appendix f - supporting reports and data update

8/3/2019 Appendix F - Supporting Reports and Data Update

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/appendix-f-supporting-reports-and-data-update 1/591

Appendix F

July 2011



LIMITATIONS The preparation of the Waste Assessment has relied on information from multiple sources, including SWAP Analysis from the legacy councils, the Auckland Regional Council Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 2009, permits, contracts, consents, and annual reports. The accuracy of these sources is contingent on the best information available at the time and the degree of disclosure from the Waste Industry. It is not possible to calculate, with any degree of precision, up-to-date tonnage and composition of waste being disposed to landfill in the Auckland region without mandatory industry disclosure. Information has also been sought from landfill and refuse transfer station operators, who have no obligation to supply the requested information. In some instances information has been voluntarily provided, however on others the requests have been declined to supply information for this purpose. Financial analysis and modelling has relied on the best financial information available at the time of drafting of the waste assessment. The proposed way forward, a rigorous analytical stepped process with continuous validation of data, will mitigate the potential for discrepancies / errors in further waste minimisation planning.

Page 1 of 591



Page 2 of 591

APPENDIX F - SUPPORTING REPORTS & DATA UPDATE

1. Auckland Council Waste Assessment data update pg 4

2. Social impacts of user charges for kerbside refuse pg 14

3. Issues papers for the draft Waste Management & Minimisation Plan pg 38

4. Evaluating potential transport inefficiencies in Auckland waste pg 141

5. Waste to energy for Auckland pg 228

6. Report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance – Solid Waste pg 294

7. Reclaiming Auckland’s Resources – A resource recovery network for the

Auckland region

8. Consultation pg 402

a. Analysis of Local Board feedback on draft Waste Management

and Minimisation Plan issues (non-statutory) and copies of Local

Board and other Council feedback pg 403

b. Summary of pre-consultation sessions with waste operators

(non-statutory) pg 505

c. Integrated Report: Public Opinion Research and Engagement pg 515

d. Medical officer of health review of the waste assessment pg 574



SUPPORTING RESEARCH BACKGROUND PAPERS

Page 3 of 591



AUCKLAND COUNCIL WASTE ASSESSMENT DATA UPDATE

WASTENOT – JULY 2011

Page 4 of 591



PAGE 1

Auckland Council

Waste Assessment –Data Update

Prepared for:Auckland Council

Solid Waste Business Unit

August 2011

Page 5 of 591



UPDATE OF DATA –

AUCKLAND COUNCIL WASTE ASSESSMENT

WASTE NOT CONSULTING

Contents

1

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................1 2 CHAPTER 3 – THE WASTE PROBLEM..............................................................................................2

2.1 SECTION 3.2-1 TOTAL WASTE TO LANDFILL .........................................................................................2

2.2 SECTION 3.4-2 COMPOSITION OF WASTE TO LANDFILL ........................................................................3

2.3 SECTION 3.4-4 DOMESTIC KERBSIDE REFUSE IN THE AUCKLAND REGION ..........................................4

2.4 SECTION 3.4-6 COUNCIL DOMESTIC KERBSIDE WASTE COMPOSITION .................................................5

2.5 SECTION 3.5-1 KERBSIDE RECYCLING – TONNAGE AND COMPOSITION ...............................................5

3 CHAPTER 5 – FUTURE DEMAND ........................................................................................................6

3.1 SECTION 5.8-2 FORECASTS....................................................................................................................6

Document quality control

Version Date Written by Approved by Distributed to

Final 1.6 9 August 2011 BM BM MF/PS - AC

Contact Details

Bruce Middleton

DirectorWaste Not Consulting

PO Box 78 372, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1245Ph: 09 360 5188

Email: [email protected]

Page 6 of 591



UPDATE OF DATA –


PAGE 1

1 Introduction

The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requires all territorial authorities to have reviewed their

waste management and minimisation plans by 1 July 2012. Prior to this review, a wasteassessment, as required by s(51) of the Act, must be made.

Development of the Auckland Council waste assessment was initiated in 2009 under theauspices of the Auckland Transition Agency. The waste assessment was finalised in early

2011, with the preferred strategic direction from the waste assessment being taken to thecouncil for consideration in February 2011.

A significant proportion of the waste-related data that was included in the waste assessment

was drawn from a document prepared by the former Auckland Region Council, the Auckland

Waste Stocktake & Strategic Assessment 2009 (ARC Stocktake).1

The ARC Stocktake

document was initiated in mid-2009 and much of the data that it included was, for several

reasons, not up-to-date. As a result, much of the data in the waste assessment is, at the time of writing (July 2011), from three to five years old. Given that the full effects of the 2008 global

economic crisis occurred in the 2009-2010 period, substantial changes in waste generation anddisposal took place between the generation of the data for the ARC Stocktake and the

preparation of the waste assessment.

This document updates the key data contained in the waste assessment. This new data willprovide an updated context for the draft Auckland Council Waste Management and

Minimisation Plan that is expected to be released in the near future.

The structure of this document is based on the structure of the waste assessment. Each section

heading and sub-heading in this update is the same as the relevant chapter in the wasteassessment.

1Wilson, D., Middleton, B., Purchas, C. and Crowcroft, G. (2009) Prepared by Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd,

Waste Not Consulting Ltd, Sinclair Knight Merz for Auckland Regional Council. Auckland Regional Council Technical

Report 2009-107.

Page 7 of 591



UPDATE OF DATA –


PAGE 2

2 Chapter 3 – The waste problem

2.1 Section 3.2-1 Total waste to landfill

The estimates of total waste to landfill used in the waste assessment were taken from the 2009ARC Stocktake report. The tonnages in the ARC Stocktake report were based on information

provided by the landfill operators to Auckland Regional Council specifically for the project.

The ARC Stocktake does not contain tonnages for individual landfills, but only aggregate

figures for all facilities. The tonnages for individual landfills in Table 3.2-1 of the waste

assessment were based on other data sources that have not been made available for the

preparation of this update.

To provide the necessary information for this update while preserving the commercial-

sensitivity of the data, Auckland Council engaged an independent third party to collect andanalyse historical and current information from the three major landfill operators in the

Auckland region (Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd – Redvale landfill, EnviroWasteServices Ltd – Hampton Downs landfill, and Waste Disposal Services – Whitford landfill).

Tonnage for Auckland Council’s Claris landfill was provided separately by the council.

The information collected by the independent third party was provided to Auckland Council inaggregated form so tonnages from individual landfills could not be identified. The information

included tonnages to landfill from both inside and outside the Auckland region, special wastesand general wastes, and levy-paid and non-levy paid wastes.

In Table 2.1, the aggregate tonnages provided to Auckland Council by the independent thirdparty are identified in the second row as “Updated tonnages”. The tonnage for Claris landfill

has been added to this total for the 2010 data as Claris landfill was included in the 2007-2008

data.

Table 2.1 – Updated tonnages to landfill from Auckland region

Total tonnes of waste to landfill fromAuckland region

1 July 2007 to30 June 2008

1 January 2010 to31 December 2010

ARC Stocktake report and AucklandCouncil waste assessment

1,396,432 N/A

Updated tonnages 1,373,307 1,174,078

The tonnage used in the ARC Stocktake report for 2007-2008 was within 2% of the updated

tonnage for that period. The updated tonnage for 2010 indicates a 15% decrease in waste tolandfill during the two-year period (based on the updated tonnages for both periods). This

two-year period corresponds to the first two years following the global financial crisis thatbegan in 2008.

Page 8 of 591



UPDATE OF DATA –


PAGE 3

Per capita annual disposal figures for the Auckland region are presented in Table 3.2-2 of the

waste assessment. Using Statistics NZ medium population projections for the Aucklandpopulation in 2010, the updated figures are shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 – Updated tonnes per capita per annum of waste to landfill

Per capita per annumtonnes to landfill

2002-2003 2007-2008 2010

Tonnes to landfill 1,050,000 1,396,432 1,174,078

Population of Auckland region 1,296,000 1,414,700 1,463,000

Tonnes per capita per annum 0.810 0.987 0.803

In accordance with the reduction in total waste to landfill, which is associated with the global

financial crisis, the per capita disposal of waste decreased between 2007-2008 and 2010 from0.987 tonnes per capita to 0.803 tonnes per capita. The per capita reduction was on the order

of 19%.

2.2 Section 3.4-2 Composition of waste to landfill

The composition of waste to landfill in Table 3.4-1 of the waste assessment was taken from the

ARC Stocktake report and was based on 2006 surveys of the composition of waste being

disposed of at Redvale and Whitford landfills. The surveys are undertaken regularly as part of

the former Auckland Regional Council’s resource consent conditions for the facilities and arein the public domain.

Since the 2009 writing of the ARC Stocktake report, a waste composition survey at Redvale

landfill has been conducted and reported to the former Auckland Regional Council. By usingthe same methodology for calculating the composition of waste to all landfills as was used inthe ARC Stocktake (which used the composition of “general” waste at Redvale as a surrogate

composition for the “general” waste at Hampton Downs landfill), the composition in Table 2.3

on the next page has been calculated. The categories used for the composition are those

recommended by the Ministry for the Environment’s Solid Waste Analysis Protocol 2002.

Page 9 of 591



UPDATE OF DATA –


PAGE 4

Table 2.3 – Estimated composition of Auckland region waste to landfill in 2010

Waste category Tonnes/year % of total

Paper 96,404 8.2%

Plastics 94,215 8.0%

Organics 228,069 19.4%

Ferrous metals 51,596 4.4%

Non-ferrous metals 8,638 0.7%

Glass 24,449 2.1%

Textiles 45,783 3.9%

Nappies & sanitary 37,962 3.2%

Rubble, concrete, etc. 109,886 9.4%

Timber 171,093 14.6%Rubber 10,721 0.9%

Potentially hazardous 295,264 25.1%

Total 1,174,078 100.0%

2.3 Section 3.4-4 Domestic kerbside refuse in the Auckland region

In Table 3.4-3 of the waste assessment, the total waste stream is broken down into

“Commercial waste” and “Domestic (kerbside) waste”. For this update, in Table 2.4 below the

“Domestic (kerbside) waste” figure has been calculated by adding the most recent extrapolated

annual tonnage of Auckland Council kerbside refuse collections and an estimate of annual

tonnage collected by private waste operators.

The tonnage of Auckland Council kerbside refuse has been updated using an annualised

tonnage based on data from the first eight months since the formation of Auckland Council.The private operators’ tonnage is based on licensed operator data from the former North Shore,

Rodney, and Waitakere areas and various data sources and estimates for the other areas. The

private operators’ tonnage used in the calculations is the best estimate available at the time of

writing.

Table 2.4 – Sources of waste to landfills in the Auckland region

Source Tonnes/annum2010

% of total2010

% of total2008

Commercial waste 925,488 79% 84%

Domestic (kerbside) waste 248,590 21% 16%

Total waste 1,174,078 100% 100%

The proportion of kerbside waste in the overall waste to landfill has increased substantially

since 2008. This is associated with the effects of the global financial crisis. In general,economic downturns result in a greater proportional reduction of commercial waste than of

kerbside refuse.

Page 10 of 591



UPDATE OF DATA –


PAGE 5

2.4 Section 3.4-6 Council domestic kerbside waste composition

The tonnage and composition of Auckland Council kerbside refuse in Table 3.4-5 of the waste

assessment have been updated using an annualised tonnage based on data from the first eightmonths since the formation of Auckland Council and composition data from the most recent

waste composition surveys.

Table 2.5 – Auckland Council domestic kerbside waste composition

Waste category Tonnes/annum % of total

Paper 20,526 10.5%

Plastics 21,816 11.2%

Organics 108,036 55.5%

Ferrous metals 3,946 2.0%

Non-ferrous metals 1,358 0.7%

Glass 3,534 1.8%

Textiles 7,118 3.7%

Nappies & sanitary 22,915 11.8%

Rubble, concrete, etc. 2,141 1.1%

Timber 1,519 0.8%

Rubber 205 0.1%

Potentially hazardous 1,449 0.7%

Total 194,564 100.0%

2.5 Section 3.5-1 Kerbside recycling – tonnage and composition

The tonnage and composition of kerbside recycling included in the Table 3.5-1 of the waste

assessment were taken directly from the ARC Stocktake report. For the updated data in Table

2.6, the tonnages have been updated based on annualising the first 8 months of Auckland

Council data for total recyclable materials and contamination. The composition of recyclablematerials is the same as used in the waste assessment and has not been updated.

Table 2.6 – Domestic kerbside recycling quantities for the Auckland region

Tonnes/annum % of total

HDPE 2,103 1.5%

PET 2,440 1.8%

Mixed plastic 2,992 2.2%

Subtotal plastics 7,552 5.5%

Aluminium cans 616 0.4%

Steel cans 3,475 2.5%

Paper/cardboard 65,122 47.4%

Glass 54,855 39.9%

Contamination 5,762 4.2%

Total 137,383 100.0%

Page 11 of 591



UPDATE OF DATA –


PAGE 6

3 Chapter 5 – Future demand

3.1 Section 5.8-2 Forecasts

The forecasts of waste to landfill in the waste assessment were based on three separate factors:

• Recorded waste data – projections were made based on data from a five-year period

• Population growth – Statistics NZ medium population growth scenario for Auckland

Council

• GDP growth – an estimated 3% annual increase in GDP was used as the basis for the same

growth in waste to landfill

The analysis of recorded landfill data has been changed from the waste assessment with theuse of an extended dataset of waste to landfill.. In Figure 3.1 below this extended historicaldataset, which dates to 1984

2, has been graphed and a linear trendline calculated. The data

used for the figure also includes the tonnages given in Table 3.2-2 in the waste assessment andTable 2.2 in this document.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 8

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 8

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 8

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 4

2 0 1 6

2 0 1 8

2 0 2 0

2 0 2 2

2 0 2 4

2 0 2 6

2 0 2 8

2 0 3 0

2 0 3 2

T o n n e s

t o

l a n d f i l l

Historical data

Linear trendline

Figure 3.1 – Auckland region waste to landfill – recorded data projections

The historical data clearly shows the effect of the economic downturn of the early 1990s and

the global financial crisis of 2008. If the trend from 1984-2010 continues, by 2021 1.7 milliontonnes of waste will be disposed of to landfill annually.

2Auckland Regional Waste Stream Report 1995 ARC Technical Publication no. 72 1996

Page 12 of 591



UPDATE OF DATA –


PAGE 7

The data from the trendline in Figure 3.1 has been included in the combined projections shown

in Figure 3.2, which updates Figure 5.8-2 in the waste assessment. The figure includesprojections based on the following:

• Recorded waste data – trendline taken from Figure 3.1. This varies markedly from the‘Recorded data’ projection in Figure 5.8-2 of the waste assessment because a larger historicaldataset has been used.

• Population growth – Statistics NZ medium population growth scenario for Auckland

Council. This is the same as used in Figure 5.8-2 of the waste assessment.

• GDP growth – an estimate of 3% annual increase in GDP has been applied to the wastetonnages for 2009-2010. This is the same as in Figure 5.8-2 of the waste assessment and

assumes that waste disposal is directly proportional to changes in GDP.

900,000

1,100,000

1,300,000

1,500,000

1,700,000

1,900,000

2,100,000

2,300,000

2,500,000

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 4

2 0 1 7

2 0 2 0

2 0 2 3

2 0 2 6

2 0 2 9

2 0 3 2

T o n n e s / a n n u m

Medium population growth 3%GDP growth Historical trendline

Figure 3.2 – Auckland region waste to landfill – overall projections

By 2032, the historical data trendline and the 3% GDP growth projection produce similar

waste forecasts of 2.1-2.3 million tonnes to landfill annually. This is equivalent to

approximately a 1.6% annual increase in waste disposal per capita.

Page 13 of 591



SOCIAL IMPACTS OF USER CHARGES FOR KERBSIDE REFUSEAUCKLAND COUNCIL SOCIAL & ECONOMIC RESEARCH TEAM

RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING UNIT – JULY 2011

Page 14 of 591



1/23

SOCIAL IMPACTS OF USER CHARGESFOR KERBSIDE REFUSE

Prepared by Ross Wilson, AnalystSocial and Economic Research TeamResearch, Investigations & Monitoring UnitJuly 2011

Page 15 of 591



2/23

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The literature indicates that a shift to user charges1 for refuse could be expected tohave both beneficial and adverse social impacts, as follows:

Beneficial social impacts:• Polluter pays encourages greater recycling and refuse reduction.• Refuse reduction should benefit the environment for all of the community.• Employment should be stimulated in the recycling industry, helping unskilled

labour find gainful work and income.• Total solid waste costs to the community should fall, freeing up the community’s

funds for other pressing needs.• Equity will improve in the sense that those who directly generate refuse will

directly pay for it.• Small households and those who recycle more will have reduced costs.

Adverse social impacts:• Illegal dumping could increase – although past experience elsewhere suggests it

should be minor.

• Former Auckland City households have similar or higher incomes and similarrefuse generation, so affordability should be similar to the rest of the region.

• Former Manukau City has a higher proportion of high refuse generatinghouseholds, so affordability could be a greater problem – although less than 14percent might pay $8 or more per week, and less than 4 percent might pay $12 ormore per week.

• Tenants in the former Auckland City will face an initial cost increase similar totenants in the rest of the region.

• Former Manukau City has a higher proportion of tenants (33 percent ofhouseholds), so there could be more people affected by the shift, in the shortterm (although the average amount is only $4 a week). Longer term, it shouldbecome part of the rent versus services rental package.

• Special circumstances may apply to certain user groups, such as remote andrural households, community organisations and apartment blocks.

2 INTRODUCTION

This paper is a high level and narrowly focussed Social Impact Assessment of thelikely main effects of introducing user charges to the two remaining former cities ofthe Auckland region that don’t already have them for kerbside refuse collection. Itshould be viewed in the wider context of the Draft Auckland Waste Management andMinimisation Plan, which also includes proposed measures to further support andencourage alternatives such as recycling.

The former Auckland and Manukau Cities have 55 percent of the region’s population,and are the only former cities of the Auckland region that don’t already havehousehold user charges as the main funding for household kerbside refusecollection. Instead, the cost is currently built into their property rates - $30.6 millionper annum (including inorganic), which is $189/year per dwelling for Auckland and$258/year for Manukau (including GST).

1The phrase “user charges” is in this report used inter-changeably with user pays, polluter pays, PAYT

(Pay As You Throw) and direct charges – see Appendix One.

Page 16 of 591



3/23

In Manukau, residents are permitted to set out, at no direct cost, an unlimited numberof refuse bags per household for the weekly collection. In Auckland, each dwelling isprovided with a 120-litre wheeled bin, which is emptied weekly. Both Manukau andAuckland collections are funded through rates paid by the property owner rather thandirectly by the householder.

3 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

The report begins by describing the different methods to calculate user charges. Nextthe report looks at international and local evidence of the beneficial impacts on and ofrecycling (including employment generation) and reduction of refuse. Illegal dumpingis also addressed. Then the report considers the prevalence of large, high refusegenerating and low income households. Next the report looks at the issue of shiftingthe cost from landlords to tenants. Lastly, the report considers users with specialcircumstances such as rural locations, then finishes with some concluding remarks.

4 TYPES OF USER CHARGE FOR POLLUTER PAYS REGIME

If Council decides to introduce polluter pays user charges to the entire region, then ithas several options available. The practicality of each of the charging options isaffected by the form of refuse collection.

The two main forms of refuse collection are bins and bags, usually collected weekly.Bins are typically 120 litre, which is twice the volume of a standard 60 litre bag. Mosthouseholds only require 1 bin per week, or less, but some need more. There are fourmain user charge systems available for bins and bags:• Weekly charge per bin• Bin charge by weight or volume• Bin charge per pickup• Bags charge per bag

Weekly charge per bin

If bins are charged for weekly, then most households would pay the same regardlessof actual usage, and it is very similar to the current targeted rate rather than a “true”user charge that is proportional to usage.

The main difference is that low-usage households would have the option of optingout of the system and making their own arrangements. Average cost for theremaining participants would increase correspondingly. In theory, the process of lossof market share could continue until council served only the highest usagehouseholds, at a correspondingly high cost and high weekly charge

(Another difference is that in rental properties, the user charge is paid directly by thehouseholder to Council, whereas currently in Auckland and Manukau it is paid by thelandlord and becomes just one of many costs to be recovered via the rent.)

To be more like a “true” user charge, the bins would need to be charged for either byweight (or volume) or per pickup.

Bin charge by weight or volumeCharging for kerbside refuse collection• by weight requires costly monitoring and invoicing systems (and has already

been rejected by all of the previous Auckland councils)

Page 17 of 591



4/23

• by volume could only be done by coarse categories of bin size, and would limitflexibility of response to a household’s changing requirements

• encourages frequent storage of refuse for more than a week – and sometimes formore than two weeks

o (potential nuisance and hygiene issues);

Bin charge per pickupCharging for bins per pickup is a fairly accurate user charge, but has the followingdrawbacks:• households that reduce their refuse, but put out a partly full bin, still pay the same

for it• encourages frequent storage of refuse for more than a week – and sometimes for

more than two weekso (potential nuisance and hygiene issues);

• requires households to estimate whether remaining bin space will last for anotherweek

o (risk of surplus refuse needing storage with no bin)

Bags charge per bag

User charges for bags are on a per-bag basis, either pre-purchased or via stickers.These are the simplest types of systems and are the most widely used in NewZealand. Most households put out one or two 60 litre bags, and sometimes none.(North Shore also offers 40 litre bags, which are cheaper to buy, but more expensiveon a per litre basis.) The charge is only an approximation to usage, in that the chargeis the same per bag regardless of how full the bag is. However, there is theopportunity to keep it for a week until it is fuller.

System “Accuracy” (Sensitivity)In general, the smaller the increments that are able to be charged by the system, themore price sensitivity there is within the system. Fixed weekly charges or volumebased systems are the least price sensitive, while weight based are the most pricesensitive, with bag and pay per pickup systems in between.

5 RECYCLING - INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE

User pays for refuse will encourage more recycling and less residual disposal tolandfill. International evidence suggests a reduction in refuse of around 15 percent, ofwhich about half is from increased recycling. Internationally, “Experts disagree aboutthe effect of variable collection fees on household waste disposal behaviour, as wellas the seriousness of possible side-effects.”2 The main emphasis of internationalresearch is on disposal behaviour (especially reduction and recycling) and on illegaldumping as a side effect; the main negative social issues of potential financialimpacts on tenants and on high volume lower income households are acknowledgedbut seldom analysed impartially in detail.

USAIn the USA, for example, the national Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)emphasises the effect of “PAYT” (Pay As You Throw, another term for user pays) ona community’s waste reduction and recycling. “It gives them an incentive to reducewaste, and it can be very effective: after implementing PAYT, communities typicallyreport reductions in waste amounts of 25 to 35 percent, including significant

2 Bauer, Scott and Marie Lynn Miranda. 1996. The urban performance of unit pricing: An analysis of variable rates

for residential garbage collection in urban areas . Report prepared for the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation;The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Page 18 of 591



5/23

increases in recycling. To date, nearly 2,000 communities across the country havesuccessfully implemented PAYT.”3

The US EPA’s focus for the social impact is on transparency and on rewardingreduction, reuse and recycling. “One of the most important advantages may be thefairness PAYT offers to community residents. When the cost of managing trash ishidden in taxes, or charged at a flat rate, residents who recycle and prevent wasteend up subsidizing their neighbours’ wastefulness. Under this kind of program,residents pay only for what they throw away.”4

EuropeIn Europe, PAYT schemes have until recently been less popular and widespreadthan in the USA. The main exceptions are Switzerland, former East Germany and toa lesser extent Scandinavia, Netherlands, former West Germany and Italy. Aslandfills become more scarce and costly, however, there appears to be increasingacceptance of PAYT in Europe. A recent study5 found that individual incentives forwaste diversion efforts have increased the recognition of pay-as-you-throw (PAYT)as an effective instrument for recycling-oriented waste management and financing.On this basis, PAYT has become a practical reality in an increasing number ofcountries in Europe. Even countries with traditional reservations for direct charginghave started to make consideration of PAYT part of the revision of their nationalpolicy programmes.

Waste reduction complexitiesIn terms of calculating the waste reduction impacts of polluter-pays systems it shouldbe noted that, while charging will reduce the quantity of residual waste collected, howthat reduction is comprised can be quite complex. For example a report in theNetherlands by Proietti cites a study conducted for the VROM (The NetherlandsMinistry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment) by KPMG in 1995-1996.This reported a 12 percent to 30 percent reduction in household refuse owing topolluter-pays schemes, including:• 6 percent to 8 percent due to improved sorting (for recycling) by householders

• 3 percent to 10 percent due to ‘unintended activity’ (such as ‘waste tourism’, illegaldumping etc)• 3 percent to 12 percent due to genuine prevention measures (calculated).

This indicates that polluter pays systems ‘squeeze’ waste in a number of directions.The users’ response will vary according to a range of factors including scheme type,the availability of alternative routes, education, and enforcement. The literature doeshowever clearly show that charging for household waste moves material from refuseto kerbside recycling. Beyond this however, changes in flows of material caused bycharging schemes (and corresponding financial and social impacts) are generallypoorly understood.

Waitakere City Refuse Reduction Impact of Polluter Pays

3 Pay-As-You-Throw Success Stories, EPA530-F-97-007 April 1997, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W),4 Ibid

5 Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe – A review of pilot research and implementationstudies, Jan Reichenbach, Waste Management Volume 28, Issue 12 December 2008,

Page 19 of 591



6/23

The international findings are consistent with the local experience of the formerWaitakere City when they introduced user pays. For the former Waitakere City, Table1 below compares the domestic refuse bag data from the twelve audits that havebeen conducted since the introduction of user-pays bags in 1999. Mean weight perset out and number of bags per set out have fallen over 15 percent in 11 years, onlya fraction of which is due to reduction in average household size. Virtually all of the15 percent reduction was in the first three years following introduction of user pays,supported by the introduction of kerbside recycling at the same time.

Table 1 – Waitakere City changes in refuse over time

Mean # bagsper set out

Mean weightper bag

Mean weightper set out

1999 1.69 6.56 kg 11.09 kg

2000 1.61 6.87 kg 11.06 kg

2001 1.45 6.78 kg 9.83 kg

2002 1.38 6.98 kg 9.60 kg

2003 1.49 6.88 kg 10.27 kg

2004 1.55 6.68 kg 10.37 kg

2005 1.47 6.83 kg 10.08 kg

2006 1.52 6.59 kg 10.02 kg

2007 1.44 6.55 kg 9.44 kg

2008 1.46 6.98 kg 10.12 kg

2009 1.39 6.94 kg 9.61 kg

2010 1.36 6.67 kg 9.03 kg

6 SOCIAL BENEFITS OF INCREASED RECYCLING

Given that recycling is more labour intensive than landfilling, the net result will be anincrease in overall employment in the solid waste sector. The additional jobs will tendto be largely unskilled, which will tend to benefit low-income households (being theones that include unskilled labourforce, for which demand has now increased).

Job creation example Bristol CityBristol City, in England, estimated6 that enhanced recycling could generate between46 and 71 additional direct jobs, for a city of 400,000 people - larger than the formerManukau City but comparable to the former Auckland City. They note that “Most ofthe jobs will be in the manual or unskilled sector involving recycling materials andcompostable materials collection and sorting and driver or plant operation type work.”The jobs created include two new waste parks, where the new jobs “would be to sortand recycle the waste delivered by householders”.

Job creation Auckland region

6Draft Household Waste Management Strategy for Bristol, Bristol City Council, 2000

Page 20 of 591



7/23

A survey of the main recycling firms in the Auckland region in 19987 found that over1,700 employees were already directly involved in recycling in the Auckland region.Gross turnover of those businesses was $132 million. However, only 6 percent oftheir materials were from household kerbside collection, with a further 9 percent fromresidential/private pick up and 8 percent collected from residential drop-offs; the mainsources were 62 percent from the commercial and institutional sectors, and 15percent were from in-house or other collection.

By 2005, a new survey8 found that the sector had grown to 1,908 employees, withassociated gross turnover of $147 million. The new survey did not quantify materialssources.

Job creation example CaliforniaThe state of California is an example of what can be achieved with the recyclingindustry. A recent report9 found that “California has created a mainstream industry ofstatewide importance comprised of 5,300 business operations employing more than85,000 workers and generating $4 billion in salaries and wages along with $10 billionworth of goods and services annually.” California’s population of 37 million is 26times that of the Auckland region, which suggests Auckland could potentially have

over 3,000 workers employed in the recycling sector.

Intrinsic benefits of recyclingA report by Covec10 notes that in New Zealand, some members of the communityvalue recycling and waste reduction for its own sake, regardless of any othereconomic or social benefits; amongst other reasons, because such activity is viewedas consistent with a less consumerist society. This suggests that they are preparedto incur additional costs to obtain additional recycling.

7 EQUITY: FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO HOUSEHOLDS THAT RECYCLE MORE

Financial benefits to households that recycle more

Rates-funded systems disadvantage households that recycle more, by not rewardingthem relative to households that don’t recycle. They pay the same rate regardless.Similarly, the existing rates funded regime is regressive, in the sense that lowerincome households currently pay the same fixed weekly rate as wealthierhouseholds; the poorer households are paying a higher proportion of their income,and with no opportunity to avoid or reduce the cost.

Under user pays, the cost to the household will depend on the amount of refuse putout. With the switch to user charges, a household that recycles more could makesubstantial savings. Lower income households will have an opportunity to reducetheir costs, by putting out less refuse. They can reduce, re-use and recycle more, toreduce the amount of refuse generated per person. (In fact, the empirical evidencesuggests high and medium income households are also likely to reduce their refuse

under user charges; the link to income is only weak)

7Survey of Recycling Businesses in the Auckland Region, Waste Not Limited, Prepared for Zero

Waste New Zealand, 19988

Auckland Recycling Industry Study, Envision New Zealand Ltd, 20059 Identifying Opportunity In The Green Economy - Waste Industry, LURA Consulting, Prepared for

North Simcoe County, 201010

Potential Impacts of the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill: Update Report, Covec, Prepared for

Packaging Council of New Zealand, May 2008

Page 21 of 591



8/23

To the extent that recycling is self funding, or at least cheaper than landfilling, thenthose savings are net benefits for the community as a whole.

To the extent that reduction and recycling is cheaper than refuse disposal, user payswill reduce total costs of solid waste management. The financial benefit can be spenton desired goods and services to generate additional benefits at an individual orcommunity level – which could also include a wider range of resource recoveryinitiatives throughout the community.

8 EQUITY: FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO SMALL HOUSEHOLDS

Financial benefits to small householdsWhile a polluter-pays system can be seen as disadvantaging large households onlow incomes, a rates-funded system disadvantages small households on lowincomes. In the former Auckland City, a small household generating a very smallamount of residual refuse pays the same targeted rate each year ($164.44 plus GSTfor 2010/2011) as a household making maximum use of the kerbside services.Depending on their demand, a small household could save $50 a year or more withthe switch to user charges.

The same applies in the former Manukau City, where nearly 40 percent ofhouseholds have only 1 or 2 occupants.

9 ILLEGAL DUMPING PROBLEMS

Illegal dumping in the region While it might be anticipated that changes to a kerbside refuse collection system,particularly those that involve an increase in cost to householders, might result inincreased illegal dumping, this has not been the experience of councils in theAuckland region. When the former Waitakere City and Papakura District Councilschanged from rates-funded to polluter-pays refuse collections in 1999 and 2006

respectively there were no noticeable increases in illegal dumping. In both caseshowever the change-over was accompanied by a public education campaign and awell-funded enforcement programme. In fact both councils took a zero toleranceapproach to illegal dumping which prevented any increase.

When the former Auckland City Council trialled the introduction of 120-litre wheeliebins as replacements for the existing 240-litre bins, no increase in illegal dumpingwas detected in the trial areas.

Waste TourismA similar problem to illegal dumping is ‘waste tourism’, particularly when areas usingdifferent funding systems are in close geographical proximity. Residents of the formerPapakura District, for example, can avoid polluter-pays bag charges by dumping their

refuse bags in the nearby Manukau City, where the collection is rates-funded. Acommon polluter-pays system across the region will largely avoid this.

Lack of International EvidenceA review by Covec11 finds that there is little empirical evidence of unauthorisedtipping in response to increased landfill disposal prices or unit charging for collectionand disposal; this does not suggest that it does not occur, just that it has been little

11 Potential Impacts of the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill: Update Report, Covec, Prepared forPackaging Council of New Zealand, May 2008

Page 22 of 591



9/23

studied. Covec note that a recent OECD report had numerous references to theissue, for example, but these are largely theoretical and anecdotal.

Illegal dumping in the USA In the USA, a review12of nationwide studies found that illegal dumping is not aproblem for the vast majority of municipalities that implement PAYT programs. Ingeneral, there is not an increase in roadside rubbish as a result of PAYT programs.Typically, the problems with illegal dumping stay the same – “if you had it before theprogram, you may still have it”. And, it is more common for bulky items – such astyres and sofas. – to be abandoned than it is for common household refuse.

10 FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLDS

Financial Costs Current SituationUser charges will encourage people to reduce, re-use and recycle more and throwaway less, and so should reduce the TOTAL cost to the affected communities.However, the change-over will alter the distribution of who pays how much – so therewill be some adverse financial effects, as well as some households that pay less.

Table 2 shows the 2010/11 solid waste weekly rates component of the areas of theregion covered by each of the former councils on a household basis, plus the polluterpays charges imposed by the councils.

Table 2: Solid waste weekly rates component per household

Former Council Weekly Rates Bag PriceManukau City $4.31 n/aAuckland City $3.06 n/aPapakura District $2.67 $1.30Rodney District $1.53 [varies]North Shore City $0.77 $1.80

Franklin District $1.01 $2.00Waitakere City (-$0.32) $2.00

Currently, the amount a household pays for refuse collection (including inorganics) isfixed for Manukau City at $258/year ($4.31 weekly or $224/year, plus GST) and forAuckland City at $189/year ($3.06 weekly or $164.44/year, plus GST).

Financial Impacts on Low income householdsAs with other council services, a major concern related to polluter-pays funding ofkerbside refuse collections is the effect on the least affluent of households. In a rates-funded system, the costs of kerbside refuse services are either shared equallyamongst all properties, through a targeted rate, or, if the service is funded through

general rates, distributed relative to the rates paid on the property.

In a completely polluter-pays funding system, it is the households that dispose of themost waste that pay the highest costs. As the most important factor in the amount ofwaste generated by a household has been found to be the number of people living inthat household, this means that it is generally the largest households that generatethe most waste.

12 Smart (Pay-As-You-Throw) Implementation Handbook, Connecticut Department Of EnvironmentalProtection, Reprinted 2004.

Page 23 of 591



10/23

11 REFUSE VOLUMES PER HOUSEHOLD

The cost per household of shifting to polluter pays for refuse generation by ManukauCity and Auckland City households can be benchmarked against former cities in theregion that have already shifted to primarily polluter pays, specifically North ShoreCity and Waitakere City.13

North Shore and WaitakereFor the former North Shore City, nearly 70 percent of participating households set outa single bag of refuse, and the overall average was 1.5 bags. Less than 5 percent setout 4 bags or more.

For the former Waitakere City, the number of bags set out per household overallaverage was 1.4 bags (for households that set out any refuse that week) Over two-thirds of households set out a single bag of refuse, and less than 3 percent set out 4or more.

Former Auckland CityIn the former Auckland City, over a third of all properties set out an average of 91 to120 litres of refuse each week. (Equivalent to 2 bags). Most of the remainder set out90 litres or less. Only 15 percent set out an average of more than the 120 litre (2 bag)capacity of the MGB each week14.

Only 3 percent of properties set out more than 140 litres of refuse. The implicationsare that at least 85 percent of Auckland City users would need only two 60 litre bagsper week; up to 12 percent would need 3 bags per week; and the remaining 3percent would need 3 bags or more per week.

Overall, households in the former Auckland City set out the same volume or less asWaitakere and North Shore households.

Former Manukau CityIn the former Manukau City, a recent survey found that the number of bags set out ina given week varied from none to more than 10. The overall average set out(including zeroes) was 1.8 bags.

Average set out rate (i.e. one or more bags rather than none) in any given week was79.9%. The average number of bags set out (when any were) was 2.38 bags15. Onthe occasions on which bagged refuse was set out:• only one bag was placed at kerbside 40.4 percent of the time.• two bags were set out 27.8 percent of the time,• three bags were set out in 14.1 percent of instances.• four or more bags were set out 17.7 percent of the time.• six bags or more were set out 5 percent of the time

Manukau high volumes versus other parts of the region

13See Appendix Two: Refuse Costs (Quantities) Per Household

14While this would appear to indicate that the 120-litre capacity MGB is only marginally adequate for

many properties, the Auckland survey was done before the introduction of recycling wheelie bins. The

new recycling wheelie bins provide households with a greater volume capacity for recycling than was

previously available.15

This compares with an average bag set out rate of 2.22 bags as recorded by the Solid Waste Analysis

of domestic refuse undertaken for Manukau City Council in October 2010.

Page 24 of 591



11/23

The proportion of households setting out four bags or more in a given week were asfollows:• North Shore 5 percent• Waitakere 3 percent• Auckland city 3 percent• Manukau 18 percent

Clearly, Manukau has a much higher proportion of households that are setting outhigher than average quantities of refuse.

Manukau variations in weekly average volumesFor a given household, the amount of refuse set out in a given week can vary. Theaverage number of bags for each household over a period of time will necessarilyshow less variation and fewer extremes than the above snapshot of a single week.Unfortunately, data for weekly average set-out of bags (or kilograms) is not availablefor given households over a period of several weeks for Manukau. However, theoverall picture seems to suggest that Manukau households put out more refuse thanother parts of the region. Similarly, the likelihood is that Manukau will have a higherproportion of high refuse generating households.

As a “worst case scenario” we could assume that high set out households had novariation, in which case their share of households is simply their share of set-outmultiplied by the set out rate of 79.9 percent:• four bags or more for up to 14 percent of households ($8/week at $2/bag)• six bags or more for up to 4 percent of households ($12/week at $2/bag)

(These estimates take no account of reduced demand due to increased recycling.)

In order to cross-check likely proportions of consistently high refusing generatinghouseholds, the next section looks at the distribution of household sizes.

12 HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS

The most important determinant of a household’s refuse quantities is household size.Larger households tend to put out more refuse, simply because there are morepeople generating refuse. (There are other influences, such as householdcomposition and demographics (eg babies using disposable nappies), but theirimpacts have been found to be relatively minor.)

According to the latest census16, the average household sizes (number of usualresidents) are as follows:• Auckland Region: 2.93• Auckland City: 2.73• Manukau City: 3.42

Auckland city households are slightly smaller than the regional average, whichconfirms that their problems of high refuse generating households are likely to becomparable to the rest of the region that already has polluter pays.

Manukau City households have on average 16 percent more occupants than theregional average, which suggests moderately higher refuse generation. (Their refuse

162006 Census, Number of Usual Residents in Household

Page 25 of 591



12/23

generation per person is also higher, but only by a similarly moderate proportion, andthat could reduce if recycling increases.)

However, concealed within the averages is the fact that Manukau has substantiallymore large and very large households, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Household Size Distributions By Former City

AucklandRegion

AucklandCity Manukau

One Usual Resident 82,825 19.1% 33141 23.2% 12,941 13.7%

Two Usual Residents 130,697 30.1% 44338 31.0% 23,623 25.1%

Three Usual Residents 78,199 18.0% 25383 17.7% 16,970 18.0%

Four Usual Residents 75,857 17.5% 22621 15.8% 18,130 19.2%

Five Usual Residents 36,413 8.4% 9957 7.0% 10,585 11.2%

Six Usual Residents 15,507 3.6% 4098 2.9% 5,478 5.8%

Seven Usual Residents 6,854 1.6% 1747 1.2% 2,949 3.1%

Eight or More Usual Residents 7,295 1.7% 1720 1.2% 3,605 3.8%

Total 433,647 100.0% 143005 100.0% 94,281 100.0%

In particular, 6.9 percent of Manukau’s households have 7 or 8 or more residents(namely double the size of the average Manukau household). This proportion is twiceas many as the 3.3 percent for the region as a whole These large households couldbe seen as a proxy for the four bags average set out households (namely at leastdouble the 1.8 bag average set out), who would face costs of $8 a week or more.

Household size versus incomeManukau household incomes are not correspondingly higher to reflect their greateroccupancy (and refuse generation) – in fact average household income is slightlylower• Auckland Region: $63,400• Auckland City: $66,100• Manukau City: $62,300

Similarly, Manukau City as a whole has a comparable distribution of householdincomes to the region as a whole. The proportion of low income households is notless, despite the larger average household size. Consequently, households inManukau are generally providing for more people for the same money. Income perresident (including children) is correspondingly lower relative to the rest of the region.The implication is that affordability is likely to be an issue for a larger proportion ofManukau residents than for the rest of the region.

The detailed correlation between household size, refuse generation and income is

not known, but indicative data is available at the former ward level, as shown in Table4.

Table 4 Manukau Income Distribution versus Refuse Generatiion

Clevedon Howick Mangere Manurewa Otara Pakuranga Papatoe AverageMedian HHincome 59,120 58,969 41,385 47,324 43,248 53,220 38,769 48,441RefuseKgs/Hh/Wk 10.06 7.95 12.28 10.31 13.09 7.86 8.69 9.75

Page 26 of 591



13/23

Income:Refuse$/Kg 5,877 7,417 3,370 4,590 3,304 6,771 4,461 4,968

Income/Kg as% of average 118% 149% 68% 92% 66% 136% 90% 100%

Relative to the rest of Manukau, households in Otara and Mangere tend to havelower incomes and higher refuse generation.

13 WHO PAYS – TENANT OR LANDLORD

In most cases for rented properties, introduction of user pays refuse collection shiftsthe responsibility for refuse payment from landlord to tenant. Under the currentuniform waste charge, landlords generally pay this expense. Experience in othercouncils where user pays has been introduced show that the tenant pays the cost ofbuying refuse bags, and no compensation is made, initially at least, through anyimmediate direct lowering of rentals by landlords to compensate for the change.

Manukau City Tenant ConcentrationsThe area that was formerly Manukau City, in particular, has significant proportions of

households (33 percent or 27,012 households17) that are tenanted. Introduction ofuser pays will therefore impose new costs on approximately a third of thatcommunity. The concentration of rental properties varies in different locations acrossManukau City. Table 5 summarises variation based on the old ward system, andindicates the range from 47 percent of households tenanted in Otara to 20 percent inHowick.

Table 5 Percentage of Householders Renting

(Source: Based on Statistics NZ – Census 2001adjusted to 2002)

Of those renting, 73 percent live in Mangere, Manurewa, Otara and Papatoetoe.

Tenant Incomes and Refuse Generation - Manukau CityThe amount payable averages around $4 per week. In addition, sectors of thecommunity with higher levels of refuse will also face higher costs. In some casesthese two groups coincide.

Variations in average number of residents per household, waste contribution and

socio-economic factors occur between wards. As a consequence, the effects of userpays will not be equal per household across the different former wards of the formerManukau City. Table 6 outlines the relative composition of the city based on the oldwards, with the contribution each makes to the total refuse and the relativehousehold incomes. Household income is shown as an average for each ward, butthere is also a wide range from very low to high household incomes within eachward.

172003 data from Manukau City Council Environmental Management Committee – 13 February 2003

User Pays Refuse – Workshop Notes

Clevedon Howick Mangere Manurewa Otara Pakuranga Papatoetoe Manukau City

Population 11423 50166 46674 67522 36009 38497 40673 290963

% Pop. 4% 17% 16% 23% 12% 13% 14% 100%

No. of Hh's 4032 16783 11142 19692 8347 13173 12958 86126

% Hh's 5% 19% 13% 23% 10% 15% 15% 100%% Hh's renting 22% 20% 43% 35% 47% 26% 37% 33%

Hh's renting 887 3357 4791 6892 3923 3425 4794 28422

Page 27 of 591



14/23

Table 6: Manukau Ward Characteristics & Refuse Generation

Otara and Mangere in particular have relatively higher proportions of renters, higherrefuse generation, larger households but lower household incomes, and so would behardest hit initially by a switch to user pays. Papatoetoe similarly has the lowestaverage income, and a substantial proportion of renters.

Mitigating FactorsThe actual financial impact of user charges on households will be mitigated by twofactors. Firstly, household refuse from some parts of Manukau City has a highproportion of dense food waste. The volume of refuse is typically more comparable toother parts of the city and region (but still higher than the regional average).Secondly, there will be increased opportunities and incentives to reduce thequantities, and therefore costs, of household refuse, including by increased recycling.

Housing New Zealand as Major LandlordHousing New Zealand is a major landlord in Manukau, with 7,122 rental dwellings 18,which is a quarter of total rentals. Discussions have been held with them in the pastto investigate ways of minimising costs to their tenants. They have indicatedwillingness to support and promote any Council education programme for theirtenants. However, it is understood that they will not support a reduction in rent tooffset any reduction in the property rates charge.

Long Run AdjustmentsInitially, the switch in payment from property owner to occupant will lead to the fullimpact being born by the tenant. In the long run, the combination of lower costs tolandlords, and reduced disposable income for tenants, can be expected to exert adownward pressure on rents that exactly offsets (on average) the shift in cost burdenonto tenants. Eventually, refuse charges will become just part of the total package ofproperty related costs to be apportioned between the tenant and landlord. Otherexamples include water, electricity, telephone and grounds maintenance.

Both rates and user pays systems of funding refuse collection are commonthroughout New Zealand. The method of funding refuse collection, and the type ofcollection receptacle used, generally does not appear to be an issue of such

significance that it influences where people choose to live, including within the region.Communities do adapt and accept changes, over time.

Mitigation of Adverse Financial Impacts

The social impact of polluter-pays depends on the extent to which households haveadditional opportunities to reduce their refuse. These include providing households

18Ibid, citing 2001 census data

Clevedon Howick Mangere Manurewa Otara Pakuranga Papatoetoe City

% Pop. 4% 17% 16% 23% 12% 13% 14% 100%

% Hh's 5% 19% 13% 23% 10% 15% 15% 100%

% Hh's renting 22% 20% 43% 35% 47% 26% 37% 33%

Nos./ Hh 2.83 2.99 4.19 3.43 4.31 2.92 3.14 3.40

% of refuse 5% 16% 16% 24% 13% 12% 13% 100%

Refuse Kgs/Hh/Wk 10.06 7.95 12.28 10.31 13.09 7.86 8.69 9.75

Median HH Income $ 59120 58969 41385 47324 43248 53220 38769 48441

Page 28 of 591



15/23

with additional services to divert waste, such as an organics collection, offeringadditional services to households with a demonstrated need, and providingeducational programmes. For example, when the former Auckland City Counciltrialled the replacement of its 240-litre wheelie bins with 120-litre bins in 2000, thecouncil provided waste reduction advice to a large household that was struggling withthe new service. After receiving a compost bin and extra recycling crates fromcouncil, the household of twelve people found that the new service was adequate fortheir needs.

A study of high refuse-generating households in the former Auckland City in 2009 19 found that households which consistently set out over-full wheelie bins had significantopportunity to reduce the volume of waste set out. The study found that“On average, 46% of the waste generated by high refuse-generating households was classified as ‘food wastes’ (9.11 kg per average bin weight, or 17% by volume),followed by ‘residual wastes’ (4.24 kg per average bin weight, 34% by weight or 25% by volume). ‘Sanitary/nappies’ materials made up a further 3.22 kg of the average bin weight (or 16% by weight and by volume). On average, ‘recyclable materials’ (i.e.cardboard and other recyclable materials accepted in kerbside collections) made up 13% of the average bin weight (2.58 kg) or 37% of the bin volume.”

The study indicated that the areas in which the high-refuse generating householdswere located all had significantly high proportions of private dwellings that have 8 ormore ‘usual residents’ living in them than the city as a whole.

14 SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Remote LocationsIn remote locations such as the Hauraki Gulf Islands, special consideration isrequired as to whether these residents would be expected to pay for the full cost ofthe service or would the services be subsidised by other residents across the regionusing the collection service. A separate waste plan or section of the waste plan forthe Gulf islands may be necessary to cater for the unique issues faced by island

communities. Similarly in rural areas changes to the collection service provided needto be appropriate and cost effective i.e. drop offs rather than kerbside collection.

Community OrganisationsManukau City Council operated an inclusion policy for some communityorganisations, including sports clubs, churches and other community organisationsthat have permanent locations. These organisations could register and receive refuseand recycling services funded from general rates.

Apartment Blocks Existing Opt-OutsIn Manukau City, large, residential apartment blocks, motels etc. that werecommercially operated and that did not pay the targeted rate did not receive anycouncil waste services but arranged alternative services from a commercial waste

collector.

Auckland City Council had a policy of rates remission for an approvedrefuse/recycling collection service. This policy applied to large residential blocks e.g.multi-unit dwellings and retirement villages that may arrange for their own approvedalternative refuse and recycling collection company(s). This meant that they could optout of using and paying for the council provided services. As a result of this policy

19Assessment of Overfilled Wheelie Bins in Auckland City, Waste Not Consulting, Prepared for

Auckland City Council, August 2009

Page 29 of 591



16/23

Auckland City Council made remissions totalling $3.56 million per annum, which isaround 10 percent of its total cost of refuse collection.

15 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Legislative drivers and precedentsWhile the social effects of polluter-pays systems need to be taken into considerationby Auckland Council, they should also be viewed in the context of legislative driversand precedents. The legislative drivers behind waste reduction, namely the WasteMinimisation Act 2008 and the Climate Change Response Act 2002, both includepolluter-pays mechanisms.

It should also be noted that there is no distinction between low and high incomehouseholds in the recently implemented Emissions Trading Scheme, which, whileacknowledging there will be financial impacts on households, expects thathouseholds can reduce costs by reducing energy use, installing insulation etc. Asimilar argument can be made for polluter-pays refuse charging.

Household responsibility and capacityRefuse collection is just one of many goods and services that large, low incomehouseholds require but have trouble paying for. The situation already exists in otherparts of the region, but would be more prevalent in Manukau (although still only aminority). The underlying problem is not the funding mechanism, it is the household’slack of income relative to its needs. Rather than give them a hidden cross-subsidyfrom other consumers, or build it into their rent, a better solution in the long term is toimprove their overall capacity to pay for what they need. Prepaid bags are then justanother grocery item for them to buy, along with bread, vegetables and otherhousehold items.

Page 30 of 591



17/23

APPENDIX ONE: GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS

Cities, Councils and regions:Auckland City - Former city comprising part of the Auckland regionAuckland City Council - Former council of the former Auckland CityAuckland Council – Current council of the new city comprising all of the newlydefined Auckland regionManukau City - Former city comprising part of the Auckland regionRegion – the newly defined Auckland region

Charges, paying and PAYT:Direct charging – see Polluter paysPAYT – Pay As You Throw – see Polluter paysPolluter pays – (here) user charges regime as applied to refuse collection anddisposalUser charges – see Polluter paysUser pays – see Polluter pays

Page 31 of 591



18/23

APPENDIX TWO: REFUSE COSTS (QUANTITIES) PER HOUSEHOLD

REFUSE COSTS (QUANTITIES) PER HOUSEHOLD – REST OF REGION

The cost per household of shifting to polluter pays for refuse generation by ManukauCity and Auckland City households can be benchmarked against former cities in theregion that have already shifted to primarily polluter pays, specifically North ShoreCity and Waitakere City.

North ShoreFor North Shore City, the distribution of the number of bags per household is shownin Figure 4.1 below (excludes households that set out no bags that week). Nearly 70percent of participating households set out a single bag of refuse, and the overallaverage was 1.5 bags. Less than 5 percent set out 4 bags or more.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 More

Number of bags set out

% o f h o u s e h o l

Figure 4.1 – Household bag set out

Waitakere City distribution of bag set out For Waitakere City, data was collected on the number of bags set out per household.The distribution of the number of bags per household is shown in Figure 3.6 below,.Overall average was 1.4 bags (for households that set out any refuse that week)Over two-thirds of households set out a single bag of refuse, and less than 3 percentset out 4 or more.]

Page 32 of 591



19/23

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5

Number of bags set out

% o

f h o u s e h o l d s

Figure 3.6 – Household bag set out Waitakere City

REFUSE COSTS (QUANTITIES) PER HOUSEHOLD – MANUKAU CITY

Manukau Bag Set Outs

For Manukau City in 2010, surveyors gathered data on the number of refuse bags setout by each dwelling each week. This data is presented in Figure 3.4 below, as thenumber of bags set out by a dwelling, when one or more bags were set out in a givenweek.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More

Number of bags

% o

f d w e l l i n g s

Figure 3.4 – Number of bags set out

Page 33 of 591



20/23

The number of bags set out in a given week varied from none to more than 10. Theaverage number of bags set out was 2.38 bags20. On just over forty-percent of theoccasions on which bagged refuse was set out, only one bag was placed at kerbside(40.4 percent of the time). Two bags were set 27.8 percent of the time, and threebags in 14.1 percent of instances. More than three bags were set out 17.7 percent ofthe time. Six bags or more were set out 5 percent of the time

For a given household, the amount of refuse set out each week can vary from weekto week. The average number of bags for each household over a period of time willnecessarily show less variation, and fewer low and high extremes, than a snapshot ofa single week. Unfortunately, data is not available for weekly average set-out of bagsfor given households over a period of several weeks for Manukau.

However, the number of bags set out for Manukau City is high relative to the region,so the overall average must also be high. The likelihood is that there will also be ahigher proportion of high-bag-setout households

Manukau bag weights

Given that their bags are free, Manukau households have no strong financialincentive to ensure their bags are full. Some of the high-bag households mightactually be putting out half-full bags, so they would only need to buy a moderatenumber of bags under user pays.

In 2010, Manukau bag weights were broadly similar to the rest of the region. Theaverage bag weight was 6.90 kg. The median bag weight was 6.14 kg (i.e. half ofthe bags weighed less than 6.14 kg and half more). The heaviest bag weighed 24.84kg. Figure 4.1, on the following page, shows the distribution of bag weights.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0 - 3 k g

3 - 6 k g

6 - 9 k g

9 - 1 2

k g

1 2 - 1 5 k g

1 5 - 1 8 k g

1 8 - 2 1 k g

2 1 - 2 5 k g

Kg per bag

% o f b a

Over three quarters (77 percent) of the bags weighed less than 9 kg. Almost fourpercent of the bags weighed more than 15 kg, the maximum bag weight permitted tobe set out by Council

20This compares with an average bag set out rate of 2.22 bags as recorded by the Solid Waste Analysis

of domestic refuse undertaken for Manukau City Council in October 2010.

Page 34 of 591



21/23

Unfortunately, data is not available regarding the correlation between bag numbersand weights, so it is not possible to calculate the distribution of set out weights (andtherefore estimate full bag equivalent set outs) by household.

However, the average weight is comparable to the region, so the implication is thatthe high bag set-out quantities will correspond to high refuse quantities. The impacton volumes and bag numbers will be reduced, due to some Manukau City refusebeing high density such as ethnic food waste.

Manukau set out frequencies

For a given household, the amount of refuse set out in a given week can vary. Theaverage number of bags for each household over a period of time will necessarilyshow less variation and fewer extremes than a snapshot of a single week.

Unfortunately, data for weekly average set-out of bags or kilograms is not availablefor given households over a period of several weeks for Manukau.

The frequency with which the collection services were utilised [over a four weekperiod] is given in Table 3.4 below21,.

Table 3.4 – Frequency of service usage – overall city (Manukau)

Bagged refuse RecyclingNot used 2.7% 8.0%Used 1 time only 6.0% 27.8%Used 2 times only 13.3% 64.8%Used 3 times only 28.1% NAUsed 4 times 50.0% NAParticipation rate -service used at leastonce in a 4-weekperiod

97.3% 92.0%

Average set out ratein any given week

79.9% 78.5%

Half of the surveyed dwellings placed bagged refuse out for collection four times overthe four weeks of the survey, and 65 percent of dwellings placed their recycling MRBat kerbside for its fortnightly collection twice in the four-week period (i.e. on bothpossible occasions).

Unfortunately, the correlation between frequency of service usage and bag numbersis not known, so it is not possible to calculate the distribution of average set outs foreach household over a period of time. Participation in the bagged refuse collectionshowed little variance between the wards (other than low usage in Papatoetoe, which

has high MGB usage). Given the variation in incomes in the wards, the implication isthat income is not strongly correlated to frequency of refuse set out.

Manukau RecyclingSocio-economic factors have been found to be strongly associated with recyclingbehaviour. Recycling participation rates in the most affluent streets were found to beslightly lower than in the “middle class” streets, which were in turn found to have

21 Source: “Manukau City Recycling and Refuse Participation Survey” 2010 (Unpublished Draft), Waste

Not Consulting

Page 35 of 591



22/23

substantially higher participation than in the least affluent streets. The same trendhas been observed for paper recycling, and is more pronounced.

Participation in the recycling service varied substantially from ward to ward, from ahigh of 86 percent of dwellings in Howick and Pakuranga ward to a low of 64 percentin Otara. Participation in the paper collection varied to a greater degree than eitherbagged refuse or recycling. Howick ward had the highest participation rate in paperrecycling at 72 percent; in Otara, 23 percent of dwellings participated. Theimplication is that lower income households will have scope to improve theirrecycling, and so will be able to reduce their refuse volumes and costs.

By analysing the refuse [composition] data on a per resident, per set out, it becomesapparent that Manukau and Auckland city residents are setting out a similar quantityof recyclable materials in their refuse (0.52 kg per person per set out in Manukau Cityand 0.53 kg per resident per set out in Auckland City). North Shore City andWaitakere City both set out less recyclable materials per resident per set out. This isassociated with both of these cities having a user pays refuse bag system, wherebyresidents must purchase refuse bags. Both cities also have a recycling MRB serviceand a separate paper collection.

Manukau Food WasteOver half of the household waste collected (51 percent) comprise of materialsclassified as ‘organic’. Of this 51 percent, 37 percent is kitchen/food waste, theremainder 13 percent is garden/soil. Paper is the next highest at 25 percent. Plasticis third at 12 percent and glass and metal each comprising 3 percent each. Kitchenwaste forms a significant part of the waste stream, especially for those mostadversely affected by the implementation of User Pays.

The quantity of food waste and greenwaste are still significantly higher in ManukauCity than in any of the other cities, which may be partly the consequence of residentsbeing able to dispose of as many bags of refuse as they wish, at no cost . Manukau

residents setting out more food waste is also associated with ethnic cuisine.

Polynesian food preparation typically produces more food waste, such as taro peelingsgreen banana skins and mussel shells.

If Council wished to further minimise the impact of user pays it could delay itsintroduction until separated kitchen organic waste collection was introduced. Thiswould enable householders to further reduce their refuse. Kitchen waste however isrelatively dense and does not take up for its weight as much space in the rubbish bagas may other wastes. Therefore the number of bags used may not decrease asmuch as may initially be indicated by the reduction in weight of kitchen waste.

Home composting offers opportunity to reduce refuse for households that havesufficient space and gardens to utilise the compost. However, commitment plus areasonable knowledge and skill is required if home composting is to be successfully

undertaken and not produce adverse environmental effects such as encouragingvermin and production of methane gas. Reports indicate that there are currently lessthan 10 percent of households that actively compost. This potentially could beincreased with targeted education and support programmes, however the pressuresin cities with busy lifestyles, trends to smaller sections and apartment living limits thisopportunity for many. Therefore for the majority this is not a viable option.

Page 36 of 591



23/23

REFUSE COSTS (QUANTITIES) PER HOUSEHOLD –AUCKLAND CITY

Auckland City Distribution of Refuse Set Out

Figure 3.4 below shows histograms for the average weekly volumes of refusematerial presented by all properties. The following figures include properties which did not set out that material. For properties which did not set out any given materialover the four-week survey period, the volume would be 0 litres.

Figure 3.4 – Weekly volume of refuse set out – all properties – Auckland City

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 More

Litres of refuse set out weekly

% o

f p r o p e r t i e s

Over a third of all properties set out an average of 91 to 120 litres of refuse eachweek. A further 15 percent set out an average of more than the 120 litre capacity ofthe MGB each week. While this would appear to indicate that the 120-litre capacityMGB is only marginally adequate for many properties, the Auckland survey was donebefore the introduction of recycling wheelie bins. The new recycling wheelie binsprovide households with a greater volume capacity for recycling than was previouslyavailable.

Only 3 percent of properties set out more than 140 litres of refuse. The implications

are that at least 85 percent of Auckland City users would need only two 60 litre bagsper week; up to 12 percent would need 3 bags per week; and the remaining 3percent would need 3 bags or more per week.

Page 37 of 591



ISSUES PAPERS FOR THE DRAFT WASTE MANAGEMENT & MINIMISATION PLAN

AUCKLAND COUNCIL SOLID WASTE BUSINESS UNIT - MAY 2011

Page 38 of 591



Issues Papers for the Draft AucklandCouncil Waste Management and

Minimisation Plan

This is a series of issues papers to enable decision makers and stakeholders to give their input into the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.The plan is still at the very earliest stages of development. Some of these

papers need your answers to particularly important questions which will shape the rest of the plan.

May 2011

Page 39 of 591



2

31 May 2011

Page 40 of 591



3

CONTENTS

Page

Glossary 4

Introduction 5

Questions that need to be answered 9

Issues Paper 1: KERBSIDE REFUSE AND RECYCLING SERVICESSummary 11Report 13

Issues Paper 2: FUNDING OF KERBSIDE SERVICESSummary 35Report 37

Issues Paper 3: INORGANIC COLLECTIONS

Summary 49Report 51

Issues Paper 4: PUBLIC PLACE RECYCLINGSummary 71Report 73

Issues Paper 5: GEOGRAPHICALLY REMOTE AREAS WASTE MANAGEMENTAND RESOURCE RECOVERYSummary 81Report 83

Page 41 of 591



4

GLOSSARY

Inorganic waste: Large, bulky items discarded from households including items such asfurniture, appliances, bicycles, electronic equipment etc

Kerbside services: Refuse and recycling services provided to householders where materialsare collected from the kerbside

Materials Recovery Facility (MRF): A facility where recyclable materials are taken forsorting, generally using a high degree of technology

Organic waste: Waste that decomposes. The two main types of organic waste aregreenwaste (garden prunings, grass clippings etc) and food waste (or kitchen waste)

Product Stewardship: A concept promoted in the Waste Minimisation Act (2008). Refers toplacing responsibility for disposal/recycling of end of life products on the parties involved indesign, supply, manufacture, distribution, retail and consumption of those products

Putrescibles: Organic waste capable of decomposing and causing obnoxious odours andattracting pests. Includes food waste, animal waste etc

Recyclables: Refers to recyclable materials put out in kerbside recycling collections (egplastic, glass, aluminium and steel containers)

Refuse: Generally refers to waste destined for landfill

Resource recovery: Retrieval of recyclable and reusable goods and materials from thewaste stream

Resource Recovery Centre/Park: Facility where waste materials are taken to ensuremaximum resource recovery.

Transfer Station: Facility where waste is taken for consolidation prior to landfill. A certainamount of resource recovery usually occurs at these facilities.

Waste levy: A levy on waste sent to landfill, imposed via the Waste Minimisation Act (2008).The levy currently stands at $10/tonne but is expected to rise over time. The objectives of thelevy are to create a funding pool for waste minimisation initiatives and to increase the cost ofwaste disposal.

Page 42 of 591



5

INTRODUCTION

1 What is the purpose of these issues papers?

The following set of issues papers provide the background information and some options tohelp you provide input into the contents of the Draft Waste Management and MinimisationPlan which has to be in place by July 1st 2012. These papers do not cover all the variouswaste issues that needed to be considered, but cover the first fundamental choices that needto be made to help shape the plan. There will be some further papers provided as the processunfolds on topics such as advocacy, product stewardship, glass, and other issues relating tothe waste industry. Most of this first set of papers covers the parts of waste stream that thecouncil currently controls.

Based on discussions held with Local Boards earlier in the year on the environmental andeconomic costs of waste in Auckland, and the impact of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008),decisions on the strategic direction were made by the Regional Development and OperationsCommittee in March 2011:

The vision: a long term aspirational goal of working towards Zero Waste with short to medium term targets.

The preferred strategic direction: Option 3 of the Waste Assessment whichincludes:

• moves to gain operational influence over waste infrastructure to enable maximum separation and resource recovery

• new systems to maximise diversion including an organic waste collection service

These papers, therefore, are intended to help you work out the best way to meet theprinciples of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008):‘waste minimisation, affordability, and equity’,and to minimise the amount of waste Auckland sends to landfill.

Also to be taken into account is the purpose of the waste levy - to increase the costs of wastedisposal , recognising its negative effect on the environment, society and the economy.

Given the requirements of the Waste Minimisation Act and the council’s Zero Waste goal, it isclear that some changes are required in the way Auckland deals with its waste.

What is signalled is that those who generate waste, and do not recycle, should pay for it.

The challenge is to find the right mix of services and ways of charging that will work for thecommunity and for business.

Dealing with waste is complex-there are a lot of different combinations to think about. Thepapers try to canvass the different options based on the information that is available atpresent.

The questions that will help guide the content of the plan follow.

Each issues paper has a brief summary of what is covered in the paper plus thequestions that need to be answered about that topic.

Page 43 of 591



6

2 What national laws direct waste management and minimisation?

Councils play an important role in managing waste, reducing the harm waste can cause, and

encouraging communities and businesses to reduce waste.

This role is recognised and legally formalised in the Waste Minimisation Act (WMA). Under

the WMA councils are required to develop a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan(WMMP) by 2012. Section 43 of the WMA requires the WMMP to contain a summary of the

council’s objectives, policies, methods and funding to, ‘achieve effective and efficient waste

management and minimisation within the territorial authority’s district.’

Further, section 25 of the WMA states that a key purpose of the waste levy is to: ‘ increase the

cost of waste disposal to recognise that disposal imposes costs on the environment, society

and the economy.’

This was reiterated by the Minister for the Environment in a letter sent to the Chief Executive

of Local Government New Zealand in June 20101: “In planning waste minimisation and

management activities, I encourage local government to show leadership in setting the right

price signals around waste disposal.”

Waste management and minimisation in New Zealand is underpinned by the Government’s

core policy, the New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS). The NZWS provides high level

direction to guide the use of the tools available to manage and minimise waste in New

Zealand.

Tools available include:

• The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA)

• Local Government Act 2002 (LGA)

• Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO)

• Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

Other legislation and tools include the Climate Change Response Act 2002 and Climate

Change (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008

• International conventions

• Ministry for the Environment guidelines, codes of practice

• Voluntary initiatives

In addition, waste management and resource recovery on the Hauraki Gulf Islands isinfluenced by the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA).

The HGMPA provides specific guidance on how the Resource Management Act (RMA) is to

be applied within the Hauraki Gulf and is given effect through RMA policy statements and

plans (amongst other mechanisms).

1Letter from Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister for the Environment, to Eugene Bowen, Chief Executive, Local

Government NZ, 23 June 2010

Page 44 of 591



7

Compared to the RMA, the HGMPA places more emphasis on:

• integrating the management of the Gulf across different physical environments,

management agencies and planning documents

• inter-relationships between the Gulf’s catchments, islands and the coastal marine

area.

3 Who does what regarding waste operations and planning?

Auckland Council’s governance, policy development and operation of waste management is

conducted as follows:

• Day to day solid waste operations and policy development are the responsibility of the

Solid Waste Business Unit.

• Auckland Council’s Governing Body and Local Boards share decision-making

responsibilities. The Governing Body focuses on the big picture and on region-wide

strategic decisions e.g. preparing and adopting the Long Term Plan and setting

regional strategies, policies and plans including the Spatial Plan and any existingplans.. It will consult with and consider the views of the Local Boards before making

a decision which affects the communities in the Local Board area, or the

responsibilities or operations of the Local Board. The Governing Body is responsible

for the following waste activities:

− Auckland Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

− standards and guidelines for waste management and disposal

− region-wide service standards, such as refuse and recycling services

− landfill management.

• Local Boards are responsible for community engagement, preparing Local Board

Plans, monitoring Local Board agreements and proposing local bylaws.

• In principle Local Boards are generally responsible for making decisions on non-

regulatory activities except where decision-making on a region-wide basis will better

promote the well-being of communities across Auckland.

• These exceptions apply when:

− the benefits of a coordinated approach across Auckland outweigh the

benefits of making a local decision

− the decision-making will be more effective if integrated with other decisions

that the governing body has to make

− the impact of the decision extends beyond one Local Board area

Page 45 of 591



8

Page 46 of 591



9

QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED TOGUIDE THE CONTENT OF THE PLAN

Kerbside Refuse and Recycling

• Should wheelie bins or bags be used for kerbside refuse collections?

• Should the same service be provided across the region or bags for rural and high

density multi-storey areas and bins for the rest?

• Should recyclables be collected using:

a) A commingled system, where all materials are collected in a wheelie bin and

sorted at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)?

b) A hybrid two-stream system, where all materials apart from paper and cardboard

or glass are collected in a wheelie bin, with the paper and cardboard or glass put

out separately?

Funding of Kerbside Services

• Should refuse services be paid for through rates or polluter pays?

• Should recycling services be paid for through rates, user pays, part-user pays, or by

another mechanism (eg surpluses from other waste services, waste levy etc)?

• Should a kerbside organic collection be provided by the council? If yes , should it be

funded by rates, user pays, part-user pays or by another mechanism (eg surpluses

from other waste services, waste levy etc)?

Inorganic Collections

•

Should kerbside inorganic collections be replaced with an alternative ‘booking’ systemor be discontinued?

Public Place Recycling

• Should public place recycling bins be further promoted and installed in town centres

and tourist areas?

• If so, who should make the decisions on location and who should fund them?

Geographically Remote Areas

• Given the geographic isolation of the Hauraki Gulf Islands (and some rural areas on

the mainland) should further work be done to see what sort of role the Local Boards

might play in shaping the way waste is managed, to reflect their unique situation?

• Should Hauraki Gulf Islands and rural areas pay the actual cost of their waste and

recycling services or should the region contribute? If so, to what level?

Page 47 of 591



10

Page 48 of 591



11

ISSUES PAPER 1

Kerbside Refuse and Recycling Services

What this paper is about

The Waste Minimisation Act (2008) requires a reduction in waste sent to landfill, and

imposes a waste levy as a first step to increasing the costs of waste disposal, therebyencouraging recycling/reuse alternatives. The council also has obligations under the

Health and Safety Act to provide a safe workplace for staff and contractors in waste

services.

The type and regularity of kerbside services affects both the cost and the effectiveness of

minimising waste to landfill. Currently there is a range of different services (or no service)

provided by the council across the Auckland region.

This paper, in order to best give effect to the Auckland Council’s strategic direction,

discusses the variables of kerbside collection services – bags or bins, how many, how

they are collected and how often. (How the service is charged for, is dealt with in Issues

Paper 2 - Funding of Kerbside Services.) It also briefly describes what might be neededfor a proposed new kerbside collection service for organic waste.

Given that there are so many variables possible in kerbside collections, the challenge is

to come up with a combination that achieves the best environmental, social and

economic outcomes.

Questions for this section

1. Should wheelie bins or bags be used for kerbside refuse collections?

2. Should the same service be provided across the region or bags for rural and high

density multi-storey areas and bins for the rest?

3. Should recyclables be collected using:

a) A commingled system, where all materials are collected in a wheelie bin and

sorted at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)?

b) A hybrid two-stream system, where all materials, apart from paper and cardboard

or glass, are collected in a wheelie bin, with the paper and cardboard or glass put

out separately?

Page 49 of 591



12

Page 50 of 591



13

1 To collect or not to collect

1.1 Don’t all councils provide waste and recycling services?

Of the seven territorial authorities that made up the new Auckland Council, six delivered

kerbside collection services, all through contracted service providers. The exception isthe former Rodney District, where the council did not provide any kerbside refuse or

recycling collections for many years until introducing a kerbside recycling service in 2003.

Kerbside refuse collections in the former Rodney District continue to be provided only by

private waste operators, and there have been as many as five collectors providing the

service at one time.

Several other councils in New Zealand don’t provide all kerbside services. Kaikoura and

Western Bay of Plenty District Councils, for example, do not provide a kerbside refuse

collection service, and Rotorua District Council and Tauranga City Councils provide

recycling drop-off centres rather than a kerbside recycling collection.

1.2 Will Auckland Council continue to provide kerbside refuse services?

Although Auckland Council has not yet adopted a new Waste Minimisation and

Management Plan, taking into consideration its obligations under the WMA, its Zero

Waste goal and the new strategic direction to gain more influence over the waste stream,

it is clear that the council will continue to provide kerbside refuse services.

2 Private kerbside waste collections

2.1 What role do private waste collectors play in kerbside refuse collection?

Auckland Council’s decision to take a new strategic direction and gain greater access tothe waste stream was made in response to the current situation in the region, where

private waste operators control most of the waste stream. This has been regarded as a

major impediment to the council fulfilling its responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation

Act.

Private waste operators collect kerbside refuse from households in all parts of the

Auckland region directly in competition to the local councils’ services (other than the

former Rodney District). The proportion of kerbside refuse that they collect varies

substantially from area to area. In most cases, the variation is related to the services

provided by the local council and how these services are funded. Private operators

collect primarily using 240-litre wheelie bins, although smaller wheelie bins are also

available. In the former North Shore City and Rodney District, there are also privaterefuse bag collection services available.

There are a number of reasons why householders may choose to use private sector

services. Often this is done because the private sector service offers more capacity than

the council service, is more convenient (in the form of wheelie bins), or is seen as being a

better value service than the council’s.

In the former Rodney District, where the council does not provide a kerbside refuse

collection service, all kerbside refuse is collected privately. In the former Auckland and

Page 51 of 591



14

Manukau cities, where the kerbside services appear ‘free’ to the householder (because

they are paid for by rates, rather than directly by the householder), the private industry

collects from a very small proportion of households, probably less than 5%, according to

the limited data available. As the waste industry in these areas is not required to report

on tonnages collected, precise figures are not available.

In the former Auckland City, householders may choose a private wheelie bin service

because the council’s 120-litre wheelie bin does not provide enough volume for their

waste. In the former Manukau City, where householders can set out an unlimited number

of refuse bags, a private wheelie bin may be chosen for its convenience and for its ability

to hold materials, like branches, that are not easily disposed of through the council’s bag

collection service.

In areas where the council system is based on a ‘polluter-pays’ model, with householders

purchasing pre-paid bags or stickers, the private waste collectors control a much greater

share of the kerbside market. In these areas, householders may decide that the private

services offer a better value for money than the council’s service or that private wheelie

bins are more convenient than the council’s bags.

In the former North Shore, Papakura, and Franklin areas, where the council provides apolluter-pays bag service, private waste operators collect from about 15-20% of all

households. Because households that use 240-litre wheelie bins generally set out more

waste than bag users, this means the private waste operators may collect 25-40% of all

kerbside waste.

This situation is not unique to the Auckland area. Private waste operators provide

kerbside collection services in most parts of New Zealand. In some areas, private waste

operators collect close to 80% of all kerbside refuse.

2.1.1 Is leaving refuse collection to the private sector a realistic option?

Some of the issues relating to the collection of kerbside refuse by private collectors are

discussed below. If the private sector was left to provide services the only way the council

could meet its waste minimisation objectives would be for it to provide exclusive licences

to operators, as outlined in management models 1 and 2 in the Waste Assessment2.

These licences would allow operators to operate in specific geographical areas,

potentially the 21 Local Board areas. Licences would be let on very specific criteria

including the percentage of waste allowed to landfill, the charges made to residential

properties and the services provided.

Despite the council potentially being able to establish some degree of regulatory control

over private sector kerbside refuse collections by licensing, the new strategic direction

adopted by the council indicates that it is likely to continue to provide these services itself

to residents by outsourcing contracts to private operators.

2.2 What are the issues with private waste collectors?

To householders, private waste operators can be seen as offering a convenient,

competitive collection service that might provide better value for money than the council

service. Local councils, on the other hand, have a number of concerns relating to private

waste collectors:

2 Auckland Council Waste Assessment pages 4-5

Page 52 of 591



15

1. The aims of private waste collectors run counter to councils’ waste minimisation

responsibilities. The Waste Minimisation Act (2008) requires councils to

minimise waste but the same obligations do not apply to the waste industry. . In

general, when a householder has a large 240-litre wheelie bin, the data shows

that the householder recycles less, disposes of more greenwaste, and sets out a

greater weight of waste than if he/she used a smaller receptacle. When the

former Auckland City Council switched from a 240-litre wheelie bin to a 120-litrewheelie bin for its kerbside refuse service, the average bin weight decreased

from 17 kg per bin to less than 11 kg per bin per week. The present Government

recognises this problem, commenting in its 2006 pre-election environmental

policy3

that:

There are many barriers to waste reduction and safe disposal. They include:….

In other places, local authorities have been proactive in establishing user-pays, safe

waste disposal policies and kerbside recycling facilities. But their efforts are

sometimes being undercut by waste companies offering a cheap, bulk wheelie bin

service, which effectively removes the incentive on households to segregate their

wastes for recycling. Again, this is possible because these operators are not being

charged the full costs of meeting the community’s waste management objectives.

The waste levy, introduced in 2009, also supports the current Government’s

intent for waste producers to pay the full cost of disposal. The levy was

introduced to raise revenue for promoting and achieving waste minimisation, but

also to, ‘increase the cost of waste disposal to recognise that disposal imposes

costs on the environment, society, and the economy.’

2. Private waste collectors tend to ‘cherry-pick’ the areas they collect from, and

don’t necessarily provide kerbside services to remote, sparsely-populated areas

where collection is less commercially viable. The former Rodney District Council

had to subsidise private waste collectors to operate in some remote areas.

3. Private waste collectors, by providing an alternative to a council’s service, can

reduce the effectiveness of a council’s waste reduction initiatives. If a council

reduces the capacity or increases the cost of its services to encourage waste

reduction, householders can change to a private service to avoid changing their

waste disposal behaviour.

4. Unless private waste operators are required by licensing conditions4

to report the

quantity of household waste being collected, councils are unable to determine

the total amount of household waste being collected. This makes it impossible to

monitor the effects of waste minimisation initiatives or measure progress towards

waste minimisation goals.

5. In areas like the former Rodney District, where there are several competingprivate waste collectors, in any given area there may be collections occurring on

two or three days of the week. This means the kerbside has wheelie bins or

bags set out several days a week and there are a large number of truck

movements, with each company using a separate vehicle.

3 A Bluegreen vision for New Zealand 20064

Licensing could be done through a Solid Waste bylaw. The scope and effectiveness of the bylaw is

likely to be determined by the level of influence that the council has over the waste stream.

Page 53 of 591



16

6. Despite the former Rodney District Council having no direct involvement with

kerbside refuse collections, the council still receives large numbers of customer

enquiries relating to the services and complaints relating to the operations.

Managing these residents’ concerns represented a significant cost to the council.

7. As private waste operators increase their share of the kerbside refuse market,

the efficiency of the council’s collection decreases, so the cost per household

increases. If a council is only collecting bags from half of the households in an

area, the collection is less efficient and, as a result, more expensive per

household.

8. Looking at broader environmental effects, such as greenhouse gas emissions,

traffic congestion, and wear and tear on roads, the effects of several vehicles

collecting kerbside waste from households are much greater than for a single

vehicle doing the same job.

3 KERBSIDE REFUSE COLLECTION

3.1 When will all of Auckland receive the same kerbside refuse services?

Throughout Auckland (except in the former Rodney District), the council’s kerbside refuse

collections are contracted to private service providers. The existing contracts have a

range of expiry dates, which has required the council to re-negotiate many of the

contracts to end at the same time. Most of the contracts will now expire in 2013, with the

council having an option to extend them for two further one-year periods.

New types of services might be introduced once the existing contract terms have expired.

Whether all areas of the Auckland region will have identical kerbside refuse services, and

what these services might be, has yet to be decided. These decisions will be made as

part of the waste minimisation and management planning process.

3.2 What objectives does the council need to consider?

When these contracts expire, Auckland Council will have an opportunity to rationalise the

refuse collection system, possibly by standardising services throughout the region. When

considering what types of kerbside refuse collection services to provide, the council will

need to take into account several general objectives, including:

1. The council’s newly-adopted Zero Waste goal

2. Meeting its obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act to reduce waste to

landfill.

3. Maintaining public health

4. Providing an efficient, cost-effective service

5. Addressing community expectations

6. Fulfilling its responsibilities as an employer under the Health and Safety in

Employment Act 1992

Page 54 of 591



17

7. Reducing the harm caused by waste and increasing resource efficiency, as per

the New Zealand Waste Strategy.

