30.1. This chapter addresses solid waste management, which includes collection and disposal of refuse, the operation of refuse transfer stations and landfills, and the management of closed landfills. It also covers waste minimisation, which is accomplished by reducing packaging, and by reuse, recycling, and resource recovery. Solid waste excludes wastewater and sewage, the management of which is discussed in Chapter 26, “The Three Waters”.
30.2. While this chapter focuses on council functions, it should be noted that there is significant private sector involvement in solid waste management. Private companies own and operate refuse collection systems, transfer stations, and landfills. Some private sector activity derives from contracts let by the territorial authorities, but there are also large solid waste management businesses that are not connected to councils. The private sector is also involved in green waste collection and composting, and clothing collection, reuse, and recycling.
30.3. The volume of waste going to landfills (as well as the adverse effects of such waste) is significant in Auckland, as it is in the rest of New Zealand.
About 3.2 million tonnes of waste goes to landfills each year in New Zealand and, according to the Ministry for the Environment, each year we throw away about $250 million worth of potentially reusable resources. Not only is this a huge waste of resources but also landfills contribute to New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions and are a significant source of toxic leachate ….1
30.4. The Waste Minimisation Act 2008, discussed below, is the most recent of a number of central government policy initiatives. The New Zealand Waste Strategy (2002) sets targets for reducing a range of waste streams as well as for improving landfill practices by 2010. The strategy is not binding on territorial authorities.
30.5. The New Zealand Packaging Accord (2004) is a voluntary agreement by industry with the Government to take responsibility for the complete life cycle of packaging. Producers and brand owners agreed that when they developed new packaging they would give higher regard to factors such as using fewer materials and using recycled materials. They also agreed to look at production efficiency, and the potential for recycling into other products after the packaging was no longer needed. The packaging accord has been given credit for significant reductions in packaging waste.2
30.6. Local government has an important role in solid waste management under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. Under the Act, territorial authorities must promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their districts. They do so to fulfil the purposes of the Act, which are to protect the environment and provide environmental, social, economic, and cultural benefits.3 Local government involvement in collecting and disposing of waste has a separate and much older rationale, which is to safeguard public health and amenity. For all these reasons, it is clear to the Commission that local government should have an ongoing role in solid waste management.
30.7. The Waste Minimisation Act requires territorial authorities to formulate waste management and minimisation plans.4 They are required to consider, in making their plans, six methods of waste minimisation in this order of importance:
30.8. Each of the Auckland territorial authorities has a waste management plan formulated under earlier legislation.6 These are stand-alone plans for each territorial authority. Councils in Auckland have not taken up the option under the Waste Minimisation Act of preparing joint plans7. This is another example of territorial authorities failing to cooperate. However, the councils’ plans are similar in many respects, and the possibility of joint action is contemplated in most of the plans.
30.9. An important aspect of improved waste minimisation is public participation, which depends on public knowledge and understanding of available options and of the systems put in place by local authorities. Councils have adopted different systems with bags, bins, and tubs in different sizes and colour schemes, different charging regimes, and different collection frequencies. Opportunities have been lost to standardise the hardware and systems throughout the region, which the Commission considers would assist in building public knowledge and participation. For example, if the same system were adopted in each district, television and newspaper publicity to promote household participation would be more cost-effective.
30.10. Comprehensive statistics for the Auckland region of the quantities of waste and recyclables collected and sent to landfill or other destinations were not obtainable by the Commission.8 Although territorial authorities held statistics for their own areas, it was not possible to aggregate these into regional statistics – the figures measured different waste streams and were not comparable.
30.11. The Commission considers that an important goal in the future should be to improve data collection. As noted above, there is a large private sector involvement in waste management, and councils do not necessarily have knowledge of all activities. However, improvements could be made. In 2007, a report from the Office of the Auditor-General commented on the importance of such information, in a report on waste management plans:
Most plans included some information about the quantity and composition of waste in the district, although fewer identified how much waste was expected in the future. While baseline information about waste data and composition is an important starting point for preparing a waste management plan, territorial authorities also need to consider how much waste they can expect in the future so they can better plan services to provide for future demand.9
30.12. The overall waste stream in the Auckland region seems to be increasing slightly. For the period since 2002, figures obtained from three of the city councils indicate a trend towards increased recycling (see Table 30.1).
