report - lga.sa.gov.au roles lg... · and development to assist councils in their waste management...

Jeff Tate Consulting Pty Ltd PO Box 825, McLaren Vale SA 5171 Mobile 0414 962 162 [email protected] www.tateconsulting.com.au ABN 80 152 792919

REPORT: Transitioning the roles of Local Government in Waste Management

For: Local Government Association of South Australia August 2014

1 Jeff Tate Consulting

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................... 4

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 6

2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 6

2.1. INCREASING COSTS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 6

2.2. INCREASES IN THE SOLID WASTE LEVY ........................................................................................................................... 7

2.3. GROWTH OF WASTE TO RESOURCES FUND .................................................................................................................... 8

2.4. ANNOUNCED CESSATION OF ZERO WASTE SA ................................................................................................................ 9

2.5. INCREASES IN WASTE PRODUCED AND RECOVERED ..................................................................................................... 10

3. WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 12

3.1. CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13

International obligations .............................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.1.

National and state legislation ....................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.2.

National and state policies and strategies .................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.3.

Roles of the LGA ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1.4.

Regional approaches .................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1.5.

Waste and recycling industry ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1.6.

Waste manufacturing industry ..................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.7.

Research and development .......................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.8.

3.2. PLAN ............................................................................................................................................................................ 19

Council policy ............................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.2.1.

Strategy ........................................................................................................................................................................ 21 3.2.2.

Service and procurement planning .............................................................................................................................. 23 3.2.3.

3.3. DELIVER ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Procurement ................................................................................................................................................................ 26 3.3.1.

Service management .................................................................................................................................................... 27 3.3.2.

Public education and behaviour change....................................................................................................................... 27 3.3.3.

Data and information management ............................................................................................................................. 27 3.3.4.

3.4. EVALUATE .................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Strategy and policy ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 3.4.1.

Service delivery ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 3.4.2.

Achievement of waste management targets ............................................................................................................... 30 3.4.3.

Costs and benefits ........................................................................................................................................................ 30 3.4.4.

Closing the loop ............................................................................................................................................................ 31 3.4.5.


3.5. REPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31

Reporting framework ................................................................................................................................................... 32 3.5.1.

Information sharing ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 3.5.2.

4. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 32

5. APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................. 34

6. APPENDIX B................................................................................................................................... 35


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Executive Summary

The coming months and years will be a period of transition in waste management for the Local Government sector. The Local Government Association of South Australia (LGA) commissioned this project to look at the current and potential future roles of Local Government in managing municipal solid waste (MSW).

This report was written in a state of uncertainty about the future of waste management in South Australia due to a number of factors. The ever increasing costs of waste management for Councils has been documented, and is partly due to the increased rate of the State Government's Solid Waste Levy (SWL). Expenditure on waste management has almost doubled in a 10 year period and now represents a higher proportion of SA Council expenditure than ever before.

The Waste to Resources Fund, the repository for 50 per cent of the SWL collected, is growing without any clear policy or strategic direction for its intended expenditure. This policy vacuum must be addressed.

In addition, of great concern to Local Government is the announced cessation of Zero Waste South Australia. This is the key body responsible for implementing state legislation on reducing waste to landfill and is the only means by which SWL funds are invested in Local Government and the waste sector. However there has not been a clear understanding of what its successor body will do. This is of particular importance because current figures show that although SA’s diversion rates of waste to landfill are increasing, the amount of waste generated is still growing.

Combined, these factors have created a great need for reconsidering the roles and responsibilities for Councils and the LGA.

Within this environment of growing uncertainty, this paper presents a discussion on transitioning the roles of Local Government in waste management with a focus on MSW. The author summarised and reviewed existing literature on waste management, primarily looking at research commissioned by the LGA. This led to the proposal of using a ‘waste management framework’ to assist Councils and the LGA in transitioning to a new way of thinking. Following, a series of recommendations are offered to assist the Local Government sector with a focus on service delivery and cost efficiency.

Given the current circumstances it is desirable for the Local Government sector to take greater control over its destiny, facilitated by strong leaderhip by the LGA.

The waste management framework is recommended as a way of thinking about waste management from a Local Government perspective. This framing has been devised to demonstrate that Councils can have an impact at the front-end of planning (Plan), and not just on the delivery side (Deliver). This Planning is iterative, as evaluation (Evaluate) outcomes re-inform the planning process later down the track. The framework is rounded out by internal and external reporting (Report).


The framework is responsive to the context (Context) in which waste management currently occurs in South Australia, including the international, national, state, regional and local considerations.

Recommendations

1. That the LGA consult with Councils about this report and other reports it has recently commissioned in relation to waste management.

2. That the LGA continue to place a high priority on waste management given its importance to Councils and the challenges they face.

3. That the LGA use the waste management framework set out in this report (or similar approach) in its own waste management deliberations and promote it to Councils to assist them in their waste management roles.

4. That the LGA take a strong leadership role and also increase its resourcing of waste management issues to manage the transition facing the Local Government sector with the pending cessation of Zero Waste SA. The increased resourcing should aim to:

increase the LGA’s capacity for policy and strategy development with an important consideration being the need to work across several portfolios of government (not just the Environment portfolio); and

enhance its capacity to assist Councils in their own policy and strategy development (differentiating between operational policy and higher level policy), decision making about matters such as investment in waste infrastructure and the mix of services to be provided, and in entering into and managing waste management contracts.

5. That the LGA take a stronger policy and strategy development role for the Local Government sector in waste management especially in the context of the pending cessation of Zero Waste SA. In the short term the focus should be on:

establishing a Local Government position on waste management targets; and

filling the policy vacuums for the operation of the Solid Waste Levy (including that it operate as a facilitator of improvements in waste management rather than a price barrier to waste disposal) and the Waste to Resources Fund (including that the Fund should facilitate improvements in waste management which may include direct financial assistance or leveraging against risks faced by Councils).

6. That the LGA negotiate the best outcomes it can for Local Government with the replacement of Zero Waste SA by Green Industries SA, in particular noting that the focus for Green Industries SA appears to be more aligned with industry development than other aspects of waste management.


7. That the LGA pursue the development and ongoing maintenance of a system of data and information sharing between Councils on waste management. Through this initiative and others, that the LGA become the identified centre of knowledge of matters related to Local Government’s roles in waste management.

8. That the LGA place particular emphasis on regional (or sub-regional) approaches to waste management including:

a. undertaking an optimisation project to identify: the most efficient use of waste services and facilities across South Australia, barriers preventing the findings from being implemented and how to remove those barriers (a regional pilot project may be appropriate as a first step);

b. developing a markets model to examine whether through collaboration sufficient resources/activities can be created to interest further market participants; and

c. reviewing whether the potential barriers to the commercial operation of subsidiary Authorities established under Section 43 of the Local Government Act as identified in the 2007 Cossey report are still valid, and if so, recommend ways to overcome those barriers.

9. That the LGA work with Councils and the waste industry to encourage the greater use of goods made from recycled materials. An important step for Councils is to include the greater use of goods made from recycled materials in waste management strategies, to measure outcomes at the evaluation stage, and to report on outcomes.

10. That the LGA:

a. monitor and report on trends in charging for waste by volume/weight/frequency of collection; and

b. encourage Councils that do not have a separate waste charge to review their position and to move towards a closer relationship between waste services being provided and charging for those services.

11. That the LGA work with a small group of Councils to consider the usefulness of placing a ceiling on waste management expenditure to help set priorities and drive efficiency gains, as part of a package of potential changes by Councils.

12. That the LGA continue to work with the waste industry on matters of joint interest including pursuing the concept of a waste manufacturing industry with Green Industries SA when it is formed.

13. That the LGA seek discussions with Zero Waste SA about future arrangements for research and development to assist Councils in their waste management roles.

14. That the LGA consider the potential future directions set out in parts 3.1 to 3.5 of this report and consider the potential roles of a central body operating under the auspices of the LGA in pursuing some of those directions and the above recommendations.


