Road to Zero Waste

8/8/2019 Road to Zero Waste

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/road-to-zero-waste 1/65

Z e r o

W a s t e 2020

GETTING THERE!

The Road to Zero Waste

Strategies for Sustainable Communities

Prepared for Zero Waste New Zealand Trustby

Envision New Zealand August 2003

With Support from Community Employment Group



About the Authors

Warren Snow works in the area of sustainable community development. He has helped create local business and

employment initiatives in waste reduction, recycling, habitat protection, energy efficiency, low-income housing and

local revolving loan funds. He is a founder of the Zero Waste New Zealand Trust and has helped municipalities, busi-

nesses and institutions develop Zero Waste strategies. Warren is manager of Envision New Zealand.

Julie Dickinson is an associate of Envision New Zealand and former manager of Zero Waste New Zealand Trust. She is

now coordinating the establishment of Zero Waste International Alliance, an organisation that will help link Zero Waste

campaigns around the world and which will help set international benchmarks and standards for Zero Waste.

Editorial review by Richard Tong, Tong and Associates

Prepared by:

PO Box 33 239

Takapuna

Auckland

[email protected]

For:

PO Box 33 1695

Takapuna

Auckland

[email protected]

With support from:



CONTENTS

Introduction

Section One: The Zero Waste Journey So Far

1. The Zero Waste story

2. About Zero Waste

3. The New Zealand story so far

4. Who else is going for zero?

Section Two: The Road to Zero Waste for Communities

1. Introduction

2. Seven key strategies for communities:

• Adopt a Zero Waste target

• Plan for success

•Put the incentives in the right place

• Develop the infrastructure for recycling and resource recovery

• Engage the community

• Walk the talk

• Lobby to change the rules

Section Three: The Road to Zero Waste for New Zealand

The 5 key recommendations for New Zealand

1. A national target of Zero Waste by 2020

2. A landfill levy

3. Landfill bans

4. Industry stewardship programmes

5. A national Zero Waste Agency

Section Four: The Vision for the Future

1. The Vision

2. Who should do what

3. Alternative industrial systems

Section Five: Appendices

Section Six: Resources and links



In 2002 New Zealand became the first country in the world to adopt a

national policy of Zero Waste. The vision “Towards Zero Waste and a

Sustainable New Zealand” resulted from an extensive, community-led

campaign that has so far resulted in 38 of New Zealand’s 74 local

authorities adopting Zero Waste targets.

Fifty nine percent of the public submissions to the Government-

appointed Working Party called for a national Zero Waste policy – many

also wanted a target date of 2020.

The Government’s Waste Strategy has received wide acclaim for both its

vision and the sound principles upon which it is based such as Extended

Producer Responsibility, Kaitiakitanga 1 , and the Precautionary

Principle, but has also attracted wide criticism for being a “wish list

without any teeth”.

This document offers a suggested pathway for communities in New

Zealand to help them realise the Government’s vision of Zero Waste. It

also provides feedback and input from the best Zero Waste experts

around New Zealand and the world on the tools and strategies that will

keep the vision alive.

1 The Maori concept of Kaitiakitanga expresses an integrated view of the environment and recognises the relationship between all things. Kaitiakitanga represents the

obligation of current generations to maintain the life sustaining capacity of the environment for future generations.



I N T R O D U C T I O N

Growing numbers of communities around the world are

adopting Zero Waste policies, having become frustrated

with the progress of governments and businesses to deal

with the waste crisis. By doing so they are sending a

powerful message to decision-makers and business that

communities no longer want to be the final dumping

ground for the outputs of the industrial system - and that

cheap, easy disposal is coming to an end.

At the time of writing, over half of New Zealand’s City

and District Councils have adopted Zero Waste policies.

This guide is based on the experiences of people around

New Zealand who have contributed to local Zero Waste

campaigns and international Zero Waste campaigners

and experts who are working for Zero Waste in their countries.

Purpose of this guide

This guide is designed to assist communities develop

practical strategies that will help them work towards

Zero Waste. Local Government elected members and

staff, community organisations, recycling operators,

entrepreneurs and activists should all find something to

help them understand and communicate the big picture,

as well as ideas on developing effective Zero Waste

strategies for their communities.

The guide does not attempt to provide specific or

detailed “how-to” instructions or the precise details of

particular technologies or processes. What it does do, is

provide an overview of the best information to date

from New Zealand and around the world, and guidance

on taking the first critical steps towards Zero Waste.

There is no detailed road map yet to get to Zero Waste,

however, many communities have taken the first steps

and much has been learned in the process.

This guide will also direct you to further resources and

expertise. The key sections for those who want to

get straight to the heart of the guide, are Sections

2 – The Road to Zero Waste for Communities and

Section 3 – The Road to Zero Waste for New

Zealand.

Notes on the language used in this report

The tools and strategies within this document are designed

to drive the journey to a Zero Waste society - but we must

also challenge the language of ‘wasting’ if we want to

cement long-term change. Throughout this document we

have tried to revisit and where necessary change language

that reinforces the status quo and works against the vision

and target of Zero Waste.

Wherever possible we have tried to use the expression,

wasted resources instead of waste throughout the text.

Equally, where possible, we have moved from the use of

waste stream to that of material flows. Waste is

currently looked on as a stream flowing from society

(commerce, households, institutions etc) to landfill - a

liability that needs to be got rid of. Material flow indicates

that there is value in this wasted resource and it has the

potential to move, or flow back upstream as well as down.

Using the expression Waste Stream may still be useful at

times, as long as it is understood within the broader

context of material flows.

At times we have followed the lead of Dan Knapp and

Mary Lou DeVenter in using the expression discards as a

replacement for waste. As Dan says “it’s not waste until it’s wasted”- until then it’s a discard looking for a place to go.

Dan and Mary Lou also exhort us to see disposal as not

necessarily meaning the end of life of a product or material

- pointing out that the point of disposal is the point where

materials are passed to another party either to be reused,

repaired recycled, remade, buried or, as in many countr ies,

burned.

The expression resource efficiency is a term used to

describe how efficiently materials are being used by

society, a community or a business. The aim is to increase

the efficiency of a resource or material - either by making it

last longer or by recycling it and using it again and again. A

business for example can increase its materials efficiency

by reducing material use whilst increasing income and

profitability. Companies can measure their resource

intensity by comparing material usage to annual sales.

We question the concept of Integrated Waste

Management that is currently associated with the

dominant waste management practice of landfilling and,

has actually marginalised waste reduction and recycling

initiatives. An Integrated Zero Waste Strategy on the

other hand, puts waste elimination as the core focus and

marginalises landfilling - as the last and absolutely last

resort for dealing with wasted resources.

New language will not bring about change without

supporting policy, infrastructure and incentives to bring

about the desired waste reduction outcomes - as part of an

Integrated Waste Elimination or Zero Waste Strategy.



1 THE ZERO WASTE STORY

Where it began

The Zero Waste story starts and ends with Nature itself

and the world we live in. Over time Nature has devised a

system where waste from one organism becomes

resources for others, creating cyclical material flows in a

state of constant equilibrium and balance. Highly

sensitive feedback systems ensure that whenever wastes

(used resources) begin to accumulate, the opportunities

to utilise them are quickly taken up by other organisms

to build more abundance and common wealth. It has

taken Nature hundreds of millions of years to perfectZero Waste and it is a fundamental principle of the

natural world2.

However mankind is in the process of rapidly destroying

the very system that sustains us. Our one-way, linear

material flows are depleting finite resources and treating

Nature as an enormous sink for our increasing volumes

of waste.

The human economic system operates within the much

wider framework of the natural economy (the environ-

ment), but we have taken Nature’s capacity to absorb waste for granted.

Our industrial system is predicated on the

extraction of’‘cheap’ resources to make products

that are largely designed to end up in landfills.

We have invested so heavily in waste disposal and the

supply chain system that feeds it, that attempts to

change it over the past 30 years have made little impact.

The increasing pressure of consumerism over the last 50 years, exacerbated by the forces of globalisation has

resulted in massive increase in waste volumes. The

toxicity of the wasted resources we are producing is

increasing and combined with the development of

materials like plastics the“waste” problem has become

intractable in some people’s minds.

It’s time to return to the system that Nature has

perfected and once more act as part of the natural

system on which we ultimately depend.

Recycling

It’s unclear where the term Zero Waste was first con-ceived, but the move towards Zero Waste probably

started in the late 1960s on at least two important but

unconnected fronts. On the one hand, pioneers began

setting up community recycling programmes in an

attempt to put into action their concerns for the

environment and as a result of their efforts recycling has

become a household word and daily activity for people

all around the world.

Over the years recycling initiatives have come and gone

as commodity prices have risen and fallen with many

businesses falling by the wayside. Meanwhile municipali-ties have continued to build better and bigger systems

to cope with ever increasing flows of waste. They have

tended to see recycling as an activity that had popular

appeal but not as a serious core option to landfilling3.

Their view was encouraged and supported by the

powerful international waste industry that has gradually

consolidated and gained control4 of an increasingly

valuable waste stream.

Cleaner Production

The other development was the concept of Cleaner

Production5 for business. This modern approach to the

management of materials, energy and waste within

companies saved manufacturers both money and

valuable resources and led to significant reductions in

waste and energy costs – and is an accepted concept for

business efficiency today. But there are only a handful of

companies that have taken Cleaner Production prin-

ciples beyond their own factory walls to ensure that the

products they manufacture do not themselves become

waste.

The problem is, that the principles of Cleaner

Production in industry are not linked to the bigger

issues of consumption and wasting. Communities

are still left with the final responsibility for waste

disposal–– even from products made under Cleaner

Production principles.

The lack of integration between progressive ideas such

as Cleaner Production near the top of the waste pipe-

line, and community recycling near the end, not to

SECTION ONE: THE ZERO WASTEJOURNEY SO FAR

2 An exception is volcanic/geothermal activity that produces wastes that take a very long time to re-integrate back into natural cycles.3 In most cases throughout this report the emphasis is on landfilling as the main residual disposal option. New Zealand does not have any commercial municipal or industrial waste

incineration facilities.4 The Impact of Waste Industry Consolidation on Recycling. P Anderson et al MSW Magazine June 20015 It is interesting to note that the original name for Cleaner Production was No Waste Technology (NWT). A NWT conference was organised by the United Nations in 1976



mention product design and supply chain management,

created a vacuum and the perfect environment was

created for the waste industry to grow fat on society’s

discards. As a result, a whole generation has grown up

with little awareness of the correlation between con-

sumption habits and the rubbish they put out at the gate

- waste will simply be picked up by someone, taken

away and safely hidden in a distant landfill.

Total Recycling

Frustrated with the growth and power of the wasting

system, and the inability to gain financial resources for

waste reduction and recycling, a few environmental

activists started promoting the idea of “Total Recycling”.

Their idea was to change the mindset amongst local

authorities by proposing that instead of spending

millions of dollars on landfilling and incinerating, to

spend it instead on “total recycling”. Their pleas werelargely unheard – both by industry who had a vested

interest in cheap waste disposal, and by waste managers

who felt more confident dealing with large waste

companies that could guarantee service than with a mix

of recyclers and community organizations with limited

capital equipment and resources. It didn’t matter that in

doing so they were creating larger problems – they were

doing what their communities were demanding of

them – sanitary and ‘cost effective’ waste disposal.

• • •“Recycling has not reduced waste either. Even

after the enormous exertions of America’s cities

and towns to recycle bottles, cans, newspapers

and other consumable products, 70% of the

products we buy are still going to landfills and

incinerators. The total quantity of throwaway

products and packaging going to America’s

landfills was actually larger in 2000 than in 1990.”

Helen Spiegelman 6

• • •

Zero Waste

Although Zero Waste had already taken hold in business

for some years, it wasn’t until the late 1990s that the

radical idea of ‘No Waste’ - or ‘Zero Waste’ took hold in

municipalities. It started in Canberra, Australia’s capital

city, where citizens asked the State Government to

consider a ‘no waste’ policy. A community consultation

process followed which resulted in Canberra becoming

the first city in the world to adopt an official target of

‘No Waste by 2010’. This was the start for Zero Waste

and was followed not long after by the Zero Wastecampaign in New Zealand. Since then it has spread to

communities and other countries around the world.

2 ABOUT ZERO WASTE

THE PROBLEM

New Zealand, with a population of just four million, is

littered with landfills – often near or over sensitive

marine and freshwater systems. Many of these are

closing and being replaced with larger regional landfills

that we are told will be safer. This contradicts studies

that show there are significant health risks associated

with landfilling and the knowledge that all landfill liners

will eventually leak (for further information see Wasted

Opportunity; A Closer Look at Landfilling and Incinera-

tion7 ). Regardless of their safety, these large facilities

present a clear danger because increased investment

and capacity actually encourages increased materials

flows. In attempting to solve one problem - informal and

unsafe landfills, we are creating a new one – over-

capacity that requires ongoing waste flows to justify capital costs and give a return to investors. We have the

absurd situation now where communities are looking

for more waste to help them fund the costs of the ‘waste

hiding’ infrastructure that they have built.

The idea of “managing” waste isn’t working

For too long we have put our faith in the idea of “manag-

ing” waste but it hasn’t solved the problem, and a

tragedy is unfolding as the hidden long term costs of

waste accumulate. Cheap waste disposal to landfills

(and, overseas, to incinerators) threatens our materials

efficiency and, as has been discovered by many manufac-

turers around the world, our industrial competitiveness.

In the final analysis landfills destroy valuable resources.

Even if they were proved ‘safe,’ this destruction of

resources would be enough reason to condemn them as

outmoded disposal technologies. The final goal for a

sustainable society is to create a 100% materials-efficient

economy – based on the same principles that Nature has

successfully proven for millions of years. The whole idea

of “Integrated Waste Management” has served to main-

tain the interests of the dominant players, industries that want society to be responsible for their waste outputs,

for example the packaging industry - and those that

profit from burying waste, the waste industry. But few

would disagree that these agendas have brought us to

the point of crisis we now face and that society is

demanding change.

• • •

No liner, however, can keep all liquids out of the

ground for all time. Eventually liners will either

degrade, tear, or crack and will allow liquids to migrate out of the unit. Some have argued that

liners are devices that provide a perpetual seal

against any migration. EPA has concluded that

6 Beyond Recycling: The Future of Waste. Enough! Spring 2000. The Centre for the New American Dream’s quarterly magazine7 Zero Waste New Zealand Trust , 2002. www.zerowaste.co.nz



the more reasonable assumption …is that any

liner will begin to leak eventually.” 8

• • •

THE SOLUTION

A crisis demands action - a breakthrough! And thebreakthrough strategy for solving our waste crisis is a

very simple one - Zero Waste is a “whole system”

approach to redesigning resource f lows comprised of an

underpinning philosophy, a clear vision, and a call to

action - all based on the notion that we CAN eliminate

waste. Zero Waste is a clear vision for eliminating waste

that:

1. Has concrete goals

2. Is a single call to action

3. Engages the national psyche

4. Predicts and redesigns the future

5. Creates a climate of continual improvement

6. Out - competes existing waste disposal methods

7. Creates a new economic model enabling the market

to drive the change

• • •

Zero Waste is a whole-system approach to addressing the problem of society’s unsustainable

resource flows. Zero Waste encompasses waste

elimination at source through product design and

producer responsibility, and waste reduction

strategies further down the supply chain such as

Cleaner Production, product dismantling, recy-

cling, re-use and composting. Communities that

implement Zero Waste strategies are aiming to

switch from wasteful and damaging waste dis-

posal methods to value-added resource recovery

systems that will help build sustainable local

economies. As such Zero Waste is in complete

opposition to landfilling and incineration. 9

• • • A National Vision of Zero Waste

By setting a national target of ‘Towards Zero Waste’, New

Zealand became the first country to aim to eliminate,

rather than manage waste. We can potentially gain

immense rewards from being at the front but we must

take the next steps now before we lose our leadership

role and the benefits that will follow.

BENEFITS TO NEW ZEALAND OF ZERO WASTE

Tourism

Our clean environment is our nation’s biggest asset -

inextricably linked to the success of our export and

tourism industries. The international perception of New

Zealand as a clean green country and a clean source of

food for the world is worth fighting for.

Exports

Zero Waste is a powerful signal to our overseas markets

that New Zealand’s primary produce comes from an

environment with less of the health hazards associated

with landfill leachate contamination. Even the percep-

tion of food contamination is a serious threat.

Imports

By recycling and reusing the maximum amount of materials and products we will significantly cut down

on imported materials and make sure that those we do

import are used to the full.

Global Warming/Climate Change

Landfills are a source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Large-scale waste elimination will help us meet our

Kyoto Summit obligations by reducing CO2

and methane

emissions. For every tonne of waste diverted from

landfill 0.8 metric tonnes of carbon equivalent aresaved10. No other avenue for reducing these emissions

provides such a range of other positive outcomes.

Local Economic Development

Hard-hit communities are already taking control of a

huge untapped, and increasingly valuable resource - to

create local businesses, and wealth, from waste11.

Employment

An economic sleeping giant will be awakened through

reuse of the vast quantities of separated materials that will come on stream - creating a huge labour market. The

recovered-materials industry in New Zealand is already a

significant part of the economy 12.

Reduced Liability

Our long-term waste disposal costs will be greatly

reduced - and we will take the burden of cleaning up

leachate- contaminated waterways and polluted beaches

from future generations.

8 US EPA 1981. Quote from keynote speech to the Colorado Summit for Recycling, 2002. ‘Can Recycling Succeed When Landfills are Permitted to Pollute? ‘ Peter Anderson,

President, Recycleworlds Consulting9 Wasted Opportunity: A Closer Look at Landfilling and Incineration. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust, 200110 Zero Waste . Robin Murray. Greenpeace Environmental Trust. 2002 . Wasted Opportunity: A Closer Look at Landfilling and Incineration. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust 200111 Creating Wealth from Waste. Robin Murray. Demos 199912 Survey of Recycling Businesses in the Auckland Region. Waste Not Ltd Auckland. 1998



Knowledge Economy

Experimentation and Kiwi innovation will flourish in an

environment open to new ideas and the resulting

technology will be able to be exported around

the world.

National Pride and a Leadership Role

New Zealand will take pride in pioneering an innovative

environmental/social policy that becomes established as

a global precedent.