30.13. The Waste Minimisation Act introduced a waste disposal levy, which will affect solid waste management by all parties, including territorial authorities. The levy is paid to the Government by the operators of waste disposal facilities at the rate of $10 per tonne.10 Half the levy money collected is paid by the Government to territorial authorities (shared pro rata by population) to be spent on promoting and achieving waste minimisation. The remainder of the levy money forms a contestable fund for waste minimisation projects available to councils and the private sector.11
Table 30.1 Refuse and recycling quantities for three Auckland councils
| Year to 30 June | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 |
| North Shore City1 | ||||||
| Total refuse (tonnes) | 27,665 | 26,334 | 26,055 | 27,405 | ||
| Total recycle (tonnes) | 20,852 | 22,367 | 24,938 | 24,314 | ||
| Auckland City2 | ||||||
| Total refuse (tonnes) | 83,864 | 84,331 | 87,998 | 87,026 | 84,611 | |
| Total recycle (tonnes) | 37,618 | 39,537 | 41,119 | 41,095 | 42,910 | |
| Manukau City3 | ||||||
| Total refuse (tonnes) | 70,328 | 73,776 | 81,136 | 84,932 | 88,613 | 88,115 |
| Total recycle (tonnes) | 15,794 | 18,125 | 19,750 | 20,536 | 20,713 | 21,409 |
Sources: 1North Shore City Council, December 2008; 2 Auckland City Council, October 2008; 3 www.manukau.govt.nz, accessed January 2009.
30.14. The levy has two objectives: to raise revenue, and to provide incentives for waste reduction. For councils, the major implication will be the capital funding that becomes available for waste minimisation. For everyone who produces waste, the effect of the levy will be to increase landfill charges. This is expected to provide an incentive for people to reduce quantities going to landfill, for example by changing business practices to reduce waste output.
30.15. The money available to councils will be significant. Assuming 3.2 million tonnes (as quoted in paragraph 30.3) is disposed of to landfill nationally in the first year, the levy revenue at $10 per tonne will be $32 million. Half will be paid to councils after deduction of costs, leaving say $15 million, of which Auckland councils on a pro rata population basis will receive $4.8 million (their share for 32% of the population of New Zealand).
30.16. This calculation overstates the actual sums that will be available, as the levy will probably result in a reduction in waste going to landfills (as it is intended to do), and there is a lack of accurate statistics. But it indicates that there may be significant sums of money available to Auckland councils from the waste minimisation fund. North Shore City Council has separately estimated that its annual return from the levy will be $800,000.12 Significant new investment in high-technology methods of waste minimisation might be made if this revenue stream were pooled regionally and invested as a block. Conversely, if the money were split between each of the existing councils, new investment might be discouraged as it might not be possible for any of them to realise significant economies of scale.
30.17. The contestable fund, representing the other half of the levy revenue, might be more readily secured by a “whole of Auckland” initiative, rather than by individual territorial authorities. The potential scale of an Auckland regional waste minimisation proposal could make it more competitive.
30.18. Technology recently developed to sort materials recovered from kerbside recycling offers opportunities to make recycling more efficient. This technology requires large capital investment, but it can yield significant economies of scale by replacing labour-intensive manual sorting methods with mechanised sorting.
30.19. Auckland and Manukau City Councils have separately contracted with Visy Recycling NZ Ltd to introduce this new technology to Auckland. This has resulted in Visy constructing a new materials recovery facility (“MRF”) at Onehunga to sort and recover recyclables collected at kerbsides.13 The scale and cost of this facility, an investment of about $24 million, was beyond the scope of a single council. Neither council had the volume of material to justify its own plant, but their combined volumes being funnelled through the same company crossed the threshold to make the new sorting technology viable.
