional strategies, policies and plans. the governing body will consult with and consider the views of the local boards before making decisions that affect the communities within each local board’s area, or the responsibilities or operations of that board.

the governing body is responsible for the following waste activities:

• Auckland WMMP

• standards and guidelines for waste management and disposal

• region-wide service standards, such as refuse and recycling services

• landfill management.

local boards

Local boards are responsible for communication with community organisations and special interest groups within their local board area and identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in local board areas in relation to the content of the council’s strategies, policies, plans and bylaws. In accordance with legislative principles, local boards are generally responsible for making decisions on non-regulatory activities except where decision-making on a region-wide basis will better promote the wellbeing of communities across Auckland.

under the current allocation of decision-making between the governing body and local boards, local boards have decision-making and oversight of variations to region-wide service levels for the local area, such as refuse and recycling services, and have decision-making and oversight of local waste management plans and projects, within regional parameters. Local boards will be an important part of the implementation of this plan, advising on such aspects as the rural/urban boundary split, the provision of community education, the placement and number of public place recycling bins and service levels in the Hauraki Gulf Islands. they may also choose to be proactively involved in the potential establishment of local resource recovery centres36.

36 Any actions would be in the context of local board budgets.


2.7 Public health Protection the wide range of public and private waste services in the Auckland region ensures public health will be adequately protected in the future. Auckland has access to landfills that meet national legislative requirements for at least 20 years or more. this plan proposes services for better waste minimisation and considers alternatives to landfills in the longer term. the community has adequate access to council or privately-owned drop-off and collection services for refuse, hazardous waste and litter, but further service improvements and waste minimisation are achievable.

In its feedback on the Auckland council Waste Assessment, Auckland regional Public Health Service stated no major concerns relating to public health with current solid waste services and said the waste assessment appeared to be thoroughly researched. correspondence with Auckland regional Public Health Service is included in Appendix F of the waste assessment and its feedback has been considered in this plan.

2.8 Monitoring and rePorting Progressthe council intends to monitor and report on progress regarding the WMMP and will develop and implement a clear, transparent monitoring and reporting system for this. Accurate information on how services are performing is essential for monitoring progress and planning for future demand.

Key areas that require monitoring include level of service, compliance (with legislative requirements and regulations), waste reduction and diversion. data will be gathered through community satisfaction surveys, council records (KPIs, etc), Solid Waste Analysis Protocol Audits (SWAPs) and agreements with landfill operators to supply tonnage data. Progress will be reported through council publications, website and the annual report. See Appendix 2 for further details.

3 the current situation: Findings FroM the auckland council waste assessMent

the Auckland council Waste Assessment37 was initiated under the auspices of the Auckland transition Agency and released in February 2011. It was then updated in July 2011 and formally noted in August 2011. the assessment is a stock-take of waste services provided throughout the region, an estimate of demand for future services, and includes proposals (including new infrastructure) for meeting that demand.

3.1 suMMary oF key Findings

• Auckland sent 1.174 million tonnes38 of waste to landfill in 2010 including domestic and industrial and commercial waste. this represents approximately 0.8 tonnes per person per year.

• Waste management and minimisation services are fragmented in Auckland. Few key facilities are owned by the council, and the majority of landfills and transfer stations are owned by two large commercial waste companies. As a consequence, the council influences only approximately 17 per cent of the waste stream; the rest is controlled by private industry.

• there is limited information on the quantity or composition of waste sent to managed fill and

37 www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/wasteplan – Waste Assessment documents are at the bottom of the web page.

38 Appendix F of the Auckland council Waste Assessment: Auckland council Waste Assessment data update. Waste not consulting. Based on data provided by KPMG August 2011.


cleanfill sites in the Auckland region. However, it is estimated that just under 1.8 million39 tonnes of material is disposed of annually, 30 per cent of which is construction and demolition material. (there is a need for accurate data if progress is to be tracked with confidence.)

• the council kerbside services collected 194,564 tonnes40 of refuse in 2010/2011. of this, it is estimated that more than 50 per cent was organic material (about 40 per cent of the total being food waste and 10 per cent green waste41).

• It is estimated that up to 30 per cent of the waste Auckland sends to landfill from all sources could be diverted42. this material would include organics, timber, metal and plastics43.

• the rates component of waste services to householders varies considerably across the region, depending on the services offered by former councils and the methods of funding. the lowest solid waste component of household rates is that of former councils that implemented disposer-pays for refuse services.

• Many opportunities were lost under the old Auckland governance structure, including uniform systems for kerbside collections. the new governance structure reignites those opportunities as waste management services, particularly the recovery of recyclables, lend themselves to a regional approach. this is an economic issue: combined waste streams allow economies of scale when making the large investments needed for new sorting technology and facilities44.

• A range of issues and risks rule out waste to energy (WtE) as an option for dealing with Auckland’s domestic waste stream at this time, although this may well change in the future. A key issue is that WtE is on the recovery level of the waste hierarchy (see Fig. 2, page 15 of the Auckland council Waste

39 Auckland council Waste Assessment. chapter 3. table 3.4-4.

40 Appendix F of the Auckland council Waste Assessment: Auckland council Waste Assessment data update. Waste not consulting. August 2011.

41 Initial estimate from the Waste Assessment Part c . organics report Page 4. reassessed by Waste not Aug 2011.

42 Estimates of potential to reduce waste to landfill were mindful of high reductions in some European countries (over 60 per cent) where significant regulation has been imposed but were calculated for Auckland conditions.

43 Waste not supplementary data the Waste Assessment, August 2011. the overall goal emanates from this data.

44 Appendix F of the Auckland council Waste Assessment: royal commission on Auckland Governance report. Part 5, Section 30.

Assessment) and therefore at odds with the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) and the council’s Zero Waste goal45. Additionally, the council currently has insufficient influence over Auckland’s waste stream to supply a WtE facility, which involves significant capital costs46. (Subsequent to the waste assessment, a draft climate change mitigation strategy is being worked on that considers certain waste streams’ potential as feedstock for energy generation.)

• transport inefficiencies were identified relating to the distances council-contracted waste operators travel from waste collection areas to and from transfer stations and landfills47. Although after further analysis these were not as high as originally thought, there is still potential for some improvement, particularly as costs were not included for other important aspects such as congestion impacts, transfer station or landfill waiting times, emissions and pollution, road damage, truck configurations, transfer station or landfill opening hours, and night hours and bulk hauling at night. After discussions with the waste industry it is clear that the industry is very focussed and successful in mitigating transport inefficiencies.

• the three strategic direction options identified in the waste assessment were to:

1. continue with the status quo with some streamlining

2. continue with the status quo with new activities to maximise diversion (including a kerbside organic collection of some sort).

3. take actions as in option (2) but also seek operational influence over the entire waste stream, advocate for legislation for stronger product stewardship and/or that places similar requirements on the private sector to reduce waste as required of local government under the WMA. (option 3 was subsequently adopted by Auckland council on 15 March 2011.)

45 Appendix F of the Auckland council Waste Assessment: Waste to Energy for Auckland discussion paper. campbell McPherson. May 2011.

46 However, the door needs to stay open to this possibility in the future, and proactive consideration can be given to specific waste streams being utilised for the production of heat or as a fuel source, such as a significant amount of wood waste (60,000 tonnes per year) that is currently being diverted from landfill for use as a bio-fuel in some wood-fired burners of industries such as timber processing.

47 Appendix F of the Auckland council Waste Assessment: Evaluating potential transport inefficiencies in Auckland waste. Ernst and Young. May 2011- case study on council-controlled domestic waste collection.


COUNCIL-COLLECTED KERBSIDE WASTE TO LANDFILL

TOTAL AUCKLAND WASTE TO LANDFILL (COUNCIL PLUS COMMERCIAL)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

DATE

DATE

WAS

TE (T

ONNE

S)W

ASTE

(TON

NES)

Introduction of 3-bin kerbside collection, disposer-pays for refuse & Rodney refuse collection service


2.7% growth, no change to services

2.7% growth, with new services



0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

GrAPH 2: totAL WAStE to LAndFILL (councIL PLuS coMMErcIAL) ProJEctIon

GrAPH 1: councIL-coLLEctEd KErBSIdE WAStE to LAndFILL ProJEctIon

COUNCIL-COLLECTED KERBSIDE WASTE TO LANDFILL

TOTAL AUCKLAND WASTE TO LANDFILL (COUNCIL PLUS COMMERCIAL)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

DATE

DATE

WAS

TE (T

ONNE

S)W

ASTE

(TON

NES)







0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

4.1 Future waste ProJections Waste generation is traditionally linked to economic and population growth. However, accurate waste projections are difficult, given the limited data on Auckland’s waste trends and the recent world recession, which has contributed to a temporary drop in waste to landfill of over 16 per cent48.

the following projections are based on 2.7 per cent waste growth per year. this figure has been chosen as the mid-point between projected long-term GdP growth of 3.54 per cent and projected long-term population growth of 1.8 per cent.

48 Appendix F of the Auckland council Waste Assessment. Auckland council Waste Assessment data update. Waste not consulting. August 2011.

4 looking to the Future


4.2 Future resource recovery and recycling ProJectionsresource recovery activities rely on a source of discarded materials (from kerbside recycling collections or construction and demolition waste, for example) and a market for these materials.

the market for diverted materials is extremely variable, with economic fluctuations having a significant impact on both supply and demand.

Waste growth of 2.7 per cent a year would increase demand for the council’s kerbside collection services (not to mention other recoverable-material services). If disposer-pays charging for refuse is introduced, demand would become even stronger as householders seek to minimise their waste disposal costs by recycling more. these higher levels of diversion would inevitably create pressure to expand the capacity of existing resource recovery facilities, and for the creation of new facilities and services. this is seen as an opportunity for both the waste sector and for community groups to expand reuse or recycling initiatives, with the potential to create both jobs and training opportunities for young people.

4.3 suMMary oF Future deMand driversFuture demand for waste and recycling services in the region could be driven by:

• growth in the Auckland region: number of households or population serviced

• changes in commercial and industrial activity or economic conditions

• land use changes (e.g. from agricultural to residential)

• changing patterns in consumption or product quality

• national policy and legislation (e.g. product stewardship, waste levy)

• council regulation (e.g. bans on certain materials to landfill)

• council waste minimisation and education programmes

• impact of waste flows from and to other regions

• changes in technology

• community expectations.

the Market For diverted Materials is extreMely variable, with econoMic Fluctuations having a signiFicant iMPact on both suPPly and deMand.

Part bFunding

drAFt WAStE MAnAGEMEnt And MInIMISAtIon PLAn I 33WAStE MAnAGEMEnt And MInIMISAtIon PLAn I 33

1 overviewto fund the recommended actions in this waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP), the following must be considered:

• alignment with the intent of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) to minimise waste to landfill and raise the cost of disposal to landfill

• affordability and the minimisation of costs to the rates account

• transparency

• equity and fairness.

councils have a number of funding systems available for paying for waste services. the primary sources of income for councils are rates funding and user charges on some or all of the resident population. the option recommended in this plan for refuse collection and disposal is disposer-pays – a transparent method with direct correlation between household use of the service and the associated cost.

A secondary revenue source for Auckland council is commercial waste activities such as operation of the Waitakere refuse and recycling transfer Station, licensing fees, dividends (such as from Whitford Landfill joint venture) and other waste services such as revenue from the Waiheke transfer Station.

A third source comes from bundling the cost of collection services and using some of the revenue from disposer-pays to offset costs of private-good waste and recycling services, as per section 46 of the WMA, which states:

46 Funding oF Plans(1) A territorial authority is not limited to applying strict cost recovery or user pays principles for any particular service, facility, or activity provided by the territorial authority in accordance with its waste management and minimisation plan.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a territorial authority may charge fees for a particular service or facility provided by the territorial authority that is higher or lower than required to recover the costs of the service or facility, or provide a service or facility free of charge, if:

(a) it is satisfied that the charge or lack of charge will provide an incentive or disincentive that will promote the objectives of its waste management and minimisation plan; and

(b) the plan provides for charges to be set in this manner.

A fourth source is funding from the government waste levy. For 2012/13 the levy funds available to Auckland council are anticipated to be about $4.2 million. this comes from the portion (50 per cent) of the government waste levy funding pool allocated to local authorities on a population basis. central government stipulates that this money is to be spent on waste minimisation activities in accordance with WMMPs. these activities have been clearly identified in this plan.

the council plans to spend approximately $1.2 million of the waste levy income annually on additional waste minimisation education and promotion49 over the first four years of the plan – a significant increase on previous expenditure levels. the short-term spike is expected to diminish as waste reduction outcomes are achieved. this portion of the levy money will then be redirected into other waste minimisation activities50.

49 Initial council estimate of the range of education programmes. to be refined after formal consultation.

50 In 2010/2011 waste levy funds were used to enhance kerbside recycling services in the former Papakura and Franklin areas.

the plan also indicates that $1.6 million will be spent every year on offsetting the cost of introducing a new enhanced kerbside recycling service for schools, an extended WasteWise schools’ programme and a community grants scheme. the remaining $1.4 million waste levy funding will be spent on ongoing implementation and strategic planning of the new initiatives adopted in the WMMP. A portion of it will be accumulated to offset the capital costs for setting up an organics processing facility.

Auckland council could also apply for funding from the contestable portion (50 per cent less Ministry for the Environment (MfE) administration costs) of the waste levy funding pool (the Waste Minimisation Fund) to help establish an organic waste collection and processing facility, in partnership with the waste industry. this will be explored when decisions on the final suite of services are made. Likewise, an application to match funding in the proposed community grants scheme ($500,000) could be investigated.

When discussing the funding of publicly provided services, issues around public-good, private-good and disposer-pays need to be considered. ‘Public-good’, used in the context of waste services, generally refers to services provided for the public in order to meet environmental policies and standards. these services – which benefit the whole community – cannot normally be linked to specific individuals who use the service, so the cost is usually met through general rates.

‘Private-good’ often refers to services that meet environmental policies and standards that are linked to specific individuals – kerbside recycling services, for example. In most cases costs are met through general rates or subsidised by other waste services or the government waste levy. If disposer-pays for refuse is chosen, some of the private-good costs can be legitimately met through a small surcharge, reflecting both the community and individual benefit derived from services.

disposer-pays aligns closely with central government’s policy to provide financial disincentives in order to minimise waste sent to landfill. As a consequence there are areas where disposer-pays is the most appropriate funding approach, such as for refuse disposal collections taken to landfill. Additionally, the legislation allows local government to subsidise other private-good services through any disposer-pays services surpluses.

charging methods for waste services have varied considerably across the region. With regard to kerbside refuse services, some ratepayers currently pay directly for the refuse they send to landfill by purchasing bags or stickers (disposer-pays). others pay indirectly through their rates bill. Kerbside recycling collections, on the other hand, are generally paid for by rates or by revenue from other waste services operations.

Because charging mechanisms and services both vary, it is hard to give a simple cost comparison across former councils. Each had its own mix of receptacle size, collection frequency, charging mechanisms and percentage of private sector services. the mix of streamlined services and consistent funding mechanisms proposed in this plan are intended to reduce waste to landfill while delivering services at the lowest possible cost to the ratepayer.