WE ARE ALREADY ON THE ROAD TO ZERO

WASTE

As of August 2003, 38 of New Zealand’s 74 local authori-

ties have set targets of Zero Waste to landfill by between

2010 and 2020. Other countries and communities have

been inspired by the scale of the movement in New Zealand. International leaders in sustainability such as

Paul Hawken, author of ‘The Ecology of Commerce’,

Robin Murray from the London School of Economics

and author of’‘Creating Wealth from Waste’ and Ray

Anderson, CEO of Interface Carpets, are also advocating

Zero Waste as a new way of creating economic wealth

and addressing a host of other social and environmental

problems.

WHAT IS ZERO WASTE?

Zero Waste:

• Aims to eliminate rather than just “manage” waste.

• Is a whole system approach that aims to com-

pletely change the way materials flow through

society - resulting in NO WASTE.

• Is both an end of pipe solution which encourages

waste diversion through recycling and resource

recovery, and a guiding design philosophy for

eliminating waste at source and at all points down

the supply chain.

• Is a unifying concept or “brand” for a basket of

existing and emerging technologies aimed at the

elimination of waste.

• Resets the compass with new tools and new ways

of thinking so that normal, everyday activities

contribute to the answer rather than the problem.

• Is a way to transform the current cost-plus waste

industry - whose existence is dependent on the

destruction of more and more resources, into a

value-added resource recovery industry.

• Redesigns the current, one-way industrial system

into a cyclical system modelled on Nature’s

successful strategies.

• Helps communities develop local economies,

sustain good jobs, and provide a measure of self-

sufficiency.

• Reduces consumption and ensures that products

are made to be reused, repaired or recycled back

into nature or the marketplace.

• Is a powerful new concept that enables us to

challenge old ways of thinking and inspires new

attitudes and behaviour - the hallmarks of a

breakthrough strategy.

• Is a competing waste disposal option to landfilling

(and incineration) and is consistently showing to

be a more economically viable option.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE ZERO WASTE?

At first, Zero Waste seems impossible. How could we

expect to eliminate all waste and, if we could, wouldn’t

it be prohibitively expensive? Even if we could afford it,

where would we start?

Fortunately, Zero Waste isn’t something that we need to

invent from scratch. After all, it builds on the longest-

running, most successful Zero Waste model of all -

Nature. Even in our human-made world, many of the

building blocks are already in place, with many success-

ful models throughout the world.

Zero Waste is a goal - like the manufacturing goals of

Zero Emissions, Zero Accidents and Zero Defects - or

like the ‘Smoke Free’ and ‘Nuclear Free’ campaign goals.

All of these were adopted as impossible targets at the

beginning but have since brought about dramatic

changes in industry and society.

It’s important not to get hung up on the zero. No system

is 100% efficient. But we know that we can get ‘darn

close’. Zero Waste as a goal enables public and private

organizations to focus creativity and resources on a

journey of continuous improvement that will com-pletely change the way we think about and deal

with waste.



EMERGING TRENDS IN SUPPORT OF ZERO

WASTE

Zero Waste integrates with a number of fast emerging

international trends:

• Selling service rather than product: Most photo-

copiers, some carpets, some computers and now

some washing machines are leased to clients rather

than sold. As a result the manufacturer has a vested

interest in building higher quality, longer lasting

products - thus helping society use less materials.

• Design for the Environment: A new discipline

initiated by designers ensuring that all costs,

including the environment, are considered and

internalised at the design stage.

• Design for Disassembly: Another design discipline

aimed at ensuring products are designed for ease

of disassembly so that the parts can be reintegrated

into new models and materials can be recycled.

• Remanufacturing: Taking parts that have been be

used again for the same or similar purpose (at its

simplest, restoring the thread of a screw)

• Factor 4 and Factor 10: Where society aims to get

an increase in the amenity or service of a resource

by a factor of 4. Factor 10 came soon after and now

there is talk of the need to go for much greater

increases in resource productivity.

• Cleaner Production: An efficiency concept used

mainly by business to reduce the impacts of

production on the environment. Now in common

practice right throughout industry worldwide.

There are numerous success stories where signifi-

cant savings have been made over quite short

periods of time.

• De-materialisation: An expression used extensively

by Paul Hawken, The Natural Step founder Karl

Herick Robert and Amory and Hunter Lovins of the

Rocky Mountain Institute to describe the conceptof using less materials to provide the same service.

• Dynamic Modularity: Where products are made in

modules, so that only some modules need to be

replaced to lengthen product life (for example the

‘skin’ of a product)

• Extended Producer Responsibility: Where manufac-

turers take responsibility for the entire life cycle of

products and packaging.

• Reverse Logistics: Where retail chains use their distribution systems in reverse to move all broken

or unsaleable merchandise to specialised locations

for repair, reuse or breaking down into compo-

nents for recycling. Retailers report huge cost

savings from reverse logistics. Reverse logistics also

helps in redesign as manufacturers get better

feedback about product failures.

• The simplicity movement: A fast growing move-

ment aiming to reduce the emphasis of materialism

in return for greater quality of life. Over 40 maga-

zines are available in the USA alone extolling and

providing tips for living more simply with moretime for family hobbies and personal growth rather

than the current time deficient, career oriented

materialistic lifestyles of the 90s.

Each of these trends is having an impact on society. Each

will have an effect on the products that we buy and the

waste we create. Each is completely compatible with,

and supports, the power of a unifying concept such as

Zero Waste.

• • •

“Zero Waste is an extraordinary concept that can

lead society, business, and cities to innovative

breakthroughs that can save the environment,

lives, and money. Through the lens of Zero Waste,

an entirely new relationship between humans and

systems is envisaged, the only one that can create

more security and well being for people while

reducing dramatically our impact upon planet

earth. The excitement is on two levels: it provides

a broad and far-reaching vision, and yet it is

practical and applicable today.” Paul Hawken

• • •

3 THE NEW ZEALAND STORY

SO FAR

The Zero Waste campaign began in earnest in New

Zealand in 1997 with the founding of Zero Waste New

Zealand Trust, a not-for-profit organisation with the

vision for New Zealand to become the first Zero Waste

society. The campaign built on the work of many small

local groups trying to create sustainable jobs and

businesses through resource recovery and waste

minimization activities

Funds were raised so that seed grants could be given to

assist local initiatives and a campaign began to promote

Zero Waste as a national and local strategy. The

campaign aimed to unify the various waste elimination

initiatives into an easily understood vision and to

provide a rallying point for the community sector.

In 2002 New Zealand became the first country in the

world to adopt a vision of Zero Waste. The new national

Waste Strategy adopted a vision of ‘Towards Zero Waste

and a sustainable New Zealand’. Of the 251 submissions

made to the Government on the Waste Strategy 59%

called for a vision of Zero Waste – many also calling for a

target date of 2020.



By adopting Zero Waste, the New Zealand Government

recognised the validity of the Zero Waste campaign and

took the first step away from management, to elimina-

tion of waste. No other country had gone so far as to

make Zero Waste a national goal.

The Zero Waste campaign in New Zealand has been

supported by three key strategic initiatives.

1. Supporting the Community Sector

There is an active community sector in New Zealand led

by practical, far-sighted individuals who have tried to fill

the vacuum resulting from the ‘hands-off’ Government

style of the 1980’s and taken ownership of problems in

their communities. These people intuitively understand

the power of Zero Waste as a motivator - and the need

for urgent change. They have an urgency to stop wasted

resources filling up landfills - and instead use them to

create local jobs and small businesses.

These people know that recycling and resource recov-

ery on their own are not enough to create a Zero Waste

society. They see and deal with a growing avalanche of

non-recoverable materials on a daily basis and know that

the solution lies with product design and Extended

Producer Responsibility. But they also know that action

must be taken to recover materials and products that

can be reused and recycled, and that each community

must build the infrastructure for a sustainable materials

economy at the local level.

The community pioneers have been under-funded and,

in the past, often dismissed as fringe elements. Zero

Waste New Zealand Trust with the support, and often

alongside, Community Employment Group has given

these groups recognition, technical support, mentoring,

networking, and seed-grants. The national network and

campaign has helped validate their work and given them

encouragement in an often isolated and unsupportive

environment. This growing credibility has enabled other

funders and local authorities, to recognise the potential

of these groups to create sustainable jobs and addedtheir support and credibility to the community

groups’ work.

There are over 40 community groups working in some

way towards Zero Waste and they have become signifi-

cant players in waste reduction in New Zealand. A

number of these groups are currently establishing the

Zero Waste Community Enterprise Network (ZWCEN)

under the umbrella of Zero Waste New Zealand Trust.

2. Challenging and Supporting Local Authorities

The second main strategy has been to promote the

vision of Zero Waste to decision makers in local authori-

ties. The adoption of Zero Waste strategies by city and

district councils has been one of the most visible

successes of the campaign.

The first councils to adopt Zero Waste targets (in 1998)

were Opotiki District Council and Christchurch City

Council – the early adopters in the Zero Waste story, and

two of the most successful. Christchurch adopted Zero

Waste independently of the Zero Waste campaign. As

part of the campaign, presentations were made to

councils, Rotary Clubs, public meetings, workshops and

conferences around the country and the Zero Waste

message began to filter out to other communities. In

1999 Zero Waste New Zealand challenged the rest of

New Zealand’s 74 district and city councils to adopt

‘Zero Waste by 2015’ targets, offering the first ten that

accepted the challenge, technical, networking and

financial support. The response was enthusiastic and by

mid 2000, 25 councils had committed to Zero Waste. No

further funding was provided after this time but coun-

cils kept on adopting Zero Waste targets and now 51%

have done so. The momentum continues with more

councils indicating their intention of adopting Zero Waste targets in the near future.

Criteria for Councils adopting Zero Waste policies

developed by Zero Waste New Zealand Trust in

1999:

a) A minuted resolution from a full Council meeting

confirms Council’s commitment to a target of zero

waste to landfill by 2015, with a review in 2010 (to

allow Council to re-evaluate the Zero Waste target

in relation to its obligations under the Local Gov-ernment Act, Amendment No. 4)

b) A commitment is made to full and open commu-

nity consultation and ownership of a Zero Waste

strategy involving community, council and business

sector partnerships.



Key to the success of the Zero Waste New Zealand

campaign has been the requirement for councils to

adopt a Zero Waste target with a date at a full Council

meeting to ensure there is a high level of understanding

and commitment at all levels. By adopting it at political

level, and documenting it in council minutes, the policy

remains firm, even if staff members move on. Political

support empowers staff to think outside the square andto innovate in ways not previously possible.

A survey of the first 20 councils found five key reasons13

why councils have chosen to adopt Zero Waste.

• The Zero Waste philosophy itself – 10 out of the 20

gave this as being the main reason

• Funding – 6 gave this as the main reason. For many

councils this funding provided the only source of

discretionary funding that they could access to

implement change.

• Necessity – 5 cited the necessity of finding alterna-

tives to landfill disposal, particularly due to the

imminent closure of local landfills

• Public support – 3 cited public support for the

Zero Waste philosophy

• To support existing waste reduction efforts – 3 saw

the adoption of Zero Waste as a logical extension

of their existing waste minimisation activities.

Other reasons that have been cited since the survey include environmental protection (especially important

in tourist areas), job creation, and a growing acceptance

of Zero Waste as a legitimate and effective motivator

for change.

3. Lobbying Government

The third strategy of the Zero Waste New Zealand

campaign has involved lobbying Government on behalf

of the Zero Waste Network. This has involved all sorts of

activities over the years including:

• Compiling ‘Zero Waste New Zealand: Profile of a

National Campaign’, a document to provide up to

date information from the Zero Waste Network as

input for the government’s draft waste Strategy

‘Towards a National Waste Minimisation Strategy’14

• Taking part in the Government appointed Waste

Minimisation and Management Working Group

(Don Riesterer and Warren Snow).

• Providing best practice international examples to

the Waste Minimisation and Management Working

Group eg The Western Australian Government’s

‘WAste 2020 Draft Strategy: Towards zero waste by

2020’, ‘Creating Wealth from Waste15, etc.

• Establishing the Zero Waste Working Party, with

representatives from Zero Waste councils, commu-

nity groups and recyclers to provide feedback and

input for the Waste Minimisation and Management Working Group.

• Supporting‘The Road to Zero Waste’ series of

workshops organised by Russ Louden and Gerard

Gillespie of Waste Works Ltd in 1999.

• Inviting the Minister for the Environment to launch

the draft Waste Strategy for discussion at the Zero

Waste New Zealand conference in Kaitaia (Decem-

ber 2000).

• Writing ‘The End of Waste; Zero Waste by 2020’ as

resource material to assist the Zero Waste Network

make submissions on the Waste Strategy.

• Bringing international Zero Waste experts16

specialising in areas such as economics, waste

legislation, resource recovery systems, community

sector involvement, local authority leadership and

industry programmes, to New Zealand to speak at

workshops and conferences and meet with

Ministry for the Environment staff.

SO WHERE ARE WE AT?

Over half the councils in New Zealand have adopted

Zero Waste, a large number of community initiatives are

working towards Zero Waste and a national vision of

‘Towards Zero Waste’ is in place - but how well are Zero

Waste communities really doing two, three or four years

down the track?

The results are varied17. Some communities have rock-

eted ahead, adopting the vision, involving community,

developing infrastructure, changing the language and

doing everything within their power and resources to work towards the goal – but a small number have done

very little, carrying on with business as usual.

In between these extremes there are many communities

that started off well but lost enthusiasm after the New

Zealand Waste Strategy was shelved as a priority issue

for Government. A lot of energy and goodwill went into

the submission process by people from all over the

country (and overseas) proposing ideas and strategies

for New Zealand to move towards sustainability. The

end result of this process was a document that provided,

as one Canadian waste legislation expert put it, a ‘wish list’ but no real measures to actually reduce waste. The

13 Zero Waste New Zealand: Profile of a National Campaign. September 200014 Ministry for the Environment. December 200015 Robin Murray. Demos 199916 Robin Murray (UK) Dominic Hogg (UK), Tom Galimberti (Canada), Andy Moore (UK), Mal Williams (Wales), Tachi Kiuchi (Japan), Robert Joy

(Australia),Vaughan Levitzke (Australia), Eric Lombardi (USA), Gary Liss (USA), Dan Knapp (USA) Jim Malcolm (Australia)17Zero Waste Council Repor t, July 2002. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust



burden for this failure has fallen firmly and squarely on

the shoulders of communities at the end of the pipe.

Three years after the release of the Government’s draft

Waste Strategy New Zealand seems little further down

the track towards introducing the necessary legislative

and economic incentives to move’‘Towards Zero Waste

and a sustainable New Zealand’ than when the process

started.

Despite disappointment at the lack of progress, commu-

nities throughout New Zealand are doing what they can

to move towards Zero Waste and some are having

outstanding success. Waste diversion figures of 60% -

85% are being quoted by a small number of communi-

ties. The questions that now most worry industry

observers are whether these communities will be able

to sustain their success if key people burn out due to

lack of resourcing and disillusionment. Others are

asking whether the waste industry will put aside the work of repositioning itself as responsible resource

managers and get back to the profitable business of

burying waste now that there’s little political will to

back up the Waste Strategy. Section 3, the Road to Zero

Waste for New Zealand, gives recommendations for

taking the Waste Strategy to the next phase of action.

LESSONS LEARNED

What happens when a community adopts a

Zero Waste policy?

It inspires new thinking

Adopting a Zero Waste goal creates the opportunity to

re-think the way waste is viewed and managed. Support

at the political level for what may previously have been

seen as a radical idea, provides permission for staff to

begin with a clean sheet and redesign local systems and

infrastructure to enable the community to work

together towards the new goal. This approach helps

remove obstacles that may have been perceived to be

there before. There is a surprising degree of agreement

on what has to be done once there is agreement onZero Waste as the goal.

Every community takes a different approach

There is no recipe for getting to Zero Waste – each

community around New Zealand has taken a different

route – and this is healthy as there are so many variables

to be considered in each region and district. A lot has

been learned by sharing of ideas and visits between

Zero Waste communities.

It may take time

After a Zero Waste policy has been adopted, it may take

time to see much change, and its effects filter down

through the planning process. It can take time for

research to be carried out, existing contracts to expire,

pilot projects to be implemented and tested, new

infrastructure to be built and resources allocated. Some

communities that have taken the longest time to

implement their Zero Waste strategies have turned out

to be amongst the most effective. A good example is

Mackenzie District that adopted its policy in November

1999 and launched its impressive Zero Waste

programme in June 2002.

Roles change

Zero Waste challenges the whole focus of ‘waste man-

agement’’– including the roles of waste managers of

Council staff. For example, engineers may still be

responsible for managing existing landfilling activities,

but are given free reign to think outside the box and

develop completely new systems and processes.Engineers from a number of Zero Waste councils have

taken up this challenge, and are proving to be significant

change - makers within their communities. Opotiki,

Dunedin and Mackenzie demonstrate this. Sometimes

even job titles change. For instance in Porirua, Rodney

and Tauranga, Waste Minimisation Officers have become

Zero Waste Coordinators and Palmerston North now has

a Zero Waste Strategy Leader. These changes signal a

major shift in thinking.

Waste becomes a community issue

A whole new range of constituencies are brought into

the ‘waste arena’ once Zero Waste is adopted as the goal.

Waste suddenly becomes an issue and responsibility for

the whole community rather than just council staff. The

solution requires the participation of all members of the

community so new linkages and partnerships need to be

formed – council, community and private sector. This

isn’t always an easy process but it results in improved

community ownership of the problem and the

best results.

Support comes from surprising places

As a holistic (or systems) approach to changing resource

flows, Zero Waste attracts the attention of people

working in areas not normally associated with waste.

For example, the New Zealand Institute of Architects

recently endorsed the principle of working towards

Zero Waste Cities18. Others who have endorsed Zero

Waste professionally include the Engineers for Social

Responsibility, the Tourism Industry Association’s Green

Globe 21 programme and the New Zealand Federation

of Business and Professional Women. Parliament also hasembraced the concept and is beginning to ‘walk the talk’

by implementing its own Zero Waste strategy for

Parliament buildings.

18 Architext. Issue 93, April 2003



Innovation flourishes

The road to Zero Waste is not yet fully mapped and

there are many blind spots and obstacles ahead.

