presentazione di powerpoint - collectors · thessaloniki, 11 december 2019 eu targets. 32 eurostat,...

COLLECTORSWASTE COLLECTION SYSTEMS ASSESSED AND GOOD PRACTICES IDENTIFIED

Thessaloniki, December 11th 2019Twan van Leeuwen (PNO)

Bernhard Steubing (LDE)

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 776745

2

COLLECTORS’ perspective on the EU targets, environmental impact, and economic feasibility

Bernhard Steubing, Leiden University Twan van Leeuwen, PNO Consultants

Thessaloniki, 11 December 2019

3

AGENDA

1. COLLECTORS project (what has been done)

2. PPW results

3. WEEE results

4. EU targets

5. Presentation by Marina Papadaki, Hellenic Recycling Agency (HRA)

6. Panel discussion


4

COLLECTORS INTRODUCTION


5

COLLECTORS objective

Identify good practices in waste collection and

increase knowledge sharing; to ensure that good

performing regions and cities can serve as examples

for regions with similar local contexts


6

135

73

34

242 waste collection systems identified and described on ~30 parameters (depending on available information); covering 25 European countries

Inventory of collection in Europe


7

135

73

34

COLLECTORS case studies

5 PPW case studies

5 WEEE case studies

2 CDW case studies


8

Economic assessment • Identifying financial and material flows and actors• Quantifying costs and benefits (CBA)• Mapping financial incentives and levers

Environmental assessment • Mapping material flows• Quantifying environmental impacts (LCA)

Assessment of good practices through case studies


9

Cases:1. Tubbergen (NL)2. Gent (BE)3. Rennes (FR)4. Berlin (DE)5. Parma (IT)

Packaging waste• Paper and cardboard• Glass • Plastics• Metals • Drinking cartons

PPW cases


Scope

Parameters• Investment costs (infrastructure, bins, chips,..) • Operational costs (collection, sorting, street cleaning, taxes)• Revenues (sold materials, incineration revenues, EPR fees, tax savings, citizens waste fees)

Rationale Assessment to see if good practices can be achieved by maintaining acceptable fees for citizens.

10

CBA PPW methodology


11

Shift of collection system

€ 113 € 207

€ 251

€ 193

€ 168 € 128

€ 546

€ 516

€ 348

€ 76 € 94

€ 119

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

€ -

€ 200

€ 400

€ 600

€ 800

€ 1.000

€ 1.200

2013 2014 2016

Co

llect

ed q

uan

titi

es [

kilo

to

ns]

Co

sts

[Eu

ro/t

on

]

Overview of financial shifts in the Parma case

Cost of residual waste collection and transport Cost of residual waste treatment and incineration

Cost of recyclables collection Cost of recyclables treatment and transport

Recyclable materials [k tons] Residual waste [k tons]

Achievements PPW

Mapped in detail the effect of shifting from

comingled collection to separate collection

Findings:1. With dropping volumes, residual waste

1. collection cost increases2. treatment cost decreases

2. With increasing volumes, recyclables1. collection cost decreases2. treatment cost increases

(in EUR/tonne)


12

Detailed mapping of costs and benefits

Achievements:

Mapped in detail the relevant costs of the

PPW collection system

-€ 15.000.000

-€ 10.000.000

-€ 5.000.000

€ -

€ 5.000.000

€ 10.000.000

€ 15.000.000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Parma – overview of costs and benefits 2012 - 2017

Collection - Light weight packaging Collection - Paper and Cardboard Collection - Glass

Collection - Residual waste Processing - Light weight packaging Processing - Residual waste

Eco-tax Opportunity costs missed from incineration Waste fees

Recovered materials EPR fees Ecotax received

Revenues from incineration

Findings:- Highest cost: residual waste collection- Highest revenue: waste fees- Costs have stabilized despite increasing

recycling- Revenues have increased

➔ Better recycling can be done without net increasing costs!

➔With acceptable, sometimes even dropping fees for citizens!


