a value for money review report on the epa national waste ... value f… · committee was...
TRANSCRIPT
Environmental Protection Agency
Value for Money Review No. 3
A Value for Money Review Report on the
EPA National Waste Prevention Programme’s
Prevention Projects
Resource Use Unit,
Office of Climate, Licensing & Resource Use (OCLR)
February 2012
Prepared by Dr Gerry Byrne (Ret), reviewed and edited by Dr J Derham.
i
Table of Contents
Abbreviation of Terms …………………………..………………………………………………. iii
Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………... iv
1. Introduction …………………………………………………………….……………………… 1
2. Scope, Objectives and Methodology of this Review …………………………………….. 5
3. NWPP Programme Objectives ……………………………………………………………… 7
4. Outputs and Results from NWPP Programme Activities ………………………………… 12
5. Effectiveness and Impact of the NWPP Programme …………………………………….. 29
6. Efficiency and Economy of the NWPP Programme ………………………………………. 34
7. Public Funding and Performance Indicators ………………………………………………. 39
8. Conclusions and Recommendations ……………………………………………………….. 47
Appendix 1 VFM Steering Committee & Independent Quality Assessors ………………….. 50
Appendix 2 Approved Terms of Reference …………………………………………………… 51
Appendix 3 National Waste Prevention Committee …………………………………………….. 52
Appendix 5 Summary Programme Logic Model ………………………………………………… 53
ii
Abbreviation of Terms
CGPP Cleaner Greener Production Programme (EPA)
CTC Clean Technology Centre (Cork)
DECLG Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government
EC European Commission
EI Enterprise Ireland
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland)
ERTDI Environmental Research Technological Development & Innovation (EPA programme)
EU European Union
IAC Internal Audit Committee (EPA)
IBEC The Irish Business & Employers Confederation
IDA Industrial Development Agency
ISME Irish Small & Medium Enterprises (association)
LAPD/LAPN Local Authority Prevention Demonstration/Network (EPA NWPP programmes)
NWPC National Waste Prevention Committee
NWPP National Waste Prevention Programme
OCLR Office of Climate, Licensing & Resource Use
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development
OVAM Public Waste Agency of Flanders
REA Resource Efficiency Assessment (or waste audit)
RUU Resource Use Unit (OCLR, EPA)
STRIVE Science, Technology, Research & Innovation for the Environment (EPA programme)
SEAI Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland
iii
Executive Summary
The Irish Government’s Value for Money and Policy Review Initiative is part of a framework to
secure better value from public expenditure. The objectives of a Value for Money Review are to
analyse spending in a systematic manner and to provide a basis on which more informed decisions
can be made on priorities within and between programmes. The initiative applies to all publically
funded bodies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is a statutory body
with wide ranging responsibilities for protecting the natural environment in Ireland. A Steering
Committee was established to oversee this Value for Money Review of the EPA National Waste
Prevention Programme’s (NWPP) Prevention Projects (Appendix 1). Terms of Reference were
approved by this committee for the review (Appendix 2).
The objectives of this Value for Money Review are to analyse NWPP Prevention Project
expenditure in a systematic manner to assess if value for money is being achieved. This is done
using the Programme Logic Model critically examining data on inputs, activities, outputs, results,
impacts and outcomes of NWPP Prevention Projects. A Summary Programme Logic Model was
developed (Figure 1). Allied to this is the consideration of the five prescribed Evaluation Criteria
implicit in the Terms of Reference namely: rationale, efficiency/economy, effectiveness, impact and
continued relevance. It is the purpose of this review report to address the specific questions raised
in the Terms of Reference and to make an appropriate evaluation and recommendations based on
consideration of the relevant data.
The NWPP is managed by staff in the Resource Use Unit (RUU) within the EPA Office of Climate,
Licensing & Resource Use (OCLR) engaging a variety of professional external Prevention Partner
organisations. NWPP is a multi-annual programme with funding being provided from the
Environment Fund by the Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government.
Governance of the programme and expenditure is the responsibility of EPA management and
Board. Stakeholder consultation is provided for by a National Waste Prevention Committee
(Appendix 3). The programme has been running over nine years commencing in 2004 as provided
for in the Government National Waste Policy document Delivering Change and in the EPA
Statement of Strategy 2020 Vision. NWPP has evolved into an international forerunner and
pioneering programme in waste prevention. The European Commission’s published guidance on
national waste prevention programmes cites five NWPP projects as best practice internationally.
By end-2012, NWPP expenditure is budgeted at over €23 million on prevention measures
nationally including €14 million on Prevention/Resource Use projects (not including related EPA
staff costs which amounted to almost €3.2 million). The annual Environment Fund NWPP budget
has been in the order of €3 to €4 million. To put this expenditure in context, the overall budget for
EPA in 2011 was €61.9 million.
iv
Figure 1: Summary Programme Logic Model: EPA National Waste Prevention Programme Prevention Projects 2004-2012 (9 years)
National Waste & EPA Policy Objectives
Inputs
Activities
Outputs & Results
Impacts & Outcomes
To establish an ambitious and well-resourced programme to deliver substantive results on waste prevention and minimisation across both hazardous and non-hazardous waste arisings EPA: The overall goal is a more efficient use of resources (water, energy and materials)
Improved understanding & implementation of Resource Efficient & Cost-saving behaviours across many sectors. Capacity building: key people/organisations (Prevention Partners) that can help
others to apply Resource Efficient principles and behaviours. More Sustainable Production & Consumption, less waste, reduced Climate Impact, increased competitiveness & innovation,
reduced pressure on the natural environment.
EPA Staff 3.50 FTEs: Projects initiation, oversight and management remuneration/overheads/T&S €3,187,784 (average €354,198 p/a)
Green Business Initiatives
Local Authority Prevention Network
Green Home/ Greening
Communities StopFoodWaste Eco-eye TV series
Packaging Prevention Programme
Cleaner Greener Production Programme
Greenbusiness.ie 121 REAs: Potential to save €4M p/a Greenhospitality.ie. 128 Awards Saved €5.6M p/a Greenhealthcare.ie 60 REAs: Potential to save: €3.7M p/a
Localprevention. ie Project catalogue & toolkit Local prevention experts & facilitators in 17 LAs (50%) 295 REAs Prevention guides
Greenhome.ie
17,000 Households
47,700 People
Potential to save
€320 p/a each (total
€5.44 m)
StopFoodWaste. ie Audience reach of 2 million people 300 Master Composters & 14 Demonstration Sites
General TV: 82
episodes and
audience of 2.2 – 5.1
million people per
annum
Repak’s
Preventandsave. ie
30 REAs
Significant savings
made by Repak
members 2005-2010
Grant aid co-funding
for 24 Irish
businesses engaging
in Eco-design for
Products, Processes
& Services
Resource Efficient Businesses & Organisations,
business competitives
Case Studies
Trained LA personnel
Local know-how to develop & promote
NWPP projects
Green Festivals & Communities
Household resource
efficiency know-how
developed & available
Food waste
prevention &
composting know-
how available
Green behaviour
reinforcement for
general public
Specialised
packaging prevention
know-how available
Case Studies on Eco-
design applied in Irish
based businesses.
Patents & new
processes
Exemplars
€5,508,000 39.10%
€5,026,000 35.68%
€976,000 6.93%
€731,000 5.19%
€600,000 4.26%
€345,000 2.45%
€902,000 6.4%
v
NWPP Prevention Projects include the Green Business, Local Authority Prevention
Demonstration/Network, Packaging Prevention and StopFoodWaste programmes which
were newly developed. Other projects, including the Green Hospitality, Cleaner Greener
Production Programme and Green Healthcare projects were developed based on prior
LAPD/LAPN work and EPA STRIVE/ERTDI research initiatives. The Green Home
programme evolved as a logical extension to the very successful Green Schools
programme run nationally over many years by An Taisce. Cross-linking projects such as
Greening Communities and Green Festivals have also been developed. Participants in
household and community oriented projects were enthusiastic demonstrating capacity
development and savings that can be made. The challenge remains to recruit greater
numbers of participants into all of the projects over time and to maximise actual savings.
This review identifies the EPA NWPP programme objectives and rationale as originally
provided for in the waste policy Delivering Change in 2002. It is clearly shown that these are
fully compatible with EPA 2020 Strategy Objectives. The objectives remain valid in light of
the EU statutory requirements for NWPPs, the new national sustainable development
strategy and waste management policy published in 2012. NWPP has been demonstrated
throughout this report to be contributing positively to the promotion of low-carbon, resource
efficient, sustainable and cost effective economic activity. This confirms the rationale and
continued relevance of NWPP.
The outputs directly associated with the seven principle NWPP programme activity areas
are defined. The direct results accruing from these activities are also identified including
actual and potential annual cost savings. The outputs and capacity developed from these
activities have been substantial and have been specifically tailored to different audiences to
amplify their lasting impact. The identified annual actual and potential annual cost savings
alone for recent years would cover the annual cost of the NWPP BeGreen activities several
times over.
This review examines the extent to which NWPP objectives were achieved and the
effectiveness and impacts of this achievement. Both this review and three independent
international reviews have concluded that NWPP has developed effective initiatives to
achieve its objectives. In both business/organisational and home/community focussed
projects, immediate positive outcomes were identified to be directly related to the
programme activities. These effected behaviour changes leading to cost savings which are
likely to endure in the organisations and individuals that participated as a long-term impact.
The business/organisational projects alone have effectively identified annual low/no-cost
vi
actual cost savings of €5.6 million and potential savings of €7.7 million. However, the scale
of the NWPP micro-economic interventions are relatively small compared to the macro-
economic scope of the challenges faced in Ireland. This comparison indicates that there is
value in pursuing these projects over a number of years to extend the degree of coverage in
the different sectors.
This review identifies the level and trend of costs and RUU staffing associated with NWPP.
It is clearly demonstrated that a small number of staff (3.5 Full Time Equivalents) leveraged
the funding provided efficiently and effectively to select and develop excellent Prevention
Partners (14 FTEs) and novel projects at reasonable cost. Competitive tendering and
proactive ongoing management were deployed to assure that the most the economically
advantageous outcomes were achieved.
The degree to which NWPP warrants public funding on an ongoing basis and alternative
ways of delivery are evaluated in this review. It is concluded that, due to a well recognised
market failure, NWPP projects should continue to be publically funded. Generally,
organising NWPP on a national and regional basis appears to offer best value given the
specialised nature of the endeavour. Linkages between projects and with related
projects/organisations are seen to be important to foster synergies and avoid unnecessary
duplication of efforts. NWPP projects have added linkages with existing related policies,
programmes and agencies. For the overall programme, this means NWPP contributes
positively to current and emerging policy concerns e.g. climate change, resource use,
sustainable consumption, cleaner production, innovation etc. Similarly, existing or new
programmes addressing sustainability and sectoral economic issues can benefit from
NWPP project knowledge and expertise, e.g. Harvest 2020, Bord Bia, Bórd Iaschaigh
Mhara, Origin Green Island, etc. Additionally, NWPP projects have linked with many
relevant agencies on resource efficiency projects including Forfás, IDA, Enterprise Ireland,
SEAI, Bord Bia, and numerous others. For example, in 2011 a joint Green Enterprise Guide
was published with all of the enterprise agencies.
Indicators of prevention are considered to be important (but problematic by their nature) and
a number of recommendations are made in this regard . While working with
businesses/organisations on prevention can yield substantial actual/potential cost savings,
there are considerable societal gains to be made working on wider home/community based
projects. The potential is there to move Ireland beyond being a “recycling society” to one
where innovative resource efficiency is the norm.
vii
Finally, the review summarises the conclusions noted above and makes a number of
recommendations as follows:
1. NWPP should continue to be publically funded in light of its society-wide positive
economic/environmental benefits and the new EU statutory requirements. Given the
multi-annual nature of the programme, it is further recommended that its budget
should be allocated accordingly;
2. NWPP should develop a new Prevention Plan (to replace the current Plan which
ends in 2013) in line with the Waste Framework Directive requirements with full
public consultation with all relevant stakeholders;
3. The Programme Logic Model (c.f. Figure 1) developed as part of this VFM review
should be incorporated into the implementation plan for the new Prevention
Programme;
4. NWPP should work to maximise its engagement with the business community
through local authorities (LAPN and Enterprise Development Units), IDA, Enterprise
Ireland, SEAI, IBEC, ISME, etc., to promote resource efficiency and savings thus
assisting businesses/SMEs from an economic perspective. Consultation should be
conducted with all relevant stakeholders on how to achieve this collaboratively
(including mandatory REAs, gain sharing etc) as part of the development of the new
Prevention Plan;
5. NWPP needs to maximise its engagement with all relevant home, community-based
and local authority (LAPN) resource efficiency projects as a means of achieving
cost-savings and underpinning an innovative more sustainable society in Ireland.
