Working towards
Circular Economy
and Zero Waste in Europe
From a global vision to local practice:
approaches and results
Enzo Favoino
Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza
Chair, Scientific Committee, ZeroWasteEurope
CE and Zero Waste: the
global role

Zero Waste a strategy intended to maximise short- and
long-term efficiency in resource management

The CE Package proposed in July 2014 sub-titled “A
zero waste programme for Europe”

A codified, peer-reviewed Zero Waste Hierarchy is kept
by ZWIA (Zero Waste International Alliance)

Ongoing recognition/certification programmes for ZW
Communities and ZW businesses. Minimisation of
residuals (kgs/person.year) the key goal / metrics for
performance
Why a “material recycling
society”?

Environmental benefits

Economic benefits

Occupational implications (green jobs)

Supply of raw materials
Proposed Circular Economy
Package (Jul 14):





Recycling and preparing for re-use of municipal waste to
be increased to 70 % by 2030;
Recycling and preparing for re-use of packaging waste to
be increased to 80 % by 2030, with material-specific targets
set to gradually increase between 2020 and 2030 (to reach 90
% for paper by 2025 and 60% for plastics, 80% for wood, 90%
of ferrous metal, aluminium and glass by the end of 2030);
Phasing out landfilling by 2025 for recyclable (including
plastics, paper, metals, glass and bio-waste) waste in non
hazardous waste landfills – corresponding to a maximum
landfilling rate of 25%;
Measures aimed at reducing food waste generation by
30 % by 2025;
Establish separate collection of organics by 2025
(…) We are also proposing to withdraw the
existing proposal on the circular economy, to
make way for a broader and more
ambitious approach that can be more effective.
We want to look beyond the narrow focus on
waste and to 'close the loop' of the
circular economy, for example by addressing
recycling in product design and creating a
market for secondary raw material.
Question 1:
Is zero waste possible?
Historical trend –
a clear direction





Early recycling schemes (1980): glass, paper 15-25 %
Bellusco (1993): first kerbside scheme with separation of
organics  60-65%
Carnate (1995): transparent bag to collect residuals  70-75%
Torre Boldone, Comuni dei Navigli (1997): PAYT  80-85%
ZW Municipalities: continued re-design - hitting the high 80’s,
90% in some cases
“Zero waste is more the journey,
than the destination”
Question 2:
results?
Ljubljana – 1st EU capital to
declare ZW in Europe
Present and future plans in
Ljubljana

Current situation:



Separate collection rate: 61 %
Amount of residual waste: 110 kg / person / year
Commitments:




Separate collection rate by 2025: 78 %
Separate collection rate by 2035: 80 %
Amount of residual waste by 2025: 60 kg / person / year
Amount of residual waste by 2035: 50 kg / person / year
•Residual waste in Contarina
•(2 sub-districts, 50 Municipalities, pop. 530.000)
•(kg*inhabitant/year)
•mid-term goal:
-80% Residual
•SOURCE
•dati Contarina 2014 (Media annuale aggiornata a Giugno),
•Waste by 2023
•Rapporto Rifiuti ISPRA 2014 (dati 2013 Italia); Relazione Rifiuti Urbani ARPAV (dati 2013 Veneto)
Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza
The principles of Zero Waste:
the 4 “R”s
• Reduce
• Reuse
• Recycle
• Re-design
Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza
A ZW plan
• Kerbside collection – include the organics!
• Waste prevention practices in the remit of
Community Responsibility
• Pay-as-you-throw
• Check composition of residual waste
• Redesign collection and management for
improvement
• Feed back to producers in order to address
non-reusablle/recyclable materials
The key role of organics
• QUANTITATIVE: fundamental to achieve highest
material recovery rates
• OPERATIONAL: minimising organics in residual
waste makes it possible to shrink collection rounds
– cost-optimisation
– further driving effect for increased separation of dry
recyclables, too)
• QUALITATIVE: reducing organics in residual waste
makes it less “dirty”, remarkably more
“workable”/recyclable
Dedicated collection
of foodwaste at high-rises
.
Cost optimisation
(Lombardy, pop. 10M, 1547 Municipalities)
Cost of collection (green bars)
and cost of treatment/disposal (blue bars)
•Euro/person
Treatment
+ disposal
collection
‘Green jobs’ after rolling out
curbside collection in Treviso (pop. 80.000)
Staff
100
75
84
50
25
0
2013
Total costs
(management + disposal)
58
2014
•%
105
95
85
75
65
55
2013
2014
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
DE
NL
AT
SE
BE
DK
LU
FR
FI
UK
IT
Landfill
SI
ES
PT
Incineration
IE
CZ
HU
Recycling
PL
EE
SK
Com posting
G
R
T
M
7
Y LV Eurostat
CSource:
LT RO2012
BG U 2
E
Source: Eurostat 2012
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Disposal
Recycling/composting
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Denmark
Poland
800
700
600
500
Disposal
Recycling/composting
400
300
200
100
0
Denmark
Poland
A comparison
700 kgs/person.yr
60% incinerated
= 420 kgs/person.yr
25% slags/ashes
= 105 kgs/person.yr
350 kgs/person.yr
85% recycled
Residual waste = 50 kgs/person.y
Committed to reduce residuals
by a further 80%
= 10 kgs/person.yr
(before processing)
Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza
Thanks for your attention
Enzo Favoino
Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza
335.355446
[email protected]
3
•Separate collection rates in Provinces
ITALY

Separate collection rates:




Around 1000 Municipalities above 70%
Around 300 Municipalities above 80%
A few above 90%
The new metrics! Minimised residual waste in
kgs/person.year




Hundreds Municipalities below 100 kgs
310 Municipalities below 75 kgs
Many below 50 kgs
Lowest ones around 20 kgs