1. INTRODUCTION

Jeff Tate Consulting Pty Ltd was engaged by the Local Government Association of South Australia (LGA) to:

review and summarise the findings of a number of research projects and other documents on waste management; and

provide recommendations on the future direction of the Local Government sector in waste management with a focus on service delivery and cost efficiency.

The project was undertaken by Jeff Tate of Jeff Tate Consulting Pty Ltd with assistance from Natasha Davis of Sustainable Focus (in identifying key themes) and Kate Washington. The methodology involved discussions with key LGA staff, reviewing other reports and conducting a workshop attended by the authors of some of the reports commissioned by the LGA and representatives of Waste Management Association Australia (WMAA).

A full list of the reports commissioned by the LGA appears at Appendix A.

The coming months and years will be a period of transition for the Local Government sector in relation to waste management as it seeks to control escalating costs and ensure fair and effective use of money held in the State Government’s Waste to Resources Fund. The announced cessation of Zero Waste SA will lead to significant changes for Councils. It provides some challenges but also opportunities: in particular for Local Government to have a greater role in setting its own course in waste management. This has implications for Councils and particularly for the LGA.

This report proposes the use of a ‘waste management framework’ to assist Councils from the stages of policy and strategy development, through to service delivery, evaluation and reporting. It also includes details of current LGA roles and suggestions for future directions.

2. BACKGROUND

The project was commissioned in the context of:

ever increasing costs of waste management for Councils;

increases in the Solid Waste Levy;

growth of the Waste to Resources Fund;

the announced cessation of Zero Waste SA in 2015; and

ongoing increases in the amounts of waste produced and recovered in South Australia.

In a broader context the policies, strategies and actions of the Local Government sector also need to be considered against the Waste Management Hierarchy as outlined in the Zero Waste Act 2004 (see section 3.1.2(b) below).

2.1. Increasing costs of waste management

Annual expenditure on waste management by Councils in South Australia increased by approximately 94.5% in the 10 year period from 2002/03 to 2011/12.

“The total Council spend on waste management has almost doubled over the past 10 years, from

2002-03 when waste management spend totaled $79.9 million to $155.4 million in 2011-12. This is a

significant trend, which if it should continue, will be a significant financial challenge to Councils over

the next 5- 10 years” (Rawtec 2013).


Waste management also increased as a proportion of total Local Government operating expenditure from 7.4% in 2002/03 to 8.5% in 2011/12 (Table 1).

A significant reason for the increase in expenditure is the major escalation in the Solid Waste Levy (SWL) over the past decade (see section 2.2). The LGA (2012) estimated that approximately $14m of Local Government’s waste-related expenditure was on SWL payments in 2011/12; this is around three times more than in 2004/05. If this estimate is correct it represents approximately 17.5% of the increased cost of waste management over the ten year period.

Table 1 Total SA Council expenditure on waste management from 2002-03 to 2011-12

(Source: South Australian Local Government Grants Commission 2013, cited in Rawtec 2013)

The LGA has noted that additional causes (apart from inflation and population growth) for the increase include increasing service standards and diversification of services offered by Councils (e.g. three bin kerbside collections and e-waste recycling) as well as increases in landfill costs additional to the SWL (LGA 2012).

Importantly PwC concluded that the waste management model implemented by individual Councils “does not appear to be a driving or significant variable in the overall costs of providing waste services” (PwC 2014). It noted that general kerbside waste (given its higher collection frequency) and disposal are major costs for Councils and that diversion from landfill through recycling will lead to savings (PwC 2014). Obviously the cost of achieving additional recycling volumes would need to be considered also.

2.2. Increases in the Solid Waste Levy

The Solid Waste Levy (SWL) was introduced in South Australia in the early 1990s under the Environment Protection Act 1993. Initially introduced at $2/tonne, it rose to $5.09/tonne by 2002/03. The levy doubled in 2003/04 and has increased dramatically since (Blue Environment 2012). The SWL is currently $47.00/tonne for metropolitan waste disposal sites and $23.50/tonne for non-metropolitan sites. Its projected increase by 2016/17 is listed in Table 2.

Year Total Spend on Waste Management ($m)

Total Council Operating Expenditure ($m)

Waste Management Proportion of Total Expenditure

2002/03 79.88 1,076 7.4%

2003/04 80.77 1,138 7.1%

2004/05 93.80 1,219 7.7%

2005/06 94.10 1,287 7.3%

2006/07 102.29 1,369 7.5%

2007/08 104.84 1,449 7.2%

2008/09 125.73 1,551 8.1%

2009/10 127.85 1,627 7.9%

2010/11 142.00 1,724 8.2%

2011/12 155.35 1,829 8.5%


Table 2 Current and projected landfill levy details

(Source: Blue Environment 2012)

The LGA has noted that additional causes (apart from inflation and population growth) for the increase include increasing service standards and diversification of services offered by Councils (e.g. three bin kerbside collections and e-waste recycling) as well as increases in landfill costs additional to the SWL (LGA 2012).

A report by Blue Environment (2012) on the implications of the SWL in South Australia highlights that the policy intentions of this economic instrument are unclear; that its function does not appear to be defined clearly in legislation or policy; and that the State Government has not provided a clear rationale for the growth in the WRF.

The report clarifies that levies, as economic instruments, have two main purposes (Blue Environment 2012):

1. Landfill price barrier – increasing the cost of waste disposal and therefore increasing the attractiveness of preferred waste management practices such as reducing waste, recycling, composting and energy recovery.

2. Facilitating waste management improvements – providing a stream of revenue for programs that improve waste management practices.

The LGA’s preferred position is for the levy to perform more of the facilitation role: “The LGA has a key role to play in lobbying for Local Government access to the revenue from the SWL held in the hypothecated WRF [Waste to Resources Fund] to ensure that non-price influences for household waste management can be effectively implemented” (LGA 2013).

However the levy’s continuing increase, and the underspend on waste management activities at the State Government level (see section 2.3), indicates that it is being used more as a landfill price barrier. The effectiveness of the levy in this role has been questioned by the LGA: “The LGA believes the increased cost burden to Councils will not result in higher waste diversion rates, as Councils are already operating at best practice for municipal solid waste” (LGA 2011).

2.3. Growth of Waste to Resources Fund

Half of the Solid Waste Levy (SWL) collections are transferred to the Waste to Resources Fund (WRF), in accordance with Section 17 of the Zero Waste Act 2004. The other 50% is used to fund the Environment Protection Authority’s operations (45%) and the Environment Protection Fund (5%). The allocation to the WRF is hypothecated and allocated for expenditure under the authority of the State Treasurer (LGA 2011).

Revenue from the SWL is quite significant, totalling $40 million in 2012/13; however less than a quarter of those funds are returned to the waste sector through Zero Waste SA (LGA &WMAA 2013).

Year Non-Metro levy rate per tonne

Metro levy rate per tonne

2013-14 $23.50 $47.00

2014-15 $26.00 $52.00

2015-16 $28.50 $57.00

2016-17 $31.00 $62.00


Zero Waste South Australia’s (ZWSA) expenditure has not kept up with funds accruing through the levy (Blue Environment 2012). Of the 50% of the levy payments that are transferred to the WRF, only about half is used by ZWSA to fund its annual business plan; the rest remains unspent (W&MS 2013) and is projected to increase to $53.674m in 2014/15.

The Blue Environment (2012) report explains that this underspend demonstrates a shifting policy intent for the SWL while the State Government has not provided a clear rationale for the growth in the WRF.

The high level of funds held in the WRF, with no apparent plans for its use, is a great concern for the Local Government sector. In his review of regional services Cossey (2007) had suggested landfill closures and associated transfer station establishments in Rural and Regional South Australia should be funded through the WRF. More recently, the LGA (2012) proposed a number of uses for money in the WRF including:

addressing pressing waste management issues faced by Councils like:

o increasing capacity to deal with illegal dumping;

o improved assistance for the management of electronic waste; and

o expansion and further investigations of food waste collection.

supportive functions including:

o research and development;

o uniformity of approach to certain aspects of waste management; and

o carbon pricing and waste management.