The resources and networking asset of the NWPP Steering Committee for the
Programme, as well as social media techniques should be further ‘exploited’ so as to
enhance the return from such engagement. The NWPP should consider the
retention of sociological skills and expertise necessary to assist in deepening and
widening the take-up of the Behavioural Change ambitions of the programme;
6. NWPP should continue to develop Indicators for Prevention including in consultation
with the European Commission, as well as indicators/surveys/research to measure
progress to high level objectives, as well as critically assess each project’s
design/effectiveness (including identifying barriers to actualising potential savings);
7. The new Prevention Plan should develop a hierarchy of objectives to define the links
from the high level policy objectives to the more specific target group activities,
viii
including the presentation of an intervention logic in terms of articulated specific
activities and targets; supported – where possible - by baseline indicator values for
each target group;
8. NWPP should continue to be developed in adaptive-learning mode to address
relevant emerging challenges including eco-design, re-use, sustainable growth,
sustainable energy/climate change, etc. Best practice arising from other NWPPs
within EU and elsewhere should be adopted;
9. NWPP should continue to work to ensure that Green Public Procurement processes,
and public policy generally, act to support organisations engaging with its prevention
projects (for example, the GPP Action Plan supports the use of businesses engaged
with the Green Hospitality Programme);
10. The NWPP should explore the options for broadening the funding base for the
programme (e.g. co-funding with beneficiaries; fee earned as a percentage of
savings identified; self-financed accreditation schemes; contribution from enterprise
agencies; etc).
1
1. Introduction
The Irish Government’s Value for Money and Policy Review Initiative is part of a framework to
secure better value from public expenditure. The objectives of a Value for Money Review are to
analyse spending in a systematic manner and to provide a basis on which more informed
decisions can be made on priorities within and between programmes. The initiative applies to all
publically funded bodies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is a
statutory body with wide ranging responsibilities for protecting the natural environment in
Ireland.
In 2011, two pilot Value for Money Reviews were completed by the EPA: one on the
Enforcement of Drinking Water Regulations and another on the Environmental Technologies
and Cleaner Production programmes. Following on from this, the EPA Internal Audit Plan for
2011/12 includes a Value for Money Review of the EPA-led National Waste Prevention
Programme (NWPP). This audit plan was approved by the Board of the EPA in July 2011. The
NWPP programme was selected for review on account of the scale of expenditure over a
number of years on large-scale projects influencing the public and businesses generally. These
reviews are conducted having regard to the Department of Finance’s Value for Money and
Policy Review Initiative Guidance Manual, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform’s
The VFM Code - Expenditure Planning, Appraisal & Evaluation in the Irish Public Service:
Standard Rules & Procedures and EPA prepared internal guidance summary on value for
money reviews.
The NWPP is managed by a staff of 3.5 full time equivalents in the Resource Use Unit (RUU)
within the EPA Office of Climate, Licensing & Resource Use (OCLR) engaging a variety of
professional external Prevention Partner organisations. NWPP is a multi-annual programme
with funding being provided from the Environment Fund by the Department of the Environment,
Community & Local Government. Oversight and stakeholder consultation is provided for by a
National Waste Prevention Committee appointed by the Minister for the Environment,
Community & Local Government (Appendix 3). Governance and financial control for the
programme is the responsibility of EPA management and Board. The programme has been
running over nine years since 2004 as provided for in the original Government National Waste
Policy document Delivering Change published in 2002. The waste prevention policy objective is
to establish an ambitious and well-resourced programme to deliver substantive results on waste
prevention and minimisation across both hazardous and non-hazardous waste arisings. The
relevant EPA goal and associated objectives are stated in 2020 Vision – Protecting and
Improving Ireland’s Environment as Goal Number 5: Sustainable Use of Resources: “The
2
overall goal is a more efficient use of resources (water, energy and materials). This ambition is
reaffirmed in the recently published EPA Strategic Plan 2013-2015. The 2008 EU Waste
Framework Directive requires each Member State to have NWPPs in place by 2013. This
requirement has been enshrined in Irish law by Statutory Instrument No. 126 of 2011. The key
role played by NWPP is reasserted in the new waste policy document A Resource Opportunity
– National Waste Policy in Ireland published in 2012.
Waste prevention is achieved through a range of interventions. Regulatory ‘enforced’
approached such as plastic bag levies, producer responsibility initiatives, organic bin
obligations, landfill levies, material restrictions and bans, etc., as well as minimum technological
and performance standards certainly have a role, and are effective in achieving change.
However there is also a role for programmes that drive best practice and seek to normalise
resource efficient behaviour throughout the production and consumption cycle. Normalising
such behaviours will have a profound impact beyond what could be achieved by a plethora of
legal instruments - compliance through rational choice, rather than through obligation, is more
likely to endure. By its nature, NWPP is a pioneering society-wide, behaviour-change
programme with relatively little prior experience to call on internationally. There are inherent
challenges to fostering behaviour change especially in relation to an issue such as waste
prevention across the full spectrum of society (manufacturing, services, retail, home,
community, public service). The portfolio of projects developed within the NWPP programme
were intended to develop/explain what waste prevention meant in terms of behaviour change
and what its economic and environmental benefits were. The projects strive to foster
behavioural change in the various target groups addressed. NWPP has engaged with a wide
variety of players in Ireland in order to develop its portfolio of projects in a meaningful way.
Figure 2 illustrates the range of stakeholders involved in waste prevention each with essential
enabling roles to play.
Measuring behaviour change attitudes directly is inherently difficult, however proxies for this
change through measurements such as ’tonnage of waste prevented’ or ‘cost savings
accruing’, are used where possible being directly relevant to the wider objectives of the
programme. Similarly, the impact of educational and broadcasting initiatives are difficult to
quantify directly, so audience numbers are used instead. This indicators challenge is examined
in Chapter 7.
3
Figure 2: The stakeholders involved with NWPP
Governance of the programme and expenditure are the responsibility of EPA management and
Board. The programme was subjected to a detailed EPA Internal Audit in 2006. Annually NWPP
has been the subject of sample financial enquiries from the Comptroller & Auditor General in the
course of their statutory audits of the EPA. Annual Reports are published on the EPA NWPP
and provided to the Minister for the Environment, Community & Local Government and the
stakeholder NWPP Steering Committee. The seventh annual report for 2011 was published in
February 2012.
Proposed Terms of Reference for this Value for Money Review of the EPA NWPP Prevention
Projects (Appendix 2) were approved by the Steering Committee for this review at meetings
held on 8th June and 29th August 2012 (Appendix 1). The proposal document was also
submitted to the EPA Internal Audit Committee’s meeting held on 26th July 2012.
It is the purpose of this review report to address the questions raised in these Terms of
Reference. This is done using the Programme Logic Model critically examining inputs, activities,
outputs and outcomes of NWPP Prevention Projects. A Summary Programme Logic Model was
developed during the review (Figure 1 and reproduced as Appendix 5 for ease of reference).
Allied to this is the examination of the five prescribed evaluation criteria implicit in the Terms of
Reference namely: rationale, efficiency/economy, effectiveness, impact and continued
relevance of NWPP Prevention Projects. The Programme Logic Model (in red) and the related
Evaluation Criteria (in green) are illustrated in Figure 3 (taken from the Department of Finance’s
Value for Money and Policy Review Initiative Guidance Manual):
4
Figure 3: The Value for Money Programme Logic Model and Evaluation Criteria
The draft review report has been assessed for quality by an independent consultant economist:
in addition the report was reviewed by the Department of the Environment, Community & Local
Government (Appendix 1). The finalised review report, with the quality assessment report, is
presented to the EPA Internal Audit Committee and the Board of the EPA for their approval and
dissemination, as appropriate.
OUTCOMES
5
2. Scope, Objectives and Methodology of this Review
The EPA’s National Waste Prevention Programme has evolved over nine years, commencing in
2004. to comprise three principal areas of expenditure:
(a) Prevention/Resource Efficiency Projects;
(b) Statutory Implementation/Enforcement (Producer Responsibility Initiatives); and,
(c) Waste Characterisation, Waste Statistics & Reporting.
Examples of Prevention/Resource Efficiency Projects include Green Business/Hospitality, Local
Authority Prevention Network, Green Healthcare and Green Homes/Stop Food Waste.
Examples of Statutory Implementation/Enforcement Projects include Waste Electrical &
Electronic Equipment/Batteries Regulations, a variety of harmful substances regulations, the
National Hazardous Waste Management Plan. While projects in NWPP work area (b) and (c)
contribute to resource efficiency generally (statutory prevention obligations and measuring
performance, respectively), the Prevention/Resource Efficiency Projects in NWPP work area (a)
by contrast, generally seek voluntary behaviour changes by individuals/organisations to improve
resource efficiency mainly through cost saving incentives. NWPPs only become mandatory for
EU Member States from December 2013.
For the purposes of this Value for Money Review, the Prevention/Resource Efficiency projects
only will be examined. Over the operational period of the NWPP to date some €14 million has
been spent on waste prevention-resource efficiency projects (NWPP work area (a), comprising
61% of total budget to date. This approach allows examination of unique and innovative non-
statutory behavioural change projects that address businesses and the general public. Breaking
down the programme in this way for the review provides for improved clarity in relation to
outputs and impacts. On completion and approval of this Value for Money Review,
consideration can be given to progressing with a further review of the remaining areas of NWPP
activity. The scope of the areas to be examined and some background information is
summarised in Table 1.
6
Table 1. Some background information on the NWPP Value for Money Review
The objectives of this Value for Money Review are to analyse NWPP Prevention Project
expenditure in a systematic manner to assess if value for money is being achieved. The
methodology recommended in the Department of Finance’s Value for Money and Policy Review
Initiative Guidance Manual is the Programme Logic Model. This involves gathering and critically
examining data on inputs, activities, outputs, results and impacts of NWPP Prevention Projects
(Figure 1). Allied to this is the consideration of the five prescribed Evaluation Criteria implicit in
the Terms of Reference namely: rationale, efficiency/economy, effectiveness, impact and
continued relevance. It is the purpose of this review report to address the specific questions
raised in the Terms of Reference and to make an appropriate evaluation and develop
recommendations based on consideration of the relevant data (Appendix 2).
Parameters Area to be Reviewed
Programme selection and the reasons
(rationale) for the selection
NWPP Prevention/Resource Efficiency Projects (scale of
expenditure, time scale of programme and target
audience of the projects)
Timeframe covered 2004 to 2012
Actual external expenditure €14 million
Organisational boundary of the review and any
specific exclusions
Relevant RUU staff in OCLR. Not to include Statutory
Implementation/Enforcement Projects
Legislation governing the programme, internal
procedures
EU Directive on Waste (98/2008/EC) Waste Framework
Directive; Statutory Instrument No. 126 of 2011; Internal
procurement & financial procedures
Specific data references
EPA Finance database (staff salaries / overheads / T&S);
NWPP Financial records; NWPP project files; Prevention
Partners’ project files
Systems, procedures used to regulate activities
including financial
EPA Finance Manual & Procurement Rules; RUU NWPP
procedures
Related programmes contributing to NWPP
Resource Efficiency programme objectives
Waste Statistics (measuring performance); Produce
Responsibility initiatives, waste characterisation, waste
planning
7
3. NWPP Programme Objectives
This chapter of the review addresses the first two issues in the Terms of Reference
namely: 1) Identify the EPA NWPP programme objectives and 2) Examine the current
validity of the EPA NWPP objectives and their compatibility with the overall strategy of
the EPA and national waste policy objectives. These issues address the Strategic
Objectives part of the Value for Money Programme Logic Model and the
Rationale/Continued Relevance issues among the Evaluation Criteria (including the
justification for allocation of public funding).
The EPA NWPP programme derives its objectives from a number of sources including the
Government National Waste Policy document Delivering Change which was published in 2002.
The overarching NWPP objective is “To establish an ambitious and well-resourced programme
to deliver substantive results on waste prevention and minimisation across both hazardous and
non-hazardous waste arisings”. The key role played by NWPP is reasserted in the new waste
policy document A Resource Opportunity – National Waste Policy in Ireland published in 2012.
This task relates well to the EPA objectives and goals stated in their document 2020 Vision –
Protecting and Improving Ireland’s Environment published in 2007. From this document EPA
Goal Number 5: Sustainable Use of Resources is stated as “The overall goal is a more efficient
use of resources (water, energy and materials). Waste will be prevented and minimised, with
the balance safely collected, recycled or recovered. Final disposal will be completed in a way
that does not harm the environment”. The EPA published its fifth State of the Environment
Report in 2012 which identifies four major challenges for a Sustainable Ireland. These include
“Building a Resource-efficient Low-carbon Economy”.
The new EU Waste Framework Directive, which was published in 2008 and transposed in 2011,
defines prevention as follows: “prevention means measures, taken before a substance, material
or product become waste, that reduce- (a) the quantity of waste, including through re-use of
products or the extension of the lifespan of products, (b) the adverse impacts of the generated
waste on the environment and human health, or (c) the content of harmful substances in
materials and products”. This Directive lays down measures to protect the environment and
human health by preventing or reducing the adverse impacts of the generation and
management of waste and by reducing overall impacts of resource use and improving the
efficiency of such use. Prevention measures shall aim to break the link between economic
growth and the environmental impacts associated with the generation of waste. Prevention is at
the highest point in the waste hierarchy priority order followed by preparing for re-use, recycling,
other recovery, e.g. energy recovery, and lastly, disposal.