However once the goal has been set, the obstacles

become challenges. All around New Zealand innovation

is f lourishing in communities that have adopted Zero

Waste. At grassroots, council, private and corporatelevel, solutions are emerging in response to the setting

of the Zero Waste goal. Good examples are the in-vessel

composting units developed in Kaikoura and Palmerston

North providing low cost solutions for green and food

waste processing.

New jobs are created

Many new jobs have been created as a result of Zero

Waste policies. This is because recycling and resource

recovery are job-rich compared to landfilling. As the

Grass Roots Recycling Network’s report, ‘Wasting andRecycling in the USA’, puts it “On a per-ton basis, sorting

and processing recyclables alone sustains ten times

more jobs than landfilling or incineration.”19 A survey of

councils with Zero Waste policies in 2002 pinpointed

the creation of over 280 full-time and 17 part-time new

jobs as a result of their policies.20 The figure is

higher now.

Investment shifts to resource recovery

One of the most visible results of many councils’ Zero

Waste policies has been the investment in new resource

recovery infrastructure. Local authority waste managers

and planners have diverted or allocated significant

financial resources into many new purpose-built recy-

cling and resource recovery centres – many run by

community groups. Some major facilities are currently

going through the planning process. For further informa-

tion on these see the recently released report - ‘Re-

sourceful Communities. A Guide to Resource Recovery

Centres in New Zealand’.21

But communities can only achieve so much

Communities aiming for Zero Waste are aware that there

is only so much they can do. Without intervention

upstream through government legislation and industry

responsibility there is no way to get to Zero. Much of

the progress to date has been at the expense of enthusi-

astic individuals and their communities. There is an

increasing expectation that manufacturers must play

their part – and that government must take a leadership

role to make sure this happens.

FOUR CASE STUDIES

OPOTIKI – leading from the front

(population 9,200)

Opotiki District Council was the first council to take up

the challenge and in September 1998 adopted Zero

Waste to landfill by 2010, starting on a journey that has

seen waste plummet from 10,000 tonnes to 1,500

tonnes to landfill per annum – an 85% reduction in five

years. The driver behind Opotiki’s decision was the

imminent closure of its landfill and the no-win decision

it faced of either developing a new landfill site at a cost

of over $2 million, or trucking waste out of the district

at a cost of around $100/tonne. Adopting a Zero Waste

policy enabled Council staff to take a fresh look at the

problem and start looking for solutions to eliminate

waste rather than just manage it. A secondary driver wasthe potential to create new self-supporting local jobs

and businesses, and so far five full-time and four part-

time unsubsidised positions have been created within

council and another two positions by a private

contractor.

The main reasons for Opotiki’s success are that Council

took a strong leadership role, developed a whole system

approach, and invested the necessary resources to make

its programmes work.

Specifically it:

• Imposed charges at

the landfill (1999)

• Established a

kerbside collection

of recyclables

(2000)

• Reduced the size of the

residual rubbish bag from

75 litres to 25 litres (2001)

• Established a resource recovery infrastructure

network throughout the district starting with a

satellite drive through centre in Waihau Bay (107

km from Opotiki) in 2001, then the main Resource

Recovery Centre in Opotiki township in 2002, and

finally a second satellite drive through centre in Te

Kaha (65 km away) in 2002.22

The total cost of their Zero Waste strategy ($460,000 to

establish 3 resource recovery facilities) was approxi-

mately $3,000 more than what it would have cost to

continue to landfill waste. For that $3,000, they have

created local jobs; massively reduced waste and have19 Wasting and Recycling in the USA. 200020 Brenda Platt and David Morris. The Economic Benefits of Recycling. Institute for Local Self Reliance. February 199321 See Zero Waste and Envision New Zealand websites22 For further information on Opotiki’s resource recovery facilities see

‘Resourceful Communities; A Guide to Resource Recovery Centres in New Zealand’. Envision New Zealand, July 2003

Residual waste and recyclables collection



purchased a number of community assets. Opotiki

District Council is now aiming for a 90% diversion from

landfill by June 2004.

KAIKOURA – Partnering with the community

(population 5,000)

Kaikoura District Council was the third council to adopt

a Zero Waste policy in March 1999. Driving this

decision was a rapidly filling landfill, a strong

environmental ethos (driven by the income derived

from the over one million visitors who come to enjoy

the environment) and the need to create employment

for individuals at the bottom of the social heap.

Kaikoura responded to its Zero Waste challenge by

forming a joint venture company with local community

group, Kaikoura Wastebusters. The new venture, called

Innovative Waste Kaikoura (IWK), was givenresponsibility for managing all the town’s waste services

and implementing its Zero Waste policy. Kaikoura faces

a problem common to all small tourist towns – how to

stretch income from its narrow rating base to cover the

infrastructure requirements of a booming tourist trade –

including waste services. Innovation has been the key,

and IWK has lived up to its name developing low cost

solutions to drive waste diversion to its current level of

56.8% by volume (and increasing). These include:

• Weekly kerbside

recyclables collectionfor town residents

(residual waste has to

be self-hauled to the

resource recovery

centre or a bin-hire

company employed)

• Fortnightly recyclables

pick up for outlying areas

• Twice weekly recyclables collection for business

• Skip-bin hire for the construction industry

• IWK designed and built enclosed composting unit

to handle greenwaste and foodwaste

• Landfill cell storage for those materials that are

currently uneconomic to recycle but could have

value in the future

• A thriving re-use shop

• Use of crushed recovered glass as a filter medium

for leachate control.

• Compaction and baling of residual waste once

recyclables have been removed to maximise

landfill space

• Mining of old parts of the landfill to extract recy-

clable material and create more space.

• IWK has the support of the community in its drive

for Zero Waste and has created nine full time jobs

through its activities, when there were only two

people employed at the landfill four years ago.

MACKENZIE – Planning for a whole system

approach

(population 4,000)

MacKenzie District Council was the thirteenth council

to adopt Zero Waste in November 1999, choosing a

target date of 2014. Like Kaikoura it has a seasonal

tourist influx necessitating a waste minimisation

strategy that worked as well in the high volume tourist

season as in the off season.

Council staff spent a significant amount of time running

financial models, to assess its options and the financial

impact of each option. Each option was also compared

to how well it would deliver on the Zero Waste goal.

The outcome of this planning was the launch of a range

of new waste minimisation systems in June 2002

including:

• A new 3-bag kerbside collection system for house-

hold residents – one for recyclables, one for

organics and one for residual waste. This is the

first of its kind in New Zealand.

• The construction and in-house operation of three

new Resource Recovery Centres in each of the

main townships of Twizel, Tekapo and Fairlie.

• A comprehensive education programme (devel-

oped by Mid Canterbury Wastebusters)

• The installation of a Vertical Composting Unit to

process large volumes (47% of the waste stream) of

food waste and green waste into compost. This

includes a large amount of seasonal food waste

originating from the hermitage in Mt Cook Na-

tional Park.

• Financial incentives to separate waste

Key to the success of

MacKenzie’s system has been

its meticulous planning and its

utilisation of the full range of

skills at its disposal from the

political skills of the Mayor to

the communication skills of

Ashburton’s Mid Canterbury

Wastebusters, the engineering

skills of the Solid Waste

Enclosed Composting Unit

Brochure



Manager and the financial skills of the Accountant.

MacKenzie’s strategy has truly been a team effort and is

already resulting in waste diversion of around 70%, just

one year after implementation.23

DUNEDIN – Taking the long term approach

(Population 120,000)

Dunedin City Council adopted its Zero Waste goal in

October 1999 and set about developing a long-term

strategic implementation tool to help it achieve this.

Staff worked in partnership with Zero Waste Advisors

from Waste Not Ltd and Meritec to develop the ‘Dunedin

Zero Waste Strategy Tool’, a computer spreadsheet

system that provides a framework for turning the vision

of zero waste into practical initiatives. A suggested

implementation programme was devised for Dunedin

and the tool’‘genericised’ for use by other councils,

becoming’‘ZAP - Zero Waste Action Plan (see Appendix

4 for further details).

One of the

priorities

identified through

the process was

the establishment

of a Resource

Recovery Centre.

An upgrade of the

Green Island

Landfill to include

this and a Transfer

Station had been

on the books for a number of years but the adoption of

a Zero Waste target and implementation plan changed

the emphasis towards more resource recovery. In 2002

a purpose-built Resource Recovery Centre was opened

at the Green Island landfill24. This was followed in

March 2003 with the launch of a new kerbside

collection of recyclables.

With these initiatives in place Dunedin City Councilnow estimates that it is recovering around 28% of its

residential waste.

TOWARDS ZERO WASTE - THE DANGERS AHEAD!

If nurtured and supported by Government the commu-

nity and council-led Zero Waste campaign could put

New Zealand in the forefront of sustainability. But

dangers lie ahead if Government continues a hands-off

approach and leaves waste to the ‘market’ forces. These

dangers include:

• Mission fatigue on the part of councils and commu-

nity groups that have been leading the charge but

are out of energy and finances to carry on

• Consolidation of the waste industry as it fights the

threat posed by increasingly effective community

waste reduction initiatives

• Ineffective use of resources as national communi-

cation campaigns fail to capitalize on established

community campaigns and the national Zero Waste

movement

• Cynicism by the public at the lack of integrity

between the vision of the Government’s Waste

Strategy and its commitment to achieving it

• Loss of New Zealand’s lead. Zero Waste is taking off

overseas - and New Zealand’s example has played a

big part in this. It has been’‘the inspiration’ for

many other countries.

23 The “MacKenzie Model” of solid waste management. MacKenzie District Council 200224 See Dunedin Case study in ‘Resourceful Communities. A Guide to Resource Recovery Centres in New Zealand.’ Envision 2003

Resource Recovery Centre



4 WHO ELSE IS GOING FOR

ZERO?

Zero Waste is rapidly spreading around the globe. Its

clear and uncompromising message is being embraced

by different cultures – and at all levels of society – from

NGOs and recycling industry coalitions to local munici-palities, state, regional and national governments (see

Appendix 2 for more information).

Zero Waste policies have been adopted in:

Australia: Canberra ACT, Western Australia, South

Australia, Eurobodalla Shire Council, in New South Wales

Canada: Toronto, Regional District of Kootenay Bound-

ary (British Columbia) , Regional district of Nanaimo

(British Columbia)

England: Bath and North East Summerset Council

India: Kovalam

Philippines: Candon City- Ilocos Sur, Municipality of

San Isidro- Nueva Ecija, Municipality of Pilar –Sorsogon,

Municipality of Linamon- Lanao del Norte, Municipality

of Sigma- Capiz

USA : California, San Francisco City, Del Norte County –

California, Santa Cruz- California, Seattle-Washington,

Carrboro – North Carolina

Growing numbers of campaigns run by NGOs and

recycling organisations are also promoting the Zero

Waste message around the world:

• Californian Resource Recovery Association

www.crra.com/newmill.html

• GAIA - Global Anti Incineration Alliance

www.no-burn.org

• Grass Roots Recycling Network (USA)

www.grrn.org

• KWMN and waste Movement (Korea)

www.waste21.or.kr/ or www.grrn.org/zerowaste/

kwmn.htm

• Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales,

Australia. www.nccnsw.org.au/waste/context/

• Target Zero Canada www.targetzerocanada.org/

Towards Zero (Scotland) www.towardszero.com/

• Waste Not Asia www.grrn.org/zerowaste/articles/

waste_not_asia.html

• ZERI Institute www.zeri.org

• Zero Waste Alliance (USA) www.zerowaste.org

• Zero Waste America www.zerowasteamerica.org

• Zero Waste Ireland

• Zero Waste New Zealand Trust

www.zerowaste.co.nz

• Zero Waste North (Canada)

www.footprintbc.com/zerowastenorth/

A new organisation, Zero Waste International Alliance, is

also being formed to link these campaigns, towns and

cities and to help establish internationally recognised

benchmarks and standards for Zero Waste.

www.zwia.org

BUSINESSES

Major international businesses that have adopted Zero

Waste targets include:

• Ricoh Group

• Toyota

• Interface Carpets

• Bell Canada

• Kimberley Clark

• DuPont Inc

• Hewlett-Packard

• Honda Motor Corp

• Xerox Corp

These companies are becoming more competitive than

their competitors - not only by drastically reducing

waste disposal costs but also by promoting sustainable

business practices and capturing customer loyalty.

• • •“The whole concept of industry’s dependence on

ever faster once through flow of materials from

depletion to pollution is turning from a hallmark of progress into a nagging signal of

uncompetitiveness.” Paul Hawken, Natural

Capitalism

• • •



SECTION TWO: THE ROAD TO ZERO WASTEFOR COMMUNITIES

1 INTRODUCTION

As with all successful endeavors, once you know where

you are going the rest is relatively easy. By being clear

and sure about your overall goal you can communicate

the vision to the people you need to bring along with

you. Then, and only then will the actions of everybody

in their daily lives ensure rapid movement towards the

goal. The vision is uncompromising - a Zero Waste

society – one that mimics Nature and abides by natural

principles – that guides us towards sustainability.

Zero Waste is no longer a fringe concept that only a

few radical activists are promoting – it’s a

permanent and key part of the international

sustainability movement.

Feedback from the experts

The following strategies have emerged from the ongoing

quest to define a roadmap for Zero Waste by Zero Waste

Council staff, Zero Waste Advisors, community groups

and recyclers throughout New Zealand and around the

world. Our first attempt to define the road to Zero Waste

was “The End of Waste“– Zero Waste by 2020” which can

be found on the Zero Waste New Zealand website,

www.zerowaste.co.nz. To compile ‘Getting There! The

Road to Zero Waste’, we surveyed local and international

Zero Waste enthusiasts and experts for their

recommendations on developing a roadmap to Zero

Waste (Appendix 3).

It’s time to get on with it!

The issue of whether Zero Waste is possible or not is

simply no argument for an increasing number of people – now it’s time to actually get started.

Charting the course

There are many different approaches to Zero Waste and

a number of New Zealand and overseas communities

have designed excellent strategies. Some of these are

summarised in section 1.They may also be found on

www.zerowaste.co.nz, www.envision-nz.com and

www.grrn.org and can be used as a starting point for

building your community’s Zero Waste strategy.

Key Principles

Materials from Nature create the wealth for our indus-

trial system. Almost the total output of our industrial

system is waste, but we have paid little attention to the

final resting place for used materials and the products

that are made from them– in this country landfill.

All natural systems have conditions or principles that

provide information on the best way to manage and

optimise the human interface with the system. These

systems are largely self refreshing and don’t need human

intervention except to repair previous system

violations. Components are synergistic in that each part

works to optimise the performance of the whole.

Feedback gives us the information to help us adjust our

actions. If we don’t read or listen to this information

then we suffer the consequences.

It would be a mistake to be too prescriptive on the

route each community should take to Zero Waste. If you

want a step by step approach you can use one of the

planning tools mentioned in–‘Plan for Success’ and

explained further in Appendix 4.

System Principles

System principles can help guide decisions without

prescribing specific strategies. The following list is a

first attempt to identify system principles as part of an

overall Zero Waste framework.

1. The Precautionary Principle: Basically, “it’s better

to be safe than sorry”.’The Precautionary Principle says

that you don’t use a technology unless you have very

firm safeguards and reasons to believe that there is no

real hazard associated with that technology.”25

2. The Proximity Principle: Nature follows the

proximity principle by ensuring the maximum number

of needs (for each organism) are met within the shortest

distance. This means short supply chains with few long

distance transactions. From a local development point

of view it is often said, “the closer you are to the

problem the more likely you are to solve it”. For

resource recovery, the proximity principle suggests that

we seek “the highest use (for used materials and

products) within the shortest possible distance”.

3. The Diversity Principle: In Nature diversity and

complexity lend stability. The more diverse and complex

a system is, the more stable it is and more able to

withstand shocks. The diversity principle suggests that

we need complex and flexible options for dealing with

wasted resources as opposed to relying on large, simple,

capital-intensive structures.

25 David Suzuki and Holly Dressel quoting Brian Goodwin in ‘Naked Ape to Superspecies’, 1999. These underlying principles can be kept in mind when developing

implementation strategies.



2 SEVEN KEY STRATEGIES

FOR COMMUNITIES

The following key strategies are not a sequential formula

for working towards Zero Waste, but rather an outline or

framework to help guide planning and decision making.

S T R A T E G Y 1

ADOPT A ZERO WASTE TARGET

The most important part of any long journey is having a

clear and unwavering vision of the final destination. A

vision of a distant or unknown place (sustainability)

must be powerful and inspiring. The Zero Waste visionsets the compass for a new way of managing materials.

It’s possible to create a great waste strategy without

Zero Waste as the vision or target. But without a clear

goal there is always the danger of entrenched vested

interests working against your strategy.

Zero Waste has come along way since the first New

Zealand councils adopted it in 1998. Zero Waste is now

a legitimate goal worldwide that goes well beyond any

other waste minimisation strategy or concept. The key

reason for setting a Zero Waste target is to get everyonelined up with the same goal. Industry has proven the

benefits of setting seemingly unreachable targets such as

Zero Waste, Zero Emissions and Zero Accidents. These

targets create constant dissatisfaction with the present

and result in more and more improvements previously

thought impossible.

With a national vision of Zero Waste in the

Government’s new Waste Strategy there are no philo-

sophical impediments to taking your community along

the path to Zero Waste.

Like any journey you need to set a date or timeframe

within which to reach the target destination. Most New

Zealand local authorities that have adopted Zero Waste

policies have set target dates of between 2010 and 2020.

Without a date there is no way to plan and no way to

measure success. Zero Waste simply becomes a

nice idea.

Some suggestions to help set your Zero Waste target and

policy follow.

Be inspirational. Create the community’s Zero Waste

vision in such a way that it will inspire people. Create a

logo (as Porirua City and Tasman District Councils have

done) and write a visioning document that articulates

the goals and principles of Zero Waste (as Mackenzie

District Council has done) and will act as a compass to

guide decisions in council and in every organisation and

household in the community.

Set a target date, for example 2015 or 2020 - with a

review date (eg 2010) to either confirm or re-set the

target date. The review takes some of the risk out of the

goal without lessening the strength of the target date.