13

Operational costs


€ -

€ 100

€ 200

€ 300

€ 400

€ 500

€ 600

€ 700

PMD Paper andcardboard

Glass Residual waste

Euro

per

to

n

Parma Tubbergen Ghent Berlin Rennes

€ -

€ 5

€ 10

€ 15

€ 20

€ 25

PMD Paper andcardboard

Glass Residual waste

Euro

per

inh

abit

ant

Parma Tubbergen Ghent Berlin Rennes

Euro per tonne Euro per inhabitant

14

Lessons from CBA


Case Average

waste fee

[€/hh]

Waste fee part of

total revenues

[%]

Trend

Parma 243 59% Steady

Ghent 61 27% Steady

Berlin 126 38% N.A.

Tubbergen 140 42% Dropping

Rennes 133 44% Dropping

Case EPR fee/ of total revenues

[%]

Parma 10 %

Ghent 22 %

Berlin 52 %

Tubbergen 40 %

Rennes N.A.

Capture losses

Sorting losses Recycling

losses

Material substitution

Systems approach with focus on collection

Life Cycle Assessment of PPW

Data sources and model outputs

PPW material flows in the municipality of Parma

Material flows

• Collection stage has • relatively low direct environmental impacts

• High indirect influence on results (affecting recycled quantities and thus avoided virgin materials)

• Closed/open-loop recycling yield important environmental benefits

• Trends throughout case studies rather similar

GHG emissions per kg waste collectedEnvironmental analysis

Change in lifecycle GHG emissions when each parameter is increased by 10% compared to current collection averages

Paper Plastic Metal GlassCapture rate -0.42% -0.27% -0.78% -0.37%Sorting efficency 0.00% -0.63% 0.00% -0.37%Recycling efficency -0.68% -0.62% -0.55% 0.00%Total -1.11% -1.52% -1.33% -0.75%

- 4.7% total life cycle GHG emissions

• Targeted measures for collection, sorting and recycling efficiencies can improve environmental performance

• The bottlenecks are different for each waste stream

Sensitivity analysis

20Warsaw 2019

• Individual improvements (e.g. transport during collection) are important, but collection phase itself has minor environmental impacts compared tothe benefits it can yield

• Improving the EoL management of products can decrease theirenvironmental impact substantially• WCS are central for overal efficiency of material recovery

• Sorting and recycling losses need to be further minimized

• Maintaining material qualities is key for second life benefits (avoidingdowncycling or energy recovery)

Lessons from LCA

21

Cases1. Pembrokeshire (UK)2. Helsinki (FI)3. Genoa (IT)4. Cyclad (FR)5. Vienna (AT)

Small WEEE collection (consumers):• Lamps• Small household appliances • Small IT

WEEE cases


22

CBA WEEE methodology


Scope:

Parameters:• Investment costs (infrastructure, awareness campaigns,..) • Operational costs (collection, logistics, treatment, compliance, recycling costs, leakage)• Revenues (PRO fee, recycling revenues)

Rationale Highlighting the financial flows and cost effectiveness of the WEEE collection system

1. PRO fee

2. Collection contribution

3. Logistic costs

4. Treatment costs

5. Material recycling costs/benefits

6. Compliance

7. Costs for society

23

Economic assessment – WEEE

Achievements:

• Map the investment and operational costs,

and revenues for measures that increase

WEEE collection


-€ 300.000

-€ 200.000

-€ 100.000

€ 0

€ 100.000

€ 200.000

€ 300.000

€ 400.000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Tota

l co

sts

[EU

RO

]

Project investment cost Project O&M costs Total revenues FNPV(C)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Co

llect

ed

Lam

ps

[to

nn

e]

Co

llect

ed

SH

A &

IT [

ton

ne

]

SHA incl IT [ton] Lamps [ton]

24

Economic assessment – WEEE

Findings:

Economic data is not readily available: CBA scenarios developed under large data uncertainty.

Overall it seems that measures to increase collection:

• Economic NPV > 0

• Financial NPV < 0

Public funding enabled implementation (LIFE, Horizon 2020, national/regional innovation funds).

Assessment reconfirms the importance of monitoring/enforcement and the unfair competition of unregistered treatment.