3.3 What are the council’s options for kerbside refuse collections?

With all of the council’s major existing refuse collection contracts expiring over the next

five years, there is virtually a ‘clean slate’ for the council to start again and redesign anew system. The major questions that Auckland Council will be considering are:

1. What the service configuration should be for kerbside refuse collection. This

includes variables such as the type of receptacle (bag or wheelie bin) and the

frequency of collection.

2. How a kerbside refuse collection will be funded (through rates or polluter-pays).

3. What services will be provided for remote areas, such as the Hauraki Gulf

Islands and rural areas of the former Rodney and Franklin districts.

The first question is discussed in the following sections. Funding issues, and waste

services in remote areas are discussed in separate issues papers.

It should be remembered that decisions on kerbside refuse collections won’t be made in

isolation, as the various kerbside services need to be co-ordinated to act in unison to

produce the best results. Auckland Council will be making decisions on the complete

package of services it provides, including recycling services and a possible organic waste

collection service.

3.4 What is in kerbside refuse?

The composition of all of the former councils’ kerbside collections is measured regularly

using a consistent methodology. The composition is measured in terms of about 30

different classifications. In the following table, the composition of all of AucklandCouncil’s residential kerbside refuse collections combined is shown in terms of fourteen

major classifications.

Also shown is an assumed composition of privately-collected kerbside refuse. While the

composition of privately-collected wheelie bins has not been measured extensively in the

Auckland region (other than in Rodney) data from other areas in New Zealand is

available and has been combined and used as surrogate data. The final columns of the

table show the composition of the council’s kerbside refuse combined with the privately-

collected refuse.

Page 55 of 591



18

Table 1: Composition of domestic kerbside refuse in Auckland5

Council kerbside

refuse

Private kerbside

refuse

Combined kerbside

refuse

Tonnes per year of

kerbside refuse

Tonnes

per year

% of

total

Tonnes

per year

% of

total

Tonnes

per year

% of

total

Paper 18,885 10.4% 7,543 13.1% 26,428 11.1%

Plastic 21,206 11.7% 5,553 9.6% 26,758 11.2%

Organic

Kitchen waste 72,115 39.8% 15,526 26.9% 8,7641 36.7%

Greenwaste 18,542 10.2% 9,566 16.6% 28,108 11.8%

Other Organic 5,918 3.3% 1,680 2.9% 7,597 3.2%

Organic - Subtotal 96,575 53.4% 26,772 46.4% 123,347 51.7%

Ferrous 3,226 1.8% 1,081 1.9% 4,307 1.8%

Non-ferrous 1,254 0.7% 491 0.9% 1,745 0.7%

Glass 3,747 2.1% 2,995 5.2% 6,741 2.8%

Textiles 7,006 3.9% 2,220 3.9% 9,227 3.9%

Sanitary paper 22,313 12.3% 4,253 7.4% 26,566 11.1%

Rubble 3,408 1.9% 4,061 7.0% 7,469 3.1%

Timber 1,530 0.8% 1,781 3.1% 3,311 1.4%

Rubber 272 0.2% 100 0.2% 372 0.2%

Potentially hazardous 1,581 0.9% 798 1.4% 2,379 1.0%

Total 181,001 100% 57,649 100.0 238,650 100.0

Over half of the kerbside refuse collected by Auckland Council’s services from residential

properties is organic waste. Of that organic waste, 80% is kitchen waste. Paper, plastic,

and sanitary paper (which includes disposable nappies) comprise similar proportions of

the council’s kerbside refuse – around 10% - 12% each. Privately-collected kerbside

refuse is similar in composition to the council’s collections, but is assumed to contain

more recyclable materials and a higher proportion of greenwaste.

5Waste Not Consulting Ltd 2011. Unpublished data analysis

Page 56 of 591



19

3.5 Refuse bags or wheelie bins?

There are only two practical options for the type of receptacle refuse is collected in –

refuse bags or wheelie bins. The options for each type of receptacle are discussed in the

next two sections, and in section 3.5.3 the relative merits and disadvantages are

discussed.

3.5.1 Are there any options for refuse bags?

The options to consider regarding kerbside refuse bags are limited to the type of material,

the size of the bag, and the bag colour.

Most councils have opted to use plastic bags, but some councils, such as Rotorua,

continue to use multi-wall paper bags as the official refuse bag. These ‘Kleensaks’,

which were used in Auckland City prior to the introduction of wheelie bins, are more

puncture-resistant than plastic bags, and generally have a smaller capacity, which

reduces health and safety issues related to overweight bags.

On the other hand, multi-wall bags are more expensive than plastic bags, degrade more

quickly in landfills (which results in greenhouse gas emissions), and do not perform as

well when wet or when filled with wet materials.

Refuse bags are available in a range of sizes, with the primary considerations for bag

size being convenience for the user and health and safety issues for the collector. If a

bag is too small, it is not user-friendly for the householder, and if it is too large, the bag

may be too heavy to be lifted safely by the collector. Within this range, a council is able

to offer residents a choice of polluter-pays refuse bags. In the former North Shore City,

for example, the council offers residents the choice of purchasing either 40-litre or 60-litre

rubbish bags.

3.5.2 What are the options for wheelie bins?

There are two main variables that affect the functionality of wheelie bins. Most, but not

all, wheelie bins are collected by vehicles fitted with automated external lift arms, so the

design of the bin is constrained by what vehicles are able to handle efficiently with

minimal damage to the bins.

The most obvious variable is the capacity of the bin. The sizes most commonly used by

councils for kerbside refuse services are 120-litre and 240-litre. Other sizes are also

used, with the former North Shore and Waitakere area residents being provided with 140-

litre wheelie bins for recycling.

3.5.3 What are the advantages and disadvantages of bags vs. bins?

3.5.3.1 Waste reduction

There is little, if any, inherent advantage in the bag or wheelie bin itself when it comes to

reducing kerbside refuse. It is the capacity of the receptacle, the number of receptacles

put out for collection, the frequency of collection, and the funding mechanism (whether

the service is polluter pays or rates-funded) that are important in reducing waste to

landfill.

Page 57 of 591



20

When the volume of refuse that a household can set out each week is limited,

householders tend to make use of other disposal options, such as recycling more

materials, disposing of less greenwaste through the kerbside refuse system, or taking

waste directly to a transfer station.

Wheelie bins have a distinct advantage if waste reduction is to be achieved by reducing

the frequency of refuse collection. While a fortnightly wheelie bin refuse collection has

proven acceptable in many locations when combined with an organics collection, a

fortnightly bagged refuse collection could create odour and vermin issues and be much

less acceptable to users.

If polluter-pays is to be used as a tool for reducing waste, bags have an advantage over

rates-funded wheelie bin refuse collections, as currently used in the former Auckland City

area. The incentive for householders to reduce waste is greater if a cost is incurred for

every bag of refuse that is set out as compared to a flat fee for a regular wheelie bin

collection. However polluter-pays wheelie bin systems are possible using technologies

that charge per lift of a bin, or on the weight of the bin. These systems (discussed in more

detail in the funding issues paper) are common overseas and provide a similar economic

incentive to reduce waste as pre-paid bags.

3.5.3.2 Health and safety

The health and safety aspects of wheelie bins compared to bags have gained in

prominence in recent years. If wheelie bins are collected using automated systems, such

as trucks with automated mechanical lift arms, there is a reduction in the risk of accidents

compared to manual workers collecting bags from the kerbside.

Manual collectors of refuse bags are at risk from a variety of causes including traffic

hazards, sharp objects in the refuse, and repetitive strain injuries from lifting bags, some

of which can weigh as much as 18-20 kg.

Health and safety concerns around manual collections intensified following two fatalities

in the waste sector in 2001. The Accident Compensation Commission and the

Department of Labour approached CEOs of major waste companies to express their

concern and to encourage the sector to develop guidelines. As a consequence draft

guidelines were developed by the Waste Management Institute of New Zealand Health

and Safety Sector Group in 20026, followed by a health and safety strategy in 2006

7.

Although these are not legally binding, they are admissible in court and can be used in

evidence of good practice8.

An assessment of the benefits and costs of bag and bin collections commissioned by the

Waste Management Institute of New Zealand Health and Safety Sector Group concluded

that,9 “Clearly there is a marked difference in the injury rates between manual and

automated collection methods, with manual methods more likely to result in injury.”

6 NZ guidelines for waste and recoverable resource collection, processing and disposal – operation of

rear loading compaction collection trucks safety requirements’ 2002 7 Health and safety in the waste industry – industry strategy’. WasteMINZ 20068 Manukau District Court. Department of Labour v Alpha Refuse Collections Ltd 22 March

2011.Sentencing notes for a waste industry fatality in which judge cited these strategies and guidelines.9 Morrison Low Associates 2010, “An assessment of the health and safety costs and benefits of manual vs

automated waste collections.” Position report for WasteMINZ.

Page 58 of 591



21

Auckland Council’s obligations under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 are

to provide for the systematic management of health and safety at work. The council’s

main responsibility as an employer, which includes engaging contractors, is to make the

workplace safe by systematically identifying hazards and managing any hazards by

eliminating them, isolating them, or minimising them, in that order of preference.

There is strong preference for wheelie bins over bags from a health perspective also. The

Medical Officer of Health, in his review of Auckland Council’s Waste Assessment notes

that, ‘The clear public health preference is for bins due to the much better:

• Isolation of refuse from interference by domestic and wild animals.

• Control of odour and dust.

• Isolation of refuse from insect pest species e.g. flies and wasps10

.’

3.5.3.3 Costs

When the funding system is the same (i.e.polluter-pays or rates-funded) neither bags nor

wheelie bins has a clear advantage when it comes to refuse collection costs. While theautomated collection of wheelie bins requires lower labour inputs than manual bag

collections, this is offset by the high capital costs of the automated collection vehicles and

bins and the faster collection times of the manual collection.

As well as the higher capital costs of automated collection vehicles for wheelie bins, the

start-up costs for wheelie bin systems are much greater than for bag systems, as wheelie

bins need to be purchased and distributed to every household.

On an on-going basis, wheelie bins are more expensive to administer, as large

databases need to be maintained to keep track of all the bins that are provided to

householders and determine which properties are eligible for wheelie bins. Bins also

require on-going service and replacement, which refuse bags don’t. Establishing a

polluter-pays funding arrangement for wheelie bin collections (e.g. on a per weight or

collection frequency basis) would also be more costly compared to a user-pay refuse bag

arrangement.

Any decision taken by Auckland Council needs to consider the assets owned by former

councils. All households in the former Auckland City have been provided with 120-litre

wheelie bins for refuse. The council may decide to base any new systems around this

existing asset, or may choose to make these bins redundant, as was done when

Auckland City Council changed from 240-litre to 120 litre wheelie bins in 2001.

3.5.3.4 User convenience and acceptance

When it comes to refuse bags and bins, one size definitely does not fit all households.Many householders consider that wheelie bins take up too much space and create odour

issues if not cleaned. The size and number of wheelie bins is a particular problem for

small properties or for those with restricted access to the street frontage. Many inner city

residents, in particular, do not have suitable storage for wheelie bins on their properties

and some are stored on the footpaths, in contravention to waste bylaws.

10 Review of the Auckland Council Darft Waste Assessment. 1 April 2011. Medical Officer of Health. Auckland

Regional Public Health Service.

Page 59 of 591



22

Even for larger properties, if there are a small number of people in the household and

little waste is generated, being required to find space for two or three wheelie bins can be

a concern. A single person household may only generate the equivalent of a refuse bag

of waste and recycling every fortnight, but that household is still required to store and use

the same number of wheelie bins as large households.

Moving wheelie bins from the house to the kerbside can also cause problems for the

aged, disabled, or householders with physical impairments. Large recycling wheelie bins,

such as the 240-litre bins provided by the former Auckland City Council, can weigh over

20 kg when full of paper and glass bottles, and can be particularly difficult to move

around properties with stairs or steep driveways. For many householders in hilly

suburbs, their only option is to use a vehicle to tow their wheelie bin to the kerbside.

Despite these potential problems, most householders find wheelie bins to be more

convenient than refuse bags. Disposing of refuse into a wheelie bin doesn’t involve as

much contact with the refuse as putting it into a bag and refuse can be compacted more

easily and safely into a wheelie bin than into a bag. Householders may also find wheelie

bins to be more hygienic as they can be stored outside and aren’t subject to animal strike

in the same way as refuse bags.

3.5.3.5 Street amenity

The kerbside set out of both refuse bags and wheelie bins inevitably reduces the amenity

value of the streetscape environment. A preference for either wheelie bins or bags is a

matter of personal taste, with some residents preferring the ‘look’ of wheelie bins and

other residents preferring the ‘look’ of bags.

There are issues relating to the creation of litter from setting out kerbside refuse. As

refuse bags are more susceptible to animal strike, bags are more likely to be associated

with litter on the kerbside, although wheelie bins can create litter when they tip over or as

they are being emptied.

Refuse bags leave a tidied streetscape when they have been collected, as the street is

left completely cleared. Emptied wheelie bins, on the other hand, can be left on the

kerbside for hours, or days, after the collection is completed. This is particularly an issue

when householders go away on holiday.

Bins can also block pedestrians and other footpath users and are subject to being blown

over on windy days.

3.6 How will refuse collections be funded?

Funding options for refuse collections are discussed in Issues Paper 2: Funding of

Kerbside Services.

4 KERBSIDE RECYCLING COLLECTION

4.1 When will all of Auckland receive the same kerbside recycling services?

In all parts of the Auckland region, Auckland Council’s kerbside recycling collections are

contracted to private service providers. The existing contracts have a range of expiry

Page 60 of 591



23

dates, which has required the council to re-negotiate some of the contracts so that they

end at the same time. In the former Franklin District, the crate-based recycling contract

expired in October 2011 and a contract variation was used to include the district’s

collections with the collections in Manukau.

New types of services might be introduced in different areas at different times as the

existing contract terms expire. Whether all areas of the Auckland region will have

identical kerbside recycling services, and what these services might be, has yet to be

decided. These decisions will be made as part of the waste management and

minimisation planning process.

4.2 What decisions does the council need to make about kerbside recycling?

The objectives that Auckland Council must consider when making decisions relating to

kerbside recycling are the same as those relating to kerbside refuse collections. These

are listed in section 3.2. Waste minimisation, in line with the council’s Zero Waste goal,

and meeting community expectations are, potentially, the most important considerations.

The questions that need to be answered about kerbside recycling are similar to those for

kerbside refuse collections:

1. Should the council provide a kerbside recycling collection?

2. What type of kerbside recycling system should be provided?

3. How should a kerbside recycling collection be funded?

While these questions when applied to kerbside refuse are quite contentious, there is

likely to be much less debate relating to kerbside recycling. Funding considerations are

discussed in a separate issues paper.

4.3 Does Auckland Council need to provide a kerbside recycling service?

Most, but not all, councils in New Zealand provide a kerbside recycling service to

residents. Rotorua District Council, for example, does not have a kerbside collection, but

provides recycling drop-off points in several locations throughout the district. Tauranga

City Council and Far North and Western Bay of Plenty District Councils provide a small

number of drop-off points but the kerbside recycling services are provided by private

operators on a user-pays basis.

As a kerbside recycling collection has been shown to be one of the most effective means

of reducing waste to landfill, and as it is a service that the community has come to expect

will be provided, it is likely that the council will continue to provide this service, particularly

in light of its new Zero Waste goal.

4.4 What is the ‘best’ kerbside recycling system?

While there are many variables to be considered when planning a kerbside recycling

system, the focus is generally on where and how the recyclable materials are sorted.

The other variables, such as the type of container and frequency of collection, tend to be

dependent on the sorting system that is chosen. The ‘best’ sorting system is not

necessarily a constant, but might change over time as technologies change and as

community expectations on what can be recycled change.

Page 61 of 591



24

4.4.1 How has kerbside recycling changed over the years?

The first kerbside recycling system in New Zealand was introduced in Devonport in the

late 1970s. Like all of the systems that were introduced for the next twenty years, the

system was based on residents setting out their recyclable containers in a reusable

plastic crate and paper and cardboard being bundled and set out separately. The

materials in the crate were partially sorted as they were put into the collection vehicle and

the paper was collected in a separate vehicle. Any further sorting was done at a

centralised sorting facility.

In the early 2000s, councils started to introduce ‘commingled’ systems, using wheelie

bins. The systems in the former North Shore and Waitakere City areas were amongst

the first to introduce wheelie bins for recycling collection. Those councils chose to

provide a fortnightly collection of 140-litre wheelie bins with a separate paper collection.

All materials in the wheelie bins are sorted at a centralised sorting facility.

The former Auckland and Manukau City Councils introduced a fully commingled system

in 2008. Households are provided with a 240-litre wheelie bin, which is collected

fortnightly, into which all recyclable materials, paper included, can be placed. A new

sorting facility was purpose-built for sorting the collected materials.

Due to issues relating to the quality of materials collected in fully commingled systems,

there is a trend starting for separate collections of different materials. Several councils,

including Wellington and Dunedin, are moving towards separate glass collections. The

new Wellington system will provide residents with a 140-litre wheelie bin for a fortnightly

collection of all recyclable materials other than glass. Glass will be recycled with a

fortnightly collection of the existing 45-litre crates.

4.5 What are the different types of kerbside recycling systems?

There are many ways that kerbside recycling systems can be classified, but the four

basic types described briefly below are useful for discussing the relevant issues.

The four system types are:

1. Kerbside sort systems - This refers to systems where recyclable material is

manually collected and sorted at the kerbside or on the vehicle. For example, a

vehicle may have four compartments where paper, glass, plastic and cans are

separated by the operators as the material is collected. Any unsorted materials

are taken to a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) for sorting.

2. Commingled systems - All recyclable material is collected in a single wheelie bin,

which is emptied into the collection vehicle with an automated arm. All material

is taken to a MRF for sorting.

3. ‘Hybrid or two-stream systems – This is essentially a variation on commingled

collections where all materials, apart from glass or paper, are collected in one

container with glass or paper handled separately. Materials are collected in

separate compartments on vehicles or in separate vehicles. There is no manual

sorting at the kerbside.

4. Dry’ recycling systems - ‘Dry’ recycling systems are also a variation on

commingled recycling systems but collect a much wider range of materials than

Page 62 of 591



25

the conventional recyclable commodities of plastic bottles, glass, cans, and

paper. Materials may include textiles, shoes, electronic goods and small

household appliances, and batteries.

Of these options only the commingled and hybrid systems can realistically be considered

by Auckland Council due to the large investment in commingled systems it has inherited

from former councils. In the future, however, it may be possible to transition from either

of these systems to a dry recycling system to increase the type and amount of materials

recovered.

If in the future, given the aim to increase recycling and resource recovery contained in the

Waste Minimisation Act, more collection points or a network of Resource Recovery

centres could be established, to provide an extra option for people with a lot of

recyclables to drop off directly and help deal with peak recycling times such as

Christmas.

4.6 How do commingled recycling systems work?

Commingled systems, particularly systems using wheelie bins, have gained in popularity

significantly in recent years. While some councils, such as New Plymouth DistrictCouncil, have a commingled system using shopping bags, and others, such as

Mackenzie District Council, have official user-pays recycling bags, most large councils

have moved to systems using recycling wheelie bins. While recycling bags can be

collected manually (in New Plymouth they are collected in the same vehicle as the

rubbish bags), wheelie bins are generally collected using automated systems.

There are a number of reasons for the increase in the popularity of commingled wheelie

bin collections, including:

• increased focus on health and safety considerations, with automated systems

shown to be safer

• less street litter than with open-top crates

• higher perceived levels of user-friendliness as less sorting is required by

residents and only a single recycling wheelie bin is required to give the same

volume as several recycling crates

• with an increased range of materials being collected (plastics, in particular), the

volume required to store the material for collection has increased, and automated

collection trucks tend to have a much larger capacity than manual collection

vehicles.

As the recyclable materials are collected together in a single compartment of the vehicle,

sorting of materials takes place at a MRF. The former Auckland and Manukau City

Councils operated a completely commingled recycling collection, with residents placing

all materials into a 240-litre wheelie bin collected fortnightly. The collected materials are

taken to the Visy MRF in Onehunga for sorting.

4.7 How do two-stream/hybrid systems work?

Two or three stream systems are variations of commingled systems and can be, to an

extent, a hybrid between the commingled and kerbside sort approaches. In two-stream

Page 63 of 591



26

recycling systems, one material, usually glass or paper, is collected in a separate

container and loaded onto a separate vehicle or vehicle compartment. These systems

can be totally automated and collected in a single vehicle with a single lift if the bin and

vehicle are both split into two compartments.

The philosophy behind the approach is to attempt to preserve material quality by keeping

the most problematic materials (paper and glass) separate. This approach attempts to

combine the advantages of both the commingled and kerbside sort systems. The former

North Shore and Waitakere City Councils operated two-stream systems, with paper

collected separately. All materials collected from kerbside recycling in these areas is

taken to the Onyx MRF in Henderson. Wellington City Council is changing its kerbside

sort system to a two-stream system, with glass being collected in alternate weeks to

other materials.

4.8 How do the kerbside recycling systems compare?

4.8.1 User convenience and acceptance

Commingled systems are generally perceived to be more ‘user friendly’ than kerbside

sort systems. A householder survey, undertaken after the introduction of the former

Waitakere City Council’s two stream system in 2005 showed 92% of respondents

preferred the new wheelie bin system to the old crate system. Prior to the introduction of

the system public submissions were fairly evenly split in preference between the wheelie

bin and crate system.

Kerbside sort systems sometimes require the householder to sort their recyclable

material into different material streams, such as separating paper and containers, which

might be considered inconvenient. In addition, kerbside recycling systems that do not

use wheelie bins require householders to carry material to the kerbside, whereas wheelie

bins can be wheeled to the kerbside.

As with kerbside refuse systems, however, on some properties, such as those with stairsor steep driveways, it might be easier for householders to carry crates to the kerbside.

Smaller properties may also find it easier to store the crates commonly used for kerbside

sort systems rather than a wheelie bin.

Large households may find issues with the typical capacity of the crates used in kerbside

sort systems and may require additional crates for their recycling. This is potentially less

convenient than the single large-capacity wheelie bin typically used in a commingled

system.

4.8.2 Health and safety

Comparing the health and safety issues of different recycling systems is similar to

comparing manual refuse bag collections and automated wheelie bin collections.

Recycling collections pose greater risks than refuse collections however, due to the type

of materials being collected (glass in particular) and the issues involved in manually

picking up crates.

4.8.3 Reducing waste to landfill

Broadly speaking, the quantity of material that is ultimately diverted from landfill by a

kerbside recycling system is dependent on a range of factors, including the number and

Page 64 of 591



27

types of materials that are collected, the frequency of collection, the capacity of the

containers provided to householders, and the education that is provided.

There is evidence showing that commingled systems collect significantly higher quantities

of materials from households due to the capacity and ease of use of wheelie bins. This

does not necessarily result in more material being diverted from landfill when the entire

recycling process is considered however. This is due to commingled systems performing

less well in terms of the quality of recycled materials produced.

Looking at the entire recycling process from kerbside to a new product, fully commingled

systems collect more material than kerbside sort systems but collect more contamination,

such as rubbish bags, which must be landfilled, and there is cross-contamination of

materials, such as glass in paper, during transport and unloading. This can result in a

lower proportion of high-quality materials being recovered at the MRF and more material

being rejected by reprocessors.

In the Auckland region, the Visy MRF, which accepts material from the former Auckland

and Manukau City Councils and, as of November 2010, Franklin District Council, has had

well publicised material quality issues, particularly in respect of the ability of the plant to

separate glass. The company says that these issues are being addressed throughtechnological improvements. In general, it appears that some of the problems that result

in commingled systems producing lower quality materials can be mitigated through better

operational procedures and improved technology.

The problems associated with glass in kerbside recycling collections are discussed in

more detail in a separate future issues paper

4.8.4 Carbon impacts

The carbon impacts of recycling derive from several sources: reduced energy use from

the avoidance of extraction of virgin materials, avoidance of greenhouse gases generated

in landfill, and energy involved in the collection and sorting of material.

There are significant carbon benefits associated with recycling. Little of the research that

has been done in this field differentiates between the carbon impacts of different

collection methods. On the basis that most of the carbon benefits arise where the

recycled material is substituted for virgin materials, collection methods that maintain

material quality and ‘close the loop’ more effectively, are likely to have greater carbon

benefits.

4.8.5 Capital costs

Commingled systems tend to have higher capital costs than kerbside sort systems. The

vehicles used tend to be more highly engineered compactor vehicles, with bin-lifts or

mechanical arms, costing in the order of $300,000 - $400,000 each. Relatively simplenon-compacting multi-compartment vehicles, with a value in the order of $100,000, are

used for kerbside sort systems.

Commingled systems require a more sophisticated MRF than those used for kerbside

sort systems. Although some MRFs are relatively simple manual picking lines, such as

that used for the two-stream collection in the former North Shore and Waitakere areas,

the trend is towards increasing levels of automation, for reasons of cost effectiveness,

health and safety, and material quality. The Visy MRF in Onehunga, which has a

Page 65 of 591



28

reported capacity of approximately 70,000 tonnes per annum, had an initial capital cost of

approximately $22 million.

Also important in terms of capital costs is the cost of bins. Commingled systems generally

require wheelie bins, which cost in the order of $40-$50 each (depending on size and

economies of scale). By comparison, recycling crates, as typically used in kerbside sort

systems, cost in the order of $10-15.

Because Auckland Council already has a substantial, inherited investment in a

commingled collection system, comparing the capital costs of the various systems may

not be particularly relevant. The decision on which system to use will ultimately be

determined by the assets the council owns and their projected lifespan.

4.8.6 Operational costs

Labour costs on kerbside sort systems are invariably greater than for commingled

systems due to the manual sorting techniques employed and the consequently higher

staffing levels. This is particularly true if high pay rates and high levels of staff training

are provided, both of which are important in ensuring service quality and managing health

and safety risks.

Other operational costs such as vehicle and plant maintenance, fuel, road user charges,

and insurance will tend to be greater for commingled systems, reflecting the use of larger

and more expensive plant and equipment.

Commingled systems, because of their ability to easily provide the householder with large

capacity through a wheelie bin, can operate on a fortnightly basis with minimal impact on

participation and capture rates. Fortnightly collections can provide savings on collection

costs on the order of 30% compared to weekly collections. (Collection costs for

fortnightly collections cost more than half of that for weekly collections because of higher

set out rates and more material being collected from each household. This makes

collection slower and more costly).

4.8.7 Revenue and markets for recovered materials

The overall cost of kerbside recycling is dependent on the market value of the materials

once they have been collected and processed. Markets for recycled commodities are

influenced by prevailing economic conditions and, most significantly, by commodity prices

for the equivalent virgin materials. As such, market values for recovered materials can

vary rapidly and significantly.

In the latter part of 2008, during the global financial crisis, international markets for

recycled commodities fell sharply. Prices for aluminium cans dropped from $1000 to

$100 a tonne. Plastics, on average, fell from $280 to $200 a tonne, steel from $700 to

$100 a tonne, and copper from $8000 to $4000 a tonne. Cardboard and paper pricesalso dropped 90 percent.

Since that time, demand and prices have recovered to a degree, but not to previous

highs. While the fall in prices was dramatic, prices were falling from record highs and

have, in real terms, returned roughly to the prices prevalent in 2006.

Page 66 of 591



29

Price fluctuations will always occur with recycled materials but can be minimised by

stockpiling materials until prices rebound – as the former Waitakere City Council did

during the 2008 downturn.

In terms of the differences between kerbside sort and commingled systems, the issue of

revenue and markets is closely aligned with the quality of the material being produced.

Research into how markets for recycling can be optimised concluded that minimising

contamination and maximising quality was crucial. Ensuring the highest returns based on

the quality of the material requires that the quality can be assessed by the target market,

whether visually or through utilising a collection methodology that is acknowledged as

resulting in a high quality product.

The ability of kerbside sort systems to deliver consistently high levels of product quality

means they are in a more advantageous position when selling into the market and will

generally command higher prices and maintain demand during downturns in the market.

Similarly, a hybrid or two-stream system (such as commingled system with a separate

collection for glass) can also deliver a consistently high level of product quality. These

factors have been important in Wellington and Dunedin City Councils deciding to move to

a separate glass collection.

4.8.8 Overall costs

In competitive tenders for kerbside recycling systems, a former council in the Auckland

region received lower tender prices for commingled systems than for kerbside sort

systems. This is perhaps the best comparison of the actual costs of the two systems.

4.8.9 Local economic impacts

While one of Auckland Council’s primary concerns with regard to waste management is

to ensure material is diverted from landfill to beneficial use, there are wider economic

issues that deserve consideration.

Material produced from kerbside recycling systems that is of lower quality tends to find

markets offshore, as countries with lower labour costs are able to further manually sort

material to enable it to then be reprocessed. For local reprocessors, this is not an

economically viable option, and they therefore require higher quality material from the

kerbside system.

Providing material that can be used locally for reprocessing will have economic benefits

in terms of reduced need to import material, retaining the value of recovered resources

locally, and providing local employment.

4.8.10 How will kerbside recycling collections be funded?

Funding options for kerbside recycling collections are discussed in Issues Paper 2:Funding of Kerbside Services.

Page 67 of 591



30

5 KERBSIDE ORGANIC WASTE COLLECTION

5.1 Why would Auckland Council start to collect organic waste?

Organic waste collection isn’t a new idea. “Night soil” collections in Auckland continued

into the 1960s. Prior to local body amalgamation in 1989, Mt Albert Borough Council

provided a kerbside greenwaste collection to its residents.

With the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 emphasising local government’s responsibility to

reduce waste to landfill and Auckland Council adopting a Zero Waste goal, organic waste

is an obvious target for waste reduction. As shown in the table in section 3.4, over half of

the council’s kerbside refuse is organic waste, made up predominantly of food waste and

greenwaste, most of which is compostable. With the limited control the council currently

has over other waste streams in the Auckland region, reducing organic waste in kerbside

refuse is the council’s best opportunity to achieve a meaningful reduction in waste to

landfill.

Other benefits of diverting organic waste from landfill include the reduction of greenhousegas emissions from landfills and assisting the beneficial use of a valuable resource that

results if processed organic wastes are returned to the soil. The use of compost and

other soil amendments has other economic and carbon-related benefits.

5.2 Are there other options for householders to reduce organic waste to

landfill?

Unlike refuse and recycling, there are several methods other than kerbside collections

available to householders to divert organic waste from landfill. These include home

composting, in-sink food waste disposal units, worm composting, transfer station drop-off

points, private garden waste collections, and EM Bokashi (a micro-organism-enhanced

anaerobic fermentation process).

While all of these options, other than in-sink food waste disposal units, have been

promoted in the past by councils in the Auckland region, the persistence of high

proportions of organic waste in kerbside refuse would tend to indicate that, at best, their

promotion has achieved only a moderate success. However, as the on-site means of

disposing of organic waste are generally recognised as having the best environmental

outcomes, these options could be seen as complementary to a kerbside organic waste

collection rather than as an alternative means, on their own, of diverting waste from

landfill.

Councils have not specifically promoted the use of in-sink waste disposal units, nor have

they actively discouraged their use. This option has been available to householders for

some time and the use of these units is a question of the householder’s personal

preferences. Although industry research indicates that around 34% of houses are fitted

with in-sink units11

, the substantial quantities of food waste in kerbside refuse indicate

that these units are not being used to a significant degree by the community.

11MWH, (2008) Food waste management in New Zealand , prepared for Parex Industries

Page 68 of 591



31

5.3 How would organic waste be collected?

The method by which organic waste is collected will be determined, to a large degree, by

whether the collection is for food waste or food waste plus greenwaste. The decision on

what materials to collect can not be made until Auckland Council has determined how to

fund such a service, and whether or not a kerbside collection is feasible.

At its meeting on 15 March 2011 the Regional Development and Operations Committee

of Auckland Council resolved to adopt an aspirational goal of working towards Zero

Waste so the council has little choice but to seriously consider the separate collection

and processing of these materials from the general domestic waste stream

The main issue with an organic waste collection is that it requires householders to

separate their organic waste and put it in a dedicated organics receptacle for collection at

the kerb-side. Depending on the system chosen for kerbside refuse and recyclables

collections this could mean householders are required to put up to three containers out at

the kerbside. Based on Christchurch City Council’s experience with its 3 –bin system

(discussed in section 6) three bins may be acceptable to the community.

5.3.1 Food waste only

Food waste only collections are relatively common overseas, in particular in some parts

of Europe, but there are none in New Zealand. A large-scale trial of a food waste only

collection is currently being conducted in Putaruru. For a one-year period, all 2200

households are being provided with a 23-litre roadside container with a lock-down lid, a

7-litre kitchen caddy, and a supply of biodegradable bags. Early results of the trial should

be available in mid-2011.

Food waste only collections can be set out either in bags for manual collection, as in

Putaruru, or in wheelie bins. As households generate, on average, less than 2.7 kg of

food waste per week, large wheelie bins are impractical for a food waste only collection.

While the size of a wheelie bin that can be lifted by an automatic arm is limited to thoseabout 80-litres or over, bins of that size can be manufactured to have a lower carrying

capacity by inserting a false bottom. Going to this extreme is questionable however, as

the weight of the average bin is three times heavier than the average weight of material it

would collect.

It is estimated that there are about 70,000 tonnes of kitchen waste disposed of through

Auckland Council’s kerbside refuse collections, with a further 16,000 tonnes collected

from residential properties by private waste operators.

5.3.2 Food waste and greenwaste

Mixed food waste and greenwaste collections are becoming more common in New

Zealand, with Christchurch and Timaru being two examples. Timaru District Councilprovides householders with a 240-litre wheelie bin for organic waste that is collected

fortnightly. Christchurch City Council provides an 80-litre wheelie bin that is collected

fortnightly. The bulky nature of material in a mixed food waste and greenwaste

collection, to a large extent, precludes manual collections, so automated collections are

the safest option and the norm.

While council collections that include greenwaste are very popular with householders, the

council has to consider the amount of material these collections draw into the kerbside

Page 69 of 591



32

collection system. When a council kerbside collection service includes greenwaste, large

amounts of material that were previously dealt with in other ways by householders end up

being disposed of through the kerbside system.

Sources of this additional greenwaste could be from householders who:

• Previously disposed of greenwaste at transfer station drop-offs

• Previously paid for a private greenwaste collection service

• Composted at home, or disposed of greenwaste in other ways on their own property

• Previously disposed of greenwaste in private refuse wheelie bins

It is therefore highly recommended that any move toward a mixed food waste and

greenwaste collection is undertaken in the smallest possible wheelie bin (80 L) to

minimise the impact on existing greenwaste collectors.

5.4 What are the options for processing organic waste, if it is collected?

The councils of the Auckland region have been considering the options for organic waste

collections for nearly a decade. In that time, considerable research has been

commissioned into the options available for processing the collected materials.

Identifying practical processing methods is important as the choice of processing method

needs to be considered in conjunction with identifying the types of organic waste that can

be collected.

The research identified a number of emerging technologies such as waste to energy, as

well as established technologies such as composting.

6 Christchurch’s 3-bin system6.1 How does Christchurch’s 3-bin system work?

Christchurch City Council introduced its new 3-bin kerbside collection system in March

2009. The 3-bin system includes the first kerbside organics collection by a major

metropolitan council in New Zealand. The system provides most properties in the city

with 3 wheelie bins for their refuse and recycling:

1. A red 140-litre bin for household rubbish . The rubbish bin is collected fortnightly,

alternating with the recycling bin.

2. A yellow 240-litre bin for household recycling . This bin is also collected

fortnightly, alternating with the rubbish bin.

3. A green 80-litre bin for organic waste , such as food scraps and garden trimmings.

The organic bin is collected weekly.

The 3-bin system replaced the old system that used plastic bags for refuse, a 45-litre

recycling crate, and a separate loose paper collection. All collections were provided on a

weekly basis.

Page 70 of 591



33

6.2 Where do all the waste materials go?

All residual waste from Christchurch is disposed of at Kate Valley Landfill. The landfill is

owned by Transwaste Canterbury Ltd, a public-private joint venture between the five

councils in the region (50%) and Canterbury Waste Services Ltd (50%), which is owned

by Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd.

All organic waste that is collected from the council’s organic bins is processed at the

Organics Processing Plant in Bromley. The plant has a capacity of 80,000 tonnes per

year, and also processes the greenwaste collected at transfer stations in the city. The

plant was built as part of a public-private partnership with Transpacific Industries Group

(NZ) Ltd on a build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT) basis. The facility was severely

damaged in the February 2011 earthquake so will have to be rebuilt.

All recyclable materials collected by the council’s kerbside collections are processed at

the Sockburn facility owned by EcoCentral Ltd (formerly MetaNZ Ltd), which is wholly

owned by the council. The facility was built on a design-build-finance-operate (DBFO)

basis.

6.3 Has the 3-bin system reduced waste to landfill?

The success of Christchurch City Council’s 3-bin system in reducing the amount of waste

to landfill cannot, as yet be determined and the earthquakes have meant that analysis of

its effectiveness has been delayed. Preliminary indications are, however, that the system

was working well and that waste to landfill was reducing.

6.4 Do residents like the system?

Christchurch City Council’s Residents’ Survey Research Report in 2010 found a high

level of satisfaction amongst residents with the new 3-bin system. The level of

satisfaction with the kerbside recycling system was found to be 95%. The kerbside

rubbish collection service had a 92% satisfaction level.

The organic waste collection system, by contrast, had only a 77% satisfaction level, with

16% of residents being ‘dissatisfied’. This dissatisfaction is likely to be related to the size

of the organic waste bin. Respondents to the survey were asked which service they felt it

was most important for the council to improve. The highest number of responses stated

that the organic waste bin was ‘too small’.

Page 71 of 591



34

Page 72 of 591



35

ISSUES PAPER 2

Funding of Kerbside Collections


Charging methods for kerbside refuse and recycling services currently vary considerably

across the Auckland region. In some parts of the region, householders pay directly for the

refuse that goes to landfill through the purchase of bags or stickers. In other parts of the

region, ratepayers pay indirectly through their rates bill. Kerbside recycling collections are

generally paid for either through rates or by revenue from other waste service operations

(such as revenue from the sale of bags.)

The intent of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008) is to minimise waste to landfill, while raising

the cost of disposal to landfill (the intention of the Waste Levy) and maximising

recycling/reuse opportunities. Choices need to be made on how to fund each service

(including a possible new organic waste collection service) – according to a spectrum from fullpolluter-pays to fully rates-funded – to best achieve the intent of the Act.

The paper points out that research and experience both in New Zealand and overseas,

clearly demonstrate that the most effective method of minimising kerbside refuse is by taking

a ‘polluter-pays’ approach, where householders pay directly for the refuse they put out on the

kerb by either purchasing bags or a sticker, or using wheelie bins with embedded technology

that records the number of lifts or weights. Polluter pays mechanisms are implicit in some

other pieces of government legislation as well, to deal with environmental effects. The paper

discusses the likely effects of taking a polluter-pays approach for kerbside collections, the

possible impacts, and what has been done to help people deal with such a change.

Alongside this, are the implications of having a rates-funded refuse charge and the three

different forms of rates funding that are possible.

For maximising the collection of recycling and organic waste the paper describes the

potential for using revenue from other waste operations, some form of rates funding or part-

polluter pays or a mix of these. The ultimate aim is to encourage people to divert more of their

waste away from the landfills.

Questions for this section are on the next page.

Page 73 of 591



36

Questions:

1. Funding kerbside refuse and recycling

• Should refuse services be paid for through rates or polluter pays?

• Should recycling services be paid for through rates, user pays, part-user pays, or by

another mechanism (eg. surpluses from other waste services, waste levy

etc)?

2. Kerbside organic waste collections

• Should a kerbside organic collection be provided by the council?

• If yes, should it be funded by rates, user pays, part-user pays or by another

mechanism (eg surpluses from other waste services, waste levy etc)?

$$ ? $$ ?

$$ ?

Page 74 of 591



37

1 Funding kerbside REFUSE services

1.1 Why does it matter how kerbside refuse services are funded?

While there are many issues that need to be taken into account when looking at how

Auckland Council is to fund kerbside refuse services, a major consideration is the effect onwaste reduction. Systems that require residents to pay directly for the amount of refuse they

dispose of have been found to be one of the most effective ways to encourage residents to

recycle more materials and dispose of less refuse.

The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 recognised the importance of the relationship between

waste disposal and its economic cost to the waste generator by introducing a levy for all

waste disposed of at a disposal facility.

Section 25 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 states:

“The purpose of this Part is to enable a levy to be imposed on waste disposed of

to:

(a) raise revenue for promoting and achieving waste minimisation ; and

(b) increase the cost of waste disposal to recognise that disposal imposes costs

on the environment, society, and the economy.”

The Parliamentary Commission for the Environment supports this view, stating in its

report, ‘Economic instruments for waste management 12

’ that, “Because the full costs of

landfill disposal are not reflected in disposal prices, and disposal prices are not passed on

efficiently to decision makers or at decision points, volumes of waste are greater than is

optimal.”

Similarly the current Government recognises the problem, commenting in its 2006environmental policy

13that, “There are many barriers to waste reduction and safe

disposal . They include:

• In other places, local authorities have been proactive in establishing user-pays, safe

waste disposal policies and kerbside recycling facilities. But their efforts are

sometimes being undercut by waste companies offering a cheap, bulk wheelie bin

service, which effectively removes the incentive on households to segregate their

wastes for recycling. Again, this is possible because these operators are not being

charged the full costs of meeting the community’s waste management objectives.”

1.2 How are public good, private good and polluter pays defined?

‘Public good’ is a definition, when used in the context of waste services, that generally refers

to waste minimisation services that are provided for general public benefit to meet

environmental policies/standards. In most cases these cannot be linked to specific individuals

who use the service or it is impractical to attempt to link them – for example litter services,

public place recycling, environmental promotions/education, enforcement of illegal dumping,

hazardous waste services etc. The cost of these services is commonly satisfied through

general rates. The community as a whole benefits from them.

12 Covec Ltd. November 2005 13

A Bluegreen vision for New Zealand 2006

Page 75 of 591



38

‘Private good’ on the other hand, refers to services provided to meet environmental

policies/standards that are linked to specific individuals – for example kerbside recycling

collections. In some cases it is warranted to impose a certain degree of user pays charging,

as both the community and the individual clearly benefit from the service provided. In most

cases however the costs of these private good services are satisfied through general rates, or

subsidised by other waste services, or the Government’s waste levy.

‘Polluter Pays’. Outside the public good/private good definition lie services such as residual

refuse disposal where materials inevitably go to landfill. These are the areas where central

Government has promoted, through legislation that local authorities provide financial

disincentives to minimise the amount of waste sent to landfill. For this reason they are the

areas where polluter pays is the obvious funding mechanism. In addition the legislation

provides the ability for local governments to subsidise other private good services through any

polluter pays service surpluses.

1.3 How are kerbside refuse services funded now?

In the seven former cities/districts of the Auckland region, a variety of systems were used

for funding kerbside refuse services. These systems will remain in place until Auckland

Council replaces its existing service contracts.

• The former Auckland City Council provided every eligible property with a rates-funded

weekly refuse collection using 120-litre wheelie bins.

• Residents of the former Franklin District Council purchased pre-paid stickers which

are placed on rubbish bags set out for weekly kerbside collection.

• Residents of the former Manukau City Council can set out an unlimited number of

rubbish bags per collection for the rates-funded weekly kerbside collection.

• The former North Shore City, Papakura District, and Waitakere City Councils sold

official pre-paid rubbish bags for the weekly kerbside collections.

• The former Rodney District Council provided no kerbside refuse collection. Residents

pay private service providers directly for refuse collection.

1.4 What are the council’s options for funding kerbside refuse services?

A fuller discussion of Auckland Council’s funding options for kerbside refuse services is

included in Appendix A of the Waste Assessment. This section summarises the major issues

from the reports in Appendix A. These issues were considered by the council when choosing

to adopt its new strategic direction for waste management, which includes a polluter-pay’s

policy.

There are two general funding mechanisms currently used for kerbside refuse services in theAuckland region:

Polluter-pays – Often referred to as ‘user-pays’ for other council services, the term ‘polluter-

pays’ has become the preferred term for environmental services. In a polluter-pays system,

there is a direct relationship between a householder’s use of a service and how much is paid

for the service. In a completely polluter-pays system, if a householder doesn’t use a service

at all, they do not pay anything for it .

Page 76 of 591



39

The polluter-pays policy that is one of the council’s preferred options from the Waste

Assessment is described in the assessment as:

“The polluter pays principle aims to transfer the responsibility and cost of dealing with

waste from local government to those who actually generate the waste. It will ensure

fairness and promote waste minimisation and recycling by rewarding those who reduce

waste, whilst ensuring those who choose to place more waste out for collection pay the

full cost.”

Rates-funded – In a rates-funded system, the costs of a service are paid for by the

council, so the costs are ultimately borne by the ratepayer. In a completely rates-funded

system, it is possible that a ratepayer pays the full costs for a service that they do not use

at all.

Rather than thinking of kerbside refuse and recycling services as being funded totally through

either one mechanism or the other, it is more useful to consider ‘polluter-pays’ and ‘rates-

funded’ as end points on a continuum. There are funding systems that could include

elements from both mechanisms, and all services need not be funded in the same way.

1.5 How could polluter-pays work for kerbside refuse services?

The options for polluter-pays kerbside refuse services need to be considered in conjunction

with the type of refuse container that is provided – generally either plastic bags or wheelie

bins. The advantages and disadvantages of these receptacles are discussed in Issues Paper

1: Kerbside Refuse and Recycling Services.

How could polluter-pays for refuse bags work?

Most of the former councils in the Auckland region based their kerbside refuse collections on

prepaid plastic bags (or stickers) that are purchased by residents from local shops or from the

council. This system is used in former North Shore City, Waitakere City, Papakura District,

and Franklin District Councils. In the former Rodney District, where the council did not

provide a kerbside refuse collection, a polluter-pays system is in place in which residents can

buy a private waste operator’s pre-paid bags or pay the operator for a wheelie bin service.

The two councils that didn’t use pre-paid bags or stickers were Auckland City, which provided

a rates-funded 120-litre wheelie bin service, and Manukau City, where residents could set out

an unlimited number of plastic refuse bags for the rates-funded collection.

Other councils in New Zealand use different variations on polluter-pays bags funding

systems. Matamata District Council, for instance, provides each household with 52 free

refuse bags per year. Residents are able to purchase more bags if they are required.

Christchurch City Council, before it introduced its 3-bin system in 2009, provided each

household with 26 free refuse bags per year, with additional bags being available for

purchase. These systems are rates-funded for a limited volume of refuse each year, and thenpolluter-pays for any additional volume of refuse.

How could polluter-pays for refuse wheelie bins work?

A completely polluter-pays system would result if Auckland Council decided to provide

exclusive collection licences to waste operators as per management models 1 and 2 in the

Auckland Council Waste Assessment, or by outsourcing contracts (and charging on a per lift,

Page 77 of 591



40

weight, or volume basis) as per management model 314. Under the licensing model the

householder would pay the private waste operator directly for the service.

Private operators generally provide wheelie bin services. Polluter-pays systems for wheelie

bins are not commonly used in New Zealand. The different types of systems and some of

their advantages and disadvantages include:

• Volume-based systems in which the householder pays a fee (annually or otherwise)

to the service provider for a given size of wheelie bin. Different fees can be charged

for different sizes of bin. A volume-based system requires the service provider, such

as the council, to establish and operate significant billing and record-keeping

systems, as each user of the service must be sent a regular invoice. This may

require invoicing the householder directly, rather than the ratepayer.

Volume-based systems are the least effective polluter-pays system in terms of waste

minimisation, as once a bin of a certain size has been purchased; the householder

has no incentive to reduce the amount of waste being disposed of. Were wheelie

bins to become the primary kerbside refuse receptacle used by Auckland Council in

the future, a volume-based polluter-pays system would be the least effective in

assisting the council meet its Zero Waste goal. A small number of councils in NewZealand use volume-based polluter-pays systems for residents to purchase ‘extra’

services, such as a larger refuse wheelie bin.

• Pay per pickup systems charge the householder each time their wheelie bin gets

emptied. The on-vehicle technology for this system is relatively simple, but requires

some method by which the vehicle can identify the bin for billing purposes. Fitting

bins with electronic chips is the easiest way to accomplish this. This system requires

the service provider to establish accurate customer databases and operate and

maintain record-keeping and invoicing systems. Pay per pickup is reasonably

effective at encouraging the householder to reduce the amount of waste disposed of.

The less often the householder sets out their bin for collection, the less they pay. As

a pay per pickup system would encourage waste minimisation, it would contribute toAuckland Council reaching its Zero Waste goal. Charging based on pay per pickup is

used by some private waste operators in New Zealand, but not by any councils.

• Weight-based systems rely on the collection vehicles being equipped with a

weighing mechanism in the lifting arm to weigh the bin and its contents and for the

vehicles to be able to identify each individual bin. The weighing technology is

available, but is expensive to purchase and must be maintained to high standards.

As with the pay per pickup system, the service operator needs to establish accurate

record-keeping and billing systems. Weight-based systems have been shown to be

the most effective at reducing waste to landfill, but are also the most expensive to

establish. There are no council weight-based systems in New Zealand, although they

are in regular use in Europe.

1.6 What are the options for rates funding for kerbside refuse services?

Rates funding for kerbside refuse collections can take a number of different forms, some of

which contain an element of polluter-pays. Because all rates-funded systems charge the

ratepayer rather than the householder, there is no incentive for occupiers of rental properties

to reduce the waste they put out on the kerbside.

14Page 4-5 Auckland Council Waste Assessment

Page 78 of 591



41

Some councils choose to pay for kerbside refuse services out of general rates . When a

service is paid for in this way, the separate cost of the service is not transparent to the

ratepayer (i.e. it is not itemised on the rates bill) and there is no incentive for the householder

to reduce the amount of refuse that is disposed of through the service. When services are

paid from general rates, a resident with higher rates essentially pays more for the same

services than a resident with a lower rates bil l.

Paying for kerbside refuse services from a uniform annual general charge is a more

equitable funding system, as all properties pay the same amount for the services covered by

this charge. However there is no economic incentive for householders to reduce their usage

of these services.

Targeted rates allow a more targeted distribution of costs, as the council can choose to rate

only the properties that are provided with a service, allow ratepayers to opt in and out of the

service, or provide extra services at an extra cost. The former Auckland City Council, for

example, allowed certain multi-unit residential units to ‘opt out’ of the targeted rate for refuse

collection if a suitable service was contracted from a private sector service provider. There

can be a mild incentive for waste reduction, if the ratepayer is able to reduce the cost paid in

exchange for a reduction in service, such as with a differential targeted rate based on a

‘menu’ of options.

1.7 What are the issues related to the funding of refuse services?

Waste reduction

All of the available research shows that polluter-pays charging results in householders

reducing the amount of refuse that is disposed of through a kerbside refuse service. Rather

than pay more for refuse disposal, most householders will use any cheaper disposal options

available to them, such as recycling more or composting their organic waste.

The waste reduction benefits of polluter-pays funding is apparent in the former councils in the

Auckland region. The lowest amounts of refuse per capita are set out in those areas where

the council provides a polluter-pays bag service. The highest amount of refuse per capita is

collected in the former Manukau City, where residents can set out an unlimited number of

bags at no apparent cost, as refuse collection services are paid from general rates. The

following table15 compares the former council services.

15Auckland Council Waste Assessment Appendix A. Background Paper No. 2: Household Residual

Waste Collection

Page 79 of 591



42

Table 1: Former council waste services

Formercouncil

Residual wastecollected (kg/annum/head ofpopulation)

Collection servicedescription

Funding method

Manukau City 186 Unlimited number of

bags placed out eachweek

Fully rates funded

AucklandCity

175 120L wheelie bincollected weekly

Targeted rate (onecharge per propertyreceiving service)

RodneyDistrict

161 Mixture of bag and binuser pays services

100% privatecollections – no councilrefuse service

PapakuraDistrict

162 Weekly polluter-paysbags

Fully polluter-pays

North ShoreCity

142 Polluter-pays pre-paidbags, weekly

Fully polluter-pays

Franklin

District

133 Bag collection with

polluter pays stickers(except Tuakau whichhas 120L wheelie binscollected weekly)

Largely polluter-pays

WaitakereCity

134 Polluter-pays pre-paidbags weekly

Fully polluter-pays

Weight-based systems have been found to be the most effective form of polluter-pays for

reducing waste. Volume-based systems are the least effective form. Pay per pickup and

polluter-pays bags are more effective than volume-based systems, but less effective than

weight based systems.16

The waste reduction benefits of polluter-pays make it the most appropriate system with

regards to the council’s Zero Waste goal. Polluter-pays is included in Option 3 in the WasteAssessment, which is the council’s chosen strategic direction.

Social issues

As with other council services, a major concern related to polluter-pays funding of kerbside

refuse collections is the effect on the least affluent of households. In a rates-funded system,

the costs of kerbside refuse services are either shared equally amongst all properties, through

a targeted rate, or, if the service is funded through general rates, distributed relative to the

rates paid on the property.

In a completely polluter-pays funding system, it is the households that dispose of the most

waste that pay the highest costs. As the most important factor in the amount of waste

generated by a household has been found to be the number of people living in thathousehold, this means that it is generally the largest households that generate the most

waste. An analysis of the relationship between waste generation, household numbers, and

household income in the former Manukau City found that those households that generate a

larger proportion of the waste would have the greatest difficulty in paying for its collection

under a polluter-pays system.

16D. Hogg, D. Wilson, A. Gibbs, M. Astley and J. Papineschi (2006) Modelling the Impact of

Household Charging for Waste in England, final Report to DEFRA.

Page 80 of 591



43

However, a study of high refuse-generating households in the former Auckland City in 2009

found that households which consistently set out over-full wheelie bins had significant

opportunity to reduce the volume of waste set out. The study found that:17

“On average, 46% of the waste generated by high refuse-generating households

was classified as ‘food wastes’ (9.11 kg per average bin weight, or 17% by volume),

followed by ‘residual wastes’ (4.24 kg per average bin weight, 34% by weight or 25%

by volume). ‘Sanitary/nappies’ materials made up a further 3.22 kg of the average

bin weight (or 16% by weight and by volume). On average, ‘recyclable materials’

(i.e. cardboard and other recyclable materials accepted in kerbside collections) made

up 13% of the average bin weight (2.58 kg) or 37% of the bin volume.”

The study indicated that the areas in which the high-refuse generating households were

located all had significantly high proportions of private dwellings that have 8 or more ‘usual

residents’ living in them than the city as a whole.

There are options available to the council to reduce the social impact of polluter-pays. These

include providing households with additional services to divert waste, such as an organics

collection, offering additional services to households with a demonstrated need, and providing

educational programmes. When the former Auckland City Council trialled the replacement ofits 240-litre wheelie bins with 120-litre bins in 2000, the council provided waste reduction

advice to a large household that was struggling with the new service. After receiving a

compost bin and extra recycling crates from council, the household of twelve people found

that the new service was adequate for their needs.

While a polluter-pays system can be seen as disadvantaging large households on low

incomes, rates-funded systems disadvantage small households on low incomes. In the

former Auckland City, a household generating a very small amount of residual refuse pays the

same targeted rate each year ($164.44 plus GST for 2010/2011) as a household making

maximum use of the kerbside services.

While the social effects of polluter-pays systems need to be taken into consideration byAuckland Council, it should be noted that the legislative drivers behind waste reduction, the

Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the Climate Change Response Act 2002 both include

polluter-pays mechanisms. It should also be noted that there is no distinction between low

and high income households in the recently implemented Emissions Trading Scheme which,

while acknowledging there will be financial impacts on households, expects that households

can reduce costs by reducing energy use, installing insulation etc18

. A similar argument can

be made for polluter-pays refuse charging.

If the Council decides on a polluter pays approach of charging for refuse to landfill, other

ways of incentivising people to reduce their refuse could be explored, drawing on any

successful overseas experience that might work in Auckland.

Effect on rates

A polluter-pays refuse service can reduce the council’s rates bill to residents by changing

kerbside refuse collection from a cost to the council, when it is rates-funded, to a system that

charges only those who use the service. In addition, with polluter-pays, any surplus derived

17Waste Not Consulting (2009) Assessment of Overfilled Wheelie Bins in Auckland City , prepared for Auckland City

Council 18

What ETS means for householders and individuals. www.climatechange.govt.nz

Page 81 of 591



44

from charges can be used to offset the costs of other waste services such as education and

kerbside recycling.

The following table19

shows the solid waste weekly rates component of each of the former

councils on a household basis20

.

Table 2: Solid waste weekly rates component per household

FormerCouncil

AucklandCity

NorthShoreCity

WaitakereCity

RodneyDistrict

ManukauCity

FranklinDistrict

PapakuraDistrict

WeeklyRates

$3.06 $0.77 (-$0.32) $1.53 $4.31 $1.01 $2.67

An analysis conducted for the Waste Assessment found that moving the entire city to a

polluter-pays funded kerbside refuse collection service (including a polluter-pays inorganic

collection service) would result in a reduction in rates of approximately $30,600,000 per

annum. The analysis also found that moving the entire city to a rates-funded kerbside refuse

service (with a rates-funded yearly inorganic collection service) would result in an additionalrequirement on rates of approximately $16,500,000 per annum.

Council market share

Some of the waste reduction advantages of polluter-pays kerbside refuse collection can be

negated by private waste operators undercutting the council’s service and drawing

householders away from the council system. This can be overcome by the council issuing

exclusive licences to operators for specific geographical areas. Two licensing management

models systems are shown in the Waste Assessment under Strategic Option 3.

A rates-funded collection, on the other hand, is likely to result in an increased market share

for the council compared to a polluter-pays system and would have a negative impact on the

private waste operators. By providing any kerbside refuse service local authorities compete in

the refuse market place and this inevitably affects private enterprise operating in the same

market. In such cases, councils must weigh up the public good aspect of their actions. The

Waste Minimisation Act 2008 took these considerations into account when it adopted as its

purpose “to encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal”. Reducing

waste to landfill would immediately have a negative effect on the landfill operators, but the

public good aspect of waste reduction has been judged to be of greater importance. There

may well be different business opportunities also in the expansion of the recycling industry

which would mean a change , not necessarily a loss of business..

Illegal dumping

While it might be anticipated that changes to a kerbside refuse collection system, particularlythose that involve an increase in cost to householders, might result in increased illegal

dumping, this has not been the experience of councils in the Auckland region. When the

former Waitakere City and Papakura District Councils changed from rates-funded to polluter-

19

Page 6 Auckland Council Waste Assessment 20

Councils had different funding methods and services. The table indicates 2010/11 solid waste services againstrates costs and does not include polluter pays charges imposed by the councils. While these polluter pays chargesvary by council it could be assumed that an average of $2 per week could be added to the weekly costs where usercharges exist.

Page 82 of 591



45

pays refuse collections in 1999 and 2006 respectively there were no noticeable increases in

illegal dumping. In both cases however the change-over was accompanied by a public

education campaign and a well-funded enforcement programme. In fact both councils took a

zero tolerance approach to illegal dumping which prevented any increase.

When the former Auckland City Council trialled the introduction of 120-litre wheelie bins as

replacements for the existing 240-litre bins, no increase in illegal dumping was detected in the

trial areas.21

A similar problem to illegal dumping is ‘waste tourism’, particularly when areas using different

funding systems are in close geographical proximity. Residents of the former Papakura

District, for example, can avoid polluter-pays bag charges by dumping their refuse bags in the

nearby Manukau City, where the collection is rates-funded. A common polluter-pays system

across the region will avoid this.

Operational issues

Rates-funded systems are much simpler for councils to operate and administer and so have

low administrative costs but, as pointed out before, are less successful in minimising waste.

Polluter-pays systems are generally more expensive to administer, particularly if the systeminvolves invoicing householders, rather than ratepayers but are more successful in minimising

waste.

2 What are the funding options for kerbsideRECYCLING?

The basic options for funding kerbside recycling services are the same as for kerbside refuse

services; the service can be funded either through a user-pays system or by a rates-funded

system. The former councils of the Auckland region all provided kerbside recycling services.

All of these services were rates-funded, with the exception of the former Waitakere City’s.

The kerbside recycling collection in Waitakere was funded through a combination of surplus

from the polluter-pays refuse sales, and income from the council-owned transfer station. In

other words refuse services could be priced to significantly fund recycling services providing

further incentives towards waste minimisation.

User-pays kerbside recycling systems are not common. A small number of New Zealand

councils, such as Kaipara and Mackenzie District Councils, have user-pays bag systems.

Such a system reduces the cost of the service to ratepayers while still making it available for

those who wish to use it. Other councils, such as Western Bay of Plenty District Council, that

rely on the private waste industry to provide kerbside refuse services also rely on private

operators to provide user-pays recycling collections.

User-pays recycling bags are also used by a few councils for specific areas. Both Aucklandand Christchurch have a council-operated user-pays recycling bag system in their central

business districts.

The main reason for user-pays kerbside recycling systems not being more common is the

effect on waste reduction of charging for these services. By maintaining a price differential

between refuse services and recycling services, councils are able to provide an economic

21Waste Not Ltd (2001) Trial of Integrated Waste Management System for the Auckland City Isthmus, prepared for

Auckland City

Page 83 of 591



46

incentive that encourages residents to recycle more. Any charges for recycling services

would reduce this pricing differential (unless refuse disposal prices are also increased), and

would likely result in less recycling.

The options for rates-funding of kerbside recycling services are the same as for kerbside

refuse services. These are described in section 1.6. Many councils use a combination of

rates-funding mechanisms for their kerbside services. Christchurch City Council, for instance,

has a targeted rate that covers the kerbside recycling and organics bin collections while the

refuse collections are paid from general rates.

While a change to a user-pays system can not be discounted, it is likely that Auckland

Council, particularly in light of its Zero Waste goal, will provide a rates-funded kerbside

recycling system. A decision is needed therefore on whether kerbside recycling will be

funded:

• with a targeted rate

• from general rates

• or from the surplus from other waste services operations.

The strategic direction adopted by the council includes management model 722, whichoutlines the council’s preferred options for managing waste in the region. A ‘rates funded

and/or waste levy’ funding source is included in the management model for an ‘expanded use’

of the fortnightly recycling collection.

3 What are the funding options for ORGANIC wastecollections?

The basic options for funding organic waste collections are the same as for kerbside refuse

and recycling services; the service can be funded either through a user-pays system or by a

rates-funded system.

Most organic waste collections are provided by the private sector on a user-pays basis. In the

Auckland region, for example, there are private sector collections of food waste from

commercial operations and private sector collections of greenwaste from residential

properties. Council-provided user-pays organic collection systems are not common in New

Zealand. South Taranaki District Council charges residents an annual fee for a greenwaste

bin. Christchurch City Council’s system is discussed in the next section.

The options for funding a regional organic waste collection include both rates-funded and

polluter-pays models. Whichever system is chosen the key is to maintain a price differential

between the refuse service and the organic waste service to provide an economic incentive to

encourage residents to divert waste away from landfill.

The options for rates-funding of organic waste collection services are the same as for

kerbside refuse services. These are described in section 1.6.

While a user-pays organic waste collection is possible under the new strategic direction

chosen by the council, it is more likely that Auckland Council, particularly in light of its Zero

22Auckland Council Waste Assessment page 121

Page 84 of 591



47

Waste goal, would provide either a rates-funded or a part-user-pays organic waste collection

to give residents the strongest incentive to use the service.

3.1 How does Christchurch fund its 3-bin system?

Christchurch City Council introduced its new 3-bin kerbside collection system in March 2009.

The system incorporates several features that are included in the management model

adopted by Auckland Council.

Christchurch’s 3-bin system includes the first kerbside organics collection by a major

metropolitan council in New Zealand. The system provides most properties in the city with 3

wheelie bins for their refuse and recycling:

4. A red 140-litre bin for household rubbish . The rubbish bin is collected fortnightly,

alternating with the recycling bin.

5. A yellow 240-litre bin for household recycling . This bin is also collected fortnightly,

alternating with the rubbish bin.

6. A green 80-litre bin for organic waste , such as food scraps and garden trimmings. The

organic bin is collected weekly.

The 3-bin system replaced the old system that used plastic bags for refuse, a 45-litre

recycling crate, and a separate loose paper collection. All collections were provided on a

weekly basis.

Within the area serviced by Christchurch City Council’s collections, every ‘separately used or

inhabited part of a rating unit’ is assessed with the Waste Minimisation Targeted Rate. The

full charge for the Targeted Rate is set by the 2010/2011 Annual Plan at $116.28. A part

charge of $87.21 is paid by rating units outside the kerbside collection area.

This Targeted Rate pays only for the net operating cost of the collection and processing ofrecycling and organic waste. The Targeted Rate does not pay for the rubbish collection

service or disposal.

The balance of the net operating costs for the council’s refuse minimisation and disposal

activities is funded through a uniform annual general charge. The major cost paid from this

charge is residual waste collection and disposal.

Christchurch City Council receives revenue related to its kerbside residual waste disposal

services through its part-ownership of Transwaste Ltd. Transwaste operates Kate Valley

Landfill and is owned jointly by local councils. The council’s 2010/2011 Annual Plan

estimates the council’s share of profits from Transwaste will be $1.8 million for the year.

Prior to the introduction of the 3-bin system, the council allocated every household with

coupons redeemable for 26 rubbish bags per property each year. Residents could purchase

additional bags if needed. All other costs for the kerbside residual waste and recycling

services were funded by general rates.

Page 85 of 591



48

Page 86 of 591



49

ISSUES PAPER 3

Inorganic collections


Unlike most of the rest of New Zealand, Auckland Council currently offers inorganic collection

services across most of the region. The type of service varies. The Waste Minimisation Act

(2008) with its emphasis on waste minimisation, along with the council’s obligation to

minimise health and safety risks, has prompted a review of the current services. The provision

of a kerbside service in particular, where people can put out unlimited quantities of inorganic

waste, combined with the mess, the increasing health and safety risks and the significantcost, has come under more scrutiny.

In this paper a range of alternatives are discussed.

The Auckland Council needs to decide first, whether it still wishes to provide a service or not,

given the substantial cost to ratepayers and lack of incentive to minimise waste.

If it wishes to continue the service, however, there are a number of ways described in this

paper for how that might be done to better achieve the purposes of the Act, such as where

the waste is collected, and how it is paid for.

Given the preferred strategic direction of the council the paper ultimately leans towards the

argument for an inorganic ‘booking service’, as a compromise between no service (which

would best fit with the legislation and the Zero Waste goal of the council) and providing a

service which maximises resource recovery, causes less mess on the street, reduces health

and safety risks and puts most of the cost on those who use the service.

Question for this section:

Should kerbside inorganic collections be replaced with an alternative ‘booking’ system or bediscontinued?

Page 87 of 591



50

Page 88 of 591



51

1 Why were inorganic collections introduced?

‘Inorganic waste’ refers to large, bulky items discarded from households and includes

items such as furniture, appliances, bicycles, and electronic equipment. ‘Inorganic waste’

is defined slightly differently in the waste bylaws of each of the former councils in theAuckland region, but a general description is ‘domestic solid waste that will not fit within

an Approved Receptacle ’ (such as rubbish bags or wheelie bins).

Inorganic waste disposal services were initially introduced in Auckland as a way of

addressing vermin and hygiene problems linked to waste accumulation on properties.

They began when councils still owned landfills and well before there was any

understanding of the need, or imperative for, waste minimisation. Initially councils gave

tip passes to ratepayers with their rates notices to enable them to take trailer-loads of

waste to the landfill for disposal. With the closure of small local landfills councils started

providing collection services and eventually most councils in the region provided one.

Public demand was such that it would have been very difficult for a council not to provide

a service when neighbouring councils did.

Although inorganic collections have become an established service in many parts of

Auckland, very few councils outside the region provide them. A review of inorganic

collections undertaken in 2006 by the former North Shore City Council found that only

eight councils in New Zealand provided collection services and of these, five were in the

Auckland region (Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere, Manukau and Papakura).

In 2009 the former Waitakere City Council replaced its inorganic collection with an

inorganic booking system (explained in section 2.3.2). This change was made in

response to the council’s new obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 as well

as health and safety issues, street amenity issues and cost.

2 How is inorganic waste collected in Auckland?

2.1 Summary of current services

Inorganic waste is collected annually in the areas of the former Manukau City, North

Shore City and Papakura District Councils and biennially in the former Auckland City

Council area. The former Franklin District provides a drop off service and there is no

council service provided in the former Rodney District. During the current waste

management planning process, these services continue to be provided by Auckland

Council.

Table 2.1 following, shows the inorganic service provided in each area along withtonnage collected, cost and funding method.

Page 89 of 591



52

Table 2.1 Council household inorganic waste services

Former Council AreaService Provided Tonnage

collected/droppedoff

Funding method &approximate cost*

WaitakereInorganic bookingsystem

850 tonnes (2009/10) Part polluter-pays

$166,500*

North ShoreKerbside service – annual

Approximately 2,800(2009)

Rates

$486,500*

Auckland

Kerbside service – biennial

12,000 (2009) Rates

$1,886,000* (Biennialfigure/2)

ManukauKerbside service – annual

11,800 (2008/2009) Rates

$2,465,000*

RodneyNo service providedby council

PapakuraKerbside service – annual

1,400 tonnes (2008) Rates

$319,000*

FranklinDrop off arrangement No information

availableRates

$50,000*

Total for region(annual)

$5,373,000

*These are forecast costs from 2011/2012 budgets and may differ from those in the Darft

Waste Assessment

While the collection is provided for all households, not every household participates.

Surveys indicate that 67% or less actually use the service – which costs the region $5.3

million annually. The former Rodney area is not included as it does not have a council

collection. Participation rates vary dramatically between suburbs that receive collections,

depending on the demographics of each area. Participation levels can be as low 9% in

some areas. Establishing participation is not as obvious as counting waste piles outside

households due to the high incidence of illegal dumping occurring in current inorganic

collections.

Based on the highest participation level of 67% it is, therefore 15 times more expensive

to collect kerbside inorganic waste than it is to pick up kerbside recyclables. In addition,

the indirect costs of inorganic collections are significantly higher due to additional officer

time required for administration including monitoring collection, enforcement of illegal

dumping and attending to calls/complaints to council.

There are currently five ways residents dispose of inorganic waste in Auckland. These

are:

Page 90 of 591



53

• Council-provided kerbside inorganic waste collection service:

Residents put inorganic waste on the kerbside when advised by the council and a

contractor picks it up. This rates funded service is provided on an annual basis in the

former North Shore City, Manukau City, and Papakura District areas, and on a

biennial basis in the former Auckland City area. In all collections a different area is

collected each week. In the former Auckland City Council area collection takes placeover a 19 week period. All material is collected in vehicles which compact the material

to make collection and transportation more economical. A high proportion of the

material collected is damaged by the compaction process. Some recycling of metals

and tyres is undertaken by the contractor during collection but the remainder of the

material goes directly to landfill. Collections from the former Manukau City, North

Shore City, Auckland City (including Hauraki Gulf Islands) and Papakura District

Council areas are taken directly to disposal facilities where no further separation of

materials takes place.

• Council-provided inorganic booking system:

This is the method used out west since 2009 and involves the property owner booking

a collection from the council during a scheduled collection period. Residents can

book one pre-paid (polluter pays) pick up per year. The inorganic material is collected

from inside the property boundary rather than from the kerbside. Residents’

collections are scheduled to ensure material is picked up as efficiently as possible

and to minimise truck movements in residential areas. The system is designed for a

pilot vehicle to travel ahead of the main collection vehicle to pick up quality reusable

items which are then processed at the Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Centre and

sold. The resulting revenue is used to fund the centre’s activities. All other materials

are picked up using a ‘soft-compacting’ vehicle and unloaded at the Waitakere facility.

Recyclable materials such as metal, timber, and cardboard are recovered at the

facility.

• Collections provided by private waste operators:

In the former Rodney District, private waste operators pick up inorganic waste. Thisservice is arranged and paid for by the resident. Recovery of reusable or recyclable

materials is at the operator’s discretion.

• Council-provided drop-off days:

In the former Franklin District, six locally-advertised weekend drop off days are held in

rural locations throughout the area. These collection days are organised by the

council, with community groups providing the labour. Residents can drop their

inorganic waste off for a fee, part of which goes to the organisation that provides

voluntary labour for the day. The fee also covers the cost of running the drop off day

including publicity, traffic management and waste disposal. Although this service is

provided, residents are still encouraged by the council to drop inorganic material off at

transfer stations in Waiuku and Pukekohe.

• Transfer station drop-off:

Transfer stations are used for the aggregation of waste, which is then bulk hauled to

landfill. Domestic inorganic waste can be dropped off at most, but not all, of the 17

transfer stations around the region. A limited amount of resource recovery occurs at

these facilities. The only major transfer station with a strong focus on resource

recovery (including reusable items) is the council owned and operated Waitakere

Refuse and Recycling Station. Residents can drop off household hazardous waste,

Page 91 of 591



54

electronic waste and whiteware at no cost, and other unwanted items and waste

material for a fee. Items of value are recovered and sold while recyclable materials

(cardboard, metal, wood) are separated for reprocessing. This helps minimise the

waste sent to landfill, while revenue from the sale of goods and materials subsidises

the cost of the refuse and recycling station’s activities. Although this facility is not

working to its full capacity as a resource recovery centre, it could provide a model for

how other transfer stations in the region could be operated. Together these facilities

could form the nucleus of a resource recovery network. A description of a possible

resource recovery network for the Auckland region is provided in section 4.2.

2.2 Why do inorganic services vary across the Auckland region?

Prior to local government amalgamation in 2010, each council had its own Waste

Management Plan, and made its own decisions on inorganic collection services based on

the objectives of the plan thus services vary across the region.

2.3 What are the advantages and disadvantage of each system?

The following section summarises the advantages and disadvantages of each system.

2.3.1 COUNCIL-PROVIDED KERBSIDE INORGANIC WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES

With these rates-funded services residents put inorganic waste on the kerbside when

advised by council, and a contractor picks it up.

Advantages of kerbside inorganic waste collection services

The advantages of kerbside inorganic collections are:

Convenience

• Although this service is the least used kerbside waste service, many residents

have come to expect the convenience of being able to easily dispose of large

amounts of bulky waste on the kerbside at seemingly ‘no cost’ (the cost being an

unidentified part of a rates bill).

• Kerbside collection is convenient for residents who have difficulty transporting

inorganic waste themselves, such as the elderly, the physically less able or

those without access to suitable transport options – especially trailers.

• Kerbside collections are convenient for the small number of properties that have

no area for collection within their boundary.

Recycling/reuse

• A proportion of the material set out for collection is recovered and reused or

recycled. There is provision in the council’s contracts for steel and tyres to be

collected separately and supplied to the recycling market. However the reality is

that commercial scavengers take valuable material (illegally) before it can be

accessed by council contractors. Material is also collected by the general public;

however there is no way to quantify the amount diverted from landfill. There are

more efficient ways to make sure items are recovered and made available for

reuse – for example through resource recovery facilities.

Page 92 of 591



55

Disadvantages of kerbside inorganic waste collection services

The disadvantages of kerbside inorganic collection are:

Legislation

• Inorganic collections do not support the council’s obligation under the WasteMinimisation Act to reduce waste, or help the council work towards its Zero

Waste goal, as there is no direct financial cost to use this disposal service.

• Inorganic collections take the pressure off manufacturers to provide end–of-life

solutions for their products. Product Stewardship schemes, as intended by the

Waste Minimisation Act, are less likely to eventuate for many products while

councils fund an easy alternative.

Waste volumes

• Rates-funded inorganic collections go against the polluter-pays philosophy. By

providing an easy disposal option, with the cost within the rates bill, there is noincentive for residents to reduce the amount of waste they produce.

• The amount of waste put out in inorganic collections is linked to economic

growth. In positive economic times the increase in inorganic waste is out of

proportion to population growth.23

Although the causes have not been

investigated it may be due to increasing consumption of short-lived, non-

repairable items and a symptom of a ‘throw-away’ culture.

Scavenging

• Although scavenging may be viewed positively by some people because they

see goods and materials circulating within the community, it causes far more

problems than it solves. Many of the scavengers patrolling the streets arecommercial scrap metal dealers, who break and damage items to remove

valuable metals. For example windows are broken to remove aluminium and

CRT television tubes are broken to remove copper. This renders items useless

for resale as well as creating hazards for pedestrians and collectors. If these

items were taken to a resource recovery centre they could be resold, helping pay

for recycling services and providing the community with access to low cost

goods. Alternatively these items could be dismantled for recycling, creating

employment opportunities. When left damaged on the kerbside they only go to

landfill.

• Scavenging is illegal but enforcing bylaws takes significant council time and

resources. Former council bylaws state that it is an offence to remove inorganicwaste placed in a waste collection area

24(on the kerbside) if it is repeatedly

being taken for resale or commercial gain, or if it is removed in a manner likely to

cause injury, mess or damage.

23Waste Not Consulting Ltd (2007), Composition of Auckland City Inorganic Refuse Collection, report to Auckland

City Council 24

North Shore City Bylaw Part 4 (2000), Rodney District Council Chapter 19 (1998), Waitakere City Council WasteBylaw (2005), Auckland City Bylaw No. 22 (2006)

Page 93 of 591



56

• Where recycling attempts are incorporated in the council collections, recovery

rates are low. In the former Auckland City Council’s 2007 collection, a recycling

rate of less than 10% was achieved despite surveys showing that 30% to 50% of

the inorganic collection material is reusable or recyclable.25

The low rate of

recovery is because these surveys took place after scavenging had removed

and/or damaged many items of value.

TVs and computers are smashed by scavengers to take out metal and components of value

Cost

• Kerbside inorganic collections are expensive for the council to run and time-

consuming to organise, manage, and administer. Additionally, recoverable

materials that could be sold to help offset costs are collected (illegally) by

commercial scavengers who receive the financial benefits.

Commercial dumping

• A number of businesses ‘free-load’ off the kerbside inorganic collections by

disposing of large quantities of business waste, even though this is not permitted

by most of the former councils’ bylaws. For example during a recent collection in

the former Auckland City area a tyre shop truck was observed by a member of

the public dumping a load of tyres. Issuing infringement notices or making

prosecutions for this kind of offence requires precise details from witnesses which

can be very difficult to obtain. Business waste can also include hazardous and

prohibited wastes, which the council must remove to protect public health and

safety.

25Waste Not Consulting Ltd (2007), Composition of Auckland City Inorganic Refuse Collection, report to Auckland

City Council

Page 94 of 591



57

The inorganic collection provides ‘cover’ for tyres to be dumped. The inorganic collection run in

Manukau in 2010 picked up 16,064 tyres at a cost of $60,071 (the cost borne by ratepayers to pay

for their collection and recycling).

Cross-boundary dumping

• Cross boundary dumping is a significant issue in the Auckland region due to

collections running at different times of the year and sometimes in different years.

Residents put waste out in their own collection (often putting out multiple loads asthe collection progresses), but also make use of neighbouring areas’ collections.

This represents an additional cost to local ratepayers as well as creating a

nuisance for residents when other people’s waste appears on their kerbside.

Lack of amenity

• The mess caused by inorganic collections affects the amenity value of the entire

region and is at odds with New Zealand’s ‘100% Pure’ marketing image. As the

gateway to New Zealand, Auckland provides the first impression to many

visitors, and that impression is negative during inorganic collections. Rapid clean

ups are required, often at short notice, during VIP visits and important events.

With the upcoming Rugby World Cup the inorganic collection in the former

Manukau City area has been rescheduled so visitors do not see piles of waste

on the street when they fly into Auckland Airport.

• Inorganic collections also create noise and traffic problems due to scavengers

operating at all times of the day and night.

Inorganic refuse, after being neatly piled on the kerbside by the resident,

has been scattered by scavengers looking for items of value

Page 95 of 591



58

Health and safety

• There are significant public health and safety issues attached to inorganic

collections and it is Auckland Council’s responsibility to manage these risks.

Accidents relating to inorganic collections have occurred, including a child being

hit by a vehicle while scavenging and a vehicle striking inorganic refuse that had

been scattered on the road by scavengers. Footpaths are often blocked, forcing

school children, other pedestrians and mobility scooters to use the road. In

Manukau it is necessary in some areas to use barriers to prevent waste from

encroaching on roads and footpaths.

• Inorganic collections present a wide range of risks to contractors as well. A

recent study into the health and safety issues of refuse collections showed that

inorganic collections present the most risks of any waste collection service and

are most likely to result in a work injury.26

Auckland Council has obligations

under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 to manage health and

safety at work. The council’s main responsibility as an employer, which includes

engaging contractors, is to make the workplace safe by identifying hazards and

managing any hazards by eliminating them, isolating them, or minimising them,in that order of preference.