In view of this, the net cost (excluding growth and inflation) of the ultimate package of measures to reduce waste to landfill including the new measures, is not to exceed the net rates requirement for 2014/2015, bearing in mind that all households will have the potential to substantially reduce the disposer-pays component of their waste if they utilise the full suite of services.


drAFt WAStE MAnAGEMEnt And MInIMISAtIon PLAn I 35

2 ProPosed aPProach 2.1 Public-good services51

Services considered to be for public good that will be funded through rates include:

• illegal dumping enforcement

• abandoned vehicle removal and disposal

• litter collection and bin emptying

• public place recycling

• hazardous waste collection and disposal

• advocacy

• events

• bylaw enforcement (costs that may not be covered by waste operator licensing fees)

• policy development and administration

• subsidisation of Hauraki Gulf Islands waste services.

Services considered to be for public good that will be funded through the government waste levy and/or Waste Minimisation Fund include:

• kerbside recycling services for schools

• a public education and behaviour change programme

• a community grants scheme

• possible part-funding of an organic waste (food waste only or food waste plus green waste) collection.

51 It should be noted that all the funding methods apply only to the 17 per cent of the waste to landfill that the council influences.

2.2 Private-good servicesServices considered to be for private good that will be funded through surpluses from disposer-pays refuse services, rates or in combination with disposer-pays include:

• domestic kerbside recycling (collection and processing)

• resource recovery centre operation

• domestic organic waste collection and processing.

Inorganic collections will be funded through rates.

2.3 disPoser-PaysServices funded through disposer-pays, or in combination with private-good funding, include:

• domestic refuse collection and disposal to landfill

• transfer station operation.

2.4 hauraki gulF islandsBecause of their isolation and the higher cost of service provision, the Hauraki Gulf Islands (HGI), will be treated differently from greater Auckland. these communities may receive reduced services or, alternatively, their local boards may investigate different ways of funding services.

this plan recommends subsidising services through rates (at a level to be determined at a later stage, but not to be less than the mainland) when all other aspects of the services are determined. until then the current subsidy will remain in place.



3 Financials Waste and recycling services will cost Auckland council approximately $90 million in 2012/13 ($65 million in rates-charging, $25 million in disposer-pays charges and waste levy funding). the cost of the proposed actions in the plan is around $30 million, bringing the total cost of services and facilities to $120 million (excluding any costs for the Emissions trading Scheme).

A key objective of introducing disposer-pays is to make people more accountable for the waste they produce. the suite of services offered in this plan is forecast to have minimal rates impact region-wide and minimal impact on total cost of waste services to households. Households that respond to waste minimisation programmes and increase their use of recycling and organic waste services should have lower costs for their council-provided waste services.

cost estimates in this plan are based on the premise that 90 per cent of properties in the region come under the same system (disposer-pays refuse, private-good-funded recycling, private-good-funded organic collections). Estimates would be subject to change depending on the council’s market share of each activity within the system.

the following table provides a comparison of the domestic waste and recycling systems the council could provide and their potential impact on waste reduction and rates across the region.

notes:

• options 2-11 include a biennial inorganic collection (an added $3 million annually over the status quo baseline).

• other inorganic options for consideration will adjust the rates funding in the above options by the following:

1. annual collection requires an additional $3 million over the biennial budget baseline

2. a booking system will reduce the biennial budget requirement by $2.4 million

3. a further hybrid option for Waitakere, rodney and Franklin areas as booking systems with the remainder as biennial will reduce the requirement by $0.3 million.

• the waste reduction targets reflect participation rates which will be achieved after three years of operation. the rate funding above reflects lower initial participation rates.

• options 5–7 recognise that the green waste component currently in refuse can be further reduced by education and working with industry.

• the impact of the Emissions trading Scheme and growth have not been factored in.

liMitations:

the figures are estimates only. Preparation of both the Auckland council Waste Assessment and this plan has relied on information from multiple sources including SWAP analyses from former councils, the Auckland regional council Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 2009, permits, contracts, consents and annual reports. the accuracy of these sources is contingent on the best information available at the time, and the degree of disclosure from the waste industry.

Financial analysis and modelling has relied on the best financial information available at the time of producing this plan.

the proposed way forward with a rigorous analytical stepped process with continuous validation of data and peer review will mitigate the potential for discrepancies/errors in further waste management and minimisation planning.

These notes and limitations refer to the table on the right.

a key obJective oF introducing disPoser-Pays is to Make

PeoPle More accountable For the waste they Produce.


table 1: suMMary oF estiMated net rate requireMent and waste reduction outcoMes oF doMestic waste and recycling service oPtions (excluding gst)

oPtion disPoser-Pays charge Per liFt

net rate requireMent(estiMate)

waste reduction(estiMate)

1.Status quo (14/15) (current system)Excluding growth and inflation

45% of region pays for refuse with disposer-pays

$72 million(excludes rodney)

0% (baseline)

ProPosal oPtions

streaMlined systeM with two bins - For reFuse (120l bin) and recycling (includes rodney)

2. disposer-pays refuse. $3.00 $35.9 million 7%


4. rates funded refuse. $0.00 $92.3 million 0%

enhanced systeM with three bins - For reFuse (80l), recycling and Food waste (in False bottoM 60-litre bin, 23l caPacity) (includes rodney)




enhanced systeM with three bins – For reFuse (80l), recycling and coMMingled Food/green waste oPtions (in 60l bin with 30l caPacity) (includes rodney)




oPtion to add a 240l green waste service collected Monthly, additional cost $12.7 Million

11. Green waste only. $0.00 $12.7 million 5%

enhanced systeM with three bins – For reFuse, recycling and Food waste (in False bottoM 60l bin, 23l caPacity) (includes rodney)

5a. disposer-pays refuse – no rural

and HGI organic.

$2.50 $69.5 million 30%

5b. disposer-pays refuse – no rural and

HGI organic, inorganic biennial except for

Waitakere, rodney and Franklin region on

property booking and bags options in rural

and HGI.

$2.50 $69.6 million 30%

6. disposer-pays refuse – fortnightly organics

(subject to low odour bin) no collection in

rural and HGI.

$2.50 $66.4 million 30%


Please see the notes and limitations on the previous page.

Part caction Plan


vision: “to becoMe the Most liveable city in the world, auckland will aiM For the long-terM, asPirational goal oF Zero waste by 2040, turning its waste into resources.”


1 introduction to the action Plan

this action plan outlines a six-year programme52 to achieve the vision and targets presented in Part A (although some actions will be ongoing). It includes a funding structure, aspects of which will be updated each year as part of the council’s annual plan following a period of public consultation, as required by the Local Government Act 2002.

the plan will be reviewed within six years. Any significant changes will be incorporated into the council’s Long-term Plan (LtP) process and subject to public consultation.

the action plan has been designed to meet the requirements of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) and the Local Government Act 1974, and 2002, by including all practicable options to achieve the council’s waste minimisation objectives. these options have been assessed in terms of their future social, economic, environmental and cultural impacts on the wellbeing of the city and its residents.

1.1 strategic contextthis action plan draws on the strategic context of Part A to determine specific actions and programmes, and is focused on the long-term aspirational goal of Zero Waste by 2040. As noted in section 2.1, Part A, the vision of the waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP) for the city is supported by the strategic objectives below.

vision:“to become the most liveable city in the world, Auckland will aim for the long-term, aspirational goal of Zero Waste by 2040, turning its waste into resources.”

52 It should be noted that the action plan includes both actions in the 17 per cent of the waste to landfill that the council influences and collaborative actions with the industry and business that the council has an interest in, but does not control.

strategic obJectives:

• reduce Auckland’s reliance on landfills

• achieve operational efficiencies in domestic waste and recycling services

• reduce harm from waste

• restrict organic waste going to landfill

• develop infrastructure and processes to maximise resource recovery

• reduce the council’s responsibility for dealing with end-of-life consumer products and packaging through appropriate advocacy

• maximise local economic development opportunities (e.g. jobs created by diverting waste from landfill)

• reduce litter and illegal dumping

and related costs.

targetsGiven the opportunity to reduce the average content of refuse bins or bags, the short to medium-term target is:

• to reduce domestic kerbside refuse by 30 per cent by 2018. this means reducing domestic kerbside refuse to landfill from 160kg per person, per year to 110kg per person, per year by 2018 subject to the full range of services in this plan being implemented.

the council will mirror this reduction by undertaking:

• to reduce the generation of its own in-house waste by 30 per cent per capita by 2018 from 2012 baseline tonnages.

depending on collaborative programmes with the private sector and the outcome of discussions with the waste industry, the following medium to long-term (15 years) target is:

• to reduce total waste to landfill (including council and private-sector-influenced waste) by 30 per cent by 2027 from a baseline of 0.8 tonnes per capita.



1.2 the action Plan Processthis action plan is the result of the findings of the Auckland council Waste Assessment, preliminary feedback on issues from local boards and other key stakeholders53 and feedback from submissions in the statutory consultation process.

1.3 criteria For identiFying and assessing oPtionsthe council has made decisions on methods and actions in the WMMP in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, section 77. the following criteria have been used for evaluating options54.

ENviRONMENTAL iSSuES:

• waste minimisation (e.g. volume of waste reduction or diversion from landfill)

• resource efficiency benefits

• environmental harm

• climate change related issues and impacts.

SOCiAL ANd CuLTuRAL iSSuES:

• health and safety considerations (including public health, staff and contractor-related issues)

• public concern and interest

• partnership and community involvement

• the level to which producer and consumer responsibility is supported.

ECONOMiC iSSuES:

• estimated whole-of-life cost

• consideration of whether revenue is generated by the initiative (where relevant)

• other economic impacts, such as avoided costs or other benefits to the council or other stakeholders.

53 Auckland council Waste Assessment: Appendix F – consultation.

54 Auckland council Waste Assessment: 7.5-5 options assessment by waste stream and waste hierarchy.

2 key MethodsA comprehensive suite of actions has been developed, to meet the council’s legislative obligations and work towards its Zero Waste goal. the actions have been drawn from the former councils’ waste plans (which were legally the Auckland council’s plan) and were identified and evaluated in the Auckland council Waste Assessment and through pre-statutory consultation with key stakeholders. they include changes to funding methods and kerbside services but also specific services to help schools, businesses and the community reduce waste.

the list of actions/methods, with brief descriptions, is included in sections 3.1 and 3.2.

the following key actions/methods are described in more detail as they represent significant changes to the way waste will be managed and minimised across the region.

2.1 standardise Funding Methods For doMestic waste and recycling servicesPubLiC-GOOd, PRivATE-GOOd ANd diSPOSER-PAyS

When discussing the funding of publicly provided services, the council has made a distinction between public-good, private-good and disposer-pays.

‘Public-good’, used in the context of waste services, generally refers to services provided for the public in order to meet environmental policies and standards. these services – which benefit the whole community – cannot normally be linked to specific individuals who use the service. Examples are litter services, environmental promotion and education, enforcement of illegal dumping, and hazardous waste services. the cost of these services is generally met through general rates.

‘Private-good’ often refers to services that meet environmental policies and standards that are linked to specific individuals – kerbside recycling services, for example. In most cases costs are met through general rates or subsidised by other waste services or the

drAFt WAStE MAnAGEMEnt And MInIMISAtIon PLAn I 41WAStE MAnAGEMEnt And MInIMISAtIon PLAn I 41


government waste levy. In some cases, however, costs are legitimately met through a portion of disposer-pays charging, reflecting both the community and individual benefit derived from services (e.g. the organic waste collection proposal).

‘disposer-pays’ aligns closely with central government’s policy to provide financial disincentives to minimise waste sent to landfill. As a consequence there are areas where disposer-pays is the most appropriate funding approach, such as for refuse collections taken to landfill. Additionally, the legislation allows local government to subsidise other private-good services through any disposer-pays services surpluses.

RATES vERSuS diSPOSER-PAyS fuNdiNG fOR REfuSE

When refuse services are funded through general rates, all owners of rateable properties are sent a rates bill based on the relative value of their property. the money collected is put into a central pool and the council decides where this money is spent.

A variation on this funding model is a targeted rate. the money collected is earmarked for a specific purpose and cannot be reallocated to other things. the advantage of rates funding is that it is straightforward. the council has existing mechanisms for calculating charges and, because rates are a charge against the property, debt recovery is virtually assured.

the fundamental problem with residents paying for refuse collection through rates (whether the general rate or a targeted rate), is the lack of a direct financial incentive to limit the amount of refuse they generate. those who separate recyclables receive no economic benefit. disposer-pays funding overcomes this, providing residents with an incentive to reduce the waste they generate, while also giving them the power of choice: pay directly for waste, or reduce and recycle and pay less.

this raises the question whether disposer-pays is equitable. Large households that create a lot of waste and do not use recycling services would be likely to pay more through a disposer-pays system than if they paid through rates. Similarly, tenants in ratepayer-funded parts of the city who do not currently pay directly for refuse collection would now incur that cost. this could be a concern for parts of the community already financially stretched.

However, rates-funded collection also has equity issues. Small households (owner-occupied) pay proportionately more, in effect subsidising large households (living in similar size and value houses). the council believes that with intensive, targeted education programmes and enforcement, these issues can be managed. In fact, they already have been in parts of the city with similar socio-economic demographics, where the change from rates to a disposer-pays approach has been made.

current situation

residential ProPerties

• KERbSidE REfuSE COLLECTiONS: 45 per cent of Auckland households pay through disposer-pays (in the former north Shore, rodney, Waitakere, Papakura and Franklin areas) and 55 per cent pay through rates (in the former Auckland and Manukau areas).

• KERbSidE RECyCLiNG COLLECTiONS: most households in the region pay through rates. In the former Waitakere area this service is treated as a private good and is subsidised through surpluses derived from disposer-pays refuse collection and transfer station charges (the transfer station was owned by the council).

• iNORGANiC COLLECTiONS: households in the former north Shore, Auckland, Manukau, Papakura and Franklin areas pay for this service through rates. residents of the former Waitakere area pay through a combination of subsidised private-good funding and disposer-pays.

coMMercial ProPerties

• KERbSidE RECyCLiNG COLLECTiONS: commercial properties in the former rodney, north Shore, Waitakere, Auckland, Papakura and Franklin areas receive a rates-funded, domestic-type recycling service. those in the former Manukau area do not receive a service.

• KERbSidE REfuSE COLLECTiONS: commercial properties in the former north Shore, Waitakere, Papakura and Franklin areas receive council-provided, disposer-pays refuse services (for domestic quantities). those in the former Auckland area receive a rates-funded service. there is no council-provided service in the former Manukau area.


2.2 kerbside reFuse recePtaclescurrent situation

• residents of the former Auckland area use 120-litre wheelie bins for kerbside refuse collections.

• residents of the former rodney, Waitakere, Manukau, north Shore, Franklin and Papakura areas use bags (or in some case stickers). disposer-pays wheelie bins and bags are offered by private waste contractors in these areas.

Instituting disposer-pays for refuse collected in bags is relatively straightforward – provide prepaid bags or stickers.

Bin collection is slightly more complex, but the simplest method is a weekly collection with a targeted rate related to the size of bin chosen by the resident (the smallest capacity bin incurring the least cost). Although residents have an incentive to choose a smaller bin with this method, they have no incentive to reduce waste below its capacity, nor do they have an opportunity to reduce their disposer-pays cost.

