It would also shift the burden of responsibility of paying for recycling systems from the taxpayer completely to producers, and as more plastic packaging is recycled this will further lower the Italian taxpayer funded ‘Own Resource’ contributions that Italy currently pays to the EU commission.
Italy already has relatively robust recycling infrastructure and has so far been reluctant to commit to the introduction of DRS. Elsewhere in Europe however, DRS has been proven to be able to achieve collection rates of over 90%, with Germany and Finland leading the way on 98% and 96%.
Simply put a DRS is where a small and fully refundable sum of money is charged on top of the cost of beverage containers at the point of sale to incentivise the consumer to return it for recycling, with the money returned to the consumer when the container is subsequently returned for recycling.
As a DRS is funded by producers this results in significant municipal savings for the collection and disposal of waste, estimated in Italy to be around €72.1 million annually, even accounting for the remaining material municipalities would still need to capture that’s not included in DRS.
A DRS would deliver on EU collection targets of 90% for single-use plastic bottles by 2029 under the Single-Use Plastic Directive whereas Italy’s current systems are expected to fall short. The collection rate for PET bottles with a DRS is predicted to increase from 73% to 94%.
The increased quality and quantity of collected recycled material from a DRS would also enable plastic bottle-to-bottle applications to meet recycled content targets through a reduction in sorting losses at recycling centres. Glass and aluminium would also see improvements in collection and recycling rates from a DRS but not as significantly as plastic.
A DRS is also expected to reduce overall visible litter by around 30%. Cleaner beaches would be especially beneficial in Italy as they are an important part of Italy’s tourist industry – an industry that directly employs 2.1 million people and accounts for 6.2% of Italy’s Gross Value Added (€99.9 billion).
Read the report in full (PDF, 3MB, link opens a new window)
]]>These are the findings of a White Paper published today by Handelens Miljøfond, Minderoo Foundation, TOMRA, and Zero Waste Europe, which outlines the urgent steps required to ensure the union remains on track to creating a sustainable future for its citizens.
The White Paper, developed by Eunomia Research & Consulting, sets out a vision for 2040 where society will use materials and products more efficiently in an economy that is well on its way to circularity.
The upcoming revision of the Waste Framework Directive, which has guided EU policy in this area since 1975, offers the opportunity to design a coherent and consistent policy framework for a circular economy – however the scope of the revision is not currently sufficient to set the EU on the right course.
Cecilie Lind, CEO of Handelens Miljøfond said: “This White Paper demonstrates the urgency of rethinking our approach to materials and waste policy in order to build a sustainable and circular economy by 2040, and the revision of the Waste Framework Directive is a critical step in achieving that goal.”
A genuinely circular economy would mean much reduced extraction and use of virgin resources, with a focus on a service economy that keeps products and materials in circulation for as long as possible, making full use of digital technology, systems, and data to manage our use of materials and products.
The White Paper also presents an accompanying blueprint for a policy framework that will drive these changes effectively and at scale, harnessing the power of the single market to give businesses confidence to invest in the new business models necessary to deliver prosperity and profitability while reducing material consumption.
Joan Marc Simon, Director-Founder of Zero Waste Europe, added: “It’s imperative that the EU makes it easier and cheaper for citizens, businesses, and organisations to make the right choices. Unless we make EU policies fit for purpose we can’t shift away from current inefficient linear take-make-waste economic models.”
The White Paper proposes a short-term revision of the WFD (by 2026) to provide:
Ultimately the WFD would need to be transformed into a Resources Framework Directive by 2029 which would extend the scope and remit of the framework to include the reduction of resource consumption, introducing a materials application hierarchy to steer the use of different types of materials to maximise decarbonisation.
Dr Marcus Gover, who leads a team of scientists and policy experts at Minderoo Foundation, said: “In a circular economy, consumers will reap the benefits of higher-quality products that last longer while at the same time reducing the harmful impacts materials like plastics, especially microplastics in clothing and tyres, have on our environment.”