Environmental

• Commercial scavenging of fridges, air conditioners and dehumidifiers creates

environmental hazards as chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), hydro chlorofluorocarbons

(HCFC) and hydro fluorocarbons (HFC) are released into the atmosphere when

scavengers remove precious metals at the roadside

Inorganic refuse blocking the footpath on a main thoroughfare

Equity

• Rates funded collections mean all ratepayers pay for the service even though

not all use it. This means some ratepayers are subsidising others.

26Morrison Low (2010) An assessment of the health and safety costs and benefits of manual

vs automated waste collections – position report for WasteMINZ

Page 96 of 591



59

Administration

• It is extremely difficult to ‘police’ collections - including what and how much

material is put out, where it is placed and when. Despite comprehensive

communication of the ‘dos and don’ts’ many residents do not follow instructions

and the council and contractors are left to deal with the aftermath. Proper

enforcement would be extremely expensive and difficult because it is not

possible to positively identify the source of the material.

• The amount of notice residents are given before a collection is also an issue. If

collection times are advertised with a long lead time commercial scavengers

have time to organise themselves, but if it is too short residents complain they

were not well enough informed.

Hazardous materials set out for an inorganic kerbside collection .

Criminal activity

• Residents report being concerned over security during the inorganic collection

and of feeling intimidated by scavengers

• Scavenging in the Auckland region has resulted in complaints to councils over

perceived criminal activities. In 2009 the police in the North Shore identified a

link between inorganic collections and burglaries.

• Complaints have also been laid over strangers walking onto properties and the

theft of items during scavenging that were not placed out for collection –

including lawnmowers and boats.

Page 97 of 591



60

Empty chemical containers from a suspected P-lab, put out for collection in a North Shore

inorganic collection

2.3.2 COUNCIL-PROVIDED INORGANIC BOOKING SYSTEM

This is the system introduced in the west in 2009 as a replacement for its kerbside

inorganic collection. The system was introduced with the intention to a) remove inorganic

waste from the kerbside and b) move the city towards a complete user pays system in a

staged process. A political decision was made to start the user charge at $10 per

collection, with the intention of increasing this to $15, then $20.

Advantages of a council-provided inorganic booking system

The advantages of a council-provided inorganic booking system, collected from private

property are:

Legislation

• The service is part-polluter pays, which is in line with the Waste Minimisation Act.

All residents have access to the service but only those who want it will use it.

Waste volumes

• Significantly less waste is collected and landfilled. Prior to the introduction of the

inorganic booking system 4,500 tonnes of waste was collected in the western

inorganic collection (in 2007/2008). In the first year of the inorganic booking

system (2008/2009) 664 tonnes was collected, with 850 tonnes collected in the

following year. The Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Centre identified a

significant increase in the number of residents dropping waste off themselves (at

a cost) in these years.

• Not only are residents putting out less waste but there is no waste entering the

system through cross boundary or commercial dumping.

• A maximum of one cubic metre of material is collected from each property. While

some residents may think this is a negative, having become accustomed to

putting out large amounts in the inorganic collection, this is a positive from a

waste minimisation point of view.

Page 98 of 591



61

Costs

• In 2007/2008 inorganic collections cost the former Waitakere City Council

$639,000. The following year the inorganic booking system cost the council

approximately $160,000, representing a cost decrease to the council of 74%.

Convenience

• Goods and materials do not have to be taken out to the kerbside making it easier

for all residents, but particularly those who have difficulty moving and

transporting items – for example the elderly and the physically less-able.

• Collection from private property is more convenient for residents without street

frontages.

Amenity

• There are no complaints about mess on the streets, noise or scavengers.

Health and safety

• There are no health and safety risks for pedestrians and fewer risks for collectors,

who deal mainly with whole items rather than broken goods and materials.

Resource Recovery

• Items are not damaged by scavenging so can potentially be resold.

Administration

• Collections are planned and controlled eliminating most of the administration and

‘policing’ requirements of the inorganic collections.

Disadvantages of a council-provided inorganic booking system

The disadvantages of the inorganic booking system are:

Waste volumes

• Residents can still dispose of one cubic metre of waste per year in a relatively

easy way. There is no incentive to dispose of less than this amount.

Convenience

• The collection is only once a year for each property, so residents still need to plan

ahead.

Cost

• The system is partly polluter pays in the west so there is still some subsidisation

by the council (although the original goal was to make the service fully polluter

pays over time). This is because the charge to the householder does not cover

the entire cost of the collection as there is a fixed cost involved in keeping a

Page 99 of 591



62

collection fleet available. If a small number of households use the service the

fixed cost component of the service increases on a per user basis - and

decreases as more people use the service.

2.3.3 COLLECTIONS PROVIDED BY PRIVATE WASTE OPERATORS

The only inorganic waste services provided in Rodney are those provided by privatewaste operators. These are provided at a cost (polluter pays) to those residents who

request them.

Advantages of collections provided by private waste operators

The advantages of collections provided by private waste operators are:

Legislation

• The service is completely polluter pays which encourages waste minimisation

and is in line with the principles of the Waste Minimisation Act

Convenience

• The door to door service provided by private companies is convenient for

residents, particularly those who are less able to transport inorganic waste

themselves, such as the elderly, the physically less-able or those who do not

have access to suitable transport

• Pick ups can be scheduled at any time and are not dependent on council

schedules

Cost

• There is no cost to the council for providing services.

Disadvantages of collections provided by private waste operators

The disadvantages of collections provided by private waste operators are:

Service level

• As the service is left to the market there may be no service provided in certain

areas (e.g. isolated rural areas).

Waste volume

• There is no limit to the amount of waste residents can dispose of (at a cost).

• Resource recovery is at the discretion of the operator. If the operator has a

financial interest in a landfill there is no incentive to reduce the amount of waste

sent for disposal.

Page 100 of 591



63

2.3.4 COUNCIL-PROVIDED DROP-OFF DAYS

Residents in rural areas in the former Franklin District have the option of using council-

run drop off days which provide drop off points for residents around the area. One such

drop-off point is shown in the photo below.

Advantages of council-provided drop-off days

The advantages of council-provided drop off days are:

Convenience

• The service is convenient for rural residents who do not need to drive a long way

to drop off their inorganic waste. This is significant in rural areas where residents

may only travel into town periodically.

Resource recovery

• Metal and wood are separated out for reuse, as far as possible, in a controlled

environment.

Community participation

• The collections foster a sense of community and are seen to benefit all

participants - the community group helping run the day, the council, and

residents.

• Some community groups offer assistance to those who do not have trailers or areunable to move large/unwieldy items.

Administration

• The service is relatively easy to organise and cost effective in comparison with

large-scale kerbside collections.

Page 101 of 591



64

• There are no issues to manage in terms of people picking over kerbside waste,

causing traffic hazards and litter problems, or complaints about unsightly and/or

unsafe piles of rubbish.

Education

• Any items that are not suitable for collection are rejected. An explanation as to

why it cannot be accepted and advice about proper disposal is provided,

facilitating community education.

Disadvantages of council-provided drop-off days

The disadvantages of council-provided drop off days are:

Convenience

• The service may be inconvenient for some residents, particularly those who are

less able to transport inorganic waste themselves, such as the elderly, the

physically less-able or those who do not have access to suitable transport.

• There is a narrow window of opportunity to take advantage of the collection day

as it only occurs on one morning per year in each area.

Rural focus

• The service works in rural areas but is unlikely to be as suited to urban

environments due to lack of suitable drop off locations.

Health and safety

• Working with voluntary labour poses significant health and safety risks to the

council and contractor, even when only used in a limited capacity and outside themain work area. While these hazards can be minimised, an argument could be

made that only trained staff who are experienced in avoiding hazards and who

have protection equipment should be employed.

Charging

• Fees charged can be inconsistent as loads are judged by eye. Fees charged on

the basis of weight are more consistent and fair.

2.3.5 TRANSFER STATION DROP-OFF

Transfer stations can be either privately owned and operated, or owned and operated bythe council. The main difference between the two is that privately owned transfer station

may have less incentive to divert waste from landfill if the owners have interests in

landfills and rely on landfill revenue for a return on investment. Council ownership and/or

operation of transfer stations makes resource recovery a priority because the council has

an obligation to minimise waste to landfill under the Waste Minimisation Act.

Page 102 of 591



65

Advantages of transfer station drop-offs are:

Legislation

• The service is fully polluter pays and is therefore in line with the waste

Minimisation Act

Convenience

• There is flexibility for residents to dispose of inorganic waste when it suits them

and no need to stockpile material for collection. Transfer stations are open all

year round in comparison with kerbside inorganic collections which are only

provided annually or every two years.

Amenity

• Neighbourhoods do not have piles of inorganic material left on the streets.

Illegal disposal

• There is no risk of cross boundary dumping, commercial dumping or disposal of

unacceptable materials.

Health and safety

• Health and safety risks are reduced.

Cost

• There is no cost to council for provision of services.

Disadvantages of transfer station drop-off are:

Convenience

• The service may not be convenient for residents, particularly those who are less

able to transport inorganic waste themselves, such as the elderly, the physically

less-able or those who do not have access to suitable transport

Resource recovery

• There is no mandate for privately owned transfer stations to recover resources

and reduce waste to landfill: this will only be done only for commercial purposes.

However council run transfer stations have a legislative requirement to reduce the

amount of waste to landfill so focus more on resource recovery.

Page 103 of 591



66

3 What inorganic waste services do other councilsprovide?

As noted in section 1 there are very few councils outside the Auckland region that

provide inorganic waste collections. Of the eight councils identified in a 2006 survey, five

were in the Auckland region. Inorganic waste collections are therefore very much an

Auckland phenomenon.

Other councils deal with inorganic waste in a variety of ways from providing services

through small community-run recycling facilities to large metropolitan resource recovery

operations. The models that work in small communities may not necessarily transfer well

to large city environments - and vice versa.

The following section gives three examples of how other New Zealand cities deal with

inorganic waste.

3.1 Tauranga

Tauranga City Council provided inorganic collections to residents in 1997, 1999 and

2002. However due to increasing waste volumes and costs the council decided to

discontinue the collection and there are no future inorganic collections planned in

Tauranga City Council’s 10 year plan.

3.2 Christchurch

In Christchurch a council-owned subsidiary owns land and buildings at three locations

around the city for the consolidation, reuse and recycling of the city’s waste. At each of

these three locations there is an ‘Eco-Drop’ where reusable materials can be dropped off

by the public. At each Eco-Drop, reusable items like old furniture and appliances arecollected and repaired, then sold to the public through the ‘Super Shed’, a retail outlet

that sells more than 2,200 tonnes of used goods and material each year.27

The ‘Super Shed’ retail outlet

27 Christchurch City Council (2008), Christchurch Rubbish and Recycling Facts and Stats

Page 104 of 591



67

1.3 Porirua

Porirua replaced its annual inorganic collection with an ‘on request’ system in 2003. A

resource recovery centre was established as a joint effort between local community

group Mana Community Enterprises (MCE) and Porirua City Council, with the council

owning the facility and MCE operating it.28

MCE was established to provide rehabilitation with a work skills focus for people with

psychiatric and related disabilities. Resource recovery offered MCE a way to mitigate the

problems clients had in moving towards paid employment and ensured that contracts with

organisations such as Porirua City Council were picked up by local businesses.

The resource recovery centre (called Trash Palace) is located just inside the entrance to

the Porirua landfill. It provides recycling opportunities to anyone going to the transfer

station and has three distinct areas for unloading, retail, and education. Reusable items

are dropped off by the public or collected from private properties in Porirua using the

council funded ‘on request’ service.

Residents get two free pickups a year and these are arranged between the resident andMCE. Residents make items of high value available to Trash Palace (either dropping it off

or via the ‘on request’ service) because they know they will be looked after and that funds

from their sale will go to a good cause.

According to Porirua City Council29 the key drivers for the change were:

• The increasing cost of the inorganic collection

• Council’s Zero Waste policy

• Council’s strategic goal of economic development and employment

Reasons for the success of the new service included:

• Flexibility in the building design

• Supportive council who saw the big picture and invested for success

• Designing and siting the facility to be a draw-card for residents and visitors

• Committed individuals involved.

The service was well received and no complaints were received over the discontinuation

of the annual kerbside collection.

28Envision New Zealand (2003) Resourceful Communities – A guide to resource recovery centres in New Zealand

29Porirua City Council (3 June 2003) Report to Infrastructure Committee – Feedback on inorganic collections

Page 105 of 591



68

Trash Palace resource recovery centre

4 What are the options for the future?Auckland Council can not continue providing kerbside inorganic collections because they

are contrary to the intent of the Waste Minimisation Act and pose too many health and

safety risks. Another solution must therefore be found. The three most viable options are

to:

A. Provide an inorganic booking system

B. Provide an inorganic booking system supported by a network of resource

recovery parks

C. Provide no inorganic collection service.

4.1 Option A: Council provided inorganic booking system

This option resolves a number of issues by offering a service that, although it may be less

convenient than the current kerbside inorganic collections, still provides residents with a

council-coordinated service.

Based on the experience of councils who have made this change, Auckland residents

would accept a transition to this type of system. A phone survey undertaken prior to the

introduction of the western booking system30

showed that although most (68%) residents

liked the existing inorganic collection, 34.5% thought there were problems associated

with it (scavenging, mess, public health and safety and dumping) and 28.2% said that

although they thought the service was necessary, it could be replaced with an alternative.When asked to choose between three alternatives the most popular option was a part-

user pays/part-council subsidised collection system.

A survey carried out after the introduction of the new booking system31

showed that 80%

of the service’s customers rated the service as ‘excellent’, with 96% rating the services as

at least ‘satisfactory, meeting the council’s customer satisfaction targets.’ Most

30Waitakere Inorganic Collection Phone Survey. Envision NZ Ltd. June 2005

31 Waitakere City Council (2010), Inorganic Waste Collection Service Customer Satisfaction Survey

Page 106 of 591



69

importantly, nearly 80% of customers were happy with the new service (60% preferred

the new service and 18.6% found it comparable to the old service).

There was no noticeable increase in illegal dumping when the booking system was

introduced. This was due to the accompanying roll out of an education programme which

informed residents of the changes and a strict enforcement programme which stopped

negative behaviour.

4.2 Option B: Council provided inorganic booking system supported by a network

of resource recovery parks

This option is identical to option A, but with the addition of a network of resource recovery

parks across the Auckland region that the inorganic booking system would feed into. The

resource recovery network concept, explained in an Envision NZ Ltd report,32

proposes

establishing a network of resource recovery facilities across the region based on a

nucleus of seven large resource recovery parks. These parks could be established by

redesigning existing transfer stations to maximise resource recovery. Up to 60 smaller

recycling depots would feed into these hubs, creating opportunities for local enterprises

to provide resource recovery and waste minimisation services.

A resource recovery network would provide local collection points where goods and

materials picked up by the inorganic booking system could be offloaded, sorted, repaired

and/or refurbished for sale through retail facilities attached to the facilities.

When the resource recovery network was proposed in 2005, former councils in the region

agreed that the approach was desirable but due to lack of ownership or management

control of infrastructure, it was not viable to pursue at the time. Now that Auckland

Council has chosen Option 3 of the Waste Assessment as its strategic direction (gaining

access to the entire waste stream by obtaining administrative/operational influence over

transfer stations), the resource recovery network could be a viable option.

4.3 Option C: Discontinue kerbside inorganic collections

Although discontinuing the inorganic collection might not be a popular decision, the

council’s primary responsibility is to meet its legislated obligation to minimise waste, not

to make disposal easy for residents. By discontinuing the kerbside inorganic collections,

Auckland Council would resolve most of the environmental, social and health and safety

problems inorganic collections create. Residents would be expected to make use of the

existing options available to dispose of their unwanted goods and materials: for example

by taking them to a transfer station or resource recovery facility or by making

arrangements with private waste operators. This is what currently happens in most other

cities in New Zealand.

The absence of an inorganic waste collection should encourage residents to take more

responsibility for the waste they produce, as well as affecting purchasing decisions,

encouraging them to choose quality goods over short lived products. Also, if there is no

easy way to dispose of bulky waste, there will be more incentive to repair and refurbish

than to throw away. The impact should be a reduction in the amount of inorganic type

32Reclaiming Auckland’s Resources: A Resource Recovery Network for the Auckland Region. Envision NZ Ltd 2005.

Funded by the Community Employment Group, Auckland Regional Council, Waitakere City Council, North Shore CityCouncil, Auckland City Council and Manukau City Council

Page 107 of 591



70

waste going to landfill and an increase in the amount of material reused or recycled

through existing systems.

Discontinuing inorganic collections may also encourage industry to establish Product

Stewardship schemes to deal with end of life products, as per the provisions of the Waste

Minimisation Act. Without an easy disposal option consumers will start demanding

disposal solutions and industry will have a stronger incentive to provide them.

Illegal dumping would be addressed, as it has been done successfully elsewhere, by

implementing properly resourced public education and enforcement programmes.

Page 108 of 591



71

ISSUES PAPER 4

Public Place Recycling


Public place recycling is relatively recent in New Zealand. The service was originally provided

to contribute to the ‘clean, green’ image for overseas visitors, provide a convenient place for

visitors to drop recyclables, and it has an element of education about the desirability of

recycling.

The service tends to be dependent on seasons, the weather and the bins’ location; therefore

the quantity of material collected varies a lot, requiring a flexible collection service. In terms of

diverting waste from landfill the service is, relative to kerbside collections, very expensive –

both to install/ maintain bins and to collect /process materials. It does not sit easily with either

the product stewardship or polluter pays intent of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008). It is,

however, seen as very useful by visitors and the community.

This paper raises questions about who might best have responsibility for this service, who

should specify and fund it, whether there could be ways of reducing its cost and whether it

should be extended.

Questions for this section• Should public place recycling bins be further promoted and installed in town centres

and tourist areas?

• If so, who should make the decisions on location and how should they be funded?

Page 109 of 591



72

Page 110 of 591



73

1 Public place recycling bins

1.1 Why did councils start putting recycling bins in public places?

The idea of putting recycling bins in public places is relatively new in New Zealand, although it

has been established for many years overseas. A few New Zealand councils started installing

public place recycling bins in the early 2000s, particularly in popular tourist towns like Kaikoura.

These councils installed public recycling bins as part of their commitment to their environmental

goals (Kaikoura had a Zero Waste goal and Green Globe accreditation), to provide recycling

services for tourists who expect these services, and as a public education tool. Reducing the

amount of waste sent to landfill was a lesser consideration, as public recycling bins have limited

capacity to affect waste volumes.

Recycling bins in Kaikoura 2002

The first council to install bins in the Auckland region was the former North Shore City Council

which ran a trial of recycling bins on the Promenade on Takapuna Beach in 2002/2003.

In 2007 the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) started a nation-wide initiative called the Recycling in

Public Places Initiative (RIPPI). This programme involved central government partnering with local

government to establish a network of recycling bins in public places across New Zealand.

‘Love-NZ’ branded bins in Wellington

Page 111 of 591



74

The main objectives of the RIPPI programme are to raise public awareness of the need to recycle

and to meet tourists’ expectations.

RIPPI started with a pilot project in four centres then expanded until, by 2009, 537 bins were

installed in major cities and tourist destinations.

In the Auckland region RIPPI bins, using the MfE-specified ‘LoveNZ – Recycle with care’ brand,

were installed in the former North Shore, Auckland, Rodney, and Waitakere areas. RIPPI partially-

funded the councils’ purchase of the bins and servicing costs for one year.

Since the RIPPI funding finished, all of the bins that had been installed continue to be serviced by

Auckland Council and additional temporary bins have been installed at several Manukau beaches

over the summer.

Recycling bin in central Auckland

1.2 What public place recycling services does the council provide?

Prior to amalgamation, five of the former councils in the Auckland region established separate

public place recycling services. The contracts for all of these services have now been assumed

by Auckland Council. The services offered as at April 2011 are listed in the table below.

Table 1: Public place recycling in former council areas

Former councilarea

Number ofbins

Location Material collected

Auckland 44 CBD

All recyclable

containers andpaper/cardboard

Waiheke

3 year-round,8 more fromNovember-Easter

Rural andbeaches

All recyclablecontainers andpaper/cardboard

Franklin None - -

Manukau42 fromNovember-Easter

BeachesAll recyclablecontainers andpaper/cardboard

Page 112 of 591



75

North Shore 9Town centresand beaches

All recyclablecontainers,no paper/cardboard

Papakura None - -

Rodney 5 Warkworth andOrewa beach

Plastics #1,2, and 5,no paper/cardboard

Waitakere 10 CBD, beachesAll recyclablecontainers,no paper/cardboard

In total, there are 71 permanent public place recycling bins in Auckland year-round, with another

50 temporary bins being added for the November-Easter summer season.

1.3 How much does it cost to provide public place recycling services?

The cost to the council for public place recycling includes both the capital cost of installing a bin

(usually paired with a litter bin) and the ongoing servicing costs.

The cost of purchasing and installing recycling bins ranges from $1,500-$4,000. The higher cost

bins are used in the Viaduct Basin where strict design controls dictate what type of bin is installed.

The servicing of each bin (which includes collecting material and cleaning the bin) costs $19/week

(about $1000/year) for each bin. In addition, there are repair costs and the cost for processing

the material at the Visy Materials Recovery Facility in Onehunga.

As explained in more detail in section 2.6.1, the diversion cost of materials from public place

recycling bins is $2,300 per tonne – compared to a cost of $145 per tonne for kerbside recycling.

Given this extremely high cost the question must be asked whether the council is in the best

position to take responsibility for public place recycling, or whether the cost should fall on

producers and/or consumers. (Product Stewardship will be covered in a future paper.)

1.4 How do public place recycling bins perform?

1.4.1 North Shore City trials

The results of the 2002/03 trial in the former North Shore City provided information that was

useful when public place recycling bins were introduced several years later. Key findings of the

trial were:

• When two identical bins, one for litter and one for recycling, were placed next to each other

with only the signage identifying the purpose of each bin, the recycling bins contained about

66% recyclable material and 34% contamination (non recyclable material). The adjoining

litter bins contained about 17% recyclable material.

• When a custom-designed recycling bin was used, about 92% of the material was recyclable

and 8% was contamination.

• About two-thirds of the material collected in the recycling bins, by weight, was glass

containers

Page 113 of 591



76

• The composition of the material collected varied significantly depending on where the bins

were situated.

1.4.2 Ministry for the Environment and Auckland City RIPPI bin audits

The material collected in the recycling bins in the four centres involved in the RIPPI pilot projectwas audited monthly for a one year period. The RIPPI bins in Auckland were also audited during

the winter of 2009.

In each of the three cities where RIPPI bins have been audited, glass was the largest component,

ranging from 59% in Auckland and Christchurch to 74% in Wellington. PET plastic drink bottles

were the second largest recyclable component in all three cities ranging from 7.8% in Auckland to

10.2% in Christchurch, followed by, in declining order, aluminium cans, HDPE plastic drink bottles

and steel cans.

The proportion of recyclable materials in the public place recycling bins was similar between the

three cities, ranging from 83%-94%.

The results of the Auckland RIPPI audits showed that recycling bins that were placed next to litter

bins collected a higher proportion of recyclable materials than bins that were not placed next to

litter bins.

The quantity of material collected in the public place recycling bins varied significantly between

the three cities. In Auckland, an average of less than 4 kg per week was collected from the 22

bins that were audited whereas in Christchurch, each bin averaged more than 13 kg per week.

The quantity collected from the Auckland bins was markedly lower than Christchurch and

Wellington, probably because the Auckland audits were conducted in winter, when use of outdoor

public places is much lower (the other cities were audited over a full year) and not long after the

bins were installed (before the public had got used to them being available) and before the

council had found the best places to install them.

1.4.3 Do public place recycling bins perform differently in different places at different times?

Of all the municipal waste streams, public place litter and public place recycling are the most

variable. Some waste streams, such as those collected by a council’s domestic kerbside refuse

collection, remain relatively constant over time and between different locations. Public place litter

and recycling, on the other hand, vary considerably between locations and over time.

At many sites, the quantity of public place litter and recycling that is generated fluctuates sharply

on a day-to-day or season-to-season basis. A bin that is filled to overflowing on a sunny day may

receive very little use the next day if the weather has deteriorated. Bins at beaches that require

frequent emptying during the summer holiday period may not require emptying for several days at

a time in the winter.

The composition of public place litter and recycling also varies substantially from location to

location. A bin in an urban setting, such as on a street in a central business district, receives

waste markedly different to that on a beach. Both litter and recycling bins in town centres are

frequently used for the disposal of business waste.

Page 114 of 591



77

1.5 What about recycling at events?

Waste management at public events is increasing in importance, with several of the former

councils requiring event operators to prepare waste management plans as part of the process for

applying for an event permit. While providing recycling at these events is not mandatory for

private event organisers, the former councils, and now Auckland Council, ensure that recycling

occurs at council-organised events.

Recycling services at public events are always provided by private recycling operators, who

provide and service recycling bins and other infrastructure as necessary. The council controls no

assets for this purpose, and uses contracted service providers for its own events.

Waste management planning for the Rugby World Cup 2011 is well-advanced and recycling

facilities at fan zones and festival sites are included wherever possible. The public place

recycling programme, initiated in the CBD in 2009, is going to be extended to include high

pedestrian areas such as Queen Street and the Viaduct Harbour. Temporary recycling bins will be

a major feature of the waste management at all of the venues, the Stadium Walk-up route, and

possibly other areas where the public will be congregating throughout the event.

1.6 What are the important issues relating to public place recycling?

1.6.1 Cost

The most contentious aspect of public place recycling is the balance between the cost to the

council for providing the service and the waste diversion benefits that are derived from the

service.

From a waste minimisation perspective, it is clear, from the information provided in sections 1.3

and 1.4, that public place recycling is an expensive method for diverting material from landfill.

Looking at the costs for the Auckland CBD, each public place recycling bin costs an average of

$1000 per annum to service (excluding the cost of processing the material).

When the Auckland CBD recycling bins were audited in 2009, each bin collected an average of

3.72 kg of material per week. If, as expected, the quantity increases over time to the same level

as in Wellington (8.24 kg/bin/week), each bin will collect about 0.43 tonnes of material per year.

This equates to a diversion cost of $2300 per tonne of material. This compares to the cost of

$145 per tonne for kerbside recycling and processing (averaged across the whole region and

including proceeds from material sales). If waste diversion was the key driver for installing public

recycling bins there are cheaper ways of achieving it. For example it might be possible to run the

contents of public litter bins over a sorting line at a Materials Recovery Facility to recover

recyclable materials.

The wider environmental costs of public place recycling also need to be considered. If acollection such as the one in Auckland’s CBD is undertaken in combination with the collection of

kerbside recycling in the area, it would be relatively efficient. In other areas provided with public

place recycling bins, such as Manukau beaches and Waiheke Island, there are fewer

opportunities to combine the public place bin servicing with kerbside recycling collections, and

additional vehicle movements would be required.

These separate collections would use more fuel than combined collections, add to traffic

congestion, and emit more greenhouse gases due to their inefficiency. An overall life cycle

Page 115 of 591



78

analysis of these public place recycling collections may show a minimal, or possibly negative,

environmental benefit from a waste diversion perspective.

1.6.2 Public relations and education

Waste diversion, however, which can be quantified and analysed, was not put forward by any ofthe former councils as the primary reason for providing public place recycling services. As the

former North Shore City Council stated on its website, relative to the RIPPP trials:

“The council is trialling this scheme to encourage the public to recycle when they are

away from home, and to send a good signal to visitors and tourists about the importance

of looking after our environment.”

Any educational, social, and public relations benefits that are gained from public place recycling

are much more difficult to quantity than the economic and environmental costs and benefits.

In 2009 MfE commissioned user surveys in Taupo33

measuring residents’ and visitors’ awareness

of the presence and purpose of the LoveNZ branded recycling bins. About half (53 percent) the

residents recalled seeing the bins and of these most (89 percent) thought they were useful or very

useful. Of the visitors, 33% of domestic and 35% of overseas visitors recognised the branded

bins. Of these, almost all (98 percent and 97 percent respectively) thought they were useful or

very useful.

Although providing tourists with access to recycling facilities and educating the public are

perfectly valid reasons for central and local governments to promote public recycling, they are

related more to branding and public relations than waste minimisation. If Auckland Council

decides to expand its network of public recycling bins this needs to be borne in mind.

1.7 Are there any other public recycling options?

A system that is complementary to public recycling bins has recently been launched, aimedspecifically at tourists and other road-users. The ‘On the Road Recycling

34’programme, is run by

Northland community enterprise35

, and is polluter pays. Holiday makers are provided with pre-

paid recycling bags that they can drop off at specified collection points on their journey. The

scheme currently operates only in Northland but there are plans for it to be extended throughout

the country within 12 months, dependant on funding.

1.8 Where does producer responsibility come into it?

As with other waste and recycling issues, the question of equity and fairness needs to be

considered with regards to public place recycling. These services are funded through rates,

which means the services are funded by all ratepayers even though they are used by relatively

few. Perhaps as importantly, public place recycling services are a council-funded service thatprovides an environmentally-friendly disposal option for the products of the packaging industry –

which make up 95%-100% of the material collected in public recycling bins. The packaging

industry and retailers are able to internalise benefits of publicly-funded, environmentally-friendly

disposal options for products they sell, while externalising all of the costs to the ratepayer. This

runs counter to the Waste Minimisation Act’s aim to make waste producers responsible for

products throughout their entire life-cycle.

33 The Awareness of the Presence & Purpose of LoveNZ Recycling Bins. Research NZ. July 2009 34

www.ontheroad.org.nz 35

The Community, Business and Environment Centre (CBEC)

Page 116 of 591



79

The beverage industry in Australia estimates that between 25 percent and 45 percent of all

beverages are consumed away from home.36

A similar situation is likely to exist in New Zealand,

meaning that up to 45 percent of beverage containers will not be recycled through household

kerbside collections but will be discarded at private premises, such as bars and restaurants, and

in public places. Product Stewardship, as intended by the Waste Minimisation Act, is the only way

for the cost of recycling packaging discarded in public places, to be borne by producers andconsumers (polluter-pays) rather than ratepayers. Container deposit legislation, which places a

small deposit on the sale price of all beverages (which is refunded when the empty containers are

returned for recycling), is a form of Product Stewardship that operated in New Zealand up until the

1970s and is still common overseas.

1.9 What are the funding options?

In light of the strong education/public relations role public recycling bins perform, an argument

could be made for them to be funded in a different way to other waste minimisation services.

There could also be discussion about who makes the decisions on where they are located and

who funds them. For example if Local Boards feel it is important for their community to provide

public place recycling facilities they could be part or fully funded through future local budgets. Ordecisions and funding might better be made on a region-wide basis. Alternatively, the cost of bins

could be subsidised by advertising. A number of options exist for advertisement-supported public

recycling bins that could be operated independently of the council and provide local business

opportunities. Concurrently the council could also choose to advocate to government for much

stronger product stewardship so that those who create the waste take responsibility for it.

36Australian Beverage Packaging Consumption, Recovery and Recycling Quantification Study. September 2008

Page 117 of 591



80

Page 118 of 591



81

ISSUES PAPER 5

Geographically Remote Areas

Waste Management and Resource Recovery


The Hauraki Gulf Islands and more remote areas present a unique challenge for Auckland Council

to achieve the three goals of the current waste legislation: waste minimisation, equity and cost

effectiveness. Sea access and remoteness inevitably mean that many services are more expensive

to deliver, raising regional cost equity questions, and there are challenges around predicted

population increase (Waiheke) and seasonal variations. With the formation of Auckland Council all

waste services and allocation of costs are being reviewed. This paper discusses possible changes

in order to manage waste on the islands and in remote rural areas in line with the Waste

Minimisation Act (2008) aiming to arrive ultimately at a mix of services and charges that most

residents and ratepayers feel is reasonable, while being fair to the rest of the region.

For Waiheke, this could mean a different charging system, reviewing how and what kerbside

collections are made, and/or a possible reduction in some services. For Great Barrier Island, there

are options describing retaining or removing the kerbside collection service, changes to the landfill

site, reviewing charging levels, and the council gaining greater influence over the management of

waste.

In recognition of their geographic isolation and the cost of providing services, the paper discusses

the possibility of shaping services somewhat differently from the rest of the region, and exploring

the potential for Local Board involvement. The paper has more detail than others as the topic was

not covered in the Waste Assessment.

Kawau and Rakino are also briefly discussed in this paper and rural issues are also covered in the

other papers.

Questions for this section

• Given the geographic isolation of the Hauraki Gulf Islands (and some rural areas on the

mainland) should further work be done to see what sort of role the Local Boards might

play in shaping the way waste is managed, to reflect their unique situation?

• Should Hauraki Gulf Islands and rural areas pay the actual cost of their waste and

recycling services or should the region contribute? If so, to what level?

Page 119 of 591



82

Page 120 of 591



83

1. What is the purpose of this issues paper?

As indicated before, Auckland Council has recently completed a Waste Assessment to meet the

requirements prescribed in Section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) to conduct anassessment prior to reviewing its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

The Hauraki Gulf Islands were not discussed in detail in the Waste Assessment because they

generate a relatively small percentage of Auckland’s waste stream and because they have a

number of waste issues that differ significantly from the rest of Auckland. As result they can be

treated separately.

The purpose of this issues paper is to recognise the specific issues and challenges faced by the

Hauraki Gulf Islands and provide in-depth information on current waste management and resource

recovery practices. This will enable the council, including the Local Boards, to determine waste

management and minimisation priorities and assist in selecting methods for addressing the various

waste streams. Some of these issues also relate to rural areas.

1.1 What are the key features of the Hauraki Gulf Islands?

The Hauraki Gulf Islands’ population and number of occupied households vary considerably with

the seasons, with a large influx occurring during holiday periods. The main industries on the islands

are centred around catering for tourists and visitors, with viticulture and farming being the other

main land use activities particularly on Waiheke Island. Because of the impact of seasonal

variations it is necessary for the council to ensure that waste infrastructure and services have the

ability to respond to peak waste volumes.

Table 1-1 Hauraki Gulf Island statistics

Hauraki GulfIsland

Population (permanent) Number ofproperties

Industries

Waiheke 8,000

32,000 (holiday periods)

6639 Tourism/Accommodation

Viticulture,

Farming, Retail

Rakino 16 198 -

Great Barrier 852 1332 Tourism/Accommodation

Farming

Kawau 80 (approx) 300 (approx) Tourism/Accommodation

1.1.1 Waiheke Island

Waiheke Island is located in the Hauraki Gulf, 17.1 km from Auckland. It is the third most populated

island in New Zealand. The island has a permanent population of approximately 8,000 residents.

During holiday periods this population swells to approximately 32,000. Outside of holiday periods

many properties are unoccupied.

Page 121 of 591



84

Auckland Council contracts the operation of the Waiheke Island transfer station. All waste and

recyclables collected on the island from the kerbside collection, litter bins and private commercial

collection services are delivered to the transfer station.

In 2009/2010, approximately 4,332 tonnes of waste, 1,849 tonnes of dry recyclables and 998

tonnes of greenwaste were handled at the transfer station. Approximately 1,800 tonnes of wasteand 850 tonnes of dry recyclables are collected from the kerbside with the remainder being

delivered directly to the transfer station. Approximately 632 tonnes of inorganic waste is collected

during the biennial inorganic collection.

1.1.2 Rakino Island

Rakino is a small island north-east of Motutapu Island. There are in the vicinity of 198 properties on

Rakino although the permanent population is only 16 as of 2010. It also has a limited ferry service.

Approximately 50 tonnes of waste are collected annually from Rakino. In addition 12 tonnes37

of

glass, plastic and cans, and 10 tonnes38

of paper and cardboard are collected. Approximately 20-30

tonnes of inorganic waste are collected during the biennial inorganic collection.

1.1.3 Great Barrier Island

Great Barrier Island is situated 100 kilometres to the north-east of central Auckland in the outer

Hauraki Gulf. With an area of 285 square kilometres it is the fourth-largest island in New Zealand. It

is inhabited by a small population of 852 people mostly living from farming and tourism. The

majority of the diverse environments of the island (around 60% of the total area) are administered

as nature reserves by the Department of Conservation. Approximately 800 tonnes of waste and 60

tonnes of dry recyclables are brought to the Claris landfill from the kerbside collection, drop-off

points and direct delivery. Approximately 50 tonnes of inorganic waste is collected during the

biennial inorganic collection.

1.1.4 Kawau Island

Kawau Island is 8 km off the coast and 45 km north of Auckland. The island has a small population

of permanent residents and many holiday dwellings. It is also a popular destination for pleasure

craft cruising the Hauraki Gulf. Most of the population is based at South Cove, North Cove and Bon

Accord Harbour. Although there is little data available from the former Rodney District Council, it is

estimated that Kawau households generate approximately 50 - 70 tonnes of waste and recyclables

per year.

2.1 What is the history of waste management on Waiheke Island?

Some Waiheke Island residents have expressed a desire for a greater involvement in decision

making over local issues, particularly with regards to waste management. Waiheke Island wastehas been the subject of much debate over recent years, partly around the change in waste services

from bags to wheelie bins and partly around waste minimisation activities. The awarding of a 10

year contract in 2009 for all waste related services, including operation of the island’s transfer

station to Transpacific Industries (TPI), caused controversy.

37 100 cubic metres converted to weight using a density of 0.12 t/m

3 38 170 cubic metres converted to weight using a density of 0.06 t/m

3

Page 122 of 591



85

2.1.1 How do the waste services operate?

Auckland Council manages collection, transportation and disposal of waste and recyclables on

Waiheke Island. The council owns a transfer station in Ostend which is leased to TPI who operate

the transfer station and also undertake the collection, transportation and disposal contracts. TPI

hold a 10 year ‘build, own, operate and transfer’ (BOOT) contract for the day-to-day operation of thetransfer station which has recently undergone a complete upgrade. Auckland Council still owns the

land and ownership of the transfer station will revert to the council at the end of the contract term.

2.1.2 What are the existing terms of the waste contracts?

The following contracts for waste services on Waiheke Island expire on 30th June 2019:

• Collection of municipal solid waste

• Collection of recyclables

•

Redevelopment and operation of the Waiheke Waste Transfer Station and haulage ofmaterials

The contract for operation of the summer barge situated in Man O’ War Bay from December toFebruary expires in 2011.

2.1.3 How does waste collection work?

Collection on the island is split into five areas, each of which has its collection on a different

weekday. Residents have the choice of either 140 L wheelie bins or 60 L bags for collection.

Residents who do not live on main collection routes such as Orapiu or the Loop Track, have drop

off facilities in key locations. Two additional ‘throw and go’ bins are located at Kennedy Point and

Matiatia to cater for visitors leaving the island before scheduled collections. Pre-paid council bags

can also be dropped off at the transfer station.

2.1.4 What are the options for waste diversion?

Waste diversion on the island, in the form of recycling collections, occurs on the same day as

general waste collections. Households have the choice of either a 240 L wheelie bin collected

weekly or householder supplied plastic bags (usually old supermarket bags). Householders and

businesses can also drop recycling off at the transfer station. Visitors and residents are also able to

utilise the ’throw and go‘bins which have a compartment for recyclables. The most notable

difference between Waiheke and mainland Auckland is that recycling is collected weekly on

Waiheke.

Bulk recyclables are separated at the transfer station and on-sold. Re-useable goods are also

removed from the waste stream by transfer station staff and sold by a local charity organisation.

2.1.5 What are the current options for greenwaste?

Before 2010 greenwaste was processed into mulch and compost for resale at the Waiheke Transfer

Station. Following the new contracts in 2009 greenwaste was shipped off-island to Puketutu Island

on the mainland for composting.

Page 123 of 591



86

Recently a private greenwaste business, Greenacres Waiheke, has reportedly received resource

consent to process greenwaste and is now producing a range of mulch and compost products. As

a consequence greenwaste from the transfer station is now taken to this facility.

Currently most greenwaste can be dropped off free at the transfer station. Fees are only charged

for greenwaste that contains noxious weeds or a particular problem plant such as pampas, flax,ginger, etc that are not suitable for composting.

2.1.6 Are any waste education programmes being undertaken?

In accordance with their contract, TPI provide a range of waste education programmes on Waiheke

Island.These include:

• educating households on compliance issues

• developing waste minimisation strategies with businesses (such as vineyards)

•

school and community education.

Following on from the transfer station upgrade, a waste minimisation learning centre is being

constructed. Many of the community and school education programmes will be able to be run out

of this centre in the future and it will provide a base for tours of the transfer station facility.

2.2 What are the existing waste services on Great Barrier Island?

Auckland Council manages the collection and disposal of waste generated on Great Barrier Island

and also provides collection, sorting, reuse and disposal services for a range of diverted materials,

a biennial inorganic collection and a summer barge in Man O’ War Passage, Port Fiztroy from

December to February for refuse. As part of the scope of waste services, the council owns and

contracts for the operation of the Claris landfill on Great Barrier Island.

The waste collection and landfill management contracts expired on 30 June 2009 but have been

extended to 30 June 2011.

2.2.1 How does waste collection work?

Refuse and recyclables generated on Great Barrier Island are collected under contract with the

council by Great Barrier Cartage (GBC) and transported to the Claris landfill for storage, treatment

or disposal. A rates-funded kerbside refuse collection is provided for households on the southern

end of the island (in the Tryphena area). Refuse bags are collected on a weekly basis for much of

the year, and twice weekly during the peak summer period (December to February). No kerbside

collection of recyclables is currently provided.

Drop-off facilities are located at 21 sites, 11 of which include refuse facilities only and 16 with a

range of recycling facilities. The 11 refuse skips/bins provide a solution for those who are not on

the kerbside collection route.

2.2.2 What are the options for waste diversion?

In previous waste management plans an emphasis was placed on providing on-island waste

solutions wherever practicable. For cardboard the intention was to place it in a pit at Claris landfill

Page 124 of 591



87

where it could be soaked with rainwater and mixed with greenwaste and left to degrade into low

grade compost. This has not eventuated. Options to bale cardboard and ship it back to the

mainland are currently being investigated.

Abandoned vehicles are processed on-island (tyres, batteries, engines, tank fluids and crushed

bodies are transported off site), as is glass - which is collected from drop off facilities andtransported to Claris for crushing then, reportedly, used as drainage aggregate on the island.

Other recovered materials are stored at the landfill, and baled for transport to the mainland.

Transportation is the responsibility of the contractor.

2.2.3 How does Claris landfill operate?

The Claris landfill is situated off Gray Road, approximately 1km north of Claris Airport on Great

Barrier Island. Auckland Council operates the Claris landfill on land owned by the council. In

addition to its primary function as a refuse landfill, the site also has consents to receive, and provide

treatment for, septic tank pump-outs, to operate as a car storage and crushing facility, and to accept

a small quantity of household hazardous waste. The Claris landfill is the only site currentlyconsented to accept, treat and dispose of these waste materials on the island.

Claris landfill does not charge a fee for waste disposal at the facility. All revenue is derived from the

council’s rating income. This was based on the policy of reducing illegal dumping, combined with

the high cost of transporting waste off the island and the small population base from which funding

would be sought.

Reports have indicated that the amount of refuse sent to the landfill is in the order of 800 tonnes per

annum and the life of the landfill could be between 29 and 51 years. However, based on a recent

assessment of current filling rates and realistic compaction rates, the life of the landfill is likely to be

between 10 and 25 years (bearing in mind the current consent is only for 16 years - until 2027). If

robust resource recovery initiatives were introduced and the amount of refuse sent to landfill

reduced by 50% (to 400 tonnes/annum) this could, however, be extended to between 25 and 45

years.

2.2.4 What are the recent capital investment and operational improvements at Claris landfill?

The weighbridge installation in 2009 has been the most important upgrade to the Claris landfill,

allowing waste tonnages to be monitored, and providing accurate records for the council to help

estimate remaining landfill space.

A realigned internal access road was constructed in 2010. This road provides improved access to

the site while allowing landfilling operations to proceed unrestricted.

Recent options that have been raised for consideration have included:

• Purchase of a mulcher for greenwaste and paper to allow the production of betterquality compost

• Purchase of a baler to efficiently process recyclables ready for shipping

• Development of a resource recovery facility, including housing for the baler andacquisition of land from DoC

Page 125 of 591



88

• Use of the roading maintenance contractor’s hammer mill to crush glass at the landfill

• The short term trial and potential purchase or lease of a compactor to increasecompaction rates and extend landfill life

2.2.5 Are any waste education programmes being undertaken?

Waste education on the island has met with some success. Courses have been provided through

the Create Your Own Eden programme. Islanders attending the courses were provided with a free

compost bin, bokashi bucket or worm farm to encourage home processing of organic material.

The three schools on the island are all undertaking various organic matter diversion schemes as a

means of educating students and the wider community. All the schools have vegetable patches

and compost systems.

2.2.6 What are the options for greenwaste diversion?

A 2009 report conducted by Sustainable Organic Systems and Associates concluded that acentralised composting system would not be practical on the island because:

(i) it did not resonate with the local way of doing things – organic material is used by

permanent residents for backyard compost, food scraps for pigs, ducks, dogs and

chooks. Cardboard is used for mulch and paper for fires or otherwise buried

(ii) there is no one on the island interested in, or passionate about making commercial

compost

(iii) greenwaste (prunings, clippings etc) used in making compost is a bulky low value

material. Transport costs associated with collecting and transporting the material to a

centralised facility, when coupled with onsite management costs would frequently

eclipse the value of the finished product.

The report recommended additional capital expenditure to provide a low speed shredder and baler

to cater for cardboard and paper, and greenwaste. The report also proposed that Claris landfill

should be expanded to include a recycling centre with a shed to house the baler.

2.3 What are the existing waste services on Rakino Island?

Waste services on Rakino Island consist of 11 drop off points for refuse and recycling. The waste is

collected by a local operator and taken to a holding area in Home Bay to await transportation to the

mainland. The collection contract also provides for the removal of abandoned vehicles. The island

has a biennial inorganic collection. The current contract has a variation to service just one property

without road access, by boat, at a cost to the council of $200 per month.

The contracts for Collection and Disposal and Transportation will expire on 30 June 2012, although

either party may terminate these contracts by giving the agreed notice period.

Approximately 50 tonnes of waste are collected annually from Rakino, plus 12 tonnes of glass,

plastic and cans and 10 tonnes of paper and cardboard. Approximately 30 tonnes of inorganic

waste is collected during the biennial inorganic collection.

Page 126 of 591



89

2.4 What are the existing waste services on Kawau Island?

The philosophy for waste on Kawau Island is ‘pack it in, pack it out’ and, as such, no waste services

are provided on the island. At Sandspit Wharf on the mainland, molok bins are provided for refuse

and recycling. There are also mainland-based bins at Leigh, Scott Landing, Omaha and Opahi Bay

intended for the use of boaties and holiday makers returning from Kawau.

Around 320 tonnes/annum of waste and recyclables are deposited in the mainland based bins,

which are intended for waste from Kawau. Of this, it is estimated that 50-70 tonnes comes from

households on Kawau, 150 tonnes comes from boaties and the remaining 100-120 tonnes is

assumed to come from mainland residents.

Illegal dumping on Kawau has been highlighted as a problem in the past. Mobile Garbage Bins Ltd

are engaged to regularly remove any waste dumped at the yacht club and surrounding areas. The

yacht club has complained about the problem and various options have been considered including

a moored waste barge. However the scale of the problem has yet to be determined.

2.5 What is the future demand for waste services on the Hauraki Gulf Islands?

Consideration of current and future demand for waste management and minimisation services is

essential for forward planning and service delivery. Effective assessment of the demand for

services in the short, medium and long term ensures the sustainable provision of waste services for

the Hauraki Gulf Islands. The following section identifies key demand forecasting assumptions and

management considerations, and how these can be expected to impact on future service provision.

The forecasting of future demand can also help the council scope suitable options for managing the

demand for some waste services.

The future demand in Hauraki Gulf waste management and minimisation services will be driven by

a number of primary drivers including:

• demographic change e.g. population and/or household changes

• change in commercial and industrial activity/economic conditions (tourism andagriculture being the major industries)

• impact of waste flows from other areas

• consumption patterns/quality of purchased products

• national policy, legislation and regulation

• impact of waste minimisation programmes, services and future initiatives (demandmanagement strategies)

• community expectation

• cost of services

Page 127 of 591



90

2.5.1 How will the demographics/population on the islands change?

Figure 0-1 Comparison of populations of island communities within the Hauraki Gulf

The residential population of Waiheke is projected to grow from the current 8,000 residents to

11,300 by the year 2031 (Statistics New Zealand, 2007). Waiheke has an additional number of

temporary residents (3,400) with holiday homes on the island. While these residents are not

included in the residential population, they need to be considered in terms of future waste planning.

The population of Great Barrier Island is in decline. The New Zealand Census information shows

the island has had a declining population since the mid 1990s, falling from 1,080 in 2001 to 890 in

2006.

3. General issues and options

3.1 What are the council’s key objectives

From a regional perspective the Hauraki Gulf Islands produce a very small proportion of the waste

Auckland Council has to deal with. However the costs are proportionally very high.

Auckland Council has key objectives for the entire Auckland region around:

1) Waste Minimisation: Systems must be in place to encourage residents to maximiseresource recovery opportunities and minimise waste to landfill in line with the council’s

obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act and its Zero Waste goal.

2) Cost Effectiveness: The council has prioritised the importance of keeping rate increases

to a minimum. Any waste services must be efficient and effective.

3) Equity: The council needs to be fair to all residents, regardless of which part of the city

they live, or how much rates income they contribute. In terms of waste services, this relates

to the opportunity to access waste services as well as an equitable distribution of the costs.

Page 128 of 591



91

The services provided for the Hauraki Gulf Islands should align with these objectives.

3.2 How are public good, private good and polluter pays defined?

‘Public good’ is a definition, when used in the context of waste services, that generally refers to

waste minimisation services that are provided for general public benefit to meet environmentalpolicies/standards. In most cases these cannot be linked to specific individuals who use the service

or it is impractical to attempt to link them – for example litter services, public place recycling,

environmental promotions/education, enforcement of illegal dumping, hazardous waste services

etc. The cost of these services is commonly satisfied through general rates. The community as a

whole benefits from them.

‘Private good’ on the other hand, refers to services provided to meet environmental

policies/standards that are linked to specific individuals – for example kerbside recycling collections.

In some cases it is warranted to impose a certain degree of user pays charging, as both the

community and the individual clearly benefit from the service provided. In most cases however the

costs of these private good services are satisfied through general rates, or subsidised by other

waste services, or the Government’s waste levy.

‘Polluter Pays’. Outside the public good/private good definition lie services such as residual refuse

disposal where materials inevitably go to landfill. These are the areas where central Government

has promoted, through legislation that local authorities provide financial disincentives to minimise

the amount of waste sent to landfill. For this reason they are the areas where polluter pays is the

obvious funding mechanism. In addition the legislation provides the ability for local governments to

subsidise other private good services through any polluter pays service surpluses.

3.3 How should Hauraki Gulf Island waste services be paid for?

Currently properties on Waiheke, Great Barrier, and Rakino Islands, pay a targeted rate of $164.44

for refuse collection. Properties on Kawau Island do not pay a targeted rate for refuse collection.Some of the residents on Waiheke, Great Barrier and Rakino Islands receive a rebate for this

component of their rates bill because they do not receive a kerbside collection as there is no road

access to their property. This is in line with the former Auckland City Council’s ‘Policy for remission

of rates in miscellaneous circumstances.’

Residents living in an urban environment can take advantage of the economies of scale associated

with collecting and disposing of waste. A rubbish truck can collect large volumes of waste over a

small geographical area and the cost of capital expenditure to meet mandated environmental

conditions at the landfill can be spread over the large volumes of waste received.

It is not possible for residents of the Hauraki Gulf Islands to take advantage of these same

economies of scale. Additionally the stretch of water between the islands and the mainland makes

transportation of materials extremely expensive.

This means that a basic service provided on the Hauraki Gulf Islands will cost considerably more

than the same service provided on the mainland. In a polluter-pays environment, Hauraki Gulf

Islanders must pay more for their waste services than residents on the mainland simply because

the services cost more to provide. It is hard to justify the subsidy of waste services through general

rates where those services do not create a public good. There seem to be two main alternatives. If

Hauraki Gulf Island residents want to avoid the high costs of waste disposal they can take

appropriate action to minimise their waste. Alternatively residents may prefer reduced levels of

waste service, which are cheaper to provide.

Page 129 of 591



92

The polluter pays approach is favoured for its consistency with Government policy and its

environmental benefits. The important goal of polluter pays, when adopted as a disincentive, is to

provide lower cost (or rates funded) private good alternatives to allow people to minimise their

waste and costs

The table below shows the current cost of providing waste services to the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

Table 3-1 Cost of waste services on Hauraki Gulf Islands

No ofseparately

used orinhabitedproperties

Total costof waste

services forisland

Cost perpropertyfor wasteservices

Revenuefrom refusecollectiontargeted

rate

Revenuefrom

rubbishbag sales

Shortfall Shortfallper totalproperty

Waiheke 6639 $2,678,484 $403 $877,945 $40,794* $1,759,745 $265

Great Barrier 1332 $912,357 $685 $113,464 $0 $798,893 $600

Rakino 198 $123,240 $622 $18,911 $0 $104,329 $526

Kawau 300 $89,000 $296 $0 $0 $89,000 $296

Combined 8469 $3,803,081 - $1,010,319 $40,794 $2,751,968 -

*This figure is the 2009/2010 revenue from rubbish bag sales

The total revenue from targeted waste charges and direct user charges on the Hauraki Gulf Islands

is in the order of $1,051,000, compared to an actual cost of waste services of $3,803,000 - a

shortfall of around $2,752,000.

It seems unlikely, based on the Revenue and Financing Policies of the former councils that waste

services would be deemed to be more than 50% public good. Based on the arguments in 2.2 above

it is more likely to be somewhere in the realm of 5 - 30%. Even at the higher end of this scale, the

outcome would be that Hauraki Gulf Island residents would still be required to pay more for their

waste services or choose a reduction in levels of service to fit within a fiscal window.

It is often suggested, although not substantiated, that instances of illegal dumping increase when

the user charges for waste are increased. Illegal dumping, along with other unlawful strategies for

dealing with waste (such as burning) have been highlighted as potential risks of adopting a polluter

pays approach. The appropriate response to illegal dumping is increased investigation and

enforcement. The council recognises that increasing the capacity to investigate may be necessary,

but would prefer, based on past experience in some parts of the city, to incur this cost (some ofwhich would be recouped through fines) than make policy based on the illegal dumping actions of a

few.

The number of properties who actually pay the refuse collection targeted rate is shown in the

following table.

Page 130 of 591



93

Table 3-2 Hauraki Gulf Island properties that pay targeted refuse rate

No of separatelyused or inhabitedproperties

No of propertiespaying refusecollection

targeted rate

Refuse collectiontargeted rate

% of propertiespaying wastecharge

Waiheke 6639 5339 $164.44 80.42%

Great Barrier 1332 690 $164.44 51.80%

Rakino 198 115 $164.44 58.08%

Kawau 300 0 0 0.00%

Combined 8469 6144

Some Waiheke, Great Barrier and Rakino Island residents receive a rebate for the targeted refuse

rate component of their rates bill. Rebates are given for coastal properties that do not have direct or

indirect road access and for vacant land.

The targeted rate is called the ‘Targeted Rate for Refuse Collection’. However this name is

somewhat of a misnomer as income from this rate is put towards the full gambit of waste services.

While many Hauraki Gulf Island residents do not have access to kerbside collection services they

are able to dispose of their waste in other ways (drop off points, transfer stations etc) and these

services need to be paid for.

3.4 What about providing fewer services?

The level of service provision obviously plays a fundamental role in how much services cost. If

service levels on the Hauraki Gulf Islands were reduced, (and correspondingly the cost of providing

the service) but the targeted rate remained the same, the proportion of subsidy required from

general rates would decrease, bringing the Hauraki Gulf Islands more in-line with the rest of the

region.

In Chapter 4 some possible changes to service levels are proposed with specific regard to services

currently provided on Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island.

3.5 Once regional outcomes have been set, how could services and decision makingin the Hauraki Gulf Islands and rural areas reflect their special nature?

Section 2 briefly discussed the fact that many Waiheke Islanders would prefer a system that gives

them greater decision making power over their waste services. On the other hand the high cost of

delivering services to the Hauraki Gulf Islands and the small population base will always make the

islands expensive to service.

. Thus further work could be done to explore what sorts of variations might be possible to reflect the

special nature of the Hauraki Gulf Islands and rural areas. Local Boards would still be required to

meet and report against key performance indicators to achieve regional outcomes. The level of

general rates funding received would remain set at the level prescribed by Auckland Council – and

it seems likely given the earlier analysis, that the council will be seeking to significantly reduce the

amount of general rates subsidy the Hauraki Gulf Islands receive. Compliance strategies could also

become the domain of the Local Boards, provided the agreed key environmental indicators are met.

Page 131 of 591



94

4. Island specific issues and options

4.1 Waiheke Island

A number of reports are available with specific relevance to Waiheke Island waste management

practices. These have been written by consultants on behalf of the former Auckland City Council

and other interested parties and include:

Table 4-1 Waiheke previous reports

Sponsoringorganisation

Report Author/ consultant

Auckland City Council Waiheke Island Waste Management Review Impact Environmental2008

Auckland City Council Essentially Waiheke Auckland City Planning

Group 2000Hauraki GulfEnhancement Society

Evaluation of Environmental and

Sustainability Impacts of Waiheke

Waste Management Options

Eunomia research andConsulting 2009

Hauraki GulfEnhancement Society

History Of The Planned Development of TheWaiheke Resource Recovery Park 2004-2008

Envision New Zealand2009

4.1.1 Governance

Waste management on Waiheke has been a contentious issue in the recent past. A key issueinvolves a stronger local voice and involvement in waste management on the island. While the

Waiheke Local Board, like other Boards, can make some decisions on variations to service levels

there are limited opportunities at the moment for it to further influence the shape of their services.

This is largely a result of the long term contract that the former Auckland City Council signed with

TPI for delivery of waste services on the island. As the contract does not expire till 2019 any

changes to service provision must be managed through variations to the existing contract.

Options may exist, after that, to have greater influence, and that could be explored with the council

in the next eight years, (or before that, if the council gains more influence over the waste stream.)

4.1.2 Collection options and levels of service

The frequency of collection, type of receptacles and level of service on Waiheke differ to those in

the rest of Auckland. This is further complicated by a recent decision to allow residents the choice

of bins or bags. This presents a unique situation where recycling is collected weekly as opposed to

fortnightly in other parts of Auckland. Residents have the choice of placing recyclables out in old

supermarket bags or a 240L recycling bin, or dropping them off at the transfer station or at specific

points such as the ’throw and go‘ points at Kennedy Point or Matiatia. Refuse is equally

complicated; residents have the choice of a 140 L wheelie bin, or an allocation of a year’s supply

(52) of 60L bags for kerbside collection. There is also an opportunity for residents to drop bags off

Page 132 of 591



95

at collection points, or directly at the transfer station free of charge. While qualifying residents get a

rates funded allocation of 52 bags they can also purchase additional bags from authorised outlets.

There is evidence of an unofficial market in bags. It is not uncommon to see a year’s supply of bags

advertised on Trade Me, Waitrade or in the Gulf News.

Options for the future will have to be considered including the rationalisation of the variousreceptacles and collection methods, and how to move to a polluter pays system, if this is to be

implemented.

4.1.3 Waste diversion at the transfer station

The Waiheke transfer station has been recently redeveloped under a system whereby TPI lease the

land and pay redevelopment costs, and the ownership reverts to the council after 10 years. Waste

from the transfer station is shipped off the island to the Whitford landfill which is jointly owned by

TPI and Auckland Council. TPI are contractually required to separate and recycle viable materials,

and report back regularly to the council with mass balance data. They are paid a fixed price for the

service; there is no payment incentive for increased diversion.

4.1.4 Organics options

Currently most greenwaste can be deposited free of charge at the transfer station by all users

including commercial operators, unless it contains noxious weeds or problem plants (such as

palms, bamboo, tree roots etc) in which case a charge applies.

Greenwaste used to be transferred off the island, but recently a private greenwaste business,

Greenacres Waiheke, started up and greenwaste is now taken from the transfer station to this

facility for processing into mulch and compost products.

Drop off and transport incur a cost, so options for charging for greenwaste disposal need be

considered.

Other alternatives for organics include an organic waste collection (including food waste) that could

be provided for an additional cost. Food waste processing can be problematic but there is a

possibility that five of the Vertical Composting Units that are currently unused at the Waitakere

transfer station could be re-sited on Waiheke. This could offer an interesting solution and may be

worthy of further investigation. If it was to be pursued, a full cost benefit analysis would be required

along with consideration of the effects on the existing green waste processor, or some sort of

partnership explored.

4.1.5 On-island versus off-island options

The previous waste plan for Waiheke and the Hauraki Gulf Islands supported the principle of

dealing with waste on the island where possible. This is considered to be the default positionespecially given the increasing transportation costs involved in shipping waste off the island.

Historically, innovative solutions for waste treatment and diversion have been developed on the

island.

4.1.6 Tourism / boats / barge waste

Waiheke experiences a significant influx of visitors in the summer. Waste increases by almost 150

tonnes a month over the summer period. Additional services are required such as molok bins for

beach users, and a waste barge for boaties. While the waste barge is useful, the costs of operating

Page 133 of 591



96

it fall on ratepayers of the Auckland region. In the interests of fair and transparent charging, a

polluter pays system could be investigated where boaties purchase bags which can be deposited

on waste barges on any of the Hauraki Gulf Islands.

4.2 Great Barrier Island

The fundamental issue around waste on Great Barrier Island is what level of processing or

treatment (including disposal) should occur on the island versus the mainland. This question raises

several factors that need to be considered:

(i) there have been concerns about the speed at which the Claris landfill is filling. The

installation of the landfill weighbridge in 2009 has confirmed these concerns and the need

to examine the future of the landfill.

(ii) the establishment of the Visy Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) may now provide the

most efficient solution for processing diverted materials.

(iii) the relatively high cost of delivering existing and additional waste services to GreatBarrier Island.

A 2010 study39

assessed various on-island versus off-island scenarios and discussed four variations. These are summarised below:

1) Status quo – existing landfill operations with limited improvements to meet minimum

legislative requirements and improve operations i.e. purchase of buffer strip, compactor

and generator; and remediation of hazardous waste area. Drop-off facilities and kerbside

refuse collection service unchanged.

2) On-island maximised services including additional capital expenditure

a. Drop-off stations and retention of kerbside collections

b. Drop-off stations excluding kerbside collections

3) On-island minimised services and minimal transfer station operations maintained at Claris

a. Drop-off stations and retention of kerbside collections

b. Drop-off stations excluding kerbside collections

Optimised scenario – based on the options above a further option was developed taking into

account the relative costs, risks, and practicalities For a discussion of what services constitute theOption 1 –the status quo, refer to Chapter 2 – Great Barrier Island – existing waste services.

4.2.1 Option 2 ‘On-island maximised services’

Claris landfill

39 Great Barrier Island – Waste Strategy Review. May 2010. Morrison Low

Page 134 of 591



97

Under this option the Claris landfill would continue to deliver its current levels of service to the

public. This option also provides for further expansion into the adjacent DoC land to optimise the

operations, providing a more efficient and cost effective service.

This additional area was identified for waste related activities, including the stockpiling of clay for

final cover, establishing a resource recovery centre and allowing the transfer of the car crushingfacility to allow the final landfill contour design to be completed.

Landfilling would continue, with improved compaction improving operations and extending the

lifespan of the facility.

Septage would continue to be treated through sand filter technology with residual sludge disposed

of to landfill.

Greenwaste would continue to be separated at the landfill but would be chipped more finely with a

small capital investment required for new machinery.

Collection

While this option is titled ‘on-island maximised services’, it is still worth taking a look at the current

operation to see where efficiencies could be made. It has been identified that several drop-off

stations have very low usage. It is recommended that one refuse station (Cape Barrier Road) and

one recycling station (Mulberry Grove Shop) close. The cost savings in closing these two stations

are in the order of $5,000 each per annum.

Kerbside collections account for approximately 5% of the total refuse collected on the island and,

based on the current collection contract, are expensive considering the amount of refuse collected.

Therefore, even under the maximised scenario it is worth considering options with and without

kerbside collections (including recycling). It is also difficult to see how the second summer refuse

collection service can be justified under any future scenario. The report recommends that thiscollection service be stopped.

4.2.2 Option 3 ‘On-island minimised services’

Claris landfill

Under this option the landfill no longer operates as a refuse disposal site but continues to operate

as a septage treatment facility, car crushing facility, hazardous waste facility and greenwaste

reception area.

The landfill would then be converted to a transfer station which would provide for recyclables and

hazardous drop-off as occurs currently. Appropriate consents would need to be gained for this,

beyond 2027.

Operationally this option has reduced operating costs although these are offset by the additional

refuse transport costs to the mainland.

Logistically this option is the most difficult, requiring transfer of waste in compactor units to the

mainland for disposal at Whitford landfill. This option would require an initial capital investment to

develop a transfer station and close the landfill including the purchase of the buffer land and

Page 135 of 591



98

additional landscaping required by the consents. These are significant costs that would have to

occur immediately.

Collections

The drop-off and kerbside collection improvements considered were identical with the off-island

option ensuring a robust comparison between the two options can be undertaken.

4.2.3 Option 4 ‘Optimised scenario’

This option was developed after considering the relative costs, risks, and practicalities of the

previous scenarios, but recognising the problems identified up front with the status quo situation.

This option is considered to minimise the risk to the council while also providing an appropriate level

of service at the most cost effective price.

Claris landfill

The optimised scenario provides for the purchase of the entire piece of DoC owned land to bothsatisfy the consenting requirements and to allow for stockpiling of capping material to reduce costs

in the long run. This scenario excludes this land being used for a resource recovery centre and the

relocated car crushing operation. While these would be desirable from an operational and waste

minimisation perspective the report concludes that the costs to implement and operate them are

significant.

This option allows for the purchase of plant for compaction and limited greenwaste treatment only

i.e. purchase of a hogger or other mulching equipment. All other landfill activities under this

scenario are continued as per the status quo, with car crushing, hazardous waste storage, septage

treatment and greenwaste separation continuing at landfill as well as the landfilling of waste.

Collections

Because a relatively small amount of refuse is collected through the kerbside collection, the

optimised scenario proposes that this service be discontinued. This would place a corresponding

demand on the drop-off locations. Therefore the optimised scenario does not propose to shut any of

the drop-off locations.

Page 136 of 591



99

4.2.4 Comparison of options

The summary of comparative costs is as follows:

Table 4-2 Comparison of Great Barrier Island waste options40

WasteManagement

Option

TotalNPV$/T

41

%Change

Assumptions and Additional Comments

Status Quo $673 - Landfill remains open. Assumes purchase of buffer strip only,compactor, generator + remediation of hazardous waste area.

Collection and drop-off locations unchanged.

On IslandMaximisedServices

With Kerbside

Collections

$748 11% Landfill remains open. Full additional land purchase andResource Recovery Centre construction. Refuse kerbsidecollection service continues. Recycling collection introduced.

Limited rationalisation of drop-off locations.

On IslandMaximisedServices

No KerbsideCollections

$691 3% Landfill remains open. Full additional land purchase andResource Recovery Centre construction. Refuse kerbsidecollection stopped. Limited rationalisation of drop-off locations.

On IslandMinimisedServices

With Kerbside

Collections

$756 12% Landfill closed and converted to Refuse Transfer Station.DoCland purchased for buffer strip only.

Refuse kerbside collection service continues. Recyclingcollection introduced. Limited rationalisation of drop-off locations.

On IslandMinimisedServices

No KerbsideCollections

$700 4% Landfill closed and converted to Refuse Transfer Station, DoCland purchased for buffer strip only.

Refuse kerbside collection service stopped. Limitedrationalisation of drop-off locations.

OptimisedScenario

$647 -4% Landfill remains open. Full additional land purchase – noResource Recovery Centre or car crushing relocation. Refusekerbside collection service stopped,

Drop-off locations as per existing. .

Comparatively the kerbside options are dearer than the non kerbside options in the order of

$35/tonne reflecting the higher cost of collecting at kerbside over the duration of the modelling

40 Great Barrier Island – Waste Strategy Review. May 2010. Morrison Low 41 Costs were modelled over a twenty year period and discounted back to Net Present Values on a per tonnebasis to allow comparison between options. These calculations are based on 2007 costs and were developedfor a comparative assessment only. They were focused upon collection and disposal costs of core wasteservices and did not include all public good costs nor administrative overheads. While not aligning exactly withcurrent 2010 costs the relative costs still provide a useful basis for comparison.

Page 137 of 591



100

period (with cost escalations built into future periods), as well as with additional cost for recycling at

kerbside.

On-island minimised options are slightly more expensive than the comparable on-island maximised

options ($5-$6/tonne). The minimised options are more expensive due to the costs for transport

and immediate closure of the landfill.

While most of the above options have costs dearer than the status quo option, the ‘Optimised’

Scenario provides the lowest cost alternative and is also less than the status quo. This is a

reflection of progressive closure of the landfill, the decision not to build the resource recovery centre

and the removal of all kerbside services from the island.

4.2.5 Other considerations

There are also non-monetary considerations that need to be taken into account when making a

decision on the future of waste services on Great Barrier Island. Briefly, key issues which must also

be considered are:

Retaining the landfill – cost increases and environmental compliance

There are environmental risks involved in maintaining and operating an unlined landfill. All tests

undertaken to date from bore water samples surrounding the site have shown no detrimental

environmental impacts, so this risk is currently rated as minimal.

It is believed that by maintaining a landfill at Great Barrier Island, the council can maintain a

stronger control on costs into the future and will be more able to comply with its obligations under

the Waste Minimisation Act to encourage communities to be responsible for the waste they

generate. Education and other waste minimisation objectives may be enhanced by retaining the

landfill, rather than by moving waste off-island and encouraging an ‘out of sight – out of mind’

philosophy.

The utilisation of the remaining landfill space is an issue and better compaction of waste will extend

landfill life significantly. It is recommended that trials be undertaken to assess the benefits of

improved compaction against the costs to provide this.

There are also significant site constraints which have led to recommendations that the site be

extended to provide for waste related activities.

Logistical issues

Distance, coordination issues and a limited number of sailings currently affect the servicing of Great

Barrier Island. Any ‘on-island minimised’ operation would require sufficient resources to maintain

services during peak periods and when unforeseen circumstances occur such as bad weather and

cancelled sailings. This risk should be able to be mitigated through the selection of a sufficiently

experienced contractor.

Levels of service, community expectations and affordability

The cost of the operation is a significant aspect of this review exercise. Lower cost options are

likely to involve lower levels of service and it is up to the council, the board and the community to

determine which options represent the best value for money.

Page 138 of 591



101

Level of recycling

The level and approach to recycling is currently poor. New contracts should have provision to

maximise the diversion of materials from landfill in the most cost effective manner.

5. Summary of Options

Auckland Council has three goals for the more remote areas in relation to the delivery of waste

services: Waste Minimisation: Cost Effectiveness: Equity.

Maximising the achievement of these goals for more remote areas may involve some trade-offs. It

is unlikely that any policy initiative is going to be able to completely satisfy all of these goals

simultaneously. It is up to the council and these areas to decide what trade-offs they are most

comfortable with.

5.1 Funding

It is difficult to see that the current funding arrangements for waste services in the islands meet

either waste minimisation or equity considerations. The low use of polluter pays, the relatively blunt

application of the targeted refuse rate and the degree to which the Hauraki Gulf Island services

require subsidy from general rates, create a less-than optimal situation.

The application of the targeted refuse rate, as it applies to Hauraki Gulf Island residents, should be

reviewed. The current situation where just over 50% of the residents of Great Barrier Island, for

example, contribute towards the cost of waste is unsustainable.

Whether or not the level of the targeted rate needs to be increased is something that the council,

the boards and residents may wish to consider. However, when the increased targeted rate is

weighed up against the goals of waste minimisation, cost effectiveness and equity, it is hard to justify. It is cost effective insofar as it is an administratively efficient method of getting revenue but it

does not achieve waste minimisation objectives.

A more equitable strategy from both a cost effective and waste minimisation perspective suggests

an increase in the range of polluter pays services on the islands. Examples of potential charges are

for disposal of septage at the Claris landfill, greenwaste charges at the Waiheke transfer station and

pay-per-use bins at locations frequented by boaties.

5.2 Governance

Given the geographic isolation of the Gulf Islands and the rural areas of the city, further work could

be done, to enable the Boards to shape particular aspects of future local waste services. Its LocalBoards are in the best position to know what waste education strategies and market mechanisms

are going to produce the best results for their communities. Locally driven initiatives are likely to

garner high support and may produce additional community benefits that the council is unable to

foresee or measure.

5.3 Levels of service

This paper has identified some areas where a reduction in levels of waste services could beexplored. These include landfill operating hours and kerbside collections on Great Barrier, weekly

Page 139 of 591



102

collection of recyclables on Waiheke, the option of bags or bins on Waiheke, and the placement ofdrop off points on a number of islands and the mainland.

Page 140 of 591



AUCKLAND COUNCIL: EVALUATING

POTENTIAL TRANSPORT INEFFICIENCIES IN AUCKLAND WASTE

ERNST & YOUNG - MAY 2011

Page 141 of 591



Auckland Council : Evaluating potential transpoinefficiencies in Auckland Waste

31 May 2011

Reliance Restricted

Gareth Gallowa

Partner

Transaction Adviso

T +64 9 300 7

M +64 274 899

F +64 9 309 8

E Gareth.gallo

Sophie Dawson

Manager

Transaction Adviso

T +64 9 377 4

M +64 274 899

F +64 9 309 8

E Sophie.daws



Our work commenced on 10 March and was completed at 31 May 2011, hencedoes not reflect events or information past this date.

Information received

We have not sought to establish the reliability of information given to us except asspecifically stated in the report. Consequently, we give no assurance on such

information.Where we have quantified financial information based on data provided to usthese quantifications have been based on analytical procedures carried out oninformation supplied to us, and should be regarded as illustrative. Such analysisis necessarily subjective.

References to Ernst & Young Transaction Advisory Services Limited or Ernst &Young in the report relate to our advice, recommendations and analysis and donot indicate that we take any responsibility for the information concerned or areassembling or associating ourselves with any financial information includingprospective financial information.

The information contained in this report has been primarily based on:

– Information obtained from Council waste mangers regarding CouncilControlled Waste,

– Auckland Council Waste Assessment (ACWA), and

– Discussions with the Council and various private sector waste operators andconsultants.

It is your responsibility to considebased on the information availarecommendations.

We wish to place on record our apfrom the Council.

Yours faithfully

Gareth Galloway Partner For and on behalf of Ernst & Young



Abbreviations

Abbreviations

31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

ACWA Auckland Council Waste Assessment report 2011

Ernst & Young Ernst & Young Transaction Advisory Services Limited

Council Auckland Council

CCO Council Controlled Organisation

CCTO Council Controlled Trading Organisation

CCW Council Controlled Waste

Covec Covec Limited

ESL Envirowaste Services Limited

LEV Low Emission Vehicle

MCC

NSCC

Manukau City Council (now part of Council)

North Shore City Council (now part of Council)

OPEX Operational expenditure

RTS Refuse Transfer Station

TPI Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Limited

WMA Waste Minimisation Act (2008)



Contents

Contents


Key findings and next steps

Introduction

1. Report background ......................................................................

2. Objectives and scope ...................................................................

Background relevant to our assessment

3. Context - the Auckland region waste landscape ...........................

4. Key commercial arrangements .....................................................

5. Potential drivers of waste transport inefficiencies .........................

Council Controlled Waste - Case Study 6. Introduction and background ........................................................

7. Case study ...................................................................................

8. Case study assumptions ...............................................................

9. Finding of quantification ...............................................................

Non Council Controlled Waste

10. Consultations and previous assessments and reports .................

Qualitative assessment: other waste

transportation inefficiency areas

Appendices

A. Benchmark cost of waste collection (CCW)

B. Case study details



Contents

Contents


C. Assumptions

D. Sources of information

E. Previous studies and consultations

F. Auckland non Council Controlled Waste Transport review - workquestionnaire

G. Detailed description of transfer station optimisation approaches

H. Ernst & Young work plan: waste transport inefficiencies

I. Engagement letter



Key findings and next steps 31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

1







2

Key Findings

CCW streams

We have undertaken a high level case study analysing potential wdistances travelled from collection areas to and from RTS and lasub areas of Auckland Council region and suggested indicative these inefficiencies were extrapolated on a simple basis across athe wider Auckland Council region this would equate to indicative $2.3m p.a.

These efficiencies are premised on a hypothesis that taking kerbsidis optimal from a kilometres travelled perspective. We note thaaccept this hypothesis, e.g. citing “double handing” impacts.

We have identified a report prepared by a third party that, when adparameters (e.g. diesel costs) indicates benchmark waste collectio$8 per km. We have shared this analysis with the key priva

comments.

Other potential waste related savings that could be additional toinefficiencies, include the following:

– Congestion impacts

– RTS / landfill waiting times

– Emissions / pollution

– Road damage

– Truck configurations

– RTS / landfill opening hours and nights hours

– Bulk hauling at night

These areas of potential savings should be considered by the Council

Non CCW streams

We have not been able to analyse levels of potential waste transplack of available data. We have however, tested views of private sin relation to this matter.






3

Private sector waste operators have a range of views in rinefficiencies, including the following:

– One of the private sector operators we met with believes trelation to the entire waste stream could be in the order of 10%

– We further note that this estimated range is broadly similar to tstudy referred to above. We note that were a simple extrapolalevel of 13% applied to the non CCW stream this could equate tthe order of $14m. We strongly emphasise the indicative naturthat detailed analysis is undertaken in relation to in this matter smade available (see next steps below).

– Three of the industry participants with whom we met have expefficiencies solely in relation to transport is ineffective; considewaste value chain.

Next Steps

We recommend the following Next Steps should be considered by the

Element Action

Council Controlled Waste Modelling and quantification of potential transport savinRodney, Papakura applying the assessment methodo

Quantification of other waste value chain factors such

Non Council Controlled Waste Obtain data from industry

Development of an case study example applying data

Extrapolation of a case study across non CCW waste s

Estimations of potential non Council Controlled Waste

Quantification of other waste value chain factors such

Transport route and infrastructure optimisation modelling Detailed operational modelling considering factors incllocations, optimal depot / yard locations, truck sizes, co

Further to a previous proposal made to you, a specialisthis analysis.



Introduction 31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

4

Introduction

1. Report background

2. Objectives and scope



Introduction : Report background

Introduction


6

In relation to both Part A and Part B, this report notes elements and ainefficiencies.

In relation to Part B, this report evaluates potential transport efficieCouncil for a selection of geographic case studies and illustrates indachieved from making transport journeys between collection areas, landfills across the Auckland region more efficient.

Findings have been informed through consideration of data providedwith the Council and industry.



Introduction : Objectives and scope

Introduction


7

Objectives and scope

Ernst & Young was engaged to support the Council to evaluate tra

within the Auckland region, and where information permitted, translateFor Part A, non CCW, this included:

Review of prior reports in areas relevant to non CCW transport ele

Discussion with various private sector waste operators to gather petransport inefficiencies.

If possible, analysis of potential transport inefficiencies across the received from private sector waste operators. No such data was re

For Part B, CCW, this included:

Understanding and information permitting, evaluating potential inefpart of this, determining possible efficiency improvements from p

Refuse Transfer Stations.Reports we referred to as part of our work included the following. Foread the documents listed below in their entirety nor have we been req

ACWA

Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 2009

Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 2009



Background relevant to our assessment 31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

8


3. Context - the Auckland region waste landscape

4. Key commercial arrangements

5. Potential drivers of waste transport inefficiencies



Background relevant to our assessment : Context - the Auckland region waste landscap



10

Transfer stations and landfills that serve the Auckland region

Source: ACWA

The Council has a statutory responsibility to promote efficient anminimisation across the region.

1In light of Council controlling only cir

ability to fulfil that responsibility and influence transport logistics is arg

1Primary legislation driving waste management and minimisation planning is the Waste Minimisation Act (WMA), the Local Government Ac






11

Waste service providers

The majority of Auckland waste management infrastructure (i.e. fle

owned and operated by private waste companies, in particular Trans(TPI) and EnviroWaste Services Limited (ESL). There are around 2disposal companies operating across the region in total. These in journey routes from collection to disposal.