8
The EPA was tasked with inventing, developing and implementing NWPP prevention projects
over its nine operational years to address these broadly stated policy aspirations and objectives
in a practical way. Outline Work Plans were published in 2004 and updated in 2009 in
consultation with the National Waste Prevention Committee and other parties. This 2009 update
resulted in the development of a Prevention Plan for the period 2009-20121, which set the
following objectives:
implement a suite of projects that, individually and combined, are designed to overcome
the barriers to waste prevention and, in the organisations and individuals engaged with:
− increase awareness of the environmental impact of excess consumption and waste;
− reduce the use of material, water and energy resources in order to reduce waste
generation;
− increase the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill; and
− reduce the use of hazardous substances and the generation of hazardous waste;
take the principles of resource efficiency and waste prevention, as set out in national
and European policy documents and legislation, into account in the design and
implementation of all projects under the National Waste Prevention Programme’s
operational heading;
bring about measurable improvements in resource efficiency and waste generation at
organisational and - where participation is high and indicators exist - sectoral levels;
generate case studies to actively demonstrate the opportunities and cost savings
possible from resource efficiency and waste prevention; and
disseminate the principles of resource efficiency and waste prevention throughout the
public and private sectors to encourage uptake of best practice in relation to internal
practices and influence on the public and clients.
Over the period of the NWPP to date, the ‘Waste’ Prevention team worked to develop an
understanding of the practical meaning of “waste prevention”. Essentially this evolved from
exclusively looking at solid waste to eventually embrace all material use, cleaner
technology/products, waste, energy, and water conservation, i.e. an evolution from Waste
Prevention, to, Resource Efficiency. This approach allows ‘wastage’ of resources (raw
materials, water, energy) to be addressed at its root, i.e. inefficient consumption and production
behaviours and processes. Moreover, it is much more economical to address these closely
related – indeed often integrated - sustainability issues together with a target audience rather
than try to address each separately. Figure 4 illustrates the emerging resource efficiency model
that was adopted. The NWPP programme - despite its title - is philosophically, and is in its
delivery, of necessity a resource efficiency programme.
1 http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/waste/prevention/Prevention%20Plan%202009-2012%20FINAL2.pdf
9
Figure 4: The Resource Efficiency Model
In relation to the draft new EPA Strategic Plan (2013-1015) the NWPP Resource Efficiency
programmes remain centrally relevant to the Advocacy area of EPA activities, and in particular
to the priority areas of ‘Working with Others’ and ‘Behavioural Change’. The new Strategy
identifies the challenges faced in building a resource efficient low carbon economy and society.
The NWPP objectives remain valid and are fully compatible with the EPA strategy and national
waste policy.
Furthermore, the continued relevance is reinforced by the 2008 EU Waste Framework Directive
which places a statutory obligation on each EU Member State to have NWPPs in place by 2013.
This requirement was brought into Irish law by Statutory Instrument No. 126 of 2011. This
means that Irish national waste policy and its implementation have been working well ahead of
EU waste prevention legislation. These legal requirements mean that the NWPP objectives and
rationale will continue to have validity for many years to come.
The rationale for having a NWPP is that there is a market failure in relation to waste prevention
and minimisation of the use of resources (material, water and energy). In times of economic
prosperity there was a ‘high willingness to pay’ where inefficiencies were built into the price of
the good or service. This market failure means that people and organisations will generally only
minimise the use of resources where there is a clearly perceived link with a pressing social
good or high costs, and if the effort involved is not felt to be excessive. It is the purpose of the
NWPP to make clear the link - for people and organisations - between the actual measured
amount of resource use and potential savings while also providing potential solutions to reduce
RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
Waste Prevention
Energy Efficiency
Clean Technology
Water Conservation
Eco-Design
10
the effort required to achieve those savings. This market failure has been long recognised in
theory and has now resulted in EU action with the legislation noted above and an EU Resource
Efficiency Flagship Initiative launched in 2011.
In 2012, the new Government policy document A Resource Opportunity - National Waste
Management Policy in Ireland was published. This document confirms that waste prevention
and resource efficiency are crucial elements of sustainable waste management. There is a clear
focus on building on the success of NWPP. Also in 2012, the Government published Our
Sustainable Future - A Framework for Sustainable Development in Ireland. This document
identifies NWPP as a key national response in relation to Sustainable Consumption and
Production issues. NWPP objectives and approach relate well to the widely identified need for
low-carbon, sustainable and competitive economic growth. This would clearly point to the
continued relevance of the programme into the future. With the drive for economic recovery
there is a need for sustainable jobs and NWPP is supporting this objective. The objectives of
each of the NWPP resource efficiency/prevention projects are continually appraised to ensure
that they are in line with current policy objectives. This is done more formally at NWPP
Committee meetings and when drawing up the annual reports on NWPP.
The economic downturn experienced in Ireland in recent years and the subsequent national
recovery plans have reinforced the role for resource efficiency in developing a competitive,
resilient and sustainable economy. The need for resource efficiency, including numerous
references to embracing the EPA NWPP resource efficiency activities, is specifically identified in
the following national policy:
National Recovery Plan 2011-2014 (Gov, 2010)
National Reform Programme for Ireland (Gov, 2011)
Developing our Green Potential (DJEI, 2012)
Supporting Economic Recovery & Jobs - Locally (DoECLG, 2012)
The NWPP team in planning their programme of work for each year (within its Plan ambition)
endeavours to embrace the evolving national policy environment as well as the economic
challenges, by delivering resource efficiency assistive programmes into SME’s and to the
Hospitality, Food production and Agricultural sectors (identified as central to economic
recovery).
11
Conclusions
1. The NWPP is supported by a clear national policy and strategic framework.
2. The NWPP responds to evolving national need and policy environment.
2. NWPP responds well to national obligations to address related EU policy objectives and is
ahead of other EU Member States.
Opportunities for improvement
The RUU should develop a hierarchy of objectives to define the links from the high level policy
objectives to the more specific and target group related results areas. This is needed to support
the performance indicator framework.
12
4. Outputs and Results from NWPP Programme Activities
This chapter of the review looks at the next issue raised by the Terms of Reference
namely: 3) Define the outputs and results associated with the EPA Prevention Project
activities and identify the level and trends of those outputs/results. This addresses the
Activity-Outputs areas of the Value for Money Programme Logic Model. Result Indicators
relating to the direct and immediate effects of these project activities are also noted.
The NWPP comprises a wide portfolio of integrated projects each directed at helping people,
communities, businesses and other organisations to understand and apply resource efficient
behaviours. A significant output and result from each project was the development of branding
for marketing purposes including the umbrella programme branding. NWPP projects are now
marketed under a common brand identity with each project using a common style logo:
In many instances, projects commence by assisting businesses and organisations to undertake
Resource Efficiency Assessments (REAs). Quite simply, this means helping them to quantify on
a daily basis - how much waste is being generated, how much material is being used, how
much water is being consumed and how much energy is being used - by their activities. These
numerical results may be compared with sectoral baseline information where available. This
exercise enables the root cause of waste generation to be traced and identified. Low/no-cost
improvement actions are identified where resource use is seen to be excessive. Incorporation of
Clean Technology and Eco-design are encouraged as part of such improvement plans
whenever possible. A VFM model is incorporated into the Resource Efficiency Assessment
approach in that baseline resources use costs are established at the recipient facility, and
potential savings are identified through implementation of specified (and where necessary
costed) behavioural and technological changes. VFM is ‘built in’ to NWPP’s execution strategy.
In summary, some of the major EPA NWPP Prevention Projects are represented by the
following outline Programme Logic Model (refer also to Figure 1 for a more detailed Summary
Programme Logic Model):
13
Inputs
Annual budget from the Environment Fund provided by the Department of the
Environment, Community & Local Government
EPA Board, management and Resource Use Unit staff expertise, salaries and
associated costs
Outsourced Contractors/Prevention Partners expertise, contract costs
Participation and input from NWPC, Enterprise Agencies, Other state agencies and
Departments, businesses, Local Authorities, organisations, communities and
individual people
Activities
1. Green Business Initiatives incl. Green Business, Green Hospitality, Green
Healthcare, Green Retail, SMILE, etc.
2. Local Authority Prevention Network
3. Green Home/Greening Communities
4. EPA STRIVE Cleaner Greener Production Programme
5. StopFoodWaste
6. Eco-eye TV series
7. Packaging Prevention Programme: Prevent & Save
Outputs & Results
Detailed later in this Chapter for each of the project activity areas noted above
Impacts & Outcomes
(High Level Outcomes – Specific Project Outcomes detailed later in this Chapter)
Improved understanding and implementation of Resource Efficient and Cost-saving
behaviours in Ireland by many people in business, at work, at leisure, in the
community and at home;
Improved capacity – development of key people/organisations (Prevention Partners)
who understand and can help others to apply the principles of Resource Efficiency
in everyday life;
Measurable Improvements in Resource Efficiency generally contributing to less
waste, more Sustainable Production & Consumption, reduced climate impact and
less pressure on the natural environment overall.
14
The following sections outline the main outputs and results from the seven major NWPP
Prevention Project Activity areas noted above.
4.1 Green Business Initiative Outputs and Results
This initiative comprises a number of sub-projects some of the most significant outputs of which
are noted below:
This project is targeted at helping businesses generally in Ireland to become more resource
efficient in relation to materials, waste, water and energy consumption thereby saving them
money. The project has had the following outputs and results all of which are free to end-users:
OUTPUT: A customised branded new website at www.greenbusiness.ie providing a one-
stop-shop for businesses to join as members (479 in 2011) and avail of assistance with
resource efficiency issues.
o RESULT: Website traffic in excess of 20,000 page views per annum is typically
recorded.
OUTPUT: Availability of free expert on-site Resource Efficiency Assessments to
qualifying businesses.
OUTPUT: 63 completed in 2011 (121 in total, see Figure 5).
o RESULT: Potential annual cost- savings published in the NWPP Report: e.g.
2011 €4 million (typically €40,000 per company).
OUTPUT: Follow up REAs are in-train to identify any barriers to actualising savings.
OUTPUT: Telephone/e-mail support and on-line assessment tools (materials, waste,
water and energy) available to all businesses.
o RESULT: over 430 contacts in 2011.
OUTPUT: 13 Case Studies published on the site to inspire businesses to learn from the
successes of their peer organisations;
OUTPUT: Sponsored staff post within IBEC to promote Green Business to their 7,000
members.
o RESULT: New client companies introduced to Green Business.
OUTPUT: Development of collaborative arrangements with other national agencies,
Departments, etc.
o RESULT: Synergistic links have been made with related business-oriented
projects such as Packaging Prevention, LAPN
15
o RESULT: A Green Enterprise Guide was published in collaboration with IDA,
Enterprise Ireland, Forfás and SEAI;
o RESULT: Invited to make presentations made at business events (12 attended in
2011);
Additionally, the NWPP Green Business Initiative assisted development of an €co-Cert project
to assist SMEs in specific local authority areas to engage in resource efficient practices (2012:
73 members, 48 certified, average potential annual saving of €5,000 per certified member2).
The Saving Money through Industry Links and Exchanges project (SMILE) has also been co-
sponsored by NWPP. This is an industrial symbiosis programme which offers businesses work-
shop/on-line opportunities to exchange and re-use resources, by-products, surplus materials
and transport opportunities thus avoiding unnecessary waste (2011: potential to save 7,000
tonnes waste and €800,000 identified in 94 businesses participating).
Figure 5: Green Business Resource Efficiency Assessments Completed
Data source: Enviros Consulting
2 Savings are independently calculated from energy, water and waste costs avoided using national pricing
norms and facility billing information. All savings calculations are auditable.
2335
63
121
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2008-2009 2010 2011 Total
REAs Completed
16
The Green Hospitality Programme commenced in 2008 and is targeted specifically at
businesses in the accommodation, leisure and catering sectors in Ireland. The programme is
based on pioneering work done by the EPA ERTDI/STRIVE research programme. It now has
the full endorsement of Fáilte Ireland, Irish Hospitality Institute and Irish Hotels Federation. The
project has made the following outputs and results available at reduced cost to participants:
OUTPUT: Development of a customised branded website at www.greenhospitality.ie
providing a sector-specific programme for businesses to join as members (250 in 2012
including 140 hotels or 16% of sector) and avail of tailored assistance with resource
efficiency and related cost-saving issues.
o RESULT: Over 5 years, 500 businesses including 259 hotels have engaged with
GHA equivalent to 28% of all hotels, 47% of all hotel rooms and involving 15,000
employees. This penetration rate compares to 0.1% of European hotels by EU
Flower; 2% of British hotels by GTBS/UK and 4.0% of Scandinavian hotels by
Nordic Swan.
OUTPUT: Develop programme to achieve verified achievement of Eco-label and Green
Hospitality Awards at Silver, Gold or Platinum (EU Flower equivalent) level.
OUTPUT: Training and support for participating businesses to accomplish different
levels of award (40 workshops per annum).
o RESULT: In 2011, 128 businesses were fully certified including 4 at Platinum
level.
OUTPUT: Development of Case Studies.
o RESULT: Sector specific expertise and Case Studies on major cost-savings
achieved by peer organisation published in October 2012.
o Actual annual cost-savings achieved published in the NWPP Report: e.g. 2011
€5.58 million saved arising from 6,400 tonnes waste prevented, 38.7 million kWh
energy reduced, 352,000 m3 water saved and 8,404 tonnes carbon equivalent
reduced.