A better method from a waste minimisation perspective is to use bins with radio Frequency Identification (rFId) tags which record the name and address of residents and the credit held in their waste accounts. the tags communicate with an rFId reader on the collection vehicle and a record is kept of the number of bin ‘lifts’ chargeable to a particular householder55.

using rFId tags on refuse bins (as well as recycling bins and, potentially, organic bins) will also enable households to monitor the amount of waste and recyclables they

55 covec has reviewed, and concurs with, an initial analysis by the Information Services department at Auckland council on the cost and feasibility of charging fees for the collection of waste from bins equipped with rFId tags.

action:the council will standardise funding methods for domestic waste and recycling services for residential and commercial properties across the region, including:

Residential properties:

• disposer-pays funding of kerbside refuse collections

• private-good funding of kerbside recycling collections

• private-good funding of kerbside organic waste collections

• rates funding of inorganic services

• public-good funding for services such as litter collection, hazardous waste and removal of illegal dumping.

Helping people adjust to change.

• As a priority, the council will support the changeover to disposer-pays charging for refuse with an intensive community development and engagement campaign over the next three years, particularly in those areas where refuse is currently rates-funded and where pilots will be undertaken, and in any other areas where community engagement will assist in the rollout of change.

º due to the change for tenants in rates-funded refuse collection areas, the council will work with key stakeholders to consider ways in which tenants with lower socio-economic means might be supported through this change.

º organics diversion will be introduced, together with larger dry recycling bins, and a customer service radio Frequency Identification system (rFId), before disposer-pays funding starts in areas which are currently rates-funded, so that people have the opportunity to adjust to recycling and minimise their refuse charge. the diversion could be in multiple ways, including an openness and encouragement of local community green waste initiatives.

º A transition programme will be developed, starting in 2015, and lasting a minimum of six months for the introduction of disposer-pays, including possible targeted rate adjustments in the first year.

Commercial properties:

• disposer-pays funding of kerbside refuse collections

• private-good funding of kerbside recycling collections for one bin with user-pays charging for additional bins and/or increased levels of service

• private-good funding of kerbside organic waste collections (if provided) for one bin with user-pays charging for additional bins and/or increased levels of service.


put out for collection and how much they are paying for refuse disposal56. Potentially residents will be able to track their own details on a council website.

rFId tags will also enable the council to provide better customer service – to track down lost or stolen bins, monitor contractor performance (e.g. investigate missed pick-ups) and determine which parts of the city require targeted waste minimisation education, advice and assistance to help households minimise refuse costs.

the type of payment channels that will be offered for the kerbside collection service will be aligned with the organisational-wide policies and standards that are currently being developed by the finance business unit. this will leverage off existing organisation-wide services where investment has already been made.

As wide a range of payment ‘channels’ as possible will be considered, for example:

• website (credit card)

• telephone Interactive Voice recognition (IVr) (credit card)

• over the counter (cash, cheque, EFtPoS) (e.g. at a supermarket or post office)

• internet banking (bill payment or direct credit).

these can be either on a prepaid or on-account basis. While payment via a prepaid system is highly preferable to minimise debt collection costs, rFId prepaid systems have only fairly recently been implemented in Europe, therefore aspects of the system will need to be worked through before implementation.

A change to an rFId system would be one of those targeted for an extensive education programme.

combining choice of bin size and prepaid per lift charges allows the needs of different-sized households to be met while also providing a strong incentive to reduce waste. Several bin sizes can be offered to residents, all with rFId tags57. the rFId records the bin size with other details, and refuse charges are calculated accordingly.

56 the proposal is for information to be made available through an interactive website.

57 Bins used for current collections can either be on-sold or recycled.

current estimates58 are that the cost per lift would be around $2.5059 for an 80-litre bin (collected fortnightly). the charge per lift will be commercially competitive. this figure has been calculated using the following assumptions about the revenue generated from the ‘per lift cost’:

• it will recover the full cost of refuse collection and disposal

• it will also provide some funding for the kerbside recycling service

• it may also provide some funding for the proposed kerbside food waste collection (with possible support from the waste levy).

the charges will be subject to a full economic analysis, efficient procurement processes and to market forces. they will be set annually through the annual plan or three yearly through the Long-term Plan.

While wheelie bins will be introduced across all urban areas of the city, a mixed bin and bag service will be provided in rural areas and the Hauraki Gulf Islands (HGI). this is to overcome difficulties householders face in these areas with long gravel driveways, lack of road frontages and other factors.

As organic waste would no longer be included in kerbside refuse bins or bags (reducing both volume and odour), collection of refuse would be fortnightly, alternating with the recycling collection.

the restriction of organic waste going to landfill from the domestic collection could be by way of a bylaw.

58 Based on economic modelling done by covec, September 2011.

59 cost estimates are based on the premise that 90 per cent of properties in the region come under this overarching system, and that costs would change depending on the percentage of the council market share. costs exclude future EtS charges as levels are currently unknown.


action:• the council will introduce wheelie bins for

refuse across the urban parts of the city but a mix of bags and bins in rural areas and the HGI for refuse, with pricing to reflect the added cost.

• Council officers will:

º work with the appropriate rural local boards and communities to identify the boundary between urban and rural properties for the purpose of waste collection

º work with the urban local boards to identify any narrow roads or particular properties which may need tailored solutions for the collection of bins

º work with the council’s Parks, recreation and Heritage Forum and the appropriate local boards on how best to deal with houses with no road frontage, scenic spots, parks and holiday areas

º work with local boards and communities in rural and coastal areas where there may be opportunities for drop-off areas.

• the council will ensure it has the resources to respond to particular situations of need (e.g. disability, age, immobility) by working with those people to deal with their bins on a one-to-one basis, engaging neighbourly support where possible.

• A range of bin sizes for refuse will be provided, from 60 to 240 litres.

• refuse collections will be fortnightly.

• refuse charges for bins will be on a per lift basis.

Customer service:

• radio Frequency Identification (rFId) will be used on all bins to improve customer service and enable more efficient and effective management of waste infrastructure.

• A wide range of accessible options for the pre-payment of refuse charges will be made available.

2.3 Move towards a consistent doMestic kerbside recycling service across the regioncurrent situation

• Households in the former Auckland, Franklin, Papakura and Manukau areas use 240-litre wheelie bins for kerbside recycling, collected fortnightly.

• Households in the former Waitakere and north Shore areas use 140-litre wheelie bins collected fortnightly.

• Households in the former rodney area use 55 and 70-litre crates collected weekly in urban areas and fortnightly in rural areas.

• In the former Waitakere, north Shore and rodney areas, paper and cardboard are collected separately. In other areas all materials are collected in one bin (commingled).

the rollout of a uniform kerbside recycling service across the Auckland region will be implemented. Existing contracts in the former north Shore and Waitakere areas do not finish until 2015, so it will take time to implement a uniform system across the region. In the meantime, 140-litre bins with paper collected separately will continue to be used in those areas that currently have them. In rodney, the contract using crates for recycling will end in 2013. It is proposed that the contract will be re-tendered with a change to wheelie bin collections as soon as practicable. the material collected from rodney is currently processed by Visy and it is considered that there will be capacity to cope with the additional tonnage from wheelie bins.

However, given community and industry concerns about commingled collections, an opportunity will be given for some flexibility in the intended rollout of this service.


A pilot separate collection has been proposed by industry in the former rodney area by the Auckland-based glass recycling industry which is interested in retaining a higher value from collected glass than commingled collection systems in new Zealand can provide. the outcome of this pilot, and further industry discussions, will be taken into account before the contracts are retendered.

In addition, Auckland-based paper recyclers have indicated their wish to consider the retention of the existing separate paper collections.

Movement on either or both of these issues will be dependent on the price gap between commingled and separate collections being removed, or at no net cost to the council.

exPand the range oF recyclables

In all areas the range of recyclable materials collected will be expanded to include:

• all plastic codes 1–7

• aluminium and steel (including clean aluminium foil and empty aerosol containers)

• glass bottles and jars

• tetra Pak© milk and juice cartons.

the wider range of recyclables collected will allow residents to reduce the amount of waste they put in their refuse bin.

disposer-pays funding for refuse should also encourage recycling: around 15 per cent (24,000 tonnes) of material put in Auckland’s kerbside refuse each year could be put in recycling bins under this proposal.

action:

• the council will introduce larger recycling bins across the region with a choice of bin sizes (on request).

• commingled (paper, glass, plastics etc) collections will be provided across the city.

Working with industry:

• the council will work proactively and collaboratively with operators to help expand the markets for a wider range of recyclables.

• the council will work with industry and innovative business ventures to retain more of the value of recyclable products (e.g. by recycling used glass into new bottles instead of into roading aggregate) either by closing the price gap for separate collections, or by other means.

º under these parameters, the suggestion of a separate glass collection trial in rodney will be explored in consultation with rodney Local Board and residents, subject to funding from industry.

º retaining the separate paper collection in north Shore, rodney and Waitakere will be considered if the funding gap for that separate collection can be closed before the current collection contract expires.

º depending on the outcome of the above, negotiation with the industry will occur on the option of a separate collection for glass and for paper to be offered for all urban areas, provided this proves to be practicable and can be achieved at no net cost to the council. this may include a user-pays element.

• the council will hold collaborative discussions with the waste industry on innovative ways to achieve the same waste reduction goal. At the same time, it will liaise with the industry to monitor any new technologies to either reduce waste, or in the area of waste to energy.

drAFt WAStE MAnAGEMEnt And MInIMISAtIon PLAn I 47 WAStE MAnAGEMEnt And MInIMISAtIon PLAn I 47


2.4 introduce a doMestic kerbside organic waste collectionorganic waste, consisting of food or kitchen waste (about 40 per cent of total kerbside waste) and green (or garden) waste (about 10 per cent of total kerbside waste) makes up over 50 per cent by weight60 of domestic kerbside refuse in the Auckland region. diverting this material would make a major contribution to the council’s short to medium and long-term goals. It would also provide householders with a service to help reduce the amount they pay for disposer-pays refuse.

the council will introduce a regular, rates-funded kerbside collection to divert organic waste from household refuse. the type of waste collected (food waste only or food waste plus green waste), the method of collection and processing, and the frequency of collection will be determined through the procurement process.

Private operators already provide domestic green waste collection services (generally using 240-litre wheelie bins or 600-litre bags). Whatever option is chosen, the council will ensure that the effect on the green waste industry is minimised. Some initial options and estimated costs for organic collections are discussed further in Part d, Appendix 4 of this plan. they include:

food waste only

• 60-litre wheelie bin with false bottom. Automated, weekly collection.

food waste plus some green waste

• 60-litre wheelie bin. Automated, weekly collection.

Separate green waste and food waste

• 60-litre food waste collected weekly and 240-litre green waste collected monthly. Both automated collections.

60 Auckland council Waste Assessment Appendix c: composition and tonnage of Auckland council’s kerbside residential refuse collection. Waste not consulting 2010. this has a plus or minus margin of error of approximately 5 per cent.

From a waste hierarchy perspective, diverting organic material from landfill by collecting and processing it is preferable to disposal. However, diversion is less desirable than beneficial activities like home composting, or not creating organic waste in the first place. this is particularly relevant, as it is estimated that one-third of all bought fruit and vegetables are thrown away. therefore, this plan proposes an intensive drive to encourage and incentivise home composting and reduction of food waste in the first place.

Some residents do not throw out organic waste, but compost or worm farm it at home, feed it to animals, or put it down an insinkerator and would therefore not need to use the service. the council will work on ways of valuing their contribution.

If it recovered 75 per cent of all organic material currently being disposed of to landfill (from both council and private domestic kerbside collections), a food waste collection has the potential to reduce waste to landfill by approximately 70,000 tonnes annually61 and a combined food waste/green waste collection has the potential to divert up to 85,000 tonnes annually.

the processing method used would depend on whether food waste or food waste combined with green waste was collected. the processing options are wider with a food waste only collection, and there may be potential to produce end products, such as stock feed and liquid fertiliser, as well as compost.

If compost proved to be the best solution (combined or single stream collections) this would increase the amount of compost available in the Auckland region. those involved in the sale of compost have indicated that the Auckland residential compost market is near saturation. Initial cost modelling for the organics collection has therefore excluded any return from the sale of end product. this means the retail price for compost can be adjusted to increase market demand – or in fact, to create new markets. the council needs to undertake further economic analysis on the whole proposal, and would work with the organic processing industry to develop long-term stable markets for the additional compost that would become available if composting was chosen.

the Ministry for the Environment’s 2007 State of the Environment report62 notes a loss of organic matter from cropping soils in new Zealand. the most promising markets for compost from Auckland’s

61 Auckland council Waste Assessment Appendix c: report 2.

62 Environment new Zealand 2007. p 239.


organic waste are therefore expected to be the agricultural and horticultural areas on either side of Auckland. use by Auckland council’s Parks and reserves unit would also be an option, and for sporting facilities and turf applications.

action:

The council will divert the organic component of the waste stream that is currently going to landfill.

• A regular rates-funded kerbside collection of organic waste will be introduced in urban parts of the city.

• the method of diverting the organic waste will be determined at the procurement phase of the process, to see what proposals the market presents.

The council’s governing body will:

• set the criteria for the choice of method for diverting organic waste

• overview the procurement process for the diversion of the organic waste.

The council will:

• set appropriate criteria for choosing the method of diverting organic waste, recognising the existing waste industry, but that the council’s overall aim is to maximise the overall green waste recovery

• carry out trials to find the right solution for Auckland for diverting organic waste

• hold exploratory discussions on potential collaboration with other councils including Environment Bay of Plenty and Waikato regional council

• intensify and incentivise composting education and explore community initiatives, including suggestions raised in submissions

• develop ways of valuing or acknowledging those who already home compost

• explore ways in which the community and voluntary sector and iwi/Ma-ori organisations can divert green waste from landfill.

there will be no provision of kerbside organic collection service to the HGI and rural areas. the Solid Waste unit will work with the relevant local boards, community organisations and residents on ways to reduce organic material (especially food waste) going to landfill by alternative methods.

2.5 regional inorganic collection current situation

• Kerbside inorganic collections are provided in the former north Shore, Auckland, Manukau and Papakura areas on an annual or biennial basis.

• A drop off system is provided in the former Franklin area and a booking system (with material collected from within residents’ properties) is provided in the former Waitakere area. no service is provided by the council in the former rodney area.

Although most councils in new Zealand do not provide inorganic collections and they are rare in overseas cities, they have been operating in some parts of Auckland for years. While recognising that they have negative impacts (such as health and safety issues for collectors and the public, mess, security issues, damage to reusable items through scavenging, illegal dumping and providing a disincentive to product stewardship), the council acknowledges they are popular with some parts of the community. the council will therefore provide an inorganic collection across the region until a better way to retrieve more recyclable and reusable items can be provided. Such an alternative would be likely to involve the resource recovery network described in section 2.6.

one of the main things council has considered when deciding on the options is whether collections should take place from the kerbside or from within residents' properties (as occurs in the west of Auckland). the latter has many advantages because it reduces the negative impacts associated with kerbside collections and has the added benefit of being able to retrieve more items intact that could be recycled or reused.