2.4. Announced Cessation of Zero Waste SA

Zero Waste SA (ZWSA) was established as a body corporate and instrumentality of the State Government under the Zero Waste Act 2004. It is the primary agency responsible for reducing waste to landfill by 25% by 2014, as set in South Australia’s Strategic Plan (W&MS 2013). Its primary functions are outlined in Box 1 below.

The SA Government announced in December 2012 that ZWSA will cease in its current form in June 2015. It has since made several announcements about a successor body. Those announcements indicate that a body called Green Industries SA will be created from 1 July 2015 with a budget of $4m per annum and a broader agenda that includes water and energy efficiency. A letter dated 6 March 2014 to the LGA from the Hon Ian Hunter MP, Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation states:

Through its work with business, Adaptive Futures SA [since renamed Green Industries SA] will identify opportunities for innovation, creating efficiency in the use of raw materials, water and energy and creating markets for waste materials.

Current legislative arrangements for the SWL and WRF will remain until June 2017 (LGA 2013). It is anticipated that a review of the Zero Waste Act 2004 will occur by this time (LGA &WMAA 2013).

Details of Green Industries SA had not been announced at the time of drafting this report.

“By underspending the Waste to Resources fund, South Australia has shifted the emphasis of its

solid waste levy away from the facilitation role and towards the landfill price barrier role... Review

of South Australia’s priorities for municipal waste confirms that further increases in the landfill

price effect are unlikely to help. The priority for the solid waste levy should now shift to

expenditure of available funds” (Blue Environment 2012).


There is 10 years of history of the Local Government sector working with ZWSA and it will be important that a positive working relationship is developed and maintained with Green Industries SA. It will also be important for the LGA to negotiate the best outcomes it can for Local Government, especially given that the focus of Green Industries SA appears to be more on industry development than waste management.

2.5. Increases in waste produced and recovered

Local Government advice and planning on waste management could not come at a more critical point. According to Rawtec (2013) the overall amount of waste in South Australia has been increasing, on average, at 7% per annum with an overall increase of waste by 57% from 2003/04 to 2011/12. The average waste generated per person is also on the rise.

For the same period there has been a 95% increase in waste diverted from landfill, an average of 10% per annum. The net result is a 4% decrease in tonnes of waste sent to landfill for that period, an average of 0.4% per annum. These trends are shown in Figure 1.

The functions of Zero Waste South Australia

a) to develop, co-ordinate and contribute to the implementation of government policy objectives in respect of—

i) waste management for regions, industry sectors or material types; and

ii) public and industry awareness and education in relation to waste management; and

iii) programs for the prevention of litter and illegal dumping; and

iv) market development for recovered resources and recycled material; and

b) to develop, adopt and administer the waste strategy for the State; and

c) to monitor and assess the adequacy of the waste strategy and its implementation; and

d) to provide assistance to local councils with arrangements for regional waste management; and

e) to contribute to the development of waste management infrastructure, technologies and systems; and

f) to commission, support and collaborate on research into waste management practices and issues; and

g) to advise the Minister from time to time about the amount to be charged by way of the levy under section 113 of the Environment Protection Act 1993;

h) to advise the Minister about any matter referred to it by the Minister or any matter it sees fit to advise the Minister on in connection with its responsibilities under this Act; and

i) such other functions as may be conferred on it by this Act or any other Act, or as may be assigned to it by the Minister.

Box 1 The Functions of Zero Waste South Australia


Figure 1 Overall SA annual waste generation in tonnes 2003-04 to 2011-12

(Source: Rawtec 2013)

The volume of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) collected in 2011-12 was 827,000 tonnes of which 446,000 tonnes were diverted from landfill at a diversion rate of 54%. The remaining 381,000 tonnes were sent to landfill. MSW constituted 16% of all waste produced and 31% of waste to landfill (Rawtec 2013). Figure 2 shows the trend for MSW over a five year period.

Figure 2 MSW annual waste generation



While increased recovery rates have led to a reduction in the percentage of waste going to landfill, the overall quantities of waste that need to be managed are increasing. Rawtec (2013) projects a 21% increase in MSW over the next 10 years, from 827,000 tonnes per annum to 1,003,000 tonnes.

There are important decisions to be made by Councils about how they will manage this ongoing increase in MSW produced, especially given that their roles in waste management are largely focused on the lower levels of the waste hierarchy (see section 3.1.2(b)).

It also again raises the question that has been asked in the past as to whether it is appropriate to fund the waste management consequences of increased consumption from property taxes (i.e. Council rates).

3. WASTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

For Local Government, waste management has the potential to continue consuming an ever increasing proportion of available resources, particularly as the volume of waste continues to grow and new waste streams emerge. It is useful to look at a framework to guide Councils’ thinking about their roles and also asserting the Local Government sector’s input to the waste management agenda.

Because Councils are delivering services direct to communities they are required to meet internal efficiency and effectiveness targets as well as waste management targets. They also have other significant demands on their budgets to provide a broad range of infrastructure and services.

The following framework is suggested as a way of thinking about waste management from a Local Government perspective. This framing has been devised to demonstrate that Councils can have an impact at the front-end of planning (Plan), and not just on the delivery side (Deliver). This Planning is iterative, as evaluation (Evaluate) outcomes re-inform the planning process later down the track. The framework is rounded out by internal and external reporting (Report).

The elements are discussed from a Council perspective below. For each element there is also a commentary on current LGA activities to assist Councils along with suggestions for future directions.

First we establish the context in which this framing exists.


3.1. Context

The context in which Councils provide waste services is relatively complex and has changed over time. It has an international component as well as national, state, regional and local considerations. They include:

1. international obligations;

2. national and state legislation;

3. national and state level policies and strategies;

4. roles of the Local Government Association of South Australia;

5. arrangements at the regional level;

6. the waste sector (including private and public sector operators);

7. waste manufacturing industry; and

8. research and development.

International obligations 3.1.1.

Australia has signed on to a number of key waste-related international conventions and agreements that focus on a range of transboundary waste issues like transport of hazardous waste (the Basel Convention) and reducing atmospheric pollutants (Montreal Protocol). This has been reflected in national legislation (Commonwealth of Australia 2014).

National and state legislation 3.1.2.

Previously, the role of Councils in waste management was driven primarily by community expectation. However their role in this area is now determined more by legislation with the increasing incidence of waste policies and strategies at the national, state and regional level (LGA 2011). A thorough understanding of this legislative context helps to drive a holistic approach in both top-down and bottom-up approaches to waste management by Councils.

(a) National legislation

Management of waste is primarily the domain of state and territory and local governments. However there are three key legislative instruments that give effect to Australia’s international obligations and address transboundary environmental protection issues.

the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 outlines the following National Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs) specific to waste:

o NEPMs on the movement of Controlled Waste between States and Territories; and


o NEPMs on Used Packaging Materials that supports the Australian Packaging Convenant

National Greenhouse Energy and Reporting Act 2007;

Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000; and

Product Stewardship Act 2011.

(b) State legislation

The Zero Waste Act 2004 is the principal legislation for waste management in South Australia. It:

has provisions dealing with the formation and operation of Zero Waste South Australia (ZWSA);

establishes the Waste Resources Fund and the rules for its operation;

requires ZWSA to develop a waste strategy at least every five years (and for ZWSA and the Environment Protection Authority to coordinate the development and implementation of waste strategies); and

provides for Regulations to be made for the purposes of the Act.

The Act also requires that in exercising its functions, ZWSA should be guided by the waste management hierarchy. The hierarchy is a nationally and internationally accepted guide for prioritising waste management practices. The objective is to achieve optimal enviornmental outcomes with the most preferable activities starting from the top of the hierarchy (ZWSA 2014).