Wolfgang Ringel, Senior Vice President Group Public Affairs at TOMRA commented: “More needs to be done to encourage the proper collection, sorting, and recycling of valuable material that is simply thrown away. Implementing legally defined (in other words, mandatory) obligations covering the use of resources, and their responsible handling, is the way forward to ensure a sustainable future for society and our planet.”
Dr Chris Sherrington, Head of Policy at Eunomia Research & Consulting concluded: “We are looking forward to engaging with stakeholders over the next six months on our ideas to help design a regulatory framework which can spur innovation and give businesses the confidence to invest, innovate and deliver the transition to a circular economy. We know these changes need to happen, it’s best to act now and work together in an open, transparent, and collaborative fashion to determine the best way to do so.”
]]>The most important contribution from MWS would be the reduction in GHG emissions associated with waste, as it is an effective method for ensuring that energy-intensive materials are not lost to landfill and energy recovery, but can be recycled and displace the need for virgin materials.
The report Mixed Waste Sorting to meet the EU´s Circular Economy Objectives studied whether, and to what extent, the EU recycling targets can be met through improved recyclability of packaging and increased separate collections of municipal waste—and, if not, what measures could be taken to achieve them.
The study, which has examined the role MWS could play in three EU countries with high recycling performance – Germany, Belgium, and Sweden – concluded that, in addition to separate collection and improved recyclability of plastic packaging, a full roll-out of effective MWS is likely to be necessary to ensure that recycling targets are consistently met and to ensure progress towards the EU’s wider carbon emissions reduction goals.
MWS could save between 10.2 and 23.2 MtCO₂e/annum, depending on the success of separate collection improvements. This would mean savings of up to 21% on the total 2020 EU waste sector emissions. This increases to saving 28 MtCO₂e/annum, equivalent to 25% of EU waste sector emissions, if more ambitious MWS with greater sorting efficiencies is rolled out.
The introduction of mandatory MWS would also help to ensure that plastic and paper packaging recycling targets for 2030 will be consistently met, and contribute between 2.9 and 8.2 percentage points to the municipal waste recycling targets (depending on the level of ambition in MWS and the success of separate collection improvements)
In the three countries examined, the addition of mixed waste sorting prior to thermal treatment and landfilling is projected to raise recycling rates in 2030 from 50% to 62% in Germany; from 53% to 65% in Belgium; and from ~44% to ~58% in Sweden.
According to Janek Vähk, ZWE’s Climate, Energy, and Air Pollution Programme Coordinator: “It’s clear that MSW is an essential solution to achieve climate targets. In addition to separate collection, its complementary role needs to be recognised by EU policies.”
Clarissa Morawski, CEO, Reloop said: “Only when all member states introduce measures to effectively sort recyclables from mixed waste prior to thermal treatment and landfilling across the EU, will there be any degree of confidence that plastic and paper packaging recycling targets will be consistently met and circularity of resources maximized.”
Andy Grant, Technical Director at Eunomia Research & Consulting said: “The EU is already leading the way on the circular economy transition and the addition of mixed waste sorting systems alongside separate collection systems and improved packaging recyclability will continue to support this by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving recycling rates.”
In the context of the ongoing revision of key EU policies –Waste Framework Directive (WFD), Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) and Renewable Energy Directive (RED), as well as upcoming revisions to the EU-ETS, ZWE and Reloop suggest the following actions to enable a quick transition towards greater circularity:
The new report, titled ‘CCUS Development Pathway for the EfW Sector’ and commissioned by recycling and waste management company Viridor, examines the opportunities for development of the technology over the coming decades and the associated costs of implementing CCUS in the EfW sector.
To achieve the government’s target of Net Zero by 2050, all industrial sectors will need to decarbonise as far as they can. Decarbonising non-recyclable waste will be essential to delivering Net Zero in 2050, according to the Climate Change Committee (CCC). Eunomia’s research suggests deployment of CCUS on EfW presents a significant opportunity to not only provide a viable route to decarbonising a key part of the waste sector and deliver negative emissions, but for the waste sector to help drive wider deployment of CCUS at scale in the UK.