OUTPUT: Marketing and Development of Programme.
o RESULT: Engaged in networking opportunities to share opportunities and
solutions in the sector via conferences, workshops and meetings.
o RESULT: 3rd Level Training Module developed for Institutes of Technology.
o RESULT: Project now expanded to cater for golf clubhouses, nursing homes,
activity and visitor centres.
17
o RESULT: Promoted Green Pages/Filter on Discover Ireland website, Green
Meeting & Events Guide and Green Festivals (with LAPN).
o RESULT: Research on promoting Green Business Tourism & Conferencing in
Dublin.
o RESULT: Demand for green technologies has been stimulated in the sector, e.g.
energy efficient fittings/appliances, water filtration equipment, low flow showers,
etc.
Figure 6 shows the estimated annual savings being made by businesses in the GHA scheme.
The figures are cumulative in that they are based on 2005 benchmark figures and represent real
cash savings made each year by the scheme members. The savings made are slower than
that associated with the initial membership surge, but nevertheless remain strongly trending
positive. Inspections on a sample of the businesses are made each year to support this
analysis.
Figure 6: Level and Trend of Annual Cost Savings at Green Hospitality Businesses
Data source: Hospitality Solutions/CTC
Over the years hospitality businesses have attained awards at different levels with many
participants progressing up the award hierarchy. Four organisations achieved the highest award
level - Platinum. These trends are illustrated in Figure 7.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2008 2009 2010 2011
Mill
ion
€
Cost Savings 2008 - 2011
18
Figure 7: Level and Trend of Awards at Green Hospitality Businesses
Data source: Hospitality Solutions/CTC
One important metric that has direct relevance to waste prevention is the amount of waste
generated per guest at participating premises. Figure 8 demonstrates significant improvement in
this metric over a number of years. The large decline in waste between 2009 and 2010 is
thought to be the effect of the food waste legislation requiring separate collection of this waste
stream. This has also led to an upsurge in interest in food waste prevention and guidance was
published by the programme to cater for this demand. This illustrates how Government
legislation and policy can significantly improve resource efficiency and support NWPP.
Figure 8. Level and Trend in Waste Generation per Guest at Green Hospitality Businesses
Data source: Hospitality Solutions/CTC
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2008 2009 2010 2011
Nu
mb
er
of
Aw
ard
s
Awards 2008 - 2011
Eco Label
Silver
Gold
Platinum
0.43
0.33
0.37
0.12
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
2007 2008 2009 2010
kg w
aste
/gu
est
19
This programme commenced in 2009 and evolved from the lessons-learned from developing
the Green Hospitality Programme and from previous ERTDI/CGPP and LAPD prevention
projects with hospitals. It is tailored to meet the requirements of the exacting healthcare sector.
The project has developed the following outputs and results free to end-users:
OUTPUT: Delivery of Resource Efficiency Assessments to participating Healthcare
facilities. Sixty assessments completed in 26 large hospitals around the country (50% of
acute beds nationally).
o RESULT: Significant potential annual resource and cost-savings (€4.3 million)
identified particularly in relation to food waste (€3.7 million), general & clinical
waste (2,200 tonnes), water and energy consumption (along with SEAI).
o RESULT: Nationally potential annual savings amount to €7.6 million for food
waste and 4,400 tonnes general & clinical waste.
o RESULT: One hospital saved €120,000 on food wastage, and potential water
savings of €80,000 in total were identified in 3 other hospitals).
o RESULT: More hospitals requesting prevention assistance.
o RESULT: HSE Corporate invited EPA to make presentation on future of the
programme.
OUTPUT: Development of a branded specialist website at www.greenhealthcare.ie and
associated confidential e-network has been developed to disseminate the results
achieved to date.
OUTPUT: Training materials and “how to” manuals have been developed to enable any
hospital management to replicate the cost-savings for themselves.
OUTPUT: Follow-through REAs are being conducted to help overcome any barriers to
actualising savings.
20
This pilot project was carried with Musgrave Retail Partners, Enerit and Green Business looking
at potential resource efficiencies in small to medium sized retail outlets. The guidance manual
which was developed is being used to identify savings available for retailers generally. New
business partners are being sought to apply the results as the original partners have completed
their involvement. Outputs and results included:
OUTPUT: Delivery of Resource Efficiency Assessments completed on 10 stores of
different sizes.
o RESULT: Significant potential annual resource and cost-savings were identified
(€142,830 or €8.5 million if results replicated in all 600 stores in group).
OUTPUT: On-line system developed to upload audit reports and to convert into
improvement actions (265 identified) at store level the implementation which can be
monitored centrally.
OUTPUT: Retailers Resource Efficiency and Cost-Savings Guidance manual (in prep).
4.2 Local Authority Prevention Network Outputs and Results
This network evolved from a successful Local Authority Prevention Demonstration (LAPD)
programme and acts as a mechanism to engage local authorities directly in implementing
Resource Efficiency projects both within their own organisation’s activities and throughout their
functional areas. They are accomplishing this either piloting new prevention initiatives locally
and/or promoting other NWPP projects in their areas. This activity links directly to the
implementation of the waste prevention aspects of the Regional Waste Management Plans. The
network was launched in 2010 and is now functioning as a fully
collaborative learning team engaged in the practical application of
resource efficiency right across the country. It has developed a better
way for public bodies to work together, increasing efficiencies/synergies
and avoiding duplication of effort or any tendency to ”re-invent the wheel” on resource
efficiency.
21
Outputs and results from the pioneering Local Authority Prevention Demonstration programme
(2006 to 2009) include:
Table 2: Outputs & Results from Local Authority Demonstration Programme
Output Results
Numbers of participants (2,500)
Prevention audits (295)
Business premises (163) involved
A wide range of prevention guides for different
sectors was published including Farming the
Environment, Calling Time on Waste for Publicans
(distributed to over 4,000 members by Vintners’
Federation of Ireland), Household Hazardous
Waste Prevention and e-guides at
www.managewaste.ie;
National LAPD Conference was held in 2008.
Quantified waste prevented in materials (2,300
tonnes), water (37,500 m3), energy (1.53 million
kWh) and costs saved (€873,000) per annum;
Growing number of Local Authorities Participating
in Network
The success of LAPD led to the development of the Local Authority Prevention Network working
to apply emerging NWPP projects regionally and locally. Selected Results from LAPN (2010 to
date) include:
Motivated, knowledgeable and trained local authority personnel implementing effective
Resource Efficiency programmes in their functional areas through extensive engagement
with businesses and communities locally (Figure 9);
A dynamic network of local authority personnel working in partnership and collaborating
across functional areas, sharing resources and knowledge to avoid duplication of effort
and achieve efficient implementation of initiatives;
Full involvement of 17 local authorities in LAPN with many others less formally involved;
Local authority personnel acting as local contact points for businesses and communities
seeking advice on becoming more resource efficient and facilitating contact with other
NWPP programmes providing such supports;
Fully searchable online catalogue (http://repository.localprevention.ie) drawing together all
waste prevention/Resource Efficiency tools, techniques, materials, templates, case
studies, etc., developed over time by LAPD/LAPN and an associated toolkit to assist any
local authority looking to implement waste prevention initiatives in their area;
22
Cross-linkages with all other NWPP projects, e.g. Green Festivals, StopFoodWaste,
Greening Communities. Table 3 shows some of the events and destinations where LAPN
prevention initiatives have taken place;
HETAC accredited training course in Prevention (42 people trained)
Greening Iverk Agricultural Show case study distributed to 130 Agricultural Show
organisers and National Committee
Themed LAPN Working Groups, e.g. Greening Public Events; Food Waste; Water;
Green Festivals Roadmap for organisers wishing to ‘green’ their festivals and LAPN
Events Toolkit;
Facilitating local area green community partnerships, e.g. Macroom-E, Corca Dhuibhne
Glas, Green Map Carlow;
International Seminar on Community Based Social Marketing (attended by 64 prevention
partners, including LA personnel);
National ResourceWise Conferences in 2010 and 2011;
LAPN recognised in National Sustainable Development Policy, also in Developing Jobs
Locally Strategy, and in Delivering our Green Potential policy statement.
Figure 9. Pyramid of Engagement: interactions between the LAPN and target audiences
23
Table 3. Green Festivals & Tourism Destinations where LAPN prevention initiatives have been undertaken
1. Baltimore Harbour (Cork) 12. Cobh Regatta
2. Clarenbridge Oyster Festival (Galway) 13. Midleton Food Fair (Cork)
3. Charlie Chaplin Festival (Kerry) 14. Pairc na nGael (Limerick)
4. Cliffs of Moher Visitor Centre (Clare) 15. Sherkin Island Marina (Cork)
5. Dingle Food Fair (Kerry) 16. Tall Ships (Waterford 2011)
6. Fleadh Cheoil na hEireann (Cavan) 17. Taste of Monaghan Festival (2011 & 2012)
7. Fota Wildlife Park (Cork) 18. Thomond Park (Limerick)
8. Galway Film Festival 19. Waterford Festival of Food
9. Green Carlow (greening Carlow festivals & shows)
20. Wicklow Town Christmas Market
10. Iverk Agricultural Show (Kilkenny) 21. Galway Arts Festival
11. Killarney National Park (Kerry) 22. Volvo Ocean Race (Galway)
4.3 Green Home and Greening Communities Project Outputs and Results
An Taisce developed this programme in consultation with the EPA based on extensive
experience with the successful Green Schools initiative. Green Home is a strongly action-based
programme that promotes resource efficient behaviours to every householder in the state. A
community based network has been established through schools and other organisations
including Tidy Towns committees to facilitate dissemination of the programme and to further its
objectives.
Outputs and results from the Green Home project include:
OUTPUT: Action-based programme with over 17,000 householders participating, and at
2.81 persons/household, this represents an outreach audience of circa 47,700 people.
OUTPUT: A customised branded website at www.greenhome.ie acting as a one-stop-
shop and source of information on resource efficient behaviours for all house-holders.
Issues addressed include waste (including hazardous waste), energy & water
conservation and sustainable travel.
o RESULT: In 2011/12: 5,132 members and 40,196 page visits recorded.
o RESULT: Estimated potential annual savings of €320 per household equals
€5.44 million potential savings among participants to date.
OUTPUT: Social media are also utilised to further spread the messages.
OUTPUT: Community Green Home Awards made to five groups nationwide.
24
OUTPUT: Prevention resource materials for teachers and communities.
OUTPUT: Links to promote synergies with many other community based initiatives
involving sustainability issues, e.g. Tidy Towns, Green Communities below.
This is a joint project between the Department of the Environment, Community & Local
Government, An Taisce and the EPA promoting the development of greener communities in
Ireland. The objective is to link as many existing sustainable behaviour projects as possible to
promote synergies and avoid any unnecessary duplication. Examples of existing projects to be
linked include Green Home, LAPN, Tidy Towns, Green Coast, National Spring Clean, Transition
Towns, Power of One and Ask About Ireland.
Outputs from the Greening Communities project include:
A branded website at www.greeningcommunities.ie providing links with the programme
and other relevant existing green projects;
A mapping project has been completed identifying relevant sustainability projects;
Four demonstration projects are underway providing linkages with LAPN and other
NWPP projects: Docklands Business Forum; Wexford Festival Opera; Wicklow
Community Gardens and Frenchpark, Roscommon Community;
Certification programme for Green Communities is in development.
The programme is too early in its development to yet identify clear results.
4.4 EPA STRIVE Cleaner Greener Production Programme (CGPP)
EPA ERTDI/STRIVE research programme has been running the CGPP programme in
businesses for many years. NWPP commenced co-funding relevant prevention-based projects
in 2010 (€0.9 million, 24 businesses funded). Between 2008 and 2012, the EPA ERTDI/STRIVE
CGPP grant aided co-funding for businesses to apply eco-design to their processes, products
and services. Sectors included food, IT, services and manufacturing. In total, €4.5 million
(including €2.2 in grant aid) was invested in 50 businesses/organisations (OUTPUT) covering
1,600 sites in Ireland, leading to incidental annual cost savings exceeding €2.9 million
(RESULTS).
A pilot EPA Value for Money Review was completed on the EPA STRIVE/Cleaner Production
programme in 2011. This review concluded that CGPP provided financial benefit to the
25
economy and the environment exceeding the cost of the programme. An independent review of
CGPP involving participating companies also indicated that lasting positive economic;
innovation and environmental outcomes were achieved. The European Commission has
identified the programme as being an exemplar in the area of eco-innovation.
4.5 StopFoodWaste Project Outputs and Results
This project commenced in 2009 to address food waste prevention
in homes/businesses and to promote home composting. The idea
is to address policy objectives in relation to landfill diversion targets
raised in the Government’s National Strategy on Biodegradable Waste 2006. The programme
encourages consumers to shop, store, cook and re-use food in a manner that reduces
avoidable losses. Any residual food may be composted in accordance with the expertise
developed and available on the website.
Outputs and results from the StopFoodWaste programme include:
OUTPUT: Dedicated website at www.stopfoodwaste.ie with information and tips on
avoiding loss of food and money (website traffic is illustrated in Figure 10). Social media
and other avenues have been exploited to maximise outreach.
o RESULT: Estimated website hits over 70,000 per annum.
Figure 10. Stop Food Waste website activity since 2010
o RESULT: The programme has been adopted by leading chefs who have helped
front the programme to the public.
o RESULT: In 2011 an estimated audience of over 2 million people was reached
with editorialised coverage equivalent to advertising worth €355,000.