A kerbside system would need to have a shorter set out period before collection and be more rigorously monitored to deter illegal dumping and commercial scavenging, and to mitigate some of the negative impacts associated with those systems.

detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the various inorganic collection systems can be found in Appendix F of the Auckland council Waste Assessment, Issues Paper 3.


A brief summary of some of the options and estimated costs are provided in Appendix 4 of this plan and include:

1. an annual kerbside collection

2. a biennial (once every two years) kerbside collection

3. an annual collection from within residents' properties operated via a booking system

4. no collection – resource recovery centres only.

action:

• the council will develop a range of more effective systems for the recovery of inorganic material. the council will provide one rates-funded, on-site booked inorganic collection per year for every ratepayer from 2015 onwards, as well as local places within the resource recovery network where people can drop off inorganic material at other times.

• Kerbside inorganic collections will be phased out as the new systems are put in place.

• From 2012-2015 the council will:

º provide a rates-funded inorganic collection across the region

º provide an improved biennial kerbside inorganic collection in the former legacy areas which currently have a kerbside collection, with shorter set out times and stricter enforcement

º retain the annual inorganic on-site booking system in the former Waitakere area but with an improved methodology to divert more resources. the service will be rates-funded

º offer an on-site annual inorganic booking system in the legacy Franklin and rodney areas and in the Hauraki Gulf Islands

º develop ways to respond to domestic inorganic material from commercial areas.

Recovering more resources:

• The council will start work to explore:

º the potential to extend resource recovery systems progressively across the region provided by and for business and the community

º initiatives which appear to be successful in resource recovery such as Secondhand Sundays, Freecycle and garage sale networks

º fundraising initiatives for sports, charity and groups like Guides or Scouts

º the introduction of a booking system in discussion with local boards which are keen to develop resource recovery centres and work to improve resource recovery systems.

• the remaining local boards will be given the option of considering the introduction of an annual on-site booking system instead of a biennial kerbside collection, before a regional on-site booking system is introduced.

2.6 develoP a resource recovery network (rrn)the Zero Waste goal calls for an infrastructure that supports maximum resource recovery. the resource recovery network (rrn) provides such an infrastructure.

the idea of a region-wide network of resource recovery parks, developed for the former Auckland councils in 200563, came with a recommendation for seven large resource recovery park hubs linked to up to 60 smaller community recycling depots. the idea was to develop the rrn in stages and fund it through savings made by cancelling inorganic collections, imposing a regional landfill levy (this was before the national waste levy was introduced), and the sale of recovered materials. It was estimated that this infrastructure, supported with appropriate policy and an electronic stock control and trading system, could divert as much as 25 per cent of material going to landfill within five years and create new jobs and business opportunities through the expansion of the recovered materials industry.

63 Auckland council Waste Assessment Appendix F: reclaiming Auckland’s resources: A resource recovery network for the Auckland region. Envision new Zealand Ltd. 2005.

kerbside inorganic collections will be Phased out as the new systeMs are Put in Place.


A resource recovery park hub was proposed for each of the former council areas, using existing, redesigned transfer stations where appropriate. Small scale community recycling depots would be located within communities – owned and operated by the private sector, community enterprises or the council. the concept could not proceed further at the time, due to the fragmented nature of the region and lack of council ownership of facilities.

With the new council in place, the idea of a resource recovery network where businesses could drop off sorted materials and residents could drop off items at smaller scale community recycling depots is still seen as helpful for reducing waste to landfill but may take some time to put in place.

Many positive ideas on resource recovery came through the submissions from the community, iwi/Ma-ori and industry.

the council wishes to build on these ideas and this energy and will engage proactively to help facilitate progress.

organic waste Processing Facility

A 2009 investigation into diverting organic material64 from landfill in the Auckland region identified the need for a processing facility supported by two organic waste transfer facilities. the transfer stations would ideally be located at resource recovery parks. on the assumption that a processing facility would need to be on suitably zoned land, close to end-product markets, south Auckland and the Waikato were identified as the most likely locations. the organic waste collected from southern parts of Auckland would be delivered directly to the processing facility and organic waste from other areas would be consolidated at facilities located, ideally, in north Auckland and in the south/central area. If compost was the end product, and food waste only is collected, a certain amount of green waste would also be required to facilitate processing.

As the method of diverting and processing organic waste is not yet decided, the need for additional processing facilities is not yet known. this will be reconsidered in conjunction with the procurement process.

64 Investigation into options for beneficial processing of food waste. Morrison Low and Associates. July 2009.

tiMing

Although the rrn (potentially including an organic waste processing facility) is a medium to longer-term project, the resulting infrastructure will allow Auckland to sort and process a far greater range of materials, including construction and demolition, hazardous, household inorganic and organic waste.

action:

the council strongly supports this concept as it is an essential component to achieving the goals of the new Zealand Waste Strategy and the purpose of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

• the council will coordinate a collaborative dialogue with industry, the community/voluntary sectors and iwi/Ma-ori organisations to explore the following areas:

º how the council might support existing community and business recycling initiatives more actively (such as their inclusion in an interactive website giving information about recycling businesses)including existing centres

º how new resource recovery initiatives both by the community/voluntary sector, iwi/Ma-ori organisations and by business might be nurtured

º how to build on the energy and passion from submissions

º how interest from the existing network of refuse transfer stations might be developed.

• A network of drop-off points for hazardous waste will be developed, and the Hazmobile service will be phased out.

Many Positive ideas on resource recovery

caMe through the subMissions FroM the coMMunity,

iwi/Ma-ori and industry.


2.7 suPPort business – Particularly in the construction and deMolition industriesthe council will support business waste minimisation through a number of initiatives, particularly in the construction and demolition industries. the proposed rrn would provide the infrastructure (in tandem with privately owned facilities) to enable businesses to drop off reusable and recyclable materials for processing and sale (for reuse or remanufacturing). on-site support is also proposed, with the council working with businesses to reduce waste outputs and ‘broker’ the exchange of reusable and recyclable materials between waste producers and recyclers or reusers.

Support will also be provided through a communications programme and promotion of existing online waste reduction guides and resources such as rEBrI’s (resource Efficiency in the Building and related Industries) waste reduction tools65 and the Green Star66 building accreditation programme.

In addition, the council will investigate establishing demonstration projects to encourage the use of recovered materials in construction projects, as well as acknowledging businesses that successfully reduce construction and demolition waste.

For business in general, the council will support programmes such as Eco Smart and conscious consumers67 and improve the efficiency of the rEnEW waste exchange68, which supports redistribution between those businesses with industrial by-products or surplus materials, and those businesses or people who can use them. A ‘waste ranger’ service is also proposed, to provide hands-on help to areas with high waste outputs (such as businesses in cBds).

65 Hosted by BrAnZ. www.branz.co.nz/rEBrI

66 A programme of the new Zealand Green Building council. www.nzgbc.org.nz

67 www.consciousconsumers.org.nz

68 www.renew.org.nz

action:

• the council will support business waste reduction, particularly in the construction and demolition industries, by providing the infrastructure and/or support industry to recover, reuse and recycle materials and by actively working with businesses to reduce waste and facilitate the exchange of reusable and recyclable materials.

• the council will publicise on its website and elsewhere, the availability of services that provide for the reuse and recycling of products.

2.8 advocate For Product stewardshiP Product stewardship, sometimes called ‘extended producer responsibility’ (EPr), is a policy approach that aims to ensure producers and consumers take greater responsibility for the environmental costs of the products and packaging they produce and/or consume. As such, product stewardship shifts the main responsibility for recovery, recycling and disposal from local government to private industry, incorporating costs in the product price. the focus is on keeping products and packaging from entering the waste stream and facilitating design that promotes recovery and recycling. Products commonly targeted by such schemes include packaging, batteries, disposable nappies, solvents, tyres and electronic goods; although in theory, any product may be managed in this way.

the WMA promotes product stewardship and makes provision for the introduction of voluntary and mandatory schemes. However, to date, no mandatory schemes have been introduced and voluntary schemes (successful as some have been) are limited in their effectiveness69. Voluntary schemes currently exist in new Zealand for glass packaging, agricultural chemicals (and packaging), used oil and paint.

69 changing Behaviour: Economic instruments in the Management of Waste: Parliamentary commissioner for the Environment. (Preface).


one of the best known mandatory product stewardship schemes is container deposit Legislation (cdL), which places a small deposit, typically 10 or 20 cents, on beverages such as soft drinks, wine, beer, milk, fruit juice and water. the deposit is refunded when empty containers are returned to recycling facilities. the scheme operates successfully around the world and significantly increases recycling rates (typically 70 to 90 per cent70 compared to 30 to 40 per cent currently in new Zealand71).

If cdL were introduced, substantial savings would be seen on kerbside collection and litter clean up, as well as a reduction in environmental harm caused by containers entering waterways and the sea. cdL can only be introduced at a national level so Auckland council would need to advocate for its introduction. Some parts of industry oppose cdL, arguing that it will undermine current recycling programmes72 or that it will be too expensive to operate73.

other problematic waste streams for which product stewardship schemes could be introduced include electronic waste (computers, televisions, etc.), tyres and batteries – all of which pose a significant threat to the environment when disposed of incorrectly. collection and consolidation points could be provided at rrn facilities.

the 2013 changeover from analogue to digital television makes a product stewardship scheme for televisions an urgent matter (there will be an influx of obsolete equipment). the council will also support any proposals which address the growing number of discarded tyres74, such as a proposed collaborative scheme being developed by industry.

70 changing Behaviour: Economic instruments in the Management of Waste: Parliamentary commissioner for the Environment. (Preface.)

71 the Incentive to recycle: A container deposit System for new Zealand. Envision nZ Ltd. 2007.

72 the Incentive to recycle: A container deposit System for new Zealand. Envision nZ Ltd. 2007.

73 Potential Impacts of the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill: update report. covec. 2008 and national container deposit Scheme Impacts prepared by Australian Economist consultancy AcIL tasman on behalf of the Australian Food and Grocery council in September 2011.

74 tyre track – a voluntary scheme has wound up due primarily to a number of the smaller tyre retailers not joining the scheme and some of those who had, not reporting all their tyre movements (MWH 2004 End of Life tyre Management: Storage options-report to MfE from Auckland council).

action:

the council strongly supports the concept of product stewardship (in line with the WMA) for all products.

• the council will collaborate with the private sector on new voluntary product stewardship schemes as a first step, but maintains the right to advocate for mandatory product stewardship for that product if significant measurable progress is not made in reducing that waste to landfill.

• the council will advocate for the introduction of container deposit Legislation (cdL) (as an effective means of dealing with the costs of collecting recyclables, as well as offering significant community benefit) subject to further discussion with industry.

• the council will include product stewardship ideas raised in submissions for review and potential collaboration between the council and the private sector.

• the council will encourage industry and advocate to the government to develop solutions for products that need priority attention such as:

º nappies and incontinence pads – exploring effective, affordable self funding services

º tVs (especially during the digital tV changeover)

º tyres

º construction and demolition waste

º batteries

º e-waste.

iF cdl were introduced, substantial savings would be

seen on kerbside collection and litter clean uP, as well as a

reduction in environMental harM caused by containers entering

waterways and the sea.


2.9 advocate For aMendMents to the waste MiniMisation act 2008the purpose of the WMA is to encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal, and the act requires the council to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within its district. Because Auckland council only influences approximately 17 per cent of the region’s waste, its ability to carry out this responsibility is limited – and will remain so unless it either gains more influence over the waste stream, or industry is given the same responsibilities as council.

Following discussions with industry, the council proposes to advocate for amendments to the WMA that would give industry the same obligations as local authorities to reduce waste to landfill. this advocacy would not affect the council’s ongoing discussions with the waste industry around ways for the council to obtain greater influence over the waste stream. neither would it affect any of the actions outlined in this plan, which are predominantly directed at the 17 per cent of the waste stream that the council currently influences.

action:

• the council will advocate to the government to amend the waste legislation to apply the same responsibility for waste reduction to industry as currently legislated for local government.

2.10 Facilitate local enterPrise there are many examples around new Zealand that show how, with council support, local enterprises (businesses, community groups, etc.) can play an important role in achieving their communities’ waste reduction objectives75.

the council proposes to explore new initiatives that, once established, can be transferred to local enterprises to operate. In effect, the council is proposing ‘reverse' Boot (build, own, operate transfer) schemes, where the council would develop initiatives and local enterprises would be the recipient operators76. (In ‘normal’ Boot schemes the private sector builds, owns and operates a facility and then hands it over to the public.)

opportunities for such schemes, once the resource recovery network is established, range from operation of recycling depots to producing new products from recovered materials. there may also be opportunities to transfer services such as the proposed ‘sell on behalf of’ service for reusable items (described in section 3.1.9) and delivery of waste minimisation education and communication programmes. Product stewardship programmes may also offer opportunities for the council to develop systems and/or provide access to facilities – for example, for used oil (for which the council is already running a pilot project), electronic waste, etc.

Facilitating the involvement of local enterprises in waste minimisation and resource recovery initiatives aligns with Auckland council’s draft Economic development Strategy, particularly with the strategy’s focus on innovation, a business-friendly and well functioning city, growing local skills and jobs and creating a sustainable eco-economy.

action:

• the council will investigate and develop initiatives that will enable local enterprises and mana whenua involvement in resource recovery and waste minimisation activities.

75 For example the community, Business and Environment centre (cBEc) in Kaitaia www.cbec.co.nz

76 Auckland council Paper to the 2011 WasteMinz conference. “Product Stewardship: Balancing up the responsibility.”

the PurPose oF the wMa is to encourage waste MiniMisation and a decrease in waste disPosal.


2.11 investigate enacting a waste bylawA waste bylaw may be required to implement aspects of this plan and may include (amongst other things):

• regulating the deposit of waste and diverted materials

• regulating kerbside collection and transportation of waste and diverted materials through licensing of waste operators

• regulating access to waste management and minimisation facilities provided, owned or operated by the council

• prohibiting the disposal of diverted material to disposal facilities

• controlling litter and providing receptacles for litter in public places.

the bylaw may also address issues such as unsolicited advertising material, shopping trolleys, clothing bins, multi-unit dwellings and abandoned vehicle.

action:

• the council will investigate developing and enacting, by 31 october 2012, new regional waste bylaws that support the intent of this plan.

• In this context, the council will investigate a cleanfill regulation.

2.12 hauraki gulF islandsthe provision of waste services in the Hauraki Gulf Islands (HGI)77 is much more expensive than on the mainland due to the islands’ isolation and the expense of shipping materials offshore for disposal or recycling78. Although the higher average costs need to be addressed, it is acknowledged that charging the full disposer-pays cost for waste services would be prohibitive for island communities. nor is it practical to consider each island in isolation, especially given the large number of holiday makers and boats that visit. It is therefore recommended that the HGI be considered as an entity and that a uniform amount is charged for disposer-pays refuse bags or bins. this would enable a much fairer distribution of costs; that is, boat owners, visitors and residents would all make their contribution. one option would be for Hauraki Gulf-specific, prepaid refuse bags to be made available at marine stores, bait shops and garages throughout the region, as well as on the islands (and potentially for kerbside collections) and for them to be able to be dropped off at designated facilities on and off the islands and potentially on waste barges79. Waiheke Island residents could also use wheelie bins with rFId tags to facilitate disposer-pays charging.