Waste management hierarchy

The Environment Protection Act 1993 provides for the regulation of waste management activities in South Australia including landfills.

National and state policies and strategies 3.1.3.

(a) National policy and strategy

The National Waste Policy was agreed to by all Environment Ministers in 2009 and endorsed by the Council of Australia Governments the following year. The Policy sets out the direction, through six key areas, for Australia’s waste management and resource recovery to 2020:

AVOID – the production of waste.

REDUCE – the production of waste

REUSE – of waste

RECYCLE – of waste

TREAT – waste to reduce potentially

degrading impacts

DISPOSE – waste in an environmentally

sound manner


1. Taking responsibilityShared responsibility for reducing the environmental, health and safety footprint of products and materials across the manufacture-supply-consumption chain and at end-of-life.

2. Improving the marketEfficient and effective Australian markets operate for waste and recovered resources, with local technology and innovation being sought after internationally.

3. Pursuing sustainabilityLess waste and improved use of waste to achieve broader environmental, social and economic benefits.

4. Reducing hazard and riskReduction of potentially hazardous content of wastes with consistent, safe and accountable waste recovery, handling and disposal.

5. Tailoring solutionsIncreased capacity in regional, remote and Indigenous communities to manage waste and recover and re-use resources.

6. Providing the evidenceAccess by decision makers to meaningful, accurate and current national waste and resource recovery data and information to measure progress and educate and inform the behaviour and the choices of the community.

Implementation is guided by 16 key strategies to align activities and funding nationally, regionally and across individual jurisdictions.

Programs delivered under the National Waste Policy include a National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme to provide free recycling services for e-waste products, the Tyre Product Stewardship Scheme and the Australian Packaging Covenant. These are in place to enhance, but not fundamentally change, the role of Local Government in waste management. More recently, the National Waste Reporting online resource tool was released.

(b) State policy and strategy

The key state policy governing waste management is the Environment Protection (Waste to Resources Policy) that sits under the Environment Protection Act 1993. Key elements include mandating what is banned from landfill and that all councils are responsible for weekly waste collection. It also provides provisions around illegal dumping and penalities and licences for waste transport. This Policy supports the Zero Waste Act 2004 and provides the regulatory underpinning of South Australia’s Waste Strategy, including implementation of the waste management hierarchy (EPA 2012).

SA’s Waste Strategy (2011-2015) sets out the strategic direction for waste management in the state. It sets targets and long-term objectives for the sector.

The National Waste Reporting online resource, developed under the National Waste Policy,

will be of particular use to Local Government in future waste management planning.

“The maps provide a better understanding of the diverse arrangements across sometimes

adjoining local government areas. It provides opportunities for considering ways to achieve

more comprehensive collection across broader areas where it makes sense to do so. It

provides councils, waste and recycling businesses with critical information to assist in planning

future waste management activities. For example, this information can be useful when

contracts are being renewed or opportunities for amalgamated services arise. It can be used

as an educational resource on the types and materials recycled at kerbside” (Commonwealth

of Australia 2014).


South Australia’s overarching Strategic Plan for the state includes 100 measurable targets, including one for waste management that looks 5 years beyond the current Waste Strategy (2011-2015) to 2020.

An identified gap in State policy is on the Solid Waste Levy and Waste to Resources Fund. Although both are legislated under the Zero Waste Act 2004 there does not appear to be any stated policy objectives for these economic instruments.

Roles of the LGA 3.1.4.

(a) Current roles

The LGA currently has roles in waste management that include:

advocating and lobbying for the Local Government sector on SA Government policies, strategies and charges;

providing advice on procurement through a model waste contract and a tendering toolkit; and

assisting Councils with limited advice on waste management matters and with ‘operational’ level policy advice.

Dedicated resourcing for waste management is approximately 0.4 FTE of the roles of a Policy Officer. Other resources are applied to waste management as the need arises, including advocacy by the President and Chief Executive Officer.

(b) Potential future directions

Much of the work in leadership, policy and strategy development, research, infrastructure planning, industry development and waste systems has been undertaken by ZWSA in accordance with its functions listed above. Its cessation will potentially mean gaps in some or all of those aspects for Local Government and the waste sector as a whole.

A key consideration for Local Government is how to fill those gaps, in the absence of clarity about replacement arrangements for ZWSA.

The opportunity exists for the Local Government sector (led by the LGA) to consider taking greater control of its destiny in relation to waste management. Rather than relying on a body replacing ZWSA for the development of all waste policies and strategies, the Local Government sector itself could take more of a leadership role. There would need to be ongoing discussions with the state government and the waste sector over policy and strategy directions and their implementation.

Potential future directions for the LGA build on the notion of greater control for Local Government in its roles in waste management. This is further detailed in the Plan (3.2), Deliver (3.3), Evaluate (3.4) and Report (3.5) elements of the Waste Management Framework.

(c) A central waste authority?

The LGA raised the question of whether Council waste management services could be coordinated by a central authority (LGA 2013).

Although this concept has not been advanced to formal discussion it is worth exploring those activities which may be suited to a more centralised approach beyond the advocacy and advisory services currently provided by the LGA. The types of activities that may potentially be suited to a central authority include investment in infrastructure, access to markets for recyclables, facilitating the formation of regional or sub-regional groupings of Councils to provide waste services and a hands on role in assisting with the negotiation of waste contracts. This concept should be considered in conjunction with a broader consideration of the LGA’s future roles.


Regional approaches 3.1.5.

Some waste management services are provided through joint arrangements between Councils. Often these arrangements are through subsidiary bodies established under Section 43 of the Local Government Act but they also exist in other ways such as joint contracts with service providers. There has also been a focus in recent years on developing regional waste management plans with limited success.

Cossey (2007) pointed to the significant roles that regional arrangements and subsidiary bodies play in waste management, particularly in the metropolitan area. At the same time he questioned whether the subsidiary authorities as structured are able to operate in a sufficiently commercial way.

While subsidiary bodies play an important role there also needs to be a degree of flexibility for different aspects of waste management. Consideration should be given to the best scale of aggregation for specific aspects to achieve the most efficient and effective outcomes.

PwC (2014) raised a potential disconnect between Council boundaries and efficient provision of waste services, “Formal Council borders may be placing artificial restrictions on the design of waste service provision models. Addressing these may realise efficiency savings”.

Regional or sub-regional arrangements often exist for historic or opportunistic reasons (e.g. neighbouring Councils having contracts expire at about the same time). PwC (2014) propose a more holistic, statewide review to determine the best arrangements for waste management suggesting that the LGA “establish an optimisation project to identify the most efficient use of waste services and facilities across the State. This project should also identify barriers to change and create a plan for their removal over time.”

While the project suggested by PwC would be expensive it does appear to be a good time to take a wider view of the most logical ways to provide waste services and infrastructure across South Australia. As PwC (2014) points out the expenditure by Local Government on waste management is high “so small gains will therefore realise material dollars”.

Regional level planning for waste management infrastructure is an important consideration, including in the metropolitan area.

Waste and recycling industry 3.1.6.

The waste sector (comprising private sector and public sector organisations, including Councils) is a significant component of the SA economy. In 2009/10 it had revenues of $763m (though this may be understated and it could have been as high as $960m) and it is estimated that in 2012 the industry had approximately 3,700 direct jobs and an additional 3,100 indirect jobs which represents approximately 1% of South Australia’s total employment (Rawtec 2013).

According to Rawtec (2013) projected increases in volume of the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) stream will require associated increases in infrastructure provided by the public and private sectors.

The current picture of waste infrastructure in SA is in the box below:

In total, South Australia has 497 waste management facilities. The infrastructure includes:

117 landfill sites;

247 resource recovery facilities (of which 221 are recycling facilities that include 153 container deposit recycling facilities); and

133 transfer stations

(Source: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts cited in Rawtec 2013).