OUTPUT: Deliver a Master Composter programme.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
03-Jan-10 03-Apr-10 03-Jul-10 03-Oct-10 03-Jan-11 03-Apr-11 03-Jul-11 03-Oct-11 03-Jan-12 03-Apr-12
Dai
lyV
isit
s
Stop Food Waste website activity since 2010
26
o RESULT: 300 people trained to date, involving over 14,000 people through
outreach activities.
o RESULT: Regional Compost Demonstration Sites (14 to date) have been built to
support the Master Composter programme and provide for public education on
composting. Bee hives have been developed at many of these sites to promote
food source education and bio-diversity;
OUTPUT: Development of synergistic links have been made with related community-
based projects such as Green Home, safefood, Grow It Yourself, Kitchen Economics,
Healthy Food for All, Community Gardens and Nutrition & Health Foundation.
OUTPUT: Through the Green Hospitality Programme, hotels, restaurants and catering
businesses are also encouraged to save costs by avoiding food waste;
OUTPUT: Development of guidance publications on Composting and Food Waste
Prevention.
o RESULT: 16,000 copies of this guidance was distributed 2011.
4.6 Eco-eye TV Series Project Outputs
This mass media communication project has been supported by EPA and a contribution made
by NWPP since 2003. Each year a variety of issues on NWPP projects related to sustainable
living are developed with the series producer Duncan Stewart. Up to early 2012, 82 episodes
have been broadcast (OUTPUTS). These programmes reached national audiences in excess of
2 million each year and peaked at over 5.1 million in 2011 (Figure 11)(RESULTS). As many as
50-60,000 additional viewers each year are estimated to view the second repeat of the
programmes and on-line. Extracts from the programmes continue to be available at www.epa.ie
and are used by EPA for other educational and communication projects.
The EPA has not undertaken any analysis of the impact of these programmes in relation to
advancing behavioural change and awareness, however the very strong audience numbers
year on year are a significant marker of the success of the engagement style and delivery of
message.
27
Figure 11. Average audience numbers and series viewer numbers 2003 – 2012
4.7 Packaging Waste Prevention Programme Outputs
This is a collaborative project led by Repak and addresses any
business wishing to reduce the amount and environmental impact
of the packaging associated with their products. Repak is a
national compliance scheme which enables member companies to
comply with their recycling and other obligations under the Packaging Regulations. It is to be
noted that Repak provided the bulk of resources including specialist staff for this initiative and
the savings may have been influenced also by other economic drivers (Packaging Compliance
Scheme Regulations) apart from the Prevent & Save programme. NWPP provided assistance
with aligning the prevention concepts, steering the programme and provided a financial
contribution annually. For the purposes of this review perhaps only a fraction of the savings
made may be attributed to NWPP directly.
The programme has produced the following OUTPUTS:
Specialist branded website at www.preventandsave.ie with self-assessment tools,
information, guidance, newsletter and case studies on how to reduce packaging.
A help service by e-mail, telephone and on-site assessments (30 in 2011) conducted by
experienced Packaging Technologists skilled in packaging reduction/optimisation.
7 E
pis
od
es
8 E
pis
od
es
9 E
pis
od
es
9 E
pis
od
es
10
Ep
iso
des
7 E
pis
od
es 1
1 E
pis
od
es
7 E
pis
od
es
7 E
pis
od
es
7 E
pis
od
es
314,000
309,000
360,000
303,000
330,000
448,000
570,000
490,000
369,000
346,000
2,198,000
2,163,000
2,520,000
2,121,000
3,630,000
3,136,000
3,920,000
5,130,000
3,321,000
3,460,000
Total Average
2003
2005
2006
2004
2007
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
Year
28
Packaging Optimisation training now available accredited to FETAC.
Published guidance available for retailer, grocery, hotels and offices.
Conference and outreach programme including annual Repak Awards.
The following RESULTS are recorded:
Repak members estimated to have reduced packaging by 77,000 tonnes in 2010 alone
(13% of that placed on the market by them);
Estimated savings made by Repak members of €17 million in 2010 alone and €60
million cumulative 2005-2010 (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Level and Trend in Packaging Cost Savings (€ million) made by Repak Members
4.8 Conclusion
In conclusion, Chapter 4 outlines the Outputs and Results from seven major areas of activity of
NWPP. It has been noted that NWPP comprises a wide portfolio of integrated projects each
directed at helping people, communities, businesses and other organisations to understand and
apply resource efficient behaviours. The Result indicators show direct and immediate positive
effects across each of the target groups arising from these project activities. Although the
results are substantial, the lack of sectoral reference targets to compare against limit the
interpretation of the performance of the NWPP programme.
Refer also to Figure 1/Appendix 5 for a Summary Programme Logic Model of the EPA NWPP
Prevention Projects. The effectiveness and impact of these results is evaluated in the next
chapter.
€6 €12 €10 €15 €17 €6 €17
€27
€42
€59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Mill
ion
s
Annual Savings Cumulative
29
5. Effectiveness and Impact of the NWPP Programme
This chapter of the review looks at the next question raised by the Terms of Reference
namely: 4) Examine the extent that the EPA NWPP’s objectives have been achieved, and
comment on the effectiveness with which it has achieved its objectives and on its
impacts including cost base reduction, competitiveness and innovation. This question
addresses the Outputs-Results-Impacts areas of the Value for Money Programme Logic
Model and the Effectiveness-Impacts area of the Evaluation Criteria.
5.1 NWPP Objectives and Approach
The broad objectives of the NWPP as set out in national waste policy and the EPA Strategy
context are outlined in Chapter 3.
The EPA was tasked with inventing, developing and implementing NWPP prevention projects in
the nine years since 2004 to address these broadly stated policy aspirations and objectives in a
practical way. EPA RUU staff first sought to develop an understanding of the practical meaning
of “waste prevention”. Essentially this thinking evolved from exclusively looking at solid waste to
embrace all material use, cleaner technology/products, waste, energy and water usage (Figure
4). All of these issues affect waste and sustainability and addressing them together is much
more effective compared to each issue having a separate programme. It was recognised early
on in the delivery of the Programme that taking this holistic view (all resource efficiencies)
yielded more effective interventions.
A competitive tendering process was developed for each project to identify the best professional
prevention partners to deliver the projects on the ground. These projects were intended to
broach the prevention agenda with a variety of key sectors of society including business, local
authorities as well as people generally in their homes and communities. This approach was
progressed either by developing new prevention projects or by building on relevant existing
sustainability initiatives, as appropriate. For example, the Green Business, LAPN, Packaging
Prevention and StopFoodWaste programmes were newly developed whereas the Green
Hospitality, Cleaner Greener Production Programme and Green Healthcare projects were
developed based on prior LAPD work or EPA STRIVE/ERTDI research initiatives. Similarly, the
Green Home programme was developed as a logical extension to the successful Green
Schools programme run nationally over many years by An Taisce. In each case, the initial
project direction came from RUU staff but projects were allowed to develop and evolve naturally
based on participant experience, feedback and lessons-learned as project roll-out progressed.
Periodic project reviews with Prevention Partners are conducted by EPA RUU staff to ensure
30
that projects stay on track with overall NWPP objectives, integrate approaches, and share
experiences, while encouraging creativity and flexibility to respond to opportunities as these
arise. This Project Partner and sectoral champion led approach maximised the effectiveness
and impacts of the interventions.
Part of the challenge of measuring impact of the NWPP activities was the development of
appropriate metrics. As appropriate, project delivery partners are required to measure
prevention directly with metrics such as: tonnes waste prevented, m3 water conserved, actual or
potential € cost savings identified and kWh/CO2 equivalent energy conserved. However, other
metrics may be used as less direct measures of impact including: numbers of businesses,
premises or people involved, website traffic, numbers of publications distributed,
conference/event presentations made (audience numbers), etc. This approach has effectively
given rise to the substantive quantified outputs and results identified in Chapter 4 of this review
(see also Figure 1/Appendix 5). These would indicate that NWPP is achieving its objectives.
No specific sectoral Targets were identified in the NWPP Strategy (e.g. %’age waste avoided,
water saved, etc), rather the Programme set about proving that Resource Efficiency is
achievable and economically rational. Individual project partners are set annual performance
targets in terms of Resource Efficiency Assessments (REAs) undertaken or Case Studies
developed, and metrics, as discussed, are used to quantify results potential and actuals on a
site by site basis.
5.2 Effectiveness and Impact of NWPP
Green Business has developed effective outputs providing the tools and opportunity for any
business to save significant amounts of money by engaging with resource efficiency. The
project is well linked-in with IBEC, Forfás, IDA, Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland and
Enterprise Ireland to provide savings for their client businesses and industries. Eco-
efficiency/design elements are now being augmented with direct links with the EPA Cleaner
Greener Production Programme. With the Green Business website, tools and project
methodology well developed, the challenge now is to recruit as many suitable
businesses/organisations as possible into the scheme given the national scale of the challenge
as noted below. It is envisaged that, as organisations’ staff engage with the resource efficiency
assessments, the approach and techniques will be retained by them as an enduring legacy of
behaviour change. Major pharmaceutical companies are being encouraged to promote resource
efficiency (particularly in relation to solvent wastes - the largest hazardous waste stream in
Ireland) via NWPP/EPA contacts with their representative association in IBEC. An economic
assessment of these waste streams was commissioned by NWPP to support these efforts. A
sector based approach (as for Green Hospitality below) is increasingly being adopted for
31
example in relation to fish processing (with Bórd Iascaigh Mhara) and food processing
companies. A resource efficiency programme for farmers is in development cross-linking with
relevant initiatives from Teagasc, Bórd Bia, the Irish Farmers’ Association and other partner
organisations. Some pioneering work on this has already been done through LAPD. The
programme will offer a one-stop-shop for practical advice on all aspects of reducing farming
costs through positive environmental behaviours. In all sectors, case studies showing how
savings can be made are necessary and follow through REAs may be necessary to garner this
information. Potential cost savings are made on a no/low cost basis so normally expected
economical behaviour would suggest that they would be realised. Opportunity cost has
sometimes been suggested as a reason why some measures are not implemented. Targeted
research may be necessary to identify other barriers, if any, to implementing low/no-cost
potential cost savings identified (€4 million per annum in 2011). Packaging waste reduction has
been well addressed in the project led by Repak with substantial savings being realised by their
members.
The Green Hospitality Programme is currently the most advanced NWPP prevention project
offering for any business sector. Here actual annual savings of €5.6 million are reported in a
nationally important sector which is struggling to survive economically. It is fair to say that the
Prevention Partners involved and participants in the hospitality sector have strongly embraced
the resource efficiency message. The project has the highest penetration rate of any similar
scheme in the EU (16% in Ireland versus 0.1-4.0% for equivalent schemes in EU). This project
is endorsed by Fáilte Ireland, the Irish Hospitality Institute and the Irish Hotels Federation. The
project partners are continuously marketing the programme to those organisations not currently
participating. However, participation is currently voluntary. Green Healthcare has developed
effective tools and information resources to tackle resource efficiency specifically for the
hospital setting. There remains a challenge to promote the realisation of identified potential
savings in these complex organisations (€3.7 million per annum). SMEs are being catered for
via the Green Retail and similar projects. The NWPP projects are well linked with other policy
objectives including sustainable economic growth/consumption, competitiveness, innovation
and climate change abatement.
The varied NWPP project outputs described played a significant role in the savings and positive
results identified through their resource efficiency activities. These immediate and short-term
effects are likely to endure as human/organisational behaviour has been changed to give rise to
positive economic outcomes. Therefore, the longer-term impact on the businesses and
organisations involved is very likely to be economically positive and lasting as resource
efficiency thinking becomes culturally embedded. The development of sectoral targets (e.g.
waste per bed-night in the hospitality sector to reach Xkg/night) may assist this process.
32
Among the community-oriented NWPP projects, the LAPN has developed a team of highly
skilled and motivated people working within participating local authorities who are spreading the
resource efficiency ethos in their communities and within their own organisations. This enables
all NWPP projects to be developed and promoted in a synergistic way for example through
Green Festivals or Greening Communities initiatives.
Projects addressing the public at large and as individuals have had a satisfactory aggregate
audience reach including Green Home, StopFoodWaste and the Eco-eye TV series. These
complementary projects are more difficult by their nature to assess in terms of end behaviour
change or cost savings but they can certainly be considered effective in terms of the depth of
engagement by those participating. Again, the project outputs played a key role in the many
positive results and effects noted. The immediate and short-term gains are likely to endure as
individuals are more sensitised to any “green behaviour” messages as a consequence of their
positive participation in NWPP.
Overall, NWPP branded as BeGreen has been effective in defining on a practical level what
resource efficient behaviour means for different businesses, sectors and individuals alike. The
challenge now is to consolidate achievements, recruit ever larger numbers to participate in
these projects, quantify impacts, and to identify additional opportunities.. At present,
participation is on a voluntary basis requiring some level of effort from participants (opportunity
cost may be a barrier). If higher penetration rates are needed to make the initiatives more
effective, then legislation may be necessary to make REAs mandatory for certain sized
organisations or sectors (as provided for in the policy document Delivering Change). While the
EPA leads the NWPP, there is an onus on all other stakeholders (as identified in Figure 2) to
play their part in developing a more sustainable and environmentally friendly society.