Preliminary engagement with local boards has indicated that due to the different logistical issues on each of the islands, local boards in the Hauraki Gulf should have a larger say in the waste services provided, and have input into how they could be funded. the council will decide in conjunction with local boards for recommending to the governing body how much of the cost of waste services should be imposed through disposer-pays charging and how much should be subsidised from region-wide public-good funding (i.e. general rates). this plan recommends subsidised services through rates at a level to be determined later, when all other aspects of the services are determined80. once this has been established details of specific services and infrastructure requirements can be addressed.

77 Waiheke, Great Barrier, rakino and Kawau Islands.

78 Auckland council Waste Assessment Appendix F: Issues paper 5: Geographically remote Areas Waste Management and resource recovery.

79 the council will investigate and discuss with the local community ways of dealing with existing refuse barges.

80 With the proviso that charges are not less than the mainland.

the bylaw May also address issues such as unsolicited advertising Material, shoPPing trolleys, clothing bins, Multi-unit dwellings and abandoned vehicles.


the current level of subsidy provided to the islands is about $2.2 million or about 60 per cent of the actual cost of providing the service.

Whichever services are provided, they must support the vision and goals of the region. An important step will be to work out how to remove organic material from the waste stream. Local collection and processing solutions could be developed, the shape of which will be determined by the level of disposer-pays refuse charging. A key principle will be to try to keep organic material on the islands. Another will be to ensure all waste assets are managed appropriately to comply with resource consent and legislative requirements.

current contracts on Waiheke Island expire in 2019, so changes to service provision before then would only be possible with agreement from both parties.

action:

• Further work will be carried out together with local boards (Waiheke, Great Barrier and rodney) to determine the level of service provision on the Hauraki Gulf Islands and the level of disposer-pays charging and level of subsidy for refuse, with the final decision resting with the governing body.

The council will:

• introduce a mixed disposer-pays bag and wheelie bin collection for refuse

• develop a workable, accessible system for boat users to enable a disposer-pays system to work effectively

• explore opportunities for local resource recovery initiatives in collaboration with residents, industry, the community/voluntary sector and the local boards in order to maximise reuse and recycling, and to retain as much material as possible on the islands

• ensure all waste assets on the islands are managed appropriately to comply with resource consent and legislative requirements.

2.13 iMPleMent a strategic FraMework For coMMunication, waste MiniMisation PrograMMes and coMMunity develoPMentA strategic framework for communication, waste minimisation programmes and community development81 has been developed to support implementation of this plan. Its aim is to encourage widespread uptake of the proposed changes to collections and services, and to promote everyday actions to reduce waste. the framework will provide high level direction for communication campaigns, education, community engagement and community development activities, ensuring a cohesive, targeted package is delivered to the region82. Local boards and key local organisations will be sounding boards for the effectiveness of such campaigns, and in some cases will be actively involved.

How communities deal with waste is influenced by many factors, including household size, the cost of waste disposal, home ownership status, the convenience of collection services, knowledge of how to ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’, and cultural norms and location. these factors will influence the way in which communities respond to any proposed service changes – and how successfully those changes are adopted. the experience of councils in Auckland and around new Zealand shows that with the right support, communities can easily reduce the waste that goes to landfill.

81 community development is the process of helping a community strengthen itself and develop towards its full potential.

82 It should be noted that framework includes both actions in the 17 per cent of the waste to landfill that the council influences and collaborative actions with the industry and business that the council has an interest in, but does not control.


For the purposes of this plan, ‘waste wise’ behaviour comprises the regular actions Aucklanders can take to better manage and minimise their waste. Besides separating and recycling, people can avoid waste in the first place through their consumption choices, composting, mulching garden waste, and using waste exchange and resource recovery services. the diagram on the next page (Figure 6) shows the full range of actions people can take – and many Aucklanders are already taking them. the aim of this plan is to encourage the whole community to do so.

strategies to suPPort change in the coMMunity

communities vary in their ability to adapt to change and in the support they require to do so. Implementing this plan requires empowering people to minimise the waste they produce and thereby reduce the cost of disposal. to ensure this, household and community engagement programmes will target areas with a higher proportion of large households, renters and other groups. the council will work closely

with local community groups and networks to provide the information and support needed before, during and after the introduction of new services.

coMMunity-based social Marketing

As indicated in the strategic framework above, three streams of activity will support the introduction of new services and foster waste wise behaviour in the community – communication, waste minimisation programmes and community development. until recently, the term ‘education’ was applied to all communication, information and engagement programmes for waste minimisation. While education can help raise awareness of a problem, it is less reliable in fostering change in people’s daily behaviour. there is often a gap between what people know, what they intend to do and what they actually do. techniques such as community-based social marketing (cBSM), developed specifically to address this gap, have been used successfully elsewhere to foster waste wise behaviour. While education will remain an important part of the plan, cBSM will be used in the design

Towards Zero Waste

Innovative programmes - community education - partnerships - new services

Communications Waste minimisation programmes Community development

Whole community, targeted areas

Households, businesses, schools

Community organisations,targeted households, business

To raise awareness and provideinformation about major servicechanges and ‘waste wise’ behaviour through social marketing and information

To motivate people to adopt ‘waste wise’ behaviour through education and targeted engagement programmes

To empower people to manage and minimise their waste, at acommunity and business level

- Television- Community based social marketing- Recycling and resource exchange website- Social media- Phone applications- Printed collateral (information packs, calendars, brochures)- Market research

- Household visits ‘Waste Rangers’- Personalised waste plans- Business programmes/ certification- Experiential learning- Curriculum linked education- Waste resources and systems- Community learning centres- Workshop and presentations- Evaluation

- Community based resource networks- Social enterprise- Business partnerships- Place based community driven projects- Business incubation- Action learning

To raise awareness and encourage change in waste practices at home,at work and in the wider community to reduce waste going to landfillA

imTo

ols

Obj

ecti

ves

Aud

ienc

e

FIGurE 5: StrAtEGIc FrAMEWorK For WAStE MInIMISAtIon


of waste minimisation programmes, and be one of the underpinning parts of education, communication, community engagement and empowerment activities.

coMMunication

Innovative and engaging campaigns will be developed. they will include a set of consistent and clear waste-wise messages. campaigns will play an important part in supporting the rollout of new services, and will link to education and support activities.

education

curriculum-linked programmes within schools build understanding and create a sense of responsibility around waste. Schools are also focal points within communities and young people are important role models for parents and wha-nau. the WasteWise schools programme will continue and be expanded to more schools across the region.

coMMunity engageMent

direct engagement with households and communities through household visits, workshops and other activities is an important way to encourage waste-wise behaviour at home. targeted community engagement programmes will help communities implement practical waste minimisation solutions at home.

coMMunity develoPMent

A community development approach may be most effective in some communities, where service changes are likely to have more impact. this means engaging with groups such as nGos, trusts and the volunteer sector, who know their communities well and have strong networks and experience in communicating with local people. Programmes that build capacity in specific communities and have social, economic, environmental and cultural outcomes will be explored in order to develop community understanding, involve people in solutions and create lasting change.

Litte

r an

d

ill

egal d

umpi

ng

Organics

Inorganicsand special

Paper

and packaging

Hazardous

Co

nstr

uctio

n

and

dem

oliti

on

Separate and drop off of hazardous and special waste

Trade, gift and exchange reusable goods

Use waste exchanges and brokerage services

Buy products with extended producer responsibility or waste reduction credentials

Separate and book inorganic collection

Handle, store and dispose of hazardous waste safely

Avoid and reduce the use of hazardous substances

Separate and correct set out of recycling

Buy economy sized products, concentrates and refills

Buy products with recyclable packaging or no packaging at all

Establish and maintain compost, bokashi or worm farm

Separate and correct set out of organic waste

Mulch lawn clippings and garden waste

Buy only as much fresh food as needed, reuse left-overs

Avoid, recycle and reuse construction and demolition waste

Join extended producer responsibility and industry accreditation programmes

Put litter in its place – secure your rubbish

Refuse set out and secured

FIGurE 6: EVErYdAY WAStE rEductIon ActIonS


business PartnershiPs

Businesses are an intrinsic part of our communities, providing social and economic support. Work and home practices are closely linked. It is proposed to continue working with small-to-medium sized businesses under existing programmes and to explore ways to strengthen these relationships. Partnerships with business associations and industry groups, will be key.

evaluation and research

An evaluation framework will be developed to track the progress of the communication, education and community development activities in this plan, and continually improve them.

action:

• the council will implement a continued and intensive community education, engagement and community development programme during and after implementation of the plan.

• consideration will be given to the use of more than the official five languages (given the multi-cultural nature of Auckland) when reaching into particular communities.

• targeted programmes will be developed and implemented to assist and inform communities on how to reduce waste.

• the council recognises that community education, engagement and development are not one off or one-size-fits-all processes – they need to be ongoing and linked to other council programmes as much as possible.

• the council will work in partnership with the active network of community-based organisations focused on waste reduction in the engagement and education aspects of the rollout and ongoing implementation of the plan.

Specific actions are described in section 3.2.

3 actions and iMPleMentation As discussed in part A of this waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP), the formation of Auckland council represents both a significant challenge and a unique opportunity for waste minimisation in the region. Part A shows how the present system is structurally unlikely to deliver the waste reduction outcomes required under the council’s new strategic direction, and central government legislation. A step change is required. to this end, this plan includes the following actions as the best means of charting a course towards Zero Waste.

the actions have been developed to ensure that waste management and minimisation is effective and efficient, and reduces potential for public harm, as required by the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA). By adhering to the waste hierarchy model, the actions will also maximise the economic potential of the Auckland region’s waste stream.

under the plan, actions will be implemented over a short to medium timeframe. they will drive changes in behaviour, efficiencies in waste management and, ultimately, a significant reduction in waste per capita. they will not only align waste and recycling outcomes with legislative requirements, but will also help Auckland reach its goal of becoming one of the most liveable cities in the world.

Sections 3.1 and 3.2 list the full range of actions the council will take towards its short to medium and long-term goals – with a brief detail/description, funding method and timeframe for implementation added.

Actions fall into two broad categories:

1. policy and operations

2. communications and waste minimisation programmes.

Policy and operations actions describe how the council will change and implement services across the region. communications and waste minimisation programmes actions provide the support needed to ensure the success of the changes, along with ongoing programmes for businesses, schools, and the community.


residents and visitors are able to recycle in Public areas.


action detail/descriPtion what this will Mean For households tiMeFraMe

residential ProPerties:

Fund kerbside refuse collections through disposer-pays

disposer-pays funding will be introduced for kerbside refuse collections across the region. refuse charges will be set to cover more than the cost of collection and disposal of refuse to landfill, with the surplus used to fund waste reduction and recycling initiatives – in accordance with Section 46 of the WMA.

residents will pay directly for the waste they produce and will have an incentive to reduce the amount they put out at the kerbside. charges will be commercially competitive.

2015 (July onwards)

Fund kerbside recycling collections through private-good funding

Private-good funding of kerbside recycling collections means the costs of this service will be paid for through rates, surpluses generated from disposer-pays refuse charges, waste levy funds or a combination of these methods.

Kerbside recycling services will appear free to residents as there will not be a direct charge. As a result, residents will have an incentive to recycle as much as possible to reduce the cost of refuse disposal.

2015 (July onwards)

Fund organic waste collection through private-good charging Fund regional inorganic collection through rates

Subject to a procurement process, an organic waste (food waste only or food waste plus green waste) collection will be tested and implemented. the service would be private-good funded (supported through rates, surpluses generated from disposer-pays refuse charges, waste levy funds or a combination of these methods).

Because there is no user-charge for the service there will be an incentive to put organic waste in the organic waste bin rather than the refuse bin and thus reduce residents’ refuse volumes.

2015 (July onwards)

Fund regional inorganic collection through rates

Inorganic collections will be funded through rates. residents will not pay any direct disposer-pays charge for this service.

2015

Fund litter collection services, public recycling, hazardous waste services and removal of illegal dumping through public-good funding

All litter services (collection of loose litter, emptying litter bins etc), public recycling services and illegal dumping enforcement will be paid for through public-good funding (rates).

residents will not pay any direct user charges for these services. As they are classified as a public-good they will be funded through rates.

2015 (July onwards)

coMMercial ProPerties:

Fund kerbside domestic-type refuse collections through disposer-pays

disposer-pays funding will be introduced for kerbside refuse collections in areas where they are currently rates-funded. refuse charges will be set to cover more than the cost of collection and disposal of refuse to landfill, with the surplus used to fund waste reduction and recycling initiatives – in accordance with Section 46 of the WMA.

Businesses will pay directly for the waste they produce and will have an incentive to reduce the amount they put out on the kerbside.

2015 (July onwards)

Fund kerbside domestic-type recycling services through private-good funding

Private-good funding of kerbside recycling collections means the costs of this service will be met through rates, surpluses generated from disposer-pays refuse charges, waste levy funds or a combination of these methods. If businesses require additional bins or collections, requests will be considered on a disposer-pays basis.

Standard kerbside recycling services will appear free to businesses as there will not be a direct charge. As a result businesses will have an incentive to recycle as much as possible to reduce the cost of refuse disposal.

2015 (July onwards)

Fund kerbside domestic-type organic waste collection through private-good funding

An organic waste (food waste only or food waste plus green waste) collection would be private-good funded (supported through rates, surpluses generated from disposer-pays refuse charges, waste levy funds or a combination of these methods).

Because there is no user-charge for using the service there will be an incentive to put organic waste in the organic waste bin rather than the refuse bin.

2015 (July onwards)

waste Policy actions 3.1 .1 standardise Funding Methods For doMestic waste and recycling services

3.1 waste Policy and oPerational actions


action detail/descriPtion what this will Mean For the region

Funding Method tiMeFraMe

Advocate for the introduction of Container Deposit legislation (CDl) subject to further discussion with industry

cdL is seen as an effective means of dealing with the costs of collecting recyclables, as well as offering significant community benefit. It would significantly increase the number of beverage containers recovered and recycled in Auckland and would reduce kerbside collection and litter costs. It cannot be implemented regionally so would need to be introduced as a nationwide scheme by central government. the council can advocate for its introduction on the basis that it is a scheme that transfers the majority of the costs of recovery and recycling from ratepayers to producers and consumers, in keeping with the intent of the WMA. opposition from some parts of industry will be reviewed before advocacy starts.

When purchasing a beverage, consumers would pay a small deposit, which would be refunded when they return the container to a recycling centre. recycling rates would increase, leading to less litter and reduced waste and recycling service costs. depending on how the scheme was administered there would be opportunities for small businesses and community enterprises to run collection depots.

Public-good funded

2012 ongoing

Encourage industry and advocate to the government to develop solutions for products that need priority attention such as nappies and incontinence pads, TVs (especially during the digital TV changeover), tyres, construction and demolition waste, batteries and e-waste

Electronic waste, tyres and batteries pose a significant threat to the environment when disposed of incorrectly. Product stewardship schemes would ensure they are recovered and recycled, or disposed of correctly. collection and consolidation points could be provided at rrn facilities. nappies (and incontinence pads) and construction and demolition waste contribute significantly to the amount of waste going to landfill.

residents would be able to dispose of these products in an environmentally responsible manner. there will be less need for inorganic collection services and less waste would be put in kerbside refuse collections. Manufacturers will have more incentive to design products for recovery and recycling.