Rawtec (2013) predict there will be an associated increase in the manufacturing base in South Australia as a result of the projected increase in MSW and infrastructure.

Waste manufacturing industry 3.1.7.

Of the nearly 4 million tonnes of waste recovered within South Australia, 84% is currently re-processed within the state (Rawtec 2013). As the table below indicates, the most significant resource materials sent interstate or overseas for reprocessing are metals and cardboard and paper.

Table 3: Reprocessing locations for materials (2011-12 financial year)

Material South Australia Interstate Overseas Total

Tonnes % Tonnes % Tonnes % Tonnes %

Masonry 2,046,600 100 0 0 0 0 2,046,600 100

Organics 865,600 96 27,000 3 9,000 1 901,600 100

Metals 99,500 22 18,100 4 334,700 74 452,300 100

Cardboard & Paper 29,900 12 154,600 62 64,900 26 249,400 100

Glass 66,600 98 1,400 2 0 0 68,000 100

Plastics 9,600 49 1,000 5 9,000 46 19,600 100

Other Materials 221,000 91 7,300 3 14,500 6 242,800 100

Total 3,350,000 84 200,000 5 430,000 11 3,980,000 100


The announced cessation of Zero Waste SA has led to greater interaction between the Local Government Association (LGA) and Waste Management Association of Australia which in turn has identified the potential for further collaboration. An interesting idea to arise in discussions was to move from a ‘waste industry’ to a ‘waste manufacturing industry’. The distinction between the two could be either subtle (a name change to more accurately reflect that the waste industry does already have a manufacturing component) or more significant. Opportunities may exist to value-add further with existing reprocessing facilities in South Australia and/or reduce the flow of materials interstate and overseas for reprocessing.

This concept has not been fully developed but deserves consideration by the State Government and the LGA, working with the waste industry. An aspect that should also be considered is the potential for higher value jobs to be created in areas such as research and development, advanced manufacturing and market development.

The development of the waste industry and its manufacturing component should be an early focus for Green Industries SA when it is established. A key consideration will be creating an environment that encourages private sector investment. Waste industry representatives at the workshop held in undertaking this project stressed the importance of policy settings that provide confidence and stability for investors.

Research and development 3.1.8.

The LGA-commissioned research to date has not explored in depth the potential for further expansion in waste management and resource recovery in South Australia. However Rawtec (2013) cite opportunities for expansion in manufacturing associated with resource recovery infrastructure


including: Alternative Waste Technologies (AWTs), MRFs/mechanical sorting facilities, recycling facilities, and thermal treatment technologies.

Moving into new or expanded fields needs to be done with the best information available and research and development plays an important role. This includes cost benefit analyses to identify where costs and benefits accrue. A recent report found:

Other areas for consideration with waste management include Waste to Energy (WtE), managing new waste streams, behaviour change (e.g. to reduce contamination of recyclables, finding waste management solutions further up the waste hierarchy), and dealing with problem wastes such as hazardous materials. There should be a focus on innovations that can be applied to managing waste.

In 2009 ZWSA and the University of South Australia jointly established and funded the Zero Waste SA Research Centre for Sustainable Design and Behaviour for an initial five year period. The Centre undertakes important research, including with international collaboration, under four programs all of which are relevant at various levels of the waste hierarchy (UniSA 2014): Engaged Communities: Transition Scenarios for Social Sustainability, Consumption and Behaviour;

Infrastructure: Energy, Water, Transport, Waste, Productive Landscapes;

Buildings: Materials Flow and Low Carbon Construction Innovation; and

Cities and Green Urbanism: Retrofitting, Transforming Urban Form.

Local Government has various interests in the work of the Centre given the roles that Councils play in urban issues including waste management.

3.2. Plan

Councils have been involved in waste management for many years during which time the scope of waste management services has evolved significantly. As the complexity of managing waste increases it becomes increasingly important to base decisions on the best information available, and with clarity about what is to be achieved.

Cossey (2007) recommended, “That the Local Government Association encourage Councils both directly and via their subsidiaries as appropriate to adopt a set of objectives for their role in Waste Management … and that the Local Government sector use the adopted statements of objectives as a

“In terms of the distributional incidence of costs and benefits, the Adelaide metropolitan region,

the south east South Australia region and the rest of South Australia, were found to incur costs

slightly greater than the estimated benefits that would accrue in these regions. A small net

economic benefit was estimated for the Upper Spencer Gulf region. Most notably however, is that

most benefits, net of any costs, arise outside of South Australia” (MMA 2007).


foundation for its strategy development and management of day to day Waste Management functions (particularly those managed via contracts with the private sector).”

Planning includes policy development, strategy and service planning.

Councils have a role in forming:

Responsibilities in planning could include:

Overarching policy objectives

Development of waste management and affiliated policies at the Council level and regional/sub-regional level

Working with LGA to help shape the new body replacing ZWSA; or to provide strategic advice as to an alternative.

Strategic goals and measurable targets

Development of waste management strategies at the Council level and regional/sub-regional level

Providing input and feedback to SA’s new Waste Management

Strategy post-2015, including setting of waste management targets

A course of action to reach those objectives, goals and targets

Developing a Waste Management Service Plan to inform business services around waste management service delivery.

Council policy 3.2.1.

Policy drivers in waste management (sometimes enshrined in legislation) for Councils are generally in public health, environmental management, customer service/resident convenience and possibly industry development. The LGA could have a role in assisting Councils with the development of their policies in waste management including model documents and the distribution of research documents.

At the time of drafting this report Adelaide City Council (ACC) was involved in a community engagement program around its draft policy on waste and recycling services. Although specific to ACC’s circumstances the structure of the draft policy would be a useful starting point for other Councils.

With cost control becoming a more significant consideration it is appropriate to consider future policy options which could include price signals to encourage waste reduction and the capping of expenditure on waste management.

Other waste categories have significantly higher rates of diversion from landfill than municipal solid waste (Rawtec 2013):

Construction and Demolition (C&D) - 80%

Commercial and Industrial (C&I) – 83%

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) – 54%

An explanation for the higher diversion rates for C&D and C&I is they have very direct price signals compared to MSW. That is, an increased charge for disposal is likely to lead to more diversion from waste because there is a more direct relationship between the waste producer and the cost of disposal. For MSW the relationship between the waste producer (mainly households) and the cost of disposal is much less direct, being reflected in overall revenues for Councils (either in rate revenue or waste service charges).


The Blue Environment (2012) report argued that price signals are less useful in relation to MSW for the following reasons:

1. MSW is generally subject to longer-term contracts (mainly because the quantities per municipality per year are large), so changes in relative prices are slow to take effect.

2. It is difficult for councils to institute meaningful user-pays charges on ratepayers. This means that higher landfill prices are not directly transmitted to waste generators, so there is no direct incentive for behaviour changes.

3. The behaviours of waste generators are more amenable to influence via non-price methods than waste generators in the other sectors. These methods include:

a. moral suasion (‘education’ campaigns)

b. behavioural standardisation (e.g. Adelaide’s three-bin system)

c. enforcement (e.g. non-collection of recycling bins found to contain garbage).

However, in taking a longer term view, a price signal is one economic instrument potentially available to Councils and should at least be considered at some time in the future. The most direct price signal would be to mirror the situation with the other waste streams so that the waste producer is charged directly for the waste either by volume, weight or frequency of collection. A first step would be for Councils to have waste service charges under Section 155 of the Local Government Act 1999. The LGA estimates that approximately two thirds of the Councils in South Australia currently have waste service charges (LGA Policy Officer, verbal communication).

The increase in Local Government expenditure on waste management in both dollar terms and as a percentage of operating expenditure suggests an additional option for Councils: to place a ceiling on the amount they are prepared to spend. The ceiling could be in dollar terms or as a percentage of operating revenue. While a fairly blunt instrument it would potentially focus greater attention on the hierarchy of a Council’s waste management objectives and priorities if used as part of a broader approach to planning for waste management services.