The government’s latest iteration of its CCUS policy expects that CCUS will initially develop in ‘clusters’ around industrial emitters that have access to suitable offshore storage locations. Costs of CCUS on EfW facilities are expected to range between £66 per tonne of CO2 and £110 per tonne of CO2, with the lower costs relating to EfW facilities in closer proximity to CCUS clusters due to shared infrastructure.
CCUS on EfW facilities close to CCUS clusters would appear to be at least as cost-effective as, and possibly cheaper than, other industrial sectors. Transportation of captured CO2 from areas outside of CCUS clusters is likely to be the main point of cost difference between other sectors.
There are currently 48 operational EfW (incineration) facilities in the UK, with a further 16 under construction. These are ideally placed to underpin development of industrial CCUS clusters, with 15 facilities (10 operational, 5 under construction) within 30 kilometres (km) of potential CCUS clusters and 14 (12 operational, 2 under construction) within 30km of a potentially suitable port (See Figure 1 for map of UK EfW facilities in relation to CCUS Clusters and ports).
The deployment of EfW with CCUS is anticipated to develop in three distinct phases:
The UK’s EfW facilities processed approximately 14 million tonnes of waste in 2020, and Eunomia’s analysis estimates that 1 tonne of CO2 is emitted per tonne of waste incinerated, including non-fossil carbon.
By 2040, CCUS technology has the potential to capture and permanently store around 9.4 million tonnes of CO2 per annum from EfW facilities, around 50% of which is non-fossil carbon (See Figure 2 for potential CO2 abatement), providing the potentially significant benefit of negative emissions. These captured emissions could be monetised in the future and present a further opportunity regarding costs versus other industrial sectors.
Our research suggests that there is a key role for CCUS in reducing emissions from incineration by decarbonising non-recyclable waste. This can potentially be supported by the removal of remaining recyclables from the residual waste stream through mixed waste sorting. Combining these processes with the decarbonisation of consumption through increased recycling and waste prevention can provide the waste sector with the means to support other sectors achieve Net Zero.
The barriers to deploying CCUS projects in the UK are said to primarily be commercial, rather than technical, and government support is likely to be needed to further the development of the technology in the EfW sector.
Andrew Coulthurst, Senior Consultant at Eunomia, said: “The deployment of CCUS has the potential to form a key part of the waste sector’s strategy to reach net zero by 2050, and our research demonstrates there is a credible development pathway for CCUS in the EfW sector.
“Many EfW facilities in the UK are ideally located within close proximity of potential CCUS Clusters or port hubs that should make the deployment of CCUS on EfW at least as cost-effective as other sectors, which should provide confidence to industry and government that CCUS has a viable role to play in decarbonising the sector over the coming decades.
“To support the decarbonisation of the waste sector, the government must also deliver on its commitments to increase recycling in order to reduce the amount of recyclable material, particularly fossil-based plastic, that reaches EfW facilities by introducing target-based EPR, a wide-ranging DRS and improved mixed waste sorting.”
Dr Tim Rotheray, Viridor’s Director of ESG and external affairs, said: “The UK has a major opportunity to become a world leader in CCUS but to date sources of stable, cost-effective carbon capture technology have been a key barrier. This latest research has revealed the until now unseen scale of opportunity that the UK;s waste sector could bring to CCUS.
“The number of sites processing non-recyclable waste, and the opportunity to capture 5 million tonnes of CO2 and potentially offer the lowest cost capture in the industrial sector, presents real hope for an accelerated rollout of CCUS across the economy, a technology the UK is dependent on to meet its Net Zero commitments.”
Olivia Powis, Head of UK office of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA), said: “CCUS has a significant role to play in decarbonising the UK’s industry on the road to Net Zero by 2050 by removing CO2 on an industrial scale from hard-to-decarbonise sectors. We welcome Eunomia’s report outlining a clear pathway for CCUS deployment in the EfW sector.