Set intermediate or stretch targets, such as 50%

within 3 years, 80% in 5 years etc26. Once you have a big

picture target that sets the compass for your strategy,

then you need to set realistic intermediate or stretch

targets along the way. These will keep people focused

on early gains and keep interest high. If you are traveling

to Christchurch from Nelson and are clear about thefinal destination, you need intermediate targets to aim

for, to break up the trip - such as Kaikoura or Amberley

by lunchtime! Once these intermediate destinations are

reached you can stop and stretch, fill up the car, and

build up energy for the next leg of the journey. You can

also reassess the next stage. Maybe your timeframe is

unrealistic and needs adjusting. Intermediate targets

help break the journey up into manageable chunks.

Align your Zero Waste and intermediate targets

with the Government’s Waste Strategy targets. The

New Zealand Waste Strategy sets’“national targets for

priority waste areas”. It makes sense to ensure that local

and regional strategies fit in with and at the very least

match the Government’s targets. Some of the targets will

be too ‘soft’ for Zero Waste communities that are going

at a faster pace.

1. Adopt a Zero Waste target

4. Develop the infrastructure forrecycling and resource recovery

2. Plan for success

3. Put the incentives in the right place

5. Engage the community

6. Walk the talk

7. Lobby to change the rules

Z e r o

W a s t e 2020

7 Key Strategies for Communities

26 Robin Murray suggests 50% in 5 yeas, 70% in 10 years, 85% in 15 years and zero waste in 20 years in his book ‘Zero Waste’



The New Zealand Waste Strategy sets targets for

following waste categories:

1.Organic wastes – 95% of commercial and over

95% of garden waste by 2010

2.Special wastes – EPR pilot programmesintroduced in at least 8 categories (oil, tyres and

batteries etc) by 2005

3.Construction and Demolition Wastes – 50% (by

weight) of 2005 levels by 2008

4.Hazardous wastes – 20% for priority hazardous

waste by 2012

5.Contaminated sites – All high risk sites managed

or remediated by 2015

6.Organochlorines – 90% reduction in dioxinsby 2020

7.Trade Wastes – All trade waste permits have a

recognized waste minimisation and management

programme by 2005

8.Waste Disposal – All local authorities have

addressed their funding policy to ensure full cost

recovery can be achieved for all waste treatment

and disposal processes by December 2003. By this

date all landfill operators will be phasing in landfill

charges based on full cost recovery – in atimeframe acceptable to the local community.

Set targets for different sectors of the community.

Different sectors of the community may choose to

develop targets to meet the Zero Waste goal – or alterna-

tively council may choose to do this for them. For

example businesses, schools, universities, and other

institutions may set recycling or waste minimisation

targets that are monitored and reviewed on a

regular basis.

Change the language. Start using the right language in

contracts and in communications to help animate your

community’s Zero Waste strategy. Make sure that job

descriptions are written so that staff know you’re

serious about achieving Zero Waste. Give them titles

such as Zero Waste Manager or Zero Waste Coordinator

rather than Waste Manager or Waste Minimization

Officer and talk about “resources” and “material flows” in

communications rather than waste and waste stream.

Waste plans and strategies should be renamed so that

they project a vision that drives change from the very

beginning. A community that has adopted a Zero Waste

policy might consider calling its Waste Management Plan

a Waste Minimisation Strategy or a Zero Waste Plan - as

Rodney, Otorohanga and Tasman District Councils have

done.

S T R A T E G Y 2

PLAN FOR SUCCESS

Once you have agreement on the vision and targets, the

next problem is how to get there. What are the tools

and how should they be implemented to get you to your

final destination – no waste? This section outlinesdifferent planning approaches and the key

considerations that need to be taken into account to

ensure optimum planning results.

The emphasis changes from managing waste as the core

focus, to that of eliminating waste – preferably by

designing it out at source, but also by reduction, reuse,

recycling and all of the methods outlined in other parts

of this report. Up until now communities have had little

influence on the ‘up stream’ decisions and practices that

create the waste they have to deal with. Zero Waste

empowers communities at the end of pipe to influenceand optimize the whole system. At the same time, we

must not fall into the trap of thinking that end of pipe

resource recovery initiatives are less important than ‘up

stream’ measures such as Extended Producer

Responsibility (EPR) or Cleaner Production. But as part

of a wider Zero Waste vision and policy, integrated with’

‘downstream’ resource recovery initiatives, EPR and

Cleaner Production will help produce “whole-system”

change.

The Integrated Waste Management hierarchy or, as it’s

often described, the “waste hierarchy” of prevention,

reduction, recycling, disposal, has been adopted in a

number of countries and used as a guide for local waste

planning. The three R’s: Reduce Reuse, Recycle are a

slightly different version with residual disposal often

added at the end. The problem with these hierarchical

approaches is that they can be seen as a priority list

causing local authorities to support interventions

further up the list, dismissing recycling as less important,

while in fact most of their financial resources are going

to the bottom of the hierarchy – residual disposal. Many

recyclers have suggested that the Waste Hierarchy should be treated as a menu of options that are acted on

in unison – rather than in priority order.

Zero Waste Planning Tools. The complexity of

integrating all the necessary initiatives, in optimum

order, to achieve an effective Zero Waste plan has led to

many different approaches in the development of local

Zero Waste plans – usually based on strategies that

address waste either by:

• Category, (steel, plastic, reusables, tyres, etc)

• Sector (manufacturing, tourism, farming, residential,

institutional etc).

• Initiative (kerbside collection, drop-off,

composting, Resource Recovery Park etc.)



• Party responsible (council, community group,

government, householder)

- or a combination of the above.

A number of tools have been developed to help the

decision making process. For experienced Zero Waste

Managers there may not be any need to follow any particular planning approach. A review of these tools

will increase understanding of the range of

interventions and initiatives that can be undertaken and

how other sectors of the community can take part.

Each tool attempts to view and solve the problem in a

different way but all have the same goal of breaking

through the current inertia caused by old thinking, lack

of infrastructure and lack of influence and change

further up the supply chain.

Three examples of planning tools are included in

Appendix 4:

• Urban Ore’s Clean Dozen- the 12 Master Categories

• ZAP – the Zero Waste Action Plan

• The Californian Resource Recovery Association’s

Zero Waste Workbook: A Toolkit for Zero Waste

Communities

There are also a number of others being developed

around the world.

So, whether you use a planning tool or not, what are

the keys to planning for success? Here are some

suggestions.

Involve the community in the planning process

From our experience and that of many Zero Waste

proponents, it starts with people. As Dan Knapp puts it

“People are our most valuable resource”, This is contrary

to the traditional waste approach that basically designs

people out of the problem and waste out of sight.

If people are at the core of the strategy ask them for

their opinion. Many councils and community groups

have done attitude surveys to gauge the community’s

willingness to recycle if facilities are provided. Waiheke

Resource Trust did this prior to forming a joint venture

company and winning major contracts to manage

Waiheke Island’s kerbside collections and waste manage-

ment. Otorohanga District Council has also done this

with a simple response form at the end of its draft Zero

Waste Strategy (posted on www.otodc.govt.nz)

Involving the community in the consultation process will draw out the champions and motivators. These

people may well have been critics of the council‘s

previous policies, but consultation will help harness

their energies in support of council’s new direction.

Local solutions will best meet local needs and people

are far more likely to do things if they think of the idea

themselves. “The closer you are to the problem, the

more likely you are to solve it””– is one way of putting it

(a version of The Proximity Principle). The Canberra

“NoWaste” strategy was a result of community

consultation and a number of Zero Waste councils have

consulted and even partnered with their communities

with great success. Kaikoura and Porirua are good

examples of this.

• • •

‘Involve the community in a meaningful dialogue

about the search for solutions. Really ask and

listen. Once you have a community based plan,

work to develop public and political support for

the plan’. Elizabeth Citrino, Californian Resource

Recovery Association

• • •Develop a Zero Waste task force, including

community, recyclers and industry to turn council

policy into an implementation plan

There will be local knowledge and experience in the

community that can be utilized to develop an

implementation plan. Calling for input from those with

the motivation to achieve Zero Waste, increases council’s

ability to meet the community’s goal and provides

opportunities for local businesses and organizations to

benefit from the increasing flow of resources. Bringing

the players together and asking them for their ideas is

probably the most effective way to obtain professional

help from the experts.

Build public and political support for the plan

It is important to keep the wider community (those not

necessarily involved in the planning process) and key

council staff and politicians informed as it progresses.

Regular updates in council communications and high

profile updates on council websites will help keepsupport high.

Employ the right people to turn the plan into

action

Aiming for Zero Waste is a huge change from the status

quo so those given the task of driving the plan have to

have the seniority to push past the obstacles put in their

way. Giving the job to a junior waste minimization

officer may doom the plan to failure. But even more

important than seniority is passion - the essential

ingredient to mobilize the community. There arenumerous ‘Zero Heroes’ working in councils around

New Zealand - passionate and committed individuals

who are making huge differences with the limited

resources at their disposal. As explained by one

engineer, his council’s adoption of Zero Waste



revolutionized his job – changing him from a landfill

expert to a sustainability systems planner.

Map the Recycling and Resource Recovery Industry

A first step in the process of engaging the recycling and

recovered materials industry is to understand who they

are by researching and mapping the industry. Who arethe players? Where are they situated? What services do

they provide? What do they need to enable them to

activate council’s new direction?

• • •

‘Identify community groups that can work with

council and develop robust working relationships

with these groups.’ Marian Shaw, Waitaki Re-

source Trust

• • •Know your community’s waste stream

Whilst most communities in New Zealand have similar

waste compositions, there will be differences between

rural and urban communities and between communities

with different industrial bases. Communities with a well

developed recycling and waste minimisation

infrastructure will have a different waste composition to

those that focus on disposal to landfill.

Map resource flows in the community

This sounds difficult but doesn’t need to be. A picture

of major waste resource flows will help identify oppor-

tunities for waste reduction programmes and initiatives.

It’s not possible to identify every aspect of resource

flows but it is important to have a picture of the major

sources. The other aspect of resource flows that should

be understood is where it all ends up. Where are all the

waste disposal sites in the community? Where would

resource recovery opportunities such as recycling drop-

off centres and Resource Recovery Parks be best placed

to optimise the system? Knowledge of neighbouring and

even regional resource f lows can all be fed in to paint

the most comprehensive picture.

Identify - and work with, the big wasters

There are industries and activities in each community

that produce large quantities of waste. It’s worth

working directly with these to identify problems and

find solutions. Who are the larger waste generators in

the community? Do they have easily reusable or

recyclable waste outputs? Who else in the community can utilise their waste resources? This information will

complement the waste composition data and help in

building the strategy. Support for Cleaner Production

programmes combined with creating or linking with an

existing waste resource exchange are possible strategies

for working with large waste sources.

Identify the service gaps

Once you know the composition of the wasted re-sources in your community the next step is to find out

where the gaps in recycling and waste reduction lie.

These are the opportunities for new initiatives and

business ventures, that might be easily encouraged by

council.

Maintain community ownership of the waste

(resource) stream

If the community maintains ownership or control over

its wasted resources, it can manage them for local

benefit. This may not be possible if long term contracts

have been let or if waste disposal has been privatized.

Without ownership or control27 of the discard supply it’s

very difficult to initiate change and capture the

maximum benefit the community. Large waste

companies have a direct interest in ensuring that the

maximum amount of material flows to their facilities.

Long contracts especially those that guarantee a

minimum supply of wasted resources, mean that the

community has little incentive to reduce waste and

when it does, the savings in disposal costs don’t accrue

to the community.

• • •“Local or public ownership of recycling facilities

is one effective escape hatch for avoiding the

coming garbage monopoly” Peter Anderson et al 28

• • •

“You need to have control of the waste streams to

achieve your overall waste reduction objectives”

Nick Roozenburg, Solid Waste Engineer, Tauranga

District Council

• • •

Learn from the leaders

Communities around New Zealand are making great

strides towards their Zero Waste goals. A number of

councils that have recently adopted Zero Waste, have

sent council and community representatives to visit

other Zero Waste communities to find out what is

working and share ideas.

27 The idea of control of the waste resource stream does not preclude local authorities from contracting out various aspects of the Zero Waste infrastructure and residual

management. It does mean though, making sure that each contract achieves the optimum benefits to the community in terms of added value, and waste reduction.28 Fighting Waste Industry Consolidation with Local Ownership of Recycling Facilit ies. Peter Anderson, Brenda Platt and Neil Seldman. Facts to Act On. No 42, November 2002



Understand the Economics of Zero Waste

One of the most commonly asked questions is whether

it will it cost more to implement a Zero Waste strategy

than the current waste management system. This needs

to be answered in three parts:

1.The increasing costs of the current “waste

management” system

It’s no secret that waste costs are soaring – especially if

we take a full cost accounting approach. Most commu-

nities have a relatively short horizon before their

existing landfills are full and are either looking for new

sites or combining with other communities to build

regional landfills. The ongoing costs of managing landfill

outputs may end up raising the disposal costs by a

significant quantum. This combined with the absurdity

of spending enormous funds on landfilling valuable and

recyclable resources is driving change the move to Zero Waste - as a cost reduction strategy.

2.The longer term economic benefits of

alternative systems

The resource recovery industry is still relatively imma-

ture and has a long way to go before it can take us to

Zero Waste. It has to compete not only against the

existing wasting infrastructure that has been built over

many years with huge subsidies by local authorities but

also with entrenched attitudes that assume wasting is

cheaper than resource recovery, that landfilling is safe,

and that we have a right to have our waste taken away

at low or no cost. At the end of the day regardless of

whether the council pays for disposal or it’s completely

user pays, funds spent on landfilling waste are a direct

cost - and loss, to the community.

When we look at the effort and resources that have

gone into building the infrastructure for our industrial

system and compare that with the infrastructure for

dealing with the final outputs of that system – waste, we

can only conclude that society is not yet serious about

averting the environmental crisis we face. The amountof investment in the resource recovery infrastructure of

New Zealand would probably be less than 1% of the

investment that creates the waste. Given sufficient

investment we could easily be diverting 80—90% of

waste from landfill. John Ransley of Innovative Waste

Kaikoura puts it succinctly when he says “give me a

million dollars and I’ll give you Zero Waste “

(in Kaikoura).

The reality though is that recycling is proving to out-

compete wasting on all fronts, not the least economic.

The difficulty is to get communities to make the initialinvestment required to achieve long term savings and

returns to the community in terms of jobs and

business opportunities.

The following graphs show that in both giant (London)

and tiny (Kaikoura) communities a recycling and waste

reduction-focused waste strategy provides significant

savings in the long run although it requires additional

investment at the outset.

Graph explanation: ‘IWK Plan’ is Kaikoura’s Zero Waste by

2015 programme. ‘Landfill/Transfer’ is the extrapolation of Kaikoura’s waste management programme prior to the

adoption of Zero Waste.

3. The wider economic and social implications for

the local economy

Waste is a social and economic issue as much as it is a

technical issue and planning should embrace wider

considerations to achieve wider waste reduction,

outcomes such as environmental protection and local

economic development.

Waste Managers have in the past seen their job as simply to dispose of waste in a sanitary and cost effective

manner. Some have openly claimed that they are not

responsible for creating jobs in their community or that

they are ‘not economic development agencies’.

However many councils are proving that it is possible to

work with the community to create more local jobs and

business opportunities whilst at the same time reducing

overall waste costs and risks to the community. But to

achieve these seemingly diverse aims, communities must

move from the concept of single, large scale, capital

intensive technologies, to a diverse range of often labour

intensive projects and initiatives that provide flexibility

to meet new trends and outcomes.

Kaikoura Landfill Options

0.00

2,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

8,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

12,000,000.00

14,000,000.00

Yea r

$

IWK Plan

Landfill/Transfer

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 4

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 5

2 0 1 6

2 0 1 7

2 0 1 8

2 0 1 9

2 0 2 0



• • •

“Recycling is seen by many local authorities as an

extra cost, an“‘add-on’ to existing waste services.

However our analysis shows that, over time,

intensive recycling programmes actually reduce

the cost of waste management, regardless of

subsidies. Achieving this requires a long-term view of the whole system of waste management

and materials supply”. Robin Murray. Creating

Wealth from Waste. Demos 1999.

• • •

S T R A T E G Y 3

PUT THE INCENTIVES

IN THE RIGHT PLACE

A continuous and continually changing f low of

initiatives, solutions and ideas are going to be requiredto achieve Zero Waste and these have to be based on a

solid framework of policy and incentives to ensure they

all work towards the same goal.

Local Government and the Law

It does not take much to come to grips with the

basics of local government in New Zealand.

Private citizens or businesses can do anything that

is not against the law while councils are directed

by Parliament towards the things they have to do

and those that they may do if they feel so inclined.

Recent changes have opened this up somewhat

but local government law is still full of the word,

shall

(the things they have to do) and may (the things

they can do if they want).

It is worthwhile reading bits of the Local Govern-

ment Act, especially Part XXXI related to Waste

Management, to see the mandatory bits and those

where councils have discretion. Copies of the

Local Government Act can be picked up at any

Government book store.

Ensure all waste disposal fees reflect the true cost

of wasting

Put an end to cheap waste disposal by gradually raising

landfill charges to reflect the true cost of waste disposal

plus the ongoing maintenance and eventual remediation

of old sites. All waste disposal points should reflect this

cost – from household residual waste bags to bulk

commercial disposal.

• • •

“The bottom line is that wasting currently pro-

duces higher profit margins in most cases than

does sustainable zero waste.” Peter Anderson,

President, Recycling Worlds Consulting.

• • •

Introduce extended operator liability

Ensure operators of waste (resource) disposal sites

accept permanent responsibility for the environmental

and human health safety of waste disposal facilities

(landfills and incinerators).

Set differential pricing to create financial incentives

that encourage resource recovery and discourage

wasting

This is linked to establishing the full cost of wasting. It is

important to ensure that at every opportunity there is a

financial benefit to recycle – large enough to encourage

the right behavior.

Introduce ‘Pay as You Throw’

Ensure that wherever waste is produced, the waste

generator pays directly for that wasting behavior.

Including waste charges with the general rates cancels

any opportunity for residents to benefit from reducing

waste. Pay as you throw (PAYT) is one of the best ways

to educate the public on the fact that there is a cost

to wasting.

Disposal of waste to landfill the core function

Waste Reduction and recycling the core function



Ban recyclable materials from landfill

Ban all materials that are currently recyclable from

landfill. Follow this up with progressive bans on materi-

als for which markets can be found or created. Councils

have very clear powers when it comes to deciding what

can and what cannot be deposited in waste facilities

that they own or operate. Most councils already havebans of one sort or another on hazardous wastes or dead

animal carcasses and no one challenges these. The same

legal authority can be used for other types of waste and

tyres and car hulks are two of the most common

starting points.