Strategy 3.2.2.

Strategy is driven by policy. Councils’ strategy considerations include:

waste streams (including the so called ‘problem wastes’)and how they are to be managed;

infrastructure required and who will provide it;

ownership of recyclables once picked up from the kerb;

service-delivery efficiencies from a regional/sub-regional approach; and

closing the loop through the procurement of products made from recycled materials.


Regional Councils face specific issues with waste management. In 2013 Frank Brennan Consulting Services (FBCS) identified the key challenges faced by regional Councils in waste management (some of which are also experienced by Councils in the metropolitan area).

The project also explored information needs to inform evidence-based decision making and examples of successful collaboration.

Key issues identified included (FBCS 2013):

lack of economies of scale – large areas to service with small populations and demand for multiple facilities across large regions and large distances to recovery facilities;

rising costs of waste management, including the impact of the SWL;

financial impacts of landfill rationalisation (caused by EPA guidelines EPA Guidelines – Environmental Management of Landfill Facilities (January 2007);

impact of tourists with seasonal influx in some areas;

service provision – limited contractor availability / lack of competition;

increasing community expectations;

difficult waste streams;

poor implementations of some Strategic Waste Plans;

lack of expertise in Councils;

On ‘closing the loop’, Rawtec (2013) commented that:

“Local Government is a procurer of recycled products manufactured by the local waste and recycling

industry, albeit to a limited extent. There would be significant benefit to the local waste and recycling

industry and in turn to Local Government, should this procurement of manufactured recycled products be

increased significantly. These benefits would include:

Increased demand for recycled products;

Increased diversion from landfill;

Closing the loop on products entering the recycling stream;

Increased environmental benefits for Local Government and the community (see Section 7);

Potential cost savings compared to using virgin materials;

Demonstration to ratepayers of Local Government commitment to recycling and subsequent benefits;

and

Development of new markets and contributing to resilience of existing markets.

The fundamental premise of recycling is that there is a use for the recovered material after it goes

through a manufacturing process. If this is not the case, recycling will not be sustainable. It would set a

leading example of Local Government commitment to sustainability if a significant quantity of

manufactured recycled product is procured and used by the sector.”

Box 2 'Closing the Loop'


increase in illegal dumping;

impediments to collaboration;

no alignment of Development Plans with waste management plans; and

demise of ZWSA with no alternative model in place.

Solutions to some of the problems being experienced in regional areas rest with Local Government and the LGA may be able to provide assistance. Issues around economies of scale, however, are an example of market failure. Policy options to respond to that market failure at a regional level (or possibly a statewide level) should be considered with the important caveat that it is the market failure being dealt with, not inefficiency in operations.

Affordability considerations should also be part of strategy development.

As with the development of policy the LGA could have a role in assisting Councils with the development of their waste management strategies.

Service and procurement planning 3.2.3.

Service and procurement planning is the step between a strategy and the specification and procurement of waste services (provided either by a Council/s or outsourced). As with strategy development, consideration should be given to service and procurement planning at a regional or sub-regional level.

Service planning includes details of services to be provided, how, by whom, service levels including frequency, and likely budget implications. Procurement planning includes the packaging of services to be procured and how and when tenders are to be called.

As with policy and strategy development, the LGA could have a role in assisting Councils with the development of waste management service and procurement plans.

LGA roles in the ‘Plan’ stage: Current LGA roles:

Provision of general advice to Councils on good practice waste management.

Advice to direct Councils towards information or examples that can assist in their planning.

LGA Model Contract and Tendering toolkit.

Suggested LGA directions:

Leading in policy and strategy

Policy and strategy development for the Local Government sector could be in such areas as identifying appropriate waste streams for Local Government involvement, the role of Local Government in meeting State Government targets for waste management (or creating the sector’s own targets), funding arrangements, partnering with other organisations, research and development and investment in infrastructure.

An enhanced policy and strategy focus for Local Government could also introduce some new ideas. For instance the LGA and Waste Management Association of Australia (SA Branch) suggested the replacement body for ZWSA should look more towards a sustainability approach (financial, environmental, social) rather than just a ‘zero waste’ or ‘diversion from landfill’ approach to waste


management (LGA & WMAA 2013). Such an approach could complement the waste hierarchy and add value in its application.

Policies and strategies would be used to provide leadership to Councils, to negotiate with the State Government and to establish partnering arrangements with other organisations. In the short term policies could be developed in relation to the Solid Waste Levy (SWL) and the Waste to Resources Fund (WRF).

The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) has a range of policy statements on waste management which may assist the LGA in developing its own policies.

Use of the Waste to Resources Fund

As discussed above there does not appear to be any SA Government policy or strategy (apart from financial returns) around the SWL and WRF. The LGA has advocated for funds from the WRF to deal with problem waste issues like e-waste, which is consistent with its arguments on using the levy as a facilitation tool, rather than as a price-barrier tool.

The apparent lack of a SA Government policy or strategy in relation to the WRF presents both a problem and an opportunity for the Local Government sector. The problem lies in trying to start a discussion given that there is a policy vacuum. However, herein lies the opportunity for the LGA to lead the debate by developing a well argued policy position on the future of the WRF. The focus should be on the role of the WRF in facilitating improvements in waste management including potentially underpinning new approaches to managing waste (e.g. through grants, loans, and financial guarantees).

Building understanding of the waste management market place

The extent of outsourcing of waste services means that Councils can be largely removed from the operations of the waste management market place. Building a stronger understanding of the market would assist Councils in decision making about waste management, and the risks and returns of different approaches.

Assisting with decision making

It may assist Councils to have access to the latest thinking on various decision making models (e.g. determining which waste streams provide the best returns on investment – environmentally, socially, financially and for the local economy) in determining waste management priorities and ensuring that service delivery aligns with policy, The LGA and WMAA have also highlighted that a common priority across the waste management sector is to understand and plan for new and emerging waste streams (LGA & WMAA 2013).

Investment in infrastructure

Councils have varying levels of financial investment in different aspects of waste management. The most common investments are in the infrastructure required to directly provide waste services (either alone or as part of a subsidiary authority formed under the Local Government Act) and the ownership of waste disposal sites (again, either alone or as part of a subsidiary authority).

There is also significant private sector investment in waste management infrastructure.

Rawtec suggests a further four to seven new resource recovery facilities (or equivalent upgrades of existing facilities) at a cost of about $100m will be required by 2022 (Rawtec 2013).

The levels, types and returns of these financial investments do not seem to attract the degree of policy attention they deserve. Waste management is big business and Councils are an integral and, most likely, permanent part of that business. A question to be asked is whether the Local


Government sector would be better served through higher levels of investment, possibly through different ownership structures.

There are risks as well as returns with any type of commercial investment. However, this does appear to be an area worthy of further consideration. This consideration should include the potential benefits of a collaborative approach across the Local Government sector and also the potential role that the WRF might have in assisting and underpinning this type of investment (including underwriting risks).

Financial returns from recyclables

Materials collected through recycling services are a resource with a commercial value and it is important that Councils maximise their returns from that resource.

By way of example the City of Onkaparinga has recently separated the ownership of recyclables from the contract for their collection. In doing so it will achieve a better financial outcome than with its previous contract and attracted a new competitor to the South Australian market.

In relation to competition PwC noted that there are dominant service providers in some segments of the waste value chain and suggested the LGA “establish a project to develop a markets model to examine whether through collaboration sufficient resources/activities can be created to interest further market participants” (PwC 2014).

There is also likely to be a direct relationship between the scale and efficiency of processing of recyclables and the potential for higher financial returns to Councils.

Other types of potential investment, such as a more direct Local Government stake in the sale of recyclables and the manufacture and sale of products from these materials, also do not seem to receive much policy attention.

The LGA could play a significant role in identifying the best ways for Councils to maximise returns from their recycling collections.

