Defining strategies
and turning plans into practice
Managing biowaste
Enzo Favoino
Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza
Chair, Working Group Biological Treatment
ISWA
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
The pivotal role of biowaste
What’s going on in the EU
A few facts & figures
Sep collection, optimisation and results
Tools and approaches
2
Scuola Agraria
del Parco di Monza
Contextual remarks:
More than just waste
management
• Biodegradables represent the vast majority of MSW
arisings (above all in S Europe)
• Proper management often driven by strategies to
reduce impacts of disposal
– Landfill diversion targets (EU Landfill Directive)
• Major contributor to GHGs from inappropriate
management of MSW
• Extended benefits: soils, farmlands, the environment
– Climate Change (UNFCCC)
– Desertification (UNCCD)
– Biodiversity, fertility, resilience, prevention of floods, erosion
(e.g. EU Soil Thematic Strategy)
Strategic approaches to reduce impact
of organics in landfills
• Landfill diversion targets (Directive 99/31 EC)
- Probably the most important driver for waste
management in last decade in the EU (and
elsewhere)
• Landfill Bans (e.g. US, Brazil)
- Garden waste only or organics as a whole
- May be lacking some flexibility, anyway an important
driver to consider for proper evolution of waste
management systems !
- Requires proper definition of acceptance.
Scuola Agraria
del Parco di Monza
MSW composition (EC, 2001)
AU
BE
DK
FIN
FRA
GER
GRE
IRL
ITA
YEAR (quantities)
1998
1997
1998
1997
1998
1998
1997
1998
1998
Total MSW (million tonnes)
4.85
4.69
2.93
2.51
49.1
3.9
2.06
26.9
Total (OECD) (1997 data,
or latest year)
4.1
4.85
2.95
2.1
44.4
(38)
28.8
40.0
3.9
2.03
26.6
Kitchen and Yard Waste
29.2
34.9
37
40
29
29.9
47
27
33.6
24
13.4
21.6
18.9
36.8
16
32.5
5.0
28.5
22.8
1.4
2.8
1.9 I
2.6
0.8
8.2
9.4
7.2
6.8
5.1
3.7
4.5
2.3
3.2
2
2.8
5.4
9.2
3.2
4.5
4.5
4.5
11.4
4.8
2.6
1.7
0.9
17.8
26.0
12.4
31.5
15.5
19.2
Yard Waste
Kitchen Waste
Paper and card
Paper
Cardboard
Timber
Textiles
Nappies
Plastics
Glass
Metals
Ferrous metals
Non-ferrous metals
Other
37.3
20
2.1
5.1
2.0
10.3
7.2
3.0
15.9
Some savings – just to give a touch
• Replacement of mineral fertilisers 30-50 kg CO2eq/tonne
• Biogas Production 100-150 kg CO2-eq/tonne
• Peat replacement 300-400 kg CO2-eq/tonne
• C sequestration 11 to 326 kg CO2-eq/tonne
– EC Report “Soils and climate change”
• Reduced N2O release + Improved Workability +
Water retention + Replacement of pesticides…..
“Climsoil” Report, EC 2009.
"The report underlines the need to
sequester carbon in soils. The
technique is cost competitive and
immediately available, requires no
new or unproven technologies, and
has a mitigation potential comparable
to that of any other sector of the
economy."
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soi
l/review_en.htm
Established separate
collection and composting
In implementation
European biowaste
at a glance:
In beginning phase
No activities
12 Mt
800 plants
3 Mt
Potential organic
Waste in EU15:
60 Mio. t / year
4 Mt
240 plants
Sep. Collection
in all municipalities
.
Article 22
bio-waste
• Member States shall take measures, as appropriate, (…)
to encourage:
– (a) the separate collection of bio-waste with a view to the
composting and digestion of bio-waste;
– (b) the treatment of bio-waste in a way that fulfils a high
level of environmental protection;
– (c) the use of environmentally safe materials produced from
bio-waste.
• The Commission shall carry out an assessment on the
management of bio-waste with a view to submitting a
proposal if appropriate. The assessment shall examine the
opportunity of
– setting minimum requirements for bio-waste management
and
– quality criteria for compost and digestate (…) in order to
guarantee a high level of protection for human health and
the environment.
Article 22
bio-waste
• Member States shall take measures, as appropriate, (…)
to encourage:
– (a) the separate collection of bio-waste with a view to the
composting and digestion of bio-waste;
– (b) the treatment of bio-waste in a way that fulfils a high
level of environmental protection;
– (c) the use of environmentally safe materials produced from
bio-waste.
• The Commission shall carry out an assessment on the
management of bio-waste with a view to submitting a
proposal if appropriate. The assessment shall examine the
opportunity of
– setting minimum requirements for bio-waste management
and
– quality criteria for compost and digestate (…) in order to
guarantee a high level of protection for human health and
the environment.
What does it take to get there ?