Public-good funded

2012 ongoing

Advocate for amendments to the WMA to give industry the same waste minimisation obligations as local authorities

It is estimated that around 30% of material going to landfill could be diverted to beneficial use (recycling, composting, etc.), yet there is no legal imperative for industry to reduce waste to landfill. Amending the WMA to give industry the same responsibilities as local authorities would significantly reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill.

the amount of waste sent to landfill would decrease significantly and Auckland would move much faster towards its Zero Waste goal.

Public-good funded

2012 ongoing

3.1.2 advocate For legislative change


3.1.3 investigate enacting a waste bylaw



Investigate developing and enacting a waste bylaw by 31 October 2012 to support the aim and intent of this plan

Existing bylaws expire on 31 october 2012. development of a bylaw may be required if it is determined to be the most appropriate method of regulation. In accordance with Section 56 of the WMA:

(1) A territorial authority may make bylaws for one or more of the following purposes83:

a. prohibiting or regulating the deposit of waste

b. regulating the collection and transportation of waste

c. regulating the manner of disposal of dead animals including their short-term storage pending disposal

d. prescribing charges to be paid for the use of waste management and minimisation facilities provided, owned or operated by the territorial authority

e. prohibiting, restricting or controlling access to waste management and minimisation facilities provided, owned or operated by the territorial authority

f. prohibiting the removal of waste intended for recycling from receptacles provided by the territorial authority by anyone other than:

i the occupier of the property from which the waste in the receptacle has come; or

ii a person authorised by the territorial authority to remove the waste.

(2) A bylaw must not be inconsistent with the territorial authority’s waste management and minimisation plan.

the bylaw may also address issues such as unsolicited advertising material, shopping trolleys, clothing bins, multi-unit dwellings and abandoned vehicles. It could also consider a significant increase in the littering and illegal dumping fines.

A bylaw will help ensure households and businesses use waste and recycling systems correctly, so they do not present a hazard or inconvenience to others. Alongside intensive education programmes the council will have the ability to ensure that those who do not act responsibly are penalised.

the proposed waste bylaw would consider requiring both community-based and commercial waste industry and waste reduction organisations to provide relevant information of a non-commercial nature for monitoring purposes and community education.

Public-good funded

2012 ongoing

Investigate developing and enacting a cleanfill regulation

Investigate, draft and adopt a bylaw prohibiting disposal of certain construction and demolition materials in landfills and cleanfills, and regulating cleanfills.

reusable and recyclable material will be diverted to beneficial use.

Public-good funded and fees from licensing operators.

2012 ongoing

83 Waste Minimisation Act (2008) section 56


waste oPerational actions

3.1.4 Move towards consistent doMestic waste and recycling services across the region

action detail/descriPtion what this will Mean For households


kerbside refuse collectionIntroduce wheelie bins in urban areas for those areas that currently use bags

residents will be offered a range of wheelie bin sizes for refuse from 60 to 240 litres (one per dwelling). Wheelie bins will be manufactured with rFId tags that automatically debit the resident’s prepaid account when the bin is emptied. different charges will apply for emptying different sized bins. collection will be available fortnightly on a specified day, but residents who do not put their waste out will not be charged. Bins will not be emptied if the resident's account does not have sufficient credit (although some discretion is expected in the transition time). A waste account will be created for all residents (one per dwelling).

residents will be able to manage their waste costs through choice of bin size and/or frequency of collection. they will be able to choose the bin size that best meets their household’s needs – but the smaller the bin, the less they will pay. A fortnightly collection service will be offered, but residents can choose to put their bin out less frequently.

disposer-pays 2015

Introduce a disposer-pays mixed bag and wheelie bin service for rural areas and the hauraki Gulf Islands

A disposer-pays mixed bag and wheelie bin kerbside refuse collection will be provided in rural areas and the Hauraki Gulf Islands. residents will have the option of bin size and capacity ranging from 60 to 240 litres.

rural residents and Hauraki Gulf Island residents will be able to use prepaid bags for refuse. they will also have the option of an rFId-tagged wheelie bin (of varying capacity). charges will reflect the added cost of the service, and on HGI will be partially subsidised.

2015-2019

Introduce a council-provided collection service in the former Rodney District Council area

A disposer-pays bin service would be offered in urban areas of rodney and a mixed bin or bag service in rural areas.

kerbside recycling collectionIntroduce larger wheelie bin and expanded range of materials

residents will be offered a range of wheelie bin sizes from 140 to 360 litres (one per dwelling). recyclable materials will be collected fortnightly. the range of materials collected will be expanded to potentially include all plastics (codes 1–7), aluminium and steel (including clean aluminium foil and empty aerosol containers), glass bottles and jars, and tetra Pak© milk and juice cartons.

residents will have more choice in bin size and can choose one that best fits their needs. the wider range of materials accepted means more material will be able to be diverted from residents’ refuse bins, reducing refuse disposal costs.

Private-good funded

2015

Roll out a fully commingled service across the region (once existing collection and processing contracts expire)

the recycling service will be commingled across the region. However, if industry can close the funding gap for separate collection of glass and/or paper and there is no net cost to the council, there is potential for these materials to be collected separately.

Households would be able to put all materials in one bin with a fully commingled collection. With separate collections an additional receptacle may be required.

Trials for separate glass and paper collections will be carried out subject to industry funding

Further details in section 2.3 2012 onwards


kerbside organic waste collectionIntroduce a new collection for organic waste (food waste only or food waste plus green waste)

residents will be provided with a service for diverting organic waste from refuse, which would be private-good (rates) funded. residents who have an alternative for private disposal to beneficial use (e.g. home composting, bokashi, feeding to animals, insinkerator, etc.) can continue using alternative methods and will not need the new service.

this will be a new service for residents. It will provide an opportunity to reduce the amount of residual waste they put in their refuse bin by up to 50%. the service will be private-good funded.

Private-good funded

2015

Pilots will be carried out to find the right solutions for Auckland

Further details on trials in section 2.4 2012 onwards

Inorganic collectionIntroduce a regional collection for inorganic waste

up until 2015 residents will be able to dispose of one cubic metre of inorganic material every one or two years. the council will monitor and enforce the collection system as well as illegal dumping and commercial scavenging to minimise negative impacts. the existing booking system for Waitakere will continue with an improved methodology and rates funding. After 2015 the council will provide an annual on-site booking service along with resource recovery facilities to drop off goods and materials outside of the collection period.

residents will eventually have access to a system that enables them to dispose of goods and materials in a way that maximises resource recovery.

rates-funded 2015

Exploratory work will be carried out on extending potential resource recovery systems, successful resource recovery initiatives and fundraising initiatives

Further detail in section 2.5 2012 onwards

Work with local boards to discuss potential for resource recovery centres and review inorganic collections

Further detail in section 2.5 2012 onwards


3.1.5 services For the coMMercial sector



Continue to provide household kerbside collection services to businesses that currently receive them

Businesses, in some of the former councils, were offered household kerbside refuse and recycling services. these services will continue while an investigation into future service provision is undertaken.

there will be no disruption to services while the council investigates options.

Public-good funded

2012-2015

Investigate options for providing household kerbside collection services to businesses (i.e. for non-trade waste) throughout the region

Introducing rFId-tagged wheelie bins for domestic collections would give the council the ability to offer the same suite of services to businesses, with the potential for increased collection frequency. refuse collection would be on a disposer-pays basis, and recycling would likely be private-good funded for one bin, with disposer-pays charging for additional bins. organic waste collections, if provided, would likely be provided on a similar basis. the investigation would determine what demand there is for the services and how they would be implemented (including receptacle type, etc.). Special consideration would be given to the needs of businesses in central business districts.

Businesses would have access to services that allow them to sort and recycle their non-trade waste (e.g. from lunchrooms, offices, etc.). Although they would pay for additional recycling services (over and above those provided through the targeted rate) this would be less than refuse collection charges, providing an incentive to recycle. Providing consistent recycling services at home and work will help reinforce the waste minimisation message throughout the region.

Public-good funded (investigation)

disposer-pays funded for refuse

Private-good funding for recycling and organic waste collections

2012/2013(investigation)

2015(implementation)

Investigate and develop ways of responding to domestic inorganic material from commercial properties

Further detail in section 2.5 Public-good funded (investigation)

2012 onwards

Publicise reputable businesses that provide for reuse and recycling of particular products on its website and elsewhere

Further detail in section 2.7 Public-goodfunded

2015



Develop services for multi-unit residential properties (10 or more units)

the council will work with the Waitemata Local Board and any other interested local boards, developers, the waste industry and residents, to find solutions for waste management and minimisation services for multi-unit dwellings. Guidance material will be made available and practical assistance provided from the ‘waste rangers’ service.

occupants of multi-unit properties will be provided with the same level of waste and recycling services offered to other residents in the region. the council will enable body corporates to provide their own service solutions.

Public-good funded

2012/2013

Ensure handling and storage systems for recyclable materials are provided in new multi-unit residential developments

the council will ensure that the unitary plan and waste bylaw stipulates that adequate handling and storage systems for waste and recyclable materials must be designed and constructed in new multi-unit properties.

Adequate waste and recycling systems will be available and easy to use for building occupants.

Public-good funded

2012/2013

3.1.6 Multi-unit ProPerties


3.1.8 develoP a resource recovery network



Offer schools a council-provided recycling service and programme

there are approximately 560 primary, intermediate and secondary schools in the Auckland region. All will be offered wheelie bins to enable them to participate in kerbside recycling. A collaborative process with the private sector will be initiated to work out, if possible, a complementary service delivery model to best support the needs of schools. other services will be considered.

All schools will be able to participate in council-run kerbside recycling collections. As a result there will be significant increase in the amount of recyclable materials recovered.

Waste levy 2012 ongoing



Develop the resource recovery network (RRn) infrastructure

the concept of a resource recovery network is a longer-term project. Strategically located resource recovery parks and recycling depots could provide local facilities to maximise the diversion of waste from landfill. they would support a range of initiatives including organics collection, inorganic waste processing, construction and demolition (c&d) waste drop-off and processing, hazardous waste drop-off and reusable goods drop-off and resale. the rrn could make these initiatives more cost effective and convenient for the public and businesses. It would have to be developed in stages. As the first stage the council will coordinate a collaborative dialogue with industry, the community/voluntary sectors and iwi/Ma-ori organisations. Further detail in 2.6.

Greater opportunities for resource recovery will be provided to residents. When the rrn is fully developed, businesses and residents will have access to facilities where they can drop off and purchase a wide range of used goods and materials. the rrn will provide services to residents whenever they need them – not just when a collection is occurring (e.g. for hazardous waste, inorganic material). Small businesses and community enterprises could possibly run recycling depots.

Private-good funded and/or other mechanisms such as the Waste Minimisation Fund

2013 ongoing

Establish hazardous waste drop-off and handling capacity at resource recovery facilities

the development of a network of drop-off points for hazardous waste, and aphasing out of the Hazmobile service.

When resource recovery facilities are operating residents will be able to drop off hazardous material (batteries, chemicals, etc.) at resource recovery facilities at any time – not just when there is a collection.

domestic – public-good funded.commercial – disposer-pays

2012 ongoing

Establish facilities for construction and demolition (C&D) recovery within the RRn

Large scale facilities for collecting and processing c&d materials could be developed as part of the rrn. Links will be developed with existing private operations and with organisations involved in promoting c&d waste reduction. the council does not intend to be in competition with current c&d recovery businesses but (similar to the green waste industry) will collaborate to maximise c&d recovery and will potentially plug gaps in logistics or locations.

residents and businesses will be able to take unwanted or waste materials to a facility near them for sorting and recovery. the facilities will provide feedstock for private businesses dealing in recovered materials.

Private-good funded and/or other mechanisms such as the Waste Minimisation Fund

2012 ongoing

link an enhanced waste exchange/waste brokering service with the RRn

Enhanced internet-based waste exchange/waste brokering services will be developed to link with the rrn and provide a way to advertise and sell materials collected through the rrn.

Private and commercial customers will be able to easily locate or sell used goods and materials anywhere in the region – without physically going through the rrn.

Private-good funded

2012 ongoing

3.1.7 Provide kerbside recycling collections For schools




Pilot a council-run ‘sell on behalf of’ service for unwanted items of value

Most residents have items of value they don’t want. Many of these are disposed of via the inorganic collection simply because it is the easiest option. one solution is for the council to offer a ‘sell on behalf of’ service to complement the inorganic booking service (which would mainly deal with items of no or low value) for those people who did not want to take the time and energy to use current services such as trade Me. A specialist team would identify and collect items suitable for sale through a trading website or other means. the council would take a commission from the sale with the proceeds returned to the residents or a charity.

residents would have a way to dispose of goods and materials that might otherwise accumulate on their properties or be disposed of via the inorganic collection. Although many people sell goods and materials via trading websites, there are many who, for a variety of reasons, cannot, or do not wish to do so.

Private-good funded

2012-2014

3.1.9 increase diversion oF reusable iteMs

3.1.10 Foster new ideas and suPPort coMMunity waste MiniMisation initiatives



Investigate and develop initiatives that will enable local enterprises and mana whenua involvement in resource recovery and waste minimisation activities

the council will explore initiatives to enable local enterprises and mana whenua to participate in resource recovery and waste minimisation activities. opportunities will emerge for local enterprises with the development of the resource recovery network and through initiatives such as the ‘sell on behalf of’ service for unwanted items, product stewardship schemes, and community education programmes. opportunities will also be explored to use indigenous knowledge to support research into indigenous waste practices and to support Ma-ori communities developing innovative solutions for their communities.

Supporting local enterprise and mana whenua by facilitating opportunities for involvement in resource recovery and waste minimisation initiatives will engage the community and increase local economic development opportunities.

Public-good funded

2012 ongoing

Establish a grants scheme to support community initiatives focused on waste minimisation

Some of the former Auckland councils ran grants schemes for community waste minimisation initiatives. Auckland council will build on these models and develop a funding scheme framework to support community initiatives that reduce waste to landfill. the scheme will have a $500,000 funding pool and will be open to business, the community/voluntary sector and iwi/Ma-ori organisations. the council could complement this by applying for additional funds from the Ministry for the Environment’s contestable funding pool. the criteria for the fund will be focused on the seeding of new initiatives including developing business and community-based resource recovery centres and programmes.

Small grants will support the development of local waste minimisation initiatives and foster new ideas and community buy-in. clear funding criteria, a requirement for measurable waste reduction and good case studies will ensure funds are used efficiently. Initially a small political subgroup of the council will be set up to allocate funds under the grants scheme.

Waste levy and application to the Waste Minimisation Fund

2012 (development of funding scheme framework)2013 ongoing (provision of scheme)

Support competitions that encourage secondary school and tertiary students to develop innovative solutions to intractable waste challenges

the council needs to demonstrate its openness to new ideas and responsiveness to the creativity and talent of young new Zealanders. Support would be provided to competitions to encourage lateral thinking around some of the intractable waste challenges. competitions could be run in partnership with central government and the private sector.

the region is likely to benefit from new creative entrepreneurial thinking on intractable waste problems.