Model documents, access to research

The LGA could also have a role in assisting Councils with the development of their waste management policies, strategies and service plans (e.g. model documents and access to research papers).

3.3. Deliver

Waste management consistently ranks at a very high level in the importance attributed to Council services by communities and is also important for the other policy drivers at 3.2.1. It is also one of the largest components of a Council’s operating budget (8.5% of total Local Government operating expenditure in 2011/12). The effective and efficient management of waste services is therefore very important to Local Government.


This includes procurement, service management, public education and behavior change, and data and information management.

Councils have a role in: Responsibilities in planning could include:

Delivery of services

Achieving best-practice service procurement and service management

Training and education

Working collaboratively with other Councils for targeted public education and behavior change programs on waste reduction that are based on the principles of the waste hierarchy

Information and data collection and management

Actively collecting and managing information and data on waste management services and deliverables.

Procurement 3.3.1.

The 2007 report commissioned by the LGA Future Directions for Waste Management in the Local Government Sector in South Australia by Bill Cossey drew attention to the importance of procurement and in particular:

… almost 70% of Local Government’s costs in Waste Management are incurred (either directly or via its subsidiaries) through contracted services. Moreover, contracts are typically of long duration (7 year periods with renewal conditions are not unusual).

Cossey further stated that principles of sound contract management needed to be applied including:

clarity about the objectives to be pursued via the contract

understanding of the marketplace and the best way to elicit competitive proposals from the marketplace

incorporation in each contract of key performance indicators (consistent with the objectives of the contract) against which the contractor should be required to report frequently and regularly and which should be examined by a contract administrator to ensure that no adverse trends are emerging

understanding of, and planning for, the full cost of responsible waste management including environmental requirements

recognition in each contract that costs which are outside the control of the Council should not automatically be borne totally by the Council

recognition in the contract that costs might vary over the life of the contract and, in particular, that technology might lead to a lowering of costs; provision for potential reduction to be included is equally as important as provision for cost increases

acknowledgment in the contract that although an extension of the contract might be possible, the Council will reserve the right to test the market before an extension is extended into.

The report made a number of recommendations including that:

the LGA consider establishing a contract management capacity to assist Councils and subsidiaries with the pursuit of important tendering, contract negotiation and contract management;

Councils and subsidiaries specify the particular objectives they are pursuing via contracts and require the contractor to provide regular information to enable Councils and subsidiaries to assess progress against those objectives; and


Councils and subsidiaries consider adopting the documentation and associated approaches developed by the New South Wales Local Government Association for all future approaches to the market, recognising that experience with this documentation and improved contracting practice will almost certainly lead to its refinement over time.

Responses by the LGA to that report have included:

development of a Model Contract and Tendering Toolkit with associated training; the toolkit is updated periodically; and

provision of advice by LGA Procurement (though not necessarily specialist waste management advice).

Service management 3.3.2.

Given their high cost and profile it is essential that waste management services are managed well.

Cossey (2007) stressed the importance of contract management: “… unless the contracts established under this model documentation are well managed over their lives, the gains made in their establishment could easily evaporate”.

Public education and behaviour change 3.3.3.

Both public education and behaviour change have a role in a holistic approach to waste management.

For this report the distinction between public education and behaviour change is one of focus. Public education is a broad approach to informing different audiences about various aspects of waste management. It includes advertising and other forms of publicity, information sheets and school programs. Public education programs may have behaviour change as an objective but may also have other objectives such as reporting on achievements.

Behaviour change is more targeted to changing people’s behaviours and may focus on everyday practical things such as which bin to use through to major lifestyle changes to reduce consumption.

There are numerous references to public education and/or behaviour change in the reports reviewed for this project. It was seen to be at least part of the answer in preventing illegal dumping, educating the community (residents, businesses, schools) about Council services and facilities and to recycle and reuse, reducing contamination of the recycling and green organics streams, and e-waste.

Consistent themes from the reports are:

the need for central programs and leadership (with the work of ZWSA and Keep South

Australia Beautiful (KESAB) often mentioned in positive terms); and

additional or more targeted programs.

An area that may require further attention is the evaluation of the various public education and behaviour change programs.

Data and information management 3.3.4.

The outsourcing of many aspects of waste management tends to distance Councils from day to day

operations and the incidental information flows that go with that level of involvement. This makes it

even more important that formal systems of information gathering and distribution are in place and

that information is used to inform decision making.


PwC (2014) stressed the importance of data collection and sharing as important tools to assist with

decision making as well as tracking performance. Consistency between Councils is also important but

not occurring. PwC found as part of its review “… it is evident that costs are not consistently defined,

collected, allocated etc across councils and across the different data collection activities” (2014). As a

result, PwC proposed that the LGA, “Lead a collaborative project to improve waste data definition

and capture” (PwC 2014).

This view is supported by Cossey’s (2007) recommendation:

“That the Local Government Association seeks the co-operation and commitment of all Councils and

their subsidiaries operating in the area of Waste Management to open processes of annual

comparisons of the financial data; that the comparisons be used to enable Councils to assess more

reliably the impact of geographic, policy and service differences between them and to inform

strategies for further refinement of policies and operational management”.

Good data will assist in policy and strategy development, monitoring and evaluation, service delivery,

collaboration (e.g. joint contracting) and investment decisions.

LGA roles in the ‘Deliver’ stage:

Current LGA roles:

Provision of the contract and tendering toolkit.

In relation to data, the LGA has analysed data requirements and needs in the past, as well as

the broad stakeholders involved in collection and management of waste data. It will soon

revisit this matter.

Suggested LGA directions:

Establishing and managing contracts

The LGA could consider a service to assist Councils, either individually or as a group, in establishing and managing waste management contracts.

Data and information sharing

The LGA could establish an arrangement for data and information sharing which includes greater consistency in accounting treatments between Councils. This could be an important step in the LGA becoming the centre of knowledge about Local Government’s roles in waste management.

Evaluation of public education and behaviour change programs

In addition the LGA could pursue, perhaps through ZWSA while it still exists, an evaluation methodology for the effectiveness of public education and behaviour change programs.


3.4. Evaluate

As described in South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2011-2015, evaluation is important because it helps

to build knowledge and data on waste and recycling and helps to assess the adequacy of strategies

put in place. In this framework, evaluation leads directly to further action (Reporting and back to

Planning), ensuring that data and information can inform future waste management policies and

strategies. This creates a cycle of continuous improvement that is iterative and responsive to

changing situations and needs.

There are five categories of evaluation useful at the Council level: strategy and policy, service

delivery, achievement of waste management targets, costs and benefits and closing the loop.

Councils have a role in: Responsibilities in evaluation could include:

Strategy and policy Effectiveness

Appropriateness

Service delivery Annual performance against budget

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Meeting Waste Management Service Plan targets

Achieving policy and strategy objectives

Assessment of target achievements

In waste diversion

In public education and behavior change

Identifying costs and benefits

Costs of waste management services and where accrued

Benefits of waste management services and where accrued

Closing the loop Performance in purchasing goods made from recycled materials

Strategy and policy 3.4.1.

Understanding the effectiveness and appropriateness of policy and strategy is important as they drive the remaining components of the waste management framework.


Service delivery 3.4.2.

If this evaluation is periodic, Councils can incorporate data collection as part of their regular service activities (incorporated into a Waste Management Services Plan for example). It is important that data collected can be compared, therefore the LGA may have a role in assisting Councils with common or shared evaluation tools and approaches.

Achievement of waste management targets 3.4.3.

Actions to undertake evaluation and measurement on waste and recycling suggested by ZWSA (2011)

in the SA Waste Management Strategy are listed in the following box. Although these may not be

appropriate at the Council level, it still gives the local government sector a broader perspective on

how to assess target achievements.

Box 3 Priorities for Action

(Source: ZWSA 2011)

Costs and benefits 3.4.4.