Section 542 of the Local Government Act gives councils

the powers to make bylaws related to waste and, in

subsection (1)(a) specifically includes the following:

“Prohibiting or regulating the deposit of waste or of

waste of any specified kind:”

There is no obvious reason why this power cannot be

used for any other kinds of waste, especially if other

facilities are provided for these. Garden waste and

construction and demolition waste would be the most

obvious large parts of the waste stream that could be

diverted this way.

The situation may not be so clear for facilities that are

operated by private businesses, as distinct from those

that are operated under contract to the council. Pro-

vided these businesses are meeting whatever conditions

are required of them under the various resource con-sents that apply to the site in question, the council

might be perceived as being very heavy handed to

dictate what materials they should take.

This can take on very real implications in some settings.

If a council wanted to establish a resource recovery park

with an emphasis on construction and demolition waste

it might ban this material from its transfer station and

direct the material to the new park with tipping fees set

to cover a significant portion of the costs of recovering

material from this waste stream.

Down the road a business might well establish a com-

peting transfer station that takes all the demolition

material to be dumped at a clean-fill site or landfill out

of town. Their tipping fees are likely to be lower and

much of the material will go their way. There is no

obvious power that the council has to control this

situation, although they can license the operators and

require returns of the volumes of material being handled

- and also request better coordination for the wider

community interest.

Ban toxic materials from landfill

Ban all materials that will create toxic leachate problems

in the future. If the material is not currently recyclable,

store it until pressure can be brought to bear on manu-

facturers to either take it back or stop manufacture.

Don’t allow the landfill to be an easy way out for

manufacturers – a way to sweep their problems under

the carpet for the community to deal with in the future.

Communities have to be able to see what’s being

thrown away in their back yards – and say no if they

don’t want it. We have to get rid of the notion of

privacy when it comes to wasting – especially for some

manufacturing and waste industries who rely on privacy

to avoid taking proper responsibility for their wasting

behaviors and outputs.

Ensure all waste contracts encourage recycling and

discourage wasting.

Waste contracts need to be reworded as Resource

Recovery contracts. A good example is the Cleanstream‚ concept from Wales where contracts are written as

total resource recovery contracts based on three cleanstreams and one residual stream. See appendix 5.

Service payments should be the norm for resource

recovery contracts with income from commodities split

between council and contractor.

Break up contracts where they enable waste companies

to gain control over the entire waste resource stream.

Whilst it’s important to make sure that the waste

industry is not vertically integrated it may be beneficial

in some situations for recyclers or community groups to

control both the resource recovery system and residual

waste management. In other words vertical integration

is bad if wasting is the core focus but more acceptable if

resource recovery is the core focus.

License waste collectors

License waste collectors so that performance standards

can be enforced and accurate data collected on thequantities and types of waste going to landfill.

The example in the section on landfill bans highlights

the perils facing councils planning in a mixed economy

with some private sector operators. Councils are



obliged to prepare waste management plans but may

not have access to information on the amounts of

material going through private facilities. This can raise

problems if the private operators go out of business for

whatever reason leaving the council to handle the

increased quantities of material.

Section 542 of the Local Government Act covers this by giving powers to councils to pass bylaws to require all

persons (or businesses) involved in the collection and

transportation of waste, or specified types of waste, to

be licensed. Furthermore, in subsection (2)(b) it gives

councils the specific powers to require license holders

to provide the council with a return of “the quantities

and types of waste collected under the license.” In other

words, the council can require all waste collectors to be

licensed and require paperwork noting the volumes and

types of material moved.

Rodney District has had a licensing system for wastecollectors for many years and Western Bay of Plenty has

indicated in their Waste Management Plan that licensing,

with mandatory returns, is going to be required. Any

council considering this approach would be well

advised to get alongside the private operators in their

area and try and design a simple type of return that

hopefully fits in with the existing record-keeping rather

than impose something that is a new tier of

bureaucracy.

Establish a local landfill levy or surcharge

We hear a lot about landfill levies from overseas. In

these cases central or state governments have required

across the board payment of a flat rate per tonne on top

of other charges to fund developments in the waste

reduction area. Councils have been lobbying govern-

ments in New Zealand for a levy of this type since the

1970s with no success but this need not be the end of

the story.

Councils have very wide powers to make and levy rates

and charges and do this all the time. It is quite withintheir powers to include their own landfill levy to

promote waste reduction initiatives. The Local Govern-

ment Act goes as far as providing for just such a situation

in the language of legal drafts-people. Section 544(2)

reads as follows:

“Where the waste management plan so provides, the

costs incurred in the implementation of the plan may be

allocated by the territorial authority in a way that

establishes economic incentives and disincentives that

promote any or all of the objectives of the plan.”

In other words, if the plan promotes waste reduction,

and they all do, the council can allocate the costs as a

set of incentives and disincentives to promote waste

reduction. It could not be simpler. Cheaper bulk rates

for truckloads of waste can become a thing of the past.

Charges for dumping green-waste for composting can be

subsidised by tipping fees for material destined

for landfill.

Develop deconstruction standards

Create guidelines and standards for building

deconstruction to ensure maximum capture of reusablematerials. A good model is Canberra’s ‘Development

Control Code’ which directs engineers, architects,

planners and developers on how to ensure their demoli-

tion, refurbishment and construction projects comply

with best practice and the ACT No Waste policy. See

http://www.nowaste.act.gov.au

Require deconstruction plans

Make deconstruction plans a prerequisite for obtaining a

building consent – or for tearing down an

existing building.

Change zoning and incentives for resource

recovery facilities

Local governments can investigate using their zoning

authority to encourage the development of recycling

business zones where recycling businesses and resource

recovery parks can be sited. They can also create

incentives for new businesses to establish resource

recovery operations in the community. In the experi-

ence of the authors it often doesn’t take much to assistnew businesses in the recycling and recovered materials

arena. Many complain that their biggest impediment is a

lack of support or even understanding by their local

council. Fast tracking planning and building consents or

rent or rates breaks can make all the difference. To small

businesses, just being asked how they are doing and

taking an interest or showing appreciation for their

contribution can be an enormous morale booster.

Encourage recycling plans for businesses

Local governments can encourage and support localbusinesses to provide simple recycling plans and

reports. A number of councils are already providing

waste reduction advice and support to local businesses

that is resulting in significant changes in the way waste

is managed in businesses, resulting in volume and cost

reductions. The idea of planning for waste reduction by

the filling out of an annual report could result in more

consistent and long term measurable changes.

Develop resource recovery facility standards

Create facility standards (and possibly permits) for

resource recovery facilities to ensure they operate to the

highest standards.



Reduce the capacity of residual waste bags

and bins

Reducing the capacity to waste – while at the same time

increasing capacity to recycle, is a powerful incentive to

encouraging the right behaviour. Both Opotiki District

Council and Auckland City Council have done this to

good effect. Opotiki reduced it’s residual waste bag from75 litres to 25 litres and at the same time introduced

kerbside recycling plus three resource recovery cen-

tres’– and is now diverting 85% of waste from landfill.

Auckland City reduced the size of its wheelie bin from

240 litres to 120 litres and provided extra recycling

bins – resulting in a 30% reduction in waste.

Increased disposal capacity will act as a sink to

which materials will flow. This rule applies as much

to disposal to resource recovery as it does to

landfilling.

Provide kerbside collections to all householders

Kerbside collections make recycling convenient to the

householder and utilise their ‘free’ labour to sort re-

sources into separate streams. They also provide a very

important educational role, helping householders make

the link between buying behaviour and wasting. People

that recycle at home are more likely to support Cleaner

Production and waste minimisation efforts at work.

Kerbside collections can be run very successfully inareas that also have container deposit legislation - as

seen in South Australia and British Columbia.

Develop multiple stream collections

Increasing numbers of towns and cities are implement-

ing multiple stream – or Clean-Stream kerbside collec-

tion systems where householders do more of the initial

sorting than with a standard ‘blue bin’ system.

The simplest form is the ‘2 stream’ or ‘wet and dry’

system. Rakaia is a good example of this. Residents aregiven a green bag for ‘wet’ materials including organic

wastes, wet paper, tissues etc and a blue bag for the

remaining’‘dry’ fraction of the waste stream. The

organic fraction is composted in an innovative,

converted concrete mixer, and the dry fraction is hand

sorted on Saturday mornings by the local community

group to remove recyclables.

The 3 stream collection separates the recyclables from

the residuals. MacKenzie District Council provides

residents with a clear bag for recyclables, a green bag for

compostables (which are processed through an in-vessel

composter), and a black bag for residual waste.

This system can be taken one step further by adding a

bulky item collection to create a 4-stream collection. For

more information see Appendix 5.

S T R A T E G Y 4

DEVELOP THE INFRASTRUCTURE

FOR RECYCLING AND

RESOURCE RECOVERY

It takes a huge range of skills, expertise and technology (design, manufacturing, retailing, marketing, supply

chain management, transport infrastructure, etc), to

make sure that goods and materials flow into and

through society in the most efficient way possible. This

is the ‘plus economy’. Now we need to design similar

systems and infrastructure to return goods and materials

productively back into the market or nature - the ‘minus

economy’. The complete infrastructure for the minus

economy in a Zero Waste society will not emerge

spontaneously through the power of market forces, but

if the incentives are in the right place the market will

certainly assist in building it. In the interim the commu-

nity must allocate the necessary financial resources to

‘prime the pump’ and start the flow of recovered

materials back into the economy. This means investment

in waste reduction infrastructure.

Match the wasting infrastructure

The resource recovery system must, wherever practical,

match the current wasting system. For every waste

outlet (eg transfer stations, street side litter bins,

industrial skip, office rubbish bin, household wheelie

bin etc) there should be an opportunity to re-use,

recover or recycle resources.



Develop Resource Recovery Centres and Parks

(recycling business development centres) with

feeder facilities

Each town and city should have at least one Resource

Recovery Centre where wasted materials are collected,

processed, repaired, dismantled and marketed back into

the economy. Materials from satellite centres, recyclingdrop-off points, industry, retail, and construction and

demolition businesses will feed into these materials

processing and trading hubs. Recovery facilities can

trade with each other, the recycling sector, industry and

the public in each community.

The concept of a central hub fed from outlying facilities

is already occurring in some smaller centres such as

Opotiki and Kaitaia, and in larger cities such as

Christchurch, Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney.

More information on Resource Recovery Centres andParks can be found in ‘Resourceful Communities. A

Guide to Resource Recovery Centres in New Zealand’

(on Envision New Zealand, Ministry for Economic

Development and Zero Waste New Zealand

Trust websites).

Get organic waste out of the system as a priority

Removing organics from the waste stream will dramati-

cally reduce the amount of material going to landfill,

help prevent methane gas and leachate production in

landfills - and return much needed organic material tothe land. It’s also important from an economic point of

view as it reduces contamination of the inorganic

fraction of the waste resource stream, increasing returns

on commodities. One of the concerns about organic

waste diversion is the potential increase in collection

costs. It has been shown29 that when kerbside collec-

tions for all wasted resources are integrated – or

optimised, and basic features such as receptacle size,

collection frequency and collection vehicle type, have

been properly considered, overall collection costs,

including source separation of food waste, can be similar

to traditional co-mingled waste collection. For example

food waste with its high bulk density only requires small

receptacles, making it possible to hand-pick (no special-

ized lifting equipment required) and to use small open

trucks. Once food waste is removed from the waste

stream, collection schedules for green waste, recyclables

and residual waste can be reduced, driving costs down.

Thousands of municipalities throughout Italy and

Europe have taken these factors into account and are

yielding high recycling rates (up to 70-75%) with no

increases in overall collection costs.

Foodwaste collections:

An increasing number of towns and cities around New

Zealand are establishing food waste collections. Some

like Rakaia are reliant on a local community group and

some are totally council – run such as MacKenzie

District Council’s 3 stream kerbside collection, with

some in-between. Christchurch City has completed apilot food waste collection and Auckland councils are

currently investigating a regional food waste collection

programme. Large city-wide food waste collections are

already running successfully in a number of cities

overseas – including Toronto and San Francisco.

Green waste diversion:

There are many opinions on the best ways to divert

green waste from landfill. Some towns have gone for

regular kerbside collections while others encourage

home composting as the priority. The proximity principle would support the latter, however in built-up

areas kerbside collection – or establishment of a

network of drop-off points may be the best option.

Whatever system is used, there must be strong

economic and convenience incentives for the public to

use them.

Organics Processing:

Local processing of organics is the best option from an

economic and environmental standpoint. There are an

increasing number of technologies being developed to

deal with organic waste processing. The key

consideration must be to produce a quality product free

of contamination that can be returned safely to the land

to help its productive capacity. There is no future in

investing in technology that produces low value product

unsuitable for land application.

Composting and worm farming techniques are improv-

ing all the time and in-vessel systems are being devel-

oped at both the low tech (as in Kaikoura and Rakaia)

and high tech (eg the Hot Rot and VCU) ends of thescale.

Establish or support local processing plants for

recovered materials

Resource recovery provides communities with raw

materials that can be value-added locally to create new

jobs and businesses. This requires investment in pro-

cessing equipment and promotion of local use of the

resource - including reuse, remanufacture into new

products and integration back into new materials. Much

of this could happen on-site in a Resource Recovery Centre or Park.

29 Drivers for separate collection in the EU, optimisation and cost assessment of high capture schemes. Enzo Favoino, Working Group on Composting and Integrated Waste

Management , Monza, Italy



Establish recyclable collection systems for business,

schools and other institutionsas

Recycling at home isn’t enough – there have to be

opportunities for people to recycle at work and at

school – wherever waste is produced. Recycling systems

in educational institutions are important as part of the

learning process – especially those teaching onsustainability issues. Massey University in Palmerston

North is a good example of this. It has adopted a Zero

Waste policy and is now home to the Zero Waste

Academy. It has installed recycling bins in public areas

and food waste collections from the cafeteria and is

aiming to establish resource recovery initiatives

throughout the whole University and the

student hostels.

Provide convenient household hazardous waste

recoveryIt’s easier to deal with toxics at source than as part of a

mixed waste stream. Once in the waste stream they

destroy the value of recoverable material and disperse

into the environment. Systems can be put in place to

encourage householders to keep hazardous products

out of drains and residual bins. These may include easily

accessible local drop-off points with convenient

opening hours or regular mobile collections.

Establish waste exchanges

Set up a local waste exchange, or link into an existing

exchange, to enable business to utilise each other’s

waste products. A good example is the Enviromart run

by the Wellington Regional Environmental Agency –

www.enviromart.wcc.govt.nz/ that has a vision of ‘Zero

Waste through waste exchange’. To access the network

of waste exchanges spread throughout New Zealand go

to the WasteMINZ website - www.wasteminz.org.nz.

Provide recycling and resource recovery facilities in

public places and at events

These provide reduced waste disposal costs, public

education and access to recycling for tourists and

visitors. Public recycling facilities yield high recovery of

certain materials – such as drink containers where a

large proportion are discarded away from home. For

events, apartments and other specialised locations,

specially designed lids that fit over the top of standard

wheelie bins have been developed. One example is

Waste Works Ltd’s ’Bin Lid’ - see www.zerowaste.co.nz.

Developing recycling guidelines for event holders is a

good way to educate the public about reducing waste.These may include recommendations on what kinds of

food and drink containers to use (and what not to use),

recommendations on bin types and systems, local

suppliers of materials and services and communications.

A good example is ‘A Guide to Recycling at

Public Events’ –

www.nowaste.act.gov.au/publicplacerecycling.html

Regular pick up of bulky goods

The move from wasting to valuing resources means

replacing inorganic collections with regular collectionsof bulky goods, which can feed into a Resource

Recovery Centre (RRC) or a network of drop-off

facilities. Although inorganic collections provide an

opportunity for people to informally redistribute goods,

huge volumes of recyclable and reusable materials are

destroyed by the elements and by scavengers seeking

high value metals and components. Inorganic collec-

tions are popular with the public so there may be a

need to provide other options – like Canberra’s ‘Second

Hand Sunday’ programme where residents register to

participate in these community events which help re-distribute large quantities of unwanted goods. They

work very successfully in conjunction with Canberra’s

network of Resource Recovery Centres and drop-offs

points. For more information see

www.nowaste.act.gov.au/styles/2001progressreport.pdf

Stockpile resources above ground – rather than

below ground

Stockpiling is a proven strategy for managing

commodity price fluctuations, or waiting for markets to

emerge, but it does require space. Robin Murray observed30 the enormous demand for storage in places

he visited in Germany and suggests strategies for what

he calls ‘distributed stockholding’, utilising cheap

storage to allow materials to gradually slip down the

‘value hierarchy’ until there is finally a market for it. It

may be cheaper and more practical to ‘distribute’ storage

to lower cost locations such as old government or

industrial sites with redundant buildings. Communities

around New Zealand have utilised stockpiling as a

mechanism to manage commodities market

price swings.

Manage residuals through the transition to

Zero Waste

Going for Zero Waste has enormous appeal, but as long

as we haven’t achieved Zero Waste there will be a

residual fraction that must be disposed of in the safest

possible manner. If we see the landfilling of untreated,

unseparated waste as the very last and most undesirable

disposal option, what do we do with residuals during

the transition period to Zero Waste? The current option

of carting and burying unsorted, untreated mixed wasteis no longer an option and the quest is on to find better

transitional options for the final residual component.

One option is Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT).

MBT is a process which involves the processing or 30 Creating Wealth from Waste, Demos 1999



31 Robin Murray, Zero Waste conference, Kaitaia, December 2000

conversion of municipal wasted resources which

include biologically degradable components, by a

combination of mechanical processes (crushing, sorting,

screening) and biological processes (aerobic “rotting”,

anaerobic fermentation). See Appendix 5.

The other option is to better utilise existing landfills for

the residual material. If we introduce Zero Wasteconcepts, technologies and initiatives mentioned

throughout this report so that no hazardous, reusable,

recyclable or organic materials are going to landfill, and

reach reduction levels of 85–90%, then properly man-

aged existing landfills, redesigned where necessary, will

be able to receive the greatly reduced supply of

residual waste.