Dynamic PRO fee would enable (more) financial resources to increase collection.


Material flow model (WEEE)

- Small WEEE- IT equipment- lamps

Material flows (Helsinki)

• Still important losses of valuable material during collection and sorting/recycling

• Lacking knowledge on complementary flows

• WCS has low directenvironmental importance

• Improving capture rate can lead to significantimpact reductions

• Especially if recyclingefficiencies are also improved

• Role of complementaryflows unclear

Impacts and sensitivity of capture rate (Helsinki)

27Warsaw 2019

Change in impacts per kg of each WEEE category when each capture rate is increased by further 10% (Helsinki):

If complementary flows were accounted for thevalues would likely be higher.

Sensitivity analysis

28Warsaw 2019

Parameter small WEEE IT Lamps

Capture loss -1.19% -0.61% -2.25%

Sorting loss -2.33% -1.70% -1.57%

Gross total -3.76% -2.48% -3.97%

29Warsaw 2019

Lessons from LCA

• Collection phase itself has minor environmental impacts

• Efficiency during collection/sorting/recycling should be further improved

• Complementary flows: • need to be further studied and reduced where they are detrimental

• Missing information makes it challenging to quantify the real environmental benefits of better WEEE management

Meeting EU recycling targets

31

EU targets for WEEE (2012/19/EU directive):

2016: collection rate of 45% of the average weight of EEE placed on the market in the three preceding years in the Member State

2019: collection rate of 65% of the average weight of EEE placed on the market in the three preceding years in the Member State, or collection rate of 85% of the WEEE generated.

Eurostat, Waste statistics - electrical and electronic equipment, 2019Thessaloniki, 11 December 2019

EU targets

32

Eurostat, Waste statistics - packaging, 2019


EU targets

EU targets for all packaging

2016: 55%

2025: 65%

2030: 70%

2030

Meeting PPW recycling targets

in % Paper PlasticMetal

(Al1)Glass

2030 recycling targets 85 55 60 75

1Capture rate for aluminium; the capture rate for ferrous metals would have to be 90% to meet recycling targets.

Implementing best practice in collection is very important but not sufficient to meet recycling targets.

in % Paper PlasticMetal

(Al1)Glass

Required collection to meet

2030 recycling targets 86 76 64 94

Current collection 58 29 37 65

Best practice 75 69 61 89

Collection

Recycling

Material flows in the best practice scenario (PPW)Current collection

Best practice

Material entering recycling (Mt)

Material entering recycling (Mt)

Paper 19 (57%)

Plastic 3.1 (19%)

Metal 1.6 (38%)

Glass 8.5 (52%)

Paper 26 (77%)

Plastic 8.1 (50%)

Metal 2.6 (62%)

Glass 12 (71%)

EU-wide PPW flows could be reduced by 18 million tons

GHG reductions in the best practice scenario (PPW)

• Important greenhouse gas (GHG) savings possible through better collection

• Paper and packaging products account for 2.8% of the GHG emissions in Europe

• The best practice scenario would result in a 0.37% reduction of these

• 0.47% reduction if EU 2030 targets are met

36

PANEL


❖Tsiftelidis Dimitrios, Anatoliki SA

❖Catherine Van Nieuwenhove, Brussels Environment (Belgium)

❖A representative of the regional FODSA Central Macedonia

❖Bernhard Steubing, Leiden University and partner of COLLECTORS project

❖Twan van Leeuwen, PNO Consultants and partner of COLLECTORS project

37

PANEL


1. Why do we need to improve waste management across Europe?

2. How do we need to move forward with waste management?

3. What are the current challenges and opportunities in Europe, and in

Greece?

38

OUR CONSORTIUM

Thank you!Twan van LeeuwenPNO [email protected]

Bernhard SteubingLeiden [email protected]

www.collectors2020.eu


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

EU recycling targets

PPW (by 2030)

• 85% for paper

• 55% for plastic

• 60% for aluminium

• 80% for ferrous metal

• 75% for glass

presentazione di powerpoint - collectors · thessaloniki, 11 december 2019 eu targets. 32 eurostat,...

Documents