“integrated” schemes, kerbside
food waste + PAYT
80 %
70 %
“integrated” schemes, kerbside
food waste separation
Road containers + kerbside (doorstep)
doorstep)
for a few dry recyclables (paper)
paper)
50 %
40 %
“added” systems, organics included
trhough containers on the road
20 %
“added” systems, containers on the
road for dry recyclables
Development of source separation
of biowaste in the EU
• Obligations for biowaste management
– NL: compulsory schemes for separate collection
– AUT: obligation upon households to either take part in separate
collection or to compost in the backyard
– GER: KrW-AbfG separate collection widely diffused
– Catalunya (Spain): ley 6/95 compulsory for all Municipalities
with a pop. > 5000 (recently extended to cover all Municipalities)
– SK (Act 24/04): Garden Waste to be separately collected by 2006;
biowaste by 2010
• Targets
– SWE: 35% composting target
– ITA, UK: recycling targets acting as drivers
Separate collection of biowaste
facts and findings
• Kerbside (doorstep) schemes basically showing same
results everywhere
• Schemes may be optimised
– Increased captures
– Best quality
– cost optimisation (no increase of costs for collection)
• Best performing schemes based on labour-intensive
strategies (kerbside collection, hand pick-up)
– Less CAP.EX., creation of jobs
• Collection at high-rise buildings also POSSIBLE and
widely implemented
2n
d
se
98
m
.'
00
00
99
99
m
.'
em
.'
se
ts
d
1s
2n
97
98
m
.'
em
.'
se
ts
d
1s
2n
96
97
m
.'
em
.'
se
ts
d
1s
2n
em
.'
95
96
m
.'
em
.'
se
ts
d
1s
2n
94
95
m
.'
em
.'
se
ts
d
1s
2n
m
.'
94
93
93
m
.'
em
.'
se
ts
d
1s
2n
se
35
ts
d
em
.'
92
40
1s
2n
ts
92
m
.'
em
.'
se
ts
d
1s
2n
1s
% recycling
A remarkable, long-lasting effect
55
50
45
Kerbside biowaste
collection implemented
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Time
Best Recycling Municipalities,
pop < 10,000 inhabitants
9
Scuola Agraria
del Parco di Monza
Province capitals
(larger towns, with high-rise buildings)
10
Scuola Agraria
del Parco di Monza
Quality of biowaste:
not a matter of size of towns !
Collection at the doorstep
11127
12720
9652
34849
4713
30800
7824,192308
5971
11177
19230
16112
4332
23890
20028
92
90
88
119187
44748
50121
Containers on the road
6832
6893
9062
6152
6274
26475
150.000
Population
100.000
7161
50.000
86
84
82
80
75650
10493
0
Purity
100
98
96
94
Scuola Agraria
del Parco di Monza
Turin
• Pop. 909,000
• Separate collection = 42%
• 404,000 inhabitants with
collection at the doorstep
(“kerbside”)
- Waste separation in
neighbourhoods with
kerbside, incl. food
waste = 59%
- Waste separation in
neighbourhoods
without kerbside (road
containers, 3,2 m3) =
25%
11
Scuola Agraria
del Parco di Monza
Waste “management” in Italy ?
3
Scuola Agraria
del Parco di Monza
The “new” European Map – Economist 2010
*
7
Scuola Agraria
del Parco di Monza
Salerno
• 150,000 inhabitants
• Pilot project covering
30,000 inhab., July 2008
• Extension in 5 steps,
completed in September
2009
• Separate collection= 75 %
• Organics 50% !
Florianopolis october 28, 2010
Patrizia Lo Sciuto
Slide by Enzo Favoino
14
Scuola Agraria
del Parco di Monza
Optimising logistics, making management sustainable
(and cost-effective)
Scuola Agraria
del Parco di Monza
“bespoke” food waste collection:
Food waste in residual waste
Municipality
Altivole
Arcade
Breda di Piave
Casale sul Sile
Castello di Godego
Cessalto
Conegliano
Cornuda
Giavera del Montello
% Food waste
7,82
8,24
7,61
9,42
8,05
6,30
9,40
7,19
6,88
Scuola Agraria
del Parco di Monza
Cost optimisation (Lombardy, 1500 Municipalities)
Euro/person
Cost of collection (green bars)
and cost of treatment/disposal (blue bars)
Scuola Agraria
del Parco di Monza
TOOLS AND STRATEGIES TO CUT COSTS
Tool
Details
Reducing pick-up
time
Hand pick-up of small receptacles
much faster than mechanical
loading
Reduced frequency
for collection of
“Residuals”
Effective systems to collect
biowaste make its percentage in
Residuals less than 15 %
Use of bulk lorries
instead of packer
trucks
Bulk density of food waste is
much higher (0.7kg/dm3) than
garden waste
Low-tech, modular approaches
(particularly suited for small districts,
pilot areas, small islands)
Anaerobic
Digestion
• Turns biogenic C into a substitute fuel – wider benefits
(renewable energy AND soil improvers)
• Not dependent on availability of bulking materials (e.g.
metropolitan areas, lack of gardens)
• Unit investment and operational cost usually higher than
composting (in spite of revenues from energy production, even if
Renewable Energy is subsidised)
• Less independent from economies of scale
• Cost for the management of wastewaters – requires good
integration of waste management and management of
wastewater
Summary remarks
• Separate collection of biowaste a PROVEN
strategy
• Similar schemes deliver similar results
everywhere – MAKE IT HAPPEN !
• intensive collection of food waste may deliver
–
–
–
High separate collection rates
high diversion of BMW
savings on cost of managing waste
Thanks for your attention
Enzo Favoino
[email protected]
+39 335 35.54.46
Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza,
Monza, Italy