Transfer stations and landfills

The region’s waste is currently sorted at 17 refuse transfer stations athree landfills (Redvale, Whitford and Hampton Downs).

2It is noted

effectively, the combined capacity of the existing landfills provideregion’s waste disposal needs for several decades

3. It also notes th

the substantial capital investment requirements, it is unlikely that thereAuckland landfill market until required by the closure of Redvale in 10

Previously, when the landfill serving Auckland was within the urb

delivered directly to the facility. Now given the number and location oof transported waste journeys, often determined by commercial object

Waste processes

Reflecting the above, the following diagram summarises the generaand recycled or disposed of in the Auckland region.

2Only eight of the 17 refuse transfer stations are used for Council-collected domestic waste. Of the 17 refuse transfer stations, the Council

Waiuku.3

However based on consultation during our analysis, private industry experts highlighted that the lifespan of Redvale Landfill is limited (seefurther north/outside of Auckland, potentially adding to transport costs and inefficiencies






12

Auckland region waste overview

Source: Ernst & Young (modified form publicly available reports)

Domestic waste

CCW kerbsidecollection

(16%)

Non Co uncil ControlWaste(84%)

Commerci al waste

Refuse transfer stations

17 in total

Council uses Wiri, Rosedale, Pikes

Point, Papakura, Pukekohe, Waitakere

Council owns Devonport, Helensville,

Waiheke, Waitakereand Waiuku

LandfillsRedvale(TPI),

Hampton Downs (ESL),Whitford(council/TPI)

Recycling/recoveredmaterials

Contracted to Visy(Onehunga)

Note: Light grey boxes indicate waste activities controlled by the Council. This report focuses on these activities.



Background relevant to our assessment : Key commercial arrangements



13

Key commercial arrangements

Swapping arrangements

To counter transport inefficiencies, two waste collection and disposalin place.

Under the swapping arrangements, landfills accept quantities of wstations. Swapping is intended to reduce trans-region hauling and rati

To some degree, waste swapping should mitigate transport inefficienefficiencies could be impeded if one of the parties reaches a cap (durestrictions). Swapping arrangements have been in place for the lasevery two years. Industry sources expect this arrangement to continand is commercially beneficial to the parties involved. 95% of the voRTS.

In our discussions with the parties to the swapping arrangements b

work effectively.One of the parties to the swapping arrangements has made further co

“Swap arrangements in principle are efficient as they reduce the costthey do not necessarily maximize the benefits. The inherent problems

They are temporary, traditionally short term duration (less than 2 ye

They are dependent upon the goodwill / desire of both parties to ag

No guarantees that a swap agreement will be renegotiated

They can be materially impacted by market pressure and / or custo

They only work when both parties have ‘controlled’ waste in the oth

They do not necessarily optimize cost reduction opportunity

There is no mechanism determining value transfer

There is no mechanism for independent facilitation of the agreeme

In summary, the swap is suboptimal and contractually short term.”

Council and some private sector experts, as detailed in the ARC swapping arrangements lack transparency and certainty, and if they w



Background relevant to our assessment : Key commercial arrangements



15

While the public might be influenced by gate fees, they tend to convenient drop off, rather than the one with the competitive gate f

Currently gate fees are do not significantly affect waste minimisatio

We note the sensitivity of users to price and anticipate that at somefees would influence waste minimisation behaviour.

Bulk hauling

Bulk haulage from transfer stations represents in the region of 40% asserts that more waste is bulk hauled from transfer stations to Hamp

Bulk hauling arrangements, through compacting waste consolidation is collected at RTS to be more efficiently transported to landfill. It is a swapping arrangements.

Trucks disposing at RTS typically have payloads of 0.5 to 10 tonnestypically have 22 to 25 tonne payloads.

We have been advised that there are limited swapping arrangemenprivate sector transporting companies typically take waste to their owtherefore potentially contributing to transport inefficiencies.

Council has stated that previous disclosure by landfill owners suggesone of Auckland’s major landfills are made up of trucks carrying less t

4ACWA, Appendix C-3 Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 2009, p23 (p297 of 471)



Background relevant to our assessment : Potential drivers of waste transport inefficienc



17

Another example of potential transport inefficiencies provided by thtransfer stations (such as in Constellation Drive, Pikes Point, Wiri ahighly-populated areas do not take CCW from surrounding waste colle

The following table shows major transfer stations and their respectivesame area. It suggests that only three of the transfer stations service t

CCW transportation

Transfer station Owner / operator Currently used for Councilcollections in th at area

Could

Pukekohe ESL Yes

Papakura TPI Yes

Waitakere Council Yes

Constellation Drive ESL No

Patiki ESL No

Wiri ESL / JJ Richards No

Pikes Point ESL / TPI No

East Tamaki TPI / Council No

Silverdale Metrowaste No

Devonport Council No

Rosedale TPI No Based on data fromCouncil waste experts

The Council believes that the former Manukau City collection area pinefficiency where:

Waste is taken straight to landfill (in two to four person trucks) ranot suited for landfill site conditions

Parts of Manukau are closer to Wiri RTS than Whitford landfitransport efficiencies could be obtained if both locations were avaclosest location

Private sector operators differ in their view on the most efficient disof the RTS and landfills reflecting on whether commercial and / or m

Non Council Controlled Waste collection services

The majority of non Council Controlled Waste is generated by commeThe ACWA indicates that it represents approximately 86% of wastecomprises non Council Controlled Waste collected by private secto



Background relevant to our assessment : Potential drivers of waste transport inefficienc



18

transfer stations or landfills by businesses directly. In the contextkerbside waste collected under contract with the Council.

The Council’s views on potential transport inefficiencies within this wa Uncertainty of the extent and level of transport inefficiencie

effectiveness of swapping arrangements

Some RTS facilities in Auckland are very close to each other therefore could locations be optimised to reduce transport irationalisation of RTS

Private sector waste operators often drop their gate fees to offscustomers

Private sector perspectives include the following:

Commercial drivers mean that operators seek to minimise costs, in

There are limited transport related savings that could be achievehigh competition (15 main operators are active in Auckland)

Large industry players have sophisticated modelling and are contin

One private sector operator believes that there are some exampleCouncil Controlled Waste system in Auckland but these cases are

Another private sector operator believes that journeys from collemajority of transport inefficiencies in the non Council Controlled Wa

One private sector operator estimates overall transport inefficiencCCW and CCW) to be between 10% to 15%

Having RTS close to each other drives competitive prices for the cu

If Council controlled all waste, it would reduce competition and would go up (including transporting)



Council Controlled Waste - Case Study 31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

19

Council Controlled Waste - Case Study

6. Introduction and background

7. Case study

8. Case study assumptions

9. Finding of quantification



Council Controlled Waste - Case Study : Case study



22

Case study overview

As agreed with you, the purpose of case study was to identify any ad

to transportation to RTS / landfills not being the closest destination toassumption is then applied to any such additional kilometres to produc

Data collection

We were provided with data for the relevant legacy Councils’ contracFebruary 2011. This was viewed as a ‘typical’ collection week. Auckwaste for this week to be approximately in the middle of the range obswas provided for the three case study areas:

Waste journey data provided by Auckland Council in the three case study areas o

East Auckland North Shore

Truck registration

Truck capacity in tonnes

Travel times from collection area to Wiri Transfer Station

Weight of waste disposed of per trip to RTS

Number of bins emptied per trip to RTS

Time of disposal at RTS per trip

Fuel used per truck per day

Distance travelled per truck per day

Hours worked per truck per day

Maps of 40 collection routes

Truck registration

GPS data for each truck registration and day that recordthe following information every few minutes:

– Time

– Speed of truck

– Kms travelled since ignition on

– Driver

– Address of truck location

Redvale landfill data:

– Truck registration

– Date and time in

– Date and time out

– Weight in

– Weight out

Maps of collection routesSource: Auckland Council

A detailed list of the data files provided by Council is in Appendix D.



Council Controlled Waste - Case Study : Case study assumptions



23

Case study assumptions

A number of assumptions agreed with you have been made as pa

assumptions is included in Appendix C.In addition to quantitative data, we also collected anecdotal informatiindustry. This information and the way in which it is reflected in our asfollows:

The cost of collection varies depending on the type of waste recept

Bag collection

Labour costs are higher, i.e. trucks require a driver and runners trear loader

Bags cost around 15 cents and cannot be reused.

Bin collection

Labour costs are lower, i.e. trucks require only one driver (a side lo

Bins cost more and have approximately a seven year lifespan9

Trucks can potentially cost more for bin collection as they have aup the bin and empty its contents into the truck

Industry sources prefer bins to bags for the following reasons:

Health and safety (there have been bag collection related fatalities

Cost efficiency

Tidiness (there are other costs associated with spillage and cleanu

Different costs have been assumed depending on whether bins or bag

Bins are used in East Auckland

Bags are used in Waitakere and North Shore

As agreed with you, it is assumed in the case study that the waste receach of the case study areas.

8Note that anecdotal evidence suggests that the waste receptacle may affect the volume of waste and therefore waste minimisation. For ex

collection, however a bin would usually always be put out for each collection time regardless of how full it is.9

Industry sources say this figure from Covec is low and bins have a life of approximately 15 years



Council Controlled Waste - Case Study : Case study assumptions



24

Households

There is inconsistency regarding the number of households serviced o

fleet might be contracted to collect waste from 5,000 households on oresults in spare capacity in the fleet on some days.

Time / congestion

The time taken for a truck to drop waste off to a landfill or transfer s

– Transfer stations usually involve a quick drop off process and tthe drop off area within the facility (approximately 100 meunloading times depending on the facilities available at the storage technology available within the trucks collecting and dis

– Landfills usually involve a longer drop off process (often with driving distance to the tip point within the facility (up to 2 km)

– Congestion on roads can differ depending on time of the day th

Seasonality

There is seasonality in the volume or tonnage of waste collected, lower in winter due in part to higher refuse from garden waste, vegetable peelings, in summer.

Unloading at a landfill is typically more time consuming in winter

As per Council advice we have assumed that the data from the last wannualised potential transport inefficiencies based on this week’s data

Following discussions with Council, the existing truck capacities for eabeen used.



Council Controlled Waste - Case Study : Finding of quantification



25

Case study methodology

In this section we set out the case study approach.

We have discussed the case study methodology in some detail with A

industry experts including sharing supporting calculations and assuundertaken a detailed review, they appeared broadly comfortable with

Collection areas

The case study relates to three Auckland Council waste collections aWaitakere.

We have split each of these three case study areas into smaller “sub”

For each of the sub collection areas a mid-point location has been apand East Auckland sub collection areas and selected mid points are in East Auckland are reflective of current collection schedules and rpages.

North Shore - collection mid points

Source: Ernst & Young

1 2

3

4

Number of sub collection areas

Location – case study areas Number of average sub-collection areas

East Auckland 40

North Shore 4Waitakere 2






26

East Auckland 40 sub collection points







29

North Shore bulk haul to landfill

RTS RTS Address Landfill Landfill address Distan

Devonport 27 Lake Road, Devonport Redvale Landfill Access Road, Dairy Flat

Constellation Drive 4 Home Place, Mairangi Bay Redvale Landfill Access Road, Dairy Flat

Rosedale 101 Rosedale Road, North Shore Redvale Landfill Access Road, Dairy Flat Source: Auckland Council,http://www.wises.co.nz Ref: Bulk haul to landfill - Section AN – Analysis Benchmark cost of transporting waste

A benchmark cost has been derived (cost per kilometre) for a waste The cost is made up of four elements:

Truck acquisition and maintenance costs

Bag or bin costs

Labour costs

Fuel costs

The benchmark cost is based the cost of waste disposal in city locatiofor the Environment in 2007. A detailed description of the assumptions

In this case study we apply the following benchmark costs:

Bag: $7.87 / km

Bin: $6.67 / km

Case study outputs: Indicative cost savings

Indicative costs savings per trip to disposal

Using the distance saved (in kilometres) and taking into account thindicative cost saving per trip to the disposal applying the benchmark

We emphasise the indicative nature of this output given the high levelsaved and degree of estimation within the cost per kilometre assumpti

A table of the collection areas, current and proposed disposal points dtrip and bulk haul factor is shown in Appendix B.






31

kilometres travelled and an indicative range of $1.9m to $2.3mCCW to the closest transfer station locations than to where it is cur

We note that from discussions with private sector parties these apput forward by these parties.

The CCW case study applies a number of high level assumptiorecommend more detailed analysis be undertaken that covers all aand collection by collection basis



Non Council Controlled Waste 31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

32


10. Consultations and previous assessments and reports



Non Council Controlled Waste : Consultations and previous assessments and reports



35

by one private bin contractor is waste regularly collected in Avondtransfer station.

Private contractors are generally paid on a volume or per bin basis Some of the RTS parties encourage private bin contractors to sig

do this as it gives them flexibility to go to the transfer station nprivate bin contractors are influenced by lower prices offered threason, will mainly use only one RTS.

An example from another private bin contractor is waste collectedwhich is taken to Patiki Road transfer station because of a loyaltycontractor collects waste from Manukau, they are prepared to taketo collection, despite the loyalty arrangement as transport cost / timloyalty agreement

Example 4: How commercial drivers impact transport behaviour

The facilities at the RTS will impact the time taken to unload, and mefficiently deposit waste. This in turn impacts whether trucks will usPrivate sector waste operators therefore review related cost and time impact the approach taken. One of the private sector operators madrivers are owner /operators and paid a cost per tonne of waste dispoto maximise tonnage disposed.

Conclusion

No data has been made available by private sector operators hence respect of the level of transport inefficiencies that may exist in non Cowith various parties suggest a broad view that efficiencies do exist tooperator estimated levels tending to sit within the 10% to 15% rangewith the indicative transport efficiencies observed in the case study of



Qualitative assessment: other waste transportation inefficiency areas 31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

36

Qualitative assessment: other wastetransportation inefficiency areas



Qualitative assessment: other waste transportation inefficiency areas

Qualitative assessment: other waste transportation inefficiency areas


40

To address transport inefficiencies the type of truck for kerbside colsystem is changed. For example, large trucks (approx 10 tonnes) aurban / city areas. This size truck has difficulty manoeuvring in m

transfer station is used in each collection area, smaller trucks could bcosts as well as road damage and traffic on roads. Large bulk haul trcompacted waste from RTS to landfill.

Seasonality factors

Waste volumes over the year vary for example, volumes in winter are This means that transport inefficiencies will not be a uniform amount e

Integration of collection and disposal contracts

Currently there are circumstances where private sector collection andCouncil areas are let to different parties. Whilst this may create charges, it may contribute to additional transporting journeys as locations with agreed disposal charges. The alignment of collection

requirements could reduce excess transport journeys; however in ththis may affect contract pricing.

Optimisation of collection areas

Currently collection areas (particularly with respect to CCW) on any example on a Monday CCW is collected in the Albany area, Devonarea; and on a Tuesday in the Torbay / Northcross area, Beach HaBelmont area.

Realignment and optimisation of collection areas may also increase ef

distance travelled

consistency regarding the number of households serviced on differ

as far as possible ensuring only full trucks go to disposal points.



Appendix A : Benchmark cost of waste collection (CCW)31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

41

Appendix A

Benchmark cost of waste collection (CCW)



Appendix A : Benchmark cost of waste collection (CCW)



42

Benchmark cost of waste collection in city locations

Case study benchmark cost assumptions

We have utilised a benchmark transport cost for waste collection to dcosts:

Trucks (acquisition and maintenance costs)

Waste bags or bins

Labour

Fuel

The benchmark transport cost is calculated in three units:

$ per truck

$ per tonne

$ per km

The estimated cost is based on data from a public report entitleprepared for the Ministry for the Environment by Covec Limited economics consultancy firm.

The table to the left shows Covec’s assumptions for kerbside waste assumptions updated for 2011 prices.

Inflation only

Prices over four years from 2007 to 2011 have been inflated assumStatistics NZ).

Diesel price

As at 8 March 2011 the retail diesel price in Auckland was $159.9 cehistorical average weekly diesel price in New Zealand over the last fou

Table of Covec and revised 2011 assumptions for kerbsidewaste collection for city locations

Covec (2007) ($) Profor ma 2011 ($)

Trucks Bag Bin Bag BinTruck ($ / truck) 225,000 225,000 250,302 250,302

Lifetime of truck (yrs) 7 7 7 7

Tonnes/truck pa 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750

Fixed costs/truck pa 2,000 2,000 2,225 2,225

Households/truck 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800

Bags/bins

Bag/bin ($/item) 0.12 36 0.15 40

Life (yrs) 0 7 0 7

Kg/household/week 7.5 15.0 7.5 15.0

$/tonne 16.0 9.5 20 11

Labour

Driver ($/hour) 16 16 18 18

Runner ($/hour) 14 14 16 16

Runners/truck 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0

Hours/day 8 8 8 8Days per week 5 5 5 5

Labour/truck pa 76,960 62,400 85,614 69,417

Fuel

Litres/100km 45 45 45 45

Distance per truck per day(km) 111 111 111 111

Fuel price - diesel ($/litre) 0.90 0.90 1.5 1.5

Fuel ($/truck pa) 11,700 11,700 19,481 19,481Source: Covec, Ernst & Young, Statisti cs NZ, Ministry of Economic Development






43

Historical diesel price

Source: Ministry of Economic Development

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180190

200

Apr 2007

Jun2007

Aug2007

Oct2007

Dec2007

Feb2008

Apr 2008

Jun2008

Aug2008

Oct2008

Dec2008

Feb2009

Apr 2009

Jun2009

Aug2009

O2

D i e s e l p i r c e ( c / l i t r e )

We have adopted a diesel price of $1.50 / litre for the purpose of adjus

Indicative cost analysis

Collection costs vary depending on location. Location affects dihouseholds per truck, and tonnes per truck. In this case study, the have not been altered for locations, distances, number of households

Covec’s summary costs of waste collection are in the table below.

Covec summary costs of waste collection in 2007

Bag

$/truck pa $/tonne

Trucks 48,216 12.90

Bags/bins 52,800 16.00 Labour 76,960 20.50

Fuel 11,700 3.50

Total 189,676 52.90 Source: Covec

We have applied two methodologies to derive an estimate of the collection to disposal for the purpose of this report:

1 Inflate Covec’s summary costs of waste collection to 2011 dollars






44

2 Calculate costs by first principles using the assumptions above.

Method 1: Inflation

The table below summarises the costs derived by adjusting for incalculated by inflating the Covec costs of waste collection over four yand $/km are calculated from the $/truck pa figure assuming a truck111 km per day (as per Covec).

Method 1: Estimated cost of waste collection in 2011 adjusted for inflation

Bag

$/truck pa $/tonne $/ km $/truck

Trucks 53,638 14.30 1.86 53,638

Bags/bins 58,738 15.66 2.04 34,803

Labour 85,614 22.83 2.97 69,41

Fuel 13,016 3.47 0.45 13,016

Total 211,006 56.27 7.31 170,87Source: Covec, Ernst & Young

In this method, the calculated benchmark cost is approximately:

$5.90/km for bin collection

$7.30/km for bag collection

Method 2: additional adjustments for fuel and bin/bag costs

Whilst inflation adjustment is helpful we considered that this benadjustments to key assumptions. The key adjusted assumptions are:

Diesel price from $0.9 per litre adjusted to $1.5 per litre

Bag cost from 12 cents adjusted to 15cents as per discussions with

The other assumptions have been inflation adjusted: – truck acquisition and maintenance costs

– bin cost

– $/t assumption for bag and bin

– labour costs

The results of these adjustments are set out below.






45

Method 2: Estimated cost of waste collection in 2011

Bag

$/truck pa17 $/tonne $/ km $/truck

Trucks 53,307 14.2 1.85 53,307Bags/bins 68,640 20.0 2.38 50,346

Labour 85,614 22.8 2.97 69,417

Fuel 19,481 5.2 0.68 19,48

Total 227,042 62.24 7.87 192,55Source: Covec, Ernst & Young

In calculating the costs in the table above we made the following assu

The acquisition cost of the truck is depreciated over a seven yebalance method (as per Covec calculations)

Each household uses one bag per week

Each household has one bin, the cost of which is split equally over

Diesel price is $1.50 per litre

A truck collects 3,750 tonnes per annum

A truck travels 111km per day.

In this method, the calculated benchmark cost is approximately:

$6.70/km for bin collection

$7.90/km for bag collection

The increase in benchmark cost from method 1 is mainly due to higcalculated costs for bins.

We have applied these benchmark costs calculated by method 2 in ou

Benchmark cost cross-checkWe undertook a benchmark cross-check to substantiate our assumptio

We looked at the cost of collection to disposal figures published Garbage Handling” by The University of British Columbia, April 2010 order to cross check the benchmark cost derived from the Covec nucost assumptions. Note the costs are in Canadian dollars.

17$/truck pa assuming a truck collects 3,750 tonnes pa and travels 111km per day

UBC assumptions for the cost of waste collection in CAD

UBC (CAD $)

Trucks

Truck ($/truck) 175,000Lifetime of truck (yrs) 15

Bins

Bin ($) 267,000

Life (yrs) 15

Labour

Driver and runner ($ / truck pa) 80,000

Fuel

Fuel ($/truck pa) 30,000Source: UBC






46

Below is a chart of the historical exchange rate between the Canadiathis case study we have assumed an exchange rate of 1.38 NZD/CAD

Historical exchange rate for New Zealand and Canadian Dollars

Source: www.xe.com

The table to the left shows the calculated benchmark cost/truck/pa usi

The UBC derived cost is lower for trucks and bins than the Covec twice the assumed lifespan) and higher for labour and fuel. Neverthel

$209,024/truck/pa is only 8.6% higher than the benchmark cost derbins using method 2 above ($192,551/ truck/pa). It is less than 0.5% cost derived from the Covec assumptions for bins and bags using met

The UBC figures demonstrate that the benchmark cost we have used

Estimated cost of waste collection in 2011 derived from UBCfigures and converted into NZD

NZD$ / truck / pa

Trucks 32,660

Bins 24,564

Labour 110,400

Fuel 41,400

Total 209,024Source: UBC, Ernst & Young



Appendix B : Case study details31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

47

Appendix B

Case study details



Appendix C : Assumptions31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

54

Appendix C

Assumptions



Appendix C : Assumptions

Assumptions


55

Case study assumptions

The following assumptions have been discussed and agreed with yo

case study of potential transport efficiencies.Benchmark cost of waste collection in city locations

Assumptions for benchmark cost are detailed in Appendix B.

Data sample

Waste collection and disposal from 21 to 25 February 2011 is a tyable to extrapolate data for this week over a year

RTS and landfills

No new RTS or landfill locations can be created

Unlimited capacity for receipt of waste at RTS and landfill exists

The address for Rosedale Road Transfer Station is 101 Rosedale Activity / loads

No consideration in relation to optimisation of collection day areas load at each trip has been made.

Truck payload for bulk haul to landfill is 25 tonnes

Distance

Driving distances are based on Wises website figures (www.wises

Indicative cost savings

No distance savings are assumed for trips to and from the yard.

Only the distance saved is considered in quantitative indicative cotravel time due to shorter driving distance is not considered separa

Time saved from a potentially shorter time spent at RTS compaindicative cost savings case study.

The number of bins collected in East Auckland for the week 21 to 2is the same as the number of households in the East Auckland arethe wider Auckland region as this figure is not available from NZ st



Appendix C : Assumptions

Assumptions


56

Annualised weight of waste collected in East Auckland for the weekbasis for extrapolation to the wider Auckland region as this figure is

Bulk haul Assume East Auckland and Waitakere bulk haul from the RTS to th

Bags or bins

Assume same waste receptacle is used as actual for the week 21 t

Households

Assume all residential households in the three case study areas usfor East Auckland as all households are provided with bins by the Cofficial Council waste bags are available for purchase at suphouseholds in North Shore (and possibly Waitakere) pay for privatCouncil waste bags.



Appendix D : Sources of information31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

57

Appendix D

Sources of information



Appendix D : Sources of information



58

References

The following resources were consulted during development of this re

“ACWA”, Auckland Council

Report of the Royal Commission – Solid Waste section

"Recycling: Cost Benefit Analysis", Ministry for the Environment Re

“An investigation into Methods of Garbage Handling” by The Unive

Data collected from Auckland Council

East Auckland data for 21 to 25 February 2011

Excel workbook entitled “21-25TH February 2011 Auckland Coun39kB

ACC collection route maps Monday runs 1 to 8: Pdf document e

30/3/2011, size 10.534MB ACC collection route maps Tuesday runs 9 to 16: Pdf document e

30/3/2011, size 9.133MB

ACC collection route maps Wednesday runs 17 to 24: Pdf documdate 30/3/2011, size 10.338MB

ACC collection route maps Thursday runs 25 to 32: Pdf documdate 30/3/2011, size 8.604MB

ACC collection route maps Friday runs 33 to 40: Pdf document e30/3/2011, size 12.548MB

North Shore data for 21 to 25 February 2011

GPS data: Excel workbook entitled “Activity Report By Vehicle 728kB


GPS data: Excel workbook entitled “Activity Report By Vehicle - CZ




Appendix D : Sources of information



59

GPS data: Excel workbook entitled “Activity Report By Vehicle651kB

GPS data: Excel workbook entitled “Activity Report By Vehicle - E796kB

GPS data: Excel workbook entitled “Activity Report By Vehicle- DS

Weight data at Redvale landfill for CCW from 21 to 25 February 2“graemeacnthshore25feb11.xls”, date 28/3/2011 size 22kB

GPS data: Excel workbook entitled “FKH853 21-26 FEB.xls”, date

Waitakere data for 21 to 25 February 2011

GPS data: Excel workbook entitled “Activity Report By Vehicle- DS

GPS data: Excel workbook entitled “Activity Report By Vehicle - DT

GPS data: Excel workbook entitled “Activity Report By Vehicle

611kB

GPS data: Excel workbook entitled “Activity Report By Vehicle664kB



GPS data: Excel workbook entitled “Activity Report By Vehicle - CY


Weight data at Waitakere refuse and recycling centre for domestic

February 2011 WCC Dom.csv”, date 28/3/2011 size 7kB Weight data at Waitakere refuse and recycling centre for commerc

25 February 2011 WCC Com.csv”, date 28/3/2011 size 2kB

North Shore and Waitakere data

Excel workbook entitled “Onyx Fleet List.xls”, date 28/3/2011 size 2



Appendix E : Previous studies and consultations31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

60

Appendix E

Previous studies and consultations



Appendix E : Previous studies and consultations



61

Previous consultation with industry experts

During development of the ACWA document, the Council engaged

stakeholders. While the full consultation is included in the documeconsultation are summarised below. A range of different views were p

Industry points of view

– Current collection/transfer station market is viewed as inefswapping arrangements (it would be worse without swapping a

– Pikes Pt transfer station is in a good location but it is under-utlocal waste is transported to more distant transfer stations and maintaining payload weights at the facility - it takes only minorthe local area's waste. The existing agreements need to be imp

– Regionally coordinated use of the existing transfer stations for a good idea

– Competition for Council kerbside collection services and privservices is strong and creates an efficient market through comp

– Landfill gate rates calibrated too low - which undermines waste

– Landfilling is the most efficient and effective way to deal with wwith the waste that it controls.

– With respect to collection contracts the most efficient way is to market or on a contractual basis with Council. Council should lim

– For collections, the private sector is best placed to delivecompetition encouraging this market efficiency. For collection,with driver sorting if required, runners on the street is not approp

Meetings undertaken by Ernst & Young

We have met with the following parties during our analysis:

Steve Drumm, Auckland Council

Jon Roscoe, Auckland Council

Warwick Jaine, Auckland Council

Stuart Gane Auckland Council



Appendix E : Previous studies and consultations



62

Bruce Middleton, WasteNot Consulting

Duncan Wilson, Eumonia Consulting

Various private sector waste service providers and operators



Appendix F : Auckland non Council Controlled Waste Transport review - work pro31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

63

Appendix F

Auckland non Council Controlled Waste Transport review - work prog



Appendix F : Auckland non Council Controlled Waste Transport review - work pro

Auckland non Council Controlled Waste Transport review - work programme assess


65

If the Council “controlled” transfer stations and required waste to bechannelled through transfer stations, what impact would this have onswapping arrangements?

Landfills / transfer stations and waste journey interfaces

Are the landfills you currently transport / dispose of waste to necessarilythe closest/conveniently-located, i.e. could transport costs be reduced byusing alternate landfill/transfer stations closer by?

Do you have loyalty arrangements in place regarding disposal to transfer stations/landfill?

What are they?

What visibility is there in respect of whether trucks go via transfer stationsor straight to landfill?

– Who makes the decision of where trucks go

– What is the criteria which determines where trucks go



Appendix G : Detailed description of transfer station optimisation approaches31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

66

Appendix G

Detailed description of transfer station optimisation approaches



Appendix G : Detailed description of transfer station optimisation approaches



67

Approach

The approach would use and replicate actual volumes by day/wee

round and RTS trip could be conducted, looking to optimise performtherefore seek to optimise vehicle collection routes and refuse transfe

Optimising the operation and ensuring operational practicality

The approach would be based on generating actual schedules that cand refuse transfer under many different potential situations and oensuring that the prior higher level analysis is accurate and that the ppractice, it helps to find the optimal routing and scheduling to estaidentifies and underpins how the required changes can be impleidentifying actual revised schedules. We have also used such toolsarrangements can work, which is often a valuable aid in what can debates.

As might be expected, such an approach requires a much greater

approach. At the least, it will require start and end points of exivolumes for an analysis that keeps the rounds as at present. To takwill require more detail of the individual rounds to identify how theyassigned to RTS locations under the Auckland Council entity.

To carry out the work, we would use a specialised vehicle schedschedules based on the real road network of an area and incorporateoptimised solutions whilst obeying all operational constraints. Thereand we would be happy to consider using any that you wish, though Paragon (http://www.paragonrouting.com/uk).

As an example of ‘look and feel’ of these tools, area to depot assignmfrom other projects are shown below.



Appendix G : Detailed description of transfer station optimisation approaches



68

Assignment of depots to areas and creating of actual street level routes


Once the data has been set up and the model calibrated, it would bemany more other investigations (e.g. restrictions on access to Aucklanweek or frequency of collections in specific areas, whether different sof benefit, etc).



Appendix H : Ernst & Young work plan: waste transport inefficiencies31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

69

Appendix H

Ernst & Young work plan: waste transport inefficiencies



Appendix H : Ernst & Young work plan: waste transport inefficiencies

Ernst & Young work plan: waste transport inefficiencies


70

Approach

Our phased approach to this work was discussed and agreed with yo

outlined in the diagram below.Ernst & Young work plan: waste transport inefficiencies

Source: EYTAS

Step 2: Data analysis

(week 3)

Focus on data set for case

study of selected CCW route(s)

Compare actual kmswith

optimal kms

Primary estimate of savings

Extrapolation of scenarios.

Potential ranges of robustness

considered

Consider other factors that

impact inefficiencies, e.g.

schedules, time, emissions,

road damage

Analyse data for wider solid

waste

Review swap arr angements

Internal validation of work

undertaken

Step 3: Discussthird parties (

on CCW andsolid waste tr

(week 3/

Interviews with k

participants

Undertake marke

supported by stru

questionnaire (pr

Step 2) in order tdata and gain ma

perspective

Compare results

submissions

Discussions with o

sector waste tran

operators

Test CCW finding

Step 1: Data collection

(week 1/2)

Background interviews

Stephen Drumm, Jon Roscoe

(ongoing)

Collect data on CCW r outes, e.g.

kms travelled/r outes from

contract managers vi a

questionnaire

Focus on council controlled

waste (CCW) (15%)

Collect data for Solid Waste

Review ex isting documents (e.g.

AC Waste Assessment)

Undertake Ernst & Young

research from Ernst & Young

network and internet.

Confirm assumptions

Determine costs/km ranges

Prepare sector summary,

e.g. levies, transfer stations,

contracts, volumes

Work collaboratively with Auckland Council throu



Appendix I : Engagement letter31 May 2011Evaluation of potential waste transport efficienciesFINAL.docx

71

Appendix I

Engagement letter



Ernst & Young Transaction

Advisory Services Limited

41 Shortland StreetAuckland 1010 New ZealandPO Box 2145 Auckland 1140

Tel: +64 9 377 4790Fax: +64 9 309 8137www.ey.com/nz

Auckland Council 10 March 2011560 Mount Albert RoadThree KingsAuckland 1042

Attention: Stephen DrummManager: Assets and InfrastructureInfrastructure & Environmental Services, Solid Waste Business Unit

Dear Sirs

Logistics Evaluation of Auckland Waste Strategy

Thank you for choosing Ernst & Young Transaction Advisory Services Limited (“we” or “EY”) to supportAuckland Council (“the Council”) in its evaluation of logistical financial efficiencies in Auckland wastecollection services.

This cover letter, together with its appendices, (collectively, this “Agreement”), describes and documentsthe arrangements between us, including our respective obligations. The scope of the Services isreferred to in our Statement of Work at Appendix A and set out in full in the Detailed Work Scope atAppendix B. Additional terms and conditions specific to the Services are set out in Appendix C.

If any affiliate or related entity or any other person, will be affected by or wishes to benefit from thisengagement you will endeavor to procure that any such entity or person will comply with the terms of thisAgreement as if it were a party. The obligations of all entities and persons bound by the terms of thisAgreement will be joint and several.

Please sign and return the enclosed copy of this Agreement to confirm your acceptance of these terms.If you have any questions about these arrangements, please contact us.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you.

Yours sincerelyErnst & Young Transaction Advisory Services Limited

Gareth GallowayDirector

Ben KingExecutive Director

Page 219 of 591



Page 220 of 591



STATEMENT OF WORK Appendix A

3

1. Introduction

The Solid Waste business unit of Auckland Council (“the Council” or “Council”) is seeking to evaluate financialinformation related to its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (ACWMMP). This financial informationwas constructed by another third party with assistance from Council staff. The ACWMMP needs to be

approved by Council in May in accordance with legislation. The Council has asked Ernst & Young TransactionAdvisory Services Limited (EY or EYTAS) to assist with this evaluation process.

2. Scope of services

Our detailed scope of work in relation to this engagement is set out in Appendix B.

In relation to our reporting, we note the following amendment to our attached terms and conditions (per appendix C), refer clause 14. The Council, following consultation with EY, may include in its reports to theCouncil, Council Sub-Committees or the Council Executive, extracts from our reports so attributed to EY.

3. Your obligations

Where applicable you will provide us with timely information, reports and documentation so we can providethe services and where applicable you will specify deadlines and working timetables (if relevant to theservices).

4. Timetable

The current timetables for each work programme stage is as set out in Appendix B. You will confirm to us anychanges to the timetable.

5. Key Personnel

Ben King, an Executive Director, who specialises in public sector advisory in infrastructure and servicedelivery models will lead our work on a day to day basis, supported by Graeme Horne, Sophie Dawson andJolene Manford. Gareth Galloway will act as the Engagement Partner for this assignment.

6. Fees

We have agreed fees for this work as detailed in the table below:

Fee estimate

PART 1 - Overall assessment $27,500 - 30,000

PART 2 - Micro assessment $17,500 - $20,000

TOTAL $45,000 - $50,000

7. Confidentiality

We will keep this engagement and its specific outputs as confidential and we will not discuss or share any

aspects of our engagement with other parties.

8. Conflicts

We are not aware of any conflicts of interest relevant to the services. Our Conflicts policy manages anypotential conflict scenario to ensure that the services we provide are free from actual or perceived conflicts.

9. Limitations

Our work in connection with this assignment will be of a different nature to that of an audit or a review of information, as those terms are commonly understood in Auditing Standards applicable to audit and reviewengagements. Our report to you will be based on inquiries of and discussions with Council management, aquestionnaire submitted to third party waste collection and disposal operators, a review of reports anddocuments made available to us, and analytical procedures applied to data provided. We will not, except to

such extent as you request and we agree to undertake, seek to verify the accuracy of the data or theinformation and explanations provided by Council management or others.

Page 221 of 591



DETAILED WORKING SCOPE

Scope of goods/services specification (As per Council Terms of

Reference in RfP)Ernst & Young approach

PART 1 - OVERALL ASSESSMENTObjective: Estimate the cost of transport inefficiencies across the waste

industry including Council controlled collections

We will work with you and at your premises to meet you

Identify data requirements to estimate transport inefficiencies in wasteindustry for Auckland (including council controlled waste)

Ascertain data availability re logistics info for the waste industryfrom council staff

Seek information and confirmations from TPI and EnviroWaste. If reasonable information requests are not complied with, then bestinformation available will be used instead

Any information gaps will require commentary in the output report

Step 1 – Data Gathering and Analysis

Identify, evaluate and test assumptions set out in pre

WCC Report, Auckland Waste Stocktake, Royal

Review other Council data available, where appl

Working with Council, test the methodology in resperevisions to previous approach and what those impa

Note any information gaps

Information permitting, construct a Case Study that cacross the waste transport network

Step 2 – Market Testing

We would agree with you a market / stakeholder souinformation gathering from TPI and Envirowaste

We would undertake stakeholder soundings

Using the information available evaluate the level of inefficiencies

Cost the inefficiencies using robust costing assumptions

Costs to include but not necessarily confined to vehicle runningcosts, truck size efficiencies and transport infrastructure repairs

Step 3 – Critiquing

We take the Identified key assumptions and the marthese

Comment on whether the identified inefficienciesand whether the assumptions for measuring ineff

Highlight any areas that require additional work a

Consider a range of sensitivities and scenarios orelated assumptions



GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS Appendix C

6

Our Relationship with You

1. We will perform the Services using reasonableskill and care.

2. We are a member of the global network of Ernst &

Young firms (“EY Firms”), each of which is aseparate legal entity.

3. We will provide the Services to you as anindependent contractor and not as your employee,agent, partner or joint venturer. Neither you nor wehave any right, power or authority to bind theother.

4. We may subcontract portions of the Services toother EY Firms, who may deal with you directly.Nevertheless, we alone will be responsible to youfor the Reports (as defined in Section 11), theperformance of the Services, and our other

obligations under this Agreement.

5. We will not assume any managementresponsibilities in connection with the Services.We will not be responsible for the use or implementation of the output of the Services.

Your Responsibilities

6. You shall assign a qualified person to oversee theServices. You are responsible for all managementdecisions relating to the Services, the use or implementation of the output of the Services andfor determining whether the Services areappropriate for your purposes.

7. You shall provide (or cause others to provide) tous, promptly, the information, resources andassistance (including access to records, systems,premises and people) that we reasonably requireto perform the Services.

8. To the best of your knowledge, all informationprovided by you or on your behalf (“ClientInformation”) will be accurate and complete in allmaterial respects. The provision of ClientInformation to us will not infringe any copyright or other third-party rights.

9. We will rely on Client Information made availableto us and, unless we expressly agree otherwise,will have no responsibility to evaluate or verify it.

10. You shall be responsible for your personnel’scompliance with your obligations under thisAgreement.

Our Reports

11. Any information, advice, recommendations or other content of any reports, presentations or

other communications we provide under thisAgreement (“Reports”), other than ClientInformation, are for your internal use only

(consistent with the purpose of the particular

Services).

12. You may not disclose a Report (or any portion or summary of a Report), or refer to us or to anyother EY Firm in connection with the Services,

except:

(a) to your lawyers (subject to these disclosurerestrictions), who may use it only to give youadvice relating to the Services,

(b) to the extent, and for the purposes, requiredby subpoena or similar legal process (of which you will promptly notify us),

(c) to other persons (including your affiliates) withour prior written consent, who have executedour access letter, who may then use it only aswe have specified in our consent, or

(d) to the extent it contains Tax Advice, as setforth in Section 13.

If you are permitted to disclose a Report (or aportion thereof), you shall not alter, edit or modifyit from the form we provided.

13. You may disclose to anyone a Report (or anyportion or summary thereof) solely to the extentthat it relates to tax matters, including tax advice,tax opinions, tax returns, or the tax treatment or tax structure of any transaction to which theServices relate (“Tax Advice”). With the exceptionof tax authorities, you shall inform those to whomyou disclose Tax Advice that they may not rely onit for any purpose without our prior writtenconsent.

14. You may incorporate into your internal documentsany summaries, calculations or tables based onClient Information contained in a Report, but notour recommendations, conclusions or findings. If you then disclose such internal documents toanyone, you shall assume sole responsibility for their contents and you shall not refer to us or anyother EY Firm in connection with them.

15. You may not rely on any draft Report. We shall notbe required to update any final Report for circumstances of which we become aware, or events occurring, after its delivery.

Limitations

16. You (and any others for whom Services areprovided including any of the parties set out inSchedule 1 of Appendix B) may not recover fromus, in contract or tort, under statute or otherwise,any amount with respect to any loss of profit, dataor goodwill, or any indirect or consequential costs,loss or damage in connection with claims arising

out of this Agreement or otherwise relating to the

Page 224 of 591



7

Services, whether or not the likelihood of suchloss or damage was contemplated.

17. (a) Unless prohibited by law, no term, conditionor warranty is implied, and no guarantees areprovided by us, except as expressly provided

in this Agreement.

(b) You (and any others for whom Services areprovided) may not recover from us, in contractor tort, (including negligence), under statuteor otherwise, aggregate damages (includinginterest and costs) in excess of four (4) timesthe fees actually paid for the Services thatdirectly caused the loss or $100,000(whichever is greater) in connection withclaims arising out of this Agreement or otherwise relating to the Services.

18. If we are liable to you (or to any others for whom

Services are provided) under this Agreement or otherwise in connection with the Services, for lossor damage (including interest and costs) to whichany other persons have also contributed, our liability to you shall be several, and not joint, withsuch others, and shall be limited to our fair shareof that total loss or damage which is agreedbetween us or ascribed to us by a court or tribunalof competent jurisdiction based on our contributionto the loss and damage relative to the others’contributions. No exclusion or limitation on theliability of other responsible persons imposed or agreed at any time shall affect any assessment of our proportionate liability hereunder, nor shall

settlement of or difficulty enforcing any claim, or the death, dissolution or insolvency of any suchother responsible persons or their ceasing to beliable for the loss or damage or any portionthereof, affect any such assessment.

19. The limitation in Section 17 will not apply to lossesor damages caused by our fraud or to the extentprohibited by applicable law or professionalregulations.

20.

You may not make a claim or bring proceedingsrelating to the Services or otherwise under thisAgreement against any other EY Firm or our or its

subcontractors, members, shareholders, directors,officers, partners, principals or employees ("EYPersons"). You shall make any claim or bringproceedings only against us. The limitations inSections 16 through 18 and this Section 20 areintended to benefit the other EY Firms and all EYPersons, who shall be entitled to enforce them.

Indemnity

21. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable lawand professional regulations, you shall indemnifyus, the other EY Firms and the EY Personsagainst all claims by third parties (including your

affiliates) and resulting liabilities, losses, damages,costs and expenses (including reasonableexternal and internal legal costs and any goods

and services tax payable by us on amounts paidby you under this indemnity) incurred by us whichis related to, arises out of, or is in any wayassociated with the disclosure of any Report(other than Tax Advice), or a third party’s use of or reliance on any Report (including Tax Advice),

except to the extent that we have specificallyauthorized, in writing, the third party’s reliance onthe Report.

Intellectual Property Rights

22. We may use data, software, designs, utilities,tools, models, systems and other methodologiesand know-how (“Materials”) that we own or license in performing the Services.Notwithstanding the delivery of any Reports, weretain all intellectual property rights in theMaterials (including any improvements or knowledge developed while performing the

Services), and ownership of any working paperscompiled in connection with the Services (but notClient Information reflected in them).

23. Upon payment for the Services, you may use anyMaterials included in the Reports, as well as theReports themselves as permitted by thisAgreement.

Confidentiality

24. Except as otherwise permitted by this Agreement,neither of us may disclose to third parties thecontents of this Agreement or any information

(other than Tax Advice) provided by or on behalf of the other that ought reasonably to be treated asconfidential and/or proprietary. Either of us may,however, disclose such information to the extentthat it:

(a) is or becomes public other than through abreach of this Agreement,

(b) is subsequently received by the recipient froma third party who, to the recipient’sknowledge, owes no obligation of confidentiality to the disclosing party withrespect to that information,

(c) was known to the recipient at the time of disclosure or is thereafter createdindependently,

(d) is disclosed as necessary to enforce therecipient’s rights under this Agreement, or

(e) must be disclosed under applicable law, legalprocess or professional regulations.

25. Either of us may use electronic media tocorrespond or transmit information and such usewill not in itself constitute a breach of anyconfidentiality obligations under this Agreement.

26. Unless prohibited by applicable law, we maydisclose Client Information to other EY Firms and

Page 225 of 591



8

EY Persons to facilitate performance of theServices, to comply with regulatory requirements,to check conflicts, or for quality, risk managementor financial accounting purposes.

27. With respect to any Services, and only to the

extent that U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission auditor independence regulationsapply to the relationship between you or any of your associated entities and any EY Firm, yourepresent, to the best of your knowledge, as of thedate of this Agreement, that neither you nor any of your affiliates has agreed, either orally or inwriting, with any other advisor to restrict your ability to disclose to anyone the tax treatment or tax structure of any transaction to which theServices relate. An agreement of this kind couldimpair an EY Firm’s independence as to your auditor that of any of your affiliates, or require specifictax disclosures as to those restrictions.

Accordingly, you agree that the impact of any suchagreement is your responsibility.

Data Protection

28. We may collect, use, transfer, store or otherwiseprocess (collectively, “Process”) Client Informationthat can be linked to specific individuals (“PersonalData”). We may Process Personal Data in various

jurisdictions in which we and the other EY Firms

operate (which are listed at www.ey.com). Wewill Process the Personal Data in accordance withour Privacy Policy, applicable law and professionalregulations including (without limitation) the

Privacy Act 1993 and the Information PrivacyPrinciples under that Act. We will require anyservice provider that Processes Personal Data onour behalf to adhere to such requirements. Acopy of our Privacy Policy Statement may beobtained on request.

29. You warrant that you have the authority to providethe Personal Data to us in connection with theperformance of the Services and that the PersonalData provided to us has been processed inaccordance with applicable law.

Fees and Expenses Generally

30. You shall pay our professional fees and specificexpenses in connection with the Services asdetailed in the applicable Statement of Work. Youshall pay our engagement administration chargeof 0% of our fees which covers our costs,including courier charges, photocopying, postage,telephone calls, facsimiles and stationery. Youshall also reimburse us for other reasonableexpenses incurred in performing the Services. Our fees are exclusive of taxes or similar charges, aswell as customs, duties or tariffs imposed inrespect of the Services, all of which you shall pay(other than taxes imposed on our income

generally). You shall pay our invoices within 14days of the billing date. We shall issue our invoices to you or as you may direct. If you direct

us to issue an invoice to another party, you shallremain responsible for payment until our invoice ispaid in full. Accounts may be paid by electronicfunds transfer, internet banking or cheque. Creditcard payments are not accepted.

31. We may charge additional professional fees if events beyond our control (including your acts or omissions) affect our ability to perform theServices as originally planned or if you ask us toperform additional tasks.

32. If we are required by applicable law, legal processor government action to produce information or personnel as witnesses with respect to theServices or this Agreement, you shall reimburseus for any professional time and expenses(including reasonable external and internal legalcosts) incurred to respond to the request, unlesswe are a party to the proceeding or the subject of

the investigation.

Force Majeure

33. Neither you nor we shall be liable for breach of this Agreement (other than payment obligations)caused by circumstances beyond your or our reasonable control.

Term and Termination

34. This Agreement applies to all Services performedat any time (including before the date of thisAgreement).

35. This Agreement shall terminate on the completionof the Services. Either of us may terminate it, or any particular Services, earlier upon 14 days’ prior written notice to the other. In addition, we mayterminate this Agreement, or any particular Services, immediately upon written notice to you if we reasonably determine that we can no longer provide the Services in accordance with applicablelaw or professional obligations.

36. You shall pay us for all work-in-progress, Servicesalready performed, and expenses incurred by usup to and including the effective date of the

termination of this Agreement. Payment is duewithin 14 days following receipt of our invoice for these amounts.

37. Our respective confidentiality obligations under this Agreement shall continue for a period of threeyears following the termination of this Agreement.The other provisions of this Agreement that giveeither of us rights or obligations beyond itstermination shall continue indefinitely following thetermination of this Agreement.

Governing Law and Dispute Resolution

38. This Agreement, and any non-contractualobligations arising out of this Agreement or the

Page 226 of 591



9

Services, shall be governed by, and construed inaccordance with, the laws of New Zealand. Weboth agree and irrevocably submit to the exclusive

jurisdiction of the Courts of New Zealand.

39. If there is a dispute relating to the Services or this

Agreement, the parties must submit the dispute tomediation before having recourse to any other dispute resolution process. Written notice of thedispute will be given for it to be submitted tomediation before a mediator chosen by the partiesor, where the parties cannot agree, by theArbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand(AMINZ). The parties will use their bestendeavours to settle the dispute promptly. Themediation will be conducted in accordance withthe AMINZ Mediation Guidelines to the extent thatthey do not conflict with the provisions of thisSection. If the dispute is not resolved within 60days after notice of the dispute, the mediation will

terminate unless the parties otherwise agree.

Miscellaneous

40. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreementbetween us as to the Services and the other matters it covers, and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings and representationswith respect thereto, including any confidentialityagreements previously delivered.

41. Both of us may execute this Agreement (andmodifications to it) by electronic means. Both of usmust agree in writing to modify this Agreement.

42. You represent that the person signing thisAgreement on your behalf is expressly authorizedto execute it and to bind you and any of your affiliates or others for whom Services areperformed to its terms.

43. You agree that we and the other EY Firms may,subject to professional obligations, act for other clients, including your competitors.

44. Neither of us may assign any of our rights,obligations or claims under this Agreement.

45. If any provision of this Agreement (in whole or part) is held to be illegal, invalid or otherwiseunenforceable, the other provisions shall remain in

full force and effect. Sections 17(b) and 21 do notapply if:

(a) such provision is prohibited by applicable law,regulation, the rules and interpretations of theU.S. SEC or other applicable rules andinterpretations concerning auditor independence;

(b) the Services include income tax preparationservices associated with the preparation of U.S. tax returns for a U.S. SEC audit client; or

(c) the Client is a U.S. SEC audit client andperformance of these non-audit Services willhave more than an insignificant effect on EY’saudit engagement by either:

(i) affecting EY’s audit procedures or scope; or

(ii) producing information that would beused by EY as audit evidence.

46. If there is any inconsistency between provisions indifferent parts of this Agreement, those parts shallhave precedence as follows (unless expresslyagreed otherwise): (a) the Cover Letter, (b) theapplicable Statement of Work and any annexesthereto, (c) these General Terms and Conditions,and (d) other annexes to this Agreement.

47. We may use your name publically to identify youas a client, but we may refer to you in connectionwith the Services only if, in doing so we do notdisclose any of your confidential information, or itis a matter of public knowledge that we areproviding them (or have provided them)

Page 227 of 591



DISCUSSION PAPER: WASTE TO ENERGY FOR AUCKLAND

CAMPBELL MACPHERSON - MAY 2011

Page 228 of 591



Campbell MacPherson Limited Private and Confidential

Waste to Energy For Auckland Discussion Paper Page 1 of 65

Private and Conf ident ia l

DISCUSSION PAPER

WASTE TO ENERGY FOR AUCKLAND

P r e p a r e d F o r

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

SOLID WASTE BUSINESS UNIT

P r e p a r e d b y

M A Y 2 0 1 1

Page 229 of 591





CONTENTS

GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................. 3

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 6

2. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE ............................................................................................... 13

3. OVERVIEW OF WTE TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................... 15

4. USE OF WTE INTERNATIONALLY ....................................................................................... 23

5. KEY ISSUES SURROUNDING WTE ...................................................................................... 24

6. USE OF WTE IN NEW ZEALAND ......................................................................................... 33

7. AUCKLAND COUNCIL WASTE STRATEGY ........................................................................... 39

8. KEY FEATURES OF THE AUCKLAND SOLID WASTE MARKET ............................................. 45

9. HIGH LEVEL ECONOMIC COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS ........................................................... 51

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 60

APPENDIX 1: IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Page 230 of 591





GLOSSARY

3-R’s Reduce, reuse and recycle

ACWA Auckland Council Waste Assessment 2011

AD Anaerobic digestion is the process in which volatile organic

materials are broken down in the absence of oxygen.

APC Air pollution control

ASR Automobile shredded fuel

ATT Advanced Thermal Technologies (i.e. thermal WTE

technologies other than conventional combustion).

Biogas Biogas typically refers to a gas produced by the biological

breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen.

Biomass Biomass, a renewable energy source, is biological materialfrom living, or recently living organisms.

Bottom Ash Comprises heterogeneous material discharged from the

burning grate of the incinerator (grate ash) and material that

falls through the burning grate to be collected in hoppers

below the furnace.

BOOT Build, own, operate and transfer

C&D Construction and demolition

Campbell MacPherson Campbell MacPherson Limited

Capex Capital expenditure

CCGT Combined cycle gas turbine

CH4 Methane

CHP Combined heat and power

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

Council Auckland Council

CV Calorific value

Discussion Document Auckland Plan Discussion Document 2011

Diverted materials Materials diverted from landfill such as materials collected for

recycling, composting or other recovered or treated

materials.

ECNZ Environmental Choice New Zealand

EnviroWaste EnviroWaste Services Limited

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (USA)

Fly Ash Finely divided particles of ash which are normally entrained in

the combustion gases. Fly ash is recovered from the gas

stream by a combination of precipitators and cyclones.

Gasification The process of combusting waste in an oxygen starvedenvironment.

Page 231 of 591

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomaterial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomaterial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas





GHG Green house gas

GONZ Global Olivine (NZ) Limited

GO – SRRF Global Olivine sustainable resource recycling facility

GOWA Global Olivine West Australia LimitedGWh Gigawatt hours

Mixed/unsorted waste Waste containing various components of various sizes and

composition

IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy

kWh Kilowatt hours

LCA Life cycle assessment

MBT Mechanical biological treatment

MfE Ministry for the Environment

MJ Megajoules

MJ/kg Megajoules per kilogram

MRF Materials Recycling Facility

MSW Municipal Solid Waste is waste which is collected for or on

behalf of a local authority. MSW generally comprise waste

from households, civic amenity sites, street-sweepings, local

authority collected commercial waste, and some

nonhazardous industrial waste.

Mtpa Million tonnes per annum

MWh Megawatt hours

NGO Non-Government organisations

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NOx Nitrogen oxides

NZWS New Zealand Waste Strategy

O3 Ozone

ONZ Olivine (NZ) Limited

PREL Peterborough Renewable Energy Limited

Pyrolysis The process of heating waste in the absence of oxygen.

RDF Refuse derived fuel is a fuel product recovered from the

combustible fraction of household waste.

RMA Resource Management Act

SEL Sustainable Equities Limited

SO2 Sulphur dioxide

Solid Waste Waste to landfill, cleanfill or managed fill or diverted to other

uses (e.g. recycled).

SWBU Solid Waste Business Unit, Infrastructure and Environmental

Services, Auckland Council

Page 232 of 591





Syngas Syngas (from synthetic gas) is the name given to a gas mixture

that contains varying amounts of carbon monoxide and

hydrogen.

TA Territorial authority

tpa tonnes per annum

tpd tonnes per day

TPI Transpacific Industries Limited

UK United Kingdom

USA United States of America

WDS Waste Disposal Services

WMMP Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

WMA Waste Minimisation Act

WTE Waste to Energy

Page 233 of 591

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide





1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

Campbell MacPherson has been engaged by the Solid Waste Business Unit (SWBU) of

Auckland Council (Council) to prepare a discussion paper (Discussion Paper) on the

viability and suitability of applying Waste to Energy (WTE) technology to processing

solid waste from within the Auckland Council region. This Discussion Paper also

includes recommendations regarding Council’s role in WTE given its strategic waste

objectives and the current ownership structure of the Auckland solid waste market.

1.2 WTE Technologies

Section 3 provides a high level overview of current WTE technologies. In brief there

are a wide range of WTE technologies currently utilised worldwide and/or being

promoted by private sector interests. The two core technologies generally applied to

solid waste are:-

Thermal energy conversion - combustion, gasification, pyrolysis and other

emerging thermal technologies.

Biochemical/biological energy conversion – anaerobic digestion (AD) to treat

organic waste.

Each technology has different costs and benefits which can lead to different

performance claims and a gap between actual and design performance outcomes.Combustion is well established and commercially proven for use in processing mixed

solid waste streams, while gasification and pyrolysis technologies are commercially

proven to a limited degree and rely on a degree of pre-processing of solid waste.

Anaerobic digestion has been used for many years to treat solids from waste water

and sewerage.

Unsorted solid waste is a low energy feedstock and therefore energy efficiency for

electricity production using WTE is generally low (eg 10-30%). Application of

combined heat and power (CHP) systems can increase overall energy efficiency levels

to 70-90% in thermal WTE plants.

WTE technologies are evolving rapidly with ongoing research and development and it

is likely that thermal alternatives to combustion will become increasingly

commercially proven over time.

1.3 Use of WTE Internationally

WTE facilities are widespread in Europe, Japan and the USA. Europe has around 450

operating plants, predominantly using combustion technology. The evolution and

growth of WTE has a regional context linked to such issues as electricity pricing,

availability of land suitable for landfilling, emissions controls, government regulationsetc. It is important to note that the growth of WTE worldwide predates the recent

Page 234 of 591





emphasis on greenhouse gas reduction and impact of climate change on the global

ecosystem.

A number of fast developing economies such as India and China are promoting the use

of WTE as a solution to address growing waste volumes (due to economic growth),

scarce land and the need for additional energy sources.

The record of WTE use in Australia could be best described as developmental, with

limited application of AD and mechanical biological treatment (MBT) technology used

for organic processing. In terms of culture, capital costs and population density, etc

both New Zealand and Australia have historically favoured landfill as the final waste

solution rather than considering WTE technologies.

1.4 Key Issues Surrounding WTE

Section 5 provides a discussion around the international issues facing WTE as a

legitimate waste management option. Key issues include:

The position of WTE in the “Waste Hierarchy”.

Possible conflicts with waste minimisation initiatives.

The types of emissions generated by WTE facilities.

The performance of WTE facilities against emissions standards.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions/avoided emissions.

The waste hierarchy adopted by many developed countries (including New Zealand)

promotes WTE ahead of landfill but below waste minimisation tools such as

reduction, reuse and recycling. Debate regarding WTE is often viewed by proponents

in terms of its potential benefits vs. landfill, and conversely by its detractors in terms

of its shortcomings compared with other options further up the waste hierarchy.

1.5 Use of WTE in New Zealand

At this stage New Zealand has no established record of utilising WTE technologies asa solution to process unsorted municipal or commercial solid waste. We note that it

Source: WTE worldwide: Waste Management World, Vol. 9, Issue 6.

WTE Facilities Worldwide

Page 235 of 591





is standard practice to use AD to treat the solid waste component from

sewerage/waste water treatment plants.

To date there has been little published research on the potential use of WTE in New

Zealand. This could be a function of:

Predominance of landfill as a low cost waste management option.

Lack of any WTE facilities in NZ and limited facilities in Australia on which to

benchmark performance.

Limited Council-controlled waste volumes in areas such as Auckland.

Lack of interest from landfill owners to promote WTE ahead of landfill.

Limited project finance availability and risk appetite of local investors.

We are aware of several New Zealand-based parties active in either promoting their

own proprietary WTE Technology or representing established international WTEvendors. Two of these organisations have been briefly reviewed in this Discussion

Paper as examples of WTE approaches.

1.6 Auckland Council Waste Strategy

In Section 7 we outline New Zealand’s extensive

waste legislation and the policy framework

establish by central Government and the new

Auckland Council. The current legislative

environment and the strategic direction of Auckland Council places heavy emphasis on the

waste hierarchy and pursuing waste

minimisation including reducing waste volumes

sent to sanitary landfills.

We also acknowledge a recent development in

the Auckland waste sector with the launch of a

new spatial planning process to help achieve the Mayor’s vision of Auckland

becoming the world’s most liveable city. The discussion document proposes a

medium term 40% reduction in Auckland waste with a longer term target of zero

waste. Such a target could provide an opportunity in future for a WTE facility toprocess waste not able to be reused or recycled by conventional means.

1.7 Key Features of the Auckland Solid Waste Market

Waste composition and sustainable supply of feedstock are critical success factors for

a WTE facility. In terms of composition an accurate assessment of the organic versus

inorganic fraction is important. This ratio influences the potential energy value

derived from the solid waste feedstock. Furthermore WTE facilities operate on a

24/7 continuous basis and require a regular supply of waste to maintain their

operational viability.

Page 236 of 591





Recent data on the size of the Auckland waste stream indicates annual volumes of

4.85Mtpa. However, this includes C&D waste and material sent to cleanfills and

managed fills which is unsuitable for WTE feedstock.

Estimated Auckland Solid Waste Stream

Source: Auckland Council Waste Assessment 2011

Of the circa 1.4Mtpa currently sent to sanitary landfills, a significant proportion

comprises soils etc that are unsuitable for WTE. Furthermore the organic component

is likely to reduce as Council implements its planned kerbside source-separation and

processing of food waste / green waste. Residual material available for diversion to a

WTE could therefore be a low as circa 400,000 - 500,000 tpa.

Another factor to highlight is that Council only controls circa 10% of the Auckland

waste stream. This implies that a WTE supplier would need to target the private

sector that currently controls 90% of the solid waste stream in Auckland. Werecognise that the major Auckland solid waste companies, Transpacific Industries

(TPI) and EnviroWaste Services (EnviroWaste), both have significant sunk investment

in their existing landfill operations and collection/transfer networks.

Auckland Council recently published its Waste Assessment which proposed Council

assuming greater control and ownership of Auckland’s waste infrastructure together

with other initiatives for greater waste minimisation including:-

Greater separation at source;

Diversion of organic waste from landfill;

Increased emphasis on recycling/reuse/recovery at Auckland’s transfer stations;

Use of price/regulatory signals at the landfill gate to motivate greater diversion;

and,

Widespread adoption of the polluter pays principle.

Collectively these initiatives, when implemented in Auckland, are expected by the

Council to reduce waste to landfill by up to 300,000tpa. The introduction and

establishment of a WTE facility in Auckland by a private sector operator could add

additional competition for solid waste feedstock.

Currently the Auckland landfill market is largely controlled by TPI and EnviroWaste.Council does own 50% of the Whitford landfill under a joint venture structure which

Page 237 of 591





is managed by TPI. The newest landfill at Hampton Downs, owned by EnviroWaste,

has an estimated lifespan of 40-50 years based on current volumes. However, the

Redvale landfill owned by TPI has a much shorter remaining consented life. It is

possible that the national waste levy and the emission trading scheme costs may

drive landfill operators such as TPI to consider WTE opportunities in the future aheadof, or in addition to, constructing new landfill facilities in Auckland.

1.8 High Level Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis

Section 8 of this Discussion Paper highlights indicative capex and operating costs and

potential revenue streams from operating a WTE plant in Auckland. The operating

design life for a WTE facility is generally 20-30 years.

In our view the current economics around a WTE plant for Auckland look marginal.

The actual viability of a WTE project will depend on a range of factors specific to theproposal including:-

Project capital costs (including consenting costs).

Location and waste transport logistics.

Availability and cost of capital.

Plant operating costs.

Financial impact of GHG charges on WTE vs. alternative options.

Landfill gate prices.

Electricity prices.

Market for recyclables.

Thermal WTE plants are generally expensive to build and operate. Indicative capital

costs for a thermal facility are in the order of NZ$70M – NZ$120M for a 100,000tpa

plant, increasing to NZ$125M – 205M for a 200,000tpa plant. AD plants are generally

smaller and cheaper to operate but lack the flexibility to handle mixed waste streams.

Electricity generation costs of WTE are likely to be marginal at best when compared

to current wholesale/industrial electricity prices. WTE facilities do have the benefit of

being able to charge tipping fees for receiving waste feedstock. However, in Auckland

a WTE facility would have to compete for feedstock against incumbent landfills with

low gate prices and the ability to marginally price to maintain their existing volumes.

The potential for conversion of existing thermal power plants to using Auckland solid

waste is essentially restricted to the Huntly Power Station. However, we are not

aware of any plans by Genesis to partially or fully convert any of its generation units

to accommodate solid waste or refuse derived fuel (RDF). We have identified a range

of potential risks and impediments to this concept and consider it is unlikely to have

any merit in the current operational/ownership environment.

1.9 Conclusions and Recommendations

In our view WTE represents an important tool for waste management. A number of

technologies are well proven internationally on a commercial scale whilst others are

Page 238 of 591





rapidly advancing towards commercial viability. New Zealand has been slow to

examine WTE due to the historical predominance of landfills as a waste management

solution. However, diversion of waste to landfill is now both a central and local

government priority and WTE deserves further consideration in the New Zealand

context.

Our analysis of the critical success factors for developing WTE in Auckland indicate a

range of impediments and risks around knowledge gaps, available volumes of solid

waste, Council control of the waste stream and marginal economic viability.

We consider that Council should have a minimal role in promoting WTE for

Auckland at present for the following reasons:

WTE is relatively low on the waste hierarchy. Therefore a key issue, from a

Council perspective, is that the feedstock used for any New Zealand WTE

facility should not (now or over the plant’s lifespan) cannibalise thecomponents of the solid waste stream that could otherwise have been

diverted through other means further up the waste hierarchy (i.e. reduction,

re-use or recycling).

Capital costs of WTE facilities are significant and there are a number of

investment risks which may be beyond Council’s risk appetite.

Council currently has insufficient control over the Auckland solid waste

stream to supply a WTE facility (aside from the option to use AD to process

organic waste).

We note that the WTE proposal put forward by Global Olivine (NZ) Ltd to

Council requires a waste feedstock that is in excess of the total Aucklandwaste currently going to landfill. As noted above Council does not control

this level of waste and is focusing on reducing waste to landfill by investing in

initiatives to reduce, reuse or recycle waste which are higher on the waste

hierarchy.

Existing private/commercial landfill operators are best placed to divert landfill

material to WTE and assess WTE economic and operational viability.

Existing landfill operators have a significant sunk investment in existing

landfill and transfer station infrastructure.

Community/political acceptance for using WTE on the non-organic fraction of

solid waste will likely require clear evidence that this waste cannot be cost-effectively captured and recycled i.e. that the benefits (financial,

environmental etc) of WTE would outweigh the costs.

Based on the results of this Discussion Paper, our recommendations to Council are

as follows:

Council should focus its financial and operating resources on projects that

maximise waste reduction, reuse and recycling ahead of lower waste

hierarchy solutions such as WTE.

Approaches to Council from WTE providers should be redirected to the keyprivate sector waste companies.

Page 239 of 591





Discussions with TPI and EnviroWaste are recommended to obtain their views

on whether WTE is viable to reduce waste to landfill or eliminate/scale down

future landfill development for Auckland.

Council should continue to monitor technological and operating performance

of commercially operating WTE plants in other countries (and developmentsin New Zealand) to increase its knowledge of WTE options.

Given the complex issues of ownership of the waste stream in Auckland, the recent

formation of the new Auckland Council, the relative abundance of landfill solutions

and current low landfill charges in the region, Auckland Council is not in a position

to play a leadership role in WTE at the present time.

It appears that the private sector is best placed to develop a WTE facility in Auckland,

particularly under the current industry structure where large private sector players

control the majority of the Auckland solid waste stream. However, there is no clearindication at this stage that economic drivers are in place to ensure viability of WTE in

the Auckland waste market.

Page 240 of 591





2. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE

2.1 Background

Campbell MacPherson has been engaged by the Solid Waste Business Unit (SWBU) of

Auckland Council (Council) to prepare a discussion paper (Discussion Paper) on the

viability and suitability of applying Waste to Energy (WTE) technology to processing

solid waste from within the Auckland Council region.

Auckland Council has recently released the Auckland Council Waste Assessment

(ACWA) which provides a framework for developing the Council’s Waste

Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) a requirement under the Waste

Management Act 2008 (WMA). The ACWA (Section 7.6.8) notes that “this assessment

has not compared waste disposal technologies such as landfill vs. incineration or

mechanical biological treatment etc.”

This Discussion Paper seeks to introduce and review (at a high level) the key issues

around WTE use and covers a broad scope as outlined below. The Discussion Paper

also provides our view on the suitability of WTE given the current central and local

government waste strategy and policies, applicability of WTE technologies and other

practical issues with respect to the Auckland solid waste market and Council’s role as

a key waste industry stakeholder.

2.2 Scope and Deliverables

Council has requested that this Discussion Paper cover the following key issues with

respect to WTE and its applicability to the Auckland solid waste market.

Overview of key types of WTE facilities.

The use of WTE internationally.

Key features of the Auckland solid waste market as a feedsource for a WTE plant.

New plant vs. conversion of existing electricity generation assets.

Review recent approaches to Council from several WTE vendors.

Identify (if possible) any previous or current feasibility studies on WTE in NewZealand.

Consider WTE in the context of the Waste Minimisation Act and its objectives and

priorities.

Consider WTE in the context of Council’s stated solid waste strategy and

aspirations.

Assess practical issues in developing a WTE in Auckland and provide a high level

cost/benefit analysis.

A draft copy of this Discussion Paper was provided to the SWBU for its review and

comment prior to finalisation.

Page 241 of 591





2.3 Solid Waste Definitions

International solid waste feedstock for WTE plants commonly comes from Municipal

Solid Waste (MSW) collected by or on behalf of local authorities. The term MSW

generally comprises waste from households, council sites and local-authoritycollected commercial waste. This differentiates solid waste from other waste sources

such as privately collected commercial and industrial waste, C&D waste and

mining/quarrying waste.

For the purposes of this Discussion Paper we have focused on Auckland solid waste

including both domestic household waste (collected by both Council and private

operators) and commercial waste (collected by private operators) but excluding

industrial waste and C&D waste.

2.4 Sources of Information

This Discussion Paper utilises a wide variety of publically available information on the

international WTE market, technologies and trends, together with information on the

local solid waste market provided in the Auckland Council Waste Assessment (2011)

and other public documents, and relevant central government policy and legislation

pertaining to the waste industry.

2.5 Conditions

This Discussion Paper is issued to Auckland Council subject to the conditions provided

in Appendix 1 and is not to be released to any third parties without Campbell

MacPherson’s express written consent.

Page 242 of 591





3. OVERVIEW OF WTE TECHNOLOGIES

3.1 Overview

WTE technology has become an integral part of solid waste management in a

number of countries because of its ability to reduce (not replace) the need for

landfills, provide a reliable source of energy and destroy contaminants that may be

present in the waste stream. WTE technologies for solid waste can be classified as

either thermal or biochemical/biological processes

Thermal energy conversion involves the combustion of waste and primarily

uses combustion, gasification and pyrolysis technologies. The core

difference between these technologies is the level of oxygen used in the

combustion process.

Biochemical/biological energy conversion utilises naturally occurring

microbes which convert organic material into biogas or ethanol using

anaerobic digestion or fermentation technology.

Solid Waste to Energy Pathways

Source: Waste to Energy: A Guide for Local Authorities. May 2005.

WTE applications for processing solid waste are commonly focused on thermal

technologies and are discussed in more detail below. Biological processes such as

anaerobic digestion are widely used to assist in the processing of the liquid waste

(sewerage, sludge etc) to generate electricity and heat, although they also have

application in treating the separated organic component of the solid waste stream.

We outline below the key features of thermal processing technologies and a brief

description of biological technologies and mechanical biological treatment.

Solid Waste

Thermal Processing

Combustion

Heat andPower

Gasification

Heat andPower

ChemicalFeedstocks

Pyrolysis

Heat andPower

ChemicalFeedstocks

Biochemical / Biological Processing

AnaerobicDigestion

Heat andPower

ChemicalFeedstocks

Fermentation

Ethanol

Page 243 of 591





3.2 Conventional Combustion

Conventional combustion is a well established and proven technology, and is

therefore the most common method currently being used to generate energy from

waste. Within conventional combustion, three technologies are primarily used;single-stage combustion, modular two-stage combustion and fluidised bed

combustion.

Single-stage Combustion

Single-stage combustion (sometimes referred to as mass burn incineration) is the

most common form of waste to energy technology and basically involves burning

solid waste in a single combustion chamber, the process can be summarised in 3

stages; combustion, energy recovery and by-product processing. First, waste (which

requires minimal processing prior to being incinerated) is feed into a hopper whichin turn feeds waste onto a moving grate. The first stage of the moving grate heats

the waste to remove excess water content, the second stage of the moving grate

involves burning the waste which oxidises more combustible material, the third

stage of the moving grate involves oxidising fixed carbon.

The three stages above take place in conditions where insufficient oxygen is

available for complete combustion, therefore secondary oxygen is supplied above

the moving grate to ensure complete combustion of all volatile gases released.

Sufficient supply of oxygen is the key element in single-stage combustion. The

heated gas produced as a result of the combustion stage is used as a heat sourceand/or in a heat recovery boiler which produces steam to power an electricity

generating turbine. Finally, ash produced during combustion is processed to remove

any recyclable metals and heated gases leaving the combustion chamber which

contain various pollutants are processed prior to being released into the

atmosphere.

Modular Two-stage Combustion

The primary difference between a single-stage combustion facility and a modular

two-stage facility is that the latter has two combustion chambers rather than one. In

a two-stage combustion facility, combustible waste is first incinerated in an

environment that has been starved of oxygen, this results in volatile gases being

released from the waste. These volatile gases are then moved to an oxygen rich

chamber and completely combusted. Heated gas from the second combustion

chamber is then used as a heat source and/or in a heat recovery boiler to generate

electricity.

Modular two-stage incinerators are sometimes referred to as a gasification

technology, however they are not true gasifiers1.

1Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010

Page 244 of 591





Fluidised Bed Combustion

Fluidised bed combustion utilises a liquid bed of inert material to combust waste.

This combustion technology requires a more homogenised fuel, therefore prior to

being incinerated waste is shredded and sorted to generate a uniform feed size.

Processed waste is fed into the combustion chamber which contains inert material

(usually sand) which is maintained in liquid form by passing oxygen through the bed

from below (Initially the bed is pre-heated by an auxiliary fuel). The combustion of

waste occurs within the fluidised bed and the resulting flue gases are contained in a

combustion zone above the bed, where the heat is collected and used as a heat

source and/or in a heat recovery boiler to generate electricity.

Efficiency of Conventional Combustion

Modern incinerators that only generate electricity generally produce approximately

750 – 850kWh/tonne of waste2. However, when both electricity and heat are

utilised, the amount of energy produced per tonne of waste increases significantly.

For example a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facility located in Italy produces and

the equivalent of 1150 kWh per tonne of waste3.

Summary indicated thermal efficiencies of various conventional combustion

technology variations are shown below. Standard efficiency rates for electricity

generation only range from 17% - 30%. However, this increases to 70% - 85% using

CHP.

Source: Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010.

2

Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010.3Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010.

Energy Potential Conversion Efficiencies for Conventional Combustion Waste to Energy Plants

Plant Type

Electricity Generation Only 17 - 30

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) 70 - 85

Heating Stations with Sales of Steam and/or Hot Water 80 - 90

Steam Sales to Large Chemical Plants 90 - 100

CHP and Heating Plants with Condensation of Humidity in Flue Gas 85 - 95

CHP and Heating Plants with Condensation and Heat Pumps 90 - 100

Note

The figures quoted in the above table are derived from addition of MWh of heat and MWh of electricity produced, divided by the energy output from the boiler. No detailed account is taken

of other important factors such as: process energy demand (support fuels, electrical inputs)

or displacement of electricity and heat generation.

Reported Potential

Thermal Efficiency %

Page 245 of 591





Conventional Combustion Summary

Summary features of conventional combustion WTE facilities are as follows:

Conventional Combustion Summary

Feedstock Municipal/commercial solid waste, biomass.

Minimal waste preparation / pre-processing required.

Designed to process variable waste streams.

Residual to Disposal 5% (by weight) if the majority of bottom ash can be

marketed for other applications.

Up to 20 to 25% by weight if there is no market for

recovered materials from the ash (0.2 to 0.25 tonnes

per input tonne).

Landfill capacity consumption reduced by 90 to 95%.

Potential Energy and

Revenue Streams

Revenue potential for: electricity, heat (steam and/or

hot water), recovered recyclable metals, construction

aggregate.

Electricity production, 0.5 to 0.6 MWh/annual tonne of

solid waste for older facilities.

Electricity production rates of between 0.75 to 0.85

MWh/annual tonne for newer facilities.

Scalability Various sizes of mass burn units; use of multiple units

also possible.

Reliability Numerous facilities operating worldwide with proven

operational success.

Less complex than other WTE approaches.

Scheduled and unscheduled downtime reported as<10%.

Source: Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010

3.3 Gasification

Gasification is the partial combustion of waste in an oxygen starved environment.

This process results in a synthetic gas (syngas) being created which primarily

comprises methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Syngas can then either be

immediately combusted in a secondary oxygen rich chamber which in turn powers a

heat recovery boiler (similar to the process used by modular two-stage combustion),cooled and cleaned prior to being used directly in gas engines or combusted in a

heat recovery boiler, stored to provide alternative fuels, or further refined i.e.

hydro-conversion.

The three primary types of gasification technologies available are fixed bed, fluidised

bed and entrained bed gasification, these technologies are not as common as

conventional combustion technology due to being less commercially proven and

reliable4. Typically gasification technologies require a much more homogenous

waste in comparison to conventional combustion technologies, pre-processing of

waste is therefore required. This pre-processing may be in the form of sorting,

4Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010.

Page 246 of 591





shredding and/or sizing of solid waste which may include the separation of a high-

calorific fraction commonly referred to as a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). This adds

additional cost and complexity to gasification plant operations.

Fixed Bed Gasification (up-draught)

A fixed bed gasifier can be described in four steps, the pre-heating zone, pyrolysis

zone, gasification zone and combustion zone. First, waste is fed into the top of the

gasifier (pre-heating zone) where it is heated and dried by rising syngas resulting

from the gasification occurring below. Second, the waste moves down the gasifier

where it is further heated and de-volatised (pyrolysis zone). The de-volatised waste

is then gasified by reacting with steam (fed into the bottom of the gasifier) and

carbon dioxide (gasification zone). Finally, near the bottom of the gasifier, oxygen

(feed into the bottom) reacts with the remaining char (combustion zone).

A modern form of gasification that utilises a similar process to fixed bed gasification

is known as high temperature conversion of waste, which claims to require a less

homogenous fuel and utilised higher temperatures than standard fixed bed

gasification.

Fluidised Bed Gasification

Fluidised bed gasification is similar to the process of fluidised combustion. The

difference being that oxygen is not as readily available in fluidised bed gasification,

resulting in the formation of syngas which is extracted and processed.

Entrained Bed Gasification

In an entrained bed gasifier, fuel and oxygen enter the gasification chamber in con-

current flow. The ratio of waste to oxygen is maintained at a level so that the heat

generated in the chamber is above that required to melt ash, this temperature is

much higher than the temperatures reached in fixed bed gasification. Because of

these high temperatures, gasification rates are generally higher than those achieved

in either fixed bed or fluidised bed gasifiers5. The molten ash and syngas created as a

result then flow through a quench system which cools the gas and solidifies the ash.

The syngas is then separated and further processed.

Efficiency of Gasification

Generally gasification technologies generally have lower energy recovery efficiency

than single-stage combustion technologies, with standard electricity generation

efficiency reported at 10% - 20%. This reflects the more complete combustion that is

achieved in single-stage combustion compared to gasification. Also the energy input

required for gasification technology is higher6. The combination of gasification with

5 Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry. Emil Raymond Riegel, James Albert Kent. 20036

Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010.

Page 247 of 591





Combined Cycle Turbines (CCT) can improve electricity efficiency to 30% and

combined CHP gasification plants can deliver up to circa 90% energy efficiency.

Source: Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010.

Gasification Summary

Summary features of gasification WTE facilities are as follows:

Gasification Summary

Feedstock Automobile shredder residue (ASR), biomass, black liquor,

coal, hospital waste, municipal/commercial solid waste,

organic waste streams, plastics, PVC, refinery residues,

sludge, tires.

Waste preparation/pre-processing required by technology.

Difficulties in accepting variable (heterogeneous) waste

streams.

Residual to Disposal <1 % if bottom ash can be marketed for other applications.

10 to 20% if it is not marketable (0.1 to 0.2 tonnes of

residue per 1 tonne of input waste).

Landfill capacity consumption reduced by up to 95%.


Revenue Streams

Revenue potential for: electricity, syngas, aggregate

recovered from ash.


solid waste.

Scalability Usually built with a fixed capacity; modular. Individual modules range in size from approximately

40,000 to 100,000 tpa.

Reliability At least seven plants in operation in Japan at a large scale

with over two years of operating experience.