“EfW facilities are very well suited to CCUS given the long-term nature of the infrastructure and proximity to CCUS clusters, and what the sector now needs is clear government policy incentives to support investment in this technology. The technology is ready, but investors need confidence over the direction of travel for CCUS. The CCUS industry stands ready to support the waste sector in its decarbonisation efforts and pursuit of Net Zero.”
You can view the full report on the Eunomia website.
]]>Although a feature of the public procurement landscape since 2012, recent additions to the Social Value Act have pushed social value up the agenda. With social value still in its relative infancy and a variety of approaches being applied during procurements, the Increasing the social value delivered by environmental services contracts: A Guide for local authorities aims to help local authorities understand social value and go on to effectively deliver meaningful value for their local areas, highlighting best practice examples from around the country.
It looks at three distinct phases of a contract’s lifetime – planning and preparation; tender and procurement; and delivery – making a series of recommendations for each stage. The actions identified are designed to embed social value from the outset of a contract, maximise the potential gains for local communities, evaluate tender submissions and go on to see value delivered in a way that retains flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.
With the new requirement on local authorities to consider how to deliver social value through contracts at a time when they are looking to both support a green recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic and tackle climate change, the potential to secure tangible and lasting social, environmental and economic improvements through their environmental services contracts is clear.
John Scanlon, Chief Executive Officer for SUEZ recycling and recovery UK, said: “The essential services that our sector delivers touch every household in the UK, making it a natural candidate to create and embed meaningful social value in local communities up and down the country.
“Social value has grown to become a fundamental element of our business strategy at SUEZ and has the potential to play a key role in a green recovery from the pandemic. It’s imperative that businesses large and small challenge themselves to identify what more they can do – from enhancing the career aspirations of the next generation and creating local employment opportunities, to improving biodiversity and coordinating community litter picks – there are actions we can all take to benefit the communities in which we operate. This guide highlights the significant opportunities that lie ahead. By sharing experiences, working in partnership, and continuing to innovate, we can go on to deliver even greater social value for local communities.”
David Pietropaoli, Head of Procurement at Eunomia, said: “Eunomia was pleased to be asked by SUEZ to research and produce this guide, recognising the importance of delivering additional social, economic and environmental benefits to communities through local authority environmental services contracts. For many years we have helped local authorities with re-tenders of their long-term, high-value waste collection and recycling services contracts, helping them to push to deliver the maximum social value possible through contract delivery. We hope that by sharing the findings of this research, more local authorities will be inspired to explore the opportunities available for delivering social value in their environmental services contracts, using this guide as a framework to do so.”
Featured image: SUEZ recycling and recovery UK
]]>Li-ion batteries are found in an increasing number of electrical and electronic household items such as mobile phones and electric toothbrushes, and even items such as singing greetings cards, an issue often unknown to householders. These batteries cause a significant fire risk when they get into the residual and mixed recycling waste streams, either loose or inside electrical items. When these batteries are punctured, damaged or are exposed to high temperatures during normal waste processing and sorting operations, they can ‘go off’, setting fire to dry, flammable waste and recycling around them.
A new report produced jointly with the Environmental Services Association (ESA), entitled ‘Cutting Lithium-ion Battery Fires in the Waste Industry’, reveals that an estimated 201 waste fires caused by Li-ion batteries occur every year in the UK based on EA-reported figures, with damaging consequences for both the environment and society.
With waste fires burning for days, and sometimes even weeks and months, the environmental damage is extensive, with harmful greenhouse gas emissions released into the atmosphere and water pollution caused by run-off from extinguishing the fires. Dealing with these fires also means extra work and risk to firefighters, as well as disruption to society through rail, retail and road closures due to smoke from the fires. Waste site operators also have to deal with significant material damage, business interruption and loss of recycling resources.
This problem is only set to get worse, with more and more Li-ion batteries placed onto the market each year. Of the 670 fires recorded by ESA waste management members across the UK in 2019-20, 38% were either recorded as caused by Li-ion batteries or ‘suspected’ to have been. This is higher than the percentages recorded in the previous three years by the body (21% in 2016-17, 25% in 2017-18 and 22% in 2018-19).