30.20. The MRF is complemented by a new kerbside collection system. In 2008, larger 240-litre recycling bins were introduced by Auckland and Manukau City Councils, and collections are now made fortnightly. Sorting is done at the MRF and not at the kerbside, as in the past. Householders put all recyclable material (paper, cardboard, plastics numbered 1 to 7, glass bottles, tins, and aluminium cans) into the one bin which is transported to the MRF for sorting.
30.21. The new system has already produced efficiency gains in Auckland City and improvements in waste minimisation. In the first three months of the new system, quantities of material put out for recycling increased by about 10%, with a corresponding reduction in garbage put out for collection. This was attributed to people finding it easier to recycle because they could now put all recyclables into a single larger bin.14
30.22. Waitakere and North Shore City Councils have also collaborated in solid waste management. Waitakere City Council operates an MRF at Henderson using older technology and more labour than the Visy facility, but still effectively sorting and recovering large volumes. The Henderson MRF sorts materials from the Waitakere and North Shore Cities’ kerbside recycling collection.15 This is one of the few remaining council-owned waste management facilities in the Auckland region, most other councils having privatised or closed their transfer stations and landfills.
30.23. Other councils put less effort into materials sorting and recovery. The Commission does not criticise the various measures and processes of individual councils, but considers that opportunities to improve output and efficiency are being lost, especially in sorting and recovery. This is mainly because of the relatively small scale of the waste stream from each council’s district, which does not allow available technology to be adopted efficiently by individual districts. The obvious conclusion is that the waste streams need to be combined, by one means or another.
30.24. Apart from the materials currently being recycled (glass, plastic, paper, etc.), the Commission considers that there are other opportunities for waste streams to be combined and treated as one. One example is organic waste, including food scraps and green waste, which has an estimated volume of 260,000 tonnes per annum, or about one-quarter of the total volume of regional waste going to landfill.
30.25. The Auckland Mayoral and Chief Executives’ Forums decided in July 2006 to sponsor the development of a regional waste management strategy, but no strategy has so far been agreed.
30.26. The Commission’s attention was drawn to the need for a regional approach to separation of organic waste from the general waste stream. Organic waste could have a number of end uses including composting and biofuel production. The Commission believes that opportunities like these are not being fully considered because of the fragmented approach of the current governance system. An all-of-Auckland approach is required to implement these kinds of proposals, because they need to be founded on a combined waste stream, capital investment, and a public education campaign to support separate organic collection. Box 30.1 contains an example of an effective regional waste minimisation campaign conducted by the combined efforts of Seattle City Council and King County.
30.27. The efficiency gains available in materials sorting can be contrasted with kerbside collection of garbage or recyclables, where significant new economies are limited. As noted above, the new MRF in Auckland has facilitated fortnightly collections using larger bins. This change has produced efficiency gains in collection. However, beyond this it is generally considered there is little further scope to increase efficiency in the kerbside collection. Most councils have already contracted out kerbside collection to the private sector. The Commission sees value in the continuation of a competitive collection industry with a number of viable contractors able to make competitive tenders. A regional approach to solid waste management does not necessarily imply a change to the number of collection contracts let within the region.
20.28. The close connection between solid waste management and broader environmental issues such as sustainability are highlighted by the quotation from the parliamentary debate at the beginning of this chapter, and by the Seattle case study referred to in Box 30.1. In the Seattle example, lawn mulching was promoted as a way to reduce the volume of green waste going to landfills, to reduce the amount of water irrigating lawns, and to cut down the use of pesticides and fertilisers, among other outcomes.