Limited data available in other jurisdictions to assess

operational success with solid waste feedstock in regards

to technical reliability.

Complex operation.

Scheduled and unscheduled downtime reported as

approximately 20%, however other reports indicate

potential for up to 45% downtime.


Energy Potential Conversion Efficiency for Syngas created by Gasification Waste to Energy Plants

Syngas Use

Electricity Generation by Steam Boiler and Turbine 10 - 20

Burned in Reciprocating Engines 13 - 28

Combined Cycle Turbines up to 30

Combined heating and Power ~ 90

Note

The figures quoted in the above table are derived from addition of MWh of heat and MWh of

electricity produced, divided by the energy output from the boiler. No detailed account is taken

of other important factors such as: process energy demand (support fuels, electrical inputs)

or displacement of electricity and heat generation.

Reported PotentialThermal Efficiency %

Page 248 of 591





3.4 Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is a process in which waste is thermally heated in the absence of oxygen.

First, like gasification, the waste must be processed to reduce the size of large itemsand create a homogenous feedstock. This is achieved by shredding, drying and

sorting the waste. Second, the waste is feed in to the pyrolysis and then typically

indirectly heated7. The by-product of this process is a mixture of solid char, syngas

and oxygenated oils8. However, to maintain consistent levels of these by-products,

the process and fuel must be carefully monitored.

Whilst there are a relatively small number of plants in commercial operation

globally, Pyrolysis is not generally considered a commercially proven technology for

converting waste to energy at the present time9.

Pyrolysis Summary

Summary features of pyrolysis WTE facilities are as follows:

Pyrolysis Summary

Feedstock Biomass, automotive shredder residue, coal, hospital

waste, municipal/commercial solid waste, plastics,

polyvinyl chloride, sludge, tires, wastewater.

Waste preparation/pre-processing required by

technology.

Difficulties in accepting variable waste streams.

Residual to Disposal If treated, residues reduced to 0.1 to 0.3 tonnes per

input tonne.

>30%, if residue not treated.

Landfill capacity consumption reduced by up to 90%.


Revenue Streams

Revenue potential for: electricity, syngas, pyrolysis oil.


solid waste.


3.5 Summary of Thermal Technology

Thermal technologies are the most applicable WTE methods for processing solid

waste. Conventional combustion has been widely used for many years to treat

unsorted solid waste. Gasification and pyrolysis are developing technologies which

are still establishing themselves in the market but have excellent potential for the

future.

Summary features of the key types of thermal technologies are shown below:

7Cost of Incineration and Non-incineration energy from waste technologies. January 2008.

8 Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010. 9

Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010.

Page 249 of 591





Characteristic Conventional Combustion Gasification Pyrolysis

Single-

stage

Fluidised

Bed

Two-

stageApplicable to

unprocessed solid

waste, with

variable

composition

Yes No Yes No No

Commercially

proven system

with relatively

simple operation

and high degree of

reliability

Yes Yes Yes Commercially proven

to a limited degree,

more complex than

combustion and less

reliable, very costly

No

Reasonablyreliable set of

performance data

Yes No Yes Limited data,operational problems

have been

documented.

Limited data,operational

problems

have been

documented.


In addition to the above technologies, many emerging thermal technologies exist

but are yet to be commercially proven on a large scale. These technologies include:

Plasma arc gasification Gasplasma

Thermal cracking technology

Thermal oxidation

WTE technological advancements and commercialisation are evolving rapidly and

these technologies (or others yet to be developed) could become mainstream in the

foreseeable future.

3.6 Overview of Biological Treatment and MBT

Biological WTE technologies are generally not applicable to unsorted solid waste due

to its significant inorganic fraction. However, these processes are widely used to

treat sewerage waste and are finding increasing application in treatment of pre-

separated solid organic waste as outlined below.

Biological treatment for energy recovery is generally via anaerobic digestion (AD) a

process whereby organic (generally food) waste is digested by naturally occurring

bacteria in a sealed bio-reactor in the absence of oxygen. The process produces

“biogas” (comprising mainly methane and CO2) which is then captured to produce

Page 250 of 591





energy (heat and electricity). The by-product organic residue is generally used for

composting.

AD is predominantly used to process food waste (with some ability to handle

minimal green waste). The process is claimed to extract 50-70% of the energy

contained in the biomass. The biogas can be used to develop electricity at an

efficiency rate of 30 - 35% of the energy content of the biogas10 or for other fuel

uses However, this electricity production can vary considerably depending on the

methane content of the biogas.

In general, AD plants have much lower electricity yields than equivalent thermal

WTE facilities due to the lower energy content of the feedstock. For example, a

recent study11 based on using a UK-based food waste source, assuming 110 – 170m3

methane per tonne of waste and 30% electricity generation efficiency, indicatedpotential electricity production of 0.15 – 0.24 MWh per tonne of feedstock.

The main biological alternative to AD is composting. Whilst composting does enable

use of the full green waste + food waste components of the solid waste stream, it is

not a WTE technology and is not considered further here. AD is generally considered

more expensive than composting but cheaper than thermal WTE technologies.

Another process that is often considered part of biological WTE technology is

Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). This process is capable of handling mixed

solid waste and typically includes an initial mechanical preparation stage (e.g.sorting, shredding and crushing) to produce a series of processed waste streams

suitable for recycling or subsequent treatment. The treatment stage commonly

includes use of AD and/or composting, and therefore MBT does not necessarily

produce energy.

10Waste and Climate Change, ISWA, 2009

11Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Food Waste on Merseyside: A Practical Assessment, Dec. 2010

Page 251 of 591





4. USE OF WTE INTERNATIONALLY

New Zealand has no WTE facilities for solid waste and thus the performance of this

technology in managing local sources of solid waste has yet to be assessed (see furtherdiscussion in Section 6).

This section provides a brief overview of the current state of international WTE development

to provide perspective on the history and use of WTE globally.

4.1 Background

WTE plants have been in operation in developed countries for well over 50 years with

mixed success. Early adopters have included the USA, Europe and Japan.

Many of the existing plants are based on conventional combustion of solid waste to

produce steam for heat / electricity generation purposes. However, WTE technology

continues to develop at a rapid rate and other processes such as gasification and

pyrolysis are likely to find increasing commercial application and acceptance in the

future.

According to a recent report by Stantec12, conventional combustion facilities

generally range in capacity from circa 36,500 to 365,000 tpa, with maximum size

generally limited by the calorific value of the waste input stream.

4.2 USA

The USA was an early adopter of WTE technology and has been through both boom

and bust periods in WTE development. WTE “took-off” during the 1970’s and 1980’s

with the construction of around 180 new plants. However, the impact of higher

emissions standards, larger lower-cost landfill development and profitability issues

has seen the number of plants more than halve.

12Waste to Energy : A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices, Aug. 2010.

WTE Facilities Worldwide

Source: WTE worldwide: Waste Management World, Vol. 9, Issue 6.

Page 252 of 591





There are currently just under 90 WTE facilities operating in 24 different States in the

USA13. These plants have a total aggregate capacity to process around 35 million tons

of MSW to generate up to 2,572 MW of electricity and an equivalent of 218 MW of

steam.

The WTE industry in the USA has largely stagnated and most of the operating facilities

are at least 15 years old14. Indeed, between 1996 and 2007 no new WTE plants were

constructed in the USA due to “environmental and political pressure”15.

There is evidence of renewed interest in WTE facilities in the USA. A new 1,500 ton

per day combustion WTE plant is being developed in Fredrick Country, MD and State

legislation is being considered that would provide incentives for electricity generation

through WTE incineration. Opponents, including environmental groups, are opposing

the plant and the legislation.

A number of local USA authorities are considering new WTE facilities using non-combustion technologies other such as gasification, plasma arc gasification, pyrolysis

and AD16

.

4.3 Europe

The European experience with WTE facilities has generally been more successful. The

trend in Europe has been towards marginal increases in the volume of waste

generated per capita over the last 10 years with decreased volumes sent to landfill

and increased use of recycling, composting and incineration (i.e. combustion).

Municipal waste generation and treatment, EU-27, 1995-2008

(kg per capita)

Source: Eurostat Energy, Transport and Environment Indicators, 2010 Edition

Eurostat reports that energy production from MSW more than doubled during the

period 1998 to 2008 with major new WTE capacity led by Germany, France and Italy.

There are currently around 450 operating WTE plants throughout Europe. Over 90%

13The 2010 ERC Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants.

14Waste-to-Energy Plants, Global Energy Network Institute. June 2010

15Waste-to-energy: A review of the status and benefits in USA. January 2009.

16Conversion Technologies Update. Letter to Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utility Commission from R.W. Beck

Inc. October 27, 2010.

Page 253 of 591





of these employ mass burn incineration technology with around 30 utilising fluidised

bed technology17.

European countries with higher WTE

uptake also generally exhibit greaterlevels of recycling and lower disposal

volumes to landfill, as shown below.

Waste Management for the EU 25 (2005)

Source: Institute for European Environmental Policy; EEA

It appears there has been greater adoption of WTE in Europe for a number of reasons

including;

Lack of space and high cost of landfilling.

Higher costs of electricity in many EU countries.

European directives on reducing biodegradable waste to landfill.

Use of WTE plants to supply steam for local district heating loops.

Utilisation of combustion by-products (as an alternative to disposal of ash to

landfill).

Strict pollution control regulations.

Social/community acceptance.

17Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. Aug. 2010

AEB WTE Facility Amsterdam

Page 254 of 591

http://www.celsias.com/admin/articles/article/add/





4.4 Other Countries

Other Countries utilising WTE technology include Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, China

and Canada. Japan is reported to process up to 70% of its MSW using WTE 18 and has

been an early adopter of locally developed gasification technology.

Developing nations in Asia are taking an increased interest in WTE technologies. New

plants continue to be developed in countries such as India, China, Taiwan, Macau and

others where population density is high and/or there is high demand for

energy/electricity from all sources due to rapid economic growth.

Europe and Asia (in particular China) are likely to lead growth in the WTE industry in

the future. One recent report19 indicates the Chinese Government is calling for the

construction of 200 WTE facilities by 2020.

There has been limited adoption of WTE in Australia to date. A small number of wastefacilities operate in the greater Sydney area using the biomass to generate waste to

energy. These include the Earthpower AD plant in Camellia, NSW and the UR-3R MBT

plant at Eastern Creek, NSW. A report by Wright Corporate Strategy in 200920 noted

that (in reference to these facilities):

“Alternative waste technology (AWT) schemes have gained recognition as an

important waste strategy toolbox option in Australia. This recognition comes in spite

of some notable failures, commissioning delays, and persistent product quality

shortcomings. Some AWT systems implemented in Australia were previously not full

proven and commercialised, and few have had a life-cycle record of successful

operation – unlike sewage treatment, waste treatment is a fledgling industry.”

18WTE worldwide : Waste Management World, Volume 9, Issue 6

19

WTE worldwide : Waste Management World, Volume 9, Issue 620Public Review – Landfill Capacity and Demand. Wright Corporate Strategy Pty Ltd, March 2009.

Page 255 of 591





5. KEY ISSUES SURROUNDING WTE

Waste minimisation and environmental issues play a critical part in the assessment of

whether to accept or reject WTE as a waste management and minimisation option. Keyissues include:

The position of WTE in the “Waste Hierarchy”.

Possible conflicts with waste minimisation initiatives.

The types and levels of emissions generated by WTE facilities.

The performance of WTE facilities against emissions standards.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions/avoided emissions.

Reactions to the above issues are often highly polarised and impartial perspectives on the

WTE debate are rare. This section provides our views based on a high-level review of currentliterature on WTE with respect to its credentials as a waste management option.

5.1 WTE in the Waste Hierarchy

New Zealand and a number of other developed countries such as the USA and

European Union have adopted similar strategic approaches to waste management

and minimisation. This is often referred to as the “waste hierarchy” since it

prioritises the way in which communities approach the issue of waste management

The waste hierarchy favours waste prevention followed by (in order of priority),minimisation, reuse, recycling, recovery (generally energy recovery) and finally

disposal.

The waste hierarchy underpins much of the waste strategy in these jurisdictions and

reduction (minimisation), reuse and recycling the (3-R’s), have become prominent

features of many central and local government waste strategies.

WTE falls towards the bottom of this hierarchy and there is considerable debate

internationally regarding the extent to which resources should be applied to WTE as

a waste management strategy.

Proponents of WTE generally view the technology from the perspective of its

potential to “divert” waste from landfill and the associated benefits including lower

GHG emissions and superior energy (heat and/or electricity) production. These

groups often include commercial providers of WTE technology. Some proponents

seek to have WTE recognised as a “renewable” energy source due to its biomass

component.

Detractors of WTE include “zero-waste” proponents who view WTE as diverting

public attention, effort and resources away from their fundamental perspective that

all waste is “avoidable” and all focus should be placed on effectively eliminating

waste treatment (including WTE) and disposal. These groups strongly reject the

Page 256 of 591





“renewable energy” argument. Those against WTE also often cite concerns that WTE

poses risks in terms of its environmental effects.

Further information on the application of the waste hierarchy as part of the New

Zealand National Waste Strategy and Auckland Council waste strategy is provided inSection 7 of this paper.

5.2 Potential Conflicts with Waste Minimisation

The drive towards waste minimisation in developed countries including New Zealand

has raised concerns that development of WTE facilities may conflict with 3-R

initiatives.

A recent report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy21 notes that

“little conclusive evidence regarding conflicts could be identified” . However, itacknowledges that the potential risks are clear and include:

Failure to recognise the resource use and GHG benefits associated with

reusing/recycling raw materials.

“Demand pull” for waste by new WTE facilities that require a minimum

quantity of waste annually.

The need for WTE facilities to operate over long time horizons to generate

adequate financial returns and ensure ongoing viability.

The experience in Europe, where countries with high levels of recycling are also

often the largest users of WTE, makes it difficult to argue a meaningful conflictexists. In these countries WTE has essentially been substituted for

landfilling/disposal as the “bottom rung” in the waste hierarchy.

The IEEP report notes that risks of conflict are likely to be higher in countries where

incineration and recycling collectively dominate the waste management stream (i.e.

there is more likely to be a direct trade-off between the two). This is not the case in

New Zealand where disposal via landfill still predominates as a waste management

method.

Further discussion regarding WTE in the context of the New Zealand and Auckland

waste strategies is provided in Section 7.

5.3 Emissions from WTE Facilities

Commercial WTE facilities are currently dominated by combustion technology. The

low-energy heterogeneous mixed waste used to fuel these plants generates a

variety of air and solid emissions and residues that require rigorous pollution

control. These include:

21Preparing for the Review of the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, IEEP, Oct. 2010.

Page 257 of 591





Air pollutant emissions.

GHG emissions (CO2 and NOx).

Residual ash (fly ash and bottom ash).

Early facilities in countries such as the USA performed poorly from an environmental

perspective and the legacy of this performance appears to continue to colour the

debate on WTE today. Significant tightening of emissions legislation in both the USA

and Europe now provides much stringent compliance regimes. These regulatory

changes, together with advances in WTE technology and pollution control systems,

have led to major reductions in WTE air emissions.

Air Pollutant Emissions

Key air emissions of concern include sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides, dioxin/furan,

carbon monoxide, cadmium, lead, mercury. These pollutants are often cited as a keyrisk issue by community/lobby groups opposed to WTE facilities. However, modern

Air Pollution Control (APC) technologies are available to meet air emissions

guidelines. The extent and nature of the potential emissions from WTE facilities

means that the cost of APC systems are generally high.

Reviews of the air emission performance of WTE facilities appear limited. A paper by

Psomopoulos et. al. in 2009 noted significant improvement in air emissions

performance of modern WTE plants in the USA over the previous decade due to

upgrading of the remaining US WTE facilities as a result of tightened air emission

regulations. However, this is also likely to have reflected the significant number of

plants that were closed during this period due to their poor environmental trackrecord and/or financial performance.

Psomopoulos et. al. noted that average WTE emissions from the remaining WTE

plants in the USA are (with the exception of NOx) well below EPA maximum

emissions standards.

Emissions From US WTE Facilities

Pollutant Annual Emissions Annual Emissions Reduction

1990 2000 (%)

Dioxins/Furans, g TEQ* 4,260 g 12 g 99.7

Mercury 41.1 tonnes 2 tonnes 95.1

Cadmium 4.3 tonnes 0.3 tonnes 93

Lead 47.4 tonnes 4.3 tonnes 90.9

Hydrochloric Acid 42,636 tonnes 2,429 tonnes 94.3

Sulphur Dioxide 27,909 tonnes 3,705 tonnes 86.7

Particulate Matter 6,300 tonnes 643 tonnes 89.8

* Toxic equivalent (sum of substance amounts multiplied by toxicity equivalency)

Source: C.S. Psomopoulos et al., Waste Management 29, 2009

Page 258 of 591





NZ Emissions Legislation

Any new WTE facility in Auckland would need to comply with New Zealand airquality regulations including the National Environmental Standards for ambient air

quality (see below) and the Resource Management Act (RMA).

National Environment Standards for ambient air quality from 1 September 2005

Pollutant Standard Time Average Allowable exceedances

pa

Carbon monoxide (CO) 10 mg/m3

8 hours (running mean) 1

Fine particles (PM10) 50 µg/m3

24 hours 1

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 200 µg/m3

1 hour 9

Ozone (O3) 150 µg/m3

1 hour 0Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 350 µg/m

3

570 µg/m3

1 hour

1 hour

9

0

GHG Emissions

Landfilling has traditionally been the largest source of GHG emissions from the

waste sector. Landfill operations emit both CO2 and methane. Methane has a global

warming potential 21 times greater than that of CO2. Reducing biodegradable waste

to landfill has become a high priority in the EU as a means of reducing risks around

landfill leachate and reducing landfill GHG emissions. The introduction of gasrecovery systems, energy production and the flaring of surplus gas have also

contributed to reduced landfill GHG emissions and “renewable” energy recovery.

Compared to landfilling (without gas recovery), thermal WTE technologies are

reported to avoid most GHG generation, resulting in only minor emissions of CO2.

GHG emissions have become increasingly important internationally as carbon credits

and trading schemes have been developed. In most countries WTE facilities play a

minimal role in overall generation of GHG’s and indeed are considered to deliver a

net GHG benefit when compared with landfills.

We note that new best-practice New Zealand landfills daily “cap” refuse with a layerof soil/clay and have gas capture and energy generation/flaring as an integral part of

Average Emissions of 87 US WTE Facilities

Pollutant Average Emission US EPA Standard Average Emission Unit

(% EPA Standard)

Dioxin/Furan, TEQ basis 0.05 0.26 19.2% mg/dscm*

Particulate Matter 4 24 16.7% mg/dscm

Sulphur Dioxide 6 30 20.0% ppmvNitrogen Oxides 170 180 94.4% ppmv

Hydrogen Chloride 10 25 40.0% ppmv

Mercury 0.01 0.08 12.5% mg/dscm

Cadmium 0.001 0.02 5.0% mg/dscm

Lead 0.02 0.2 10.0% mg/dscm

Carbon Monoxide 33 100 33.0% ppmv

* Dry standard cubic metre of stack gas

Source: C.S. Psomopoul os et al., Waste Management 29, 2009

Page 259 of 591





their operations. These initiatives serve to significantly reduce the amount of

methane escaping to the atmosphere. However, they are generally considered to be

less effective and efficient than a biogas generation plant specifically built for that

purpose. For example landfill gas generation is less consistent than in WTE facilities

and emissions occur over a much longer timeframe including during and followingthe operational life of the site. Emissions from WTE processes take place at

approximately the same time as the waste is treated.

Residual Ash

One of the obvious benefits of WTE facilities is that they reduce the volume of solid

material transferred to landfill. Combustion of waste can reduce the volume of

waste by up to 90% and weight by up to 75%. However, the processes that generate

energy from waste also produce by-product solid materials in the form of particulate

matter recovered from flue gases or “fly-ash” and the bottom ash/slag that is left as

a non-combustible residue.

Fly-ash is often considered to be a hazardous substance, although it can also have

applications in industry including potential for incorporation into asphalt and other

road products or blended in small amounts with cement as a binding agent. Steel

(that has not been previously recycled) can be recovered from bottom ash with the

residual material also used for various construction/roading products.

Research and scientific debate23 continues regarding how bottom ash is best

used/disposed to minimise its long term environmental effects.

23

See Waste Management 2007; 27(8) S75-84; Waste Management 2009; 29(7) 2071-7; and, Chemosphere 2011;82(11) 1556-62.

Page 260 of 591





6. USE OF WTE IN NEW ZEALAND

6.1 History of WTE Facilities

The application of combustion or gasification technologies to generate energy from

the New Zealand waste stream has had little attention to date. We are not aware of

any examples of WTE technology currently or historically being used to treat MSW

or its equivalent in New Zealand. Australia has a small number of biological WTE

plants in operation with reported mixed success.

We note there was a proposal in the late 1990’s by private New Zealand company

Olivine (NZ) Limited (ONZ) to undertake a $223 million conversion of the Meremere

power station into a WTE plant. News reports at the time indicate that the plans

included the combustion of up to 1 million tonnes of refuse per year, with a similar

facility planned for Gisborne. ONZ were unable to secure resource consents forMeremere and both the Meremere and Gisborne proposals were terminated by the

Company. The Managing Director of Olivine Limited was Warwick Davies, the

current Managing Director of related company Global Olivine (NZ) Limited (see

further discussion in Section 6.4).

WTE technology in New Zealand to date has focussed on biogas initiatives (see

Section 6.2). Whilst there have been no public announcements to date, our

discussions with local representatives of WTE technology suppliers suggest that

ongoing increases in transport and landfill costs are driving other Councils to look

seriously at WTE options for solid waste, particularly where these can be

incorporated with materials recycling facilities.

6.2 Biogas Generation Facilities

There is a much longer history of treating liquid waste/sludge using AD technology

to generate energy from biogas (mainly methane), and more recently utilising

methane derived from landfills to generate electricity. These technologies all utilise

various organic/biomass components of the solid or liquid waste stream and the

energy produced is therefore considered to be “renewable” and can be used to

generate carbon credits.

Examples of biogas facilities in New Zealand include Wastecare’s Mangere

wastewater treatment site which has used AD since the 1960’s to generate

electricity and heat, and Christchurch’s wastewater treatment plant. Biogas is also

collected and utilised for energy at a number of New Zealand landfills including

Redvale, Hampton Downs, Burwood and others. Further information on biogas in

New Zealand can be found at www.biogas.co.nz

We note that AD technology is applicable to the development of energy facilities

using the organic component of the solid waste stream. Parts of Australia (e.g.

Sydney) are using this technology to treat biomass. The Eastern Creek UR-3R was

developed in 2004 and processes up to 260,000 tpa of Sydney’s MSW. The facility

uses a combination of mechanical separation and sorting of recyclables together

Page 261 of 591

http://www.biogas.co.nz/








with biological treatment of the organic component to produce energy and

compost. A review of the UR-3R development24 noted that “due to the resistance

from the public and NGO’s against waste treatment facilities such as incineration,

gasification and pyrolysis, an MBT solut ion was chosen”.

6.3 Analysis of WTE by former Auckland Councils

Discussions with the Auckland Council SWBU indicate that little historical analysis

has been undertaken by the various former Auckland city and district councils with

respect to utilising WTE as part of their solid waste management options.

An assessment of options for the management of organic kitchen waste in 200225

included a review of composting vs. incineration vs. anaerobic digestion. However,

the report noted that incineration it is not commonly used to process the organic

fraction of the waste stream since food waste has a lower calorific value (circa5.6MJ/kg) than general MSW (8.7 – 12.1 MJ/kg) and therefore produces limited

energy. Incineration also fails to recover any of the residual organic carbon.

6.4 Review of Recent Proposals to Council

We are aware that Auckland Council has recently received several unsolicited

approaches from WTE companies/agents with information on options/technology

that could be used to develop WTE facilities using Auckland solid waste. These are

summarised briefly below.

We stress that these technologies are not necessarily representative of the broader

WTE industry nor have they been pre-selected by Council or Campbell MacPherson.

The summaries below are high level in nature and are based on limited non-

confidential information provided by the Companies and/or available from public

sources.

GO-SRRF

Proposal

Global Olivine (NZ) Limited (GONZ), formerly known as Global Olivine Limited, has

proposed that Council and/or its associated CCO’s invest in the development of the

“Global Olivine Sustainable Resource Recovery Facility” or GO-SRRF.

The GO-SRRF is a large and complex industrial development. The major component

is a WTE gasification facility to generate electricity and heat, combined with other

industrial processes to separate/ generate various recyclables and end products

from the solid and liquid waste stream. The proposed facility would use circa 1.55 -

24Mechanical Biological Treatment: Case Study 2: Eastern Creek UR 3R Sydney, Report to IEA Bioenergy Task 36,

April 2007.25

Assessment of Options for the Management of Organic Kitchen Waste, August 2002, Waste Not.

Page 262 of 591





1.92 million tpa of waste including MSW, industrial waste, commercial waste,

sewerage sludge and other solid and liquid wastes.

GONZ claims that the GO-SRRF would be a “zero-waste facility” with “no residue to

landfill” . Quoted annual outputs based on using 1.92 Mtpa of waste include 1,688GWh of electricity together with a range of recycled products (plastic, glass, metals

etc) and residual water.

GONZ quote capital costs to develop the GO-SRRF of US$1.35 billion and would

require a waste supply contract together with power and water off-take contracts.

The Company states that environmental consents for its WTE technology were

previously granted in Western Australia and Peterborough UK.

GONZ Track Record

GONZ is a privately owned New Zealand company. Key personnel include ManagingDirector Warwick Davies. The company was incorporated in September 2001 and is

based in Auckland.

The Company is yet to construct or operate its GO-SRRF technology. GONZ and its

related companies have made a number of attempts to develop thermal WTE

facilities in different countries over the last 15 years.

As discussed in Section 6.1, Warwick Davies, through related company ONZ, sought

to establish a WTE plant at Meremere, south of Auckland in the late 1990’s but

resource consents were not granted and the project did not proceed.

In the early 2000’s another related company Global Olivine West Australia Limited

(GOWA) sought to develop at large WTE facility (along similar lines to that now

proposed for Auckland) at Kwinana in Western Australia. Whilst the EPA

recommended that environment consents be granted26, the local Council appears to

have discontinued negotiations with GOWA and the proposed facility did not

proceed.

In 2005 Peterborough Renewable Energy Limited (PREL) proposed a large £250

million WTE facility using “Global Olivine technology”. The local Council is believed

to have declined the original proposal and reports indicate that a revised application

was submitted by PREL for a much smaller facility that no longer used Global Olivine

technology27.

Potential for Development in Auckland

In our view the GONZ proposal would represent a “step change” in the capture and

management of the Auckland waste stream. We understand that GONZ has

significant technical, environmental and financial modelling developed over many

26Waste to Energy and Water Plant, Lot 15 Mason Road, Kwinana : Global Olivine Western Australia. Report and

recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority, December 2000.27

Peterborough UK Community website, October 2007.

Page 263 of 591





years in relation to its technology. However, analysis of this in any detail is beyond

the scope of this Discussion Paper.

Our initial review of this proposal has highlighted several major challenges to

overcome including:

The GO-SRRF would require considerable political support from both

central government and Auckland Council. The current National Waste

Strategy and Auckland Council strategic direction on waste management

and minimisation are unlikely to favour the GO-SRRF based on the waste

hierarchy concept.

The GO-SRRF would effectively make all other landfill, waste management

and recycling facilities redundant. Operators and owners of those facilities

(e.g. EnviroWaste and TPI) are therefore unlikely to be supportive.

Council also has significant sunk investment into the current Aucklandwaste management infrastructure including part ownership of Waste

Disposal Services, direct ownership of a number of transfer stations and the

BOOT arrangement with Visy for the material recycling facility in

Onehunga.

The Auckland waste stream is currently largely controlled by EnviroWaste

and TPI29 who are unlikely to supply waste to the GO-SRRF for the reasons

outlined above.

It would be problematic to legally capture the entire Auckland waste

stream.

The project scale is large and requires significant (US$1 billion +) capitalexpenditure and funding. Projects of this scale are always more difficult to

develop and fund than smaller facilities. Any funding would no doubt be

conditional on waste supply contracts and electricity and water off-take

contracts being in place prior to development.

There are no GO-SRRF facilities currently in operation that can be assessed

in respect of their technical, operating, environmental and financial

performance.

GONZ is a small private New Zealand company with no track record in

constructing or operating a major WTE facility.

Whilst the GO-SRRF technology appears to have considerable potential, extensive

technical assessment would be required to confirm this. Given the issues outlined

above we consider that the current likelihood of successfully bringing together all of

the required elements is low.

We understand that the GO-SRRF technology is currently being assessed for use

offshore and it may be instructive for Council to assess the GO-SRRF further once

one of these this facilities is in operation. This will also provide time for Council to

complete its WMMP and further develop its strategic objectives including increasing

control of the Auckland solid waste stream.

29Auckland Council Waste Assessment, 2011.

Page 264 of 591





Sustainable Equities Limited

Sustainable Equities Limited (SEL) is a New Zealand company formed in 2010 as an

amalgam of interests in the municipal waste and biomass waste commercialisation

sectors. Key SEL personnel include CEO Rob Adamson (former CEO of NgatiTuwharetoa Holdings Limited) and founder and Head of Marketing Alan Merrie.

SEL has partnered with a number of international technology suppliers, whose

products and services they market in New Zealand and in other parts of the world.

These suppliers include:

Sterecycle – a UK based waste conversion process using autoclave

technology.

International Environmental Solutions (IES) – a USA-based pyrolysis system.

Range Industries – a New Zealand-based technology for processing plastic

waste.

Of the SEL suppliers the Sterecycle process appears most applicable to processing

unsorted solid waste. According to SEL, a combination of the steam and pressure in

the autoclave and the rotation of the vessels results in:

(i) the organic fraction of the waste being broken down into a fibrous

lignocellulosic biomass; and

(ii) the non-organics being sterilised and steam cleaned.

The organic component is then separated from the non-organics and can be used in

a variety of applications including generation of heat and electricity. The non-organiccomponent is sorted and recyclables, in particular plastics, can be collected. The

process is claimed to reduce the volume of input waste material by 60/70 %.

SEL Track Record

Whilst no formal proposal has been made by SEL to the Auckland Council, the

company has advised Council that it has a number of projects “nearing feasibility” .

SEL has yet to bring a project through to commissioning and commercial operation.

Information provided by SEL indicates that Sterecycle has one operating facility in

Yorkshire processing circa 100,000 tpa of MSW and has recently received conditionalplanning permission from Essex County Council to develop a 240,000 tpa capacity

resource recovery facility combining an autoclave plant, a materials recycling facility

and a combined heat and power facility30.

The IES “Advanced Pyrolytic System” has been demonstrated with a 50-tpd pilot

plant located in Romoland, California (Riverside County). According to a recent

public report31 the pilot plant has operated intermittently since 2004 for the purpose

of testing, and has processed various types of waste including in excess of 6,000 tons

of post-MRF MSW.

30http://www.sterecycle.com/news.htm

31Evaluation of Municipal Solid waste Conversion Technologies, Alternative Resources Inc., April 2008.

Page 265 of 591





Potential for Development in Auckland

The Sterecycle process essentially uses the organic component of the solid waste

stream to generate energy. As such it is likely to compete directly against well

established AD technology for conversion of biomass into energy. We note thatAuckland Council’s current plans to source separate organic waste and process it via

composting +/- AD would impact on the availability of organic material for the

Sterecycle process or other similar processes requiring organic feedstock. The IES

pyrolysis technology may have application in processing special wastes (e.g.

hazardous waste, tires etc).

No publically available financial information is available from SEL regarding the likely

capital and operating costs of Sterecycle or IES technology, electricity generation

costs and other fundamentals. It may be helpful for Auckland Council to monitor the

development of SEL’s other projects and re-address this technology once

commercial viability and costs/benefits have been proven.

Page 266 of 591





7. AUCKLAND COUNCIL WASTE STRATEGY

7.1 Overview

This section considers WTE for Auckland in the context of the wider New Zealand

Waste Strategy, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the recently promulgated

strategic waste objectives from the Auckland Council.

7.2 Legislative Review

Waste management and minimisation in New Zealand is underpinned by the

Government’s core waste policy, The New Zealand Waste Strategy -Reducing Harm

Improving Efficiency 2010 (NZWS). The NZWS sets the overall framework, strategic

vision, objectives and broad targets for achieving waste minimisation. A number of Acts of Parliament provide the legal framework for waste management and

minimisation in New Zealand, with the primary legislation driving waste management

and minimisation planning being the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) and the

Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

The following is a brief review of these key policies and legislation impacting on the

management and minimisation of waste with specific implications for the

development of WTE.

7.3 The New Zealand Waste Strategy - NZWS

Central Government from time to time via its agency the Ministry for the

Environment (MfE) promulgates a national waste strategy (i.e. the NZWS). The NZWS

presents a vision of minimising waste and sets out a practical programme of

strategies and proposed actions for waste reduction and management.

The NZWS provides the strategic framework that councils are legally required to

“have regard to” the in the development of their local Waste Management and

Minimisation Plans, as required by the s44 of the WMA 2008. The regulatory tools

provided by the WMA were designed to enable ways the NZWS can be implemented

and how progress can be measured over time.

Effective and efficient waste management and minimisation planning is underpinned

by the Government’s two core goals as stated in the revised 2010 NZWS and which

are:

Reducing the harmful effects of waste, and;

Improving the efficiency of resource use.

The 2010 NZWS replaces the ambitious zero waste vision of the 2002 strategy as

many of its targets were unable to be measured or achieved. This revised 2010

strategy enables a more flexible and pragmatic approach to waste management andminimisation.

Page 267 of 591





The MfE considers that effective and efficient waste management and minimisation is

achieved when less waste is sent to landfill, when resources are used wisely, when

the economic cost of managing waste is reduced and when social costs and risks are

minimised.

Government policy outlines an overarching objective of reducing waste to landfill by

20 percent per capita by 2015 based on a 2010 baseline and the NZWS includes an

emphasis on the reduction of organic waste sent to landfill.

The NZWS is silent on the use of technologies such as WTE but it does place

considerable emphasis on the use of increased recycling, reuse and recovery which by

definition reduces the waste stream that would ultimately be available for processing

via a WTE plant or sending to landfill.

7.4 Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) 2008

The enactment of the WMA in 2008 represented a major change in the Government’s

approach to managing and minimising waste. The WMA recognises the need to focus

efforts higher in the waste hierarchy, i.e. reducing and recovering waste earlier in its

life cycle, thereby shifting focus away from treatment and disposal options (i.e.

landfill).

This change in focus is reflected in new tools enabled by the WMA such as a

framework for developing accredited product stewardship schemes and a national

levy on waste to landfill set initially at $10 per tonne (i.e. a landfill tax). The purpose

of the levy was not only to generate revenue but also provide a yardstick to moreaccurately measure the volumes of waste sent to landfills.

Furthermore the current Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith stated in his

foreword to the 2010 NZWS that “getting waste disposal pricing policies right is

crucial to improving waste minimisation …. The purpose of the (waste) levy is to

increase the price of waste disposal to better reflect the cost of waste on the

environment , society and the economy…” The funds from the national levy are to be

used to promote or achieve waste minimisation through a contestable fund or via

MfE for per capita allocation to TA’s.

Taken together the WMA and other Acts provide the legislative tools to support

progress toward the strategic vision of waste minimisation outlined in the NZWS. The

WMA represents an update and modernisation of waste legislation to emphasise and

promote waste minimisation. Policy makers have established a mechanism (the

national waste levy) whereby they can use price signals to motivate polluters, both

private households and businesses to divert their current waste volumes from

landfill.

The purpose of the WMA (clause 3) is to:

“encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal in order to;

(i).

protect the environment from harm; and (ii). provide environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits”.

Page 268 of 591





The WMA contains seven parts. Part 3 and Part 4 are critical and provide for the

establishment of a waste disposal levy, and the responsibilities of territorial

authorities in relation to waste management and minimisation respectively.

The WMA requires TA’s to consider a six step hierarchy of waste minimisation (listed

in descending order of importance as per clause 44 (a) of the WMA) that essentially

mimics the waste hierarchy used in other developed countries;

(i). Reduction (lessening waste generation).

(ii). Reuse (reuse of products in their existing

form).

(iii). Recycling (making into new products e.g.

packaging, or composting).

(iv). Recovery (extracting materials or energy

for further use).

(v). Treatment (changing the volume or

character of waste for safe disposal).

(vi). Disposal (deposit of waste on land set apart

for the purpose, or incineration).

The WMA in part follows international practice where the key waste reduction

instruments used are often:

Source separation (e.g. organic waste).

Legislated producer responsibility.

Encouraging development of reuse/recycling facilities.

Legislated reduction over time in waste (or its biomass fraction) to landfill.

Polluter pays principle.

Implementation of landfill and incineration taxes.

WTE technology would fall predominantly into a fourth tier response to waste

minimisation with a common focus on electricity and/or heat generation and some

potential for extracting/recycling materials from the residual ash. The residueresulting from the WTE process is also clearly much smaller than the initial volume of

the waste feedstock, thereby contributing to reduced volumes of waste to landfill (i.e.

a contribution to tier five also).

The key issue, from a WMA’s waste hierarchy perspective, is that the feedstock

used for any New Zealand WTE should come directly as a result of diversion from

landfill that would not otherwise have been diverted through other means (i.e.

reduction, re-use or recycling).

Whilst, it is likely to be straightforward to demonstrate that a well functioning WTE

plant could reduce waste to landfill, it is likely to be more problematic to convincekey waste minimisation stakeholders such as Auckland Council, that a WTE plant

Page 269 of 591





would not (now or over its lifespan) cannibalise the potential recyclable

components of the household waste stream.

Because the WMA legislation is relatively new its full impact on social behaviour, solid

waste volumes diverted from landfill and industry structure has not yet been felt toany significant degree in the Auckland waste market.

7.5 Previous Waste Minimisation Priorities

In 2007-8 the Auckland Waste Officers Forum produced a draf t “Strategic Priorities for

Waste” document for the Auckland region. The agreed priorities for waste

minimisation action were cited as:

i) Organic and food waste;

ii) Construction and demolition (C&D) waste;

iii) Recyclable and packaging;

iv) Hazardous waste;

v) Inorganic/special waste, and;

vi) Illegal dumping and litter.

It is important to note that none of the previous Auckland councils identified WTE

plants as a priority or desired outcome, even given the publicity surrounding the

proposed conversion of the former ECNZ coal fired power station at Meremere by a

private sector investor (Olivine) seeking to capture waste in the Auckland and Waikato

regions.

7.6 Auckland Council - Strategic Direction Options on Waste

The current legislation requires councils to play a central lead role in contributing

toward the achievement of the national targets and TA’s are legally required to

complete a waste assessment and produce new Waste Management and

Minimisation Plans (WMMP’s) by July 2012. These plans are intended to provide

goals within the context of the waste issues facing its district/city and its desired

community outcomes.

The Auckland Council has recently published its Auckland Council Waste Assessment(ACWA) with its recommendations for the strategic direction of its WMMP in order to

maximise waste minimisation and diversion from landfill.

The ACWA report is a vital document and outlines that the most significant areas of

opportunity for the Auckland Council;

in order to give effect to the WMA

to implement a waste minimisation strategy is to focus on recycling/reuse of

organic waste;

reducing C&D waste; and,

increasing the emphasis on recovery and recycling at Auckland’s transfer

stations.

Page 270 of 591





The overarching theme of the ACWA report is to reduce volumes sent to Auckland

landfills for disposal by recovering/reusing as much as possible from the existing

waste stream. An associated but long term strategy is to make consumers and

producers accountable for the ultimate disposal costs of the products theyproduce/consume.

The ACWA authors identified three core options for Council to consider for its WMMP

as summarised below.

Option 1 Continue with the status quo with some streamlining

Council provides licence to operators.

Exclusive collection licence tendered for each area

(to correlate with 21 local boards).

All services funded on polluter pays basis.

Option 2 Continue with the status quo with new activities to

maximise diversion

Organic waste collection.

AC outsources waste contracts.

Funding via polluter pays, rates funding or a mix.

Option 3 Take action as in Option 2 but also move to have

operational influence over the entire waste stream to

landfill.

Council has operational control of all transfer

stations and kerbside residential collection

contracts.

Advocacy for legislation to require industry tocomply with the WMA.

A supporting solid waste bylaw.

Polluter pays funded.

In order to improve waste minimisation and hence reduction of volume to landfills

the ACWA proposes offering additional recycling, recovery and reuse services at each

Auckland refuse transfer station. Auckland currently hosts seventeen transfer stations

owned and operated by a variety of parties including Auckland Council.

Option 3 also seeks to control landfill disposal rates and tonnages throughmanagement of landfill disposal contracts by Council as the sole transfer station

owner and “gatekeeper” of the Auckland waste stream. No consideration was given

in the ACWA to the potential for WTE to reduce solid waste to landfill as part of the

Councils’ overall WMMP.

The ACWA recommended Option 3 as it was considered to offer potential to deliver

the most significant reduction in solid waste volumes to landfill (up to 0.3Mtpa).

Page 271 of 591





7.7 Integration with the Auckland Plan

In March 2011 Auckland Council released the new Auckland Plan – discussion

document (Discussion Document). This document is intended to become the

blueprint for building the Auckland region over the next 30 years. Mayor Brown’svision embraces Auckland becoming an eco city.

The aspirational goal for Auckland Council is to turn Auckland into the world’s most

liveable city. This long term plan is the strategic planning tool for Auckland and is the

responsibility of the Auckland Council (Mayor plus 20 councillors), 21 local boards,

CCO’s and those central government agencies which provide services, infrastructure

and other investment required to implement the Auckland Plan. (The term Auckland

Plan is used to describe the spatial plan for Auckland required by the Local

Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009).

Due to the planning horizon timeframe the Auckland Plan covers a broad range of high level factors including economic, social, quality of life, environmental,

infrastructure issues, etc. Public submissions are called for by 31 May 2011. Although

the Discussion Document is informal, the next stage is the development of a draft

Auckland Plan that will be published in August 2011.

The Discussion Document makes some mention of the solid waste infrastructure in

Auckland. On page 20 there is comment that the “Plan proposes playing a leading

role in promoting a low carbon footprint for Auckland. We need to lead by example in

energy efficiency, in the promotion of walking, cycling and public transport and in

landfill and waste management .” (underlining ours).

The Discussion Document discusses creating a sustainable global environment and

proposes three areas of focus;

1. Greenhouse gas emission reduction.

2. Climate change adaption.

3. Energy and resource use and security.

The Discussion Document suggests a 40% reduction of waste with a “zero waste”

long term target (see page 101). A priority area was identified as the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions to make Auckland an eco-city including the

reduction/removal of green waste from landfills (page 103).

Waste minimisation is therefore clearly set out as a key target and action item for

Auckland Council with a strong commitment to reduce the present waste volumes

being sent to landfill.

The Discussion Document also briefly refers to the three strategic options that the

Council’s Environment and Sustainability Forum has discussed and sets out the key

attributes of Option 3 including the point that the Forum had recommended Option 3

which would (in theory) allow the greatest waste reduction to landfill and requires

more of the costs to be taken on by whoever creates the waste (i.e. the polluter pays

principle). This Option 3, they state would make a significant contribution to Auckland

becoming an eco-city.

Page 272 of 591





8. KEY FEATURES OF THE AUCKLAND SOLID WASTE MARKET

8.1 Overview

The purpose of this Section is to consider the potential for a WTE facility taking into

account the size of the current solid waste stream in Auckland, its composition and

other key structural features of the Auckland solid waste market.

8.2 Auckland Solid Waste Volumes

Data Availability and Quality

The recent release of the ACWA provides the most up-to-date publicly available data

on the Auckland solid waste stream. However, the ACWA authors state they havestrong misgivings surrounding the quality and relevancy of the waste data they were

able to obtain. Much of the data is old and predates the July 2009 national waste

levy. Private operators (TPI and EnviroWaste) control much of the Auckland waste

stream and do not release public information on the composition, diversion, or

recycling volumes under their control.

The data also generally predates the recent recession and it is likely that current

waste volumes are reduced to due lower levels of economic activity and

consumption of raw materials and products by households, commercial and

industrial entities. However, we would expect that waste generation will increase

again as the New Zealand economy improves over the next 24-36 months.

Information provided in this section should therefore be considered as

approximate only and based on available data in the ACWA report.

Estimated Solid Waste Volumes

It is estimated that the total volume of solid waste generated in the Auckland Council

region is in the order of 4.85Mtpa.

Estimated Auckland Solid Waste Stream


Page 273 of 591





The MSW component of the Auckland waste stream (excluding biosolids) is small

and currently comprises around 365,000tpa from Council and private kerbside

collections.

Of the total waste generated, approximately 1.4Mtpa of refuse is sent to sanitarylandfills. From a WTE perspective the waste feedstock would likely come from further

diversion of the 1.4Mtpa of waste currently sent to sanitary landfill. This presents

both risks and opportunities to incumbent landfill operators. Further analysis is

outlined below.

8.3 Auckland Solid Waste Composition

Data available in the ACWA covers composition of solid waste material to landfill as

well as the composition of solid waste material for domestic kerbside waste.

Information on landfill waste composition indicates that the largest category,

comprising 350ktpa (25%), is “potentially hazardous waste”. This largely represents

contaminated soils and sludges that are unlikely to be suitable for a WTE plant or any

other diversion use. We have excluded this material in our solid waste calculations.

The next largest category is putrescibles (largely food waste and green waste)

representing 266ktpa (19%). We note that Council is expected to make future

diversion of this waste component a priority with likely processing an end use as

compost. We have therefore excluded this material from our anticipated available

solid waste material for WTE.

Whilst the majority of C&D waste is diverted to cleanfill/managed fill operations a

small proportion of the total C&D volume (circa 313ktpa) currently ends up in

sanitary landfill (see rubble and timber categories below). There is some potential to

divert this C&D material to WTE although this is likely to be challenging in terms of

both the ability to divert/sort this material and the unattractiveness of its non-

combustible components such as rubble.


Estimated Composition of Auckland waste to landfill (2007-2008)

Classification Tonnes/ year %

Potentially Hazardous 349,535 25.0%

Putrescibles 266,249 19.1%Timber 191,592 13.7%

Paper 145,015 10.4%

Plastic 124,646 8.9%

Rubble 121,539 8.7%

Ferrous Metals 55,874 4.0%

Textiles 41,787 3.0%

Nappies and Sanitary 41,465 3.0%

Glass 31,939 2.3%

Rubber 17,309 1.2%

Non-ferrous Metals 9,482 0.7%

Total 1,396,432 100.0%

Page 274 of 591





Excluding potentially hazardous waste and putrescibles there remains

approximately 780ktpa of waste potentially available as a WTE feedstock. If the

C&D material going to sanitary landfill is also excluded then the potentially

available WTE feedstock reduces to only 467Ktpa.

8.4 Control of the Auckland Solid Waste Stream

Whilst there appears in principle to be sufficient suitable solid waste to give

consideration to developing a WTE plant for Auckland, the current ownership

structure of the Auckland waste market presents severe restrictions on the practical

availability of solid waste feedstock.

Council Control

Council estimates that it only controls around 480,000tpa or circa 10% of theAuckland waste stream with the balance controlled by private/commercial sources.

Of this, approximately 180,000tpa is Council’s kerbside refuse collections.

If Council introduced domestic organic collection (circa 96,000 tpa) this would leave

only 85,000tpa of Council controlled MSW. In our view these volumes are likely to

be insufficient for consideration of any significant or sustainable long-term WTE

operation.

Councils’ ownership of the Auckland landfill market includes its 50% interest in Waste

Disposal Services (WDS), a Joint Venture with TPI that owns and operates the

Whitford landfill. Council also owns six transfer stations and has a BOOT with Visy inrespect of the MRF facility at Onehunga.

Private/Commercial Control

As discussed the Auckland solid waste market is currently controlled by mainly

commercial/private operators. Key players are EnviroWaste and TPI who collectively

control the majority of the Auckland waste stream through their respective landfill

and transfer station networks.

TPI is an ASX-listed company with a substantial Australasian waste business and a

market capitalisation of over A$1 billion. TPI operates in New Zealand through its

local subsidiary Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd and owns the Redvale landfill

north of Auckland with around 50% share of the Auckland landfill market.

The other major landfill servicing Auckland is Hampton Downs, south of Auckland,

owned by EnviroWaste, with around 35% share of the Auckland landfill market.

Hampton Downs also takes waste from outside the Auckland region including the

Waikato and further afield.

Redvale is believed to be the largest landfill by volume servicing Auckland, followed

by Hampton Downs. Whitford is currently limited to a maximum of around 200,000

tpa based on existing consents and operational parameters.

Page 275 of 591





Estimated Total Waste to Landfill from the Auckland Region for 2007-2008

Landfill Estimated tpa

Redvale Landfill (TPI) 717,000

Hampton Downs (EnviroWaste) 478,782

Whitford Landfill (WDS) 200,000

Claris Landfill (Council) 650

Total Estimated Tonnes 1,396,432

Source: Auckland Council Waste Assessment, 2011

TPI and EnviroWaste have separately developed their own proprietary network of

transfer stations in the Auckland region to capture solid waste market share for

delivery to their respective landfills. As discussed, Council also has interests in six

transfer stations in Auckland. Locations of transfer stations and landfills are shown

below.

Auckland landfills and transfer stations

Source: Auckland Council Waste Assessment, 2011

Page 276 of 591





The current Auckland waste market structure and volumes make it highly unlikely

that any new entrant could develop a WTE facility without the support of one or

other of TPI or EnviroWaste. Both of these companies are substantial commercial

entities and would presumably evaluate WTE as part of their waste managementstrategic options. WTE may be a commercially feasible alternative or addition to their

existing waste infrastructure.

8.5 Implications for Development of WTE in Auckland

We understand that Auckland’s three main sanitary landfills are operated to industry

best practice. Existing landfill operators servicing Auckland have significant sunk cost

and investment in their operating landfills. They are therefore currently motivated to

continue to supply sufficient waste to those landfills to justify that investment and

the ongoing financial viability of their operations in the Auckland region.

Hampton Downs is the most recently consented landfill and has a commercial target

lifespan of at least a further 40-50 years. There would appear to be little incentive at

present for EnviroWaste to give serious consideration to developing a WTE facility

that would cannibalise its existing landfill operation.

TPI’s Redvale landfill is nearing the end of its consented life and probably has a

further 10-15 years of operation. Given the extensive planning and consenting

process required to develop a new landfill it is possible that TPI is already giving

consideration to it options for waste treatment/disposal beyond Redvale. Given the

Auckland waste volumes controlled by TPI, a WTE plant could present an alternativeoption for consideration.

As clearly identified in the ACWA report, Council has minimal current control over the

Auckland solid waste stream and its knowledge of waste and diversion flows and

waste composition is incomplete. Council is currently not in a position to supply

sufficient volumes of MSW to a third party for a WTE plant.

In the event that Council is able to secure a higher level of control of the Auckland

solid waste market (e.g. through successful execution of the ACWA “Option 3”) then

additional volumes of commercial waste may be available for diversion to WTE.

Any such changes in control are only likely to occur through Council engaging and

working with TPI and EnviroWaste. During this process Council would have the

opportunity to discuss with these parties their own intentions for WTE and whether

there is a realistic option to substitute Auckland’s next new landfill with a greenfield

WTE plant.

Page 277 of 591





9. HIGH LEVEL ECONOMIC COST/BENEFIT ANAYLSIS

9.1 Overview

The financial performance and longevity of WTE facilities can vary depending on a

range of factors including;

Type of WTE technology.

Scale and throughput of the facility.

Capital expenditure (capex) cost (including feasibility and consenting).

Operational performance (downtime, thermal and electric efficiency etc).

Environmental performance.

GHG emissions and carbon tax/credits costs.

Operating costs.

Regulatory and legislative environment.

Competition for source waste material (e.g. comparative cost of landfilling).

Markets and pricing for WTE outputs (e.g. electricity, heat, recycled products,

other by-products.

The initial design life for a WTE is generally in the order of 20-30 years. This period is

designed to provide sufficient operating life to recoup capital costs and generate an

adequate rate of return on these substantial industrial assets.

Whilst no WTE plants are currently operating in New Zealand using solid waste, we

can utilise publicly available international data on capital and operating costs of

different types of plants to provide a high level view on the likely economics of

developing a plant using Auckland solid waste.

9.2 Benchmarking International WTE Costs

Two recent publicly available studies provide useful benchmarking information on

WTE capex costs and operating costs. A study by SLR Consulting commissioned by the

Greater London Authority in 200832 looked at a range of combustion and non-

combustion WTE technologies at different scales and configurations. Another report,prepared by Stantec for the province of British Columbia in 201033 reviewed a similar

suite of technologies including high level capex and operating cost data provided by

the technology suppliers.

Both reports note the challenges in accurately determining cost information outside

of a formal confidential procurement process. This reflects issues around how

different WTE suppliers present their financial and operating performance and the

underlying assumptions they use including the energy value and composition of the

32Costs of Incineration and Non-incineration Energy from Waste Technologies, SLR Consulting Limited, 2008

33

Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. Aug. 2010

Page 278 of 591





waste stream inputs, requirements for feedstock preparation, parasitic energy

requirements and costs, and varying presentation of energy efficiency.

The SLR Consulting report sought to normalise cost data based on nominal MSW

treatment capacities of 100,000, 150,000 and 200,000 tpa for “thermal treatmentfacilities” (i.e. combustion, gasification and pyrolysis). Whilst the report noted that

biogas (i.e. AD) facilities are not suitable for treating MSW, the study also included

costs for this method as a means of treating either source-separated organic kitchen

wastes or other biodegradable wastes using smaller nominal plant capacities of

15,000, 22,000 and 30,000 tpa.

Capital Costs

Capex costs vary widely for WTE facilities depending on their technology, capacity

and other factors. The SLR Consulting report notes that economies of scale aregenerally available to all WTE technologies although capex costs are notably lower for

AD facilities as shown below.

Source: Costs of Incineration and Non-incineration Energy from Waste Technologies,

SLR Consulting Limited, 2008

Based on current exchange rates (£1 = NZ$2.06) the SLR Consulting report indicates

that capex costs for combustion facilities range from NZ$72M - NZ$103M (median

NZ$93M) for a 100,000/115,000 tpa plant, through to a range of NZ$124M –

NZ$185M (median NZ$157M) for a 170,000/200,000 tpa plant. This equates to

NZ$666 to NZ$1,000 per annual design tonne. Capex costs for combustion technology

reported by Stantec (converted to NZ$ at current exchange rate of $C1 = $NZ1.32)

ranged from NZ$845 to NZ$2,223 per annual design tonne.

Equivalent analysis by SLR Consulting on gasification/pyrolysis technology (converted

to NZ$ at current exchange rates) indicates that capex costs for these facilities range

from NZ$78M - NZ$124M (median NZ$103M) for a 100,000/115,000 tpa plant,

through to a range of NZ$124M – NZ$206M (median NZ$175M) for a

170,000/200,000 tpa plant. This equates to around NZ$670 to NZ$1,192 per annual

design tonne. Although we note that the lowest capex cost of $617 per annual design

tonne was recorded for a 150,000 tpa capacity facility. Capex costs reported by

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

N Z $ / t p a

tpa (000's)

Comparison of Capital Costs of WTE Technologies

Combustion

Anaerobic Digestion

Gasification / Pyrolysis

Page 279 of 591





Stantec (converted to NZ$ at current exchange rates) were highly variable ranging

from NZ$177 to NZ$1,861 per annual design tonne for gasification technologies and

ranging from NZ$213 - $1,222 per annual design tonne for pyrolysis technologies.

Indicative capital costs reported by SLR Consulting for biogas (AD) technologies(converted to NZ$ at current exchange rates) were NZ$6.2M – NZ$8.2M for a 15,000

tpa plant, through to NZ$12.4M – NZ$16.5M for a 30,000 tpa plant. This equates to

NZ$374 to NZ$578 per annual design tonne. The Stantec report did not include

biogas/ AD capex cost data.

Based on the above data it is clear that development of a thermal WTE plant in

Auckland would require a significant capital commitment even at relatively modest

capacity levels (i.e. 100,000 – 200,000 tpa).

Although the capital cost of developing the current landfill assets in Auckland is not

known it is likely to be far lower, on both an absolute and per annual design tonnebasis than a thermal WTE plant. A smaller biogas plant targeting the food-based

segment of the Auckland waste stream is likely to have a somewhat lower capex costs

per design tonne than a thermal plant. However, there are likely to be additional

collection costs to deliver source separation of the organic feedstock which would

need to be factored in.

Operating Costs

Based on current exchange rates (£1 = NZ$2.06) the SLR Consulting report indicates

that operating costs (excluding any interest charges or revenue streams) forcombustion facilities are in the order of NZ$103/t - NZ$134/t for a 100,000/115,000

tpa plant, reducing to a range of NZ$82/t – NZ$93/t for a larger 170,000/200,000 tpa

plant. Operating costs for combustion technology reported by Stantec (converted to

NZ$ at current exchange rates) ranged from NZ$51/t - NZ$139/t.

Equivalent analysis by SLR Consulting on gasification/pyrolysis technology (converted

to NZ$ at current exchange rates) indicates that operating costs for these facilities

range from NZ$103/t - NZ$144/t for a 100,000/115,000 tpa plant, reducing to a range

of NZ$82/t – NZ$113/t for a larger 170,000/200,000 tpa plant. Operating costs

reported by Stantec (converted to NZ$ at current exchange rates) for gasification

technologies ranged from NZ$49/t - NZ$155/t with similar operating costs over a

marginally lower range from NZ$39/t – NZ$138/t for pyrolysis technologies.

Although operating cost ranges appear broadly similar for the various thermal

technologies, the data for combustion plants is likely to be more reliable than that for

other less proven technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis.

Indicative operating costs reported by SLR Consulting for biogas (AD) technologies

(converted to NZ$ at current exchange rates) were relatively constant over the

different nominal plant capacities and ranged from NZ$23/t - NZ$66/t. The Stantec

report did not include biogas/ AD operating cost data. Biogas plants appear to

present an attractive proposition from an operating cost perspective although

additional costs need to be factored in to account for source separation of the

feedstock.

Page 280 of 591





Impact of Emissions Trading Scheme

Under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (the Act), the solid waste disposal

facility sector enters the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) from 1January 2013. According to the Ministry for the Environment34 “ Operators of landfills whose waste stream contains some element of household

waste will have obligations under the ETS. Emissions from wastewater treatment are

not included in the scheme.

Landfill operators will have obligations for the methane emitted through the

biodegradation of organic waste. Waste incinerators emit carbon dioxide, methane

and nitrous oxide; however the carbon dioxide from combusting organic waste will

not be included in the scheme”

The current legislation (Climate Change (Waste) Regulations 2010) appears to apply

specifically to “waste disposal” and therefore excludes WTE. This implies no

additional ETS costs would be incurred by a WTE facility under the current rules.

Whilst landfill operators will face additional costs under the ETS these costs are likely

to be significantly mitigated where an operator has modern gas capture technology in

place to minimise methane and other GHG atmospheric emissions.

9.3 Economic Viability

Given the wide variation in capital and operating costs outlined above our comments

on the economic viability of a WTE plant for Auckland are necessarily general in

nature. At a high level, the profitability of a WTE facility will be a function of its capex

and operating costs relative to revenues generated. Potential revenue sources

include:

Tipping fees.

Sale of electricity to adjacent industries or into the national grid.

Sale of recyclable materials recovered after processing.

Tipping fees

A key feature of WTE facilities is that, unlike other thermal energy (e.g. coal or gas-

fired) plants, they are able to receive their key energy feedstock at no cost since it

generally represents material that would otherwise be charged to be collected and

sent to landfill. In many cases WTE actually charge to receive MSW from providers

since the opportunity cost of land-filling charges in many developed countries

continues to increase as land-filling is actively discouraged. For example, a recent

report35

noted that the UR-3R facility in NSW, Australia was charging A$95/t for

mixed residual waste with a further premium of $30/t charged for waste with a

depleted organics content (i.e. where a council had a green waste collection system).

34 http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/participating/waste/35

Alternative Waste Technologies: An Update Report. Wright Corporate Strategy, April 2008.

Page 281 of 591





Whilst landfill charges for major Auckland waste customers are not publicly known,

we understand that Auckland landfill prices are lower than other parts of New

Zealand.

Retail pricing for small commercial volumes of waste to central Auckland transfer

stations are currently in the order of $125/t – 135/t (+ GST) which includes a

transport cost component for subsequent transfer to landfill. However, “wholesale”

rates for major customers are likely to be much lower. Established landfill’s such as

Hampton Downs and Redvale are also in a strong position to marginally price in order

to compete strongly against new competition.

We note that a report by Morrison Low to Council in 201136 assumed an Auckland

Council landfill disposal rate of $68/t.

Auckland’s current low landfill charges are likely to be a significant impediment toWTE financial viability particularly if the facility is not owned by one of the two major

existing landfill operators (i.e. if it had to compete directly against marginally priced

landfill for waste feedstock). Whilst the national waste levy has increased landfill

costs it remains low by international standards and is unlikely to have any significant

positive impact on WTE economics in Auckland.

Electricity Generation

WTE facilities have a wide variety of configurations that can produce electricity, heat,

syngas and other energy outputs depending on the technology (or technologies)

applied. The scale of electricity generation from WTE facilities is generally smallcompared with other thermal energy plants and reflects their comparatively smaller

size and the lower calorific value of the waste feedstock.

Information from the SLR Consulting and Stantec reports provides benchmark ranges

for electricity generation capacity of various international WTE facilities (excluding

any CHP contribution). This allows us to undertake a high level comparison of WTE

electricity generation costs compared with current market prices for domestic New

Zealand electricity.

For the purposes of this analysis we have assumed a WTE plant operating life of 25

years and assumed an efficiency of 700KWh/tonne for conventional combustion,600KWh for gasification and 650KWh for pyrolysis as provided in the Stantec report.

Estimated electricity generation costs are shown in the tables below using the SLR

Consulting and Stantec datasets respectively. Estimates using SLR Consulting data,

together with our assumptions, indicate combustion plants are likely to be able to

generate electricity at a cost in the order of 16c – 25c/kWh (median 20c/kWh),

gasification plants show greater variability, ranging from 17c – 31c/kWh (median

24c/kWh).

36 Investigation into Preferred Options for Food Waste/Organics Collection and Processing – Stage 2, Jan. 2011.

Page 282 of 591





Estimates using Stantec data, together with our assumptions, indicate combustion

plants are likely to be able to generate electricity at a cost in the order of 12c –

33c/kWh (median 18c/kWh), gasification plants again show greater variability,

ranging from 9c – 38c/kWh (median 21c/kWh), while pyrolysis plants are also highly

variable, from 7c – 29c/kWh (median 15c/kWh).

The trend in New Zealand electricity prices has been one of significant increases over

the last 10 years as shown below.

Estimated Electricity Generation Costs for WTE Facilities (based on SLR Consulting Report)

NZ$ 1 Capital Cost / annual Operating Cost / Est. Capital and

WTE Technology design tonne tonne Operating Cost /KWh2

Conventional Combustion

Highest Reported Cost 1000 134 0.25

Lowest Reported Cost 666 82 0.16

Median Reported Cost3

842 108 0.20

Gasification / Pyrolysis




944 113 0.24

Biogas

Highest Reported Cost 548 66 n/a

Lowest Reported Cost 374 23 n/a


461 44 n/a

Notes

1 Adjusted from source report ass uming £1 = $NZ 2.06

2

3 Average of reported range for operating costs

4 Average of reported range for capital a nd operating costs

Source: Costs of Inci neration and Non-inci neration Energy from Was te Technologies, SLR Consulting Limited, 2008

Estimate ass uming plant li fe of 25 years for al l technology and efficiency of 700KWh/tonne for conventional

combustion and 625KWh/tonne for Gasification/Pyrolysis

Estimated Electricity Generation Costs for WTE Facilities (based on Stantec Report)

NZ$1

Capital Cost / design Operating Cost / Est. Capital and

WTE Technology tonne tonne Operating Cost /KWh2

Conventional Combustion



Median Reported Cost 1018 85 0.18

Gasification3




Pyrolysis 3




Notes

1 Adjusted from source report assuming $CAN 1 = $NZ 1.32

2

3 Based on estimates pr ovided by technology vendors not actual cos ts from an operating pl ant.

Source: Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices, Stantec, August 2010

Estimate ass uming plant li fe of 25 years for al l technology and efficiency of 700KWh/tonne for conventional combustion,

600KWh for gasification and 650KWh for pyrolysis

Page 283 of 591





Source: NZ Energy Data File 2010

The range of implied electricity generation costs outlined for WTE plants above falls

broadly within the current range of New Zealand electricity prices. Published

electricity price information from the Ministry of Economic Development37 indicates

recent average prices in the order of 17c/kWh on a weighted consumption basis with

average pricing ranging from 11.7c/kWh for industrial users, 15.6c/kWh for

commercial users, through to an average of 24.4c/kWh for residential customers. This

places New Zealand at the low end of the international electricity cost curve as shown

below.

Source: NZ Energy Data File 2010

A WTE plant would presumably need to sell into the wholesale/industrial electricity

markets where pricing is currently low by OECD standards. In our view, WTE facility

electricity generation is therefore likely to have marginal economics in the New

Zealand market. Tipping fees and recycling revenues would assist in improving these

economics to some degree. However, tipping fees would be at the expense of third

parties supplying waste to the WTE facility (e.g. Council).

37New Zealand Energy Data File 2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

E l e c t r i c i t y P r i c e : N Z C e n t s / K W

h

New Zealand Electricity Consumer Prices (Nominal)

Residential

(incl. GST)

Commercial

(excl. GST)

Industrial

(excl. GST)

National Average

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

E l e c t r i c i t y P r i c e : N Z C e n t s / K W h

International Electricity Prices: September 2009

Industrial

Residential

Page 284 of 591





Sale of Recyclables

WTE facility suppliers often refer to recycling as part of their economic benefits. In

thermal plants this is often represented by the ability to recover steel and other

metals from the residual bottom ash component and/or processing bottom ash intoconstruction/roading products. Whilst this recycling is viewed by WTE proponents as

a benefit it would seem more sensible and cost effective to maximise re-use and

recycling of materials prior to entering the WTE plant. As such we have not

considered this further.

Further Comments

Notwithstanding the issues around sourcing waste feedstock, our high-level analysis

above suggests some commercial potential for operating a WTE plant in Auckland.

However, in our view the economics are likely to be marginal and the degree of volatility in the data means that any project would need to proceed with caution.

Specific and in-depth project feasibility studies would be required on any WTE facility

proposed for Auckland in order to justify its likely financial and operating

performance and return on capital invested. This would be best undertaken and

funded by a private sector operator with appropriate commercial experience and

expertise.

Application of CHP technology has the potential to drastically improve overall thermal

WTE plant efficiency. Maximising the secondary use of heat and/or syngas generated

from the WTE process is likely to be an additional important variable in the overallattractiveness of a WTE proposal from a financial perspective.

9.4 Conversion of an Existing Thermal Power Plant

Options for conversion of existing thermal energy generation assets to run on solid

waste are limited. The only substantial thermal energy plant within range of Auckland

is the Huntly Power Station owned by Genesis Energy. This facility currently

comprises six generating plants;

4 x 250MW units capable of running on coal, natural gas or a combination of

the two.

1 x 400MW combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) unit known as e3p.

1 x 48MW open cycle gas turbine.

The original four dual-fired 250 MW units were designed to run on coal from the

Huntly coalfield (or natural gas). In recent years Genesis has supplemented its use of

Huntly coal with the purchase of significant quantities of imported coal from

Indonesia with a similar specification.

Whilst we are not aware of any detailed study on conversion of Huntly Power Station

to alternative feedstock such as solid waste we believe that any such study wouldlikely identify a number of significant impediments. Key challenges would include;

Page 285 of 591





Huntly coal has a CV of approximately 22MJ/kg. Unprocessed solid waste

from Auckland would likely have a CV of around 9 – 10MJ/kg and would

therefore be unsuitable as an energy source.

Processing of solid waste into a higher CV RDF could potentially increase theCV to circa 15-19 MJ/kg. However, this would still be well below that required

by the existing generation units.

Huntly is capable of burning up to circa 3Mtpa of coal. Large volumes of solid

waste would likely be required in order to generate sufficient RDF to make a

meaningful contribution to Huntly’s feedstock inputs, even on a blended

basis.

Huntly Power Station is approximately 70kms from Auckland and therefore

solid waste transport logistics and costs are likely to be significant.

Existing pollution control equipment at Huntly would likely need to be

extensively upgraded to deal with the additional quantities and types of

pollutants generated by solid waste.

Extensive changes to Huntly’s existing environmental resource consents

would likely be required and (given that no thermal WTE facility has yet been

consented in NZ) the consenting process could be long, expensive and not

without risk of failure.

External environmental and/or local community groups may object to

combustion of solid waste at Huntly Power Station.

GHG emissions charges could be prohibitive unless the waste feedstock has

been pre-processed and has a significant biomass component that could beclassified as renewable.

Huntly is the largest thermal power station in New Zealand and is a vital part

of the national electricity infrastructure. Genesis is therefore likely to be risk

adverse in assessing any new alternatives to well established power

generation technology.

Huntly has moved from a base load to a peak load generator. Electricity

generation has therefore much more seasonal. This would create challenges

around storage of WTE feedstock.

Tainui have a first right of refusal over Huntly Power Station and it is possible

that Government asset sales may lead to a change of ownership of the Huntlyplant in the future including a possible sale to Iwi interests.

In our view, any development of WTE technology for Auckland is far more likely to be

feasible based on a new plant using the latest best practice rather than attempting to

“refit” an old facility that was not designed for that purpose.

There is some potential for utilising a biomass-derived RDF as a partial substitute

subject to cost and other issues. However, we note that Council already has well

developed plans to capture the organic component of the solid waste stream for

composting and other recovery initiatives.

Page 286 of 591





Other opportunities include using various greenwaste sources as a substitute for

fossil fuels in regional industrial facilities. An example of this is the Golden Bay

Cement plant located near Whangarei. This is New Zealand’s largest cement plant

and has historically used 100% thermal coal as a fuel source. In 2004 the company

began utilising sawdust and woodchip from the timber processing industry as apartial replacement for coal and this woodwaste material now constitutes 26% of the

facility’s fuel mix38.

38http://www.goldenbay.co.nz/mainmenu10/page191/Alternative+Energy+Project.html

Page 287 of 591





10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 Critical Success Factors

This Discussion Paper presents our high level review of WTE technologies and their

potential use in the Auckland solid waste market. Our report has been prepared for

Auckland Council and therefore focuses on the how WTE might play a role in

Council’s wider solid waste strategies and plans.

In our view the critical success factors for developing WTE in Auckland are as follows:

Critical Success Factor Current Status Comments

Proven commercial WTE

technology

Yes Combustion technologies are favoured over

other less well proven technologies at present.

Alignment with Council

Waste Strategy

No Council has higher priority opportunities in the

waste hierarchy.

AD is an option for processing source-separated

organic waste.

Access to sufficient

quantities of suitable solid

waste

Council - No

Private - Marginal

Council does not control sufficient solid waste to

develop WTE other than the option to use AD to

treat organic waste.

Able to meet strict

environmental standards.

Yes Latest APC technologies are able to deliver strict

compliance with international and NZ

environmental standards. Resistance still

possible from environmental lobby groups

depending on technology used.

Divert significant waste

from landfill.

Marginal Difficult to demonstrate actual diversion unless

there is a clear trade-off between WTE and

development of a new landfill.

No negative impact on

reuse/recycling initiatives

Unknown Council would require knowledge and access to

commercial waste streams as well as careful

cost/benefit analysis and long-term planning.

Minimal hazardous

residues to landfill.

Yes Subject to technology and viability of recycling

and post-processing of bottom ash materials.

Economically viable Marginal Challenges of higher capital and operating coststhan landfill + low NZ wholesale electricity prices

and low Auckland landfill charges.

Favourable community and

public perception

Unknown Alternative thermal technologies (ATT) are likely

to be favoured over combustion. Biogas and

composting likely to be favoured over ATT.

Minimal GHG emissions Yes Minor emissions of CO2 likely from thermal WTE.

Minor emissions of methane likely from AD.

Page 288 of 591





10.2 WTE Technology

Our high-level review of WTE technologies indicates an extensive array of

technological solutions is available from a wide range of international commercialsuppliers. Key issues include the extent to which a certain technology has been

technically and commercially proven and the strength and track record of the

promoter/supplier and proposed operator of the facility.

In terms of thermal treatment, combustion WTE plants currently represent the most

proven group of WTE technologies with extensive use and track record throughout

USA, Europe and Asia. Whilst the historical performance of some these plants

(particularly in the USA) has led to a poor image and limited uptake in some

countries, WTE facilities elsewhere (e.g. in many EU countries) have been able to

demonstrate viability and environmental performance. This is particularly the case

where such plants utilise CHP technology to maximise energy recovery from thewaste feedstock and provide heating for use by adjacent industries/domestic use.

Any WTE facilities developed in Auckland should seek to maximise energy recovery

and benefits.

Other so called “advanced thermal technologies” such as gasification and pyrolysis

are also commercially available, although their track record is shorter and the

technologies are generally less well proven. These technologies do have some

advantages over combustion WTE due to their range of potential energy outputs i.e.

exhaust gas for stream turbine / syngas for gas engine or turbine / reformed syngas

as a feedstock for a fuel. However, they are generally less able to handle general solid

waste as a feedstock and often require some form of pre-processed RDF.

Biological treatment is seldom used to process unsorted solid waste but is can be

applied to the organic waste fraction to generate “biogas” (predominately methane).

It is generally accepted that these biogas plants are more effective and efficient than

equivalent methane capture/energy conversion by landfills. Countries such as

Australia have favoured biological (and MBT) processes over thermal processes as a

means to help reduce waste to landfill and New Zealand has used AD technology to

help process liquid waste streams for many years.

10.3 WTE as a Waste Management Tool

There is a wide variety of international views on the use of WTE as a bona-fide

technology in dealing with solid waste. At one end of the spectrum many proponents

of “zero-waste” often disregard WTE, preferring to focus on waste prevention, reuse

and recycling as the only legitimate drivers of waste management and minimisation.

At the other end of the spectrum WTE technology suppliers extol the virtues of their

facilities in terms of diversion of waste from landfill, lower GHG emissions (vs. landfill)

and ancillary recycling capabilities.

The over-arching waste hierarchy adopted by New Zealand, along with many other

developed countries, will continue to play a key role in the allocation of resources to

the management and minimisation of waste. WTE sits above landfill in this hierarchy

Page 289 of 591





Whilst the NZWS and WMA do not preclude the use of WTE, it is clearly a lower-level

waste management tool that sits below reduction, reuse and recycling but above

disposal to landfill. It is important that Council utilise its internal resources to focus,

first and foremost on initiatives around the “top” of the waste hierarchy before

considering applying resources to WTE. This is clearly the thrust of the ACWA whichrecommends a range of proposed measures including:

Polluter pays residential waste services.

Banning organic waste to landfill.

Banning packaging to landfill.

Enacting cleanfill licencing regulation.

Implementing source-separated organic waste collection and composting.

Extending producer responsibility and product stewardship schemes.

Council control/influence of key waste infrastructure (e.g. transfer stationsand landfills).

We note that, despite all of the above initiatives, the ACWA’s most aggressive option

(“Option 3”) is still expected by Council to deliver up to a 0.3Mtpa reduction in the

current circa 1.4Mtpa of Auckland solid waste to landfill.

10.6 What Role Should Council Play in WTE?

There are a number avenues available to central Government and/or Council that

would positively influence WTE development in Auckland, these include:

Various taxes/levies/regulatory restrictions on waste to landfill.

Specific tax incentives or other regulatory benefits that favour WTE.

Supply of solid waste or processed RDF as a WTE feedstock.

Funding support/investment in a WTE facility.

At this point WTE has a low profile in New Zealand and there appears to be little or

no appetite from central Government to specifically promote or encourage WTE as a

waste management tool. The waste levy and other initiatives are likely to

progressively discourage waste to landfill over time, and this will indirectly promoteall other elements in the waste hierarchy including WTE.

We consider that Council should have a minimal role in promoting WTE for

Auckland at present for the following reasons:

WTE is relatively low on the waste hierarchy. Therefore a key issue, from a

Council perspective, is that the feedstock used for any New Zealand WTE

facility should not (now or over the plant’s lifespan) cannibalise the

components of the solid waste stream that could otherwise have been

diverted through other means further up the waste hierarchy (i.e. reduction,

re-use or recycling).

Page 291 of 591





Capital costs of WTE facilities are significant and there are a number of

investment risks which may be beyond Council’s risk appetite.

Council currently has insufficient control over the Auckland solid waste

stream to supply a WTE facility (aside from the option to use AD to process

organic waste).

We note that the WTE proposal put forward by GONZ to Council requires a

waste feedstock that is in excess of the total Auckland waste currently going

to landfill. As noted above Council does not control this level of waste and is

focusing on reducing waste to landfill by investing in initiatives to reduce,

reuse or recycle waste which are higher on the waste hierarchy.

Existing private/commercial landfill operators are best placed to divert landfill

material to WTE and assess WTE economic and operational viability.

Existing landfill operators (and Council) have significant sunk investment into

their existing landfill and transfer station infrastructure.

Community/political acceptance for using WTE on the non-organic fraction of

solid waste will likely require clear evidence that this waste cannot be cost-

effectively captured and recycled i.e. that the benefits

(financial/environmental etc) of WTE would outweigh the costs.

Based on the results of this Discussion Paper, our recommendations to Council are

as follows:

Council should focus its financial and operating resources on projects that

maximise waste reduction, reuse and recycling ahead of lower waste

hierarchy solutions such as WTE.

Approaches to Council from WTE providers should be redirected to the key

private sector waste companies.

Discussions with TPI and EnviroWaste are recommended to obtain their views

on whether WTE is viable to reduce waste to landfill or eliminate/scale down

future landfill construction in Auckland.

Council should continue to monitor technological and operating performance

of commercially operating WTE plants in other countries (and developments

in New Zealand) to increase its knowledge of WTE options.

Given the complex issues of ownership of the waste stream in Auckland, the recent

formation of the new Auckland Council, the relative abundance of landfill solutions

and current low landfill charges in the region, Auckland Council is not in a position

to play a leadership role in WTE at the present time.

It appears that the private sector is best placed to develop a WTE facility in Auckland,

particularly under the current industry structure where large private sector players

control the majority of the Auckland solid waste stream. However, there is no clear

indication at this stage that economic drivers are in place to ensure viability of WTE in

the Auckland waste market.

Page 292 of 591





APPENDIX I. IMPORTANT INFORMATION

This Discussion Paper (“Discussion Paper”) has been prepared by Campbell MacPherson Limited

(“Campbell MacPherson”) solely for Auckland Council, Infrastructure and Environmental Services,

Solid Waste Business Unit (“Council”, the “Recipient”) based on information from public sources.

This Discussion Paper is supplied to the Recipient subject to the terms and conditions of the following

paragraphs.

Campbell MacPherson

Campbell MacPherson is supplying this information as a matter of interest to the Recipient. The

Recipient must make its own assessment of that information. Although it is tendered in good faith

Campbell MacPherson, and their respective agents, employees, consultants, directors and officers

make no representations or warranties concerning the accuracy or implications of the Discussion

Paper. The Council’s relationship is such with Campbell MacPherson that the directors, shareholders,

and employees of Campbell MacPherson do not assume personal liability to the Recipient in respectof the Discussion Paper.

No Representation etc

None of Campbell MacPherson, the directors, officers, associates and employees of Campbell

MacPherson and associated companies or businesses (collectively the “Providers”) make any

representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the

information contained in this Discussion Paper or subsequently provided to the Recipient by any of

the Providers including, without limitation, any historical financial information, the estimates and

projections and any other financial information derived there from, and nothing contained in this

Discussion Paper is, or will be relied upon as, a promise or representation, whether as to the past or

the future.

Errors or Omissions

Except insofar as liability under any law cannot be excluded, the Providers shall have no responsibility

arising in respect of the information contained in this Discussion Paper or in any way for errors or

omissions (including responsibility to any person by reason of negligence).

Estimates and Projections

The opinions, estimates and projections contained in this Discussion Paper involve significant

elements of subjective judgment and analysis which may or may not be correct. There are usually

differences between forecast and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not

occur as forecast and these differences may be material. The Recipient should undertake their own

independent review of the relevant assumptions, calculations and sources upon which the opinions,

estimates and projections in this Discussion Paper are based.