Application to the Waste Minimisation Fund/partial sponsorship

2013


3.1.11 Public Place recycling and events

3.1.12 Manage and reduce litter and illegal duMPing



Provide public place recycling bins

continued support for public place recycling to be delivered in the most cost effective way, including the provision of public recycling bins to encourage people to recycle when they are away from home. Local board input will be sought on the installation of new bins. Alternative funding options will be investigated to cover the cost of servicing bins. consistent wording on bins will be used across the region.

residents and visitors will be able to recycle in public areas as they do at home, reinforcing the waste minimisation message.

Public-good funded

2012 ongoing

Work towards all events organised by the council and on council properties to be run as Zero Waste events

Work towards all events organised by the council or held on council properties and parks to be run as Zero Waste events – meaning they will be planned in such a way that as little waste as possible goes to landfill.

recycling facilities will be provided at all events and waste minimisation will be considered during event planning.

Public-good funded

2013 ongoing

Develop a consistent framework for waste minimisation and litter prevention at events

A framework for waste minimisation and litter prevention at events will be developed. this will include development of guidance material and supporting public information.

Event organisers will have access to clear guidance and support.

Public-good funded

2012/2013



Provide consistent loose litter collections across the region

Some of the former councils provided a loose litter collection service. Auckland council will provide a consistent service across the region.

Litter will be managed consistently across the region, leading to a cleaner environment.

Public-good funded

2012 ongoing

Actively enforce and control littering and illegal dumping

the council will adequately resource litter and illegal dumping abatement. Extra enforcement measures will sit alongside the communication and community engagement programmes planned. the council has adopted a new litter infringement schedule. In addition to enacting a waste bylaw, the council can:

• appoint warranted litter officers and litter wardens

• advocate for container deposit legislation

• run an education and awareness campaign.

residents will enjoy a cleaner, litter-free environment. Litter collection and disposal costs (funded through rates) will be reduced.

Public-good funded and licensing fees

2012 ongoing


3.1.13 hauraki gulF islands

action detail/descriPtion what this will Mean For the hauraki gulF islands (hgi)


Determine level of service provision and level of disposer-pays charging for refuse

the council will carry out further work with HGI local boards (Waiheke, Great Barrier and rodney) to determine the level of service provision and the level of disposer-pays charging and subsidies with the final decision resting with the governing body. the level of the charge should not be less than on the mainland.

there may need to be a trade-off between refuse charges and service level provision.

Public-good funded

2012/2013

Introduce a mixed disposer-pays bag/wheelie bin collection service for refuse

A choice of prepaid refuse bags or disposer-pays wheelie bins will be provided on HGI.

residents will have the choice of using bags or bins for refuse. Both will be disposer-pays.

disposer-pays and public-good funded

2013-2015

Develop a workable, accessible system for boat users to enable a disposer-pays system to work effectively

A system will be developed, to ensure boat users pay their share of refuse disposal costs.

Boat users will pay their share of the waste services they use, reducing the burden on island residents. disposer-pays will provide an incentive to reduce the amount of waste produced.

disposer-pays and public-good funded

2013-2015

Investigate and establish organic waste diversion and processing systems on Waiheke and Great Barrier islands

organic collection and processing systems will reduce the amount of refuse sent to landfill by up to 50%. the type of systems established will depend on the level of disposer-pays charging for refuse. Processing will be undertaken on-island.

residents and holiday-makers will be able to reduce their waste disposal costs by using organic recycling systems. Islanders will have access to locally produced compost and/or mulching materials.

Private-good funded

2013-2015

Explore opportunities for local resource recovery initiatives on the islands in collaboration with residents and local boards in order to maximise reuse and recycling and to retain as much material as possible on the islands

opportunities for developing local resource recovery facilities and finding local uses for locally recovered materials will be explored.

Materials would not need to be shipped off the islands. opportunities for local job and business creation may be developed.

Private-good funded

2013-2015

Ensure all waste assets are managed to comply with resource consent and legislative requirements

All assets, including claris landfill on Great Barrier Island, will be managed so they comply with all consent and legislative requirements.

the life of waste assets will be maximised, reducing future costs to ratepayers across the region.

Public-good funded

2012 ongoing


the education childrenreceive inFluences

their world views and behaviour as adults.



3.1.15 Monitoring and rePorting



Develop and implement a monitoring and reporting system to measure progress towards targets

Gathering accurate information on how services are performing is essential for monitoring progress towards targets and planning for future demand. the council will develop clear and transparent monitoring and reporting systems. Key areas that require monitoring include level of service, compliance (with legislative requirements and regulations), waste reduction and diversion.

data will be gathered through community satisfaction surveys, council records (KPIs etc), annual Solid Waste Analysis Protocols (SWAPs) and through the provisions of the waste bylaw. See Appendix 2 for further details.

reporting and monitoring will be considered a part of the profile and consciousness raising on the need to reduce waste. the council being transparent about its own waste reduction will be an upfront way of standing alongside the community in its efforts.

Public-good funded

2012

Initiate development of a multi-functional interactive website

A multi-functional interactive website will be developed as a key part of reporting progress and helping communities and businesses divert recyclables and find waste reduction solutions, and to provide data gathered through the rFId system. Any new waste bylaw policy development should include consideration of whether the council can require both community-based and commercial waste industry and waste reduction organisations to provide relevant information of a non-commercial nature for monitoring purposes and for community information.

the website would promote businesses that provide solutions. It would also enable residents to check on their individual or a local board and others’ progress, to gain comprehensive information on their area.

Public-good funded

2012 onwards

3.1.14 corPorate resPonsibility – ‘walking the talk’



Reduce in-house council waste by 30% per capita by 2018 from 2012 baseline tonnages

Auckland council has an important role: to demonstrate good waste-wise practice in its own operations. the council will therefore commit to reducing waste from its own in-house activities by 30% per capita by 2018. the target initially applies only to normal office waste. Waste arising from other council activities will be incorporated progressively in consultation with affected operational departments. the results of the waste reduction programme will be as transparent as possible, and included on the council’s website to demonstrate its willingness to ‘walk the talk’. the progressive implementation of waste reduction programmes and targets is regarded as an obligation on council-controlled organisations (ccos) through their Statements of Intent.

the council will adopt best practice in its own operations and provide a model for other organisations in the region. Support will be provided from politicians and staff towards the in-house waste reduction programmes.

Public-good funded

2012 ongoing

Promote waste minimisation and the use of recovered materials in its contracts

the council and its ccos will include clauses relating to minimising waste and using recovered materials (where practical) in contracts for council building, maintenance, demolition and infrastructure projects.

the council will also encourage local reuse where possible.

As a large organisation, the council has the potential to stimulate demand for local recovered and recycled materials (e.g. crushed concrete, compost, etc.).

Public-good funded

2012 ongoing


3.2 coMMunications and waste MiniMisation PrograMMes

households (wastewise neighbourhoods) and coMMunity

the following actions are proposed to communicate with, educate and empower households. these actions will be developed further within an integrated, community-based, social marketing framework. All actions are funded by government waste levy funds and public-good funding for the first four years of the plan and then through a mix of public and private-good funding.

3.2.1 kerbside reFuse and recycling collections – suPPort change in service

action descriPtion tiMeFraMe

Change communications to affected areas

develop a high visibility social marketing campaign to all households affected by any service changes. Learn from experience of other regions’ campaigns, including reduce Your rubbish and Big clean up. Likely methods to include: media, printed material, billboard, tV, radio, community information line, applications for SMArt phones, prompts and reminders (calendars, stickers, kitchen caddies), social media and a new, dedicated waste website.

2012-2015

Targeted community education

develop a programme to encourage communities – particularly those with English as a second language, those who currently put out a lot of refuse, or those that may struggle with a direct refuse cost – to adopt waste wise behaviour before, during and after the transition to disposer-pays. the programme will be devel-oped in consultation with these communities and draw on lessons from the existing targeted community education programme. Likely methods include local training and employment opportunities, ‘waste ranger’ household visits, workshops and presentations.

2012 ongoing


Intensify programmes to encourage uptake of composting options.

Intensify programmes to encourage and incentivise the uptake of onsite and home composing across the region. composting programmes will encourage conventional composting, worm farming, bokashi and low waste gardening practices. A range of tools will be used to engage the community, including workshops, home visits, online tuition, information and incentives. the programmes will also be promoted to small to medium businesses across the region and link to business engagement initiatives such as conscious consumers.

2012-2015

Targeted community education

develop a community-driven programme for targeted areas to encourage uptake of organic waste collections, composting and other organic waste reduction activities.

2012-2015

Food waste prevention

develop new programmes focussed on minimising food waste through purchasing, storage, planning and preparation, and reuse actions. this could include involvement in the ‘Love Food Hate Waste’ programme being implemented in Australia currently, which includes community campaigns and business partnerships. the programme has multiple outcomes, targeting organics recycling as well as improved community wellbeing. Likely tools include supermarket tours, competitions and community workshops.

2012-2015

3.2.2 kerbside organic waste collections – suPPort new service and ongoing waste-wise behaviour



Develop anti-litter campaigns based on the review of existing pro-grammes such as Be a Tidy kiwi

Be a tidy Kiwi is a public information campaign aimed at reducing litter. Although widely known, its effectiveness in achieving behaviour change is unknown. this programme will be reviewed to determine its contribution to waste minimisation, and for any potential rebranding.

2012 ongoing

'Beautify your neighbourhood’ litter and rubbish campaigns

draw on the experience of successful campaigns such as Beautify Your city. run targeted social marketing campaigns to change litter, illegal dumping and other non-conforming behaviour in targeted public places – in particular strip shopping streets and shopping centres.

2012 ongoing


‘Waste rangers’ for households

develop a household programme encouraging good practice behaviour for recycling, organics, avoidance, reduction and disposal of inorganic, hazardous, special waste and used goods. Likely methods include household visits, waste information and audits. Build on lessons from current operational activity and focus on priority areas. Pilot with 500 households before expanding to region.

2012 ongoing

Reusable nappy programme

the council will continue delivering the existing programme, supporting options available to parents to reduce the number of disposable nappies they put out in household refuse. the council will explore ways to expand and intensify efforts to keep parents well informed on solutions for waste reduction. Broaden the scope and method of delivery to include working in partnership with hospitals, birthing centres and day-care centres for reusable alternatives.

2012 ongoing

Community-based e-waste recycling programme

develop community-based programmes for reuse and recycling of inorganic and special waste and reusable goods. Feasibility studies are needed to assess opportunities for community involvement and to partner with existing national programmes such as the rcn’s community Electronics recycling. Link to product stewardship schemes in longer term.

2013

Recycling depots develop a programme to support the establishment of recycling depots and social enterprises linked to the resource recovery network. the aim will be to build community capacity to minimise waste, develop community-driven projects and generate local employment. Feasibility studies are needed to assess the economic opportunities.

2014 ongoing

Research and evaluation

Baseline research to better understand community values, understanding, attitudes and behaviour in regard to waste, in order to support programme development, social marketing campaigns and ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of council interventions.

2012 ongoing

3.2.3 other waste ManageMent and MiniMisation services – suPPort and ongoing behaviour change

3.2.4 litter and illegal duMPing

3.2.5 waste MiniMisation learning hubs


Waste Minimisation learning hubs

continue to develop the three Waste Minimisation Learning Hubs in Henderson, Waiheke and onehunga. these hubs are open to community groups, adult education providers and schools. there is significant potential to expand the scope of these hubs and also link them to community capacity building projects.

2012 ongoing


schoolsSchools are hubs in their communities and the education children receive influences their world views and behaviour as adults. the following programmes have been developed over time by former councils in the Auckland region and have high levels of success. All actions are funded by waste levy funds.

3.2.6 wastewise schools


WasteWise Schools this programme helps schools reduce their waste and promotes waste reduction practices that students can transfer into their home and everyday life. It provides an opportunity for student-driven solutions for waste reduction and whole-school involvement in waste minimisation. the programme will be continued with additional support for schools to implement organic waste reduction systems for educational purposes. the council will also support the continued development of the waste component of Enviroschools.

2012 ongoing

WasteWise Schools communication

Promote WasteWise Schools programme and develop waste education, web-based and e-learning resources such as podcasts and e-tutorials.

2012 ongoing

businessdevelop an integrated strategy to engage business in targeted waste streams – in particular organics and c&d. Foster local economic activity and new business opportunities in resource recovery and recycling. Build consumer demand for extended producer responsibility and business leadership in waste reduction.

3.2.7 business engageMent and PrograMMes


Change/ongoing communications

carry out a social marketing campaign for business to encourage waste wise behaviours and raise visibility of key programmes and services. complete overhaul of website, rEnEW database and development of business communications strategy.

2012 ongoing

'Waste rangers’ for business

develop a new programme that targets the waste behaviour of businesses in cBds and other public places and shopping strips. this programme will provide hands-on help to areas with high refuse outputs and link with town centre and business association initiatives.

2012 ongoing

Conscious Consumers

continue to support this new, innovative programme that works with the hospitality industry to reduce organic and packaging waste. Support expansion of the programme to other industries where appropriate in the future.

2012 ongoing

Eco Smart business the council is to participate in and continue to support this national programme targeted at business in partnership with MfE and the Employers and Manufacturers Association. recently rebranded, the programme offers incentives and education to reduce waste in production, packaging, distribution and service delivery.

2012 ongoing

Waste brokers for business

Seed funding to develop a pilot Waste Broker Service, a new initiative to link waste producers with recyclers and reusers, and create efficiencies in materials redistribution. there is potential for this programme to be delivered directly by the council, local business or social enterprise located within the rrn. this programme is to be developed using innovative methods and drawing on lessons from other regions.

2012 ongoing

Promote programmes such as REBRI and Green Star to the building and construction industry

As well as developing resource recovery facilities for receiving and processing c&d waste, and enacting clean fill regulations, the council can help reduce c&d waste by promoting business programmes that encourage on-site waste separation, and waste minimisation such as rEBrI, and the Green Star accreditation programme.

2012 ongoing

Investigate establishing demonstration projects

the council will investigate the possibility of establishing demonstration projects to encourage the use of recovered materials in construction, and to demonstrate waste reduction on construction sites.

2012 ongoing

Acknowledge successful businesses

the council will acknowledge businesses that successfully reduce construction and demolition waste. 2012 ongoing

Part daPPendices


aPPendix 1 auckland council waste assessMentattached (cd) or available on the auckland council website at:

www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nZ/wastePlan

aPPendix 2 Monitoring and rePorting FraMeworkthe council will Monitor and rePort on Progress towards Meeting the strategic obJectives and targets oF the waste ManageMent and MiniMisation Plan (wMMP). this inForMation is essential For evaluating how services are PerForMing and For establishing baseline data to assist Future Planning.


action relating to targets

relating to strategic obJectives Method oF assessMent

rePorting

Collect and report on quantity, composition and destination of domestic kerbside waste

Short to medium-term target (30% reduction per capita in domestic kerbside waste to landfill by 2018).

• reducing Auckland’s reliance on landfill

• Achieving operational efficiencies in domestic waste and recycling services


• Preventing organic waste going to landfill

• reducing the council’s responsibility for dealing with end-of-life consumer products and packaging

• council records

• Annual Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) assessments

• Bylaw

• Annual report

• council publications

• council website

Report on quantity of commercial waste sent to landfill

Long-term target (reduce council- and private-sector-influenced waste to landfill by 30% from the baseline of 0.8 tonnes per capita per year in next 15 years).