5.3 National Scale of NWPP Challenge
While the output and results numbers from NWPP are substantial on a per project basis, the
national target audiences are also quite large and diverse. In the business sphere, there are
estimated to be as many as 200,000 registered businesses in the state (many of them however
are very small), and in the order of 128,000 family farm businesses. Up to 13,000 businesses
are estimated to be in manufacturing and in this instance some of them may be very large multi-
nationals. Census 2011 indicates that there are 4.58 million persons living in Ireland. There are
on average 2.71 persons per household and upwards of 1.65 million households to be
influenced. To put the waste prevention challenge itself into context, the EPA National Waste
Report 2010 shows that 2.85 million tonnes of municipal waste was generated in that year
including 1.69 million tonnes household waste and 1.41 million tonnes commercial waste. The
downturn in the Irish economy since 2007 has resulted in a reduction of 4.2% in household
33
waste (despite increasing population), a 26% reduction in commercial waste and a 16% overall
reduction in municipal waste. These reductions appear to be closely linked with the sharp
reductions in personal consumption and Gross National Product. It is noteworthy that waste
recovery figures have increased indicating that the publics’ behavioural habits of segregating
waste have endured the economic downturn. Additionally, 287,874 tonnes of hazardous waste
was managed in 2010 down 1% on 2009. The challenge for prevention remains in working to
break the link between economic growth/ consumption and waste generation/resource use.
Broadening the projects to address all resource efficiencies (waste, energy and water) has been
done to enable target audiences to increase their potential cost savings. In this regard, it is clear
that the prevention efforts (at a micro-economic level), in tandem with relevant supporting
national Government policies and initiatives, will need to be in place over many years to have
an impact on the macro-economic waste numbers.
5.4 International Reviews of NWPP
Three independent international reviews of Ireland’s NWPP have been published. The
European Commission led a workshop in Ireland in 2009 in which Ireland’s national waste
management and waste prevention efforts were reviewed. Subsequently, the EC Guidelines on
Waste Prevention Programmes published in 2010 includes five examples of NWPP projects to
illustrate best practice internationally. The NWPP examples cited by the EC guidance include
LAPD, Green Business, Green Hospitality, Green Home and the Packaging Prevention
Programme.
In 2010, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published its
Environmental Performance Review on Ireland and in the waste chapter highlighted the
prevention work of NWPP. It notes that “particular attention should be given to implementation
of the National Waste Prevention Programme and its 2009-13 work plan” and that “these
activities need to be supported by resources commensurate to the challenges”.
In 2009, Eunomia Consulting were commissioned by the Department of the Environment,
Heritage & Local Government to publish an International Review of Waste Management Policy.
This report notes that “the Department has already shown considerable foresight in establishing
NWPP, which has developed world-class initiatives under the auspices of the EPA”.
These international reviews confirm the conclusion that NWPP has been effective and is
achieving its objectives. Even more progress has been made with the prevention projects since
these international reviews took place. NWPP continues to work in learning-mode to adopt
emerging best practices, policy and thinking in its operation.
34
6. Efficiency and Economy of the NWPP Programme
This chapter of the review looks at the next question raised by the Terms of Reference
namely: 5) Identify the level and trend of costs and staffing resources associated with
EPA NWPP Prevention Projects and comment on the efficiency and economy with which
it has achieved its objectives. This addresses the Inputs-Outputs areas of the Value for
Money Programme Logic Model and the Efficiency area of the Evaluation Criteria.
Economy is also looked at in terms of acquiring the appropriate quality of inputs at the
best price.
6.1 NWPP Staffing and Costs
When the NWPP programme was launched in 2004, the EPA was provided with an indicative
annual budget to be sourced from the Environment Fund. Such funding is approved annually by
the Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government. EPA RUU staff already
engaged with waste data and related issues were assigned the additional responsibility of
developing and leading NWPP. As noted above, the approach taken was to develop and
implement projects through outsourcing to commercial/professional Prevention Partners. This
approach was taken due to the very limited number of EPA staff available and in order to
develop prevention capacity in external partners needed to deliver required projects in the
targeted sectors.
In terms of EPA RUU staff, NWPP Prevention Projects have been run by approximately 3.50
Full-time Staff Equivalents each year. This breaks down as oversight from a Programme
Manager (Level 1 – Principal Officer x 0.5), one Senior Manager (Level 2 – Assistant Principal
Officer x 0.50), two full-time Programme Officers (Level 4 – Higher Executive Officer x 2) and
one Administrator (Level 5 – Executive officer x 0.5). This balance of staff appears to have
worked well at developing NWPP and engaging with different levels and sectors to further its
objectives. A breakdown of estimated staff costs (€ millions) is shown in Table 4 (including
salaries, employer PRSI, pension contribution, overheads at 47% and prevention project related
Travel & Subsistence).
Table 4: Estimated Total EPA staff costs 2004-2012 in € millions
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
estimate Total
0.178 0.236 0.367 0.389 0.401 0.437 0.420 0.378 0.383 3.189
35
The breakdown in expenditure in outsourcing the prevention project activities each year is
presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Environment Fund expenditure each year in outsourcing the NWPP projects (€million)
NWPP Project 2004-7 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
estimate Total
% Total
Green Business.ie 0.077 0.437 0.406 0.566 0.686 0.572 2.744 19.48
Green Hospitality 0 0.400 0.329 0.386 0.452 0.368 1.935 13.73
Green Healthcare 0 0 0 0.300 0.200 0.148 0.648 4.60
Other Green Business
0 0.120 0.019 0.012 0.030 0 0.181 1.28
Sub-total Green Business
0.077 0.957 0.754 1.264 1.368 1.088 5.508 39.10
LAPD/LAPN Grants 0.599 0.285 0.982 0.308 0.475 0.384 3.032 21.52
LAPD/ LAPN Partners
0.342 0.476 0.309 0.137 0.269 0.231 1.764 12.52
Other LAPD/LAPN 0.014 0.081 0.003 0.094 0.028 0.010 0.230 1.63
Sub-total LAPD/LAPN
0.955 0.842 1.294 0.539 0.772 0.625 5.026 35.68
Green Home 0.088 0.186 0.150 0.173 0.204 0.175 0.976 6.93
CGPP 0 0 0 0.352 0.350 0.200 0.902 6.40
StopFoodWaste 0 0 0.114 0.215 0.192 0.210 0.731 5.19
Eco-eye TV 0.300 0.100 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.600 4.26
Packaging Prevention
0.146 0.131 0.029 0.021 0.008 0.010 0.345 2.45
Sub-total other Prevention Projects
0.534 0.417 0.343 0.811 0.804 0.645 3.554 25.23
Total: 1.566 2.216 2.391 2.614 2.944 2.358 14.088 100.00
This balance of funding has developed over time as overseen by EPA management, Board,
DECLG and other stakeholders. Generally, the funding goes to those activities with greatest
perceived potential to reduce waste and affect savings. However, opportunities are continually
being sought to identify suitable sectoral partners to further develop and spread the resource
efficiency messages.
36
These outsourcing funds were used to fund experienced professional service providers selected
by competitive tendering as described at 6.2 below. The numbers of contractors deployed on
the different NWPP projects in 2012 are detailed in Table 6.
Table 6: External Contractors deployed for each of the NWPP projects in 2012
NWPP Project Number of Contractors: Full Time Equivalent
Green Business.ie 1.50
Green Hospitality 1.50
Green Healthcare 1.00
LAPN Technical Support 1.00
LAPN local authorities 6.00
Green Home 2.00
CGPP Not applicable: direct business grants
StopFoodWaste 1.00
Eco-eye Not applicable: series commissioned
Packaging Prevention Not applicable: grant to Repak
Total Contractor FTEs 14.00
Overall, expenditure on NWPP Prevention Projects has totalled €17.277 million (including EPA
staff costs, overhead allocation and outsourcing expenditure) over the nine years from 2004 to
2012, an average of €1.92 million per year. This cost identified >€40M savings to businesses in
the last fout years. Even if the NWPP BeGreen activities ceased in the morning, recurring
annual savings of €10M could be achieved by organisations through maintaining the
behavioural change activities and practices identified to date.
6.2 NWPP Procurement Cost Effictiveness
In terms of cost effectiveness’s, open competitive tendering was used to select commercial
Prevention Partners. Detailed tender documents were drawn up by EPA RUU staff including
project outline requirements, outputs, selection criteria and information requirements. As
appropriate, all calls for tenders were advertised electronically on e-tenders at national and EU
level. Internal and external personnel (including members of the National Waste Prevention
Committee as appropriate) were involved in selecting the submitted tenders according to the
37
prescribed selection criteria. Tenders providing best value to the NWPP was then selected (i.e.
most economically advantageous but not necessarily lowest price). A signed written contract is
put in place subsequent to each tender selection process and approved at Programme
Manager, Director or Board level as appropriate according to the expenditure amount. Each
selected contractor is involved in a project start-up meeting on their project allowing EPA staff to
provide an initial guidance on the project and to discuss how it might progress to complement
the other prevention projects. Periodic progress reports from these Partners and steering
meetings serve to allow EPA to continue to guide the success of the different prevention
projects. Individual contracts are renewed annually and frame-work agreements every three to
four years by competitive tendering. This enables RUU staff to manage the performance of
contractors effectively on an ongoing basis.
All Prevention Partners without exception have developed considerable expertise in their
allotted project areas and have actively worked with participating target audiences to advance
their projects. Indeed, the Prevention Partners themselves can be regarded as an enduring
legacy and an important part of the prevention capacity developed in Ireland by NWPP. Once
the basic project offering has been developed, then the challenge is to maximise the impact and
coverage of the target audience. Indicators and metrics within the contracts are used to manage
these issues (e.g. Number of REAs completed; number of Case Studies developed, new
membership targets, etc). In the case of LAPD/LAPN, all local authorities were invited to apply
for funding within the programme. To date, all applicants have been able to be accommodated
within the approved budget. These projects are independently audited each year from a
technical and financial perspective. Many efforts have been made to recruit more local
authorities to LAPN and the new waste policy is helpful in this regard as the number of waste
regions is being reduced from ten to three.
Each prevention project commenced as exploratory in nature in that it was necessary for EPA
staff to creatively conceive and develop what resource efficiency meant, in practice, for each
particular sector or target audience. Actual outputs and results are detailed in Chapter 4 of this
report. Many projects commenced as smaller scale pilots before appraisal of results to see if a
larger scale project should be constructed, or not, as the case may be. The data presented here
is best seen in the context of the overall Summary Programme Logic Model (Figure 1/Appendix
5). Pilot projects are used to evaluate if a particular approach would be worthwhile (e.g. Green
Retail, Green Healthcare) before deciding if a full project is warranted.
Overall, a small number of EPA RUU staff (3.5 Full Time Equivalents) leveraged the NWPP
funding efficiently and effectively to select and develop excellent Prevention Partners and novel
projects at reasonable cost. Since the inception of NWPP, the same number of RUU staff has
been managing greater numbers of projects as the original projects mature and bed down. This
38
has meant an improvement in efficiency as several projects are managed in parallel by each
staff member. Additionally, as experience is gained, the contract conditions have been
developed to assure that the interests of contractors are aligned with that of NWPP (for example
setting targets for numbers of participants or case studies). At present, there are 14 FTEs
working as contractors including 6.00 FTEs as local authority personnel. The residue of skills
and experiences developed in these personnel and other participants as a future resource is not
computed as a value, but is recognised as valuable.
The ratio of EPA staff to consultants has worked well given the requirement to invest
Environment Fund monies in waste prevention activities. It is possible that having more detailed
oversight and involvement in projects by more public service staff would reduce costs and
improve quality. However, in light of increasing reductions in public service staff numbers, the
present situation is unlikely to change in this direction. The performance of EPA RUU staff is the
subject of ongoing appraisal via the EPA’s Performance Management and Development
System (PMDS). Best value is obtained by competitively tendering for each project with annual
renewals. In selecting tenders, the most economically advantageous submission is selected, not
necessarily the lowest price. Ongoing proactive management of the contracts and the
performance of Prevention Partners by RUU staff have assured that projects and outputs
continued to address waste policy and EPA prevention objectives. This assures that the
performance of external contractors is maintained at a high level.
The NWPP budget is currently allocated on an annual basis with approval being provided
around March each year. This allocation has to be allocated and spent by end-October to
ensure that work is completed and invoiced by year-end. This has proven to be inefficient from
the point of view of project continuity. Given the multi-annual nature of the programme, it is
recommended that the budget be allocated in this manner also to improve efficiencies.
39
7. Public Funding and Performance Indicators
This chapter of the review looks at the final two questions raised by the Terms of
Reference namely: 6) Evaluate the degree to which EPA NWPP objectives warrant the
allocation of public funding on a current and ongoing basis and examine the scope for
alternative policy or organisational approaches to achieving these objectives on a more
efficient and/or effective basis (e.g. through international comparison) and 7) Specify
potential future performance indicators that might be used to better monitor the
performance of EPA NWPP Projects. Consider the relative performance of different
NWPP Prevention Projects with a view to maximising the overall programme
effectiveness.
7.1 Public Funding and Alternative Approaches to NWPP
Allocating public funding for a NWPP is necessary in that there is a market failure in relation to
waste prevention and minimisation of the use of resources (material, water and energy)(refer
Chapter 3).