Page 293 of 591



REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON AUCKLAND GOVERNANCEVOLUME 1, PART 5, CHAPTER 30 SOLID WASTE - MARCH 2009

Page 294 of 591



653Auckland Governance, Volume 1: Report

30.Solid Waste

30.1 This chapter addresses solid waste management, which includes collection

and disposal of refuse, the operation of refuse transfer stations and landfills, and the

management of closed landfills. It also covers waste minimisation, which is accomplished

by reducing packaging, and by reuse, recycling, and resource recovery. Solid waste

excludes wastewater and sewage, the management of which is discussed in Chapter 26,

“The Three Waters”.

30.2 While this chapter focuses on council functions, it should be noted that there is

significant private sector involvement in solid waste management. Private companies

own and operate refuse collection systems, transfer stations, and landfills. Some privatesector activity derives from contracts let by the territorial authorities, but there are also

large solid waste management businesses that are not connected to councils. The private

sector is also involved in green waste collection and composting, and clothing collection,

reuse, and recycling.

30.3 The volume of waste going to landfills (as well as the adverse eff ects of such waste)

is significant in Auckland, as it is in the rest of New Zealand.

About 3.2 million tonnes of waste goes to landfills each year in New Zealand and,

according to the Ministry for the Environment, each year we throw away about $250

million worth of potentially reusable resources. Not only is this a huge waste of

resources but also landfills contribute to New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions

and are a significant source of toxic leachate ….1

Central government policies

30.4 The Waste Minimisation Act 2008, discussed below, is the most recent of a number

of central government policy initiatives. The New Zealand Waste Strategy (2002) sets

targets for reducing a range of waste streams as well as for improving landfill practices by

2010. The strategy is not binding on territorial authorities.

30.5 The New Zealand Packaging Accord (2004) is a voluntary agreement by industry

with the Government to take responsibility for the complete life cycle of packaging.

Producers and brand owners agreed that when they developed new packaging they would

give higher regard to factors such as using fewer materials and using recycled materials.

They also agreed to look at production efficiency, and the potential for recycling into other

products after the packaging was no longer needed. The packaging accord has been given

credit for significant reductions in packaging waste.2

1 Dr Russel Norman, MP, from the third reading debate in Parliament of the Waste Minimisation Bill, 11

September 2008, available at www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates, accessed February 2009.

2 Lester Thorley, “Packaging Accord report shows New Zealanders well on the way to reducing waste”,Ministry for the Environment media release, 15 October 2008.

Page 295 of 591



654 Report of the Royal Commission, March 2009

30. Solid Waste

Local government role

30.6 Local government has an important role in solid waste management under the

Waste Minimisation Act 2008. Under the Act, territorial authorities must promote

eff ective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their districts. They

do so to fulfil the purposes of the Act, which are to protect the environment and provide

environmental, social, economic, and cultural benefits.3 Local government involvement

in collecting and disposing of waste has a separate and much older rationale, which is to

safeguard public health and amenity. For all these reasons, it is clear to the Commission

that local government should have an ongoing role in solid waste management.

30.7 The Waste Minimisation Act requires territorial authorities to formulate waste

management and minimisation plans.4 They are required to consider, in making their

plans, six methods of waste minimisation in this order of importance:

(1) reduction (lessening waste generation)

(2) reuse (reuse of products in their existing form)

(3) recycling (making into new products)

(4) recovery (extracting materials or energy for further use, or composting)

(5) treatment (changing the volume or character of waste for safe disposal)

(6) disposal (deposit of waste on land set apart for the purpose, or incineration).5

30.8 Each of the Auckland territorial authorities has a waste management plan

formulated under earlier legislation.6 These are stand-alone plans for each territorial

authority. Councils in Auckland have not taken up the option under the Waste

Minimisation Act of preparing joint plans.7 This is another example of territorial authorities

failing to cooperate. However, the councils’ plans are similar in many respects, and the

possibility of joint action is contemplated in most of the plans.

30.9 An important aspect of improved waste minimisation is public participation, which

depends on public knowledge and understanding of available options and of the systems

put in place by local authorities. Councils have adopted diff erent systems with bags, bins,

and tubs in diff erent sizes and colour schemes, diff erent charging regimes, and diff erent

collection frequencies. Opportunities have been lost to standardise the hardware and

systems throughout the region, which the Commission considers would assist in building

public knowledge and participation. For example, if the same system were adopted in

3 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, sections 3 and 42.

4 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, sections 42 and 43.

5 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, section 44.

6 Local Government Act 1974, Part 31, sections 538 and 539 contained planning requirements similar to the

Waste Minimisation Act.7 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, section 45.

Page 296 of 591




30. Solid Waste

each district, television and newspaper publicity to promote household participation

would be more cost-eff ective.

Quantities of waste

30.10 Comprehensive statistics for the Auckland region of the quantities of waste and

recyclables collected and sent to landfill or other destinations were not obtainable by the

Commission.8 Although territorial authorities held statistics for their own areas, it was not

possible to aggregate these into regional statistics – the figures measured diff erent waste

streams and were not comparable.

30.11 The Commission considers that an important goal in the future should be to improvedata collection. As noted above, there is a large private sector involvement in waste

management, and councils do not necessarily have knowledge of all activities. However,

improvements could be made. In 2007, a report from the Office of the Auditor-General

commented on the importance of such information, in a report on waste management

plans:

Most plans included some information about the quantity and composition of waste

in the district, although fewer identified how much waste was expected in the future.

While baseline information about waste data and composition is an important

starting point for preparing a waste management plan, territorial authorities also

need to consider how much waste they can expect in the future so they can betterplan services to provide for future demand.9

30.12 The overall waste stream in the Auckland region seems to be increasing slightly. For

the period since 2002, figures obtained from three of the city councils indicate a trend

towards increased recycling (see Table 30.1).

Waste disposal levy

30.13 The Waste Minimisation Act introduced a waste disposal levy, which will aff ect solid

waste management by all parties, including territorial authorities. The levy is paid to theGovernment by the operators of waste disposal facilities at the rate of $10 per tonne.10

Half the levy money collected is paid by the Government to territorial authorities (shared

pro rata by population) to be spent on promoting and achieving waste minimisation. The

8 The Commission inquired with the Ministry for the Environment and Auckland Regional Council, but neither

had up-to-date regional statistics. One difficulty of compiling statistics is that data have been collected in

the past by agencies using diff erent definitions of waste.

9 Waste management planning by territorial authorities, Office of the Auditor-General, Wellington, 2007,

paragraph 2.64 (available at www.oag.govt.nz/2007/waste-management, accessed January 2009).10 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, section 27 states $10 per tonne or other prescribed amount.

Page 297 of 591




30. Solid Waste

Table 30.1 Refuse and recycling quantities for three Auckland councils

Year to 30 June 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

North Shore City1

Total refuse (tonnes) 27,665 26,334 26,055 27,405

Total recycle (tonnes) 20,852 22,367 24,938 24,314

Auckland City2

Total refuse (tonnes) 83,864 84,331 87,998 87,026 84,611

Total recycle (tonnes) 37,618 39,537 41,119 41,095 42,910

Manukau City3

Total refuse (tonnes) 70,328 73,776 81,136 84,932 88,613 88,115

Total recycle (tonnes) 15,794 18,125 19,750 20,536 20,713 21,409

Sources: 1North Shore City Council, December 2008; 2 Auckland City Council, October 2008; 3 www.manukau.govt.nz, accessed

January 2009.

remainder of the levy money forms a contestable fund for waste minimisation projects

available to councils and the private sector.11

30.14 The levy has two objectives: to raise revenue, and to provide incentives for waste

reduction. For councils, the major implication will be the capital funding that becomesavailable for waste minimisation. For everyone who produces waste, the eff ect of the levy

will be to increase landfill charges. This is expected to provide an incentive for people to

reduce quantities going to landfill, for example by changing business practices to reduce

waste output.

30.15 The money available to councils will be significant. Assuming 3.2 million tonnes (as

quoted in paragraph 30.3) is disposed of to landfill nationally in the first year, the levy

revenue at $10 per tonne will be $32 million. Half will be paid to councils after deduction

of costs, leaving say $15 million, of which Auckland councils on a pro rata population basis

will receive $4.8 million (their share for 32% of the population of New Zealand).

30.16 This calculation overstates the actual sums that will be available, as the levy will

probably result in a reduction in waste going to landfills (as it is intended to do), and

there is a lack of accurate statistics. But it indicates that there may be significant sums of

money available to Auckland councils from the waste minimisation fund. North Shore City

Council has separately estimated that its annual return from the levy will be $800,000. 12

Significant new investment in high-technology methods of waste minimisation might be

made if this revenue stream were pooled regionally and invested as a block. Conversely,

11 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, sections 31, 32, and 38.

12 Report on the Waste Minimisation Act prepared for Infrastructure and Environment Committee of NorthShore City Council, 16 October 2008, pp. 1 and 5.

Page 298 of 591




30. Solid Waste

if the money were split between each of the existing councils, new investment might be

discouraged as it might not be possible for any of them to realise significant economies of scale.

30.17 The contestable fund, representing the other half of the levy revenue, might

be more readily secured by a “whole of Auckland” initiative, rather than by individual

territorial authorities. The potential scale of an Auckland regional waste minimisation

proposal could make it more competitive.

Advances in technology

30.18 Technology recently developed to sort materials recovered from kerbside recyclingoff ers opportunities to make recycling more efficient. This technology requires large

capital investment, but it can yield significant economies of scale by replacing labour-

intensive manual sorting methods with mechanised sorting.

30.19 Auckland and Manukau City Councils have separately contracted with Visy

Recycling NZ Ltd to introduce this new technology to Auckland. This has resulted in Visy

constructing a new materials recovery facility (“MRF”) at Onehunga to sort and recover

recyclables collected at kerbsides.13 The scale and cost of this facility, an investment

of about $24 million, was beyond the scope of a single council. Neither council had the

volume of material to justify its own plant, but their combined volumes being funnelled

through the same company crossed the threshold to make the new sorting technologyviable.

30.20 The MRF is complemented by a new kerbside collection system. In 2008, larger

240-litre recycling bins were introduced by Auckland and Manukau City Councils, and

collections are now made fortnightly. Sorting is done at the MRF and not at the kerbside,

as in the past. Householders put all recyclable material (paper, cardboard, plastics

numbered 1 to 7, glass bottles, tins, and aluminium cans) into the one bin which is

transported to the MRF for sorting.

30.21 The new system has already produced efficiency gains in Auckland City and

improvements in waste minimisation. In the first three months of the new system,

quantities of material put out for recycling increased by about 10%, with a corresponding

reduction in garbage put out for collection. This was attributed to people finding it easier

to recycle because they could now put all recyclables into a single larger bin.14

30.22 Waitakere and North Shore City Councils have also collaborated in solid waste

management. Waitakere City Council operates an MRF at Henderson using older

technology and more labour than the Visy facility, but still eff ectively sorting and

recovering large volumes. The Henderson MRF sorts materials from the Waitakere and

13 The materials recovery facility is described at www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/services/rubbish/mrf.asp

(accessed January 2009)14 Personal comment from Auckland City Council group manager. (Longer-term trends are not yet apparent.)

Page 299 of 591




30. Solid Waste

North Shore Cities’ kerbside recycling collection.15 This is one of the few remaining

council-owned waste management facilities in the Auckland region, most other councilshaving privatised or closed their transfer stations and landfills.

30.23 Other councils put less eff ort into materials sorting and recovery. The Commission

does not criticise the various measures and processes of individual councils, but

considers that opportunities to improve output and efficiency are being lost, especially

in sorting and recovery. This is mainly because of the relatively small scale of the waste

stream from each council’s district, which does not allow available technology to be

adopted efficiently by individual districts. The obvious conclusion is that the waste

streams need to be combined, by one means or another.

30.24 Apart from the materials currently being recycled (glass, plastic, paper, etc.),

the Commission considers that there are other opportunities for waste streams to be

combined and treated as one. One example is organic waste, including food scraps and

green waste, which has an estimated volume of 260,000 tonnes per annum, or about

one-quarter of the total volume of regional waste going to landfill.

A regional waste management strategy

30.25 The Auckland Mayoral and Chief Executives’ Forums decided in July 2006 to sponsor

the development of a regional waste management strategy, but no strategy has so far

been agreed.

30.26 The Commission’s attention was drawn to the need for a regional approach to

separation of organic waste from the general waste stream. Organic waste could have

a number of end uses including composting and biofuel production. The Commission

believes that opportunities like these are not being fully considered because of the

fragmented approach of the current governance system. An all-of-Auckland approach is

required to implement these kinds of proposals, because they need to be founded on a

combined waste stream, capital investment, and a public education campaign to support

separate organic collection. Box 30.1 contains an example of an eff ective regional waste

minimisation campaign conducted by the combined eff orts of Seattle City Council and

King County.

30.27 The efficiency gains available in materials sorting can be contrasted with kerbside

collection of garbage or recyclables, where significant new economies are limited. As

noted above, the new MRF in Auckland has facilitated fortnightly collections using larger

bins. This change has produced efficiency gains in collection. However, beyond this it is

generally considered there is little further scope to increase efficiency in the kerbside

collection. Most councils have already contracted out kerbside collection to the private

sector. The Commission sees value in the continuation of a competitive collection

industry with a number of viable contractors able to make competitive tenders. A regional

15 Some recovered material (for example bicycles, furniture, and toys) are separated for reuse and sold.

Page 300 of 591




30. Solid Waste

Box 30.1 Seattle Natural Lawn Care Program

The following passage illustrates how Seattle City Council has developed and carefully promoted a

programme for reducing the environmental impacts of maintaining lawns:

many people currently recognize that the typical urban or suburban lawn can

waste valuable resources. Water, fertilizer and pesticides go into maintaining

a green lawn that produces large amounts of problematic grass clippings.

Motivated by the broader mission of Seattle Public Utilities – which now deals

with water conservation, drainage and wastewater issues, as well as solid waste

management – we created the Natural Lawn Care program with our partner

agency, King County Water and Land Resource Division. Its objective is to take

a broad brush approach to changing lawn care habits. The program shows how

grasscycling [where lawn clippings are mulched rather than removed], reduced

use of soluble fertilizers and pesticides and moderate use of water can create a

healthy lawn ecosystem that is much easier on the environment and safer for the

people in that environment.

This year, market research indicated that our target audience for this message

consists mostly of middle-aged (30 to 65 age range), suburban and urban

males. As this eff ort is becoming regional, we were able to purchase time for a

30-second TV spot that will go to audiences watching Seattle Mariner baseball

games. It would be hard to get to our target audience in a better way. The ads use

a talking salmon and water protection as a theme, which is timely in light of the

proposed endangered species listing of chinook salmon in our region. A mix of

radio advertising also is planned for this year.

A great deal of interagency cooperation has gone into creating a coherent

message that can be accepted by all the parties. Cooperation leverages agency

monies and helps smaller agencies that are working with smaller budgets. It also

creates an integrated message that avoids confusion for residents.

Source: Woestwin, Carl, “Evolution of Home-Based Strategies for Residential Organics”, Biocycle, May 1998: 37–39.

approach to solid waste management does not necessarily imply a change to the number

of collection contracts let within the region.

Waste and sustainability

30.28 The close connection between solid waste management and broader environmental

issues such as sustainability are highlighted by the quotation from the parliamentary

debate at the beginning of this chapter, and by the Seattle case study referred to in Box

30.1. In the Seattle example, lawn mulching was promoted as a way to reduce the volume

of green waste going to landfills, to reduce the amount of water irrigating lawns, and to

cut down the use of pesticides and fertilisers, among other outcomes.

Page 301 of 591




30. Solid Waste

30.29 In Auckland, these environmental issues are not managed together. Territorial

authorities are responsible for solid waste, and the Auckland Regional Council isresponsible for various environmental matters including water use and quality. All the

councils do useful work in publishing tips on sustainable gardening (a search for “garden

waste” on most council websites yields numerous relevant articles), but the Commission

believes that a broader approach is lacking. In particular, there is no coordination

between councils to manage interrelated issues through public education or a media

campaign such as that described in Seattle. As a result, opportunities to improve

sustainability are being lost on a number of fronts.

Submissions to the Commission

30.30 The submissions on solid waste are summarised in Chapter 16, “Infrastructure”, in

Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions. Solid waste was not commented on in detail

by many submitters, perhaps suggesting that solid waste management is not widely

perceived to be a problem. In the submissions received, the major issue identified was the

fragmentation of investment and management between territorial authorities.

30.31 The Packaging Council of New Zealand made the most detailed submission on the

subject. It advocated a regional approach to waste management decisions (which should

be consistent with national decisions), together with regional service delivery, saying,

The economics of waste management services, particularly with regards to therecovery of recyclables, is best handled on a regional scale. Without volume recovery

operations can be uneconomically viable which potentially compromises the range of

materials which can be recovered – this is a situation which is occurring across the

Auckland region today.16

30.32 The Packaging Council acknowledged the value of the Visy MRF in recovering

recyclables collected from kerbsides in Auckland City and Manukau City, saying it was

testament to how eff ective waste policies can be implemented when a strategic focus is

applied, rather than just a localised solution. However, the Packaging Council left open

whether a regional vision needed direction from a regional agency, or could be achieved

through joint action by territorial authorities.

30.33 Another submitter favoured a regional agency taking over management of solid

waste for other reasons, saying that it was unsatisfactory for the existence of waste

facilities to be “simply at the whim of private enterprise.” 17

16 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Packaging Council of New Zealand, p. 4.

(All submissions are available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz.)17 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Barry Carter, p. 2.

Page 302 of 591




30. Solid Waste

The Commission’s view of improvements required

30.34 The Commission notes that solid waste collection and disposal by councils is

generally satisfactory if considered on a day-to-day basis. It appears to the Commission

that council collection services are adequately addressing basic public health and the

most direct environmental eff ects, and progress has been made by all councils in waste

minimisation in recent years.

30.35 However, the Commission sees many opportunities being lost as a result of the

current governance arrangements. Lost opportunities include

failure to integrate solid waste management with other environmental initiatives

lack of public education programmes across the region using television and

other media, for example in relation to recycling and managing hazardous waste

to reduce the waste stream

failure to provide uniform systems for kerbside collection, which would help the

public education eff ort

failure to utilise new technologies fully, so that the economies of scale available

from region-wide plants are realised.

30.36 These lost opportunities could be recouped by bringing all waste management

and environmental management responsibilities under a regional organisation. The

Commission agrees with the Packaging Council that the economics of waste management

services, particularly the recovery of recyclables, are best handled on a regional scale.

This is because of the need to combine the waste streams to achieve cost-eff ectiveness,

and the large investment sums needed for new sorting technology and facilities.

30.37 Arguments for a regional approach are strengthened by the availability of levy

money to local authorities under the Waste Minimisation Act. Auckland’s share of this

money would have optimum value if kept together and invested in regional facilities,

rather than being claimed by individual councils. A regional body would be in a good

competitive position to make claims on the contestable fund, as it could demonstrate

good rates of return on the investment of new capital.

30.38 Given the Commission’s overall recommendation for the reorganisation of localgovernment in Auckland – the creation of an Auckland Council as a unitary authority to

govern the whole region (see Chapter 14, “The Auckland Council: Key Features”) – solid

waste management is an appropriate function of the Auckland Council.

30.39 The Commission envisages that the Auckland Council will produce a regional waste

management plan that investigates waste minimisation projects, and integrates solid

waste management with other environmental programmes and with service delivery.

The possible advantages of creating a council-controlled organisation for solid waste

management might be considered. A regional waste management plan should recognise

diff erent circumstances in parts of the region, such as the Hauraki Gulf islands, where

a diff

erent approach might be worked out in consultation with local people. A regional

Page 303 of 591




30. Solid Waste

plan could also recognise and encourage eff orts to minimise waste by the community,

including not-for-profit groups, which can make a valuable contribution.

30.40 There are other ways to bring about a regional approach. Local councils could

use more joint ventures to obtain economies of scale, or a specialised regional waste

management agency (along the lines of Watercare Services) could be created. Joint

ventures can help improve outcomes, but the Commission considers they are not reliable

enough to be a favoured form of governance. And a stand-alone agency, along with local

council management, has the disadvantage of possibly isolating waste management from

a broader sustainability agenda. The Commission considers that solid waste management

can and should be part of a broadly integrated environmental management eff ort. If a

separate solid waste agency were to be created, then its mandate and responsibility

would need to include joint action on environmental matters with other agencies.

30.41 An all-of-Auckland approach to waste management is also favoured because of

the opportunities for targeted campaigns to recover specific items such as packaging,

computers, televisions, and hazardous waste, for reuse, recycling, or return to their

manufacturer.

30.42 In the Commission’s view, governance by the Auckland Council will meet public

needs for waste management. Most people will want waste collection services that are

reasonably frequent, reliable, and efficient, with high environmental standards, but will

not have strong preferences as to who provides the service. Standard service levels can be

worked out by the Auckland Council to meet the needs of most people across the region.

Individuals who want additional waste collection services can arrange these privately.

Recommendation

30A The Auckland Council should develop a Regional Waste Management Strategy,

including strategies for management of organic waste and integration of waste

management with other environmental programmes.

Page 304 of 591



RECLAIMING AUCKLANDS RESOURCES – A RESOURCE RECOVERY NETWORK

FOR THE AUCKLAND REGION

ENVISION - JULY 2005

Page 305 of 591



Reclaiming Auckland’s Resources _________________________________________________________

A Resource Recovery Network for the

Auckland Region

Page 306 of 591



!"

#$!%&'()*$&!"+%+,()%-$

)$%.(/0012((!)

3)$%-4454645,

!"+78#9/3%$):)6*9#;##77509101<=<>?*5091099><75 (*@;A)$(5 );A)

14(((BC&%4)

Page 307 of 591



!"

!""#$%&'(")

%*+'),-%.-+)%%&%%

)/&&!%%%)

""/0!)%12)

Page 308 of 591



!"

Page 309 of 591



!"

345

((;)

!(=D(*>04))E#0#9F18F<(1>>000#)(G#>/G#)>(*#0'D)D().2G#7<)9FG==)/#)$/(()((()H/7I()!)E.2(D!"$%6/%%2)!(()(=J(G#=.*2)((4)(()

!((5 (G7G#0

E(()+DD(!(;)!(()

2$(;J4$

Page 310 of 591



!"

E/00'100D((((!)E*/700D(*)

:()(/#I%?>1I!"7=I)

("7(

K((()!&(

)E(!"$%A()(B$%C(!)

Page 311 of 591



!"

%(

+ )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))). #)# ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))F

#)/ $$L ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))F #)1 ( )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))F

7))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))8 /)# $$))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))9 /)/ &%()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))9 /)1 $ ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))#0 /)< E! )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))#/ /)7 *()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))#/ /)> "$;/#%))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))#/

9 2:7#%))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))+; 1)# 6 )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))#< 1)/ $3))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))#7 1)1 $? ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))#F 1)< %))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/0 1)7 $&))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/# 1)> $% )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/< 1)= (?;& )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/<

; ""/ )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))' <)# $!$))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/> <)/ 6 ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/F

<)1 J!$:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/9 <)< ?!*E)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1/ <)7 E ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1/ <)> ,4(! )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1/

3%/1< )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))9' 7)# (E!&?)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1> 7)/ 6;J( )))))))))))))))))))))))))))1=

' 3%/ )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))); >)# )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))</ >)/ %))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))</ >)1 %)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))<1 >)< 8:? ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))<1

</))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))));; =)# )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))<< =)/ $! )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))<7 =)1 $?! )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))<=

. $177/= ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) F)# M&$))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))70 F)/ $)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))70

8 3>/)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))); 9)# -(J())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))7<

Page 312 of 591



!"

9)/ -(4))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))7> 9)1 46 )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))7> 9)< 6E())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))7= 9)7 )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))7=

+ ?/))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))8

#0)# 6)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))79

++ 1/$)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))' ##)# )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))>/ ##)/ $% )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))>1 ##)1 4% )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))>< ##)< 6&$%'

* )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))>9 ##)7 %)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))=#

+ "()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

#/)# )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))=/

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@))9

*#5:$4?)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))=< */564; )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))=7 *15,%)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))=F *<5%))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))F0 *75J*%(+,))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))F> *>56$&$!

$4)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))FF *=56$ED)))))))))90

*F5%56(;(!))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))9/

Page 313 of 591



!" F9>

+ _____________________

+)+ #"

/#(D(;()

&)

+) 77=

$((():70(()*)(;(;)

+)9 %3

(()*)

!"M'!"3)

1(&4&

();A)

Page 314 of 591



!" 99>

7 ______________________

)+ 77

E())

+)%)6NJ$))888)&$5#970;/070)))88)))

*()?(()

) :1""5%

+8(1

$(#9

(()

Graph 1:

Page 315 of 591



!" #09>

Durable goods

15.7%

Nondurable goods

27.3%

Containers &

packaging

32.5% Yard tr immings

12.0%

Food scraps

11.2%

Inorganic w astes

1.5%

Product w astes (75.4%)

Biow astes (23.2%)

Inorganics (1.5%)

Graph 2: Compostion of U.S. municipal solid waste by product and non-product categories, 2001 (Data

source: U.S. EPA 2003). Chart by Product Policy Institute.

(

/0.2 )6 #9=0( (

)

3"A+8BC

:';()((((;()

+(1

(/#;;)E;D)

)9 :#7

;)M+K4(EK(

)(+)%)D()5.1/I2(.O/=I2(.O#>I2)

<6%J%E))

Page 316 of 591



!" ##9>

Graph 3. Generation of products, biowastes and inorganic wastes, at the start of each decade from1960 to 2000. A. Total tons generated. (Source: U.S. EPA 2003) Chart by Product Policy Institute.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

T o n s ( M i l l i o n s )

TOTAL

Products

Biow astes

Inorganics

;7!H(#901#907)E;779=7I#7I(.2FI((.2=7)7I+)%))

+K5B:(

(*&%$&.&%$&2(((C)!")(()(((;()

5#90>&#90FJP#9/#

Page 317 of 591



!" #/9>

); "/3

(()+M'M;;

)E(*K)

) 34#"%

*(.2*()%?(6)

!)J(.(<2((()

)' D7E+(5

"$*((()

"$(B(C)J)&>0I!""$$4!%)(!"$%B"$%(!"C)2""/

%3#"A34#"%B%D7%)

51<7

E(BCK)%(((():()#/7I

6(B(C

Page 318 of 591



!" #19>

(F0I)!)

!(()

"(

BC;*)K/#'BCJJ(BCB!C)

Page 319 of 591



!" #<9>

9 2:7#% _____________

9)+ ?

E(

)(((((%()(()6;((*)

+(5

(()6/#('(()

/000B$&C5B((((C)*(K)()

Page 320 of 591



!" #79>

Graph 5. REFUSE COMPOSITION Auckland Regional Landfills 1997

Paper 16.4%

Plastic 9.3%

Glass 2.2%

Metal 7.5%

Organic 27.6%

Special Waste 9.9%

Construction and Demolition Waste 20.1%

Other 7%

:;)"7FA#%"(B

(()*=

9) "7G(

/0005B!"*/)7(()(()E)(('<0I(C)

(/010('(*)

7Source: Auckland Regional Council Waste Management in the Auckland Region report, 2000

AUCKLAND REGION WASTE QUANTITY (tonnes disposed to landfill)

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

Page 321 of 591



!" #>9>

B77I)()(()C

')5B)J/00180<!")()((C)

1/=000#10000)/1F000)K=/><0((()

DK((()#99<;>7I(/0/0)J((K)8C*(.))2)

8((?%

Waste Generated Per Person in Christchurch Each Year

833

785

746725

709 712680

658 664

726 731704

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Financial year ending 30 June

K i l o g r a

m s o f w a s t e / p e r s o n / y e a r

Actual

Target

Projected

Graph 6:

Page 322 of 591



!"

777

!!"#

!



!" #F9>

9)9 27<

#9F0)(

5 %

M(5 ,( E 6;

+BH

D5 .4?2 .2 $-/007(J4$)

B5

%)

)$(M()

H5

#>5 $ J $ % ( 4.&62 4 $E $ $ .:2 $ 8.((()27I)

Page 324 of 591



!" #99>

K(

I%$7(

$((

;)

(

!%$&4(()%()

Page 325 of 591



!" /09>

9); 2("5

5

.$$E2 ;6%

: (.

2 (5 ,(.2 (%.2

(( % ( ((')*(

()K(()/#))

I%"(

,(((()((((D(

(#/()((()

:7(

:<#)FI;#>)=I(;#99=),(()(%;;*.$*2):(

&:.2)

Page 326 of 591



!" /#9>

9) (71

E((()E

()((($!%)

(7(

(#)()%+)(7(

Council +Estimated

Population

Residentsusing

CouncilDomesticCollection

(% pop)

CouncilDomestic

Waste(tonnagecollected

p.a.)

CouncilRecycling

(tonnagecollected

p.a.)

Total CouncilWaste

Spending p.a.(including waste

reduction andrecycling)

CouncilWaste

Reductionand

RecyclingSpending

InorganicCollections and

LandfillDisposal

(tonnage andannual spending )

RodneyDistrict 82,000

0 12,564 7,093 $1.67 million $1.3million None

North ShoreCity209,300

75% 23,700 20,800 $6.5 million $2 million 3,700 tonnes$516,500

Waitakere City180,000

96% 21,272 14,500 $ 4.6 million $1.4 million 5,000 tonnes$435,000

Auckland City420,700

99% 84,000 36,000 $16 million $2.4 million 4,600 tonnes$ 800,000

Manukau City317,500

90% 63,298 18,125 $9.1million $280,000 8,250 tonnes$1 million

FranklinDistrict53,000

4,980 Not available $1,573 million $40,000 Informal drop offmornings(Assume 1,000tonnes)$ 33,000

PapakuraDistrict43,000

95% 7,459 2,827 $1.9 million $250,000 1,100 tonnes$216,000

TOTALS217,273Tonnes

99,345Tonnes

$41,343,000 $7,670,000 23,650 Tonnes$3,000,500

!5(8((?)

4(.((21<0/>F()/#=/=1G11)>991<7DG=)>=9)/1>70DG1)

9

Page 327 of 591



!" //9>

("JH((

6(#G#7<)9FG==)/#)

G#/>)F=.=2)

Graph 7: Regional Domestic Waste and Recycling Costs

Per Tonne

$0.00

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

$160.00

$180.00

Waste Inorganic Recycling

$ / t o

n n e

:1<0/>F8((/9I#=I

=#IF1I.F2

Graph 8: Regional Domestic Waste and Recycling

Tonnage and Cost Comaprisons

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Waste Recycling Inorganic

P e r c e

n t a g e Cost %

Tonnes %

.2

)

Page 328 of 591



!" /19>

(/(*)

%(

Council Annual DomesticWaste (kg per capita)

Annual Kerbsiderecycling (kg percapita)

Waste Expenditure(per capita)

Rodney 153 86 $20.36

North Shore 150 99 $31.05

Waitakere 127 80 $25.55

Auckland 199 85 $28.03

Manukau 221 57 $28.66

Papakura 182 65 $44.18

Franklin Incomplete data Incomplete data Incomplete data

7"7(<*#070000)/<09/1.991<72*F090==)(((()

/K">L%E%

(7"

(((()(

)E(((

Graph 9: Auckland Region Sources of Waste

58%21%

2%

19%

Commercial Council Collection Council Inorganic Residential Other

Page 329 of 591



!" /<9>

((()(

G#/7)<.F090==(G#7<)9F2)G11>=1000G10007005

%9(7"

Sector Tonnes Cost Per annum

Commercial + Self-Haul by Residents 809,077 $125,390,753

Council Domestic Waste Collections 217,277 $33,673,000

Council Inorganic Collections 23,650 $3,000,500Totals 1,050,004 $162,064,253

EG#>/G#)>/(#0)(()

9)' 3#75

F0

)')M)K(((()

9) #%<E1

#9F0*) -%$&$105B!";)(D!")(

#0B(%%$&C(%&)

Page 330 of 591



!" /79>

()M((M

)DC) -G#=11(8G70)((.2'(((()E-5!

>34

EBE$EC*4$E*($&.+%2%*;(D)JK$%#!&

(())(;((;()EM('(;)

(D)

11!()

Page 331 of 591



!" />9>

; ""/ _________________________________________________________

$%%#####)12C

;)+ 7""/7HH

D!(J(4)

+B5""#A$%B

()!'(

)%(*(*(K)

(""#

((()(((5E&&

(.2 +.((2 +(; : JA

5

;+%()

12BC!"/001

Page 332 of 591



!" /=9>

3&&(M

);Q)(;

((?)

>5?

()E(((():;(((()(%&.(7)/2)

55

(;;);(()((()(*)

H

E.;2()E

((5 & $.**2 !% 8? $.*2

3434

!"&?()$((D$E)E&4;(!()

Page 333 of 591



!" /F9>

B54("

4.42(()

5 (.2'

) ( 6) +.((2)&)4A)E

((;)4(((()4/0000;10000A)K*>0)#<0((A)((4.2

()%.:,2=0I;D"$)E(A46#9==();4%()*(1<)

%4*K):(((()%*((4)

;) ?

!'()E(;)J(

(*)

Page 334 of 591



!" /99>

$%$6/000M64;.*/2)E(('

).42)K!(()

;)9 $/7>

!'((*

)(4)(((((!)!(!)&()K(()

!((*

5>#

(M)J(!)

(H/!((()!**(()(( .2)

5

)?*

((()6((

Page 335 of 591



!" 109>

(('!()()?(;(!(;

(()4(((((()((()J((()*()(!(.72)

Page 336 of 591



!" 1#9>

34""#

34("

Page 337 of 591



!" 1/9>

;); </34"

!*A

()(((()

;) "(

&((()6*(((()((()

E()E()(():(()(()

&()!()?*4.(2)(

)(((.2)M((!().%*F2)

;)' I3%""/

(!)

Page 338 of 591



!" 119>

"7G

!(*(.2("$

*)

"7(

!;()

H

4()?*+)%)#1)

)

/"

.2K(((14)!)

(H

((((()

()$!"G/7G#00)E(G/00)

</H5

E(()?)+,15R7700A0)/7)BC+,R/)<()

47

%*((*()?*/)D(*16)E**

13+%71?#>F#9FF111<<;111<714$:E"$!"./00/215B%46C4?(/00116$:E"$!"./00/2

Page 339 of 591



!" 1<9>

*17)&*)

5"3

E(()!"((!"$%'BA(!"C)

#%34

(()(()(

.))4(4)2)

#/D2N+-#N1(:N(;*(*)

I

D((,()!(,%((:/)!()

%(H3

(!D(.92)(&(M$?$185B(D(C)

(DD()D(()(K()

176,,))4A)JA$&#9FF7.#25)#;1018&)'((!#99954

Page 340 of 591



!" 179>

((*)6(()$

):(D(()

Page 341 of 591



!" 1>9>

3%/1< __________________________________________________

$%!

!&)&*+!&%,'((-.!

)+ 3%/1<

!K)K((*)((#99F20D9>(

G#11#=00)

(3

('(()(;)6;(*K)(()%3*(()6((*)

5"

(()(5 )

194#999)20%6$!:(#99F

Page 342 of 591



!" 1=9>

% ( ) % %() $ $( K :K.(2)

) ?((EH""#$%

"#$$%

##"#"! /0%%#

123'

*(;(5

"E5,

((;4;%)(()E(D(()?*M%%G/0000)

"(#?

&;;(((),((

)

#"E

:(()

3"

%;%!"K):((

()(()

Page 343 of 591



!" 1F9>

3%

4*(.2((()%B

(C()(((21)(((K)

"

()K(((

()

((

(4)%((()

?1,

4/0I

)22*70IF0I((23)((((()4;(()

?

4(D((')((((

;(*()

#""

K()%((;(

/#&((()?

((%)//$&/000/1#00(#99=(K(70I77I)>7IF0I(()

Page 344 of 591



!" 199>

*()()

:%E%"

( ( (;( ( ((()(/<3>0000(;(((;(D()

#"

:()E(*)(!"K);A(

)

("

(K(();;)

51

%(K)

;(()(D)

#

(()(((K)(()

>7(

(;(D*):;.$,2()

/<!$36(#)=

#9F>)3*>0000)((3)?5

588))88)

Page 345 of 591



!" <09>

>5

:;(E5

34%*(;)

$O7E>

;;(4((*)JA;((!*!

()

("5

((K()B((25C((*;(()

256((;)(()

Page 346 of 591



!" <#9>

(""#&$O#

5<

Page 347 of 591



!" </9>

' 3%/ ___________________________________________

')+ #

!(')(*

%((*)(()4(((*(()

') 5

6!DD(()

5+

())(((**)((*)

%5 *

$% %$E

( E(

E(4 E(& 3(

)

Page 348 of 591



!" <19>

5

4()$;((;((

)E((*)((((#0)

')9 5H

()K(*!"((A()

'); (J><

.2;!))()()?(&(.2)4((&()&(.&?2()((((.2)((.*D(2(()

*())()

("

4((((!)((8;)6(((

!)

Page 349 of 591



!" <<9>

</ _____________________________________

)+ 3""

:(;BC)&(*

()(&%D26#99F)BECR#70#990R170/0)6/#BECR/00#990R#<0(/0#7)27

$#&'"(""##

"#!%,4'((

:+#7(H

26;E$)$%#99F27$$4#999

e n v I s I o n

Page 350 of 591



!" <79>

Kaikoura Landfill Options

0.002,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

8,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

12,000,000.00

14,000,000.00

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 8

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 4

2 0 1 6

2 0 1 8

2 0 2 0

Year

$

IWK Plan

Landfill/Transfer

3/D""(

BEC!"*(,*("$=0I

)$,4) ## ( D , D E$, .E$,2 , ) ( DDE$,()

:++IH>

) 7/(

(!)J*.!"&/0012(

!.=(2(K(G#>)7)()((!*)

Page 351 of 591



!" <>9>

%;#!"34A'B3%5>/&A""#$%B5P%*JHH

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6

INCOME

Trading 1,629,038 2,153,462 2,881,802 3,478,316 4,149,493 4,564,442

Landfill levy @ $5 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000

Total Income 6,879,038 7,403,462 8,131,802 8,728,316 9,399,493 9,814,442

EXPENSES

Operating 1,921,734 2,148,341 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806

Establishment Costs 10,980,500 6,350,480

REGIONAL COSTS 12,902,234 8,498,821 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806

Less Inorganic collection costs 3,000,500 3,000,500 3,290,000 3,290,000 3,645,000 3,645,000

Net Regional expenses 9,901,734 5,498,321 - 722,265 - 516,976 - 694,483 - 473,194

Net surplus(deficit) -3,022,696 1,905,141 8,854,067 9,245,292 10,093,976 10,287,636

5P%*+JHH

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6

INCOME

Trading 1,629,038 2,153,462 2,881,802 3,478,316 4,149,493 4,564,442

landfill levy @ $10 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000

Total Income 12,129,038 12,653,462 13,381,802 13,978,316 14,649,493 15,064,442

EXPENSES

Operating 1,921,734 2,148,341 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806

Establishment Costs 10,980,500 6,350,480

REGIONAL COSTS 12,902,234 8,498,821 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806

Less Inorganic collection costs 3,000,500 3,000,500 3,290,000 3,290,000 3,645,000 3,645,000

Net Regional expenses 9,901,734 5,498,321 - 722,265 - 516,976 - 694,483 - 473,194

Net surplus(deficit) 2,227,304 7,155,141 14,104,067 14,495,292 15,343,976 15,537,636

/>35#)/)(D1)(#070000<)(!

%*=((

Page 352 of 591



!" <=9>

)9 7</

""#$%

(

!)(()

+BHH

(;(()()G7#070000(%#(G#0(%/)E(

((

28

()

%#HH"

Levy Tonnage Annual Revenue

$ 5.00 1,050,000 $5,250,000.00

$ 7.50 1,050,000 $7,875,000.00

$ 10.00 1,050,000 $10,500,000.00

$ 12.50 1,050,000 $13,125,000.00

$ 15.00 1,050,000 $15,750,000.00

$ 20.00 1,050,000 $21,000,000.00

:+H4AHB3

+*)29(G!"#FG!"#/0)

28E(#99#&$$B((((&C)29%O4J+,/00/

Page 353 of 591



!" <F9>

B"(<

DG1)E(((!)

4((;)E()M)((():*);()

EM(*G1(!)%'(("

City/District Inorganic Collection andDisposal Costs

Auckland City $800,000

North Shore City $ 516,500

Manukau City $1,000,000

Waitakere City $ 435,000

Franklin $33,000

Papakura $216,000

Total $3,000,500

9B(<

((')

;B#%##

(*

)E!(J(84)(!)((!"$)(((()

Page 354 of 591



!" <99>

B5

+(()

("

:(*((4(>0)(4(A()E((*;(!"()

""<34

30

(!"*)(1<)

%""<34

Location Populationserviced

Establishment Cost AnnualIncome

Land area + Comments

ChristchurchSuper Shed

330,000 $100,000 to refurbishexisting building + 3drop-off points

$1.08million

0.3 ha.Reuse Store and Yard only. Landowned by Council

Canberra

‘Revolve’

200,000 A$600,000 A$ 1

million

1 ha. Reuse Store and Yard only.

Sited near Transfer StationCanberra“MitchellRecycling Centre”

150,000 A$1.5 million A$0.5million

0.7 ha. Reuse Store and Yard only

CanberraResourceRecovery Estate

350,000 A$3.5 million toinstall roading andinfrastructure.Tenants will build toown requirements

Stage 1 – 17 ha, Stage 2 - 28 ha.Stage one under development

Berkeley,California – ‘Urban Ore’ Eco-park

300,000 US$1.25 million US$1.6million

1.2 haReuse Store, Sales yard. Daily pickingoff landfill. Small businesses sub-leaseon site

Halifax, UK – ‘SustainableGrowth Park’

12.5 ha site. Currently being designedand built by Urban Mines Ltd, a not-for-profit company

Reclaim UKSheffield

$3,4million

1 ha. Range of activities including localkerbside contracts

Opotiki 10,000 $100,000 to retrofitexisting building

$120,000 2 ha. Land and building owned byCouncil

30%/001(M;!"))!"/001

Page 355 of 591



!" 709>

. $177/= ___________________________

.)+ 61"27"

"$&

)(K()(((()!)

.) 7"3

5$#99=./00180<2(()

73

$#99=#99=5 /F>770 6 <0<090 '8&';

#070000/00180<)/00180<(*#99=/00180<((5 <17>70

6 >#<170 +&&

(!('(#)07(31#99=32)

1#DE/00180<1/;#99='M$&/000

Page 356 of 591



!" 7#9>

%."7

Category % 1997 2003/04 Collectedby Councils

RemainingResidential

Paper 19.93 57,106 86,820 48,013 38,807

Plastics 8.74 25,056 38,093 21,066 17,027Glass 3.64 10,428 15,854 8,768 7,086

Metals 8.70 24,927 37,897 20,958 16,939

Organic 40.88 117,152 178,110 98,498 79,612

PotentiallyHazardous.

1.15 3,286 4,996 2,763 2,233

C & D 11.40 32,661 49,655 27,460 22,195

Other 5.56 15,934 24,225 13,397 10,828

TOTAL 100 286,550 435,651 240,923 194,728

(F(*<17>7#

)/#=/=1/1>70;/<09/1)K<17>70#9<=/=)E(8;()E((((#9<=/=K()(9(K()

%8#"7

Category RemainingResidentialWaste(Tonnes)

EstimatedDiversion %(of eachcategory)

DiversionPotential(Tonnes)

Paper 38,807 15% 5,821

Plastics 17,027 10% 1,703

Glass 7,086 10% 709

Metals 16,939 15% 2,541

Organic 79,612 50% 39,806

Pot. Haz. 2,233 0 -

C & D 22,195 10% 2,220

Other 10,828 0 -

TOTAL 194,727 52,799

(#0(*>#<170(((()

Page 357 of 591



!" 7/9>

%+#?7

Category % Total 1997 Total 2003/04 Estimated %Diversion bycategory

DiversionPotential(Tonnes)

Paper 23.92 96,664 146,961 25% 36,740

Plastics 11.57 46,756 71,085 15% 10,663

Glass 1.81 7,300 11,098 15% 1,665

Metals 7.86 31,744 48,261 35% 16,891

Organic 16.94 68,437 104,047 25% 26,012

Pot. Haz. 1.69 6,810 10,353 0%

C & D 27.06 109,357 166,259 40% 66,503

Other 9.16 37,022 56,286 0%

TOTAL 100.00 404,090 614,350 ---- 158,474

%++7%Residential 194,728

Business 614,350

Total available 809,078

(##((K(9#0)

%+#7

Residential (from Table 9) 52,799

Business (from Table 10) 158,474

Total 211,273

% diversion 26.1%

/##/=1.(#/2)K/>)#I):("$)

347>(

(

'(%?)

(%

(M!$(/0#0#99>=0I)%))))

(

"$#99F7=I)E()%

)))A8$8$&

Page 358 of 591



!" 719>

5<

%?"$=7I)E>1I)(B

C)%588))88(8 6(!/7I)

Page 359 of 591



!" 7<9>

8 3>/ _____________

8)+ 3%(""#$%

?*D(%#'(()(D(((%/.(42(D(()

B3455&(34

%%;8((K) S*110000 %%/=;T<8;T#0 S*#)/65 9F; #<)78; 1>#70KD((!)

(/00KD():(((()

%BE<%<3

.6=2J(5

.D2 70;K.?2D( !%.2 10?

Page 360 of 591



!" 779>

$.2 10? &.2 10? $.2 /0? .2 #/? 8?.2 #/?

#F<KD(

B34(34

+(:6.;2 S100000 1/*#)/S#/FKD(

;

B34(%34

E(;%%) ./000002S/0 &.#700002S7*F>KD((;)(()

B345""(/D33

%+9%""<

Population Staff Jobs/population

Kaitaia 10,000 9 1 per 1,111

Waiheke 8,000 17 1 per 470

Porirua 50,000 20 (aiming for) 1 per 2,500

Kaikoura 5,000 9 1 per 555

Nelson 40,000 15 1 per 2,666

$*!"#D(<=0#D(/>>>)*(<70D(/771D()$ED(*(;)

33/001

Page 361 of 591



!" 7>9>

(

6(*D(;8((F>;#F<;)

$(((/00;100D(J*!"(D((<70;/771;K)

8) 3%(("

(4)A(D>0#/0()

8)9 3?

(;)!D((!((D()

(.M!$(/0#02100834;170000)EK#0/9D()((!)#99F35D9>((#=1>)+%!36

7>000(#)#)G+%1=(G+%/1>()6+%G+%70();(':4!37((G//)7(<)1ID(

34%#08180735$!#99F36+%E%)$)6E/00/37:'G//)76%%:4!

Page 362 of 591



!" 7=9>

:)9F100D(=0<00D()

8); ?%

((4)()E((()#=(()

8) 33

!

;);D((()'();B4C.4?2)4?(

)?K()*)1&?PU*;((() -((/0000;(438(G#=G1=)

;!")E(;*

!"(((((;)E;;8);D(/#

1F--/#D4%()(97I-)-(()*+%G1=;G<>+%G#=;G/#))$6!V#1.#</0012

Page 363 of 591



!" 7F9>

!()!%E%B)B

(E%.&%#9912(39.7700##002)

194&%#991

Page 364 of 591



!" 799>

+ ?/ _______________

+)+ ?

(!

)

/D75

!"$%(C5(65!&(."$2)!"$%&)"*+,,- )

H

!"'(()E((!")!(()E(!"()

H#<

$

)6(()

3

!)

55(

)

Page 365 of 591



!" >09>

(<:

E(A(*()$(

)

("

!()%'K)(*)J(!(*()

"76342

(*J4$))

3

!D((M()4D((*

)

147"

!('((()

3475

(()$

(!)

"((

$()!.2)

""H

)!;()

Page 366 of 591



!" >#9>

"(

!()(((1>7D

)

"7((

!)(()

H?(

!((

)((*!)

%(

!(D(!(()&D((4)

5(

!4)((()*!"(;);(())

#

!"(!"(MM#00I)ED

!")(M()

#%3

%()((()-*(!(

(()

Page 367 of 591



!" >/9>

++ 1/$ ________________________________________________

++)+ "(

E()

6!((()!)(!*)

3434"(

(*;(() "7><

!?%)(;()

"":5()($:?)

>7:(&!%$.($

:?2*)$;)

1125:!"$!%*(D(8()

/E($!%D))D()

Page 368 of 591



!" >19>

++) "75:

MK)

$%((()$:?())E-:.:2!$%($7+##37! -B ''08''09&)

:$%((((!%)(;):((5 & %*$

* 4K

$H1((

(:(/00/$!%&6(J$(&!")("$&!"(

()5

)?*(D)

)?*(()EG!"1)==)

%(B4C)

Page 369 of 591



!" ><9>

++)9 "5

E($%$%).!$%2K

)(()

"HH

E)!".!"2-($!%#9=<)!"&%D))

(

4)

H7(

$((K)

($&()((K) %7</((K.(2()?(./2.(2K$:!&EK(K)$4!%(;K()$%5

3

(

)'(()

Page 370 of 591



!" >79>

4%

.2(.2)((*

*10)

5

()E('()

6#,2

()E().H2(()

?%

6()?(()()&(A)(

)%7</((.#2.25$!;&(()(((()

((()(KK(())E(()

Page 371 of 591



!" >>9>

4(((;)()(K(;

K()6(;A3./2)(3((()%3(;#990(.*F(;(2)((!$.))2((;()%#9F>#)=;(A):&((()

3)

$(;)()*BC$(BC)%(

()((()$((()E((()

"%%

'()6:4):(=7/7('F7I)A(/<0#/0*('10I)E))

Page 372 of 591



!" >=9>

#%

,(M()(((

),((4;%6()

E(';%(M(()MM)*

)(M((M)*%(()()&,A4((((.;2(()(((;)

:

;)E)

:()E(('(AK((;)?*(K(;.AKK2):((

)E

Page 373 of 591



!" >F9>

.=0I;=7I2)<(!"()%

'&,A41(;());('%?):()%()*(;('(;(()$(()>#()(()(K()()K;((.,2.J3+2)(')

(*()(M4(D(

.2!$)%))))

"0

&K(('*()

(O

A(A(()(

()E*(

Page 374 of 591



!" >99>

)&(()?(()(D(((()

.*2)

3%

()((()

(;()

++); H?175P(34

((.*(2>!"$%)J(()(

()(;(()(;)()

(71H

.G#/G/64?2G/F1F000/00<807()

((H

((;))(

G#/00<8/007()

Page 375 of 591



!" =09>

(()(.(7<<#9=<2((

$&)

(H%

4:(;() ((

() '((

&?(( (

.(;2(

H

%#<>.12.2/00/BC):(K('

;):((DD8C)4:5

#26)(((('; D()

/2()%(12!$%))((

$'#:!0#!/

!&4:

Page 376 of 591



!" =#9>

++) "#5

)(D

):(D)((.2(()

ED)E(()(('(*()

(!"$%(($%)

Page 377 of 591



!" =/9>

+ "( _______________________________

+)+ (

5

((()D())6')E((!H#9>0((()!;)ED

()

;(D)(($%)($%;(.($

2$&)$%(*(()(()

#>

(/7I)ED((

)

Page 378 of 591



!" =19>

______________

+)>27<)?(<"(&757?9)I(5;)#(

)$4&CI5%:#')?7$17/7))?!.)(5?(:%E?"

Page 379 of 591



!" =<9>

%%)*./012)$(.%134567)*2*.%17 35.7.. ________

?()?(()

Landfills Waste Transfer Stations and RecyclingFacilities

Rodney Redvale (WML)Hakarau

Silverdale TSSnells Beach TS (CO)Wellsford TS (CO)Helensville TS (CO)Whangaparoa Recycle Depot (CO)

North Shore None Constellation Drive TS (ESL)Devonport Transfer Station (CO)Rosedale Road Depot (WML)Albany Depot (O)

Waitakere None Waitakere City Refuse and Recycling Station(CO)

Auckland Great Barrier Island (CO) Pikes Point (WML)Patiki Road TS (ESL)Waiheke TS (CO)

Manukau Whitford (joint venture betweenCouncil and WML)Greenmount (ESL)

East Tamaki TS (joint venture between Counciland WML)

Papakura Takanini TS (WML)Franklin Pukekohe TS* (CO)

Waiuku TS (CO)

W%%($&S$&%S:S:*:S:(('

)?*(4%$((()

Page 380 of 591



!" =79>

%%)*./+8(94.)531$*$.:($14;( $5<57.);5)$

_____________

-/000($%$%$6.(!%$2M4.42&(%)$%$6(*;();(8;()()6D()

(4)*5E6(;):;;6((*()

6(()4)4A(;()

$%)

Page 381 of 591



!" =>9>

((()(()

4(

(;(*;;;;)

E (4(()

4((*;)%*((*)*A)*()

H/E((()(((*)((D)

"(;(;)#"P4;;((*)((((;;(

A()(.((:E82()(D(()((*(4)"%(8()

Page 382 of 591



!" ==9>

.(4)(BC$%$6)(6(

;);(4((%)

Page 383 of 591



!" =F9>

%%)*./=86.614$54*< ___________________________<6:QP"D72)3/D&9

I(5

,D()$,/000,$(.7#I2,4.<9I2DE$,)E$,(M"$(/0#7(;,;)I "$ ,7000)(*)E()

""(

E$,("$;()E$,(()

(

) ((*

) :(*(

)E$,"$)E((;()

()

Page 384 of 591



!" =99>

Kaikoura Landfill Options

0.00

2,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

8,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

12,000,000.00

14,000,000.00

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 4

2 0 1 5

2 0 1 6

2 0 1 7

2 0 1 8

2 0 1 9

2 0 2 0

Year

$

IWK Plan

Landfill/Transfer

3

E$,9;)D1)

$E$,)(('"$!");(9>/()('*(()E(E$,()?*E$,(A;G#0700G//700);G/00000)

<,47000E$,>0I.(2)4G/000005G#/7000E$,G=7000)G781G#081G#781G/781)()E$,G/7>970G11F91/)#=I(<<IFI$E!"(</I.2)

HE33

,("$D(*G9#F/00//0/0)

(/0/0

>0I

Page 385 of 591



!" F09>

%%)*./>8%1$.$454*< _________________________A<6"(:""(/D2&3/D&9B

I3,55(5

570000%5/T#7;(5G1/00005G#=/000.#25G#=000050)1>5

5G>8;G#/;#>8;;G</8&5

1H35>/35

#99>'&.&2

#999'&&)

/000;"$ .2%&'

( &(( J%."$2

;(

/00#' /00#;-? /00/'

>":/5>/#"><H3

( D ( & .&2 .2) 4&&?D()&((()6( =7 )(&*( ( . 2) *

Page 386 of 591



!" F#9>

()(()

&(( 9 -? () -?()(()

#

6)

4&);<)#71):1<)())

"35>C"(3"3(>G3",<(H35

(((&)&1'()/<>/00/)&

)&M)700')(.2((';)&()(

)(&;)&)()(;)()

5

D)

Page 387 of 591



!" F/9>

(K()4(700(;)ED)E*(

)*1>00/;(*)(())E(()')*(()4(()F0/77/(<//#=7/)(()4((*)

(((()

>

'&%='7%(9'7)((()

.2)()&((&)*(('(()&*)E('

)((

Page 388 of 591



!" F19>

K)%(&)5(;;((((

(;K'()6(()

1

$D(&(*)%4)

&)K(;8('*()*)%

()%()X()()&Q')((

&)%((7()(&)&)()

30

1.&2

Page 389 of 591



!" F<9>

'1 /

<//(H/<>"1>/

(G1=0000;G1/0000(G70000):G#11000;G>0000.2G1000G=0000)G#=/000;G#/0000G7/000.G#00082)("$!"'G/000()

5C11",><I3,55C35

1#%

?)6)

)(()

)E()

(')(()()

I

G#/0000)&)

"$

+K((;&

1

'J% %( E&( ?*(( 4(

Page 390 of 591



!" F79>

1

$((K))

< E;D

() ;(((A

)?(K)

(&((

:(

72:(=

&('(

?

(

J%"$;@))A

4&&'@*))A

Page 391 of 591



!" F>9>

%%)*./-8(7.3/4.)9.7.<;$12(%$6#46 ____________________________________________

<C%1%)%))

%(+(&D(D()%(.%2(;;;)6EE(P4+()

%$%));;)

%(D((;)E(((+,)

$5:#>%A5&J"&?%6

:$$(:

Page 392 of 591



!" F=9>

?"%&)

?%(

A5:$E(;(&6%%&

Page 393 of 591



!" FF9>

%%)*./?8956;$14)*4@%.1))*21$6.);1) (12@45(2()21$62147**.:$

______________________________________()E(()()*')6((

)#99=!$4((.2()A%&&)B)

Local Authority Tonnes Population Kg/head

Rodney District Council 1,500* 77,001 29*

North Shore City Council 3,700 209,300 18

Waitakere City Council 5,000 180,000 28

Auckland City Council 4,600 415,300 11Manukau City Council 8,250 317,500 26

Papakura District Council 1,100 43,000 26

Franklin District Council 1,000* 53,000 19

Total for region 23,650 1,295,101 18

Canberra (for comparison) 3,000 293,500 10

W/0014070I()((

70I((!)70I(;(((;)F000(!)

Rodney District Council 300 tonnes

North Shore City Council 1,000 tonnes

Waitakere city Council 1,200 tonnes

<0E)4($!)/001

Page 394 of 591



!" F99>

Auckland City Council 3,000 tonnes,

Manukau City Council 2,000 tonnes

Papakura District Council 250 tonnes

Franklin District Council 250 tonnes.

Total 8,000 tonnesK>)/8%%%*/700)$*11=000=)%%%G#000000)$*1/=000KG1)00)?5

Centre Population Sales Sales per head

Canberra 293,500 $2,100,000 $7.15

Porirua 50,000 $120,000 $2.40*

Nelson 43,296 $300,000 $6.93

W(*)G/)70!G1/1=700F000)((D)

Page 395 of 591



!" 909>

%%)*./A956;$14)*4@%.1))*21$6.);31$51 )*.)51@%$1B5.1)

___________________

C(IH/"35>C"(3"3(>G3",/37>"I(>55R+9

+/001%(DT<IESTABLISHMENT COSTS

YEAR 1 YEAR 2Auckland City Concept Study CostingsSITEWORKS 900,000 1,080,000BUILDINGS 1,625,000 162,000TOTAL ACC 2,525,000 1,242,000North Shore CC @ 75% of ACC 1,893,750 931,500Manukau CC @ 75% of ACC 1,750,500 862,500

Waitakere CC @ 50% of ACC 1,262,500 621,000Waiheke Is @ 50% of ACC 1,167,000 575,000Rodney DC @ 50% of ACC 1,167,000 575,000Papakura DC @ 25% of ACC 631,250 310,500Franklin DC @ 25% of ACC 583,500 287,500

10,980,500 5,405,000

Plus Year One Costs 10,980,500Total Building Costs 16,385,500

Plant CostsAuckland CC (100%) 216,000NSCC (75%) 162,240MCC (75%) 162,240WCC (50%) 108,000Waiheke Is (50%) 108,000RDC (37.5%) 81,000PDC (25%) 54,000FDC (25%) 54,000Total Plant costs 945,480Total Establishment Costs 17,330,980

OPERATING INCOME/EXPENSES

TRADING INCOME- BASED ON POPULATION (using Auckland City Concept income figures asbaseline)

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6ACC @ 415000 518,250 685,000 917,000 1,106,800 1,320,275 1,452,302NSCC @ 209000 261,000 345,042 461,666 557,231 664,777 731,254

MCC @ 317500 396,500 524,173 701,343 846,522 1,009,900 1,110,890WCC @ 180000 224,750 297,120 397,546 479,838 572,447 629,691Waiheke Is @ 10000 12,488 16,509 22,089 26,662 31,807 34,988PDC @ 43000 53,700 70,991 94,986 114,649 136,776 150,453RDC @ 77000 96,150 127,110 170,074 205,279 244,898 269,387FDC @ 53000 66,200 87,516 117,097 141,336 168,614 185,475TOTAL REGIONAL SALES 1,629,038 2,153,462 2,881,802 3,478,316 4,149,493 4,564,442

Note: Assume $1.25 income pppa (per person per annum) for year one increasing to $3.50 pppa in Year 6

EXPENSES - BASED ON POPULATION (using Auckland City Concept Study expenses as baseline)

ACC @ 415000 611,500 683,500 817,250 882,500 939,000 1,009,425NSCC @ 209000 307,857 344,184 411,300 444,204 472,633 508,081

MCC @ 317500 467,678 522,863 624,822 674,808 717,995 771,845WCC @ 180000 265,140 296,427 354,230 382,568 407,052 437,581Waiheke Is @ 10000 14,730 16,468 19,679 21,254 22,614 24,310

Page 396 of 591



!" 9#9>

PDC @ 43000 63,339 70,813 84,622 91,391 97,240 104,533RDC @ 77000 113,421 126,805 151,532 163,654 174,128 187,188FDC @ 53000 78,069 87,281 104,301 112,645 119,854 128,843TOTALREGIONAL EXPENSES 1,921,734 2,148,341 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806

Note: From year I to year 6 operational costs increase from 1.47 pppa to $2.43 pppa

REGIONAL INORGANIC COLLECTION COSTS (as supplied by Local Authorities)ACC 800,000 800,000 880,000 880,000 950,000 950,000NSCC – estimated* 516,500 516,500 570,000 570,000 625,000 625,000MCC - estimated* 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,250,000 1,250,000WCC - estimated* 435,000 435,000 475,000 475,000 525,000 525,000PDC 216000 216,000 225,000 225,000 250,000 250,000RDC (no inorganic collections)FDC 33000 33,000 40,000 40,000 45,000 45,000REGIONAL INORGANICCOLLECTION COSTS 3,000,500 3,000,500 3,290,000 3,290,000 3,645,000 3,645,000

LANDFILL LEVYREVENUE

Levy @ $5 $7.5 $10 $12.5 $15 $201050000 5,250,000 7,875,000 10,500,000 13,125,000 15,750,000 21,000,000

SUMMARY OF INCOME AND EXPENSESScenario One – based on $5/tonne Landfill Levy

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6INCOMETrading 1,629,038 2,153,462 2,881,802 3,478,316 4,149,493 4,564,442landfill levy @ $5 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000Total Income 6,879,038 7,403,462 8,131,802 8,728,316 9,399,493 9,814,442

EXPENSESOperating 1,921,734 2,148,341 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806

Establishment Costs 10,980,500 6,350,480REGIONAL COSTS 12,902,234 8,498,821 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806LessInorganic collection costs3,000,500 3,000,500 3,290,000 3,290,000 3,645,000 3,645,000Net Regional expenses 9,901,734 5,498,321 - 722,265 - 516,976 - 694,483 - 473,194Net surplus(deficit) -3,022,696 1,905,141 8,854,067 9,245,292 10,093,976 10,287,636

Scenario Two – based on $10/tonne Landfill Levy YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6

INCOMETrading 1,629,038 2,153,462 2,881,802 3,478,316 4,149,493 4,564,442landfill levy @ $10 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000Total Income 12,129,038 12,653,462 13,381,802 13,978,316 14,649,493 15,064,442

EXPENSESOperating 1,921,734 2,148,341 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806Establishment Costs 10,980,500 6,350,480REGIONAL COSTS 12,902,234 8,498,821 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806 LessInorganic collection costs3,000,500 3,000,500 3,290,000 3,290,000 3,645,000 3,645,000Net Regional expenses 9,901,734 5,498,321 - 722,265 - 516,976 - 694,483 - 473,194 Net surplus(deficit) 2,227,304 7,155,141 14,104,067 14,495,292 15,343,976 15,537,636

!:%5 #) /)(D1)(#070000 <)(

!)

Page 397 of 591



!" 9/9>

%%)*./C854*<8(94.)531$;.9'91$* $51:$<($14;(($14$5$51:$<)21$6

_____________________________________________

(6*(!)E70000(;(.(2)(;((((;()G>7G1)/7()8G70(G='#10/0)E*!$3(($$((;()E((E4((41(()((;(()(

)EG70J((;(/0000(((G#(()J3(;(((((()70000G70G/7()

'!"($)$(;(G#0KKG700000)?((;()(;(5 &

41E)

Page 398 of 591



!" 919>

(;(

670000(;(K1111(

#7(;() *(70000(;

( (*'

(.(2

Page 399 of 591



!" 9<9>

Page 400 of 591



!" 979>

Y$%/007

Page 401 of 591



CONSULTATION JUNE – JULY 2011

Page 402 of 591



CONSULTATION

ANALYSIS OF LOCAL BOARD FEEDBACK ON DRAFT WASTE MANAGEMENT

AND MINIMISATION PLAN ISSUES

WASTENOT - JULY 2011

LOCAL BOARD FEEDBACK ON ISSUES PAPERS

OTHER COUNCIL FEEDBACK ON ISSUES PAPERS

Page 403 of 591



ANALYSIS OF LOCAL BOARD FEEDBACK ON DRAFT WWMP ISSUES

PAGE 1

Analysis of Local Board

Feedback on Draft Waste

Management andMinimisation Plan Issues

Prepared for

Auckland Council

July 2011

Page 404 of 591




WASTE NOT CONSULTING LTD

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1

2 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................1 3 RESULTS........................................................................................................................................1

3.1 QUESTION 1 – WHEELIE BINS OR BAGS.................................................................................................1

3.2 QUESTION 2 – UNIFORMITY OF SERVICES ACROSS REGION..................................................................2

3.3 QUESTION 3 – COLLECTION METHOD FOR RECYCLABLES ...................................................................3

3.4 QUESTION 4 – FUNDING OF REFUSE SERVICES...................................................................................... 3

3.5 QUESTION5 – FUNDING OF RECYCLING SERVICES ...............................................................................4

3.6 QUESTION6(A) – KERBSIDE ORGANIC COLLECTION ............................................................................4

3.7 QUESTION6 (B) – FUNDING OF KERBSIDE ORGANIC COLLECTION....................................................... 5

3.8 QUESTION7 – KERBSIDE INORGANIC COLLECTION..............................................................................5

3.9 QUESTION8(A) – PUBLIC PLACE RECYCLING BINS...............................................................................6

3.10 QUESTION8(B) – DECISIONS AND FUNDING OF PUBLIC PLACE RECYCLING BINS................................ 6 3.11 QUESTION9 – FURTHER INVESTIGATION INTO GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED AREAS .........................7

3.12 QUESTION10 (A) – FUNDING OF SERVICES IN GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED AREAS...........................7

3.13 QUESTION10(B) – LEVEL OF FUNDING SUPPORT FOR GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED AREAS ..............8

3.14 QUESTION11 – PRODUCTSTEWARDSHIP SCHEMES.............................................................................8

APPENDIX 1 – SURVEY FORM....................................................................................................................... 9

Contact Details

Waste Not Consulting LtdBruce MiddletonDirector

PO Box 78 372Grey Lynn, Auckland 1245

Tel: +64 9 360 5188Email: [email protected]

This report is the copyright of Waste Not Consulting Ltd. All or any part of it may only be used, copied or

reproduced for the purpose for which it was originally intended, except where the prior permission to do otherwise

has been sought from and granted by Waste Not Consulting.

Page 405 of 591




PAGE 1

1 Introduction

This report presents the results of feedback provided by Auckland Council Local Boards in response to a

questionnaire about issues and options being considered as part of the council’s waste management planningprocess.

The issues and options were set out in a series of issues papers provided by the council to the Local Boards inconjunction with a series of workshops held in early 2011. The issues papers provided the Local Boards with

background information and analysis of possible future options for waste management in the region. After theworkshops were completed, the questionnaire was given to the Local Boards to provide feedback on theexercise. The feedback will be taken into consideration by the council’s Solid Waste Business Unit as it

oversees the preparation of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

A copy of the questionnaire is contained in Appendix 1.

2 MethodologyResponses from each of the Local Boards were copied from the original documents into a spreadsheet foranalysis. The original documents were provided in a range of formats: some responded on the questionnaire

form provided, others provided responses within minutes of Local Board meetings, while others used their own

document formats. In most instances, there was no issue with relating the response to the relevant question;however, a small number of respondents did not use the questionnaire form and did not directly address some

of the questions.

A number of the questions were not in a multiple-choice or yes/no format. However, in all cases the Local

Boards’ responses were such that they were able to be coded to provide a quantitative analysis.

Quantitative results are presented below with a short summary of the rationale and comments provided by theLocal Boards in respect of their responses.

3 Results

Responses were received from 21 of the 21 Local Boards. Results are provided, by question, with a shortsummary of key issues or rationale noted by respondents under each question.

3.1 Question 1 – Wheelie bins or bags

Should wheelie bins or bags be used for kerbside refuse collections?

Q. 1 Responses %

Wheelie bins 7 35%

Bags 8 40%

Other 5 25%

Total 20 100%

Not answered 1

(Response rate = 95% of 21 Local Boards)

Page 406 of 591




PAGE 2

There was no clear preference by Local Boards with regards to the issue of wheelie bins versus bags, given

there was a difference of only one between the two options and that a significant number of Local Boardsopted for the ‘Other’ option in their response. Where “Other” was selected, this was typically qualified

with a comment that supported a combination of both bags and wheelie bins. The comments of the fiveLocal Board’s that chose the “Other” option are given below:

• Wheelie bins for urban areas - Rubbish bags for rural. The Board has a mixed view on the

issue and felt that one size does not fit all – they would like to test the issue with the community,

particularly in the rural areas

• That a combination of wheelie bins and bags be used for kerbside refuse collections. Reason:

In order to minimise waste, provide options for small users and take into account the needs of

rural townships and the elderly noting that in some areas of Rodney there are no kerbs or roadside areas outside properties

• Rubbish bags for refuse with the option to have user pay wheelie bins

• The Waiheke community currently has a choice of bins or bags. Note: One Board member

wishes to return to bags only.

• Other – within the whole region a choice of wheelie bins or bags of various sizes. The current wheelie bin system works well in residential areas of Maungakiekie-Tamaki, with the inclusionof an option for a 80 ltr red-lidded rubbish bin, which may be preferable for older people or

those with difficult, steep sections.

For the eight Local Boards that preferred bags, the reasons put forward were waste minimisation, lowercapital cost, ease of applying a user-charges system, and flexibility. Reasons for preferring wheelie bins

included reduced dog-strike, tidiness, and the option of restricting size.

Negatives noted for bags were health and safety, dog, and rodent strike. Negatives for wheelie bins were

difficulty in handling for older/infirm residents, lack of flexibility in rural situations, harder to store, anddifficult to apply user-pays charges.

3.2 Question 2 – Uniformity of services across region

Should the same service be provided across the region or should bags be used for rural and high density

multi-storey areas and wheelie bins for the rest?

Q. 2 Responses %

Same service 5 26%

Different services 12 63%

Other 2 11%

Total 19 100%

Not answered 2


The majority of respondents felt that there should be broad consistency of service provision across theregion, but that there needed to be some flexibility for unique situations including apartments and rural

areas. A number of Local Boards indicated that it was the Local Board’s role to be involved in these

decisions. One board suggested that Local Boards should determine the type of containment and serviceprovision in their area.

The Local Board indicating “Other” suggested that more exploration of the question was required by

officers. None of the Local Boards preferring the “Same service” gave reasons for their preference.

Page 407 of 591




PAGE 3

3.3 Question 3 – Collection method for recyclables

How should recyclables be collected?

Q. 3 Responses %

Commingled 14 70%

Two-stream 5 25%

Other 1 5%

Total 20 100%

Not answered 2


The clear preference among respondents was for a commingled system for recyclables. Two stream

systems were preferred by approximately 25% of respondents. One Local Board advocated for a kerbsidesort system for recycling.

The most common reasons given in support of commingled recycling were that the current system in placeworks well, that it is convenient for users, that it increases recycling, and that is would be more costeffective than a two stream system. Supporters of the two stream system mentioned that it works well in

current areas (Waitakere, North Shore). A clear preference among those supporting a two stream system

was for paper, not glass, to be collected separately.

The total number in the “Responses” column is greater than the number of Local Boards as one board

responded that it could ‘”work with either option” (i.e. either commingled or two-stream).

3.4 Question 4 – Funding of refuse services

Should refuse services be paid for through rates or polluter-pays?

Q. 4 Responses %

Rates 4 20%

Polluter-pays 13 65%

Other 3 15%

Total 20 100%

Not answered 1


Polluter-pays was the clear preference amongst respondents, with this option selected by 65% of

respondents as against 20% for rates-funded. The most common reasons cited in support of polluter-pays

were that it would assist in waste minimisation, and it was the fairest system, although one board expressedconcern about the impact on large families. Supporters of rates-funded collections felt it was the mostefficient and fair way of funding the service and that it would discourage illegal dumping.

Those indicating support for other options put forward hybrid charging systems. The concept of an 80L

wheelie bin funded by rates as a baseline service with larger bins incurring a charge was noted by a couple

of respondents.

One Local Board stated that the Board: “Considers that the term ‘polluter-pays’ is a misnomer and

offensive and that the term ‘user-pays’ should be used because this is a service that is being provided”.

Page 408 of 591




PAGE 4

3.5 Question 5 – Funding of recycling services

Should recycling services be paid for through rates, user-pays, part-user-pays, or by another mechanism

(e.g. surpluses from other waste services, waste levy etc?)

Q. 5 Responses %

Rates 14 67%

User-pays 0 0%

Part user-pays 1 5%

Other mechanisms 6 29%

Total 21 100%

Not answered 1


A sizable majority of Local Boards supported rates funding for recycling services. The reasons cited were

that it would encourage waste minimisation and that it is an efficient way of charging for the service.

One Local Board supported a part user-pays service with surpluses from other services used to offset costs.

The Local Boards supporting other mechanisms did not show a clear preference overall for the type of alternative funding mechanism, with levy funding and surpluses from other services both noted. The

“Waitakere model” was mentioned by one Local Board as the model that should be applied.

The total number in the “Responses” column is greater than the number of Local Boards as one board

favoured “rates or other mechanisms”.

3.6 Question 6(a) – Kerbside organic collection

Should a kerbside organic collection be provided by the council?

Q. 6(a) Responses %

Yes 11 55%

No 4 20%

Maybe 4 20%

Other 1 5%

Total 20 100%

Not answered 1


A kerbside organics collection was supported by 55% of respondents. While this was not a strong majoritysupport, it was the most favoured option. A number of Local Boards indicated conditional support for

such a service. These respondents generally felt that more research/information and/or trials were required.Concern was also expressed by one Local Board on the impact on private sector service providers.

Those supporting the service cited the quantity of organic waste in the residual waste and concerns with

organic waste being left on properties. A number of respondents, while supporting a service, also wantedto see home composting and/or worm farms supported.

Those not in favour of such a service felt it should be up to the resident to arrange a private service or thathome composting should be promoted.

Page 409 of 591




PAGE 5

It is noted that there appeared some confusion in the responses over whether a garden waste service, a food

waste service, or a combined service was being proposed. A number of respondents cited the figure of 40% food waste in the residual as the reason for introducing a service while others appeared to consider

that the question referred to a garden waste service (e.g. those suggesting people should use private sectorproviders).

3.7 Question 6 (b) – Funding of kerbside organic collection

If yes [to Q6(a)], should it be funded by rates, user-pays, part-user-pays or by another mechanism (e.g.

surpluses from other waste services, waste levy etc)?

Q. 6(b) Responses %

Rates 7 39%

User-pays 3 17%

Part user-pays 4 22%

Other mechanism 4 22%

Total 18 100%Not answered 3


A rates-funded service was the most favoured option but this was selected by less than 40% of the Local

Boards that answered this question. A similar number thought the service should be user-pays or part user-pays funded, while a number felt that other funding mechanisms (such as levy funding) should be

employed.

Comments on this question were generally not detailed, with many respondents not providing a rationale.

Those who felt the service should be rates-funded suggested this was the simplest and most fair method,

while those who favoured user-pays in whole or part suggested that, as not all households would use the

service, then not all households should have to pay. Promotion of home composting was also a reasongiven for favouring user-pays/part user-pays.

3.8 Question 7 – Kerbside inorganic collection

Should kerbside inorganic collections be replaced with an alternative ‘booking’ system or be

discontinued?

Q. 7 Responses %

Booking system 12 57%

Discontinued 1 5%

Other 8 38%

Total 21 100%

Not answered 1


A “booking system” was favoured by a majority of respondents. Reasons given for this is that the service

has worked well where it has been introduced and that it removed the piles of rubbish from the streets,stopped dumping, stopped scavenging, and that the user should pay.

A sizable minority of Local Boards, however, expressed the view (not canvassed in the survey) that thecurrent service should be retained. Reasons for this were that low income households would not pay for a

Page 410 of 591




PAGE 6

“booking service” and would resort to illegal dumping, and that the current system is a cheap, efficient, and

equitable service.

A couple of Local Board’s suggested some form of “voucher” system where households are allowed to

take one free load per year to a transfer station or resource recovery centre (or possibly an on-property

pickup).

A couple of Local Boards expressed support for local resource recovery centres.

The responses total more than the 21 Local Boards because one Board expressed favour for both a partialuser-pays booking system and localised transfer/recycling centres.

3.9 Question 8(a) – Public place recycling bins

Should public place recycling bins be further promoted and installed in town centres and tourist areas?

Q. 8(a) Responses %

Yes 21 100%

No 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Total 21 100%

Not Answered 0


Local Boards were unanimous in the view that public place recycling bins should be further promoted and

installed in town centres and tourist areas.

There were very few comments on this question. However, one Local Board noted that seasonal touristtraffic puts pressure on public waste services, and that they believe there is a growing expectation that

recycling opportunities should be available and convenient to all.

3.10 Question 8(b) – Decisions and funding of public place recycling bins

If so, who should make the decisions on location and how should they be funded?

Q. 8(b) Responses

Local board 18

Other 2

Rates/centrally funded 9

Other 5

Not answered 1


Answers to this question were not prompted, however most responses fell into a couple of clear categories

and so responses above are coded from the unprompted responses. A clear majority of respondents feltthat it was the Local Boards’ role to make decisions on location. A number of Local Boards also

mentioned that such decisions should be taken in consultation with the local business associations in

respect of town centre areas.

Page 411 of 591




PAGE 7

Of those expressing a view on the source of funding, most suggested that recycling bins should be

rates/centrally-funded. Alternative funding suggestions included waste levies and commercialsponsorship. Some suggested that there should be a base level of allocation (perhaps based on population)

with Local Boards responsible for finding funding for any additional bins.

3.11 Question 9 – Further investigation into geographically isolated areas

Given the geographic isolation of the Hauraki Gulf Islands (and some rural areas on the mainland) should

further work be done to see what sort of role the Local Boards might play in shaping the way waste is

managed, to reflect their unique situation?

Q. 9 Responses %

Yes 18 100%

No 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Total 18 100%

Not answered 3


All Local Boards responding to this question felt that further work should be done on the potential role of

Local Boards. Comments noted that local communities should have a role in shaping how their waste ismanaged, that there is an issue with visitor numbers on the Islands which create issues other communities

don’t face, and that local communities may have unique and innovative ways to tackle the issues.

One Local Board that did not respond to the question provided a comment that they felt it was an issue forthe Gulf Island Local Boards and therefore not appropriate for others to comment on.

3.12 Question 10 (a) – Funding of services in geographically isolated areas

Should Hauraki Gulf Islands and rural areas pay the actual cost of their waste and recycling services or

should the region contribute?

NB: Responses in the table below are coded as follows: “Yes” means Gulf Island and rural areas

should pay their own way; “No” means they should not and the region should contribute.

Q. 10(a) Responses %

Yes 7 33%

No 14 67%

Other 0 0%

Total 21 100%

Not Answered 0


The majority of Local Boards felt that the Gulf Islands and rural areas should not pay the full costs of their

waste and recycling services. The reasons given were that they faced high visitor numbers, that the small

rating base meant they would struggle to afford it, and that the islands and other areas are resources for allof Auckland to enjoy and so everyone should contribute to the costs of ensuring environmental quality ismaintained.

Page 412 of 591




PAGE 8

Those who felt that areas should pay their own way commented that people who live on the islands have

made a conscious decision to live or stay there and should expect to pay their own way. They noted thatisland living has its benefits but can also pose its own problems and that these should be addressed from

within the local community.

3.13 Question 10(b) – Level of funding support for geographically isolated areas

If YES, to what level?

Q. 10(b) Responses %

No subsidy 2 15%

Part subsidy 7 54%

Not enough info 4 31%

Total 13 100%

Not answered 8


Although only seven Local Boards had answered “Yes” to Question 10(a), 13 responded to Question10(b). Of the respondents that answered the question, over half thought that there should be at least a

partial subsidy for waste and recycling services in geographically isolated areas. A third of respondents

felt that there was not enough information available to address the question.

