Update to SWMCB European Benchmarks

Sigurd Scheurle – 3-25-2009

Overview –

EU framework, regulations, and directives Comparison: EU - USA - Minnesota EU National results - recycling, organics,

WTE, & landfills Information on Dutch and Swedes Findings

Findings -

EU/national policies anti-landfill – resource and energy recovery, GHG and pollution

90% recovery of materials and energy achieved with integrated approach

Organized collection arrangements & pricing motivate separation

Expanding WTE role - BACT, CHP and metal recovery

EU nations give LGU’s clear policy guidance

Sources of Information

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reports

Inge Johanson – Swedish Waste Management

Hendrikus de Waart – Amsterdam Waste and Energy Company

Wikipedia USEPA

What’s the EU? Confederation of nations Formed in 1993 500 M people, 27 nations, 30% of GWP 23 Languages Executive, Legislative, & Judicial Branches Regulations – Supra-national & binding Directives – Goals and policies met nation by

nation National sovereignty

European Union waste regulation

Framework legislation

Waste treatment operations

• Landfill Directive

• Incineration AQ

EU: Landfill directive targets

Organic waste to landfill

0

20

40

60

80

100

1995 2006 2009 2016

Target 2006: 75 %

Target 2009: 50 %

Target 2016: 35%

1995 = 100%

EU landfill Directive/landfill taxes/bans

Implemented to protect environment, recover resources and energy, & reduce GHG

National: landfill taxes/bans on unprocessed waste

Six nations already meet Landfill Directive Significant variation from nation to nation and

tax varies based on waste type – processed, inert, unprocessed, % biodegradable

High landfill tax = More results

National & local policies/programs Waste Hierarchy – prevention, re-use,

recovery (including WTE), incineration w/o energy, landfill

Municipal collection of residential waste almost universal

EU Directives – oil, PCB’s, batteries, electronics, end of life vehicles

Germany/Austria Green Dot programs

National results – landfill (red) WTE (yellow) and recycling/organics (green)

Conclusions

High landfill taxes in Sweden, Denmark & Netherlands

Germany & Switzerland have no tax but landfill bans

Others with no or low landfill tax nations have high landfill rates

Is “culture of stewardship” a driver in the EU? My assessment would indicate NO It appears that national waste policy, not

culture, is the primary driving force It appears that local programs are also a

primary driving force (SS, WTE, recycling) Swiss do fine w/o EU directives Secondary forces may be economic capacity

& national energy policies

How does Minnesota compare to EU Structure – EU (EPA), Nation (State), local

government implementation MN has less Organized Collection Some EU nations enforce waste barriers vs. MN’s

open state boarders Many EU nations lag behind Minnesota MN WMAct – Excellent framework equivalent to

high performing EU nations (planning, HHW, PM, SCORE recycling systems, 473, and grants

MN lacks landfill restrictions

EU/National vs. USA

Adopted Keyoto National taxes and

landfill bans Landfill Directive EU Problem Materials Performance varies by

Nation Waste management is

Utility

Keyoto not adopted EPA guidance & State

by State policy Subtitle D regs. State Leadership Variation between

States Waste management is

a business

Waste Statistics - Netherlands

Results 2% Landfill 64% Recycling/organics 34% WTE Landfill taxes >$100/ton

NL Hierarchy/Order of preference

Prevention

Product reuse

Recovery (incl. WTE)

Incineration

Landfill

NL Waste and GNP in 1985-2003

80

100

120

140

160

180

1985 1990 1995 2000

Index 1985=100

HouseholdwasteGNP

Total

Industrialwaste

Bio-waste: NL separate collection and composting – 2.5% overall

Composting, Mton/yr

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

NL GHG Analysis

-In the Netherlands the waste management

policy since 1990 has shown success !

Conclusion and lessons from NL

- The lessons we learned: Waste management needs an integral approach Invest in public awareness and acceptance Combine targets and regulation with financial instruments Bring separate collection at source into action Cooperation between authorities; create a level playing field

Waste Statistics - Sweden

Results 5% Landfill 48% Recycling/organics 10% Organics 47% WTE Landfill taxes vary by

waste type

What can we learn from the Europe? GHG is a policy driver for waste policy Collection arrangements – VBP & push

Source Separation 90% materials and energy recovery is

feasible and affordable Landfill restrictions open door to abatement

and recovery WTE complements abatement – it does not

compete for waste Clear Nation policy = robust programs/results

THANK YOU !! Questions ?