To reduce these fires, the report identifies a number of solutions to get Li-ion batteries out of our waste. Suggested solutions include banning Li-ion batteries from the residual and mixed recycling waste streams, introducing a deposit return scheme (DRS) for batteries, and making battery manufacturers pay for the costs of dealing with fires their products cause.
Respondents to a survey we carried out among local authorities, fire services and waste management companies were supportive of the above measures, with 66% backing separate kerbside collections for Li-ion batteries, 65% supporting a DRS and 42% backing a ban on the disposal of these batteries in general waste.
The research was supported by a consortium of key stakeholders, including key supporters the Environment Agency (EA), the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) and WISH (the Waste Industry Safety and Health Forum). The research was sponsored by waste management companies CWM Environmental Ltd, SUEZ Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd, Totus Environmental and Viridor Waste Ltd.
Commenting on the research, lead author of the report Sophie Crossette said: “The findings of this research highlight the significant financial burden Li-ion battery waste fires place on the waste sector and public sector services. To date, much of the focus on preventing waste fires has been on improved controls and infrastructure at waste sites. As this report suggests, we now need to focus on upstream interventions to divert batteries and WEEE products from the mixed waste stream to tackle this growing issue. If we don’t start to take action now, the increased use of Li-ion batteries, will only increase the cost and impact of Li-ion battery waste fires in the years to come.”
]]>Li-ion batteries are found in a variety of consumer IT and electronics products and are one of the most popular types of rechargeable battery for portable electronics. A pig pen in Leeds was set alight when a pedometer battery damaged by a pig caught fire. This story highlighted some of the problems with Li-ion batteries: if they are damaged, overheat or short circuited, they can quickly catch fire or explode, and can lead to serious fires.
The initial aim of the consortium is to research the extent to which batteries are a major cause of waste fires. It will also explore how much these fires cost the UK economy each year and propose policies and other measures to address this risk, at source, before the batteries enter the waste stream.
Sophie Crossette, the project leader from Eunomia, said: “Li-ion batteries are powering an increasing number of electronics, including portable devices like smart phones, as well as power tools and, more recently, electric vehicles. The average person in the UK throws away 23.9kg of electronic waste every year. Li-ion batteries in small electronic equipment are likely to be incorrectly thrown into normal recycling or residual waste bins when batteries should be removed if practical and safe, or the whole item should be disposed at small WEEE battery recycling points. Consumers might not even realise a product has a Li-ion battery in it – the battery in a singing birthday card, for example, can cause a serious hazard if disposed of in the recycling system for highly combustible paper and card. As their prevalence increases, fires caused by incorrect disposal of Li-ion batteries are becoming more and more common.
“The costs associated with clearing up damage to equipment and buildings caused by waste fires are huge – the average cost to the waste industry of each individual fire incident is estimated at £173k, with more severe fires costing on average £1.2 million. What we don’t know is the costs of these e-waste fires in municipal waste and recycling. With such combustible waste, containing paper, card and plastics, it doesn’t take much for large fires to break out, whether in waste depots, recycling centres and landfill sites, all of which may, to some extent, have been caused by Li-ion batteries. We also want to understand the wider costs of other problems caused by the fires including associated air pollution, pollution to surface and ground water, use of the fire service, impacts on public health and disruption caused by dumping waste in the street to put fires out. This is why we’ve decided to come together with industry to better understand the issues and find out what can be done to prevent more fires.”
To date there has been substantial research on operator best practice guidance around battery detection and fire management and mitigation. There are also communication campaigns underway to raise awareness of the risks of battery fires to improve consumer recycling. There has been far less activity concentrating on ‘up-stream’ interventions to address the source of the problem directly.
Image courtesy of WCN 24/7 via flikr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
]]>Harriet Parke leads the Transactional Services team at independent environmental consultancy Eunomia and recently published a guide for developers and investors. We asked her what those considering developments and investments in this space should consider when identifying and assessing opportunities.