Of the Local Boards that felt there should be some level of part subsidy, a Uniform Annual Charge and a

subsidy to top up the charges to the same level as other communities were included amongst the

suggestions.

3.14 Question 11 – Product Stewardship schemes

Should Council advocate to central government to introduce mandatory Product Stewardship schemes for

certain waste streams?

Q. 11 Responses %

Yes 21 100%

No 0 0%

Other 0 0%

Total 21 100%

Not answered 0 100%


There was unanimous support for Auckland Council advocating for Product Stewardship schemes.

Specific waste streams mentioned included commercial waste, construction and demolition waste,packaging, tyres, and E-Waste. Container Deposit Legislation was specifically mentioned by one Local

Board.

There were general comments around the need to actively advocate for Product Stewardship to return the

responsibility to those who design, manufacture, and distribute the products.

Page 413 of 591




PAGE 9

Appendix 1 – Survey Form

APPENDIX A

Draft Waste Management and Minimisation PlanPre-statutory consultation phase

June-July 2011

PLEASE NOTE:TO BE FILLED IN BY THE COMMITTEE SECRETARY AND CHAIR OF EACH BOARDTO REFLECT THE COLLECTIVE BOARD VIEW.

i.e. one response per Local Board.

Local Board:

____________________________________________________________

The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requires Auckland Council to review and adopt a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan by 1 July 2012. The Solid Waste Business Unit is currently seeking feedback in the pre statutory consultation phase from key stakeholders on some specific issues that will inform the content of the draft ACWMMP. This report and feedback is part of that engagement process with the Local Boards.

ISSUE 1: KERBSIDE REFUSE AND RECYCLING SERVICES

Question 1: Should wheelie bins or bags be used for kerbside refuse collections? (Please tickone)

Wheelie Bins for refuse

Rubbish bags for refuse

Why do you recommend this option? Any other comments?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Page 414 of 591




PAGE 10

Question 2: Should the same service be provided across the region or should bags be used forrural and high density multi-storey areas and wheelie bins for the rest?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Question 3: How should recyclables be collected? (Please tick one)

A commingled system, where all materials are collected in a wheelie bin and sorted ata Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).

A hybrid two-stream system, where all materials, apart from paper and cardboard orglass, are collected in a wheelie bin, with the paper and cardboard or glass put outseparately.

Other


…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

ISSUE 2: FUNDING OF KERBSIDE REFUSE & RECYCLING COLLECTIONS

Question 4: Should refuse services be paid for through rates or polluter-pays? (Please tick one)

Rubbish services paid through rates

Rubbish services paid through polluter-pays


Page 415 of 591




PAGE 11

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Question 5: Should recycling services be paid for through rates, user-pays, part-user-pays, or by

another mechanism (e.g. surpluses from other waste services, waste levy etc?) (Please tick one)

Recycling services paid through rates

Recycling services paid through user-pays

Recycling services paid through part-user-pays

Recycling services paid through other mechanisms (e.g. surpluses from other waste

services, waste levy etc)


…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Question 6 (a): Should a kerbside organic collection be provided by the council? (Please tick one)

Yes

No

Why do you recommend this option? Any comments?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………….

Question 6 (b): If yes, should it be funded by rates, user-pays, part-user-pays or by anothermechanism (e.g. surpluses from other waste services, waste levy etc)? (Please tick one)

Organic collection paid through rates

Organic collection paid through user-pays

Organic collection paid through part-user-pays

Organic collection paid through other mechanisms (e.g. surpluses from other waste

services, waste levy etc)


…………………………………………

Page 416 of 591




PAGE 12

ISSUE 3: INORGANIC COLLECTIONS

Question 7: Should kerbside inorganic collections be replaced with an alternative ‘booking’system or be discontinued? (Please tick one)

Replaced with an alternative ‘booking’ system

Discontinued


…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………

ISSUE 4: PUBLIC PLACE RECYCLING

Question 8(a) : Should public place recycling bins be further promoted and installed in towncentres and tourist areas? (Please tick one)

Yes

No

Question 8(b): If so, who should make the decisions on location and how should they be funded?

The Local Board should decide on location and the service should be rates-funded. The Board felt

that levels of service/clearance of bins would need to be carefully monitored to prevent the bins

becoming a nuisance

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………

ISSUE 5: GEOGRAPHICALLY REMOTE AREAS

Question 9: Given the geographic isolation of the Hauraki Gulf Islands (and some rural areas onthe mainland) should further work be done to see what sort of role the Local Boards might play inshaping the way waste is managed, to reflect their unique situation? (Please tick one)

Yes

No


Page 417 of 591




PAGE 13

Question 10 (a): Should Hauraki Gulf Islands and rural areas pay the actual cost of their waste andrecycling services or should the region contribute? (Please tick one)

Yes

No –


…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Question 10 (b): If YES, to what level?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………

ISSUE 6: ADVOCACYSome of the issues papers discuss Product Stewardship as a mechanism for reducing certain wastestreams. Product Stewardship is a concept promoted in the Waste Minimisation Act (2008) and refers toplacing responsibility for disposal/recycling of end of life products on the parties involved in the design,supply, manufacture, distribution, retail and consumption of those products.

Question 11 : Should Council advocate to central government to introduce mandatory ProductStewardship schemes for certain waste streams?

Yes

No

Any comments?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

Page 418 of 591



Page 419 of 591



Page 420 of 591



Page 421 of 591



Page 422 of 591



Page 423 of 591



Page 424 of 591



Page 425 of 591



Page 426 of 591



Page 427 of 591



Page 428 of 591



Page 429 of 591



Page 430 of 591



Page 431 of 591



Page 432 of 591



Page 433 of 591



Page 434 of 591



Page 435 of 591



Page 436 of 591



Page 437 of 591



Page 439 of 591



Page 440 of 591



Page 441 of 591



Page 442 of 591



Page 443 of 591



Page 444 of 591



Page 445 of 591



Page 446 of 591



Page 447 of 591



Page 448 of 591



Page 449 of 591



Page 450 of 591



Page 451 of 591



Page 452 of 591



Page 453 of 591



Page 454 of 591



Page 455 of 591



Page 456 of 591



Page 457 of 591



Page 458 of 591



Page 459 of 591



Page 460 of 591



Page 461 of 591



Page 462 of 591



Page 463 of 591



Page 464 of 591



Page 465 of 591



Page 466 of 591



Page 467 of 591



Page 468 of 591



Page 469 of 591



Page 470 of 591



Page 471 of 591



Page 472 of 591



Page 473 of 591



Page 474 of 591



Page 475 of 591



Page 476 of 591



Page 477 of 591



Page 478 of 591



Page 479 of 591



Page 480 of 591



Page 481 of 591



Page 482 of 591



Page 483 of 591



Page 485 of 591



Page 486 of 591



Page 487 of 591



Page 488 of 591



Page 489 of 591



Page 490 of 591



Page 491 of 591



Page 492 of 591



Page 493 of 591



Page 494 of 591



Page 495 of 591



Page 496 of 591



Page 497 of 591



Page 498 of 591



Page 499 of 591



Page 500 of 591



Page 501 of 591



Page 502 of 591



Page 503 of 591



Page 504 of 591



CONSULTATION

SUMMARY OF PRE-CONSULTATION SESSIONS WITH WASTE OPERATORS(NON-STATUTORY) JUNE – JULY 2011

Page 505 of 591



Page 1 of 9

SUMMARY OF WASTE PRE-CONSULTATION SESSIONS WITHWASTE OPERATORS

June - July 2011

1. Background

The 15 March 2011 resolution by the Regional Development and Operations Committeedirected Council officers to carry out non-statutory pre-consultation engagement with thewaste industry and to seek their views and inputs prior to drafting the Waste Managementand Minimisation Plan.

RDO/2011/4

MOVED by Councillor W Walker, seconded Deputy Mayor Hulse:

b) That Option 3 proposed in the Auckland Waste Assessment be adopted as the

preferred strategic direction for waste management and minimisation.

c) That Auckland Council develops a timeframe that will allow time for robust

analysis, including working with the waste industry and a sound decision making

framework to deliver on the opportunities in Option 3 in the Auckland Waste

Assessment.d) That Auckland Council and Council-controlled organisations set a long term

aspirational goal of working towards Zero Waste and sets short to medium term

targets.

This report summarises the ‘Waste Operator Sessions’ that were held with a broad cross-section of waste industry operators during June and July 2011.

2. Who was invited

A long list of waste industry operators was drawn up by using:

•

Yellow Pages• Waste industry organisations/membership lists

• Current Council contracts• Staff contacts and industry knowledge

• Direct approaches to Council by waste industry businesses

A total of approximately 200 firms were contacted to elicit an initial response and toregister an interest in participating in the waste industry discussions.

Using the response received, firms were invited to attend in groups of 5 to 10 at a time, toallow for in-depth feedback and discussions. These were typically grouped according tomarket sector: eg. green waste, construction and demolition waste, recyclers etc.

Page 506 of 591



Page 2 of 9

3. Who attended

In total, eight different sessions were held. These were attended by a total of 59 firms,represented by 88 individuals. The firms that attended were:

Sector/Session Focus No. Name of Firm PersonsAttending

Date ofSession

1. Western Aggregate & Soil 22. Winstones Aggregates 13. Glenn Henderson Ltd 24. Tes-Amm NZ Ltd 2

1. Construction and Demolition and Special Waste

5. J & J Laughton Shredding 2

1 July201110.00am

6. Bag it Garden Bags & Bins 27. Eco Stock Supplies 28. Gabco Garden Bags & Bins 29. Recreational Services 210. Clippa Bags 111. Asplundh Tree Expert (NZ) 1

12. Treescape 113. Auckland Garden Bag Co 214. Living Earth 215. Green Fingers 116. Envirofert 1

2. Organics

17. Smart Environmental 1

1 July20111.00pm

18. Onyx Group Ltd 119. Owens-Illinois (NZ) Ltd 120. Pallet Supplies Co Ltd 321. Visy Recycling (NZ) Ltd 122. Penrose Paper Mills 1

3. Recyclers

23. Transpacific Allbrite 2

1 July20114.00pm

24. All the Rubbish Removers 125. Blue Bins Ltd 126. Mr Binz (Norwest Waste) 127. Pink Bin Co 228. Remondis (Metropolitan W) 229. Alpha Refuse 1

4. Waste Collectors

30. EnviroWaste Corporate 1

6 July201110.00am

31. Rubbish Direct 232. Bargain Bins Ltd 133. TPI Waste Care Ltd 3

34. AG Dryden Ltd 235. Envirofert 136. Northland Waste 137. Steptoe & Son Rubbish Rvml 138. Kalista Ltd 239. EnviroWaste 2

5. Waste Collectors

40. Smart Environmental 1

6 July20111.00pm

Page 507 of 591



Page 3 of 9

Sector/Session Focus No. Name of Firm PersonsAttending

Date ofSession

41. Franklin Rubbish Removals 142. Just Bins Ltd 143. Gt Barrier Cartage 244. Junk-2-Go 145. EnviroWaste Corporate 2

6. Waste Collectors

46. Fullcircle Recycling 1

8 July201110.00am

47. Paper Reclaim Ltd 348. Waste Energy Burners Ltd 149. Recall New Zealand 350. Chiland Development Ltd 151 Timber Recycling Co 152. EnviroWaste Corporate 253. Fullcircle Recycling 1

7. Waste Collectors

54. Packaging Council of NZ 1

8 July20111.00pm

55. JJ Richards Ltd 1

56. Civic Contractors 257. Wheelie bins Ltd 158. Living Earth 1

8. Mixed (additional session

for those unable to attend any of the other meetings)

59. (Small green collector) 1

21 July

201110.00am

TOTALS 59 88

Council staff attending included the Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services,Manager Solid Waste Business Unit, WMMP Project Manager, Project Advisor, WMMPContent Manager, and other supporting staff.

Council staff attending all meetings included Jon Roscoe (Manager Solid Waste BusinessUnit, Parul Sood (WMMP Content Manager), Gwilym van Hoffen (Project Manager), andDorothy Wilson (Project Advisor). In addition, John Dragicevich (Manager Infrastructureand Environmental Services) attended several sessions. A number of other Council staffalso attended some of the sessions.

A probity officer was present at all meetings (an independent service provided for Council)to ensure that the handling of topics and Council processes were as fair as possible to allconcerned.

4. What Council said

The attached powerpoint presentation was presented to each group. The final few slideswere tailored according to the audience at the session: viz. green waste, construction and

demolition, recyclers etc. Copies of the powerpoint slides were handed out to each firmattending each session, together with a printout copy of the ‘Questions & Answers’ bookletthat is provided on the Council website.

Following a powerpoint presentation, Council staff provided input to the open discussionsessions. A whiteboard was used to record the feedback and key comments generated.The main themes emerging from the feedback and comments are discussed below.

Page 508 of 591



Page 4 of 9

5. What the Waste Operators said

Following the Council’s presentation, there was an open feedback period of 45 to 60minutes during which the waste operators were encouraged to share their views on thestrategic direction in which council is heading (‘Option 3’), and their own observations onthe current state-of-play and issues arising within the waste industry.

Note: At each meeting it was made clear that the formal consultative phase (scheduled forend Oct – mid Dec 2011) was the appropriate time for the waste industry to put forwarddetailed views. These summary notes are not therefore intended to be a full and detailedtranscript of each session: they are merely intended to give a flavour of the kinds of issuesthat were raised and discussed.

Main Themes of the FeedbackThere were a number of common themes emerging during the feedback sessions. Someof the recurring themes included (whiteboard comments quoted in italics ):

5.1 Cost of recycling is currently uneconomic when compared with thealternative (landfilling)Much greater recycling could be achieved, particularly at source, if thecost of waste disposal at landfill was higher. This comment was made atthe construction and demolition session, as well as at the generalrecyclers’ sessions. It was also touched on in the green waste session.

“cost of landfilling needs to go up to achieve more recycling – up to a limit” “use the levy to reduce waste ” (ie: as a pricing tool)“ban some items from landfills, or raise the cost of waste disposal at the landfill ”

The competition between the two major players was seen by some askeeping the cost of landfill at an artificially low level-thus making recyclinguneconomic.

5.2 More rigorous product stewardship is neededOther than the Packaging Council, there was a fairly unanimous view thata greater emphasis on product stewardship is needed to disincentivisethe creation of landfill waste in the first place. The Packaging Councilview did however accept that “extended producer responsibility” wasrequired - but not on packaging products.

“$10 levy is ineffective. Levy should go up” (ie: to encourage betterproduct stewardship) “voluntary product stewardship is not working” “container deposit legislation should be considered” “Tyres: registration/tyretrack not working – leading to illegal dumping”

5.3 Commingled collection might lead to less beneficial recyclingoutcomesThere were a number of views presented by operators to the effect thatcommingled glass/paper collection leads to less beneficial reuse of thepaper and glass. The counter argument to that view was put thatcommingled collections, (generally with large recycling bins) resulted inapproximately 30% more recyclables being collected with only minimalincrease in contamination-in other words a cost-benefit tradeoff toratepayers.

Page 509 of 591



Page 5 of 9

“important to maintain the integrity of products being collected for recycling”

The question was raised that if collecting some recyclables wereconsidered to be economically worthwhile, should the service be a leastpartly funded by the recycling industries that benefit, rather than beingsubsidised by ratepayers?

“who should pay for separate collections?”

5.4 Education is very important to change behaviour

It was generally agreed that education was very important for anychange, although if a change to disposer pays was made, regulation wasalso seen as necessary.

“more education is needed ” (referring to Great Barrier)

5.5 We need to be sure that we are looking far and wide (includingoverseas) for best practice examples

Christchurch was often referred to as being an example ofleading/emerging practice, with a much higher disposal charge and a 3bin including green/food waste collection) prior to the earthquakes.

An innovative partnership between the private and public sector was alsomentioned in Kapiti Coast.

“overseas learning is that the any changes need to work commercially” “Putaruru food waste trial is working well” “look to Australia for best practice” “New South Wales model is an example that isn’t working well” “Whakatane and Gisborne have some interesting/innovative aspects”

5.6 Council should walk-the-talk

Several participants commented that procurement policies of Councilshould support the diversion of materials from landfill and influence themarket. Some examples cited were:

• how Council specifies and uses recycled components in roadingmaterial

• how Council specifies and awards building demolition contracts: moreeffort could be made to recover valuable building components – notaward tenders simply based on lowest price (disposal to landfill.)

“valuable components of demolition should be identified (work with

Council – tender process”

5.7 Better regulation and monitoring are needed

Some concern was expressed that if landfill prices increased thatcleanfills would be used to dispose of contaminated material. Thepossibility of cleanfills being licensed and monitored was raised.

“Cleanfills need to be monitored ”

Several participants commented that they would appreciate closerenforcement on those who followed the rules, which would create a level

Page 510 of 591



Page 6 of 9

playing field eg. tyre recycling operators who are licensed, pay theappropriate fees are disadvantaged by those who don’t.

“Tyre registration and tracking schemes aren’t working – leading to illegal dumping ”“Concrete; a lot is not being recycled. Needs regulating” “Resource consents – need to improve process for cleanfills”

5.8 Illegal dumping could be made worse under a disposer-pays system

It was mentioned that there was anecdotal evidence that illegal dumpingwas already a problem in some areas, and there was a fear that it couldbe made worse under a disposer-pays system. Discussion reinforced theview that both education and intensive enforcement would be necessaryif there were such a change.

There was generally agreement that a lot of recyclable material was putout on the kerbside in the inorganic collections, but most went to landfill.

There was concern, however, that if a part user pays ‘pick up’ servicewere instigated, that there would be increased illegal dumping.

“Illegal dumping results from user-pays” “Affordability concerns/user-pays – leads to illegal dumping – enforcement” “Enforcement is necessary”

5.9 Some green waste collectors could be put out of business

There was a general concern by the green waste operators that apossible council-contracted organic (food/green) waste collection servicecould have a serious negative effect on existing private sector greenwaste collectors.

“Council kerbside collection (of garden waste) would damage private operators ”

This issue was acknowledged by Council. Possible mitigation measuressuggested could include having a small organic bin, ie: not big enough tohandle the green waste (branches etc) from larger gardens – which is thecurrent main market for the green waste collectors. A council-contractedcollection service could be further restricted to the collection of foodwaste only in the domestic sector, which is not currently collected byprivate operators. There was some general support for council to provide a domestic foodwaste collection.

“impact on small green collectors - small bin (mainly food)”

There was some surprise that organics still made up about 50% of refusethat goes to landfill from domestic collections. Another suggestion wassimply to ban organic waste to landfill.

“Food waste is an obvious target”

5.10 Transfer stations and transport inefficiencies

There were a number of comments that the current setup of RefuseTransfer Station (RTS) ownership does not allow for efficient transport by

Page 511 of 591



Page 7 of 9

all waste collectors, due to exclusivity arrangements (despite somemutual collaborative arrangements between the two major landfill/RTSowners).

It was also noted on several occasions that the current transfer stationsare not well configured for recycling/sorting on site, due to spaceconstraints. Some RTSs are operating at capacity, whilst others areunderutilised and operate at about 50% or less of their capacity. There

were some favourable comments about increasing local resourcerecovery centres with community based activities.

“transfer stations need to be set up for recycling” “resource recovery parks should be considered” “Christchurch has good recycling at RTS” “problem will not go away until RTSs are set up for recycling”

5.11 Manufacturing and commercial waste needs to be targeted

There were a number of comments relating to the need to bringmanufacturers and commercial waste generators more in line with wasteminimisation measures.

Raising the price of landfill disposal was seen as being one means toachieve this.

5.12 The Waste Levy should be used to send stronger price signals (toencourage more waste diversion from landfill)There was general feedback that the Waste Levy should be increased tosend the right pricing signals to businesses and the public:

“put up the levy?” “use levy to reduce waste” “Current levy does not make behaviour change – strongest mechanism – increase” “Ban some items from landfill, or raise the cost of landfill (levy)”

5.13 Other issues raised

Other issues raised and discussed included:

• Potential for waste-to-energy schemes (landfill gas andincinerators)

• Inorganic collections – current kerbside method does not maximisewaste reduction

• Government led change (such as raising the amount of the wastelevy or strengthening Product Stewardship) was acknowledged as

having very long timeframes. May need quicker action.• Some resistance to Council alone controlling landfill prices-seen as

restricting the ability of some in the waste industry to negotiate.• OSH issues around continuing to use bags

• Potential for container deposit legislation (CDL) schemes and otherways to incentivise producers/consumers to take responsibility fordisposal costs.

• Inorganic collections and kerbside scavenging issues

• Would local boards be determining some waste services?• Licensing of operators could be considered

• Concern over affordability of disposer-pays system in lower socioeconomic areas

Page 512 of 591



Page 8 of 9

• If more green waste is turned into compost, then a market needs tobe determined.

• Transporting cardboard from Great Barrier to Auckland is notrealistic

• What happens when the current tenders end?

• Drop off points could be considered in rural areas (for inorganic)

• There was some discussion about the possible benefit of having alevel playing field by standardising landfill disposal prices - whichwould give the smaller operators an equal opportunity to compete inthe market.

5.14 Appreciation of the discussion sessions

There was a generally positive response to the sessions, and to Council’sendeavours to implement the changes required by the laws whilstconsidering the likely impacts on waste businesses. This was particularlyevident among recycling and collection businesses, and to a lesser extentamong the green waste businesses.

There was, however, concern from businesses that currently ‘export’ their

waste from Auckland to landfills outside the region.

There was also some concern that if gate prices at the landfills or RTSwere to be controlled/set at a uniform rate, that it would restrict options forsome of the collectors to negotiate. However, several others were infavour of having a uniform landfill price for all, as it would create a levelplaying field and reduce incentives to undercut on disposal.

Page 513 of 591



Page 9 of 9

6. Follow up: Since the sessions

Since the sessions, Council officers have followed up or are planning to followup onseveral issues mentioned during the sessions:

6.1 Illegal DumpingA roadside investigation/study is currently underway to assess the anecdotalclaims of serious roadside dumping in some areas. Eg. Waitakere ranges

6.2 Innovative practices It was mentioned that innovative approaches to waste minimisation are beingdone by some local authorities: these included Kapiti Coast, Whakatane,Gisborne and Putaruru. Followup contact is being made with these localauthorities.

Additional work has also been planned, or is underway/completed, to support the WasteAssessment in the areas of Waste-to-Energy, transport inefficiencies around collectionand transfer of waste, updated waste volumes, and economic impacts of disposer-pays onhouseholders.

Page 514 of 591



CONSULTATION

INTEGRATED REPORT: PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH AND ENGAGEMENT

MOBIUS RESEARCH & STRATEGY LTD – JULY 2011

Page 515 of 591



Auckland Council

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan and Solid Waste

Bylaw Review

Integrated Report: Public Opinion Research and Engagement

(Results and findings from the Representative Online Survey,

People’s Panel Online Survey, Focus Groups and In-Depth Interviews)

Prepared by

Mobius Research and Strategy Limited

June 2011

Page 516 of 591



1

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 2

1.1 Background and objectives 2

1.2 About the People’s Panel 2

2 Overall methodology 3

2.1 Representative online survey 3

2.2 Weighting of results 3

2.3 People’s Panel online survey 3

2.4 Qualititative – focus groups and in-depth interviews 4

3 Summary of key findings 6

4 Findings 10

4.1 Household waste disposal – current behaviours 10

4.1.1 Kerbside recycling collections 10

4.1.2 Awareness of what can be put into kerbside recycling collections 11

4.1.3 Inorganic collections 12

4.1.4 Garden waste 13

4.1.5 Organic waste 15

4.2 Attitudes towards collection approaches 17

4.2.1 Wheelie bins vs. bags 17

4.2.2 Organic collections 21

4.2.3 Frequency of organic collection 25

4.3 Attitudes towards funding of household waste collections 26

4.3.1 Funding of waste collections 26

4.4 Attitudes towards other waste-related issues 31

4.4.1 Illegal dumping 31

4.4.2 Abandoned shopping trolleys 33

4.4.3 Junk mail 35

4.4.4 Litter 36

4.4.5 Small deposit on recyclable containers 38

4.4.6 Illegal dumping of tyres 40

4.4.7 Additional comments 41

5 Conclusions and consideration points 43

Appendices 44

Page 517 of 591



2

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and objectives

Auckland Council has inherited the waste management plans from the seven former territorial local authorities in the

region. Different practices and systems are operating in different parts of the city, at present there are different

contractor arrangements offering some roles and responsibilities, differing methods of charging households and

businesses and various methods of sorting, recycling and re-using waste materials. The inherited plans are operative

until Auckland Council adopts a new waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP).

Auckland Council is required by law to have a single waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP) and a solid

waste bylaw finalised and adopted by July 2012. The new WMMP must conform to the objectives and requirements

laid down in the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and have regard for the New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010.

In March 2010, three options for the approach council should take with its work on development of the WMMP were

presented, with the third option being the preferred option: to continue with the present approach and also establish

new systems to collect and recycle garden and food wastes, which make up 40-50% of the household waste stream.

Option three has two important implications. Firstly, it allows the council to assume operational control or influence

over the refuse transfer station network. Secondly, this means that the collection and disposal of commercial and

industrial waste will come under council control.

There are three stages in the implementation process of the WMMP. Stakeholder and public participation will be

encouraged through stages two and three:

Stage 1: Operational strategy and overarching approach

Stage 2: Pre-Statutory communications and consultation phase

Stage 3: Statutory communications and consultation phase.

This report presents the results of consultation with the public carried out as part of Stage 2 and combines the results

of the three components of the work – a representative online survey, an online survey with People’s Panel members

and the findings from the qualitative work (focus groups and in-depth interviews).

1.2 About the People’s Panel

The People’s Panel aims to provide a representative sample of the Auckland resident population who are encouragedto get involved with a range of council issues, giving feedback by regularly completing online surveys and getting

involved with focus groups and other activities as needed.

The panel ideally supplements other research, consultation and engagement activities and is used to provide public

perceptions to help inform decision-making processes. Panellists are recruited to be ‘typical’ members of the public –

that is, they include members of the public who come from a range of backgrounds and a range of levels of

involvement with the council.

At the time of surveying, there were approximately 5,500 people registered with the panel, with representation from

residents of each local board area, and by age group and ethnicity. However, the People’s Panel is not yet

representative of Auckland and further recruitment is under way to improve participation levels from particular areas,

age groups and ethnicities.

For more information about the People’s Panel visit: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/peoplespanel

Page 518 of 591



3

2 Overall methodology

In order to understand the views and attitudes of residents across the wider Auckland region and to understand the

views of specific groups, a mixed method approach was utilised comprising an online survey, focus groups and in-

depth interviews. An online survey was sent to randomly selected general residents across the Auckland region (i.e.

Mobius’ panel), and to all members of Auckland Council’s People’s Panel. The same survey was sent to these two

separate panels so that we could ascertain if there were any differences in views. Overall, there were no statistically

significant differences.

2.1 Representative online survey

A total of N=5357 general Auckland residents completed the online survey (note however that sample sizes vary by

question as not all respondents answered every question). The standard margin of error at thte 95% confidence

interval on a sample size of N=5357 is +/-1.3%. This means that we can be 95% confident that a survey result from our

sample will be within 1.3% of the actual perception of Auckland residents. The survey was live between 20 May 2011

and 2 June 2011, and one reminder was sent to boost the response rate. The average time taken to complete the

survey was 15 minutes. In order to ensure that the sample was representative of the wider Auckland region

population, the results were weighted against Department of Statistics population data for the region.

For a full breakdown of respondent demographics, please see Appendix III.

2.1.2 Weighting of results

The sample was weighted on Gender, Age and Ethnicity. A Rim Weighting Methodology was selected, as the sample

size was large and/or regional demographic factors were fairly consistent with the actual sample. Demographics

factors that were blanks or refused were given 0 values. Due to low numbers and to keep the data stable, Ethnicity

was weighted at Statistics NZ Level 1, and the Age categories for 18-19 year olds and 20-29 year olds were combined.

2.2 People’s Panel online survey

The survey was sent out to 5562 People’s Panel members and had 1914 responses, giving a margin of error of

+/- 1.81%. The survey was live between 20 May 2011 and 2 June 2011, and one reminder was sent to boost theresponse rate. The average time taken to complete the survey was 15 minutes.

It should be noted that participation in People’s Panel surveys are voluntary. As such, the demographic and

geographic distribution of panellists responding to this survey does not reflect the general population of Auckland.

For this reason, results should not be considered strictly representative. We do, however, emphasise the value of the

feedback presented in this report from a larger scale consultation and engagement perspective.

For a full breakdown of respondent demographics, please see Appendix IV.

Please note that results may not sum to 100% due to rounding in tables presented in this report.

Page 519 of 591



4

2.3 Qualitative – focus groups and in-depth interviews

The qualitative component of this project comprised four focus groups and six in-depth interviews with selected

stakeholders as follows:

Qualitative sample structure

Approach Selected stakeholders

Focus Groups

Group 1 Tenants (in flats and apartments), including some in Housing New Zealand

accommodation

Group 2 People who undertake limited recycling behaviours or don’t recycle as often as

they could – mixed ethnicity

Group 3 Low socio-economic (based on household income), mixed ethnicity, limited

recycled behaviours/don’t recycle as much or as often as they could

Group 4 New migrants (mixed Asian ethnicity)

In-Depth Interviews

Six interviews People with different physical disabilities and from different age groups

Sample structure and rationale

The project team specifically wanted to understand the issues related to household waste management among

stakeholders who:

• Live in small properties – where storage of bins may be a concern or issue (Group 1)

• Do not recycle as often as they could do – in order to understand the barriers to increased recycling behaviours

(and particularly in the context of new waste collection services possibly being introduced e.g. an organic

collection which would involve additional sorting of waste by householders) (Group 2), and

• Are of a specific ethnicity (Council suggested that there has been some evidence that certain ethnicities are less

likely to recycle) (Groups 3 and 4).

As such, it is important to note that this report reflects the views of these selected stakeholder groups only. This is

because this piece of work aims to gather an in-depth understanding of stakeholder behaviours and views, and thereasons that govern such behaviours and views. This qualitative method investigates the why and how , not just what ,

where and when. It was not the intention of this qualitative research to be representative, but rather to increase

Council’s understanding of the views of selected stakeholders. Results should be considered in this context.

Participant selection

The Auckland Council’s People’s Panel were given the opportunity to complete an online survey as part of the wider

consultation project (the same online survey was also sent to members of Mobius’ Panel i.e. the representative online

survey). Auckland Council were also interested in giving members of the People’s Panel the opportunity to take part

in the focus group component of the wider project and added several additional questions to the online survey to

ascertain whether People’s Panel participants would be interested in taking part and whether they met the criteria

outlined above.

In excess of 700 People’s Panel participants expressed an interested in taking part – although not all met the criteria

specified. A list of those who did (against each specific criteria) were supplied to Mobius Research. It was intended

that the groups would also be ‘topped up’ from Mobius’ own recruitment sources where necessary. Across the four

focus groups, participants included a mix of those from the People’s Panel and from Mobius’ own recruitment

sources.

There were nine participants in three of the focus groups and eight in another (overall, there was a total of 35

stakeholders).

Page 520 of 591



5

In-depth interview participants were recruited directly by Mobius and included a mix of people with different physical

disabilities. Across the six in-depth interviews, a range of people of different ages and with different disabilities were

interviewed. All focus groups and in-depth interviews were conducted by Mobius Research.

Timing and location

Each focus group was two hours in duration. In-depth interviews were one hour in duration. Focus groups were held

at Mobius’ central Auckland premises, and interviews were held at the homes of participants.

Groups and interviews were conducted between Wednesday, 1 June and Sunday, 12 June 2011.

Focus group participants lived in a range of different areas of Auckland – and therefore experienced a range of

different waste management practices – which included:

• Bins in some areas and bags in others (including ‘Council regulation’ bags e.g. in the former Waitakere area and

non-regulation bags (e.g. in the former Manukau area)

• Different types of recycling bins – large wheelie bins and smaller ‘square’ recycling bins

• Different inorganic collections – rates funded, user-pays and no inorganic collection (e.g. in the former Rodneyarea), and

• Different methods for recycling paper e.g. in wheelie bins vs. a separate collection.

Where relevant, the views of stakeholders based on these different waste management practices are identified in this

report. Overall, however, there was a high degree of commonality across the different stakeholder groups in terms of

their attitudes and preferences regarding waste collection processes and waste issues in general.

Page 521 of 591



6

3 Summary of key findings

Household waste disposal – current behaviour

Household waste disposal - current behaviour Representative

survey

%

People’s Panel

%

Regularly use Council’s kerbside recycling service 93 94Aware or extremely aware of what can be put into their kerbside recycling

service

80 88

Have used Council’s inorganic collection service in the last 18 months 61 61

Have a garden bin or bag (or both) that they pay to have collected by a private

contractor

27 35

Have that garden bin or bag collected on a monthly basis 61 70

Compost over half of their organic food waste 31 46

Do not compost 36 33

Qualitative – focus groups and in-depth interviews

• The majority of stakeholders put out their council kerbside general waste on a weekly basis – with smallerhouseholds (one or two people) and/or elderly people sometimes only putting out a bin or bag fortnightly. There

was a relatively high number who said they sometimes put excess waste into a neighbour’s bin.

• Most stakeholders also use their council recycling bin regularly – and there appears to be a reasonably high level

of awareness regarding what can be put into it. The main area of confusion is around different types of plastic

and which can and can’t be recycled. This suggests that there may be an opportunity to provide more specific

information (or to review the information already provided) in order to reduce/mitigate this main area of

confusion.

• There appears to be some uncertainty in terms of what actually happens to recyclables – and this suggests that

there may also be an opportunity to provide stakeholders with more information about recycling processes in

order to:

o Reinforce the value of their current recycling behaviours

o Address attitudinal barriers by raising awareness of the value of recycling among those that currently

don’t do it enough (note that some people simply say that they can’t be bothered).

Attitudes towards collection approaches

Attitudes towards collection approaches Representative

survey

%

People’s Panel

%

Would prefer to have a wheelie bin for their general household waste 71 70

Would prefer a bag(s) 13 17

Interested or very interested in an organic collection for both their food andgarden waste

53 57

Would not be interested in an organic collection for both their food and garden

waste

25 28

If an organic collection was introduced, preference for a weekly collection 41 39

If an organic collection was introduced, preference for a fortnightly collection 27 23

Do not want an organic collection 15 21

Page 522 of 591



7

• The main reasons for preferring bins are that they are considered more secure than bag (less likely to rip), they

are more convenient to transport, they are more tidy to store, they are safer (no danger of sharp items causing

damage/injury), they limit the amount of waste each household can dispose of, they are more convenient (in that

you don’t need to remember to purchase/obtain them as you would with bags)

• Reasons for preferring bags were that they are easier to transport (e.g. if you have a long or steep driveway), they

are better for households with small amount of waste (who wouldn’t fill an entire bin) and they allow more

flexibility (at times when households have more waste)

• Reasons for being interested in a separate organic collection were because of environmental concerns and/or an

interest in cost savings (i.e. no longer having to pay for a separate garden bin or bag)• Reasons for not being interested in a separate organic collection were because of existing composting behaviour,

cost concerns (having to pay for another collection service), the perceived hassle of having to sort organic waste

and concerns over hygiene and the likelihood that the bin would attract vermin, f lys etc.



• Most stakeholders had used Council’s inorganic collection over the last few years – although the new migrant

group were less likely to have done so because of not having accumulated much inorganic waste, because they

had disposed of this waste in another way (given it away for someone to use) or had repaired or reconditioned it

where relevant.

• Three stakeholders in the former Waitakere area were of the opinion that the new user-pays system for inorganic

waste had increased the amount of inorganic waste on private properties in the area and the amount of illegal

dumping.

Bins vs. bags

• More stakeholders preferred bins instead of bags for their general household waste. The few stakeholders who

preferred bags were currently all (with the exception of one) under a bag system at present, however most

stakeholders with bags said that they would prefer bins.

• Reasons for preferring bins were to do with a perception that bins are cleaner (less likely to rip or be broken into

by animals), bins are easier/more convenient to transport than bags, bins are safer (if items break inside them e.g.

glass), bins are more convenient and tidier to store (bags look messy), bins limit the amount of waste each

household can dispose of and bins are more convenient than bags because bags have to be purchased each week

(and people can forget).

• For the few stakeholders who preferred bags, this preference was to do with bins having limited capacity (for

those with more waste), not needing a large bin (for those with less waste) and simply being used to using bags.

Organic collection

• There was some level of interest in organic collections among stakeholders – and particularly among those who

currently pay for a separate garden bin collection. Stakeholders were generally in favour of any effort that

encourages recycling and is environmentally friendly. A key issue here however, is that most stakeholders did not

believe they have enough organic waste for this to be worthwhile.

• There were two key barriers with respect to organic collections – the likely smell and cleanliness of the bin and

logistical/practical issues. With respect to smell and cleanliness, stakeholders disliked the idea of emptying

organic waste directly into a bin (i.e. and not putting it into a bag first).

• The logistical/practical issues were what to do with the organic waste before it is taken down or out to the

organic bin. A key finding here was that stakeholders need to be offered simple solutions that facilitate the

likelihood that they will undertake desired waste separation and recycling behaviours

Page 523 of 591



8

• Few stakeholders composted but many expressed an interest in doing so. Stakeholders who rejected composting

considered it to be a hassle or that it would attract vermin.

Attitudes towards funding of household waste collections

Attitudes towards funding of household waste collections Representative

survey

%

People’s Panel

%

Think there should be a uniform charge for general household waste 57 54

Think there should be a user-pays charge for general household waste 30 41

Think there should be a uniform charge for recycling collections 71 80

Think there should be a user-pays charge for recycling collections 15 13

Think there should be a uniform charge for organic collections 48 52

Think there should be a user-pays charge for organic collections 33 35

Think there should be a uniform charge for inorganic collections 48 51

Think there should be a user-pays charge for inorganic collections 36 38

• The main reasons for preferring a uniform charge across all types of collections were because a uniform charge is

seen as easier to administer, a user-pays system may encourage people to look for alternative ways to dispose of

their waste and waste is seen as community responsibility

• The main reasons for preferring user-pays across all types of collections were that user-pays would encourage

waste minimisaiton and it is a fairer system (i.e. you only pay for what you put out)


• More stakeholders preferred the concept of a uniform charge rather than user-pays – and more so in the context

of recycling. Stakeholders were generally split on how inorganic collections should be funded – with those that

use them more in favour of a uniform charge and those that don’t more in favour of user-pays.

• A key issue with respect to user-pays was how monies would be collected – stakeholders envisaged that paying

for a user-pays collection (in the case of a bin) would be very messy and complicated and an additional hassle for

them. This raises some key issues regarding how a ‘hassle-free’ user-pays approach should be communicated if

relevant.

• A key reason for preferring a uniform charge was to do with a perception that it is simply easier. Other reasons

for preferring a uniform change were to do with household waste being a community issue and that there needs

to be a collective responsibility taken in disposing of it, and that user-pays may unfairly penalise large and/or

lower SES households – and lead to an increase in illegal dumping (or use of neigbour’s bins).

• Reasons for preferring user-pays were to do with encouraging recycling habits (i.e. in the context that general

waste is user-pays and recycling collections have a uniform charge).

Page 524 of 591



9

Attitudes towards other waste-related issues

Attitudes towards other waste-related issues Representative

survey

%

People’s Panel

%

Think that an $400 instant fine for illegal dumping is fair 51 45

Think that the fine for illegal dumping should be higher than $400 33 46

Think that Council needs to be doing more to stop illegal dumping 47 43

Do not know what Council is doing to stop illegal dumping 40 49

Think that Council should force supermarkets to make sure that trolleys do not

leave the premises

47 39

Do not mind junk mail and will look to see what is there 45 31

Do not like junk mail at all 47 29

Agree or strongly agree that there is a litter problem in their local area 37 32

Disagree or strongly disagree that there is a litter problem in their local area 31 39

Agree or strongly agree with the concept of a small deposit being added to the

cost of all recyclable containers to encourage greater reuse and recycling

44 35

Agree or strongly agreed that a $5 charge should be added to the price of tyres to

cover the cost of free, convenient disposal

57 65

• The main view expressed with respect to illegal dumping is that it is not being adequately policed


Waste-related topics

• Most stakeholders agreed that illegal dumping is a problem and that a fine of $400 was either enough or not

enough (depending on what is being dumped). A key issue here was that there is not enough

enforcement/policing of illegal dumping.

• Views on junk mail were mixed – some people disliked it while others didn’t mind it. There was overwhelming

agreement however that if there is a junk mail sticker on a letter-box that it should be adhered to.• Attitudes towards litter varied overall – although most agreed that there was a problem in general around

Auckland and particularly on streets where businesses operated (retail shops) and also in parks. Specific mention

was made of cigarette butts being a problem in many areas.

• Most stakeholders agreed that abandoned trolleys should be the responsibility of supermarkets but preferred an

electronic system (as with Countdown CBD) rather than a deposit system.

• Most stakeholders were in favour of charge/deposit being added to all recyclable containers and to tyres.

Page 525 of 591



10

4 Findings

4.1 Household waste disposal – current behaviours

All online survey participants (representative online survey and People’s Panel online survey) were asked about their

current waste disposal behaviours.

Current behaviours – summary of key findings (Representative Online Survey)

• 93% of general residents use Council’s kerbside recycling service on a regular basis

• 80% are aware or extremely aware of what can be put into their recycling collection service

• 61% of general residents have used Council’s inorganic collection service in the last 18 months

• 27% of general residents have a garden bin, bag or both that is collected by an independent organisation

• Of those who don’t have a garden bin/bag (71%) – 39% said that they compost their garden waste

Current behaviours – summary of key findings (People’s Panel Online Survey)

• 94% of panellists use Council’s kerbside recycling service on a regular basis

• 88% are aware or extremely aware of what can be put into their recycling collection service

• 61% of panellists have used Council’s inorganic collection service in the last 18 months

• 35% of panellists have a garden bin, bag or both that is collected by an independent organisation

• Of those who don’t have a garden bin/bag (65%) – 59% said that they compost their garden waste

4.1.1 Kerbside recycling collections

Ninety three percent of general residents and 94% of panellists reguarly use Council’s kerbside recycling service.

Do you regularly use Council’s kerbside recycling service? Representative

survey

N=5357

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

Yes 93 94

No 5 3

No kerbside recycling service in the area 3 3Base: General Residents and People’s Panellists responding to WMMP Survey


Current waste management behaviour – general household wasteAll stakeholders in both the focus groups and in-depth interviews used Council’s kerbside general household waste

collection service on a regular basis. Stakeholders living alone or couples (and elderly people in particular) were more

likely to only fill half or less than half of their bin each week (or to fill only one or half of one bag) and so did not put

out a bin or bag every week – while stakeholders living in households with more people tended to fill this bin entirely

each week (or to put out up to two bags). Stakeholders living in flatting situations (sometimes with up to five other

people) were more likely to talk about not having enough capacity in their bins (note that there were no flatters who

lived in areas where only bags were available).

Many stakeholders noted that the amount of waste their household generates can vary (more waste at Christmas or

at times when they have a lot of visitors), and most stakeholders admitted to using neighbour’s bins when necessary.

Some indicated that their neighbours were aware of this (and that there was some sort of ‘loose’ street or apartment

complex agreement in this respect) while others simply used their neighbour’s bins when they needed to (on the night

before or the morning of a collection – i.e. when the neighbour’s bins were already out on the kerbside).

A small number of stakeholders (living in the former Rodney area) paid for their own general household waste

collection.

Page 526 of 591



11

Current waste management behaviour – recyclingMost stakeholders also used their kerbside recycling collection service on a regular basis (where they had one) and

most spoke of recycling aluminum cans, plastic containers and glass bottles. Paper recycling behaviour varied

depending on the area each person lived in – with some able to put paper into their large council recycling bin, and

others having a separate paper recycling collection service.

Some stakeholders said that they did not recycle as often as they could (or at all in some cases). This was because:

• They did not have a recycling service where they lived (two types of stakeholders – either those living in ruralareas or living in certain apartment complexes in the CBD e.g. the apartments at the ‘old’ railway station do not

appear to have a separate recycling service – with all waste going into the same bins)

• They were unsure about what could go into their recycling bin – again this appeared to be stakeholders living in

some apartment complexes (one women living in the St Lukes area for example said that they were not allowed

to put aluminum cans into their recycling bin), or

• They simply couldn’t be bothered sometimes.

Those who admitted that sometimes they ‘simply couldn’t be bothered’ were more likely to be younger men, living in

flatting situations. Note also that some younger women in the focus groups mentioned difficulties they have in

getting their other ‘male’ flatmates to recycle.

One person, living in the former Rodney area and who pays directly for his waste collections admitted to never

recycling. The reason he gave was that he did not believe that items placed in recycling bins were actually recycled –

rather, he maintained that all recycled waste goes directly to landfill. Several other participants disagreed with him

and appeared to have some very general level awareness of different types of ‘sorting’ operations involving conveyor

belts and companies who purchase recycled materials. However, when this issue was raised, a number of participants

began to ask questions regarding what actually does happen.

Overall, there appeared to be some confusion over what does happen to recyclables (with many acknowledging that

they weren’t entirely sure). This suggests that there may be an opportunity to provide the wider population with

more information about recycling processes, which will in turn reinforce current positive recycling behaviours - but

may also assist in addressing certain attitudinal barriers (including perceptions of recycling going to landfill and a

general lack of interest/’slack’ behaviour).

4.1.2 Awareness of what can be put into kerbside recycling collections

Eighty percent of general residents are aware or extremely aware of what can be put into their kerbside recycling

collection. People’s Panel participants were more likely to be aware or extremely aware (88%).

How aware are you of what can be put into your recycling collection service? Representative

survey

N=5357

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

1 Not at all aware 2 0

2 2 2

3 15 9

4 40 385 Extremely aware 40 50

Not applicable 1 1

Base: General Residents and People’s Panellists responding to WMMP Survey

Page 527 of 591



12


Awareness of what can and can’t be recycledOverall, most stakeholders were fairly confident that they know what can go into their recycling bins. The main area

of confusion was to do with different types of plastic – and determining which can and can’t be recycled.

Stakeholders in the new migrants group said that it can sometimes be confusing for people new to Auckland to know

what can and can’t be recycled – and they suggested that there be more targeted education in this respect.

As already mentioned, one women in an apartment complex in St Lukes was under the impression that she was not

allowed to recycle aluminum cans.

4.1.3 Inorganic collections

Just under two-thirds of general residents (61%) and panellists (61%) have used Council’s inorganic collection service

in the last 18 months.

Have you used Council’s inorganic collection service in the last 18 months? Representative

survey

N=5303

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

Yes 61 61

No 25 20

No inorganic collection in the area 10 17

Unsure 4 2




Most focus group and in-depth interview participants had also used Council’s inorganic collection service in the last 18

months. Some did not have an inorganic collection in the area in which they live. Of these people (a small number

overall), most used a trailer or other means to take any inorganic waste to the ‘tip’ or the ‘dump’ although one personwould break up any inorganic waste over a period of time and dispose of it with his general household waste

collection. Others (and in particular new migrants) said that they did not have any inorganic waste to dispose of.

Their explanation here was that:

• They had not been in New Zealand long enough to accumulate any inorganic waste

• They disposed of their inorganic waste in another way e.g. giving it away, or

• They sought to repair/recondition items that otherwise might become inorganic waste.

The new migrant group spoke particularly about wanting to avoid or reduce ‘wastage’ (e.g. make use of items, not

throw them away).

Three people across the focus groups lived in the former Waitakere City Council area and no longer have a rates-

funded inorganic collection. All three said that since the change to the funding of inorganic collections they have

noticed:

• More inorganic waste being stored on peoples’ properties

• More inorganic waste being ‘dumped’ around the area.

None had made use of the new user pays inorganic collection service yet.

Note also that most stakeholders were supportive of those people who drive around during inorganic collection times

searching for items. However, when it was explained that this practice can sometimes mean that some items are

Page 528 of 591



13

unable to be re-used/on sold etc. (i.e. because they destroy items in order to obtain scrap metal or key components)

they was a general acceptance of the rationale for this behaviour to be discouraged. One women living in the former

Waitakere City Council area said that these people are now ‘door knocking’ and asking if there are any inorganic items

householders wish to dispose of.

4.1.4 Garden waste

Twenty seven percent of general residents and 35% of panellists have a garden bin, bag or both that they pay to havecollected by a private contractor. Sixty one percent of general residents and 70% of panellists say that the bin or bag

is collected on a monthly basis.

Do you currently have a garden waste bin or bag? Representative

survey

N=5309

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

Yes – garden bin 16 23

Yes – garden bag 9 10

Yes – bin and bag 2 2

No 71 65

Unsure 2 0


How frequently is your garden waste collected? Representative

survey

N=1478

%

People’s Panel

N=667

%

Weekly 7 3

Fortnightly 10 5

Monthly 61 70

Once a year 2 1

Other 13 16

Unsure 6 4Base: General residents and People’s Panellists responding to WMMP Survey who have a garden bin or bag

e

The annual cost of garden waste collections varied, however 37% of general residents and 45% of panellists paid $90

or more per year.

How much does your garden waste collection cost you each year? Representative

survey

N=1466

%

People’s Panel

N=667

%

Under $10 4 2

Between $10 and $29 8 4

Between $30 and $49 7 5Between $50 and $69 11 14

Between $70 and $89 11 13

$90 or more per year 37 45

I am not sure 22 16

Base: General residents and People’s Panellists responding to the WMMP Survey who have a garden bin or bag

Page 529 of 591



14


Garden wasteFew focus group and no in-depth interview stakeholders paid for separate garden waste collections. Those that had

no separate collection were either:

• Putting their garden waste in with their general household waste (bin or bag)

• Leaving it around the garden

• Living in apartments, or

• Doing no gardening.

Of those that have no garden bin or bag (71% of general residents and 65% of panellists) – 39% of general residents

and 59% of panellists say that they compost their garden waste.

What do you currently do with your garden waste (if no garden bag or bin)?

You may select more than one answer here.*

Representative

survey

N=3839

%

People’s Panel

N=1247

%

I don't have any garden waste/I don't have a garden 14 9

I have a gardener/gardening company that disposes of it for me 9 6

I put it in my normal rubbish bin or bag 14 17I leave it in the garden/I don't do any gardening 16 13

I compost my garden waste 39 59

Other 9 7

Base: General residents and People’s Panellists who do not have a garden bin or bag

*Please note that this question was a multiple response question for both surveys so percentages don’t add to 100%

4.1.5 Organic waste

Thirty one percent of general residents and 46% of panellists said that they compost over half of their organic (food

and garden waste) at home. Thirty six percent of general residents and 33% of panellists said that they do not

compost any organic waste.

How much, if any, of your organic waste (food and garden waste) do you

compost at home?

Representative

survey

N=5264

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

I have no organic waste at home 7 4

None of it 36 33

Less than 50% 21 17

More than 50%, but not all of it 17 23

All of it 14 23

I am not sure 4 1

Base: General residents and People’s Panelists responding to WMMP survey


CompostingFew stakeholders composted. However, when composting was discussed, a number expressed interest in doing so in

the future. Stakeholders living in apartments said that it was not possible for them to compost in their current

situation – but many said they would be interested in doing so when their living circumstances changed. Several

others (with gardens) said that composting is of interest but that they either hadn’t got around to it yet or didn’t know

enough about it. Stakeholders who rejected the notion of composting were most concerned about rats and other

vermin who may be attracted to it.

Page 530 of 591



15

Forty three percent of general residents and 46% of panellists have a kitchen waste disposal unit. Of those that have

them, kitchen waste disposal units are regularly used by 67% of general residents and 58% of panellists.

Do you have a kitchen waste disposal unit or insinkerator? Representative

survey

N=5178

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

Yes 43 46

No 57 54

Base: General Residents and People’s Panellists responding to WMMP survey

Do you regularly use your kitchen waste disposal unit or insinkerator to dispose

of your food waste?

Representative

survey

N=2240

%

People’s Panel

N=874

%

Yes 67 58

No 31 41

I am not sure 1 0

Base: General Residents and People’s Panellists who have a kitchen waste disposal unit


Few focus group and in-depth interview participants had waste disposal units. Of those that had them, not all used

them regularly or for all organic waste. Reasons for not using their waste disposal (or not using it often) varied.

Reasons included:

• Not having much organic waste

• Problems with the unit – getting blocked, too much noise, smell-related issues

• No wanting to use too much water.

None specifically raised any concerns about the impact of waste disposal units on the environment, although this was

mentioned by some people who did not have waste disposal units.

Page 531 of 591



16

4.2 Attitudes towards collection approaches

IntroductionAll online survey participants (representative online survey and People’s Panel online survey) were informed that

Council is in the process of developing a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan and that Council was interested in

their views about what a new waste management and minimisation approach should be like. All participants were

asked a series of questions about ther preferences for the collection of household waste for the future.

Attitudes towards collection approaches – summary of key findings (Representative Online Survey)

• 71% of general residents prefer a wheelie bin for general household waste, 13% prefer bags

• Bins preferred because: cleaner and more secure, easier to handle, easier to store, limits the amount of

household waste

• Bags preferred because: convenient for those with little or lots of waste, easier to transport if living a

distance from the collection point, user pays, limits amount of household waste

• 53% of general residents would be interested in a separate organic collection for food and garden waste

• 41% of general residents would prefer a weekly organic collection if it were to be introduced, 27%

fortnightly and 15% did not want any separate organic collection

Attitudes towards collection approaches – summary of key findings (People’s Panel Online Survey)

• 70% of panellists prefer a wheelie bin for general household waste, 17% prefer bags

• Bins preferred because: cleaner and more secure, easier to handle, easier to store, limits the amount of

household waste

• Bags preferred because: convenient for those with little or lots of waste, easier to transport if living a

distance from the collection point, user pays, limits amount of household waste

• 57% of panellists would be interested in a separate organic collection for food and garden waste

• 39% of panellists would prefer a weekly organic collection if it were to be introduced, 23% fortnightly and

21% did not want any separate organic collection

4.2.1 Wheelie bins vs. bags

All online survey participants (representative online survey and People’s Panel online survey) were asked whether

they would prefer a wheelie bin or bag for their general household rubbish. They were advised to disregard any cost

implications in their answer as both methods could be funded either through rates of by user-pays.

Just under three quarters of general residents (71%) and panellists (70%) would prefer a wheelie bin. Fewer (13% and

17% respectively) said that they would prefer a bag.

Would you prefer to use a wheelie bin or bag(s) for your general household

rubbish/waste? (Not recycling)

Representative

Sample

N=5218

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

A wheelie bin 71 70Bag(s) 13 17

I don't mind either a bin or bag(s) 14 10

I am not sure 2 2

Base: General residents and People’s Panellists responding to the WMMP Survey

There were six key themes evident among those who said they would prefer a bin:

Bins are considered to be cleaner and more secure than bags

• Bags can rip and contents can spill out once the bags are out on the road

Page 532 of 591



17

• Animals can rip bags – and again the contents can spill out over the road

• Bins smell less than bags – there is a perception that once the lid is closed, the rubbish is less likely to smell than if

left in a bag

Bins are more convenient to transport than bags

• It is easier to wheel a bin than to carry a bag (even if the bin weighs more than each bag)

• One bin means you only have to make one trip out to the kerbside – as opposed to more than one trip with bags

Bins are more tidy to store• One bin outside of a house is preferable to more than one bag

• Bags are also considered to look messier

Bins are safer than bags

• There is no danger of sharp items causing damage either to the household or to the people collecting the rubbish

Bins limit the amount of rubbish each household can dispose of

• Bags can encourage increased waste because people can simply purchase as many as they need to

Bins are more convenient

• You don’t need to remember to purchase them (i.e. households can run out of bags)

In many cases, participants mentioned a combination of the above when asked why they prefer bins. Some peoplealso regarded bins as more environmentally-friendly (given that most rubbish bags are plastic).

Prefer bins - selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)

• Rubbish contained securely from elements and animals. Tidier on property than bags. Ease of use for

putting rubbish out. Also a wheelie bin gives you a defined volume of rubbish per week, it's limited so

as a household we have to think about how and what we throw out in order to keep to that limit. We

are more conscious of packaging and how we dispose of household waste. As a consequence we

recycle more than what we probably would if we could pull out another bag.

• Sick of picking up rubbish from dogs ripping bags open n we are rural n hate smelly bags in the car to

take up to gate.

• I have a wheelie bin currently for general waste and feel it is cleaner, contains smell and preventsanimals from getting into the rubbish and making a mess. Easier to move to the kerbside, rather than

a heavy bag.

• I am in a rural area and the bags [compulsory in our area] are either ripped apart before putting on

the curb, or soon after. The bins provide more protection against smells. I only put a bag out every 3

weeks or so].

• A wheelie bin is a lot cleaner, better than bags, which are attacked by dogs, a large wheelie bin is

better than 5 or 6 bags lying around the street. A wheelie bin is easier to get garbage up to street level

if you live down a driveway.

• Wheelie bin is good because it is much more convenient and will keep the surroundings more cleaner.

Plastic bags can be easily torn by cats which makes more litter on the roads on the rubbish collection

days, wheelie bin will prevent this.

• Wheelie bins are tidy, easy to move about, stop dogs and other animals from getting into the garbage

and keep the streets cleaner.

Prefer bins - selection of comments (People’s Panel Online Survey)

• I prefer bins because the rubbish is contained and stored outside. When it is collected it stays in the

bin and keeps the streets clean. Dogs can easily get into bags or they break and leave a mess.

• Bin holds decent amount. Does not collapse, does not matter if it gets wet, is not attacked by animals,

can be sanitised, is easy to move to kerb, does not require special holders, transporters.

• Tidier and less damage from birds and dogs when bag left out overnight.

• With a wheelie bin there is a restriction on the amount of waste that each household can put out,

Page 533 of 591



18

unlike the bag system, which means some households put out large numbers of bags each week. This

is important to minimise landfill.

• Being a rural property the flimsy plastic bags used for rubbish collection are left on the corner of our

property - sometimes up to 5 days prior to the nominated collection day. Needless to say rodents and

bids rip open the bags. The guys on the rubbish truck do try to pick up most of the rubbish that spills

out but can't chase the wind blown rubbish or clean up thoroughly. Bins for each property would be

far better.

• I find the wheelie bin is really reliable and doesn't leak or smell. It's also easier to wheel it up our drive

than having to carry a heavy bag. Also it is reusable - we don't have to use a new bag every time our waste gets collected.

• Wheelie bins are solid therefore don’t blow away; Don’t have to worry about buying the right bags for

rubbish collection - have more flexibility in budget about what bags to get; Hassle factor a lot less with

Wheelie bins.

The reasons for preferring bags varied for participants in both the representative and the People’s Panel survey. In

some cases preferences for bags were based on individual ‘house’ circumstances (long or steep driveways easier for

bags etc.). Others mentioned the fact that bags are more convenient for times when they have extra waste to dispose

of. Those more likely to prefer bags were those currently using bags.

Easier to handle and transport

• Easier to carry a bag when there was a long or steep driveway

• Bags can be taken in the car when the collection point was a distance from the house

Better for households with small amounts of waste

• Not have enough waste to fill a bin each week

Allows more flexibility

• Can vary the number of bags used depending on amount of rubbish to be disposed of each week.

Prefer bags - selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)

• I live out West and the bags seem to carry more than what you can put in the bins.

• Wheelie bins go missing, require regular cleaning, need to be stored.

• Hygiene. It would be impossible for me to dispose household rubbish directly to wheelie bin. If I wereto use wheelie bin I would have to buy rubbish bags.

• Some weeks have 2 shopping bags full, some weeks have 5 shopping bags full so feel a wheelie bin

would be too big - also gate is too narrow for the current recycling bins - assuming new rubbish bin

would be same size.

• I'd have to clean out a bin, unless put bags inside a bin? Not lazy - aged and have bad legs.

• We don’t make that much rubbish and to fill a bin before emptying it, it would stink.

• I prefer the bag because if the wheelie bin is full, I can just use another bag to put my rubbish in.

• Too far to take wheelie bin to gate, easier to take one bag at a time over the week.

Prefer bags - selection of comments (People’s Panel Online Survey)

• We have a long, steep drive. A bin would not be practical as it wouldn't fit in my small car. We only

put out a rubbish bag about once every two months.

• I live in a "private road" and collection vehicles do not come down our street .It is already a hassle to

get our recycling bin to kerbside but the frequency required is reasonable so the use of bags for

rubbish are more convenient to transport to the kerbside pick up position.

• As a pensioner on a steep section I am unable to handle a wheelie bin.

• Because we do not have a large amount of waste and a wheelie bin would take to long to fill causing

unwanted smell etc.

• Bags are good, sometimes I need one other times two so I can vary the quantity. Don’t need cleaning

like a wheelie bin either.

• Bins are too small, and choosing a size doesn’t work out when your amount varies from 2 to 6 bags

Page 534 of 591



19

depending on the amount of trash made.

• Cleaner, less bulky, encourages less waste because of smaller size.


Stakeholders were also asked whether they would prefer to have a wheelie bin or bag(s) for their general household

waste. They were asked to select a preferred method here without taking into account any potential cost implications

(i.e. they were asked to disregard the fact that bags are currently user pays and bins are currently rates funded).

Overall preferences for bins vs. bags

More focus groups and in-depth interview participants preferred the concept of bins.

Fewer said that they would prefer bags (and these were all stakeholders in areas already using bags). Only one person

in an area with a bin system said that they would prefer a bag and most stakeholders in areas with bags said they

would prefer bins.

Some stakeholders also regarded bins as more environmentally friendly because they are reusable (bags are plastic

and are not reusable).

Preferences for bagsA minority of focus group and interview participants preferred bags. The main reason given for preferring bags was

that they had very little waste and did not require something the size of a wheelie bin. Other reasons were to do

with:

• Bins having limited capacity – and bags giving people the opportunity to increase that capacity

• A perception that the bags themselves are recyclable, and

• A perception that bins would get dirty easily and would have to be cleaned regularly, or

• Simply being used to using bags.

One person also noted that different types of homes might require different types of systems and that there should

be some degree of choice.

Feedback from people living in apartments or in houses with small or no garden areas:None of the stakeholders living in apartments or houses without gardens felt that having bins would be detrimental to

them. Most of the stakeholders living in apartments or small flats (with small land size) were already using bins and

said they have not experienced any problems in that respect.

There was comment made that some apartment complexes (including Housing New Zealand accommodation) do not

require as many bins as they currently have. The stakeholders taking part in the focus groups who lived in Housing

New Zealand accommodation were older in general, lived alone and did not generate much waste. Some were not

putting their general household rubbish bins out every week because of this – yet all people living in the same

complexes as them had two bins each (one for general household waste and one for recycling).

Feedback from people with physical disabilities:Six interviews were conducted with people with disabilities – two preferred bags and four preferred bins. The two that

preferred bags (for their general household waste) were not generating much waste and did not have a problem

putting out their weekly waste (i.e. their bags were light and they had good enough mobility). All six also lived with

other people (partners in most cases and flatmates in another) and were able to receive assistance with their wheelie

bins or bags – general household waste where they had them, and with recycling bins.

Reasons for preferring bins over bags, or vice versa were very much in line with the reasons provided by stakeholders

without disabilities. We acknowledge here that the participants taking part in the interviews were in living situations

where they were able to receive assistance with their waste collections. It is our recommendation that this area may

require further input from appropriate organisations and other disability sector stakeholder groups.

Page 535 of 591



20

4.2.2 Organic collections

Over half of general residents (53%) and panellists (57%) said that they would be interested or extremely interested in

an organic collection for both their food and garden waste at a subsidised cost. One quarter of general residents

(25%) and 28% of panellists said they would not be interested in a separate organic collection.

At present your general household rubbish (the rubbish you put in bags or in

your normal, non-recycling wheelie bin) goes to landfill. How interested wouldyou be in having a separate collection for your organic waste (this includes food

and garden waste that you may currently put into your normal wheelie bin or

bag) at a subsidized cost? This waste would not go to landfill but would either

be composted or put to some other beneficial use.

This would mean you would be putting out less general household waste into

your normal wheelie bin or bags (which would reduce the cost of that

collection).

Please use a scale from 1-5, where 1 is not at all interested in having a separate

collection for your organic waste and 5 is extremely interested.

Representative

SurveyN=5151

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

1 Not at all interested 16 19

2 9 9

3 17 12

4 21 16

5 Extremely interested 32 41

Don’t know/Not applicable 5 3


Reasons given for being interested in a separate organic collection at a subsidised cost:

Environmental concerns

• A general interest in waste minimisation and environmentally-friendly behaviours

• A wish to see organic material composted when unable/reluctant to compost themselves

Cost savings

• The opportunity to save costs overall/no longer have to pay for a garden bin

Some people who currently compost were interested in this as an ‘overflow’ option.

Interested in a separate organic collection – selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)

More environmentally-friendly

• Good to recycle all organic matter - keeps things simpler and more efficient.

• I think any scheme especially a subsidised one that does not use landfill, and of benefit plus cost

effective must be good.

• Composting is very important even though I don't currently compost. Anything to reduce landfill

areas is of critical importance.

• I am a great believer in turning green waste into compost to feed the land and do not like seeing vast

areas of landfill filled with useful waste.• I live alone and composting "on site" is not achievable. I currently have a Bokashi, but it does not deal

to everything. I believe that composting is the best way to deal with organic waste.

Save costs/general cost-related

• Garden bins are very expensive and people tend to throw their garden waste in with their normal

rubbish.

• I already pay a company to do this but if you can provide the service less costly then I would use it.

• I love the idea of this, but, sounds expensive. I wouldn’t pay more than 5-10 bucks a month.

• Private companies are pushing their prices up so any subsidised offer would be great.

General

• I do like the idea of being eco friendly. However, won't food waste decompose in landfill anyway? Also

Page 536 of 591



21

there is potential for a lot of bad smells which makes me cautious but I'm still interested.

• This is a fantastic idea for people in upstairs units or without gardens.

• I think that this would be advantageous to the environment, however I know of many people who

already get confused as to what weeks they can put out their plastics and what weeks they can't. In

this sense, I feel that it may create added confusion and may result in more rubbish appearing on the

roadsides.

Interested in a separate organic collection – selection of comments (People’s Panel Online Survey)

More environmentally-friendly

• I am very keen to be more environmentally friendly. Landfills should be a last resort.

• Makes sense. We have been meaning to start composting at home for about a year, but just haven't

gotten around to it. Yet... Providing a service like this for people that don't want to - or don't know

how to - compost themselves sounds great.

• More sustainable to have a collective organic waste management process - esp if it is composted and

re used.

• Less rubbish going into landfills, so less landfill sites required in the long term.

• I feel terrible that we don't do a better job of composting ourselves however do not want the

hassle/smell etc of composting at home as we have no real use for the compost anyway.

• I have no need for compost, and I want a more environmentally friendly option rather than putting my green waste in with landfill waste.

Save costs/general cost-related

• Less going into landfill and more being composted. The compost can be sold as well, bring dumping

costs down.

• Apart from the major reason being environmental benefit, this could potentially save money,

depending on the plan proposed.

• I would assume the rates can be reduce as it should be a money making venture to sell the compost.

• I don’t like the idea of landfill. Reducing the cost of waste disposal would be welcome.

• Our compost bin isn't quite big enough for all the garden waste, so in spring time when there is a lot

of grass clippings or autumn when there are a lot of leaves it would be good to have the option of

garden waste. Also some weeds I don't want in the compost bin. I would only use it a couple of times a

year, but it is very expensive to take garden waste to the tip.

• I routinely store my garden waste and periodically dispose of it in a hired mini-skip. I estimate I spend $150-200 per year doing this. I know it costs the skip-man almost nothing to dispose of garden waste

so I think there are opportunities here for the council to generate economies of scale that save me and

my neighbours considerable money.

• Don't have a good solution for garden waste currently. Small garden so not worth a private paid

service. Will reduce temptation to put garden waste in bags.

General

• Would be great to follow the Christchurch model where this waste is composted and sold back to the

public as compost.

• I think this is a great idea because it will encourage people to sort their rubbish into compostable/non.

We compost a lot but it would be nice to know we have the option.

Reasons given for not being interested in a separate organic collection (25% of general residents and 28% of panellists)

Already dispose of organic waste

• Already compost or dispose of organic waste in another way (e.g. feed to hens) so no need for a separate

collection

Cost

• Unwillingness to pay for another waste disposal method

• Feeling that people should be encouraged to compost themselves. Unwilling to subsidise those who do not

Page 537 of 591



22

Too much hassle

• Too time consuming/ too much hassle to sort out organic waste for separate disposal

Unhygienic

• Concern that such a collection would be unhygienic and attract vermin

No interest in a separate organic collection – selection of comments (contd) (Representative Online

Survey)

Already composting

• Compost our waste - this is both economical and good for the environment.

• Because I compost all my organic waste myself I would never use the service. General household

waste seems to be more of a problem in our area.

• We are responsible gardeners and recycle organic waste back into growing our food.

Unwilling to pay additional cost

• Just more additional costs for an extra pick up and most households would not comply. For this to

work there is a requirement for a high level of compliance. Kiwis no longer comply.

• Don’t have money to spare.

• I’m not interested in a separate collection for food & garden waste IF it would cost me a cent! Even if

it was subsidised. I would only separate it/be interested if it was all free thanks.

• I do not think we should be charged extra for this service and would only support it if there were no

extra cost. I am paying more than enough for taxes, rates and water.

• Very hesitant because of the use of the phrase "subsidised cost". We cannot cope with anymore cost

increases.

Additional hassle

• It's just not something I can be bothered doing.

• It's easier to put all the organic waste down the garbage disposal. Separating all the organic waste

would be messy and would mean you'd need an extra bin in your house especially for this.

• It just means more hassle of sorting rubbish, but it would be better for the environment.

Hygiene

• How hygenic would it be? How often would it be collected? Once a week and we'd be inundated with

maggots and it would smell and attract vermin. I don't see how it would be a workable option.

• Attract pests especially in warmer weather.

• it would stink by the time it is collected once a week.

No interest in a separate organic collection – selection of comments (contd) (People’s Panel Online

Survey)

Already composting

• My organic waste is much too valuable to give away. All such waste is composted and recycled on the

property to produce excellent vegetables and fruit.

• Because I use the Bokashi system for kitchen waste and a larger compost heap for garden rubbish this

question does not pertain to my systems.

• I do my own compost at home and in this current difficult time I cannot afford to have it collected at

any costs what so ever.

Unwilling to pay additional cost

• I already pay way too much for my rates at it is - not interested in further costs for a service that I

wouldn't use anyway.

• I wouldn't be for paying for another service and I would dislike having to drag two bins down to the

kerb.

• I do not need this service as I have a compost bin. I do not agree with subsidising other people’s

compostable waste.

• It's not worth any extra cost to have yet another collection type. Any efforts in this area should be

Page 538 of 591



23

spent on getting people to use organic waste in their own gardens to minimise overall waste that

need to be collected.

Additional hassle

• Too much hassle to remove organic waste. Hard to keep unpleasant odours away.

• That is just too complicated and time consuming to sort...due to being a very active mother,

sportsperson and fulltime student I don’t have time to sort. I just place all rubbish regardless of what

it is in to the rubbish and my recyclables into recycling.

• That would mean I would have to put three wheelie bins out each week. Too much hassle plus

definitely not enough room on the kerbside for all these bins.• Already too lazy to filter waste under current system. Household not taking present recycling

seriously.

Hygiene

• I have heard of this idea before and am concerned as to vermin and general health and hygiene of

home and streets.

• The smell will attract dogs and flies... plus the stench from this bin is not healthy for all concerns.


There was some level of interest in organic collections among focus group and interview participants – and particularly

among those who are already paying for a separate garden waste collection service and who saw this as a possible

cost savings opportunity. There was also agreement among most that this offers an opportunity for more

environmentally friendly behaviour for households (and that anything that is good for the environment is worthwhile

considering). Those that were not interested were those that already compost or considered having to separate out

organic waste to be a significant hassle.

Note also that most stakeholders did not feel that they would have enough organic waste to warrant a separate bin

and collection. Most stakeholders said that they try to limit the amount of food wastage they have (there was a

general reluctance to acknowledge wasteful behaviour in this respect). Stakeholders were very skeptical when told

that approximately 50% of waste going into their normal bin or bag is organic (but less skeptical when told this figure

includes greenwaste) (note that this figure was provided by members of the waste management team who attended

the focus groups). There were some general issues raised with regard to the cost of this additional collection (most

were reluctant to have to pay more) – and became confused when considering cost in the context that this may

reduce the cost of their ‘overall’ waste collections. In short, participants were interested in actually seeing the dollar

implications before committing to a decision here.

There were two key barriers raised by stakeholders with respect to organic collections:

• The likely smell and cleanliness of the bin (mainly raised by women in the groups), and

• Logistical/practical issues.

Cleanliness issuesThe most significant issue raised about organic collections was the likely smell that an organic bin would create and

issues to do with general hygiene. There was a perception that even a well-sealed bin would smell (particularly in

summer) and attract undesirable attention (from cockroaches and rats).

Most were concerned about having to put their organic waste directly into a bin (without it being secured in bagsfirst). There was a perception that the bin would smell very bad because of this and would need to be cleaned on a

very regular basis. The main issue here was that this type of bin was seen as very different to compost, which might

be at the back of the garden – an organic waste bin on the other hand was seen as something that would sit very close

to the house (near the front door, near open windows in the summer etc.).

There was some interest in being able to use appropriate bags to dispose of their organic waste (i.e. being able to put

bags into the organic bin).

Page 539 of 591



24

Logistical issuesThere were also some logistical issues raised. Not all stakeholders take their household waste out to their council bins

on a daily basis – this was particularly the case for people living in apartments who do not ‘go down’ to their bins

every day. In this respect they raised concerns over having to have another bin/bag inside their apartment for organic

waste only (the main issue was to do with lack of storage space).

A key finding here is that people need to be offered simple solutions that facilitate the likelihood that they will

undertake desired waste separation and recycling behaviours – for example, an inside ‘bin’ system that makes these

behaviours easy to perform.

4.2.3 Frequency of organic collection

If an organic collection was introduced, 41% of general residents and 39% of panellists would prefer a weekly

collection. Twenty seven percent of general residents and 23% of panellists said they would prefer a fortnightly

collection. Fifteen percent and 21% respectively said that they did not want a separate organic collection.

If an organic waste collection was introduced – how often would you want

this organic waste to be collected?

Representative

Survey

N=5123

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

Weekly 41 39

Fortnightly 27 23

Monthly 12 11

Other 4 6

I do not want a separate inorganic collection 15 21


Page 540 of 591



25

4.3 Attitudes towards funding of household waste collections

All online survey participants were asked to give their views on how different types of waste collections – general

household, inorganic, recycling and organic – should be funded.

4.3.1 Funding of waste collections

Funding of waste collections – summary of key findings (Representative Online Survey)

• 57% of general residents think there should be a uniform charge for general household waste – and 30%

think it should be user-pays

• 71% think there should be a uniform charge for recycling collections – and 15% think it should be user-pays

• 48% think there should be a uniform charge for organic collections – and 33% think it should be user-pays

• 48% think there should be a uniform charge for inorganic collections – and 36% think it should be user-pays

Funding of waste collections – summary of key findings (People’s Panel Online Survey)

• 54% think there should be a uniform charge for general household waste – and 41% think it should be user-

pays

• 80% think there should be a uniform charge for recycling collections – and 13% think it should be user-pays

• 52% think there should be a uniform charge for organic collections – and 35% think it should be user-pays

• 51% think there should be a uniform charge for inorganic collections – and 38% think it should be user-pays

How do you think household rubbish/waste

collections should be funded?

Representative Survey

N=5000

%

Rates funded

(uniform charge)

User pays Another

way

Unsure

General household rubbish (not recycling) 57 30 10 3

Recycling collections (glass, plastic, tins etc) 71 15 10 3

Organic collections (food and garden waste) - if

introduced

48 33 15 4

Inorganic collections (e.g. furniture, whiteware, TVs) 48 36 13 3Base: General residents and People’s Panellists responding to the WMMP Survey

How do you think household rubbish/waste

collections should be funded?

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

Rates funded

(uniform charge)

User pays Another

way

Unsure

General household rubbish (not recycling) 54 41 2 3

Recycling collections (glass, plastic, tins etc) 80 13 4 2

Organic collections (food and garden waste) - if

introduced

52 35 6 7

Inorganic collections (e.g. furniture, whiteware, TVs) 51 38 5 6


Small percentages of people suggested other ways of funding waste collections. Examples included:

• Free pases to refuse stations

• Each household having a certain amount of ‘free’ collections and then all other collections charged

• More recovery centres for inorganic waste – where items can be left, removed or swapped for something else

• Charges to manufacturers e.g. because of excess packaging that needs to be disposed of.

Page 541 of 591



26

There were three themes in terms of preferring a uniform charge across all types of collections:

Uniform charge is simpler and cheaper to administer

• Including the cost in the rates is easier for the individual and for the Council

A user-pays system will encourage people to look for alternative ways to dispose of their household waste

• Will encourage illegal dumping

• People will use other peoples bins to dispose of their rubbish

Waste is a community responsibility

• Charges should be shared evenly across residents, regardless of the amount of waste generated.

Preference for waste collections to be funded by a uniform charge – selection of comments

(Representative Survey Online Survey)

Perceived difficulties of charging/hassles with payment

• Otherwise it would be too hard to track and charge, people are dishonest and would use other peoples

properties to dump their stuff.

• It would be much easier to pay in rates not each week during the grocery shopping etc.

• How would you measure the waste collected or just charge for each bin regardless of its capacity? An

annual fee included in the rates accounts far simpler for accounting by Council.

Discourage dumping and other inappropriate behaviours

• I believe everybody should pay the same. Whatever you do there will always be people that don't like

paying for this and rather drop it off at the side of the road (we live in the country and we get quite a

few people doing this).

• If it is left to User Pays situation, this will create more problems with rubbish being dumped

everywhere by those people trying to get around the system whereby creating more problems.

• I think if you had to pay for recycling on a user pay basis and you were already paying for general

waste it will make some people not keen to recycle.

Collective responsibility/fairer overall

• Keep it simple. It is in everybody’s interest to have their community's rubbish disposed of, it's not just

an individual household's responsibility/interest. Also people’s lives are not static. Through out the

course of someone's life the average person's living arrangements will change probably several times

so at some point their will be more people (generating more rubbish) than at other times - a simpleuniform charge would average out for most people.

• Every household should contribute to waste collection because everyone creates rubbish. It's up to the

householders to either reduce rubbish or get reimbursed from other household members for rubbish. I

always pick up rubbish wherever I find it and dispose of it correctly, often it is cans and takeaway food

containers, these people have to live somewhere and should have to pay for their garbage disposal

just like everyone else, so a household charge would cover all inappropriate rubbish disposal as well.

Preference for waste collections to be funded by a uniform charge – selection of comments (People’s

Panel Online Survey)

Perceived difficulties of charging/hassles with payment• It just makes it simpler for everyone, one charge to include all of the above.

• While a user pays would probably be cheaper for my household as we don't have a lot of waste, I

prefer a rates funded charge as it is much simpler.

Discourage dumping and other inappropriate behaviours

• I think that a user pays system could lead to people avoiding the charge by dumping or using another

person’s facility.

• User pays will result in all rubbish going to the cheapest option, not taking the responsible option. • It would provide simplification in my own life - which is already crazy busy. Plus it would mean we

don't get pockets of the community getting creative in their rubbish disposal because they don't want

to fork out their money to have it collected properly.

Page 542 of 591



27

Collective responsibility/fairer overall

• I chose uniform charge because recycling & reducing pollution needs to be encouraged and it is a

community issue -if it is user pays then many people may not participate fully.

• Though I put out little rubbish of any sort in comparison with some other families, I see myself as part

of a community and am prepared to share expenses to support larger families who may not be able to

afford a user pays system.

There were two main themes in terms of preferring user-pays across all types of collections:

Encourages waste minimisation

• User pays for general household waste will encourage more recycling behaviours (if recycling collections have a

uniform charge)

• User pays will make people think more carefully about the waste they are disposing of.

Fairer system

• Unwillingness to by some panellists subsidise households who put out larger quantities of waste.

Preference for waste collections to be funded by user pays – selection of comments (Representative

Online Survey)


• Fair share. Having 'user pay' system in place would make people more accountable for rubbish they

produce and dispose.

• User pays for general household rubbish would mean an incentive to reduce non-recyclables/rubbish

going to landfill.