In Ireland, the approach taken has been to have a separate NWPP being led nationally by the
EPA. Other approaches could be taken including dividing up the NWPP between the different
Regional Waste Planning Authorities. However, it is difficult to see how this could be more
economic than planning projects on a national basis as with for example LAPN. To date, about
half of all local authorities have engaged with NWPP through LAPN. Similarly, Greening
Communities projects are probably best co-ordinated nationally or regionally and preferably by
linking the many existing sustainability projects rather than being approached piecemeal. The
Green Business projects could potentially be led by Enterprise Ireland and the IDA. However,
while both of these organisations have important contacts with their client businesses, they
currently have no remit for catering to non-client businesses. This would leave other significant
sectors such as SMEs, hospitality and healthcare to be dealt with separately by another
authority. Given the scale of potential and actual savings identified, there may be a case to be
made for programme cost and gain-sharing to be made with participating organisations. A most
important feature that NWPP has added to all projects is linkages with existing related policies,
programmes and agencies. For the overall programme, this means looking at how NWPP
contributes to current and emerging policy objectives, e.g. climate change, resource use,
sustainable consumption, cleaner production, employment, innovation, etc. Similarly, existing or
new programmes addressing sustainability and sectoral economic issues can benefit from
NWPP knowledge and expertise, e.g. Harvest 2020, Bórd Bia Origin Green Island, etc. Finally,
NWPP has linked with many relevant agencies on resource efficiency projects including Forfás,
40
IDA, Enterprise Ireland, SEAI, An Taisce and numerous others. For example, a joint Green
Enterprise Guide was published with all of the enterprise agencies. As best practice, this
enables synergies to be realised and avoids any unnecessary duplication of effort, while
retaining the individual expertise that each partner contributes. Quite apart from fulfilling legal
requirements, this review demonstrates that NWPP has made an important contribution to
competitiveness, innovation and sustainable practices in the businesses and organisations that
it has worked with.
7.2 International Comparison
A review of Resource Efficiency programmes in Ireland and within the EU was undertaken in
2012 by an EPA STRIVE research project (research commissioned to assist preparation of the
new National Waste Prevention Strategy). This analysis found the Irish programme to be
amongst the ‘market leaders’ in the EU. This fact is also recognised by the EEA3,4 and the EU
Commission5 in web publications. The EPA assistance to SME’s was particularly identified by
the OECD in an international review of green growth supports for SME (Green Transformation
of Small Businesses)6.
The main challenge for Ireland and other Member States is to consider how best to integrate the
resource efficiency objectives across all government policy (transport, environment, building
control, ecosystem services, marine, forestry, etc), as it is only in exceptional cases in the EU
that nationally integrated strategies exist.
7.3 Performance Indicators
In relation to performance indicators, it is a requirement that each prevention project maintain
appropriate statistics to demonstrate the results and degree and depth of project participation.
These include - where relevant - tonnes of waste prevented, m3 water or kWh energy
conserved, tonnes of carbon avoided and, importantly, actual or potential € cost savings
identified. As has been demonstrated in this review, annual cost savings can be of such a
magnitude as to cover the annual NWPP budget several times over. Where such direct
measures are not feasible, alternate indicators need to be developed including participant
numbers at events, website traffic etc. The work of the EU Commission and the OECD on
resource efficiency and waste prevention indicators needs to be monitored for any
developments relevant to NWPP. Section 5.3 noted the scale of the national challenges facing
NWPP in relation to existing tonnages of waste and the number of
3 http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/publications/resource-efficiency-in-europe/
4 http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/economy/resource-efficiency/resource-efficiency-policies-country-profiles
5 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/practices.htm
6 http://search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/EPOC/WPIEEP(2012)1/FINAL&docLanguage=En
41
organisations/businesses/people to be influenced. The challenge for prevention remains in
working to break the link between economic growth/consumption and waste
generation/resource use. Broadening the projects to address all resource efficiencies (waste,
energy and water) has been done to appeal to target audiences by increasing their potential
cost savings. In this regard, it is clear that the prevention efforts (at a micro-economic level), in
tandem with relevant supporting Government policies and initiatives, will need to be in place
over many years to have an impact on the macro-economic waste numbers. In addition the
development of baseline figures for the target sectors will assist in the analysis of
impact/progress.
Given the many influences on production and consumption behaviours, it is important that all
relevant Government policies and practices provide the right leadership and direction. An
important example is the national Green Public Procurement policy and related document
Green Tenders Action Plan published in 2011. NWPP RUU staff provided strategic input to this
action plan. It is essential that businesses and organisations engaging in programmes such as
Green Business, Green Hospitality, Green Healthcare, Cleaner Greener Production, Packaging
Prevention (or equivalent programmes) be accorded due recognition through the public
procurement processes. For example, the plan cites the Green Hospitality Award recipients (or
equivalent) as possible criteria for the selection of hotel/catering services. This would allow the
€15 billion annual public expenditure outlay to be used to truly leverage the development of a
more sustainable resource efficient economy.
7.4 Relative Performance of NWPP Projects
The Green Hospitality project identified actual annual savings of €5.6 million from a total NWPP
spend of €1.935 million (Table 5). The Green Business.ie project identified €4 million potential
savings after a total NWPP spend of €2.744 million. Similarly, the Green Healthcare project
identified €3.7 million of potential savings following an NWPP spend of €0.648 million. Therefore
each project has identified annual savings well in excess of total project expenditure to date.
The ratios of savings to expenditure for these projects are: 2.89, 1.46 and 5.71, respectively.
The higher ratio for Green Hospitality may be explained by the fact that this project was
developed from a scheme previously created by EPA CGPP and local authorities. This is
NWPP’s most advanced project in that actual savings are recorded and participating
businesses are eligible for awards which may be used for marketing purposes including in
relation to Green Public Procurement. The lower ratio for Green Business may be explained in
that this project commenced from new. A full project offering and modus operandi had to be
developed before piloting Resource Efficiency Assessments and other services. This naturally
required an initial investment and development period. Additionally, Green Business acts as a
general and not a sector specific offering and has dealt with SMEs where potential savings are
42
not as large. A sector based approach is increasingly being adopted using Green Business as
opportunities arise especially in larger enterprises e.g. healthcare (see below), fish and food
processors and farming enterprises. Green Healthcare commenced in 2010 based on
experienced gained from Green Business, LAPD and EPA CGPP and quickly identified major
potential waste prevention opportunities in hospitals. This explains the relatively high ratio of
savings to expenditure. It is believed that each of these projects continue to show much promise
in identifying significant waste prevention opportunities in their target organisations. The
challenge is to engage with many more organisations and ensure that potential savings are
actually realised. Substantial savings have been reported by Repak arising from the Packaging
Waste Prevention Programme. However, while NWPP provided a contribution to the overall
expenditure, much of the credit for the savings rest with Repak and the businesses involved.
It is important to involve the general public/consumers in NWPP so that they can be sensitised
to the merits of buying greener products/services such as GHA hotels, eco-designed products,
to reduce their personal resource use and to prevent food waste. Additionally, individuals bring
their knowledge of resource efficiency into their places of work. Actual or potential cost savings
are more easily identified and quantified in a business/organisational setting compared to
individuals in their communities/homes.
LAPN has developed into an important network which itself has generated novel local
prevention projects (especially during the LAPD phase). During the LAPD phase, participants
engaged directly with local businesses, hospitals and farmers developing guidance and
expertise and guidance on resource efficiency in these sectors. These experiences were then
used to develop fuller programmes directed at particular sectors. LAPN now enables cross-
linking projects such as Green Festivals and Greening Communities as well as other pioneering
initiatives to be developed locally. As a cross-linking project, it is not readily comparable with
other projects but rather acts as an enabling network supporting all NWPP projects locally.
In the past, information campaigns have been used to make individuals aware of various
environmental issues. It is debatable how effective such campaigns have been in terms of
changing actual behaviours. NWPP has taken the approach of action-based learning e.g.
through Green Home linked to Green Schools in turn linked to many existing green community
initiatives. To date, over 17,700 households (47,700 people) have been engaged with directly.
An Taisce have conducted research identifying that behaviours have been changed and that
households can easily achieve savings of €320 each per annum (€5.44 million if all participants
to date maximised these savings). This potential recurring annual saving compares well with the
total expenditure on the project (€976,000) giving a ratio of potential savings to expenditure of
5.57. In contrast, Eco-eye reached a TV audience ranging from 2.2 to 5.1 million with an
engaging magazine format programme (NWPP contributed €600,000). While this is a significant
43
audience in the national context, it is difficult to identify if this resulted in actual positive
behaviour change but it certainly can be said to introduce and reinforce sustainability messages
with the public. Commercial marketing concerns continue to use TV advertising extensively so it
may be argued by extension that this is a good medium with which to reach general audiences.
The StopFoodWaste project has also been effective at reaching mass audiences (2 million) on
an important issue as well as developing practical tools for food waste prevention and
composting at a project cost of €731,000. Social media and programme adoption by well known
chefs has been helpful in spreading the message. It should be noted that these projects also
collaborate in that StopFoodWaste materials are incorporated into Green Home (and Green
Schools) and both projects have appeared on the Eco-eye series. So these complementary
projects have reached different audience numbers with their relevant messages within their
respective budgets. The challenge is to engage many more persons in these behaviour change
programmes and to find the best means of accomplishing this effectively, and to maximise the
coverage and impact of each of the projects filling any gaps or seizing opportunities as they
arise.
Expenditure on the different NWPP prevention projects may be split into two broad categories of
target audience: business/organisational (Green Business, CGPP, LAPN – 50% and packaging
prevention) and community/individual (Green Home, Green Community, StopFoodWaste, LAPN
– 50% and Eco-eye). In terms of project funding €9.27 million was invested in
business/organisational targeted projects and €4.82 million on community/individual projects
(Figure 13). This gives an almost 2:1 split in favour of business/organisational projects which
seems reasonable given the macro-economic scale of the challenge and the larger immediate
savings accessible.
Figure 13. NWPP expenditure split by target audience
€9€5
Million € Invested
Business/organisations
Community/individuals
44
Overall, the aim has been to integrate each of the NWPP projects such that they support each
other in a given locality and provide synergies and reinforcement of meaningful resource
efficiency messages in a variety of sectors. If the programmes were to be trimmed it would be
conceivable to focus only on businesses and organisations where demonstrable economic cost
savings can be made. However, some mechanism would still be needed to bring about the
general public knowledge and acceptance of eco-design and to promote personal resource
efficient behaviours. Given that the Irish public generally has become highly adept at waste
segregation and recycling over the last fifteen years or so, there is an opportunity now to bring
this culture change to the next level and progress from being a recycling society to one where
innovative resource efficiency is the norm. The current economic downturn may ironically
provide a suitable climate for such change.
7.5 Structure of NWPP Programme
NWPP has been developed as a diverse but integrated portfolio of projects each tailored to
address particular audiences. The underlying message of resource efficiency in relation to
behaviour change is adapted as appropriate to each project audience. This is considered to be
an effective way of developing prevention practices and communicating these meaningfully to
relevant audiences. However, as projects have developed over time integration is key to avoid
any potential duplication of effort. For example, LAPD was a forerunner to Green Business and
many local authorities then worked directly with local businesses. Valuable lessons were
learned and fed into the development of the subsequent Green Business project. Now the local
authorities promote the Green Business project in their areas. Similarly, LAPD developed
expertise and guidance on farming, shopping centres, public houses, hospitals, household
hazardous waste and greening public events which is now being used as input to wider
initiatives in these areas. LAPN participants now work to promote other NWPP projects in their
areas and develop new prevention approaches. Sector specific initiatives such as Green
Hospitality and Green Healthcare have been particularly effective at developing specific tools
and comparative data to promote resource efficiency. Similarly, the Repak led packaging
prevention programme is a technically specialised project of interest to many businesses. Green
Home is targeting householders allied to the Green Schools programme in an action-based
learning initiative. StopFoodWaste is targeting the specific issue of food waste/home
composting through web/social media, demonstration activities and links to grass roots
community initiatives. It is linked to Green Home and Green Schools providing its specialist
input. Eco-eye is targeted at the wider public seeking to foster and promote interest generally in
sustainable behaviours. This acts to advise and remind people of the importance and necessary
conditions for a more sustainable society. Gaps in coverage of sectors and opportunities to
45
engage (insofar as NWPP resources allow) are continually being sought for development
especially by linking with suitable partners.
Alternative approaches might have been taken to the portfolio of project initiatives as
developed. Some possibilities include:
Funding the development of third level training in prevention for public and
private sector managers (H.Dip). A training approach has been taken in relation to
local authorities (HETAC level), Green Hospitality (HIT level), Green Business
(certificate level) and packaging prevention (FETAC accredited). Other opportunities to
develop training should be sought.
Abandoning the current approach in favour of a grant based system. This approach
has been adopted in relation to EPA Cleaner Greener Production Programme now
included as part of NWPP. Attracting suitable applicants has always been a particular
challenge and it seems unlikely that wide sector coverage would be achieved with grants
alone. Enterprise Ireland has had some experience with similar grant schemes having
limited uptake but linkages are continually being sought with their efforts. Businesses
need know-how in relation to waste prevention and grants alone cannot provide this
need. Sector based approaches seem to work well with peer organisations sharing
insights and experiences being especially powerful.