Hattie said: “We’re seeing an increasing interest in development and investment opportunities in the waste and materials management sector. The direction of policy in this area is now clearer than it has been in several years, as Governments seek to address carbon targets and preserve material resources in the transition to a more circular economy. Furthermore, greater public attention to the global sustainability agenda has resulted in increasing demand for responsible and sustainable investments, alongside increasingly circular business models.”
“It’s really encouraging to see the growing interest in development and investment opportunities, but at the same time it’s important to recognise, understand and mitigate against the risks in an increasingly dynamic sector.”
“We’ve identified the top five key commercial considerations for developments and investments in waste and materials management infrastructure:
“To fully realise the investment opportunities presented, it is essential to understand and adequately assess these interrelated considerations of the complex markets in which these infrastructure assets operate.
To see an infrastructure landscape capable of meeting future demands to manage our resources sustainably, we need sound and considered investment decisions made now, leading to strong commercial performance in the future.”
Having provided environmental and commercial advice to public and private sector clients for the past two decades, our team is well informed to advise in these areas, and has put together a guide offering tips on where to start when considering these types of investments – read it here.
]]>Due to the bulky size and mix of products within a mattress, they are particularly difficult to recycle, with more than 600,000 mattresses are sent to Scottish landfill sites each year. As such difficult products to dispose of, they are often illegally dumped. To tackle this problem the National Bed Federation has committed to diverting 75% of all new mattresses from landfill by 2028.
The Scottish Government is committed to moving the country towards a more circular economy, with a recycling target of 70% by 2025 to reduce the amount of waste being sent to landfill. This strategy laid out in Making Things Last: A Circular Economy Strategy for Scotland emphasised that the reuse, repair and remanufacture of products could help to achieve this goal, which could be attained through an extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme. EPR schemes removes the responsibility for the end of life of a product from the consumer and instead places the financial responsibility of dealing with disposal on the producer.
Eunomia has previously developed comprehensive EPR schemes for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) for Defra and provided recommendations for guidance on EPR schemes to the European Commission. For this research, Eunomia will explore the potential to use Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as a way to improve the life cycle production of mattresses. It will also look at the economic, environmental and equality impacts of proposed options for the EPR scheme. The work will support the development of a business case for a preferred option for mattress EPR, tailored to the Scottish context, with the aim of providing a preferred EPR option with supporting evidence for improving the mattress life cycle.
Image courtesy of Stef via flikr (CC BY -NC-ND 2.0)
]]>This research was conducted under the Plastics Research and Innovation Fund which aims to explore novel ideas and innovations with the potential to make the plastics sector more circular, whilst also addressing the challenge of persistent plastic pollution.
An estimated 4.9 million tonnes of plastics are placed on the UK market each year, of which around 3.7 million tonnes become waste. Plastic pollution on our land and in our oceans is a growing problem, with plastic produced at an ever-increasing rate, and faster than society can manage it at end-of-life.
The focus of this work was to inform future public and private research and development (R&D) investment in the UK plastics sector. The research was guided by consultation with government bodies, industry, NGOs academics and other stakeholders with an understanding of the UK plastics sector.
The roadmap explores a range of plastics applications as well as microplastics, and provides strategic recommendations to UK plastics sector stakeholders that should be a focus for activity and investment, supporting the transition to a circular UK plastics economy. For each application, it presents recommendations for: exploratory research; infrastructure and equipment; knowledge exchange and training and; technological interventions for future research and development.
This report will contribute to the Fund’s goal to support the Government in its target of achieving zero avoidable plastic waste by the end of 2042, as stated in the 25 year Environment Plan.
Eunomia’s Head of Evaluation, Joe Hudson, said: “Our work to date on plastics meant we were able to deliver a really insightful view of the UK plastics market. Each plastic application has a unique life cycle and shortcomings to reaching circularity, which our expert team researched to create impactful and tailored recommendations for the roadmap.”
Image courtesy of mbeo via flikr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).
]]>