S T R A T E G Y 5

ENGAGE (AND INSPIRE)

THE COMMUNITY

Having already consulted with the community and

sector groups it’s going to be easier to engage them in

the implementation of the Zero Waste strategy. Engag-

ing the community is much more than just advertising

or educational programmes - it includes a range of

options and initiatives as outlined below.

Publicise the community’s Zero Waste policy and

communicate the vision

Communicate to the community at large that a Zero

Waste policy has been adopted, and what this will mean

for the future.

The key message is that we are doing things differently,

that it’s a whole system approach to changing the way

we manage resources and waste, and that it will be

rolled out continuously, across all sectors over a period

of time, keeping in mind the overall vision and target.

It’s easy to spend a lot of money on education and

marketing – and too often it’s wasted. The tendency is

often to go to mainstream advertising agencies for creative oversight and campaign management. This can

be counter-productive – especially if existing

community groups and businesses that have been doing

the bulk of the communication work without resources

are ignored. There is a huge amount of work that can be

done locally – often for very little.

Features of a good public promotional campaign

• Uses talent used to develop the campaign

• Links with nationally run campaigns and messages

• Carries out community research to find out what

messages will be responded to best

• Encourages people to action only when the

infrastructure is in place

• Adapts the message to the audience – no ‘one-size-

fits-all’

• Integrates the campaign into the community vision

• Builds on previous campaigns – not ignoring

what’s gone before

• Is more ‘pro’ than ‘anti’• Educates the media

• Reports results regularly so everyone knows how

well they’re doing

• Involves local recyclers, educators and community

groups who will be driving the waste

minimisation plan

Provide Zero Waste advisory service for businesses

Most businesses give very little consideration to their

waste outputs – seeing them as unavoidable with their focus solely on increasing income by adding more

business. Many are surprised when they are shown

through a waste audit, just how much waste costs them

as a percentage of their turnover. This is particularly the

case for building and construction companies. A Zero

Waste Advisory service would help them see what they

are wasting and also help them design waste out of the

system. BusinessCare already provides this service in

many communities – see–www.businesscare.org.nz

Promote consumer buying power and behaviour

As we attempt to solve the seemingly intractable waste

problem – the finger of blame inevitably points to

unsustainable patterns of production and consumption.

It would be futile to aim for Zero Waste without

addressing the source of the problem – the way we live

and consume. Communities at the end of the pipe, with

the support of industry doing their bit, can theoretically

achieve 80% – 90% waste reduction31. The rest is up to

the people that design, make and sell the products - and

those that buy them. If we look at the whole supply

chain the point of greatest leverage is the point of purchase.

We must empower people to understand that they can

make a real difference, simply by making the right

choices when they purchase products and services.

People can:

• Use their buying power to support the local

economy

• Choose to buy products with recycled content

• Buy second hand goods.

• Choose products with less packaging

• Choose quality products that can be repaired

instead of cheap ones designed for obsolescence



• Get things repaired rather than throw them away

• Reduce their demand for stuff they don’t really

need –things that don’t enhance their lives

• Reduce junk mail by:

1.Contacting the Direct Marketing Association and

asking to be put on their removal register. People

listed on the register (along with 30,000 other

New Zealanders) will no longer receive direct

marketing by fax, mail, phone or email from all

members of the Direct Marketing association of

New Zealand. For more information contact the

Direct Marketing Association on 09 303 9470 or

www.dma.co.nz

2.Placing a “No Circulars” or “No Junk Mail” sign on

their letterbox”– perhaps provided by Council as a

free service. This will eliminate most non-personal

junk mail as deliverers are required as part of their

contracts not to place mail in letterboxes that have

these signs in place. Both of these actions create a

win-win for everyone. Residents reduce bother-

some junk mail, marketers don’t waste advertising

money on people who don’t respond to this type

of advertising and the community has less waste to

manage or recycle. This is an important point –

recycling is still a cost to the community and the

environment - although much less than disposal

to landfill.

There are many websites providing information on

consumer buying power and consumerism in general.

Some examples are:

• The Simple Living Network –

www.simpleliving.net/newsletter27.htm

• The New Roadmap Foundation -

www.newroadmap.org

• Envision New Zealand – www.envision-nz.com

• The Centre for a New American Dream - www.newdream.org

• The Green Consumer Guide -

www.greenconsumerguide.com

• • •

“There is no getting around the fact that material

consumption is at the heart of the sustainability

crisis – the aggregate ecological footprint of

humanity is already larger than the earth.” W. E.

Rees

32

“Packaging is the ultimate symbol of our con-

sumer culture. It tells the story of our technologi-

cal achievements preserves our food, protects

what we buy, and raises our standard of

living…At the same time, packaging is also the

largest single contributor to one of our nation’s

most troubling environmental problems: the

municipal solid waste crisis.”Stilwell et al 33

• • •

Collaborate nationally, regionally and with

neighbouring councils to provide consistent

information

Many local programmes duplicate the work of others -

sometimes in the community next door, wasting time

and money– especially if the messages conflict. On the

other hand we shouldn’t rush in and use a one-size-fits-

all programme for every community in New Zealand. A

good example of community collaboration is MacKenzie

District Council’s use of Mid Canterbury Wastebusters

(from nearby Ashburton) for its community

education programme.

Be creative!

It’s easier said then done but creativity is the key to

good marketing and communication. Make it interesting

and make it fun. Quite often the best ideas come from

within the community – seek out these ideas and get thepublic thinking about the problem, and the solutions.

Many Zero Waste communities run regular events such

as wearable art awards and sculpture from junk compe-

titions. In Raglan, local community group X-treme Waste

runs an annual trolley derby (trolleys are made from

recycled materials) and publishes a unique annual

report that gets distributed to every household. This

year the annual report was in the form of a board game

– with the goal of Zero Waste. Local creativity helps

focus the attention of the community on the value of

used materials and products and fosters

community spirit.

Encourage local innovation and participation

through a Zero Waste fund

Create a Zero Waste fund (possibly funded through a

waste levy or surcharge) to help local entrepreneurs

develop new ideas and waste minimisation activities. For

example North Shore City Council recently developed a

‘Waste Wise fund’ to assist education, research, feasibility

studies and community waste reduction initiatives.

(http://www.northshorecity.govt.nz\our_environment\ waste_minimisation\wastewise-fund.htm)

32Rees W E (1995) More jobs, less damage: a framework for sustainability growth and environment,

Alternatives, 21 (4)33 Stilwell et al. 1991. Packaging for the Environment: A Partnership for Progress. New York, American Management Association

• • •



34 Architext. Issue 93, April 2003

Develop joint ventures

Joint ventures can be useful in areas of potential risk

and especially where a pilot project would suit the need

to trial a new system of waste reduction. Community

groups CBEC from Kaitaia, and Waiheke Resource Trust

formed a joint venture that won a contract to manage

Waiheke Island’s recycling programme. Kaikoura DistrictCouncil and Kaikoura Wastebusters have formed a joint

venture company, Innovative Waste Kaikoura to operate

their landfill and all recycling and waste reduction

programmes under a Zero Waste banner. Once

communities have control over the resource stream,

they are able to utilise local creativity and commitment

to change. And through the income from operating

council contracts they have the cash flow to make it

happen.

Monitor, measure and publicise the results When there’s a crisis such as a water or power supply

failure we all like to see how our conservation efforts

are making a difference. Keep the community informed

with feedback on the

progress towards Zero

Waste. Opotiki’s signage

on the side of its main

Resource Recovery

Centre is a good local

example. Canberra is

also doing an excellent job with its regular

Progress Reports.

Regular features and

notices in the media and messages explaining the status

of the campaign and the next steps will keep interest

and participation high. In a single day we see thousands

of messages and advertisements– so it’s important to

keep the campaign constantly refreshed and vital.

S T R A T E G Y 6

WALK THE TALK

Adopt Green procurement guidelines

Green Purchasing Guidelines will help all departments

within Council adopt purchasing policies that favour

products and materials with recycled content and other

environmental advantages. By supporting local busi-

nesses that make these products Council will help to

‘prime the pump’. There are too many stories of local

businesses not being able to supply their local Council

with environmentally superior products – even when it

has a clear environmental policy. A commitment by

councils to walk the talk and throughout all their

operations – with clear guidelines on purchasing, will

help drive resource recovery and public credibility.

Establish recycling systems within all council

operations

The other way for council to “walk the talk” is with its

own in-house resource recovery systems. Some Zero

Waste councils have made great strides including Timaru

District Council which has reduced waste by 74% since

putting in place a complete programme involving allemployees. Councils can also be proactive in other

ways such as:

• By developing purchasing polices that favour

service over products through leasing and manu-

facturer take back options

• Promoting Zero Waste architecture34

Link with (and enhance) other initiatives

Zero Waste offers innovative councils the opportunity to

use their Zero Waste policies to link in with and en-

hance other initiatives such as:

- Green or EcoTourism

- Mayors for Jobs

- Energy efficiency

- Regional development initiatives (Industry New

Zealand)

- Greenhouse Gas Emissions targets

- Organics movement

S T R A T E G Y 7

LOBBY FOR NEW RULES

The whole idea of Zero Waste is to integrate all players

along the supply chain into one conceptual vision and

call to action.

The problem up until now for communities, who are at

the end of the supply chain, is that they have had to

curb waste with little or no support from the people

that design and produce, sell and buy the products.

There is only so much that communities can do to

optimise the efficiency of materials and reduce waste at

the end of the chain. To eliminate waste they need the

cooperation of industrial designers, manufacturers,

retailers, consumers, the waste industry and last but not

least, government.

By adopting Zero Waste, communities are signalling the

end of waste and timeframes and intermediate targets

for industry and society to change. The clear message isthat communities at the end of the pipe no longer want

to be the helpless recipients and custodians of the

entire output of the industrial society.

Opotiki sign



Councils, community groups and citizens, must remind

designers, manufacturers, marketers and retailers of their

responsiblity to redesign material flows, and that there is

not an endless supply of cheap waste disposal available

and paid for by communities.

There is nothing more powerful in terms of the flow of

anything – whether it is water, oil, effluent or wastematerials than the threat to close off the pipe. It gets the

immediate attention of those at the other end who may

otherwise have no interest in change. To put it simply,

back pressure is a very powerful motivator for upstream

change.

Here are some of the things that communities can

demand to effect change. In most cases it’s going to have

to be the local council that coordinates the lobbying of

government on behalf of the community. Even more

powerful would be the collaboration of councils around

the country at regional and national level to insist onchange. (see section 7 -Strategies for New Zealand for

more information on these)

• National landfill levy to help fund community

waste initiatives

• Extended Producer Responsibility including

Industry Stewardship Programmes, and container

deposit programmes

• National landfill bans for recyclable and toxic

materials

• Full cost accounting for waste disposal

• National Zero Waste communication campaign

linking with community campaigns

• Packaging levy

• Minimum recycled content standards

• Research & Development grants/tax incentives

• Mandatory corporate reporting

• Support for Design For the Environment

programmes

• Investment in jobs through local reuse, recycling

and reprocessing

• Low interest loan fund

• National school education programme

• Green procurement guidelines for the public

sector

• Application of the precautionary principle (includ-

ing incineration bans)

• Plastic bag levies

• National measuring, monitoring and reporting on

our journey towards Zero Waste



1. ADOPT A ZERO

WASTE TARGET2. PLAN FOR SUCCESS

3. PUT THE INCENTIVES IN

THE RIGHT PLACE

4. DEVELOP THE

INFRASTRUCTURE

FOR RECYCLING AND

RESOURCE RECOVERY

Be inspirational Involve the community in theplanning process

Ensure all waste disposal feesreflect the true cost of wasting.

Match the wastinginfrastructure

Set a target date Develop a Zero Waste task force including community,recyclers and industry toturn council policy into animplementation plan.

Introduce extended operator liability

Reduce the capacity of residual waste bags and bins

Set intermediate or stretch targets

Build public and politicalsupport for the plan

Set differential pricing tocreate financial incentives that

encourage resource recovery and discourage wasting

Provide kerbside collectionsto all householders.

Align your Zero Wasteand intermediatetargets with thegovernment’s WasteStrategy

Employ the right people toturn the plan into action

Introduce Pay as You Throw Develop multiple-streamcollections

Set targets for different sectors of the community

Map the recycling and resourcerecovery industry

Ban recyclable materials fromlandfill

Develop Resource Recovery Centres (or Parks with ‘feeder’ facilities

Change the language Know your community’s waste

stream

Ban toxic materials from

landfill

Get organic waste out of

the system as a priority (foodwaste and greenwaste)

Identify – and work with thebig wasters

Ensure all waste contractsencourage recycling anddiscourage wasting.

Establish or support localprocessing plants for recovered materials

Identify the service gaps License waste collectors Establish recyclablecollection systems for business, schools and other institutions

Maintain community ownership of the waste(resource) stream

Establish a local landfill levy or surcharge

Provide convenienthousehold hazardous wasterecovery

Learn from the leaders Develop demolition standards Establish waste exchanges

Understand the economics of Zero Waste

Require deconstruction plans Provide recycling facilities inpublic places and events

Change zoning and incentivesfor resource recovery facilities

Regular pick up of bulky goods

Encourage recycling plans for

businesses

Stockpile resources above

ground – rather than below ground

Develop resource recovery facility standards

Manage residuals through the transition to Zero Waste– eg mechanical biologicaltreatment

KEY STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES – SUMMARY TABLE



5. ENGAGE (AND INSPIRE) THE

COMMUNITY 6. WALK THE TALK 7. LOBBY FOR NEW RULES

Publicise the community’s Zero Waste

policy and communicate the vision

Adopt green procurement guidelines National landfill levy to help fund

community waste initiatives

Provide Zero Waste advisory services

for businesses

Establish recycling systems within all

Council operations

Extended Producer Responsibility

including industry stewardship

programmes and container deposit

programmes

Promote consumer buying power and

behaviour

Link with (and enhance) other

initiatives – eg eco-tourism

National landfill bans for recyclable

and toxic materials

Collaborate nationally, regionally and

with neighbouring councils to provide

consistent information

Full cost accounting for waste disposal

Be creative! National Zero Waste communication

campaign linking with community

campaigns

Encourage local innovation and

participation through a Zero Wastefund

Packaging levy

Develop joint ventures Minimum recycled content standards

Monitor, measure and publicise the

results

Research and development grants/tax

incentives

Mandatory corporate reporting

Support for Design For the

Environment programmes

Investment in jobs through local

reuse, recycling and reprocessing

Low interest loan fund

Green procurement guidelines for the

public sector

National measuring, monitoring and

reporting on our journey towards

Zero Waste



SECTION FOUR: THE ROAD TO ZEROWASTE FOR NEW ZEALAND

The launch of the New Zealand Waste Strategy by the

Minister for the Environment, Marion Hobbs represented

the first step on the road to Zero Waste for New Zealand.

The strategy has a powerful vision, sound underlying

principles, targets for various waste streams and other

requirements for local authorities that will gradually

bring about change. But the Waste Strategy is unlikely to

bring about much more than gradual incremental

change. A recurring theme is simply that it lacks teeth.

To give the strategy ‘teeth’, we have come up with 5 key

recommendations that, if implemented in unison, will

make immediate change in the way materials flow and

are managed in New Zealand. It will achieve significantreductions in waste and put New Zealand on a much

firmer footing on the road to Zero Waste.

The overall objective must be to facilitate a shift from an

“end of pipe” approach where the community carries

the bulk of responsibility to a producer (and consumer)

responsibility approach.

1 NATIONAL TARGET DATE FOR ZERO WASTE OF 2020

As of July 2003, 38 of New Zealand’s local authorities

have adopted Zero Waste policies. Apart from a couple,

all have set target dates of between 2010 and 2020. By

adopting a date of 2020 the New Zealand Government

would synchronise better with over half of its local

authorities and take a stronger leadership role.

A target date is essential in order to motivate change.

Including a review date of 2015 would provide the

necessary ‘breathing space’ to allow us to stop, take

stock, and move the goal out further if required.

2 LANDFILL LEVY

Landfill levies or surcharges are being used in a number

of countries and in several New Zealand communities to

increase the cost of wasting and to divert funds to build

the infrastructure for a resource efficient, sustainable

society. Levies are a simple, direct and effective way of

achieving these goals. 49% of submissions to the

government on the Waste Strategy commented on waste

levies. Of these 82% were in favour (many strongly) of

implementing a national waste levy and only 17% were

against.

A landfill levy should not be looked on as a tax – rather an increase on top of the landfill fee to fund activities

that will actually reduce the need for, and costs, of ever

more expensive landfills in the future - and the associ-

ated costs of ongoing management of emissions. Unlike

taxes, the landfill levy can be avoided – simply by using

the current know-how and resource recovery infrastruc-

ture to reduce, divert or recover resources from the

waste (resource) stream.

The funds raised should be used to fund a Waste Reduc-

tion (Zero Waste) Agency to animate the Waste Strategy

and an associated fund dedicated to building the localinfrastructure for resource recovery and materials

efficiency.

Christchurch City has a landfill levy that is used to fund

a range of waste reduction programmes through the

Recovered Materials Foundation (www.rmf.org.nz).

Most countries in Europe now have landfill levies

ranging from $20 per tonne (France) to nearly $130 per

tonne (Netherlands). The UK has signalled that its

landfill levy will rise via the “landfill tax escalator” until it

reaches about $100 in the medium to long term (on top

of the landfill fee). Closer to home, South Australiarecently doubled its landfill tax to $10/tonne to fund a

new agency, Zero Waste South Australia, which will help

support community and industry waste minimisation

initiatives (www.environment.sa.gov.au/epa/). Sydney

also has a waste levy of $35 per tonne.

It is recommended that the landfill levy be set at a

modest $10 per tonne for one to three years progres-

sively rising by $1 per annum as the resource recovery

infrastructure for New Zealand develops to provide

alternatives to wasting. The levy should raise about $30

million per annum, of which $10million should go to

the Zero Waste Agency (see below). The balance would

be shared between district and city councils on a pro

rata basis to develop local waste reduction initiatives,

community education and match-funding for essential

infrastructure projects such as Resource Recovery Parks.