Abandoning the current approach and aim at the majority of householders, or
specific types of households such as those that generate the most waste or those
most amenable to preventing waste. The issue of dealing with households revolves
around how many can be dealt with and at what depth to engender meaningful
behaviour change. There is no easy mechanism to target particular households for
intervention nor would unsolicited interventions be always welcomed. Green Home has
worked extensively with householders linked primarily with Green Schools, Eco-eye has
targeted an interested large TV audience while StopFoodWaste has engaged the public
via demonstration activities including well-known chefs and food related events. These
complementary efforts may be seen as reinforcing by repetition of messages to the
general public.
Abandoning the current approach and aim at the top 10 waste producing
firms/public sector organisations, or top 20 largest manufacturing companies, or
SMEs or a particular industry or some alternative targeted approach. There is merit
in this approach which is reflected in the NWPP Prevention Plan 2009-2012. Having
developed prevention know-how and a toolkit, the challenge is to recruit targeted
organisations into the Green Business scheme. At present participation is on a voluntary
basis using case studies, on-site assessments, cost savings and readily available tools
46
as instruments of persuasion. Increasingly, larger organisations are being recruited
especially if this can be accomplished on a sector basis. However, where participation
rates are considered low, there may be merit in considering if participation should be
made mandatory, through regulation, for particular sectors or sizes of organisations (as
mooted in the policy document Delivering Change).
47
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter of the review report draws together the findings of the previous chapters
and offers some conclusions as interpretations of their meaning and significance.
Finally, some recommendations are made based on the findings and conclusions in this
review report.
This review identifies the EPA NWPP programme objectives from national waste policy and
shows clearly that these are fully compatible with EPA 2020 Strategy objectives. The objectives
remain valid in light of the new EU statutory requirements for NWPPs, the new national waste
policy and the national sustainable development strategy published in 2012. NWPP has been
demonstrated throughout this review to be contributing positively to the promotion of resource
efficient, low carbon, sustainable and cost effective economic activity.
This report defines the outputs directly associated with seven principle NWPP programme
activity areas. The direct results accruing from these activities are also identified including
actual and potential annual cost savings. The outputs and capacity developed from these
activities have been substantial and have been specifically tailored to different audiences to
amplify their impact. The identified cumulative actual/potential annual cost savings alone would
cover the budgeted cost of NWPP several times over.
This review examines the extent to which NWPP objectives were achieved and the
effectiveness and impact of this achievement. Both this review and three independent
international reviews of NWPP conclude that it has developed effective initiatives to achieve its
objectives. In both business/organisational and home/community focussed projects immediate
positive outcomes were identified directly related to the programme activities. These effected
behaviour changes which are likely to endure in the organisations and individuals that
participated. The scale of the NWPP micro-economic interventions are compared to the
macroeconomic scope of the challenges faced in Ireland. This comparison indicates that there
is value in pursuing these projects over a number of years to further extend the degree of
coverage in the different sectors.
This report identifies the level and trend of costs and staffing associated with NWPP. It is clearly
illustrated that a small number of staff has leveraged the funding provided efficiently and
effectively to select and develop excellent Prevention Partners and novel projects at reasonable
cost. Competitive tendering and effective ongoing project management were deployed to assure
that the most economically advantageous outcomes were achieved.
48
The degree to which NWPP warrants public funding on an ongoing basis and alternative ways
of delivery is evaluated. It is concluded that, due to widely recognised market failure, NWPP
projects should continue to be publically funded. Generally, organising NWPP on a national and
regional basis appears to offer best value given the specialised nature of the endeavour.
Linkages between projects and with related projects/organisations are seen to be important to
foster synergies and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Indicators of prevention are
considered important (but problematic by their nature) and a number of recommendations are
made in this regard (see below). While working with businesses/organisations on prevention
can yield substantial actual/potential cost savings, there are considerable societal gains to be
made working with wider home/community based projects. The potential is there to move from
being a recycling society to one where innovative resource efficiency is the norm.
The review confirms that the activities undertaken through the NWPP:
support national and international policy;
have influenced national policy development;
have remained relevant and up to date;
have taken an appropriate ‘whole of society view’ in programme design;
have yielded a range of first class resources, guidance and tools, to assist participants
identify and implement the behavioural changes necessary to ensure resilience of
environment and economy;
have created intergovernmental networks and synergies that assist raising awareness
and delivery of projects;
have identified savings for businesses to a value which greatly exceeds the State
investment in the programme;
represent value for money.
A number of recommendations arise from these conclusions:
1. NWPP should continue to be publically funded in light of its society-wide positive
economic/environmental benefits and the new EU statutory requirements. Given the
multi-annual nature of the programme, it is further recommended that its budget should
be allocated accordingly;
2. NWPP should develop a new Prevention Plan (to replace the current Plan which ends in
2013) in line with the Waste Framework Directive requirements with full public
consultation with all relevant stakeholders;
3. The Programme Logic Model (c.f. Figure 1) developed as part of this VFM review should
be incorporated into the implementation plan for the new Prevention Programme;
49
4. NWPP should work to maximise its engagement with the business community through
local authorities (LAPN and Enterprise Development Units), IDA, Enterprise Ireland,
SEAI, IBEC, ISME, etc., to promote resource efficiency and savings thus assisting
businesses/SMEs from an economic perspective. Consultation should be conducted with
all relevant stakeholders on how to achieve this collaboratively (including mandatory
REAs, gain sharing etc) as part of the development of the new Prevention Plan;
5. NWPP needs to maximise its engagement with all relevant home, community-based and
local authority (LAPN) resource efficiency projects as a means of achieving cost-savings
and underpinning an innovative more sustainable society in Ireland. The resources and
networking asset of the NWPP Steering Committee for the Programme, as well as social
media techniques should be further ‘exploited’ so as to enhance the return from such
engagement. The NWPP should consider the retention of sociological skills and
expertise necessary to assist in deepening and widening the take-up of the Behavioural
Change ambitions of the programme;
6. NWPP should continue to develop Indicators for Prevention including in consultation with
the European Commission, including indicators/surveys/research to measure progress
to high level objectives, as well as critically assess each project’s design/effectiveness
(including identifying barriers to actualising potential savings);
7. The new Prevention Plan should develop a hierarchy of objectives to define the links
from the high level policy objectives to the more specific target group activities, including
the presentation of an intervention logic in terms of articulated specific activities and
targets; supported – where possible - by baseline indicator values for each target group;
8. NWPP should continue to be developed in adaptive-learning mode to address relevant
emerging challenges including eco-design, re-use, sustainable growth, sustainable
energy/climate change, etc. Best practice arising from other NWPPs within EU and
elsewhere should be adopted;
9. NWPP should continue to work to ensure that Green Public Procurement processes,
and public policy generally, act to support organisations engaging with its prevention
projects (for example, the GPP Action Plan supports the use of businesses engaged
with the Green Hospitality Programme);
10. The NWPP should explore the options for broadening the funding base for the
programme (e.g. co-funding with beneficiaries; fee earned as a percentage of savings
identified; self-financed accreditation schemes; contribution from enterprise agencies;
etc).
50
Appendix 1: Members of the VFM Assessment Steering Committee
Name Role Affiliation
Michael Griffin Chair Petrus Consulting, Brookfield House, Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, Co Dublin
Gerry Byrne Lead Reviewer Programme Manager, RUU EPA, Wexford
Odile Le Bolloch NWPP Stakeholder
Scientific Officer, RUU EPA, Wexford
Dan Harney EPA Stakeholder Finance Officer, OCCS EPA, Wexford
Ronan Mulhall DECLG Stakeholder
Principal Officer, Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government, Wexford
Jonathan Derham NWPP Stakeholder
Acting Programme Manager, RUU EPA, Wexford
Mark Tiernan NWPP Stakeholder
Student Placement, RUU EPA, Wexford
Independent Quality Assessors
Eoin Corrigan Review of preliminary report
Assistant Principal Officer, Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government (Member Value for Money & Policy Reviewers’ Network Committee)
Colm Dunne Quality review of Draft report
Consultant
51
Appendix 2: Approved Terms of Reference
The following Terms of Reference for this Value for Money Review were approved by the
Steering Committee for the review at meetings held on 8th June and 29th August 2012 at EPA
HQ in Wexford.
The Value for Money Review of the EPA National Waste Prevention Programme’s Prevention
Projects will:
1. Identify the EPA NWPP programme objectives;
2. Examine the current validity of the EPA NWPP objectives and their compatibility with the
overall strategy of the EPA and national waste policy objectives;
3. Define the outputs and results associated with the EPA NWPP Prevention Project
activities and identify the level and trend of those outputs/results;
4. Examine the extent that the EPA NWPP’s objectives have been achieved, comment on
the effectiveness with which it has achieved its objectives and on its impacts including
cost base reduction, competitiveness and innovation;
5. Identify the level and trend of costs and staffing resources associated with EPA NWPP
Prevention Projects and comment on the efficiency and economy with which it has
achieved its objectives;
6. Evaluate the degree to which EPA NWPP objectives warrant the allocation of public
funding on a current and ongoing basis and examine the scope for alternative policy or
organisational approaches to achieving these objectives on a more efficient and/or
effective basis (e.g. through international comparison);
7. Specify potential future performance indicators that might be used to better monitor the
performance of EPA NWPP Prevention Projects. Consider the relative performance of
different NWPP Prevention Projects with a view to maximising the overall programme
effectiveness.
52
Appendix 3: National Waste Prevention Committee 2012
Representative Organisation
DrJ Derham, Chairman Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Ronan Mulhall / Mr Pat Fenton /
Ms. Jean Clarke
Department of Environment, Community & Local
Government
Mr. Tom Quinlivan Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food
Ms Orla O’Brien Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation
City & County Managers Association
Ms Anne Murphy Irish Business & Employers’ Confederation
Mr. Brendan Keane Irish Waste Management Association
Mr. Enda Kiernan Chartered Institution of Wastes Management
Ms. Marian Byron Irish Industrial Products Association
Mr. Des Cummins Small Firms Association
Mr. Andrew Cartwright Irish Small Medium Enterprises
Mr. Michael Gillen Pharmachemical Ireland
Mr. Thomas Ryan Irish Farmers Association
Mr. Fred McDarby Enterprise Ireland
Dr. Cathy Maguire Comhar
Mr. Noel Duffy / Mr Tadhg Coakley Clean Technology Centre
Mr. Frank Corcoran Environmental NGOs
Mr. Paul Jevens Chambers of Commerce of Ireland
Ms. Mary Twomey Forfás
Ms. Helen Maher Health Service Executive
Mr. Brendan McDonagh Industrial Development Authority
Mr. Olivier Gaillot Engineers Ireland & rx3
53
Appendix 4/Figure 1: Summary Programme Logic Model: EPA National Waste Prevention Programme Prevention Projects 2004-2012
National Waste & EPA Policy Objectives
Inputs
Activities
Outputs & Results
Impacts & Outcomes
To establish an ambitious and well-resourced programme to deliver substantive results on waste prevention and minimisation across both hazardous and non-hazardous waste arisings EPA: The overall goal is a more efficient use of resources (water, energy and materials)
Improved understanding & implementation of Resource Efficient & Cost-saving behaviours across many sectors. Capacity building: key people/organisations (Prevention Partners) that can help
others to apply Resource Efficient principles and behaviours. More Sustainable Production & Consumption, less waste, reduced Climate Impact, increased competitiveness & innovation,
reduced pressure on the natural environment.
EPA Staff 3.50 FTEs: Projects initiation, oversight and management remuneration/overheads/T&S €3,187,784 (average €354,198 p/a)
Green Business Initiatives
Local Authority Prevention Network
Green Home/ Greening
Communities StopFoodWaste Eco-eye TV series
Packaging Prevention Programme
Cleaner Greener Production Programme
Greenbusiness.ie 121 REAs: Potential to save €4M p/a Greenhospitality.ie. 128 Awards Saved €5.6M p/a Greenhealthcare.ie 60 REAs: Potential to save: €3.7M p/a
Localprevention. ie Project catalogue & toolkit Local prevention experts & facilitators in 17 LAs (50%) 295 REAs Prevention guides
Greenhome.ie
17,000 Households
47,700 People
Potential to save
€320 p/a each (total
€5.44 m)
StopFoodWaste. ie Audience reach of 2 million people 300 Master Composters & 14 Demonstration Sites
General TV: 82
episodes and
audience of 2.2 – 5.1
million people per
annum
Repak’s
Preventandsave. ie
30 REAs
Significant savings
made by Repak
members 2005-2010
Grant aid co-funding
for 24 Irish
businesses engaging
in Eco-design for
Products, Processes
& Services
Resource Efficient Businesses & Organisations
Case Studies
Trained LA personnel
Local know-how to develop & promote
NWPP projects
Green Festivals & Communities
Household resource
efficiency know-how
developed & available
Food waste
prevention &
composting know-
how available
Green behaviour
reinforcement for
general public
Specialised
packaging prevention
know-how available
Case Studies on Eco-
design applied in Irish
based businesses.
Exemplars
€5,508,000 39.10%
€5,026,000 35.68%
€976,000 6.93%
€731,000 5.19%
€600,000 4.26%
€345,000 2.45%
€902,000 6.4%