Box 30.1 Seattle Natural Lawn Care ProgramThe following passage illustrates how Seattle City Council has developed and carefully promoted a programme for reducing the environmental impacts of maintaining lawns:
many people currently recognize that the typical urban or suburban lawn can waste valuable resources. Water, fertilizer and pesticides go into maintaining a green lawn that produces large amounts of problematic grass clippings. Motivated by the broader mission of Seattle Public Utilities – which now deals with water conservation, drainage and wastewater issues, as well as solid waste management – we created the Natural Lawn Care program with our partner agency, King County Water and Land Resource Division. Its objective is to take a broad brush approach to changing lawn care habits. The program shows how grasscycling [where lawn clippings are mulched rather than removed], reduced use of soluble fertilizers and pesticides and moderate use of water can create a healthy lawn ecosystem that is much easier on the environment and safer for the people in that environment. This year, market research indicated that our target audience for this message consists mostly of middle-aged (30 to 65 age range), suburban and urban males. As this effort is becoming regional, we were able to purchase time for a 30-second TV spot that will go to audiences watching Seattle Mariner baseball games. It would be hard to get to our target audience in a better way. The ads use a talking salmon and water protection as a theme, which is timely in light of the proposed endangered species listing of chinook salmon in our region. A mix of radio advertising also is planned for this year. A great deal of interagency cooperation has gone into creating a coherent message that can be accepted by all the parties. Cooperation leverages agency monies and helps smaller agencies that are working with smaller budgets. It also creates an integrated message that avoids confusion for residents. Source:
Woestwin, Carl, “Evolution of Home-Based Strategies for Residential Organics”, Biocycle, May 1998: 37–39.
30.29. In Auckland, these environmental issues are not managed together. Territorial authorities are responsible for solid waste, and the Auckland Regional Council is responsible for various environmental matters including water use and quality. All the councils do useful work in publishing tips on sustainable gardening (a search for “garden waste” on most council websites yields numerous relevant articles), but the Commission believes that a broader approach is lacking. In particular, there is no coordination between councils to manage interrelated issues through public education or a media campaign such as that described in Seattle. As a result, opportunities to improve sustainability are being lost on a number of fronts.
30.30. The submissions on solid waste are summarised in Chapter 16, “Infrastructure”, in Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions. Solid waste was not commented on in detail by many submitters, perhaps suggesting that solid waste management is not widely perceived to be a problem. In the submissions received, the major issue identified was the fragmentation of investment and management between territorial authorities.
30.31. The Packaging Council of New Zealand made the most detailed submission on the subject. It advocated a regional approach to waste management decisions (which should be consistent with national decisions), together with regional service delivery, saying,
The economics of waste management services, particularly with regards to the recovery of recyclables, is best handled on a regional scale. Without volume recovery operations can be uneconomically viable which potentially compromises the range of materials which can be recovered – this is a situation which is occurring across the Auckland region today.16
30.32. The Packaging Council acknowledged the value of the Visy MRF in recovering recyclables collected from kerbsides in Auckland City and Manukau City, saying it was testament to how effective waste policies can be implemented when a strategic focus is applied, rather than just a localised solution. However, the Packaging Council left open whether a regional vision needed direction from a regional agency, or could be achieved through joint action by territorial authorities.
30.33. Another submitter favoured a regional agency taking over management of solid waste for other reasons, saying that it was unsatisfactory for the existence of waste facilities to be “simply at the whim of private enterprise.”17
30.34. The Commission notes that solid waste collection and disposal by councils is generally satisfactory if considered on a day-to-day basis. It appears to the Commission that council collection services are adequately addressing basic public health and the most direct environmental effects, and progress has been made by all councils in waste minimisation in recent years.
30.35. However, the Commission sees many opportunities being lost as a result of the current governance arrangements. Lost opportunities include
30.36. These lost opportunities could be recouped by bringing all waste management and environmental management responsibilities under a regional organisation. The Commission agrees with the Packaging Council that the economics of waste management services, particularly the recovery of recyclables, are best handled on a regional scale. This is because of the need to combine the waste streams to achieve cost-effectiveness, and the large investment sums needed for new sorting technology and facilities.