5 Key Recommendations for NZ

1. A national target of Zero Wasteby 2020

2. A landfill levy

3. Landfill bans

4. Industry stewardshipprogrammes

5. A national Zero Waste Agency



Landfill Levy Fund Allocation

1 Total raised $30 million (approximately)

2 Local Authorities $20 million

3 Zero Waste Agency $10 million

Notes:

1. Based on 3million tonnes @ $10 per tonne

2. Allocated on a population-related, pro-rata basis

to all councils that have a full Zero Waste action

plan. To be used to fund the development of

resource recovery infrastructure alternatives to

landfill, research and development, pilot projects

and education programmes

3. Zero Waste Agency – see budget below

4. Revenue from cleanfill sites has not beenincluded - for which a levy could also be set

3 LANDFILL BANS

(OR EXCLUSIONS)

The time for landfill bans has come in New Zealand. As

well as keeping toxics out of landfill they are an effec-

tive means of diverting materials that have economic

value. They can also create incentives for the

establishment of new businesses - that in turn create

demand for the banned materials.

Local government does not need to wait for central

government policy on this issue – under existing

regulations (refer to section 5 – Strategies for Communi-

ties) they have the power to implement landfill bans.

However proactive councils would be hugely empow-

ered by national landfill bans - and less proactive ones

would have a reason to act. Bans should be applied

progressively - starting immediately with hazardous

materials including all TV and computer monitors

(which can have up to 2kg of lead). A ban on TV and

computer monitors going to landfill in Californiaenabled Resource Recovery Centres to charge the

public to receive monitors that made it economically

viable to recycle them.

• • •

“Urban Ore previously could not afford to receive

TV and computer screens, because we then had to

pay for them to be recycled. Now that there’s a

ban in place people have nowhere to take them, so

they are happy to pay $30 to get rid of them –

especially if they know that they will be responsi- bly handled and dismantled” Dan Knapp, Urban

Ore, Berkeley, California

• • •Similarly, Vancouver imposed a landfill ban in the mid-

1990s on gypsum board. The ban created an

opportunity for a local business, New West Gypsum

Recycling (www.nwgypsum.com) to establish a gib-

board recycling plant. Since 1986 this company has

recycled 1.7 million tonnes - in a city about the size of

Auckland. Owner Tony McCamly points out that

without the ban he wouldn’t be in business.

There are already trends in New Zealand for landfill

operators to be selective about what they will accept.

Wellington for example bans used oils and tyres. How-

ever there needs to be a requirement for all landfills to

ban certain materials to ensure exporting does not

occur between districts. Bans need to be enforceable to

ensure operators take them seriously.

Alongside landfill bans, we need technical support for

local authorities to design new and more appropriate

treatment options for residual wastes. These are covered

in section 5 – Developing the Infrastructure for Recy-cling and Resource Recovery.

4 INDUSTRY STEWARDSHIP

PROGRAMMES

To ensure that the principle of EPR (Extended Producer

Responsibility) contained within the Waste Strategy is

fully implemented, New Zealand must put in place

regulations to ensure specific industry sectors take

responsibility for their products from cradle to cradle.

Canada is the shining example of just how much can beachieved in this area and has developed more industry

stewardship initiatives than any other country.

British Columbia, for example, has industry stewardship

regulations for beverage containers, lead acid batteries,

medications, paint, scrap tyres, used motor oil, and

solvents, flammable liquids, gas and pesticides.

Stewardship programmes for scrap car tyres and used

motor oil exist in virtually every province and territory

in Canada and voluntary paint collection and household

hazardous waste collection days are prevalent in mostprovinces. They are administered in BC under Product

Care (http://www.productcare.org), an industry spon-

sored association. The next phase for Canadian Product

Stewardship agreements is in the area of electronic

equipment recycling regulation.

Whether legislated or voluntary, it is apparent that

Canada’s industry stewardship programmes are keeping

huge volumes of beverage containers, toxic (hazardous

waste, pesticides) and problematic materials out of the

country’s landfills. For example, these regulations have

prevented 20 million equivalent litres of householdpaint, 300 thousand equivalent litres of household

flammable products, and 70 thousand equivalent litres

of household pesticides from entering British

Columbia’s environment since being put in place in

1994 and 1996.



Alberta has eliminated tyres from going to landfill. The

Tire Recycling Management Association of Alberta is an

industry run organisation that receives and distributes a

$3 per tyre levy paid by the purchasers of new tyres.

The Director of Operations, Kevin O’Neil pointed out

recently that the levy has enabled the association to

support the development of a tyre recycling industry,

which in turn has resulted in almost 100% of all tyres

being recycled in Alberta. Over 200 people are em-

ployed in this emerging industry and Alberta is a leader

in tyre recycling technologies. For further information

see www.trma.com

Beverage Container Deposits

Although beverage container deposits or, as they are

commonly known, ‘bottle bills’ can be implemented as

part of industry stewardship agreements they are

summarised here separately because of their uniqueadvantages as a stand-alone strategy regardless of how

other regulations are implemented.

The term ‘bottle bill’ is commonly used to describe a law

that requires a minimum refundable deposit on beer,

soft drink and other beverage containers in order to

insure a high rate of recycling or reuse. Deposits on

beverage containers are not a new idea. The original

deposit-refund system was created by the beverage

industry as a means of guaranteeing the return of their

glass bottles to be washed, refilled and resold.

Our neighbours in South Australia have been running a

container deposit refund system since 1975 and have

recently expanded it to cover all drink containers apart

from milk bottles (see ‘Who else is going for Zero’).

Canada also has excellent schemes (see appendix 3 for

further information)

• • •

“Society is telling us in unmistakeable terms that

we share equally with the public, the

responsibility for package retrieval and

disposal… This industry has spent hundreds of

millions of dollars….in the attempt to dispute,

deflect, or evade that message. It is interesting to

speculate on the state of our public image, and

our political fortunes had that same sum been

devoted to disposal or retrieval technology.”

Dwight Reed, President National Soft

Drink Association

• • •The Ministry for the Environment would be responsible

for negotiating the Industry Stewardship Agreements

with Industry and could require a seat on the board of

each industry established Stewardship council.

5. A NATIONAL

ZERO WASTE AGENCY

Robin Murray in his book ‘Creating Wealth from Waste’

eloquently puts the case for A Zero Waste Agency for the

UK and makes the comment that “Any profound change

needs an entrepreneurial force to drive it”. Sixty eightpercent of the submissions on the New Zealand Waste

Strategy were also in favour of establishing a central

agency to drive new policy.

The Zero Waste Agency would be responsible for making

sure that the intermediate national targets are met and

that New Zealand is on target to achieve Zero Waste by

2020. The Zero Waste Agency would essentially be a

cheerleading organisation, preferably just outside of

government in the same way that WRAP (Waste and

Resources Action Programme), a government organised,

non government organisation (GONGO) is separatefrom the UK Government. Closer to home the Energy

Efficiency and Conservation Authority is also a model.

The Zero Waste Agency would have a clear mandate to

empower and harness the entrepreneurial forces within

the community, business and institutional sectors to

work together for the common goal of Zero Waste. The

agency would also operate a fund to help develop the

infrastructure for resource recovery around New

Zealand, funded by a percentage of the national landfill

levy. No country in the world has had the conditions for

aiming for Zero Waste more clearly established than

New Zealand.

The recommended budget for the agency would be $10

million per annum - of which $1million would be for

administration, $1milllion for research and internally

driven projects, reports and studies, $1 million for

training – eg via the Zero Waste Academy, and the

balance of $7million for funding local projects and

infrastructure on a matching grant basis. 50% of all

grants made by the agency ($3.5million) must be for

development of ‘up stream’ extended producer responsi-

bility initiatives, such as design for the environment,

reverse manufacturing, supply chain and logistics

projects, and stewardship programmes. Of the

remaining funds ($3.5 million), 50% ($1.75million)

would be targeted at assisting recycling businesses and

the remaining $1.75 million for local community

based initiatives.

No country in the world has had the conditions for

aiming for Zero Waste more clearly established than

New Zealand.



Proposed Budget for the Zero Waste Agency

Administration & information resources $1 million

Research & internally driven projects,

reports & studies $1 million

Zero waste Academy $1 million

‘Up Stream’ grants $3.5 million‘Down stream’ grants & loans (business) $1.75 million

‘Down stream’ grants & loans (community) $1.75 million

Total $10 million

Other tasks the Zero Waste Agency would address include:

• Mandatory full cost accounting for waste disposal

(changing the economics in favour of resource

recovery)

• National Zero Waste communication campaign

linking with community campaigns

• Packaging levy

• Minimum recycled content standards

• R&D grants/tax incentives

• Mandatory corporate reporting

• Investment in jobs through local reuse, recycling and

reprocessing

• National school education programme

• Green procurement guidelines for the public sector

• Implementing a ban on all forms of incineration and

destructive pyrolysis technologies

• Plastic bag levies

• National measuring, monitoring and reporting on our

journey towards Zero Waste



SECTION FIVE: A VISION FOR THE FUTURE

1. THE VISION

Let’s imagine that it’s now the year 2020 – and our Zero

Waste by 2020 target was set in the year 2004. The firstthing we will notice is that there is no weekly rubbish

collection, as we know it. Instead, there will be a regular

collection of reusable containers, household bulky items

and kitchen waste with a monthly collection for the

miniscule amount of residual waste (for most house-

holds this will be zero). Sophisticated methods for

composting and vermiculture will be practised at home

by those with sufficient space, and garden centres will

provide landscaping ideas to reduce garden waste .

Apartment and multi-occupant buildings will have in-

built organic waste recovery systems. In-vessel

composting systems will be placed near shoppingcentres, clusters of restaurants and supermarkets and

make a profit for the owners from the sale of high

quality compost. Farmers will invest in these systems to

return high quality compost to the land to ensure their

ability to produce fine natural food without loss of soil

structure and fertility.

At the local stores, there will be almost no packaging, as

we now see it – many bottles will be returned for

refilling and often refilled at the store for a considerable

discount that includes a refund of the Advanced Recov-

ery Fee. Packaging will be minimal, reusable,

compostable or infinitely recyclable.

Each city will have a network of branded drop-off and

re-use centres that will be as easy to identify and as high

profile as gas stations. Some will operate as chains and

some as “independents”. They will trade with each other

as well as feeding used materials and goods into purpose

built Resource Recovery Parks or directly into second-

hand dealer networks. All of these centres and parks will

be licensed and part-funded through Advance Recovery

Fees (previously called Advance Disposal Fees). They used to be part-funded by the landfill levy but the

amount of waste has reduced so much that this funding

has all but dried up. A myriad of recycling,

remanufacturing, processing, and disassembly businesses

will be based at and around these centres. Many of the

businesses (local or community owned) will have

started from loans provided by dedicated recycling loan

funds, as well as through land being made available in

“Recycling Market Development Zones” with special tax

incentives. The businesses will also have received

technical advice from a range of advisors specialising in

all aspects of Zero Waste technologies and systems. Theexport of recycling and materials handling technologies

along with reverse logistics, remanufacturing concepts,

and Zero Waste know-how will have risen to over

$1billion per annum. Most people running recycling,

resource recovery and remanufacturing businesses will

have attended one of the Zero Waste Academies that

were set up back in the early 2000s. They will now be

running courses for people from all over the world and

people will flock to New Zealand to see how its com-munities have all but eliminated waste.

There will be comprehensive reverse logistics systems

funded by advance recovery fees for all vehicles, appli-

ances, electronic goods and furniture. Retailers will also

have their own collection systems, resulting in intense

competition for discarded products and materials that

will contribute almost as much to their business as the

sale of new products. All products will be designed for

disassembly. Local recyclers will bid for franchises to

dismantle products for various manufacturers. All

products will be made in ‘Zero Waste’ factoriesusing’‘Clean Production’ principles. Products will have

embedded codes identifying type and composition of

the materials they are made from for ease of disassembly

and recovery. Schools and universities will be

completely Zero Waste, as will all construction sites.

New buildings will be made from a range of natural and

recyclable materials.

Many products, including some parts of vehicles will be

made from organic materials purpose grown under

ecologically sustainable conditions that can be

composted under special conditions or recycled at theend of their lives. The remaining small number of oil

derived plastics will be able to be recycled on a perma-

nent basis without ‘downcycling’. Complex assembly

processes will include the use of bonding materials that

will collapse under micro-wave for ease of disassembly.

Many of the parts in products will transcend numerous

model changes and be returned to factories for integra-

tion into new models. Most products will be leased

rather than sold and will remain the property of the

manufacturer who will be accountable for ensuring that

there is no waste in their manufacture. In a Zero Wastesociety many materials will be “eternal” within the

human economy and will only exit into nature if they

are totally benign. Old furniture and many other prod-

ucts will be “remanufactured” at dedicated plants - this

will become core business for many manufacturers and

sold alongside their new products. The deconstruction

industry will be as big as the building industry, with no

parts of dismantled buildings or structures wasted. Each

new building will need a full dismantling plan as part of

the building consent process.

The ‘plus’ and’‘minus’ economies

A whole new “minus” economy will emerge and grow to

almost the size of, and integrate into, the”“plus”

economy. Through application of the”“proximity

principle” which can be largely stated as “the highest use



within the shortest distance”, local economies will once

again experience economic growth through develop-

ment of a range of recycling, processing, manufacturing

and remanufacturing industries. The manufacture of

materials handling and processing equipment alone will

contribute significantly to some economies. A range of

government led policies and economic instruments

progressively applied since 2003 will power the whole

system. The first policy will have been to set Zero Waste

by 2020 as the target, along with the establishment of a

national Zero Waste Agency to drive and animate the

transition. Escalating landfill levies will be applied along

with a range of advanced resource recovery fees on a

wide range of products. There will be industry steward-

ship agreements where each industry sector will take

full responsibility for the full life cycle of their products,

taxes on non-recyclable products, removal of subsidies

for extraction of virgin materials, full cost accounting

procedures for all disposal facilities and progressivebans on landfilling of a wide range of materials starting

in 2004. From 2005 onward there will be absolutely no

organic matter going to landfills.

Current and historical waste flows

By 2020 all current waste flows will be eliminated and

we will have achieved a 100% materials efficient indus-

trial economy. We will still need safe secure land storage

facilities although nowhere near the number we have at

present. This is because there are historic material

flows stored within society that will be released slowly and over a much longer time frame than the Zero Waste

goal of 2020. Historic waste includes materials embed-

ded in buildings that were not designed for recovery,

incompatibly bonded materials and unidentified or non-

coded materials. New processes will be designed for

dealing with these materials such as processing old

composite building materials (chipboards and particle

boards) into new quality building materials. As more

new technologies for dealing with, processing and

extracting value from old materials and products,

historic waste flows will be reduced to less than 2% of

current volume. Landfill space may be well over $1, 000

per tonne with an annual fee payable to cover the

internalised costs of disposal and storage - and all

landfills will be in public ownership. All landfilled

material will be itemised and mapped for future treat-

ment as new technologies emerge. Landfill space rents

will only cease once materials have been uplifted for

reuse. The last hospital incinerator was closed in 200535.

There will be change in societal values as people

question the disparities of modern society and the

consumer ethos that will be seen as shallow and mean-ingless. There will be many training courses on creating

a Zero Waste society and how to live simply. Simplicity

will not only become fashionable, but also a new

measure of prestige in the same way that conspicuous

consumption is at present. There will be a return to the

values of community and a deep understanding by each

citizen that nature has limits. Companies will prepare

and publish annual independently audited environmen-

tal, social and financial accounts and will require a

“Social License to Operate” in every community that

they do business. It will be the end of the age of waste!

Predicting the Present

Although the scenario painted above may seem improb-

able, almost every aspect of it is either happening right

now or in the process of being implemented. Some of

the ideas are in the development stage and others,

whilst sounding a little far fetched, will surely be

achievable within the next 16 years.

The power of Zero Waste lies in its simplicity and

potential to popularise and animate change, but also inits potential for communities and ordinary people to

join with business and government to redesign the

industrial system and bring an end to the age of waste

– Zero Waste!

2. WHO SHOULD DO WHAT

In a Zero Waste Society:

Central Government will take the leadership role,

develop legislation to support the Zero Waste target andprovide national coordination of key activities through

the Zero Waste Agency. It will create and maintain a level

playing field so that environmentally and socially

responsible businesses and industries are not disadvan-

taged. Transitional funds to communities and local

authorities to support development, innovation and

communication will be provided through economic

instruments enacted by the government – such as the

landfill levy. It will fund networking and exchanges of

experience and information at all levels through all

kinds of agencies. As a result it will be able to continueto promote New Zealand to the world as an innovative

nation that remains credibly and tangibly clean

and green.

Regional Councils will have a major planning role to

fulfil. Vision will be required to encompass what the

future may hold and need. New reprocessing plant and

new bulking facilities must be located. Secondary

material flows will need to be carefully anticipated and

monitored. There will be many players from all sectors

involved and the regional councils will need skills of

coordination and diplomacy as well as those of planning,monitoring and removing bottlenecks to progress in

their region.

35 Gary Cohen of the Environmental Health Fund states that in 1988 there were approximately 6,200 medical waste incinerators in the U.S. In 2003, the number had

reduced to 107. For more information see www.noharm.org



• • •“Zero Waste poses a fundamental challenge to

‘business as usual.’ ... It has the potential to

motivate people to change their life styles, de-

mand new products, and insist that corporations

and governments behave in new ways. This is a

very exciting development.” Peter Montague, editor of Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly

• • •Local Authorities will guard community ownership of

the waste stream, implement legislation and devise

further measures which favour material and resource

recovery over disposal. Local authorities will enter into

partnerships with each other and the community and

private sectors, tailoring contracts and structures that

provide incentives for waste reduction and diversion

from disposal. These partnerships will devise localresource recovery facilities and depots, which will be

built or commissioned by local authorities. Community

and householder participation will be encouraged as

will education and promotion of Zero Waste through

schools. Good practice and intelligence in all things

pertaining to Zero Waste, from contract design and

recovery facility layout through to bin stickers and

schools programmes, will be networked and exchanged

between authorities with the guidance and support of

the Zero Waste Agency.

Industrial Designers have a key part to play in Zero

Waste. In the first instance, they will design products

that are durable, repairable, easily disassembled for

recycling and made of materials that can easily be

incorporated back into either nature or into the indus-

trial system. Just as importantly, they will design these

products in such a way that the surplus material and by-

products are easily reintegrated back into the manufac-

turing process. Any unavoidable emissions to water or

air will be measured and progressively eliminated.

Manufacturers will invest in new design. They will

create products with minimal waste, reduce packaging

to a minimum and take responsibility for both the

recycling or reuse of the packaging and for the product

for its whole lifecycle through extended

producer responsibility.

