1 / 25

Update to SWMCB European Benchmarks Sigurd Scheurle – 3-25-2009

Update to SWMCB European Benchmarks Sigurd Scheurle – 3-25-2009. Overview –. EU framework, regulations, and directives Comparison: EU - USA - Minnesota EU National results - recycling, organics, WTE, & landfills Information on Dutch and Swedes Findings. Findings -.

nina-york
Download Presentation

Update to SWMCB European Benchmarks Sigurd Scheurle – 3-25-2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Update to SWMCB European BenchmarksSigurd Scheurle – 3-25-2009

  2. Overview – • EU framework, regulations, and directives • Comparison: EU - USA - Minnesota • EU National results - recycling, organics, WTE, & landfills • Information on Dutch and Swedes • Findings

  3. Findings - • EU/national policies anti-landfill – resource and energy recovery, GHG and pollution • 90% recovery of materials and energy achieved with integrated approach • Organized collection arrangements & pricing motivate separation • Expanding WTE role - BACT, CHP and metal recovery • EU nations give LGU’s clear policy guidance

  4. Sources of Information • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reports • Inge Johanson – Swedish Waste Management • Hendrikus de Waart – Amsterdam Waste and Energy Company • Wikipedia • USEPA

  5. What’s the EU? • Confederation of nations • Formed in 1993 • 500 M people, 27 nations, 30% of GWP • 23 Languages • Executive, Legislative, & Judicial Branches • Regulations – Supra-national & binding • Directives – Goals and policies met nation by nation • National sovereignty

  6. European Union waste regulation • Framework legislation • Waste treatment operations • Landfill Directive • Incineration AQ

  7. EU: Landfill directive targets 1995 = 100% Target 2006: 75 % Target 2009: 50 % Target 2016: 35%

  8. EU landfill Directive/landfill taxes/bans • Implemented to protect environment, recover resources and energy, & reduce GHG • National: landfill taxes/bans on unprocessed waste • Six nations already meet Landfill Directive • Significant variation from nation to nation and tax varies based on waste type – processed, inert, unprocessed, % biodegradable • High landfill tax = More results

  9. National & local policies/programs • Waste Hierarchy – prevention, re-use, recovery (including WTE), incineration w/o energy, landfill • Municipal collection of residential waste almost universal • EU Directives – oil, PCB’s, batteries, electronics, end of life vehicles • Germany/Austria Green Dot programs

  10. National results – landfill (red) WTE (yellow) and recycling/organics (green)

  11. Conclusions • High landfill taxes in Sweden, Denmark & Netherlands • Germany & Switzerland have no tax but landfill bans • Others with no or low landfill tax nations have high landfill rates

  12. Is “culture of stewardship” a driver in the EU? • My assessment would indicate NO • It appears that national waste policy, not culture, is the primary driving force • It appears that local programs are also a primary driving force (SS, WTE, recycling) • Swiss do fine w/o EU directives • Secondary forces may be economic capacity & national energy policies

  13. How does Minnesota compare to EU • Structure – EU (EPA), Nation (State), local government implementation • MN has less Organized Collection • Some EU nations enforce waste barriers vs. MN’s open state boarders • Many EU nations lag behind Minnesota • MN WMAct – Excellent framework equivalent to high performing EU nations (planning, HHW, PM, SCORE recycling systems, 473, and grants • MN lacks landfill restrictions

  14. Adopted Keyoto National taxes and landfill bans Landfill Directive EU Problem Materials Performance varies by Nation Waste management is Utility Keyoto not adopted EPA guidance & State by State policy Subtitle D regs. State Leadership Variation between States Waste management is a business EU/National vs. USA

  15. Waste Statistics - Netherlands • Results • 2% Landfill • 64% Recycling/organics • 34% WTE • Landfill taxes >$100/ton

  16. NL Hierarchy/Order of preference • Prevention • Product reuse • Recovery (incl. WTE) • Incineration • Landfill

  17. NL Waste and GNP in 1985-2003

  18. Bio-waste: NL separate collection and composting – 2.5% overall

  19. NL GHG Analysis

  20. Conclusion and lessons from NL • In the Netherlands the waste management policy since 1990 has shown success ! • The lessons we learned: • Waste management needs an integral approach • Invest in public awareness and acceptance • Combine targets and regulation with financial instruments • Bring separate collection at source into action • Cooperation between authorities; create a level playing field

  21. Waste Statistics - Sweden • Results • 5% Landfill • 48% Recycling/organics • 10% Organics • 47% WTE • Landfill taxes vary by waste type

  22. What can we learn from the Europe? • GHG is a policy driver for waste policy • Collection arrangements – VBP & push Source Separation • 90% materials and energy recovery is feasible and affordable • Landfill restrictions open door to abatement and recovery • WTE complements abatement – it does not compete for waste • Clear Nation policy = robust programs/results

  23. THANK YOU !! Questions ?

More Related