30.37. Arguments for a regional approach are strengthened by the availability of levy money to local authorities under the Waste Minimisation Act. Auckland’s share of this money would have optimum value if kept together and invested in regional facilities, rather than being claimed by individual councils. A regional body would be in a good competitive position to make claims on the contestable fund, as it could demonstrate good rates of return on the investment of new capital.
30.38. Given the Commission’s overall recommendation for the reorganisation of local government in Auckland – the creation of an Auckland Council as a unitary authority to govern the whole region (see Chapter 14, “The Auckland Council: Key Features”) – solid waste management is an appropriate function of the Auckland Council.
30.39. The Commission envisages that the Auckland Council will produce a regional waste management plan that investigates waste minimisation projects, and integrates solid waste management with other environmental programmes and with service delivery. The possible advantages of creating a council-controlled organisation for solid waste management might be considered. A regional waste management plan should recognise different circumstances in parts of the region, such as the Hauraki Gulf islands, where a different approach might be worked out in consultation with local people. A regional plan could also recognise and encourage efforts to minimise waste by the community, including not-for-profit groups, which can make a valuable contribution.
30.40. There are other ways to bring about a regional approach. Local councils could use more joint ventures to obtain economies of scale, or a specialised regional waste management agency (along the lines of Watercare Services) could be created. Joint ventures can help improve outcomes, but the Commission considers they are not reliable enough to be a favoured form of governance. And a stand-alone agency, along with local council management, has the disadvantage of possibly isolating waste management from a broader sustainability agenda. The Commission considers that solid waste management can and should be part of a broadly integrated environmental management effort. If a separate solid waste agency were to be created, then its mandate and responsibility would need to include joint action on environmental matters with other agencies.
30.41. An all-of-Auckland approach to waste management is also favoured because of the opportunities for targeted campaigns to recover specific items such as packaging, computers, televisions, and hazardous waste, for reuse, recycling, or return to their manufacturer.
30.42. In the Commission’s view, governance by the Auckland Council will meet public needs for waste management. Most people will want waste collection services that are reasonably frequent, reliable, and efficient, with high environmental standards, but will not have strong preferences as to who provides the service. Standard service levels can be worked out by the Auckland Council to meet the needs of most people across the region. Individuals who want additional waste collection services can arrange these privately.
30A The Auckland Council should develop a Regional Waste Management Strategy, including strategies for management of organic waste and integration of waste management with other environmental programmes.
1 Dr Russel Norman, MP, from the third reading debate in Parliament of the Waste Minimisation Bill, 11 September 2008, available at www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates, accessed February 2009.
2 Lester Thorley, “Packaging Accord report shows New Zealanders well on the way to reducing waste”, Ministry for the Environment media release, 15 October 2008.
3 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, sections 3 and 42.
4 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, sections 42 and 43.
5 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, section 44.
6 Local Government Act 1974, Part 31, sections 538 and 539 contained planning requirements similar to the Waste Minimisation Act.
7 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, section 45.
8 The Commission inquired with the Ministry for the Environment and Auckland Regional Council, but neither had up-to-date regional statistics. One difficulty of compiling statistics is that data have been collected in the past by agencies using different definitions of waste.
9 Waste management planning by territorial authorities, Office of the Auditor-General, Wellington, 2007, paragraph 2.64 (available at www.oag.govt.nz/2007/waste-management, accessed January 2009).
10 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, section 27 states $10 per tonne or other prescribed amount.
11 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, sections 31, 32, and 38.
12 Report on the Waste Minimisation Act prepared for Infrastructure and Environment Committee of North Shore City Council, 16 October 2008, pp. 1 and 5.
13 The materials recovery facility is described at www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/services/rubbish/mrf.asp (accessed January 2009)
14 Personal comment from Auckland City Council group manager. (Longer-term trends are not yet apparent.)
15 Some recovered material (for example bicycles, furniture, and toys) are separated for reuse and sold.
16 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Packaging Council of New Zealand, p. 4. (All submissions are available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz.)
17 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Barry Carter, p. 2.
| Home | Help | Disclaimer & Copyright | Contact us | newzealand.govt.nz |