Fairer system

• Why must I pay for the removal of other peoples rubbish when mine will be a lot less than the

average!

• Some households, like my own barely leave one full bag of rubbish, and one bin of recycling each

week. Others however have multiple bags and bins, and should have to pay more than we do.

• It’s not fair for small families to pay the same fees as those with large families that will have lots of

general household rubbish. Organic rubbish although I want a wheelie bin for this not sure how you'd

charge it, but should be user pays.

• People should pay for only what they use. We use all our organic waste back into our garden so

wouldn't use the collection.

• Make it farer to ratepayers re family, business, rest home, and retirement home contribution. Some

have little waste some have a lot of waste.

Preference for waste collections to be funded by user pays – selection of comments (People’s Panel

Online Survey)


• User pays promotes having less rubbish. It makes people think about what they throw out.

• Hit them where they feel it, in their pocket. Far too long council has tolerated poor recycling attempts

by households.

• If you pay for your rubbish to be collected and don't pay (a uniform charge doesn't feel like paying) it encourages people to recycle more and put out less rubbish.

Fairer system

• I'm fed up with paying for services that I don't need and/or don't use and/or aren't available where I

live.

• User pays is fair to everyone.

• As a single occupant of my dwelling I use the waste collection services less often than others. Why

therefore should I pay the same amount as those that use it more often. I put rubbish out about every

two to three weeks, yet I am being charged the same as someone putting out rubbish every week. I

don't put organic into the rubbish. I either compost or put into a green bin that I pay for.

• A household of say five creates more waste than one person alone so why shouldn't they pay. A lot of

Page 543 of 591



28

elderly people alone could not afford the same a large households.

• I feel that home occupiers should contribute to the rubbish collections as well as homeowners or

ratepayers, there being many, many tenanted properties from which occupiers do not pay.

Seventy percent of general residents and 80% of panellists support the idea of recycling collections being funded by

rates (a uniform charge).

Funding of recyclable waste collection– selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)

• Recycling and organic collections are "public good". Rubbish and inorganic collections should be user

pays, to encourage efficiency.

• General household rubbish is part of life, so paying by rates is fair. Everyone does not use Inorganic, so

user pays is fair. Recycling is a necessary regular service, rates funded is fair.

• For regular collections of waste I believe that it would be helpful to highlight there is a direct cost to

the service. Also small users of the service are effectively subsidising larger users (We as a family of 5

are possibly highish users, so will pay more). Recycling is partially a ""public Good"" service, which

should be encouraged. A more stringent policing of the recycling bins should be undertaken and costs

sheeted home to people not sorting effectively.

• General household and recycling should be rates funded as it is always going to be produced due to

companies using far too much packaging on their products as well as general items so this should be

covered by rates as it will always be ongoing. Inorganic and organic should be user pays as inorganic

items can be taken to the tip yourself rather than making a mess on the streets or some items even

recycled if you bothered to take the time due to having to pay for it, people just dump it since it

doesn't cost them anything as they are lazy, as for organic if people had to start paying to get rid of it

they would compost more or even visit places where you can dump organic for composting at a

cheaper rate than roadside collections would cost.

• I think that all general collections should be funded by Council but inorganic should be a cost due to

the fact that people will think about what they throw out - we are becoming a wasteful city.

• General rubbish user pays by purchasing bags, that way they pay as they use. Recycling rates funded

as council gets a return from recyclables and can offset that against charges.

• I answered user pays for inorganic collections as these are infrequent and not everyone takes

advantage of them. It's fairer to pay if you have something you need to dispose of.

Funding of recyclable waste collection– selection of comments (People’s Panel Online Survey)

• User pays for rubbish will assist in encouraging reduction in rubbish. Recycling should be encouraged

so uniform charge is appropriate.

• Recycling should be included in rates and rubbish should be user pays so as to encourage people to

recycle, as the more they recycle the less they have to pay extra for the user pays rubbish collection.

Organic waste should be user pays also because if it is rates funded there is no incentive left for people

to do their own composting.

• Recycling has wider community benefit and should be encouraged through being rates funding. With

other waste having a user pays system encourages waste minimisation which is eco-friendly.


More focus group and in-depth interview participants said that they would prefer a uniform charge for their general

household waste and in particular for their recycling collection.

Views on the funding of inorganic collections were mixed – with those who currently use them generally in favour of a

uniform charge and those that don’t generally in favour of user-pays. These views were not reflected in overall

attitudes towards the funding of general household and recycling collections however. In other words, there was no

distinct difference between people that have a little amount of general household waste versus those that have a lot.

Page 544 of 591



29

When considering funding of waste collections, a key ‘sticking point’ for focus group and interview participants was to

do with how a user-pays system could effectively be implemented if bins are the preferred method for household

waste collections. Many stakeholders raised issues around the difficulties in charging households accurately and

concerns over whether this would become a major ‘hassle’. Questions raised by stakeholders included:

• How often are you going to charge me – and conversely how often am I going to have to physically arrange

payment?

• How are you going to ensure that you are accurately charging me?

• How are you going to deal with the issue of people putting rubbish in other people’s bins – will I be charged fortheir waste as well if this occurs?

• What will be the cost of administering this – additional paperwork, invoices, people to process payments etc.

• What happens if I accidently miss a payment – will you leave my rubbish in the bin?

The feedback here clearly highlights the need to address the issue of perceived ‘payment hassle’ if a user-pays system

is to be introduced and accepted by residents for any type of waste collection.

Other reasons for preferring a uniform charge

In general – those who were in favour of a uniform charge (for general and recycling waste) felt that:

• Disposing of household waste is a community issue – the view here was that there needs to be collective

responsibility taken in terms of dealing with it. Note that unlike in the case of inorganic collections, moststakeholders here did not mind the fact that even though they may put out less waste than their neighbours, they

would pay the same amount for it

• A uniform charge would mean that larger households (and also lower SES households) would not be penalised by

having to purchase additional bags. Several stakeholders mentioned the fact that lower SES households may

struggle under a user-pays system and that this may lead to increased undesirable behaviours such as illegal

dumping or inappropriate use of other people’s bins.

Stakeholders who rent were more likely to prefer a uniform charge because of a view that their rent would not

decrease if a user-pays system was introduced.

Reasons for preferring user-pays

User-pays, which was preferred by a smaller number of focus group and interview participants was mainly preferred

because it would encourage recycling behaviours. This was only considered to be relevant, however, if recycling

collections continued to have a uniform charge.

Focus group and in-depth interview participants were of the view that if recycling becomes user-pays as well as

general household waste then there will be no incentive to recycle.

Page 545 of 591



30

4.4 Attitudes towards other waste-related issues

All participants were asked their views on other waste related issues, such as illegal dumping, junk mail and litter, and

to comment on some of Council’s ideas for addressing these problems. These related issues were included in the

survey so that feedback and results can inform and provide insight to the waste and by-law business units.

Attitudes towards other waste-related issues – summary of key findings (Representative Online Survey)

• 51% of general residents think a $400 instant fine for illegal dumping is fair – 33% think it should be higher

• 47% think Council should do more to stop illegal dumping, 40% are not sure

• 47% think Council should force supermarkets to ensure their trolleys were not removed from their

premises, 39% do not think Council should do this

• 29% don’t like junk mail, 15% don’t mind it but usually throw it away without reading it and 53% like

getting it or usually check through it

• 37% agree that there is a litter problem in their area, 31% disagree

Attitudes towards other waste-related issues – summary of key findings (People’s Panel Online Survey)

• 45% think a $400 instant fine for illegal dumping is fair – 46% think it should be higher

• 43% think Council should do more to stop illegal dumping, 49% are not sure

• 43% think Council should force supermarkets to ensure their trolleys were not removed from theirpremises, 41% do not think Council should do this

• 47% don’t like junk mail, 13% don’t mind it but usually throw it away without reading it and 34% like

getting it or usually check through it

• 32% agree that there is a litter problem in their area, 39% disagree

4.4.1 Illegal dumping

Just over half of general residents (51%) and just under half of panellists (45%) felt that an instant fine of $400 is fair

for someone caught illegally dumping. Thirty three percent of general residents and 46% of panellists think that the

fine should be higher.

Forty seven percent of general residents (and 43% of panellists) thought that Council needs to be doing more to stop

illegal dumping. Forty percent of general residents and 49% of panellists don’t know whether enough is being done(and/or perhaps what the Council is doing regarding this issue).

Central government legislation provides for Council to impose an instant fine

of up to $400 for illegal dumping. Illegal dumping is when someone disposes

of rubbish on public land without permission. This can include dumping

rubbish in the bush, in parks, in streams and at beaches.

What are your views on the fine of $400 for illegal dumping?

Representative

Survey

N=4920

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

A fine of $400 is too much for someone caught illegally dumping 10 4

A $400 fine is fair for someone caught illegally dumping 51 45

A $400 fine is not enough for someone caught illegally dumping 33 46

I am not sure 7 5Base: General residents and People’s Panellists responding to the WMMP Survey

Page 546 of 591



31

Do you think enough is being done by Council to stop illegal dumping? Representative

Survey

N=4920

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

Yes - enough is being done to stop illegal dumping 13 7

No - more needs to be done to stop illegal dumping 47 43

I am not sure 40 49Base: General residents and People’s Panellists responding to the WMMP Survey

The main view expressed regarding Council’s responsibility on illegal dumping (alongside the views in the table above)

was that illegal dumping is not being adequately policed. Note also that the majority of participants acknowledged

that it does occur and that it is a problem. Others views were around the fact that there are wider socio-economic

issues impacting on illegal dumping that need to be dealt with, and that the amount of the fine should depend on the

extent and nature of the illegal dumping (i.e. what is being dumped, how often, how much).

Illegal dumping – selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)

Fines for illegal dumping are not adequately enforced/general policing issues• Illegal dumping does not get reported enough! why? Because good citizens are reluctant to call due to

the fact that council staff release the caller’s details many times. There should be an 0800 number to

call with the details and if proved successfully by the council then the offender can be fined. Fines

should be progressive for repeat offenders.

• People just wont pay hefty fines so anymore and they just wouldn't pay. More needs to be done

because there is lots of rubbish in our public areas, there also needs to be more rubbish bins around

like at our beaches and parks. I have never heard of anyone being fined for dumping rubbish, there

needs to be a campaign about being responsible for our environment and more people policing it

maybe the parking wardens can do that at least policing the rubbish dumpers would help our

environment so it looks nicer.

• I take my dog for a walk down Dunkirk reserve and always see household items dumped down there

and along with bottles and rubbish, I think more needs to be done (how about people policing the

dump sites) i.e. parks and reserves.• Little operators dumping garden and trees in reserves needs to be stopped. More should be done to

catch culprits.

• Our country roadsides and hidden bush gullies near roadsides are a disgrace - $400 is not enough to

punish those offenders. The problem just seems to grow and grow, not enough is being done to stop

offenders and rubbish that has been dumped seems to sit and fester for too long.

• My mother-in-law has property in Avondale, which is always being dumped upon, and its damn

ridiculous, because they have been doing it for years, and you cant fine someone if you cant catch

them.

Wider socio-economic issues

• People dumping rubbish often are already economically deprived - a f ine may not be best solution,

would prefer to council working with these families to decrease waste and may provide opportunity of

other social services - identify overcrowding, health issues etc. However lazy dumpers - less sympathy.

• The illegal dumping could be done by people who can't afford rubbish bags because of lower incomesand having to stretch the budget anymore is so difficult, but there are also those who just can't be

bothered or are too lazy and just dispose of their rubbish anywhere they like. Too hard to police. I

don't really know what the council does in regards to this issue at the moment.

General

• There needs to be a substantial charge for dumping rubbish. I think $400 is adequate. Obviously not

enough is being done about dumping rubbish because of all the rubbish I see at parks, beaches and in

the native bush that has been dumped.

• I believe councils have programs as effective as local policy/law will allow them to be. I would support

a $400 fine, I would not support dedicated council staff to pursue dumpers. If proof of identity can be

found then prosecute or fine but don't expend council funds unnecessarily.

Page 547 of 591



32

• I think the punishment of illegally dumping should be giving the job of cleaning up their own mess, or

hours of cleaning up rubbish in their community.

Illegal dumping – selection of comments (People’s Panel Online Survey)

Fines for illegal dumping are not adequately enforced/general policing issues

• Never seen anybody policing this issue.

• I have myself witnessed people dumping rubbish while out walking in our area. Also after the forestry has been felled, there are a number of dumped car bodies etc. I don't think the fringe areas are well

policed if at all and that is where people drive to dump rubbish.

• A higher fine would deter illegal dumping, and council need extra staff specifically to monitor

illegal dumping.

• Because when identification is sent through confirming an illegal dumper, NOTHING is done.

• Not enough are being caught, e.g. councils could use cameras.

• I see rubbish dumped and I have laid a complaint with details of the dumper and council has not

followed this up. In my opinion dumping is done by cheap/nasty businesses and tradesmen rather

than residents i.e. tyre people, building industry, those jobs which have lots of waste.

• I've never heard or seen of a case of prosecution, perhaps the media need to highlight the issues more.

Wider socio-economic issues

• No because if you can’t afford to pay the dump fee of course it is going to end up in our ranges or

other quiet spot.• I think someone that is dumping may be hard up, and would most likely not pay a fine anyway.

• A complex issue. There is too much rubbish on our streets and in our waterways. People need to be

penalised when they dump rubbish. Often the dumping of rubbish is related to people not

understanding the recycling system so they have too much for their general rubbish wheelie bin. Leads

to fly tipping or also open burning of rubbish in backyards. Education, reward and consistent

enforcement programme is needed.

• I am no expert on illegal dumping. The only way to address it is to know why this is occurring in the

first place - then address that problem.

• If the illegal dumper is a corporate entity the fine should be much higher - reflecting the cost of

appropriate disposal plus a penalty.

General

• I would like illegal dumpers to be punished, but I know it's almost impossible to catch them in the act.

Better to provide public facilities which can be used instead.• From some of the items I have seen dumped it would cost the council a lot more than $400 dollars to

clean up, the fine should be more like $1000. This can then fund the council to do more to stop illegal

dumping, visits to common areas, surveillance cameras, marketing etc.

• $400 is pathetic for someone who blatantly decides to dump rubbish. $2000 will instantly make

someone think twice.

Qualitative – focus group and in-depth interviews

There were a number of unprompted mentions of illegal dumping before the topic was introduced in the focus

groups. Illegal dumping was raised in the context of the inorganic discussion and the funding discussion in that, user-

pays is likely to lead to increased illegal dumping behaviour.

Most focus group and in-depth interview participants were of the opinion that illegal dumping is a problem

(particularly in certain parts of Auckland) and many gave examples of where they had seen evidence of this (in bush, in

parks, on beaches, under bridges etc.). Many also raised concerns over illegal dumping being carried out by

businesses.

Focus group and in-depth interview participants were mixed in their views regarding fines for illegal dumping. The

main attitude towards fines was that the fine needs to be variable depending on the extent and nature of the

dumping – and that $400 is unlikely to be enough for some types of dumping which may have a particularly

detrimental impact on the natural environment. Some stakeholders in the focus groups felt that the fine could and

should run into the thousands for certain types of dumping (particularly in the case of businesses).

Page 548 of 591



33

Another key view here however, was that fines are a waste of time unless illegal dumping is effectively policed. There

was some skepticism about whether increased fines would actually have any impact on the extent of illegal dumping

because people would simply go out of their way not to be caught (and that catching people illegally dumping is very

difficult anyway).

Some stakeholders here also felt that there may be socio-economic reasons for illegal dumping behaviours – i.e. that

they cannot afford to purchase the required bags (and that cheap rolls of black bags can be purchased for very little

cost and then simply dumped somewhere).

The predominant view was that a fine of $400 is either enough or not enough – but that the key issue is enforcement.

4.4.2 Abandoned supermarket trolleys

A larger percentage of general residents (47%) thought that Council should force supermakets to make sure that

trolleys don’t leave their premises – 39% did not think that they should. Panellists were divided over how Council

should address the problem of abandoned shopping trolleys. Forty-three percent thought Council should force

supermarkets to ensure trolleys were not taken from their premises by charging customers a deposit for their use or

by other methods, while 41% thought Council should not force supermarkets to take such measures.

Do you think Council should force supermarkets to make sure that the trolleys

don’t leave their premises by charging customers a deposit to use them or by

any other method?

RepresentativeSurvey

N=4884

%

People’s PanelN=1914

%

Yes 47 43

No 39 41

I am not sure 14 16



The majority of focus group and in-depth interview participants were of the opinion that it is the supermarket’s

responsibility to prevent trolleys from leaving their premises and most were comfortable with the concept of paying a

deposit for a trolley that they would receive back when they returned it. Some people felt, however, that a deposit of

$1 or $2 would not deter people from taking trolleys away anyway.

A number of stakeholders pointed out that some supermarkets (such as Countdown in the CBD) have an electronic

system that prevents trolleys from being wheeled outside of the property boundary – and all agreed that this would

be a preferable system than charging a deposit.

Page 549 of 591



34

4.4.3 Junk mail

Panellists were more negative about junk mail, with 47% saying that they do not like it compared to 29% of general

residents. Forty five percent of general residents said that they did not mind it and usually check to see what is there

(31% of panellists). Almost all general residents (91%) and panellists (96%) agreed however that a ‘no junk mail’

sticker on a letterbox should be adhered to.

Which of the following best describes your attitudes towards junk mail? Representative

SurveyN=4863

%

People’s Panel

N=1914%

I do not like junk mail and I have a 'no junk mail' (or similar) sticker on my

letterbox

14 28

I do not like junk mail but I do not have a 'no junk mail' sticker on my letterbox 15 19

I don't mind junk mail but usually throw it away without reading it 15 13

I don't mind junk mail and usually check to see what's there 45 31

I like getting junk mail 8 4

Other 3 5


Do you think that if someone has a no junk mail sticker on their letterbox, that

this should be adhered to by people delivering junk mail/brochures, etc.?Representative

Survey

N=4858

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

Yes 91 96

No 4 2

I am not sure 5 2



Views on junk mail were mixed – some stakeholders disliked it while others didn’t mind it. There was overwhelming

agreement among stakeholders however, that if there is a junk mail sticker on a letter box that it should be adhered

to.

Page 550 of 591



35

4.4.4 Litter

Attitudes varied regarding the extent to which litter is a problem in general residents’ and panellists’ local areas.

Thirty seven percent of general residents and 32% of panellists agreed or strongly agreed that there is a litter problem

in their local areas, while 31% of general residents and 39% of panellists disagreed.

Satisfaction with Council’s efforts to discourage and prevent littering was also mixed.

How much do you agree or disagree that there is a problem with litter on thestreets/roads in the area where you live?

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree (that there is a

problem with litter in your local area) and 5 is strongly agree

RepresentativeSurvey

N=4847

%

People’s PanelN=1914

%

1 Strongly disagree 9 9

2 22 30

3 31 26

4 19 18

5 Strongly agree 18 16

I do not know 1 1


How satisfied are you that Auckland Council is doing enough to

discourage/prevent littering in your area?

Please use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is extremely dissatisfied with what is

being done and 5 is extremely satisfied.

Representative

Survey

N=4848

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

1 Extremely dissatisfied 8 9

2 16 21

3 36 29

4 21 22

5 Extremely satisfied 7 6

I do not know 12 13


Litter– selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)

Satisfied Council is doing enough to discourage litter

• The council do a good job keeping our local party tidy and litter free. Some residents don't care about

keeping their property tidy. It would be good to have incentives to get people to beautify their streets

and take pride in their propeties. Have some sort of tidy campaigns.

• I am not aware of any littering problem in my area.

• In my area the streets are clean, everyone does their part to keep their yard clean which is a good

thing. Living next to clean and tidy neighbours who have a clean living standards helps alot to keep a

neibourhood clean.

• I am fortunate to live in an area that is well kept by the council, regular street sweepers etc. I believe

the council should start in the worse looking areas and clean them up to give the residents a sense of value and pride in their neighbourhoods. They should feel that the council values them just as much as

citizens of Auckland as any other resident.

Not satisfied Council is doing enough to discourage litter

• There's not much litter on the streets where I live although I don't think the council has been really

strick about this.

• Not enough rubbish bins and no bins to put paper recycling in.

• All over the AKL CBD - uncluding around my apartment building - the streets and gutters are littered

with cigarette butts and other human detritus.

• I very rarely see council workers in my area tidying the streets.

• We have all the college kids parking in our street and they leave their lunch rubbish, bottles,

Page 551 of 591



36

mcdonalds from their cars. The school doesn't do anything and nor does our council!!!!

Litter– selection of comments (People’s Panel Online Survey)

Satisfied Council is doing enough to discourage litter

• The council is great at always clearing & cleaning the litter off the streets of Auckland but people need

to change there attitude and be responsible for letting go of the rubbish from there hand.• I see people on motor bikes picking up rubbish quite often. The public rubbish bins are emptied daily

and it's only in very busy summer months that the park bins overflow.

• I think the council is really doing a great job, the verges are trimmed and the roads are swept on a

fairly regular basis. We are very lucky.

• There does not appear to be a widespread problem. Some litter will always happen but it does not

appear to accumulate. I see works cleaning the streets footpaths etc and emptying the street bins

regularly. I don't see a problem. The only exception is around antisocial venues such as brothels and

drinking dens. Here there is often not only a litter problem, in terms of quantity, but the litter is

offensive and dangerous. Bus stops can sometimes be an issue, but I think that is more a matter of the

speed which it can accumulate at

• I live in Parnell, our street does not suffer from litter. The council do a good job of clearing any debris,

including leaves as we have a lot of trees along the street

Not satisfied Council is doing enough to discourage litter• We live near a council car park, which is always filthy with litter. No help when calling ACC. If you were

half as good with litter as you were with the tow trucks - now THAT would be something!

• Auckland Council used to send people down the main streets to clean rubbish - now there is one man

on a motorbike who does bugger all. Very lazy and leaves half the rubbish behind.

• The council don't do anything about it has their hands are tied. If someone is littering the streets then

they should be charged and prosecuted.

• I wasn't aware that the council did ANYTHING to discourage littering. There is not exactly a plethora

of be a tidy kiwi signs or provision of rubbish bins is there

• Council are to busy dishing out tickets to be bothered with the cleanliness of Auckland basically it is a

dirty city and council need to concentrate on cleaning it up it is not a city to be proud of like sydney for

example the harbour is beautiful and clean

Qualititive – focus groups and in-depth interviews

Attitudes towards litter varied – although most stakeholders agreed that there was a problem in general around

Auckland and particularly on streets where businesses operated (retail shops) and also in parks. Specific mention was

made of cigarette butts being a problem in many areas.

Page 552 of 591



37

4.4.5 Small deposit on recyclable containers

Just under half of general residents (44%) and 35% of panellists agreed with the concept of a small deposit being

added to the cost of all recyclable containers to encourage greater reuse and recycling. One third (34%) of general

residents and 35% of panellist disagreed or strongly disagreed with this concept.

How much do you agree or disagree that a small deposit of 10c to 20c should be

added to the cost of all recyclable containers (drink cans, plastic bottles, glass

bottles, etc.)? This would be refunded when you returned the containers to adepot to encourage greater re-use and recycling.

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree (that a small deposit

should be charged) and 5 is strongly agree

Representative

Survey

N=4816%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

1 Strongly disagree 23 23

2 11 12

3 17 13

4 14 13


I do not know 6 4


If a small deposit was put on the cost of all recyclable containers (drink cans,

plastic bottles, glass bottles, etc.), how likely would you be to return them to

get your deposit refunded or give them to someone else to get the refund?

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all likely and 5 is extremely

likely

Representative

Survey

N= 4794

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

1 Not at all likely 14 17

2 9 11

3 15 11

4 17 14

5 Extremely likely 39 43

I do not know 5 4Base: General residents and People’s Panellists responding to the WMMP Survey

Those general residents and panellists who agreed with the idea of a refundable deposit on recyclable containers

thought it would encourage recycling and help reduce litter Some saw it as a good source of pocket money or

supplementary income. Others pointed to the success of similar schemes in the past or overseas.

General residents and panellists who disagreed with the idea gave a variety of reasons. They thought a small refund of

10c – 20c wouldn’t be enough to encourage people to return the containers to a depot, that having individuals

returning items to a depot was an inefficient means of recycling, that the scheme would be costly to administer and

that a deposit on all recyclable containers would further increase the cost of living .

Small refundable deposit for recyclable containers– selection of comments (Representative Online

Survey)

Agree with idea of refundable deposit

• Would discourage people to just put them out in the normal rubbish.

• It worked in the 70's with glass bottles. Worth a go.

• I like this idea and I think it would work. (especially to teach young children to recycle).

• If there was a financial incentive for recycling, people would do so, Works well in Germany where the

depots are in the supermarkets.

Page 553 of 591



38

• This give people an incentive to collect the recyclables and return them instead of just putting them in

the general rubbish. Also enables kids and community groups to earn extra money.

• This could provide revenue for people needing a little more income. however this cost should not be

added to essential grocieries like milk.

• I like to think that it would become something kids would like to do to earn pocket money etc but

worry that some people would resort to other methods to attain goods for refunding. Hard one.

Disagree with idea of refundable deposit

• We wouldnt need all this recycling if we went back to paperbags and glass containers and having a

milk bottle run again....plastic is the problem.• Lived in country that did that ...most people still put into recycling bin and then people raided thru

trash to pick it up to collect the deposit.

• Money should not come into play.

• I always use the recycling bin. It's so simple. The new proposition sounds too difficult.

• Charging people extra to recycle will not get them into the habit of recycling. Those that do recycle

should not be penalized by a rise in cost.

• I dont believe most users would go out of their way to a depot.

• All cans and bottles I purchase go through into my recycling bin, I don't have time to take them back

to a depot to get my money back.

Small refundable deposit for recyclable containers– selection of comments (People’s Panel Online

Survey)

Agree with idea of refundable deposit

• This would be a great incentive for people to recycle their own containers, and to collect other

containers for recycling too (and may help reduce littering, particularly at events). In particular, it may

reduce peoples' tendency to throw away recyclable containers they have purchased while away from

home (e.g. during lunch at work).

• Not only can this become pocket money or an adjunct to income it creates an awareness of the

problem. In our area, it is cans and bottles thrown out of passing cars.

• This makes sense to me. We used to get refunds on glass returns when I was younger. It seemed to

work very well.

• Yes!!!! Have seen it work wonderfully overseas. Why not here?

Disagree with idea of refundable deposit

• Cost does not justify the inconvenience of having to save up your bottles and take them to the depot. Iwould just put them in my recycling bin instead.

• 10-20 cents wouldn’t encourage people to take them to be recycled.

• A waste of time, this would be an extraordinarily inefficient and wasteful way to recycle.

• It would be a hassle to return different items to different areas. I would rather pay for a recycling

service.

• With all the plastic and glass bottles that everyone uses the cost would definitely be way too high.

• The rise in cost of living is a major problem for many.

• Better to 'police' what goes into the bins in the first place. Think of all the extra petrol and emissions

for all the extra car trips to return containers and get the refunds.


Attitudes towards deposits on recyclable containers were mixed – but more focus group and in-depth interview

participants were in favour of this than not in the context that it might encourage recycling. Few said that they would

bother storing bottles themselves at home (for later returning or even collection by another group e.g. scouts, schools

etc.). None said that they would refuse to pay an additional 10c or 20c – but several did not think that this would

work to encourage more recycling behaviour. These tended to be older stakeholders (50+) who said that they could

recall similar systems in New Zealand in the past and were of the opinion that they didn’t work.

Page 554 of 591



39

Most stakeholders however, could see the opportunity for children, groups and even homeless people to collect

bottles, cans, plastic containers that may have been dropped into bins in parks and on streets – which would

ultimately lead to an overall increase in the extent to which these items are recycled.

4.4.6 Illegal dumping of tyres

Fifty seven percent of general residents and 65% of panellists agreed or strongly agreed that a $5 charge should beadded to the price of tyres to cover the cost of free, convenient disposal, in order to encourage recycling and

discourage illegal dumping. Twenty two percent of general residents and 19% of panellists disagreed or strongly

disagreed.

Given that you currently pay for the disposal of tyres to landfill, how much do

you agree or disagree that a small charge of $5 should be added to the cost of

tyres, which would enable tyres to be recycled? This would mean that you

could dispose of your tyre at a depot or to the place you bought it from for free

and it would be recycled.

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree (that a small deposit

should be charged) and 5 is strongly agree.

Representative

Survey

N=4783

%

People’s Panel

N=1914

%

1 Strongly disagree 15 132 7 6

3 14 9

4 21 15


I do not know 7 5

This is not applicable to me 0 3



Stakeholders were generally in favour of a deposit of $5 being added to tyres if it encouraged recycling behaviours.

None were very sure regarding what happens to tyres at present – most noted that when they replace their tyres they

simply leave them at the business replacing them. Most said that they did not know what happens to tyres after that.

This may also present a communications opportunity – particularly if people become more aware of the fact that tyres

generally go into landfill. A few people noted that they have seen tyres ‘dumped’ in their areas.

Page 555 of 591



40

4.4.7 Additional comments

At the conclusion of the survey, all participants were asked if they had any other comments either on the topics

already covered or on waste management in general. The comments often further discussed points they had already

made. We have included below a selection of comments giving views not already expressed in the report.

Additional comments – selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)• Being better at managing waste is important; and there is much awareness around now; but could be

more done to encourage recycling etc.

• We recently bought a tyre and there was a $10 fee for disposal of the old one.

• The collection points for other items of of non recyclable should be promoted more often and perhaps

have a 'FREE' day at the transfer station once every 6 months?

• I understand that anything to do with rubbish disposal, be it household, general or whatever can be

extremely hard to monitor and kids just don't seem to be taught about littering and its effects like we

were. Also, please remember the householders bills are rising all the time so please don't make it too

much dearer to exist!!

• I think organic bins is an excellent idea. I think that west auckland should get bins and that would

reduce waste scattered on the ground from dogs/cats/ people getting into the bags and, it would

make life easier.

• I believe there is an economic tyre recycling operation going noww and would be happy to see ameans of ensuring tyres were made available to this and any other such operations. I don't know if

there is ana dequte market for all the old tyres here.

• If Council continues with the Increase in Rates and then starts putting costs on items used to removal

of rubbish etc, then they will find those that will buck the system and dump. As nice as it would be to

think that we can live in clean streets there are too many people that would prefer to dump and some

even dump on others sections or land. Many believe the Rates we pay are enough to cover what we

have now. It just needs improvement and more awareness to the public.

• Could the Councill look into giving tax/rates rebates to people who are trying to help reduce rubbish

or waste at their own homes? Also, could you look into "new products" that "disintergrates"

household waste. This might be the ultimate way of really reducing rubbish associated costs for the

Councill and helping the environmentt at the same time!??

• Just that we need wheelie bins on the North Shore!

• Does the contents of the current recycle bins actually get recycled or as previously reported is it just crushed and dumped with other household rubbish. There seems to be no proof either way. Perhaps

this should be explained through the monthly council magazine/newsletter.

Additional comments – selection of comments (People’s Panel Online Survey)

• Most people are ignorant of the environmental impact of waste disposal. Council have a role to advise

and educate before they collect.

• More should be done to raise awareness of recycling , targets to recycle waste should be set and

school children should be included in any awareness training and prises given for the best schools who

adopt their own recycling programme.

• Get on and do it; the biggest problem with all the past and current councils is not the lack of ideas, but getting the ideas done .. just do it.

• One comment, is that it's confusing that " big " recycling bins are for rural areas that get fortnightly

collections, and " little " bins are for urban or community areas where there are weekly collections.

Some folks don't realize that the bins should stay with the house / dwelling when they move, so big

bins end up in the urban areas and our contractor refuses to collect them as he contracts to collect

small bins !!!

• I think I have made my feeling quite clear. What we need is Leadership, not just more mindless rules

that are top-heavy in administration. If you must legislate, then give it real teeth and show us that it

works. All the time. You will do far more by getting people on side with it than constantly kicking

people in the rear when they transgress, Making littering a Socially Unacceptable Act will almost

Page 556 of 591



41

eliminate it. Just like drink-driving - the public at large pay only lip service because there is no real

stigma to being caught. The same with rubbish. The old saying - "You can sell anything at all, if you

package it correctly" is as true here as anywhere else. It would still surprise me if anyone actually

reads these comments .

• I think the garbage men do a horrid job really well and deserve to be well paid and respected for it .

Imagine what the city would look like without them. I have this overseas and it is not nice!

• I think the amount of packing is a disgrace. You can't buy anything anymore without heaps of packing.

I am not sure why they don't tax packing at source; i.e. tax the manufacture of it so that products with

lot's of packaging would cost more.• I know that it sounds perhaps arrogant but education against littering and disposal has worked for me

and most of my friends. That plus general provision of easy means of getting rid of litter and general

waste plus the development of general ideas of recycling. Unfortunately the growth in volume and

variety or stuff that you cannot re use ( packaging mainly) has complicated even good intentions. Re

use and recycling has not kept up with this. I am not sure where management starts - perhaps it

starts with the manufacturer and distributor. It may have to end with some highly modern system for

destruction with something else as a useful by-product.

• Reduce, Recycle, Reuse. Households can achieve zero waste. Promote less packaging, and penalize

excessive packaging. Come down hard on littering and dumping. People need to realize it is a privilege

to live in this amazing city.

Page 557 of 591



42

4 Conclusions and consideration points

More general residents (71%) and panellists (70%) would prefer a wheelie bin for the disposal of their general

household waste, than would prefer bags (13% and 17% respectively). Those preferring bags were more likely to be

living in areas with bag ‘systems’ at present – however, many other residents in areas with bags said that they would

prefer to switch to a bin system. Just over half of general residents (53%) and panellists (57%) expressed an interest in

the concept of an organic collection for their food and garden waste. Those that did not raised a number of key

concerns – in particular regarding additional cost and hassle, and concerns over hygiene.

A uniform charge was the preferred funding method for more general residents and panellists for general householdwaste (57% and 54% respectively) and recycling (71% and 80% respectively). A uniform charge was preferred by more

general residents and panellists for recycling collections because of a view that a user-pays systems for recycling

would not encourage waste minimisation in households. Just under half of general residents (48%) were in support of

a uniform charge for inorganic and organic collections (if introduced), while just over half of panellists were in support

of a uniform charge for inorganic (51%) and organic (52%) collections (if introduced). A key barrier to accepting the

concept of user-pays for general household waste was to do with the perceived difficulties in administering payment

for this.

Fifty one percent of general residents and 45% of panellists support imposing the maximum fine of $400 for illegal

dumping. Forty seven percent of general residents and 39% of panellists believe that Council should force

supermarkets to make sure that trolleys do not leave their premises. Forty four percent of general residents and 35%

of panellists agree that a small deposit should be added to the cost of recyclable containers. Fifty seven percent of

general residents and 65% of panellists agree that a $5 charge be added to the price of tyres.

Attitudes varied in terms of the extent to which litter is a problem and whether Council is doing enough to

prevent/discourage littering.

Consideration points

• With regards to organic collections (if they are being considered and/or introduced), attention needs to be given

to ways in which this additional separation of waste can be made easy for households. The separation of organic

waste will initially take place in the house (not outside at the bin) and this process needs to be as simple as

possible (e.g. a simple bin solution that makes this behavior easy to perform).

• Also with regards to organic collections – a key issue raised was to do with the smell of the bin (and emptying

waste directly into it). It may be worthwhile exploring the availability and cost implications of bags (or some sort

of device) that can be used to collect organic waste (and in turn put into an organic bin).

• Any user-pays approach (for the different waste collection activities) should be considered in the context of how

payment processes can be communicated to the wider population. This was a key area of concern in terms of the

perceived additional hassle involved in making payments (as well as how it would be ‘charged’)– and one of the

major barriers in terms of a willingness to consider a user-pays system.

• Consider ways in which the recyclability of different types of plastic might be better communicated. This was a

key area of confusion for many stakeholders in the qualitative work and is likely to mean that either (1) they are

not recycling certain plastics that could be recycled, or (2) they are recycling plastics that should not be.

• Consider opportunities for providing waste-related information as part of a ‘pack’ for new migrants moving into

Auckland – what can and can’t be recycled, what the different bins/bags are for, the purpose and benefits of

recycling and what happens to waste that households do recycle. It is recommended that consideration be given

to these packs being made available in a variety of languages. This was also raised during the qualitative work.

• Consider communicating more information to the wider population about what actually happens to the wastethey recycle. There is some confusion over this in the qualitative work, and more clarity around ‘next steps’ for

recyclables may (1) serve to reinforce positive recycling behaviours, and (2) raise awareness of recycling and the

benefits of doing so among those who don’t (or perhaps don’t recycle as often or as much as they could).

Page 558 of 591



43

Appendix I Questionnaire – Online surey

The questionnaire below provides an overview of all the questions asked in the WMMP survey. The representative

online survey and the People’s Panel online survey were the same, other than the last section in the People’s Panel

survey which asked questions to assist with focus group recruitment.

Waste Management and Minimisation – Public Consultation

FINAL Survey – May 2011

Introduction

This is a survey about your views on household waste management (in other words, your household rubbish, which

includes organic waste (e.g. food, garden waste), recyclables (plastic, glass, tins, etc.) and inorganic waste (bulky

items like furniture, appliances, TVs etc.). This survey also includes some questions about other waste related topics

such as litter and junk mail.

The first few questions are about what you currently do with your household waste.

Q.1 Do you regularly use Council’s kerbside recycling collection service?

Yes

No

We do not have a Council recycling collection service in the area where I live

Q.2 How aware are you about which items can be put out in your recycling collection service?

Please use a scale from 1 – 5, where 1 is you are not at all aware and 5 is you are extremely aware. Includes

N/A option.

Q.3 Have you used the Council’s inorganic collection service in the last 18 months?

Yes

No

We do not have a Council inorganic collection in the area where I live

Not sure/Can’t remember?

Q.4 Do you currently have a garden waste bin or bag – this would be a bin or bag that you pay a private

company to collect?

Yes – I have a garden bin Continue

Yes – I have a garden bag Continue

Yes – I have both a bin and bag(s) Continue

No Skip to Q.5I am not sure Skip to Q.5

Q.4a How frequently is your garden waste collected?

Page 559 of 591



44

Weekly

Fortnightly

Monthly

Once a year

Other – please tell us how often?

I am not sure

Q.4b How much does your garden waste collection cost you each year?

Under $10

Between $10 and $29

Between $30 and $49

Between $50 and $69

Between $70 and $89

$90 or more per year

I am not sure

Skip to Q.6

Q.5 What do you currently do with your garden waste (e.g. lawn and other clippings, leaves, weeds etc.). You

may select more than one answer here.

I don’t have any garden waste/don’t have a garden etc.I have a gardener/gardening company who disposes of it for me

I put it in my normal rubbish bin or bag

I leave it in the garden/I don’t do any gardening

CONTINUE

I compost my garden waste Continue

Or, something else – please tell us what? Continue

Q.6 How much, if any, of your organic waste (food and garden waste) do you compost at home?

I have no organic waste at home

None of it

Less than 50%

More than 50%, but not all of it

All of it

I am not sure

Q.6a Do you have a kitchen waste disposal unit or insinkerator?

Yes Continue

No Skip to Q.7

Q.6b Do you regularly use your kitchen waste disposal unit or insinkerator to dispose of your food waste?

Yes

No

I am not sure

At present, each of the previous local council areas (Auckland City, North Shore, Manukau, Waitakere, Papakura,

Rodney and Franklin) have different approaches for the collection of household waste/rubbish.

The new Auckland Council is in the process of developing a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WWMP),

which aims to standardise household waste management collection across the new Auckland Council area. In this next

set of questions, we are interested in your views about what a new waste management and minimisation approach

should be like.

Page 560 of 591



45

At present some areas have wheelie bins for general household waste and some have bags – and in some areas

households are charged through their rates and in others, they purchase bags themselves (i.e. it is user-pays). We are

interested in whether you would prefer to use a wheelie bin or bag. However, please disregard any cost implications

at this stage because both bags and wheelie bins could be funded/charged in the same way – either through rates or

as user-pays. At this stage we just want to know whether you prefer wheelie bins or bags for rubbish.

Q.7 Would you prefer to use a wheelie bin or bag(s) for your general household rubbish/waste (note that we

are not talking about recycling here – just general household waste that isn’t recyclable)?

A wheelie bin

Bag(s)

I don’t mind either a bin or bag(s)

I am not sure

Q.8 Please tell us the reason for your answer.

Text box for open-ended response

Q.9 At present, your general household rubbish (the rubbish you put in bags or in your normal, non-recycling

wheelie bin) goes to landfill.

How interested would you be in having a separate collection for your organic waste (this includes food andgarden waste that you may currently put into your normal wheelie bin or bag) at a subsidised cost? This

waste would not go to landfill but would be either composted or put to some other beneficial use. This

would mean you would be putting out less general household waste into your normal wheelie bin or bags

(which would reduce the cost of that collection).

Please use a scale from 1-5, where 1 is not at all interested in having a separate collection for your organic

waste and 5 is extremely interested. Includes a don’t know/not applicable option.



Q.11 If an organic waste collection was introduced, how often would you want this organic waste to be collected?

Weekly

Fortnightly

Monthly

Other – please tell us how often?

I do not want a separate organic waste collection

Having a uniform charge included in the annual rates bill means that everyone pays the same amount via their rates

regardless of how much rubbish they put out for collection. User pays means that you pay for only the rubbish/waste

that you are disposing of.

Q.12 How do you think household rubbish/waste collections should be funded (including general household waste

and recyclables)?

Rates Funded

(uniform charge)

User Pays I am not sure Another way –

please tell us how

General household

rubbish (not

recyclables)

Inorganic

Page 561 of 591



46

collections (e.g.

furniture,

whiteware, TVs)

Recycling

collections (glass,

plastic, tins etc.)

Organic collections

(food and garden

waste) – if introduced

Q.13 Please tell us the reason for your answers.


Q.14 Do you have any other comments or suggestions about household waste collections – including what they

should include and how they should be funded?


In the next set of questions we are interested in your views on a number of other waste and litter related issues

(e.g. litter and junk mail).

Q.15 Central government legislation provides for Council to impose an instant fine of up to $400 for illegal

dumping. Illegal dumping is when someone disposes of rubbish on public land without permission. This can

include dumping rubbish in the bush, in parks, in streams and at beaches.

What are your views on the fine of $400 for illegal dumping?

A $400 fine is too much for someone caught illegally dumping

A $400 fine is fair for someone caught illegally dumping

A $400 fine is not enough for someone caught illegally dumping

I am not sure

Q.16 Do you think that enough is being done by Council to stop illegal dumping?

Yes – enough is being done to stop illegal dumping

No – more needs to be done to stop illegal dumping

I am not sure

Q.16a Please tell us the reason for your answers.


Q.17 In some areas there is a problem with abandoned shopping trolleys. This is where someone takes a shopping

trolley home from the supermarket and leaves it somewhere (e.g. in a park, on a street etc.). These end up

being an environmental and cost issue for Council as they pollute streams and other waterways, and in some

instances can damage parked cars.

Do you think Council should force supermarkets to make sure that the trolleys don’t leave their premises by

charging customers a deposit to use them or by any other method?

Yes

No

I am not sure

Page 562 of 591



47



Q.19 Which of the following best describes your attitude towards junk mail?

I do not like junk mail and I have a ‘no junk mail’ (or similar) sticker on my

letterbox

I do not like junk mail but I do not have a ‘no junk mail’ sticker on myletterbox

I don’t mind junk mail but usually throw it away without reading it

I don’t mind junk mail and usually check to see what’s there

I like getting junk mail

Or, something else – please tell us what?

Q.20 Do you think that if someone has a ‘no junk mail’ sticker on their letterbox, that this should be adhered to by

people delivering junk mail/brochures etc.?

Yes

NoI am not sure

Q.21 How much do you agree or disagree that there is a problem with litter on the streets/roads in the area

where you live?

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree (that there is a problem with litter in your local

area) and 5 is strongly agree. Include don’t know option.

Q.22 How satisfied are you that Auckland Council is doing enough to discourage/prevent littering in your area?

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is extremely dissatisfied with what is being done and 5 is extremely

satisfied. Includes don’t know option.

Q.22a Please tell us the reason for your answers.


Q.23 How much do you agree or disagree that a small deposit of 10c to20c should be added to the cost of all

recyclable containers (drink cans, plastic bottles, glass bottles etc.)? This would be refunded when you

returned the containers to a depot to encourage greater re-use and recycling.

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree (that a small deposit should be charged) and 5 is

strongly agree. Includes don’t know option.



Q.25 If a small deposit was put on the cost of all recyclable containers (drink cans, plastic bottles, glass bottles

etc.), how likely would you be to return them to get your deposit refunded or give them to someone else to

get the refund?

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all likely and 5 is extremely likely. Include don’t know option.

Page 563 of 591



48

Q.26 Illegal dumping of tyres is a significant environmental and cost issue for Council. Dumped tyres pollute

waterways, can provide perfect breeding grounds for unwanted disease carrying mosquitoes, rats and other

vermin, as well as creating a constant fire threat that needs to be eliminated as quickly as possible.

Given that you currently pay for the disposal of tyres to landfill, how much do you agree or disagree that a

small charge of $5 should be added to the cost of tyres, which would enable tyres to be recycled? This would

mean that you could dispose of your tyre at a depot or to the place you bought it from for free and it would

be recycled.

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree (that a small despite should be charged) and 5 is

there is strongly agree. Includes don’t know option and N/A.

Q.27 Do you have any other comments you would like to make about any of the topics in this survey or any

comments to do with waste management in general?


Finally, just a few questions about you. These are just to ensure that we speak to a wide range of people in this

survey.

Q.28 Are you:

Female 1 Male 2

I’d rather not say

Q.29 Which age group do you fall into?

18-19 years 1 40-49 years 4

20-29 years 2 50-64 years 5

30-39 years 3 65 years or over 6

I’d rather not say

Q.30 Which of the following best describes your ethnicity?

NZ European 1 Fijian 9 Middle Eastern 16

Other European 2 Other Pacific Peoples 10 Latin American 17

Maori 3 Chinese 11 African 18

Samoan 4 Indian 12 Other – please tell us

what that is

19

Cook Islands Maori 5 Korean 13 I’d rather not say 20

Tongan 6 South East Asian 14

Niuean 7 Other Asian 15

Tokelauan 8

Q.31 Which of the following best describes your income level?

Less than $20,000 per year 1 Between $60,000 and $79,999 6

Between $20,000 and $29,999 2 Between $80,000 and $99,999 7

Between $30,000 and $39,999 3 Between $100,000 and $250,000 8

Between $40,000 and $49,999 4 More than $250,000 per year 9

Between $50,000 and $59,999 5 I’d rather not say 10

Page 564 of 591



49

Q.32 Which of the following best describes you?

Paid employee 1 Not in the labour force 6

Employer 2 Other employed 7

Self-employed without employees 3 Other not employed 8

Unpaid family worker 4 Student 9

Unemployed and actively seeking work 5 Other – please specify 10

I’d rather not say 11

Q.33 Which of the following best describes the type of household you live in?

One person living alone 1 One parent family 5

Couple only with no children living at

home

2 Non family household e.g. flatting 6

Two parent family with one or two

children living at home

3 Extended family arrangement 7

Two parent family with three or more

children living at home

4 Other – please specify 8


Q.34 And which of the following suburbs do you live in?

Add Other – please specifyAdd I’d rather not say

Drop down box of suburbs

"Placenames NZ" layer from council GIS:

sde:sqlserver:ACALGISDBP01.arc.govt\gisdata.OWNER.PlaceNamesNZ

Sourced from LINZ

Thanks for taking the time to complete this survey – your feedback is appreciated.

Focus Group Recruitment Questions

Auckland Council will be conducting a series of focus group discussions in order to get a more in-depth understanding

of some of the topics in this survey. Focus groups are relaxed, informal discussions with 8-9 participants in each

group and a facilitator.

Each group would be held in early June, and would be approximately 2 hours in duration, starting at 6.00pm. You

would be compensated for your time.

We are looking for a mix of different people, so if you think you might be interested in taking part please complete the

following questions.

Would you be interested in taking part in a focus group?

Yes

No

Which of the following best describes your living accommodation?

An apartment - in an apartment building

Housing New Zealand accommodation

A flat (not an apartment) – sharing with other flatmates

A house with garden

Or something else – please tell us what?

Page 565 of 591



50

Which of the following best describes your recycling behaviour?

I always use my recycling bin and recycle as much as I can

I use my recycling bin for some things but there is more I could be recycling

I sometimes use my recycling bin not always

I rarely or never use my recycling binOr something else – please tell us what?

Your name

Contact phone number

Email

Thank you – you may be contacted in the next few weeks about attending one of our focus groups.

Page 566 of 591



51

Appendix II Focus Group Discussion Schedule/In-Depth Interview Guide

Auckland CouncilWaste Management and Minimisation – Public Consultation

Discussion Guide – June 2011

This discussion guide is indicative only of the flow of conversation, not a word for word description of the moderator’s

questions.

1 Introduction – 5 minutes

• Nature and purpose of research

• No right or wrong answers

• Confidentiality

• MRS membership

• Any questions

• Round of introductions

2 Household waste behaviour and attitudes – general waste and recycling

First of all, I’d be interested in understanding a bit about your current household rubbish environment i.e. what’s

available to you in your area for disposing of your household rubbish. Thinking about your general household rubbish

(not recycling), do the houses in your area use bins or bags?

PROBE

Bins vs. bags

• For bags – how many bags do you put out in an average week? (CHECK: how much does each bag cost you?)

• What about those of you with bins – do you fill them up every week? (CHECK: how much general household

rubbish would you be putting out?)

• How do you feel about using bags/a bin?

• If it was up to you, what would you choose to use – and why? (NOTE: let’s imagine that the cost would be the

same for both – I’m really just trying to understand what you’d actually prefer here)• What do you see as the advantages of bins vs. bags and vice versa? (CHECK: what are the downsides?) – EXPLORE

perceptions of bags among those using bins and vice versa, different ethnicity, new migrants, living

accommodation, different recycling levels, socio-economic background etc.

• EXPLORE any issues related to size of property (outside area) re: storage of bins etc., physical barriers that impact

on using either (CHECK: what would you do if your area switched to using bins/bags – would it be a problem for

you/would you manage OK?)

• If no – what would be the main issues for you – and what would you do?

What about recycling – what is your current household recycling environment? EXPLORE – yes I recycle (frequently,

sometimes, no I don’t

PROBE

• How often is your recycling collected?

• What are your perceptions/attitudes in regards to recycling? (EXPLORE: those that are from different ethnicity,

new migrants, living accommodation, different recycling levels, socio-economic background etc.)

• What can Council do to encourage more recycling?

• Are there other ways that we can reduce and reuse our waste?

• What type of bin does your area use for recycling?

• Do you recycle regularly – or not all the time? (CHECK: it’s Ok if you don’t, we just want to understand what

people do and don’t do)

• What type of items do you put in your recycling bin? (CHECK: how do you know what type of glass, plastic etc. is

OK to put in the bin and what isn’t?)

Page 567 of 591



52

• Are you confident that you know what can and can’t be recycled – so what do you do if you’re not sure?

• Would you say you recycle everything you can – or sometimes not?

• What do you think are the main reasons why you sometimes don’t use your recycling bin? (CHECK: don’t know

what I can put in it, it is difficult for me to use/heavy, I forget, I can’t be bothered etc.)

3 Other household waste/disposal methods

Does your area have an inorganic collection?

PROBE

• Do you ever put items out when there is an inorganic collection? (CHECK: what types of things do you put out?)

• For those areas where inorganic collections are no longer paid for by rates – what do you do now? (CHECK:

dispose of inorganic waste in another way, pay Council for a collection, leave it out and hope someone takes it

away, store it somewhere else on your property etc.)

• If there were NO inorganic collections, what would you do with your inorganic rubbish? (CHECK: do you know

what options are available for you/what you can do with it – what are the barriers to using these e.g. cost of

disposal/cost of trailer, no transport, physical difficulties etc.?)

• How do you think inorganic collections should be paid for – do you think people who use these collections should

be charged when they put inorganics out OR do you think there should be a charge through rates for everyone,

whether they use their inorganic collection or not?

• What’s your personal preference? (CHECK: if you had to make a decision tonight, what would you do?)

• What are your perceptions/attitudes in regards to inorganic collections? (EXPLORE: those that are from different

ethnicity, new migrants, living accommodation, different recycling levels, socio-economic background etc.)

Do you have a garden bin or bag that you pay a private company to collect?

PROBE

• How often does it get collected – and how much do you pay each time?

• Have you ever had a garden bin or bag – why not anymore?

• Why don’t you have a garden bin or bag – i.e. no garden, don’t do any gardening etc.

• If you do have a garden, what do you currently do with your garden waste? (CHECK: do nothing, put it in outwith my normal rubbish etc.)

What other ways in your household do you have to dispose of rubbish?

PROBE

• Does your kitchen have a waste disposal/insinkerator?

• Do you use it regularly – why or why not?

• Do you ever compost – how often, what do you compost?

• Have you ever considered composting – why or why not? (CHECK: what are the main reasons why you wouldn’t

compost i.e. not interested, smells/unpleasant, attracts unwanted visitors, can’t be bothered, forget to do, don’t

have enough space t do it, don’t know how etc.

Just thinking about the organic waste that your household may have – and by organic I am talking about food waste

and also garden waste – how interested would you be if Auckland Council provided you with a separate bin (or bag)

for this?

PROBE

• Do you think you would separate out your food waste if a separate bin was available?

• If not why not – CHECK: no space for a separate bin, wouldn’t bother/too much hassle, dispose of food waste in

another way (waste disposal/compost), perceptions of smell etc. (i.e. if put in a bin rather than e.g. put in rubbish

bags in a bin)

Page 568 of 591



53

• Would you use it for garden waste – why or why not?

• What would be the advantages for you do you think, in having a separate bin for organic waste – what would be

the downside?

• If interested – how often should it be collected?

• Would you be prepared to pay for having a separate bin – it could either be user pays (which means you pay only

for what you use) or it could be charged through your rates?

• What if the cost was subsidised by Council?

4 Funding of household waste collections

Just thinking about your current household rubbish environment – at present, some of you are buying bags and some

of you are being charged for this via your rates. Now that there is only one Council for the entire region, rubbish

collections need to be standardised so everyone is under the same system. What would you personally prefer to

happen – and don’t worry whether you said you’d prefer bins or bags earlier, because both bins and bags can either

be user pays or can be charged through your rates.

By user pays, I mean that you pay only for the rubbish you are disposing of. If waste collections were charged through

rates, that would mean that everyone would pay the same regardless of the amount of waste their household has.

PROBE

• What do you see as the advantages of either approach?

• What would be the downsides?

• What concerns or questions do you have about either?

• How would either user pays or paying through your rates work in terms of your household?

• What about for recycling collections – do you think these should be user pays or should you be charged through

your rates?

• What would be the pros and cons of each? (CHECK: if either one or the other system was introduced – what

would it mean for your household – how might it change what you currently do with your household rubbish and

recycling?

• (EXPLORE: those that are from different ethnicity, new migrants, living accommodation, different recycling levels,

socio-economic background etc.)

How often do you think household waste should be collected IF we have a weekly organic collection and a fortnightly

recycling collection?

PROBE

• How often would be often enough (get participants to think about what would be in this ‘residual waste’)

5 Other waste and litter related questions

There are just a few other areas I’d like to talk about now to do with waste. First of all, what are your views on illegal

dumping?

PROBE

• Do you know what illegal dumping is? (CHECK: what are your perceptions of how much of an issue illegal

dumping is – what do you base this on?• EXPLAIN illegal dumping and give examples if necessary

• Government legislation allows Auckland Council to impose an instant fine of up to $400 for illegal dumping – what

are you views on this?

• Is this enough, too much, not enough – why do you say that?

• Do you think that more should/could be done about illegal dumping?

• What more (if applicable) should Auckland Council do about illegal dumping – beyond fines, do you think there

are other opportunities here?

Do you notice abandoned shopping trolleys in the area where you live – or perhaps in areas you visit or travel

through?

Page 569 of 591



54

PROBE

• Who’s responsibility do you think it is to prevent people taking shopping trolleys away from supermarkets and

leaving them places?

• EXPLORE – attitudes towards a deposit being charged for each trolley that customers get back once the trolley is

returned (i.e. a dollar?)

• Have you ever shopped anywhere (overseas) where you’ve experienced this?

• Is this fair enough? (CHECK: how would you feel if this were to happen?)• What other solutions might there be to the issue of abandoned trolleys?

How many of you have a ‘no junk mail’ sticker on your letter-box?

PROBE

• Did you put it there or was it already there when you moved in?

• What’s your view on junk mail? (CHECK: what do you do with it – read it, throw it away – where, do you recycle it

etc.)

• Do you think no junk mail stickers should be respected by people delivering junk mail?

• Is there a problem with ‘loose’ junk mail in your area – i.e. does it create a litter problem that you notice?

Is litter a problem in your area?

• Do you notice litter in and around the area where you live?

• What do you notice – what do you see in terms of litter around the area? (CHECK: ask for examples – do you see

litter lying around, overflowing bins, people actually littering etc.)?

• When we talk about litter – what are we really talking about? (CHECK: what are the types of litter you notice

around the area?)

• Are some types of litter worse than others – which and why?

• How much of a problem do you think litter is in the area? (CHECK: what’s your perception of the extent of litter in

your area compared to other parts of Auckland?)

• Who litters? (CHECK: do you have a view on who creates the litter in the area?)

• Do you ever litter/people you know? (it’s OK, I’m not going to point the finger at anyone) – just interested inwhether you ever have or do – and what you do, what, when?

• How does it make you feel when you see litter around the area?

• What do you think needs to be done to prevent littering? (CHECK: fines/enforcement, something else?

EXPLORE ALSO:

• Agreement or otherwise that a deposit should be charged on recyclable containers (10c, 20c – on drink cans,

plastic bottles, glass bottles – EXPLORE pros, cons, likely behaviour and barriers

• Agreement or otherwise that a deposit should be charged on tyres – EXPLAIN key issues here and EXPLORE pros,

cons, likely behaviour and barriers

WRAP UP AND ANY OTHER COMMENTS

THANK AND CLOSE

Page 570 of 591



55

Appendix III Respondent profile – Representative Online Survey

The table below provides a demographic breakdown of Mobius panel members who responded to the WMMP

survey, along with the variance when weighted to Department of Statistics data for the Auckland Region (refer to

Appendix IV). Sample sizes vary by demographic question as not all respondents answered all demographic

questions. The maximum sample size for any one question on the survey was N=5357.

Mobius PanelNumber of

responses

(N=5357)

Mobius PanelPercentages (%)

(n=5357)

Variance betweenDepartmet of Statistics

Data

Gender

Female 1306 73% 21%

Male 3447 27% -21%

Prefer not to say -

Age

18-19 years 885 13% -12%

20-29 years 1317 20% -3%

30-39 years 1537 23% 1%

40-49 years 1940 29% 13%50-64 years 940 14% 0%

65 years or over 83 - -

Prefer not to say 83 - -

Ethnicity*

NZ European 3305 69% 12%

Other European 420 9% 1%

Maori 403 8% -3%

Samoan 222 5% -2%

Cook Islands Maori 69 1% -1%

Tongan 57 1% -2%

Niuean 23 0% -1%

Tokelauan 1 0% 0%

Fijian 41 1% 0%Other Pacific Peoples 16 0% 0%

Chinese 96 2% -6%

Indian 154 3% -3%

Korean 9 0% 0%

Southeast Asian 48 1% -1%

Other Asian 63 1% -2%

Middle Eastern 13 0% -1%

Latin American 13 0% 0%

African 52 1% 1%


*Please note as this question was multiple response percentages don’t add to 100%

Local Board

Albert-Eden 300 7% 0%

Devonport-Takapuna 159 3% -1%

Franklin 230 5% 1%

Great Barrier 3 0% 0%

Henderson-Massey 345 8% 0%

Hibiscus and Bays 367 8% 2%

Howick 375 8% 2%

Kaipatiki 122 3% -3%

Mangere-Otahuhu 189 4% -2%

Manurewa 233 5% 0%

Page 571 of 591



56

Maungakiekie-Tamaki 264 6% 0%

Orakei 163 4% -2%

Otara-Papatoetoe 144 3% 0%

Papakura 138 3% -1%

Puketapapa 180 4% 0%

Rodney 335 7% -1%

Upper Harbour 196 4% 1%

Waiheke 30 1% 0%

Waitakere Ranges 235 5% 2%Waitemata 308 7% 2%

Whau 240 5% 0%

From: “Which of the following suburbs do you live in”?

Page 572 of 591



57

Appendix IV Respondent profile – People’s Panel Online Survey

The table below provides a demographic breakdown of People’s Panellists who responded to the WMMP survey:

People’s Panel

Number of

responses

(n=1914)

People’s Panel

Percentages (%)

(n=1914)

Statistics NZ

Percentages (%)

2006 census data

Gender

Female 1,060 55 51

Male 843 44 49

Prefer not to say 11 1 -

Age

18-19 years 15 1

20-29 years 135 7 14

30-39 years 332 17 16

40-49 years 432 23 15

50-64 years 623 33 6

65 years or over 352 18 10

Prefer not to say 25 1

Ethnicity*European 1623 85 57

Mäori 76 4 11

Pacific Peoples 49 3 14

Asian 85 4 19

Middle Eastern/Latin American/African 14 1 1

Other Ethnicity 116 6 8

Prefer not to say 33 2

*Please note as this question was multiple response percentages don’t add to 100%

Local Board

Albert-Eden 219 11 7

Devonport-Takapuna 76 4 4

Franklin 85 4 4

Great Barrier 2 0.1 0.1

Henderson-Massey 101 5 8

Hibiscus and Bays 145 8 6

Howick 111 6 9

Kaipatiki 126 7 6

Mangere-Otahuhu 37 2 5

Manurewa 37 2 6

Maungakiekie-Tamaki 84 4 5

Orakei 164 9 6

Otara-Papatoetoe 23 1 6

Papakura 42 2 3

Puketapapa 57 3 4

Rodney 132 7 4Upper Harbour 45 2 3

Waiheke 22 1 1

Waitakere Ranges 87 5 3

Waitemata 214 11 5

Whau 101 5 5

Other 2 0.1

I’d rather not say 2 0.1

From: “Which of the following suburbs do you live in”?

Page 573 of 591



CONSULTATION

MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH REVIEW OF THE WASTE ASSESSMENT

APRIL – MAY 2011

Page 574 of 591



Auckland Regional Public Health Service Cornwall Complex, Floor 2, Building 15Greenlane Clinical Centre, AucklandPrivate Bag 92 605, Symonds Street,Auckland 1150, New ZealandTelephone: 09 623 4600Facsimile: 09 623 4633Website: www.arphs.govt.nz

1st April 2011

Parul Sood

Strategic Projects Senior Advisor

Infrastructure and Environmental Services


Auckland Council

Private Bag 92300

Auckland 1142

Re: Review of Auckland Council Waste Assessment

Dear Ms. Sood

1. Thank you for consulting the Medical Officer of Health on Auckland Council’s Waste

Assessment, as part of the process by which Auckland Council will implement the

requirements of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

2. The documentation you supplied has been reviewed by a number of technical staff within

Auckland Regional Public Health Service (ARPHS) who have provided me with comment.

As the Medical Officer of Health, with the portfolio responsibility for solid waste issues, I am

pleased to be able to respond to your consultation.

3. Council’s waste assessment appears to have been thoroughly researched. It is well

written, has a logical layout, contains an impressive amount of information and is easy to

comprehend. I am also happy to see that Council has acknowledged the ability of the

appropriate Minister to give a ministerial direction if Council does not make satisfactory

progress in achieving the goals of its new Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

(WMMP), or in meeting Health Act requirements.

4. I welcome seeing “ensure public health and safety” on page 2 of the Overview Section is

presented as one of the drivers of the assessment. I look forward to seeing a continuing

emphasis on public health in Council’s solid waste plans and activities.

Page 575 of 591



5. Sanitary collection and disposal of solid waste is essential for reasons of:

Human disease control (e.g. pathogenic wastes, and reducing attraction to and

harbourage of human disease vectors including rats {and their fleas} and

mosquitoes).

Control of nuisance from dust, odour, and pest species (e.g. wasps, flies,

cockroaches).

Public safety - in the sense of uncluttered thoroughfares.

Direct health risks from hazardous wastes - like asbestos.

6. The remainder of this letter broadly follows the layout of Council’s waste assessment.

Chapter 2: Legislative and Strategic Context

7. I note the comments made about the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading)

Amendment Act 2008 and its potential impacts for greenhouse gases emanating from

landfill. ARPHS is aware that the issue of incineration was considered back in the 1990s,

with a proposal to use the old Meremere power station. This proposal did not proceed for a

variety of reasons. ARPHS believes that any waste assessment, that is used to inform a

waste minimisation plan with a long term time horizon, should give consideration to the

issue of waste incineration. Given the current state of incineration technology, emission

control issues and foreseeable costs (capital, operational and ETS liabilities) it may never

be a viable option, however the option does need to periodically be reviewed and

considered as a possible alternative to landfill, especially since waste to energy schemes

are attracting new attention as a means of dealing with intractable wastes.

8. The final costs to the region of it’s waste production will be a combination of:

Volume able to be diverted / recycled.

Monetary value able to be extracted from the materials diverted / recycled.

Final volume to landfill.

Costs associated with such landfill, e.g. greenhouse gas liabilities, cost of controlling

leachate, transport of waste, etc.

From the public health perspective there are risks and costs with whichever approach is

taken. It is only when all practical options have been explored that a rigorous assessment

against a range of parameters (including protecting public health) can be undertaken to

inform the final waste minimisation plan.

Page 576 of 591



Chapter 3 The Waste Problem

9. ARPHS supports the principles of reduction and recycling as a way of minimising the

‘legacy’ effect of landfill.

10. If Council is to meet its obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 it needs to

reduce the proportion of waste being landfilled. The waste assessment covers both the

composition of the waste stream and also outlines some of the potential uses for diverted

materials. Separating and diverting waste is, to a certain extent, a pointless exercise

unless there is strong demand for diverted and recycled materials. ARPHS believes that

further work should be undertaken in the assessment to better understand issues such as:

What market there is for recycled / reclaimed or new products resulting from waste?

For example is there a market for 80,000 tonnes1 of compost?

What can Auckland Council do to support markets in recycled or reclaimed

products? For example could Council’s procurement policies be used to stimulate

demand for products made from recycled materials? For example, could Council’s

underground utility infrastructure be manufactured from recycled plastics?

11. ARPHS also believes that a whole of life and systems perspective needs to be taken to the

issue of waste minimisation. At one level it is desirable to have a polluter pays approach

and to charge both industry and the private citizen the full cost of waste disposal as a way

of creating an incentive to minimise the amount of material that goes to landfill. This

approach also brings with it the risk of increased fly tipping and dumping. Such illegal

dumping imposes a direct cost on Council to collect and investigate it; such cost may be

relatively easy to estimate. Such illegal dumping may also bring with it risks to human

health from either disease or hazardous materials such as asbestos. These risks are more

difficult to quantify, aren’t faced directly by Council, but do impose costs on the wider

community.

12. In ARPHS experience there are a number of issues with current practices from the public

health perspective.

Recycling - processing facilities. Many facilities have, in the past, tended to be set

up in temporary accommodation. This has meant that they are often not purpose-

designed and have design failings that increase the risk of nuisance conditions

developing.

Haz-mobile – ARPHS welcomes the current haz-mobile service provision. It is,

however, an intermittent service and it may be that making the service more readily

available would decrease the amount of hazardous material unlawfully disposed ofelsewhere.

Page 577 of 591



13. ARPHS notes that the waste assessment makes no reference to polystyrene. Polystyrene

is used as a packing material to protect other goods. It is a high volume waste for its

weight and depending on how Council chooses to charge for waste disposal there is a risk

that it won’t be disposed of appropriately.

14. Should ‘waste owners’ decide to burn polystyrene it produces polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons that are carcinogenic. It also produces flaming sticky drops that can stick to

many surfaces and may present a risk of personal injury or fire spread. ARPHS believes

that polystyrene is recyclable and should be given specific consideration within the waste

assessment.

Chapter 4 Existing Services and Facilities

15. ARPHS supports the proposed region-wide waste operator licensing scheme. This will

provide better and more reliable information from which to make policy choices.

16. ARPHS supports the proposal to have tighter Resource Management planning controls for

cleanfill sites. Contaminants in soils erroneously dumped at cleanfills can have adverse

implications for potable water - via aquifers - and for natural watercourses. The

contamination of water in aquifers and natural watercourses brings with it a potential risk to

human health.

17. ARPHS believes the waste assessment needs to give more scrutiny to the issue of

construction and demolition recycling. Much demolished older property contains hazardous

materials such as asbestos. There is also a risk from properties used as P-labs and

possibly detrimental materials such as mouldy materials from leaky buildings. The impact

on workers involved in these issues is the responsibility of the Department of Labour. The

impact on the public from depot emissions and the transportation of unenclosed loads from

the community needs further thought.

18. ARPHS supports the elimination of organic material from landfills, as it will help reduce

greenhouse gas methane emissions. Should Council bring in a scheme to separate

organic material, there are a range of nuisance principles that will need careful

consideration. ARPHS would welcome being consulted at an early stage around issues

such as: container design, frequency of emptying, plans to keep containers clean and

resistant to domestic pets, wild animals, vermin and pest insects.

19. ARPHS believes that it may be unwise to rely upon the principle that reducing the volumeof council collected residential waste will result in cost savings at the landfill. Commercial

operations build pricing structures based on a number of issues such as capital invested,

1 Estimate taken from page 176 of thWaste Assessment Report

Page 578 of 591



finance costs, operational overheads and profit. With what is largely a duopoly around

waste disposal there is a risk that there will be an increased cost of disposal per unit to

compensate for reduced volume. Council’s own partial ownership of a landfill may not

provide sufficient competitive pressure to restrain price per unit volume increases.

20. ARPHS notes the reference to incorporating sewage biosolids into compost products.

Before any such incorporation can occur, a reliable and effective method of removing trade

waste residues, particularly heavy metals, needs to be in place to ensure that any such

compost products do not present a danger to human health or the environment.

21. The commentary around management of closed landfills is noted. ARPHS believes that

most closed landfills would benefit from better management and monitoring. ARPHS has

been consulted in the past in situations where material from landfill has been dug up in

gardens or during construction work. Anything that Council can do to encourage better

record keeping around landfills would be supported.

22. ARPHS notes the comments around transport inefficiencies and the potential for their

reduction to bring health gains in the areas of air quality and public safety, with some

associated economic gains through reduced congestion. ARPHS believes further work

would be worthwhile to quantify the extent of the gains for public health from increasing

transport efficiencies and to better understand the increased risks (if any) from greater use

of local transfer stations and the potential ‘double handling’ of waste. From the public

health perspective it will be important to ensure that any waste being transported across the

region is enclosed so that there is no risk to the public from insecure loads, dusty loads,

mouldy demolition materials, hazardous materials, spillage or catastrophic accident.

23. ARPHS notes the comments around Hampden Downs and the possibility that rail could be

used to transport waste. ARPHS hopes that this issue will be further explored as part of the

development of the waste minimisation plan.

Chapter 5 Future Demands

24. The popularity of inorganic collections confirms that many residents wish to dispose of their

rubbish responsibly, but baulk at the cost of a trip to a transfer station. ARPHS believes

that pre-existing inorganic collections can be seen as a public good issue as they remove

much of the incentive to dump waste for those unable or unwilling, to pay tip fees. Although

scavenging causes untidiness, it also provides the opportunity for a substantial proportion

of such waste to be reclaimed and recycled. A ‘collection on demand’ service could reduceuntidiness issues associated with current inorganic collections, but unless facilities and

procedures at transfer stations are geared up for reclaiming and recycling material being

dumped they will do little to reduce the amount of material going to landfill.

Page 579 of 591



25. The comments on ‘projected diverted materials’ mirror ARPHS own views about the need

for an identified end use and market for material diverted from the waste stream. As noted

previously ARPHS believes that Council and its Council Controlled Organisations

procurement polices need to consider what role Council can have in stimulating or creating

a market for recycled or reused material. This may need to extend to seed investments to

stimulate demand and innovation.

Chapter 6 Future Planning Framework

26. Council has identified priority waste streams as:

Organic waste.

Construction and demolition waste.

Recyclables and packaging.

Hazardous waste.

Inorganic / special wastes.

Illegal dumping and litter.

ARPHS supports this list, but from the public health perspective the order should be:

Hazardous.

Organic.

Construction and demolition.

Illegal dumping and litter.

Recyclables and packaging.

Inorganic/special wastes.

27. ARPHS supports the proposal to move towards the collection of hazardous waste at drop-

off facilities in transfer stations, provided that there are sufficient transfer stations to provide

good regional coverage. The ability to drop off hazardous wastes at transfer stations

should be more attractive than the Haz-mobile facility - due to the greater convenience and

extended opening hours that transfer stations will provide. From the public health

perspective ARPHS believes that it is important that the domestic hazardous waste service

remains ‘free’ as this is likely to maximise the proportion of hazardous waste that is

removed from community circulation and is a ‘public good’ issue.

28. ARPHS notes the bag vs. bin discussion for Council refuse collection. The clear public

health preference is for bins due to the much better:

Isolation of refuse from interference by domestic and wild animals. Control of odour and dust.

Isolation of refuse from insect pest species e.g. flies and wasps.

Page 580 of 591



ARPHS accepts that the use of bins can lead to increased waste volumes, but believes that

this can be mitigated through careful selection of bin size and the charging mechanism for

additional waste quantities.

29. ARPHS does not support any moves to a fortnightly collection of refuse that includes

putrescibles, due to the extent to which such waste deteriorate over time and the

consequential increased health risk.

30. ARPHS is disappointed at the level of explicit discussion around any possible zero waste

approach contained in the waste assessment. The waste assessment notes that all of the

previous councils waste minimisation plans had “…taken note of moving ‘towards zero

waste’…” but there is little discussion in the document as to the possible benefits and

challenges from attempting to advance zero waste objectives. Becoming a zero waste

region may be an aspirational goal, but ARPHS believes that zero waste objectives should

have a key place in the region’s waste minimisation and management plan. For some

components of the waste stream a zero waste approach is likely to have the potential for

considerable impact.

Chapter 7 Options Assessment

31. As the only option that is within sight of compliance with legislative goals, ARPHS supports

Direct Strategic Option 3, provided that there is no consequent detrimental effect on public

health. It would be a perverse outcome if, for example, increased production and use of

compost led to increased risk to manufacturing staff, people in the vicinity and end users

due to the risk of its contamination with legionella bacteria.

32. It is unclear from the comments on Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) as to what

future role such programmes will have in Council’s WMMP. The last paragraph of the

section on CBSM programmes suggests that national coordination is desirable and that

Council should not undertake any activity in this area in its own right. ARPHS does not

agree with this sentiment. Council is sufficiently large to develop and run appropriate

CBSM tied to its own WMMP. Any such CBSM has a similar role to a health promotion

programme addressing a particular health issue. It will not be the whole solution, but can

play an important part in addressing an issue. For Council’s WMMP any CBSM will support

Council’s objectives, but can only succeed if Council is able to find realistic and sustainable

markets for diverted waste materials.

33. ARPHS notes the discussion around regulatory approaches. Any regulatory approach willneed both an effective enforcement mechanism and the political will to support effective

enforcement.

Page 581 of 591



34. A regulatory approach also needs public support. Bylaws banning green waste from refuse

bins are likely to be unpopular and potentially unenforceable. They may only be viable and

publicly supported if a free green waste collection is also provided. Any bylaw that is

unpopular is likely to result in an increase in fly-tipping, concealment and dumping in skips

and street bins - to get around any restrictions. In deciding what regulatory approach to

take Council needs to ensure that regulation will be successful in addressing problems and

not just displace activity elsewhere.

35. In addition to regulation, Council should also consider what policy levers it has available to

it to incentivise the desired behaviours around waste management for the community,

business and the waste management industry.

36. ARPHS does not support the use of the term “waste value chain” as used in the discussion

of options. The term waste value chain implies that there is value throughout the waste

stream. This is correct for elements of the chain, but is not the case throughout the vertical

chain from production to eventual reuse or landfill. ARPHS believes that the term waste

stream is a more neutral and readily understood descriptor.

Chapter 8 Preferred Options to Meet Waste Minimisation Targets

37. From the public health perspective any decisions around waste should be governed by the

overriding principle that control of refuse is essentially a public health measure to address

human disease and nuisance risks around vector control, odour, dust, hazardous wastes

and vermin. ARPHS believes that the current key objectives in figure 8.1.1 should be

amended to ensure that the reduction of harm from waste becomes an overarching ‘super’

objective that shapes and informs decision making for all other aspects of Council’s waste

management activities.

Chapter 9 Statement of Proposal

38. ARPHS questions the appropriateness of the timeframes in the statements of proposal.

While there may be merit in aligning the review of the strategy to the same timeframe as

the long term council plan, ARPHS believes that the 10 year planning horizon is too short

and should be extended to 20 or 30 years. While the longer timeframe suggested is too

long for any meaningful financial modelling, it would align better with other timeframes for

long term planning - such as the spatial plan or regional land transport strategy.

Page 582 of 591



Other Issues

39. The waste assessment contains little in the way of discussion around the role of local

boards. The only time local boards are mentioned is in connection with possible licensing

and tenders for services. The Draft Annual Plan document - in its section outlining the

differing roles of the governing body and local boards on environmental management,

protection and enhancement - describes local boards as having the following decision-

making and oversight responsibilities:

Input into regional education programmes to improve…minimise waste, and

tailoring regional programmes to local circumstances.

…local waste management plans and projects within regional parameters.

Variations to region-wide service levels for the local area such as refuse and

recycling services.

40. ARPHS believes that the waste assessment needs to give further consideration of the role

of the local boards and their role in the final WMMP.

41. In a similar manner the waste assessment is silent on the role of council controlled

organisations (CCOs) in supporting the final WMMP. How the CCOs are allowed to

operate has the potential to either support or hinder Council’s WMMP through their roles as

generators of waste and potential customers for recycled products. This issue should be

further considered as part of the waste assessment, the final WMMP and in the statements

of intent that Council will use to control the CCOs.

42. The former Auckland councils operated a regional Waste Officers’ Forum. Should such a

body be contemplated to involve stakeholders with an interest in waste management

issues, ARPHS would like to be included in such an initiative.

Page 583 of 591



Conclusion

43. As noted previously, Council’s waste assessment appears to have been thoroughly

researched. It is well written, has a logical layout, contains an impressive amount of

information and is easy to comprehend. I hope my comments will add to the utility of the

waste assessment and be helpful in formulating a waste management and minimisation

plan that will enable Council to deliver on the objectives that the Act requires of it and at the

same time will ensure that public health is protected.

Yours sincerely

Dr Simon Baker

Medical Officer of Health

Auckland Regional Public Health Service

Page 584 of 591



Page 585 of 591



Page 586 of 591



Page 587 of 591



Page 588 of 591



Auckland Regional Public Health Service Cornwall Complex, Floor 2, Building 15Greenlane Clinical Centre, AucklandPrivate Bag 92 605, Symonds Street,Auckland 1150, New ZealandTelephone: 09 623 4600Facsimile: 09 623 4633Website: www.arphs.govt.nz

2nd May 2011

Parul Sood

Strategic Projects Senior Advisor

Infrastructure and Environmental Services


Auckland Council

Private Bag 92300

Auckland 1142

Re: Review of Auckland Council Waste Assessment

Dear Ms. Sood

Thank you for considering the Medical officer of Health comments on Auckland Council’s Waste

Assessment.

This is further to our meeting on 15th April 2011 and letter dated 29th April 2011 regarding your

request to make comments on some of the points raised in our feedback.

Chapter 3, Point 11

ARPHHS believes this is a political decision for the Auckland Council to make. Whether or not

past experience of illegal dumping in two of the amalgamated former councils matches future

trends remains to be seen. We simply flag the possibility that compliance with a new regime

may not match prior expectations.

Chapter 3, Point 12

ARPHS has already agreed that hazardous waste disposal at transfer stations is preferable to

the Hazmobile service. Our main point is that free removal of hazardous materials from the

community is a public good issue to be commended.

Page 589 of 591



Chapter 3, Point 13

Auckland Council does control the collection and disposal of polystyrene waste originating from

residential properties. We see the recycling of that percentage of the polystyrene waste stream

as setting a useful precedent for handling of the commercial quantities arising via private

collection. Establishment of a polystyrene recycling facility would be a good initiative for

Page 590 of 591

appendix f - supporting reports and data update

Documents