• reducing Auckland’s reliance on landfill • In agreement with landfill operator to supply tonnage data

• Bylaw

• Annual report


• council website

Collect and report on quantity, composition and destination of council-collected diverted materials



• Achieving operational efficiencies in domestic waste and recycling services



• council records

• Annual Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) audits

• Annual report


• council website

Report on quantity of materials deposited in cleanfills (subject to provision of information)

Long-term target (reduce council- and private-sector-influenced waste to landfill by 30% from the baseline of 0.8 tonnes per capita, per year in next 15 years).



• Preventing organic waste going to landfill (and cleanfill)

• developing an infrastructure to maximise resource recovery

• In agreement with cleanfill operators

• Bylaw

• Annual report


• council website

Collect and report on littering incidences, and on quantity of illegal dumping


• reducing litter and illegal dumping and related costs



• council records • Annual report


• council website

Collect and report on quantity, composition and destination of council in-house waste to landfill

30% reduction per capita in council in-house waste by 2018.




• council waste services reporting

• Annual Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) audits

• Annual report


• council website

Monitor and review effectiveness of council communication and waste minimisation programmes


Long term target (reduce council and private- sector-influenced waste to landfill by 30% from the baseline of 0.8 tonnes per capita, per year in next 15 years).





• Maximising local economic development opportunities

• Attitude and behaviour baseline survey, with annual follow up surveys

• Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) audits

• Annual report


• council website

Monitor compliance with legislative require-ments and regulations of all solid waste assets and operations

Legislative compliance achieved council records

A framework for monitoring and reporting is outlined in this section. Key areas that require monitoring include waste reduction, level of service, and compliance with legislative requirements and regulations.


aPPendix 3: coMMunity grants scheMe FraMework

Auckland council will establish a grants scheme to support community waste minimisation initiatives (Section c, Section 3.1.10). Following is a brief proposed framework outlining the purpose of the scheme and how the grants may be delivered and monitored. detailed guidelines will be developed.

PurPose

the purpose of the grants scheme is in accordance with Section 47 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008:

• promote or achieve waste management and minimisation

• reduce waste to landfill, in accordance with the objectives of this plan

• foster new ideas and encourage community participation in reducing waste to landfill.

reciPients

the scheme will be open to community groups, local businesses, marae, schools and other community-based organisations operating within Auckland.

Funding criteria

Successful grant applications must:

• support the strategic objectives and targets of this plan

• lead to measurable waste reduction outcomes.

Funding priorities, aimed at addressing specific parts of the waste stream (e.g. green waste) or certain issues (e.g. illegal dumping) may be developed and reviewed on an annual basis to focus a proportion of funds on areas that require innovation and/or attention.

Grants may be used to support a wide range of initiatives from education programmes to building resource recovery infrastructure, with a focus on seed funding for new initiatives.

grant siZe

the size and number of grants will be determined once funding priorities are set.

Monitoring and rePorting requireMents

Successful applicants will be required to submit reports on the completion of their projects – or according to an agreed timeframe if the project is long term. Auckland council will report on the number, size, recipients and outcomes of grants in its annual plan, on the council’s website and in council publications.

grants May be used to suPPort a wide range oF initiatives FroM education PrograMMes to building resource recovery inFrastructure, with a Focus on seed Funding For new initiatives.


aPPendix 4: oPtions For doMestic kerbside organic waste collections and doMestic inorganic waste services1 kerbside organic waste collection oPtionsthere are a number of options to reduce the 50 per cent by weight of domestic refuse collections that is organic matter going to landfill. Worldwide, organic diversion systems are generally offered in two basic ways:

• separate green waste and food waste collections

• combined green and food waste.

Each city that has an organic collection operates under a different regulatory environment with different incentives and public/private sector involvement so no system is exactly the same. For example, toronto has separate food waste and green waste collections84; and Vancouver85 and Adelaide86 are introducing food waste into existing green waste collections.

In Britain – although both separate and combined collections operate – in recent years separate food waste collections systems have become more popular, as higher value, beneficial end-products are developed. In addition, if green waste is needed in the mix, the amount can be more easily controlled.

there are currently no food-waste-only collections operating in new Zealand. However, a large-scale trial of a food-waste-only collection is currently being conducted in Putaruru where, for a one-year period, 2200 households are testing a 23-litre, manually collected, roadside container with a lock-down lid, a 7-litre kitchen caddy, and a supply of biodegradable bags.

combined food waste and green waste collections are provided by timaru district council87 (which provides a 240-litre wheelie bin collected fortnightly), and by christchurch city council88 (which provides an 80-litre wheelie bin collected weekly).

Auckland council has undertaken extensive research into the options for organic waste collection and processing, which can be found in Appendix c of the Auckland council Waste Assessment (included as Appendix 1).

For Auckland the choices are summarised in the next table bearing in mind the following key drivers for the council:

• reducing waste to landfill (and aiming for Zero Waste)

• cost

• convenience and ease of use for residents

• beneficial end products and end uses (and potential revenue)

• health and safety (for contractors)

• impact on the private green waste sector.

84 www.toronto.ca/greenbin

85 www.vancouver.ca/projects/foodwaste/index.htm

86 www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/councils/food-waste-pilot

87 www.timaru.govt.nz/rubbish-and-recycling

88 www.ccc.govt.nz/homeliving/rubbish/kerbsidecollection/index.aspx

organic waste oPtions

oPtion waste diversion Potential estiMate (tonnes Per year)

net cost(estiMate) oF organic service only

considerations

A. Food waste only

60-litre wheelie bin with false bottom, 23-litre capacity

Automated collection

Weekly

up to 48,000 tonnes of food waste

7000 tonnes of green waste, through user-pays incentives

$13.7 million 1. Automated collections reduce health and safety risks.

2. More food waste diversion than if mixed with green waste.

3. More processing options including composting, and provides flexibility for higher value products such as stock feed, liquid fertiliser.

4. requires source of green waste or tailings for compost.

5. cheaper to operate than combined food and green waste.

6. no impact on green waste industry.

7. Some residents who already have a private green waste collection would have four bins.

8. 60-litre false bottom bin may be seen as unusual.

B. Food waste combined with a handful of green waste



Weekly

44,000 tonnes food waste

8000 tonnes green waste

$14.2 million 1. Automated collections reduce health and safety risks.

2. Evidence from overseas shows that there is a trend for mixed food/green waste bins to capture less food waste than food waste alone.

3. Additional cost due to larger quantities being collected.

4. May or may not increase food waste volumes diverted.

5. Minimal impact on green waste industry.

6. Will attract some green waste already diverted to home composting or green waste collection services.

7. convenience for residents who only have a little green waste and do not want to use it on their sections.

8. Fewer residents would have four bins.

C. Separate food waste and green waste collections

240-litre wheelie bin for green waste – monthly

60-litre wheelie bin with false bottom, 23-litre capacity for food waste – weekly

Automated collection for both

28,000 tonnes green waste


$26.9 million 1. Large impact on green waste industry as green waste potentially moves into a council scheme.

2. Would mean four bins and four (total) collection systems for most residents.

3. Likely to reduce costs for residents who currently contract a private green waste collection (estimated to be 15% of households), but may increase costs for those who do not.


D. Green waste only

240-litre wheelie bin


Monthly

28,000 tonnes green waste

$12.7 million 1. Assumes that 100% of green waste currently going into refuse will be diverted.

2. Large impact on green waste industry as green waste likely to move into a council scheme.

3. Focused on waste stream that makes up only 10% waste to landfill.

4. Likely to reduce costs for residents who currently contract a private green waste collection (estimated to be 15% of households), but increase costs for those who do not.

E. no organic collections 0 $0 1. does not reduce the 50% food waste and green waste component of current refuse bags/bins that currently goes to landfill.

A.a. Food waste only



Weekly.

no rural areas or Hauraki Gulf Islands (HGI) organic collection



$12.7 million 1. As per option A in table.

B.a. Food waste combined with handful of green waste



Weekly

no rural areas or HGI organic collection



$13.2 million 1. As per option B in table.

A.b. Food waste only



Fortnightly




$9.2 million 2. As per option A above.

B.b. Food waste combined with handful of green waste

60-litre wheelie bin


Fortnightly




$9.7 million 2. As per option B above.


2 inorganic waste collection oPtion currently Auckland has a mix of kerbside inorganic collections – operated annually or biennially, from the kerbside, or from within residents’ properties – and in some areas there is no collection.

Around the world the way cities deal with inorganic waste or bulky items varies widely. Annual kerbside inorganic collections like those that feature in parts of Auckland are not the norm internationally, or in other large cities in new Zealand.

Some of the more advanced cities in terms of waste minimisation operate resource recovery centres – often run by the community sector. residents can drop off unwanted items at these facilities for reuse or recycling. or else bulky goods collected in such a way that discarded items stay undamaged and can be reused.

this plan envisages the development, over time, of a network of local resource recovery centres that could divert more reusable and recyclable items and provide economic opportunities for the community sector, iwi/Ma-ori organisations and business, as well as providing environmental, social and cultural benefits.

Many Aucklanders have, however, become used to the inorganic kerbside service and appear loath to change even though in two of the former councils there is either a booking system or no service provided at all.

the proposed options for inorganic collection in Auckland are summarised in the table on the next page, bearing in mind the following key drivers for the council:

• reducing waste to landfill (and aiming for Zero Waste)

• cost

• health and safety (for contractors and the public)

• ease of use for residents.

this Plan envisages the develoPMent, over tiMe, oF a network oF local resource recovery centres that could divert More reusable and recyclable iteMs and Provide econoMic oPPortunities.


note: current inorganic services inherited from the former councils (mix of annual and biennial kerbside services, an annual collection from within residents' properties, drop-off points and no service) currently cost ratepayers $4.2 million annually.

liMitations:the figures above are estimates only. Preparation of both the Waste Assessment and draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan has relied on information from multiple sources including SWAP analyses from former councils, the Auckland regional council Waste Stocktake and Strategic

Assessment 2009, permits, contracts, consents and annual reports. the accuracy of these sources is contin-gent on the best information available at the time and the degree of disclosure from the waste industry.

Financial analysis and modelling has relied on the best financial information available at the time of drafting this plan.

the proposed way forward with a rigorous analytical stepped process with continuous validation of data and peer review will mitigate the potential for discrepancies/errors in further waste management and minimisation planning.

inorganic waste oPtions

oPtion waste diversion Potential

net cost

(estiMate)

considerations

1. Annual kerbside collection

Small amount $10.1 million 1. not international best practice.

2. Informal recycling is perceived to be a ‘natural’ exchange of goods.

3. commercial scrap metal dealers benefit but in extracting metals often destroy the reuse or

recyclable potential of articles.

4. Mess often obstructs footpaths and roads.

5. Health and safety risks associated with manual collections, handling sharp objects and hazardous waste.

6. Illegal dumping (fly tipping) of commercial waste.

7. Very few waste collection companies would tender for inorganic collections.

8. no feed stock for resource recovery centres.

2. Biennial kerbside collection

Small amount $6.8 million 1. As (1) above but less cost.

3. Annual collection from within residents’ properties via a booking system

Potentially more $4.6 million 1. Fewer health and safety, security and mess issues.

2. Links user to waste being picked up.

3. reusable and recyclable items more likely to retain value and go to resource recovery centres.

4. concern about potential increase in illegal dumping did not occur when the system was introduced in Waitakere as education and enforcement were increased.

5. cost based on Waitakere model – with 20% participation rate.

4. no collection – Resource Recovery Centres only

Potentially most -$3.2 million 1. Households can take reusable items and recyclable materials to resource recovery centres where they can be resold or processed.

2. Local enterprises could operate collection services.

3. Longer-term solution.

4. cost includes reduction in current inorganic cost plus approximately $1million in cost of building facilities. ongoing costs will reduce over time.

2.a. Biennial kerbside collection except for Waitakere, Rodney and Franklin which have booking, with Waitakere enhanced recovery

Small amount $6.5 million 5. As (1) above but less cost.

table oF deFinitionsAuckland Council Waste Assessment Provides the necessary background information on the waste and diverted materials streams

that will enable a council to determine a logical set of priorities and inform its activities, as defined by section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. A waste assessment must be completed prior to a WMMP being reviewed.

Cleanfill Any landfill that accepts only material that, when buried, will have no adverse effect on people or the environment.

C&D waste construction and demolition waste.

The council In this plan, the council generally encompasses the collection of bodies that make up the Auckland council family: the governing body, local boards, ccos and council advisory groups and panels. For specific actions of the plan, however, the appropriate part of the council will undertake that action.

Diverted material Anything no longer required for its original purpose and, but for commercial or other waste minimisation activities, would be disposed of or discarded.

Domestic waste Waste from households.

ETS Emissions trading Scheme.

landfill A disposal facility as defined in section 7 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, excluding incineration.

lGA Local Government Act.

litter and illegal dumping Littering is defined in the Litter Act 1979 as: litter includes any refuse, rubbish, animal remains, glass, metal, garbage, debris, dirt, filth, rubble, ballast, stones, earth, or waste matter, or any other thing of a like nature. A definition of dumping is that: dumping is not a separate offence but is littering at the extreme end of the scale that depends on the amount and nature of the litter that is deposited, the location and circumstances in which the littering occurs and the resources required to remove the litter.

Mana whenua customary authority exercised by an iwi or hapu in an identified area.

Managed fill A disposal site requiring resource consent to accept well-defined types of non-municipal waste (e.g. low-level contaminated soils).

Mauri the life force which all objects contain; a material symbol of a life principle.

MfE the Ministry for the Environment.

MRF Materials recovery facility.

MRB Mobile recycling bin.

nZWS new Zealand Waste Strategy.

Organic waste In this plan organic waste refers to food waste (or kitchen waste) and green waste (or garden waste).

Public places Although the Litter Act’s definition of ‘public places’ includes public reserves and parks this WMMP defines public places as spaces frequented by the public that are not privately owned (e.g. shopping malls) and excludes the parks and reserves network.

RRC resource recovery centre.

RRP resource recovery park.

RTS refuse transfer station.

SWAP Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP), an MfE-led baseline programme to provide solid waste composition information.

Tangata whenua Indigenous people, people of the land, in new Zealand, the Ma-ori people.

Waste Anything disposed of, or discarded; and:

• includes a type of waste defined by its composition or source (e.g. organic waste, electronic waste, or construction and demolition waste); and

• to avoid doubt, includes any component or element of diverted material, if the component or element is disposed of or discarded.

Wha-nau Family, including extended family.

WMA Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

WMMP A waste management and minimisation plan as defined in section 43 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

AUCklAnD COUnCIl WASTE ASSESSMEnT CD


If your copy of the Auckland council Waste Assessment is not here, please visit www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/wasteplan or call 09 301 0101.

EuPL

-003

8 09

/12

(Pla

n) A

c-1

168

If disposing of this document, please ensure you separate the wire coil from the pages prior to putting in the recycling bin.

Auckland council disclaims any liability whatsoever in connection with any action taken in reliance of this document or for any error, deficiency, flaw or omission contained in it.

ISBn 978-1-927216-13-2 (Print)ISBn 978-1-927216-14-9 (online)

Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan · Getting Auckland’s Waste Sorted is the first...

Documents

Transcript of Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan · Getting Auckland’s Waste Sorted is the first...