There could also be an evaluation of costs and benefits of actions under Councils’ waste

management service plans and where those costs and benefits accrue. It is likely, however, that such

analyses would need to be conducted at the regional level. It may be beneficial to have this type of

evaluation undertaken at the regional and statewide level through a single, central project.


Closing the loop 3.4.5.

Given the benefits listed by Rawtec (see Box 2 at 3.2.2 above) it would be appropriate to evaluate Councils’ performances in purchasing goods made from recycled materials.

LGA roles in the ‘Evaluate’ stage:

Current LGA roles:

Research on waste management ‘best practice', changing trends, adaptation.

Advocacy for change to State policies etc to overcome difficulties experienced by Councils in

service delivery.

Determining sector-wide priorities for action.

Suggested LGA directions: Evaluation is a specialised field requiring potentially quite sophisticated techniques. The LGA could provide advice to Councils on evaluation techniques or facilitate the provision of assistance to Councils.

The LGA could also undertake its own evaluation at a statewide and regional level.

3.5. Report

Reporting serves a number of purposes including transparency, accountability, service planning, service management, budget management, financial planning and to share data and information between Councils.

Reporting includes external reporting, internal reporting and information sharing.

Councils have a role in: Responsibilities in reporting and acting on that information could include:

External reporting Meeting legislative requirements (such as for the Annual Budget and Business Plan, Annual Report)

Whole of sector reporting (eg volumes of waste diverted from landfill).

Internal reporting Budget control.


Financial planning.

Efficiency and effectiveness measures.

Purchase of goods made from recycled materials.

Information sharing Utilising a common platform to enable data and information to be shared between Councils.

Reporting framework 3.5.1.

Councils will have their own frameworks for reporting externally and internally. Waste management should be a component of those frameworks and be subject to evaluation as are the other elements of the waste management framework.

Information sharing 3.5.2.

There is seen to be value in sharing data and information between Councils. The LGA could assist by

establishing and maintaining a data and information collection and sharing system.

LGA roles in the ‘Report’ stage:

Current LGA roles:

Collection of some sector wide waste management data with limited reporting on trends.

Development of a waste sector snapshot (Rawtec report) to show the position that Local

Government holds within the waste management sector.

Suggested LGA directions: Reporting frameworks

The LGA could provide advice to Councils on how to report both internally and externally on waste management .

Information sharing

The LGA could facilitate the collection and dissemination of information from Councils on waste management (recognising issues of commercial confidentiality).

4. CONCLUSION

The issues that led to the LGA commissioning this and other reports on waste management are very real ones for Councils. Taken together they suggest the need for a change in direction for the Local Government sector in relation to waste management.

There have been a number of incremental changes over recent years and more are required. However, it is also time to potentially pursue some different paths including:

Local Government being in greater control of its own destiny in relation to waste

management, including potentially settings its own targets for waste diversion from landfill;


adoption of a Waste Management Framework to Plan, Deliver, Evaluate and Report on waste

management activities;

an enhanced policy and strategy capacity for the LGA given the pending cessation of ZWSA;

greater investment by Councils in the Plan stage of the suggested Waste Management

Framework;

a more holistic approach to ‘closing the loop’ through Councils purchasing goods made from

recycled materials;

the LGA becoming the centre of knowledge on the roles Councils play in waste management

including data and information sharing between Councils;

identifying appropriate levels of aggregation including a waste services optimisation project

to identify opportunities for cost savings across Local Government;

the potential attraction of additional providers of waste management services in South

Australia;

consideration of further commercial involvement by Local Government in the waste industry;

and

use of the WRF to leverage improvements in waste management including underwriting

commercial risks taken by Councils.

It is a time for leadership and the LGA is best positioned to provide that leadership.


5. APPENDIX A

Research on waste management commissioned by the LGA of South Australia

Blue Environment 2012. Implications of Carbon Pricing and Solid Waste Levy for Municipal Waste. Report Authored by J. Pickin. Surrey Hills, Victoria.

Blue Environment 2013. Business Cases for Municipal Waste Programs. Authored by S. Donovan and J. Pickin. Surrey Hills, Victoria.

Cossey, B 2007. Future Directions for Waste Management in the Local Government Sector in South Australia. Accessed on www.lga.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?u=2795 .

Frank Brennan Consulting Services (FBCS) 2013. Regional Waste Management Challenges & Solutions.

Local Government Association of South Australia (LGA) 2012. Waste Management Strategic Directions Consultation Paper: Draft Business Case Strategy for expenditure of the Waste to Resources Fund. Accessed on www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/2012-09-26_-_MLGG_-_Agenda.pdf

Local Government Association of South Australia (LGA) 2013. Waste Briefing Papers. In-house consultation papers.

Local Government Association of South Australia & Waste Management Association of Australia (LGA & WMAA) 2014. The Future of Sustainable High Performance Waste Management in South Australia. Accessed on www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/WastePaper_2014_A4_final.pdf

Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) 2014. Draft: Waste Services Review Preliminary Draft for Discussion. Provided by Simon Thompson.

Rawtec 2013. South Australian Waste and Recycling Industry Snapshot. Glenelg, South Australia.

Waste and Management Services (W&MS) 2013. Waste Levy Structures and Potential SA Interstate Transport Assessment. Adelaide, South Australia.

http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?u=2795

http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/WastePaper_2014_A4_final.pdf


6. APPENDIX B

References

Commonwealth of Australia 2014. Waste Related International Obligations, Department of Environment. Accessed on www.environment.gov.au/topics/environment-protection/nwp/reporting/international-obligations

Environment Protection Authority (EPA) 2012. Legislation: Waste to Resources Policy. Accessed on www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/waste/legislation/waste_to_resources_policy

Local Government Association of South Australia (LGA) 2011. Discussion Paper: Solid Waste Levy. DME 64371. Accessed on www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Discussion_Paper_-_Solid_Waste_Levy.pdf

McLennan Magasanik Associates Pty Ltd (MMA) 2007. South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005-2010 Benefit Cost Assessment Volume 1: Summary Report. Commissioned by Zero Waste South Australia. Accessed on www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resources/publications/cost-benefit-analysis/2188/BenefitCostAnalysisVolume_summary.pdf

Rawtec 2014. Unpublshed report. Contact author for details.

University of South Australia (UniSA) 2014. Zero Waste SA Research Centre for Sustainable Design and Behaviour. Accessed on www.unisa.edu.au/Research/zerowastecentre/About-us/

Zero Waste South Australia (ZWSA) 2011. South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2011-2015. Accessed on www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resource-centre/publications/waste-strategy/4821/ZWSA%20WASTE%20STRATEGY%2011.12.11.pdf

Zero Waste South Australia (ZWSA) 2012. Business Plan 2012/13 and 2013 – 2015 Future Directions. Accessed on http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/About-Us/business-plan

Zero Waste South Australia (ZWSA) 2014. Waste Management Hierarchy. Accessed on http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/About-Us/waste-management-hierarchy

http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/environment-protection/nwp/reporting/international-obligations

http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/environment-protection/nwp/reporting/international-obligations

https://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Discussion_Paper_-_Solid_Waste_Levy.pdf

https://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Discussion_Paper_-_Solid_Waste_Levy.pdf

http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resources/publications/cost-benefit-analysis/2188/BenefitCostAnalysisVolume_summary.pdf

http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resources/publications/cost-benefit-analysis/2188/BenefitCostAnalysisVolume_summary.pdf

http://www.unisa.edu.au/Research/zerowastecentre/About-us/

http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resource-centre/publications/waste-strategy/4821/ZWSA%20WASTE%20STRATEGY%2011.12.11.pdf

http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resource-centre/publications/waste-strategy/4821/ZWSA%20WASTE%20STRATEGY%2011.12.11.pdf

http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/About-Us/business-plan

http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/About-Us/waste-management-hierarchy

report - lga.sa.gov.au roles lg... · and development to assist councils in their waste management...

Documents