Retailers will stock products that are recyclable and

repairable, encourage their suppliers to use minimal

packaging, provide systems for consumers to recycle

excess packaging, and vigorously promote products that

are environmentally sustainable. They will facilitate

extended producer responsibility by moving from retailinto both leasing and servicing of products.

Secondary Materials Handlers will continue to

provide high quality services that out-compete waste

disposal services. They will drive toward new economies

of scale, particularly with reference to use of fossil fuels.

They will find and develop new markets for New

Zealand’s high quality secondary resources. Recyclers

will form partnerships with the community waste sector

and local authorities, working closely and innovatively to

recycle even low-return waste streams.

Universities and Schools will teach Zero Wasteprinciples as part of their basic curriculum and have

their own recycling systems in place to ensure that

students gain first hand experience. Emphasis in the

technical field will be placed on refinement and design

of systems for reuse or dismantling of goods and

packaging and on the development of packaging.

Priority will also be given to developing modules

looking at how waste is socially constructed and the

behavioural and cultural changes needed to achieve the

targets.

Consultants/Engineers will retrain and gain new systems of understanding around waste. They will train

in the Zero Waste technologies and systems and exploit

this new professional niche, deploying imaginative

services and providing inspired proposals that work

towards the goal.

• • •

“Intensive recycling and waste reduction depends

on changing whole systems. It relies on distrib-

uted intelligence rather than centralized knowl-

edge and on innovation that is widely dispersed across collection, processing, materials technol-

ogy and product design.” Robin Murray, Creating

Wealth From Waste

• • •Community Organisations will work with local

authority partners, creating sustainable employment

opportunities. They will contract to educate and

promote local waste reduction and recycling schemes.

They will work closely with recycling companies to

exploit niches that will open up as recycling isincreasingly seen as a resource for job and business

creation. They will operate together as a country-wide

network to gain best market prices for commodities and

to gain buying advantages for plant and equipment.

The Householder will be seen as the basic unit in any

national strategy because, although household waste

often makes up less than 40% of the total waste-stream,

it constitutes more than 90% of public consciousness of

waste as an issue. Whatever else we may do in our lives,

every one of us is a producer of domestic waste. House-

holders can buy products that are durable, repairable

and recyclable, participate in local kerbside and recy-

cling schemes and install recycling systems

in workplaces



3. ALTERNATIVE INDUSTRIAL

SYSTEMS

Current Industrial System

• Linear

• Focus on increasing product throughput, creating

financial wealth

• Depends on large-scale, centralised, capital-intensive

resource extraction industries and waste disposal

facilities

• Most products and packaging are used once before

destruction in large waste facilities Public Policies

Public Policies

• Goal is to manage waste

• Subsidies (current and historical) benefit extraction

and waste industries Product Design

Product Design

• Tendency towards ‘tried-and-true’ materials,

particularly natural resources

• Attention principally on production and sales

• Short product lifespan increases sales

Materials

• Use cheapest materials, without regard for

unaccounted ecosystem impacts

• Subsidies for natural resource extraction, below-cost

energy and water

• Limited corporate responsibility for environmental

impacts

• Considerable waste left Manufacturing

Manufacturing

• Assumption that bigger companies making moreproducts for an ever-expanding market is best

• Focus on end-of-pipe hazard management

• Belief that application of technology will solve

problems

• Continually improving efficiency, but still

considerable waste produced

• Manufacturers’ product responsibility generally stops

here, except for unusual safety impacts

Zero Waste Industrial System

• Cyclical

• Focus on increasing service quality and efficiency,

maximizing natural, social and financial capital

• Depends on smaller-scale, decentralised, knowledge-

intensive businesses

• Most products and packaging are recycled back into

commerce or the biosphere

Public Policies

• Goal is to eliminate waste

• Subsidies for wasting eliminated, policies encourage

resource conservation and limit resource wast Zero

Waste Industrial System

Product Design

• Attention to waste minimization, durability,

repairability, recyclability, including packaging

• Plan for ultimate disposal, including return systems,

recycling processes, collection for reuse

• ‘External’ costs, including environmental, are critical

part of design considerations

Materials

• Use recycled feedstock materials

• Sustainable, minimum-impact sources for necessary

natural or agricultural resources

• Non-toxic chemicals and materials

• Minimal waste, with scraps recycled or used in other

industrial systems

Manufacturing

• Emphasis on local and regional production, with global information-sharing

• Plan for avoiding pollution and toxics

• Minimal waste, with scraps recycled or used in other

industrial systems

• Design or contract for ultimate disposal of products

after consumer use

• Establish influential feedback systems from value-

added businesses, distributors, customers

• Re-evaluate manufacturing impacts and most effective

product or service to provide



Current Industrial System

Value-Added Businesses

• Converting and production processes often make

scrap materials non-recyclable

• Some waste sent back to manufacturers for recycling

Distribution

• Emphasis on long-distance and global distribution

Customers

Customers

• Product popularity considered sufficient customer

feedback

• Expectation that product should be ‘thrown away’after use

Discarded Products

• Waste is ‘managed’ centralised, capital-intensive

technologies

• Most discards are landfilled or incinerated

• Limited amount of energy is generated from

incineration and landfill methane gas, but otherwise

residual material value is destroyed

Zero Waste Industrial System

Value-Added Businesses

• Educated by manufacturers about how to avoid

contaminating processes

• Educated by manufacturers on quality of recycled

products, when necessary

• Send all scraps back to manufacturers for recycling, or

to other industrial uses

Distribution

• Emphasis on local and regional distribution

Customers

• Maximise reuse, repair opportunities

• Educated about convenient recycling opportunities,

proper source separation

• Have effective feedback mechanisms to

manufacturers

Discarded Products

• All products can be dismantled, with materials

separated into recyclable streams

• Governments, businesses collect discarded products

• Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) send materials to

repair and reuse businesses or to appropriate

recyclers and manufacturersing



SECTION FIVE: APPENDICES

1. Zero Waste Councils in New Zealand

2. Zero Waste Around the World

3. Responses to Zero Waste Strategy Survey.

4. Zero Waste Planning Tools

5. Clean-Stream Contracts

6. Mechanical Biological Treatment

7. The New Zealand Waste Strategy

8. Bottle Bills (Container Deposit Legislation)

9. Zero Waste - Job creation and local economic development.



COUNCIL GOAL DATE POLICY ADOPTED

MAJOR NEW INITIATIVES WEBSITE

Opotiki District Council 2010 September 1998 -Capacity of rubbish bags reduced- 3 Resource Recovery Centres(RRCs)-Kerbside recycling.

www.odc.govt.nz

Christchurch City Council December 1998 - Recovered Materials Foundationestablished-Extensive resource recovery facilities throughout the city

www.ccc.govt.nz/waste/ managementplan/wastemanagementplanforsolidandhazardouswaste.pdf *

Kaikoura District Council 2015 March 1999 - Innovative Waste Kaikouraestablished- Resource recovery facilities atlandfill- Financial incentives to recycle

Selwyn District Council 2015 August 1999 - 3 stream collection and RRCplanned

www.selwyn.govt.nz

Kawerau District Council 2015 August 1999 - RRC at landfill- Financial incentives to recycle- Diversion of greenwaste fromlandfill

www.kaweraudc.govt.nz

Nelson City Council 2015 September 1999 - Investigation of regionalresource recovery - RRC established with localcommunity group

www.nelsoncitycouncil.co.nz

Far North District Council 2015 October 1999 -Slash Trash communicationcampaign-Support for local community group

www.farnorth.govt.nz

Timaru District Council 2015 October 1999 -In-house Zero Waste programme- Developing RRC

www.timaru.govt.nz

Dunedin City Council 2015 October 1999 - Zero Waste strategy

-New RRC-Kerbside recycling

www.cityofdunedin.com/city/

?page=feat_zero_waste *

Gisborne District Council 2015 October 1999 -Education centre-Full user pays landfill costs-Kerbside recycling

www.gdc.govt.nz

Palmerston North City Council

No date November 1999 - Pilot organic waste collectionprogramme-Community education- RRPark planned

www.gdc.govt.nz/

Masterton District Council 2015 November 1999 -Regional recycling strategy developed-Kerbside recycling

www.mstn.govt.nz

Carteron District Council 2015 Adopted with Masterton as aregional strategy

-Regional recycling strategy developed-Kerbside recycling

www.cartertondc.co.nz/

South Wairarapa DistrictCouncil 2015 Adopted with Masterton as aregional strategy

-Regional recycling strategy developed www.swdc.govt.nz

Mackenzie District Council 2014 November 1999 -Zero Waste Plan-3 stream collection-3 RRCs

www.mackenzie.govt.nz

Hastings District Council 2015 November 1999 -Upgrade of RRC at Transfer station-Community education

ww.hastingsdc.govt.nz

Westland District Council 2015 February 2000 -Public education- Development of low-tech recycling systems

www.westlanddc.govt.nz

Wairoa District Council 2015 March 2000 -Weighbridge at landfill-Recycling facilities at landfill-Kerbside recycling

www.wairoadc.govt.nz

Otorohanga District Council 2015 March 2000 - Zero Waste strategy - Kerbside recycling-Community education

www.otodc.govt.nz/aspcommon/ layout1/ *

Ashburton District Council 2015 April 2000 -Support for local community group-Education centre at RRC-Kerbside recycling

www.ashburtondc.govt.nz

Appendix 1ZERO WASTE COUNCILS



COUNCIL GOAL DATE POLICY ADOPTED

MAJOR NEW INITIATIVES WEBSITE

Central Otago DistrictCouncil

2015 March 2000 - Support for local community group- RRC-Kerbside recycling

www.codc.govt.nz

Whakatane District Council 2015 March 2000 -Public communication campaign- RRC planned-Community education

www.whakatane.govt.nz

Tasman District Council 2015 April 2000 -Support for local community group- RRC-Community education

www.tdc.govt.nz/servicesandfacilities.asp?page=Zero%20Waste *

Thames Coromandel DistrictCouncil

2015 April 2000 - Planning in progress www.thepeninsula.co.nz/tcdc

Buller District Council 2015 May 2000 -Focus on removing greenwaste

from waste stream-Education programmes

www.bullerdc.govt.nz

Hurunui District Council 2015 May 2000 -Support for local community group-RRC-Community education

www.hurunui.govt.nz

Porirua City Council 2015 May 2000 - Zero Waste Coordinator employed-Kerbside recycling- RRC

www.pcc.govt.nz *

Ruapehu District Council 2015 July 2000 - Resource recovery facilities atlandfill-Education campaign

www.ruapehudc.govt.nz

North Shore City Council August 2001 -Community educationprogramme-Community waste minimisationfund-Focus on C&D waste

www.northshorecity.govt.nz/our_environment/waste_minimisation/ default.htm *

Central Hawkes Bay DistrictCouncil

2015 June 2001 - New contracts to encouragesource separation

www.chbdc.govt.nz

Kapiti Coast District Council 2015 May 2001 -Modular drop-off designed- RRC planned-Diversion of greenwaste

www.kcdc.govt.nz

Waitaki District Council 2015 June 2001 -Kerbside recycling-Education in schools- RRC

www.waitaki.net.nz/civic/wdc

Waimate District Council 2015 August 2001 -Resource recovery facilitiesbeing built-Kerbside recycling

www.waimate.org.nz/localgovt

Tauranga District Council 2015 Sept 2001 -Resource recovery facilities attransfer stations-School education programmes-Kerbside recycling

www.tauranga.govt.nz/files/ WasteManagementPlan.pdf

Western Bay of Plenty District Council

2015 Sept 2001 - Greenwaste processing facilitiesplanned-Kerbside recycling

www.wbopdc.govt.nz

Rodney District Council 2020 December 2001 - Zero Waste Plan-Kerbside recycling-Zero Waste Coordinator employed

www.rodney.govt.nz/documents/ zero%20waste%20plan.pdf *

Waimakariri 2015 March 2003

Queenstown Lakes DistrictCouncil

pending May 2003 - New Waste Minimisation Officer employed

www.qldc.govt.nz

* Good websites. For further information on Zero Waste councils see www.zerowaste.co.nz (under ‘What New Zealand’s doing’)



Appendix 2

ZERO WASTE AROUND

THE WORLD

AUSTRALIA:

Canberra was the first city in the world to set a goal of

achieving ‘no waste’ going to landfill in 1996. Canberra’s

NOWaste by 2010 strategy was the result of extensive

community consultation that identified a strong commu-

nity desire to achieve a waste free society by 2010.

(www.nowaste.act.gov.au/styles/

nowasteby2010strategy.pdf)

The strategy established a framework for sustainable

resource management and listed broad actions needed

to achieve the aim of a waste-free society including:

• Community Commitment

• Avoidance and Reduction

• Resource Recovery

• Residual Waste Management

•Creative Solutions

Major initiatives that the strategy has launched or been

involved in include:

• The ACT Resource Guide – a tool to help local

government, industry and the general public

identify and locate recyclers and markets for

recycled materials

• Resource recovery facilities throughout the city

including recycling depots, greenwaste facilities,

paint recycling, Resource Recovery Centres and a

major Resource Recovery Estate (under construc-

tion)

• Deconstruction standards – the–‘Development

Control Code for Best Practice Waste Management

in the ACT ‘

• The ‘Drum muster programme - collecting and

disposing of rigid metal and plastic containers.

• ‘Eco-business’ - a series of workshops where

business can learn how to improve environmental

performance.

• Community recycling initiatives such as ‘Second-

hand Sundays’, and public event recycling.

In March 2000, ‘The Next Step in the No Waste Strategy

was released (www.nowaste.act.gov.au/styles/

thenextstepinthenowastestrategy.pdf), evaluating the

progress of the No Waste by 2010 Strategy and identify-

ing ten major categories of action required to achieve

the Strategy’s goals:

• Targets for waste reduction

• Government leadership

• Education and community programs

• Waste pricing

• Infrastructure and services

• Market development

• Collection systems

• Building and demolition waste

• Legislation and Regulation

• Future Technologies

Progress reports are produced each year and delivered

to every household, to keep the community up to date

with how Canberra is going in the push towards No

Waste by 2010. Canberra is currently diverting 64% of its

waste from landfill.

Western Australia released its ‘Towards Zero Waste by

2020’ document (www.environ.wa.gov.au/downloads/

1038_W20200101.pdf) in January 2001. It outlines a

strategic vision for Western Australia for the next twenty years and proposes five interdependent goals to reach

Zero Waste – (1) Sustainability, (2) Commitment, (3)

Prevention, (4) Resource Recovery and (5) Integration.

South Australia is currently developing its

‘Metropolitan Waste to Resources Plan’

(www.environment.sa.gov.au/epa/pdfs/

metro_adelaide_plan.pdf) to provide a new strategic

direction for the state. The South Australian Government

is adopting a Zero Waste vision and creating Zero Waste

South Australia, a new statutory body, to coordinate

efforts to work towards the goal. South Australia already

has a variety of successful waste minimisation initiatives

including:



• A landfill levy - which has just been raised from $5/

tonne to $10/tonne and which will be used to fund

Zero Waste South Australia’s activities.

• Container deposit legislation which has been in

effect since 1975. Public demand has recently

enabled the deposit to be extended to all drink

containers (excluding milk) which should push return rates up even further from the current

return rates of 74% for PET, 86% for glass and 90%

for cans. There are 36 licensed depots in South

Australia that containers can be returned to – a

mixture of privately and publicly owned facilities.

Around 600 people are employed in South Australia

(population 1.5 million) as a direct result of the

container deposit legislation.

With these and many other initiatives in place, Adelaide

(the main population centre of South Australia with just

over 1 million residents) is diverting approximately 23%of domestic waste, 40% from other council services, 50%

of commercial waste and 65% of building and demoli-

tion waste from landfill.

New measures for waste diversion that are being

considered are:

• Mandatory waste management plans

• Kerbside service performance targets

• Landfill bans for some materials

• Enhanced domestic collection, processing and

residual waste disposal options - possibly including

food and greenwaste collection

Eurobodalla Shire Council adopted a Zero Waste

target in 2001, committing itself to 90% waste reduction

to landfill by 2011 and aiming for Zero Waste by 2015. A

list of 24 initiatives as been drawn up to help it work

towards its goal.

CANADA: Toronto created its Waste Diversion Task Force 2010 in

2001 to consult with the people of Toronto and come

up with a comprehensive waste diversion plan. Specifi-

cally it was asked to make a ‘designed-in-Toronto’

solution for meeting the following targets:

• 30% diversion of waste by 2003

• 60% by 2006

• 100% by 2010

The plan was required because the City-owned landfillsite closed in 2002 and waste has to be trucked to a

private landfill in Michigan, increasing disposal costs by

more than 300%.

‘Beyond Landfill: A Diverting

Future’ (www.city.toronto.on.ca/

taskforce2010/report.pdf) made a

number of recommendations, one

of the key ones being the

introduction of kerbside

collections for organic material’–

which makes up around one third

of the waste stream. The Green

Box system is now being rolled out

across Toronto, providing weekly pick-up services for

organics with residual waste pick ups now every other

week. Food scraps, soled paper and tissues, paper plates,

diapers and sanitary products, animal waste and bedding

and pet food are collected. This new ‘three stream

collection system involving source separation of

organics, will be key to helping the City achieve its goal

of 60 % waste diversion by 2006.

Other policies and practices suggestions from the task

Force include:

• Advance disposal fees

• Bag limits – introduce set out limits and introduce

pay as you Throw system for additional bags

• Clear residual waste bags

• Demolition standards

• Deposit returns

• Developer waste management plans

• Diaper recycling programme

• Education programmes (school and community)

• Grants programmes

• Green procurement guidelines

• Landfill bans (organics, wood, cardboard, toxics)

• Levy on plastic shopping bags

• Low interest loan funds

• Packaging legislation

See www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/

swm/net/polprac.htm

Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. The Board

of Directors of the Regional District of Kootenay

Boundary (British Columbia) endorsed the concept of

Zero Waste in November 2000. “In doing so they stated

that they believe that Zero Waste can be achieved andthat they are willing to take the path to a waste free,

resource-full future. This small step has great

implications for the communities and residents of

Kootenay Boundary. It holds out the promise of a day

when there are no landfills with their associated social,



environmental costs. It opens the door to a multitude of

possibilities for the community to transform what were

once liabilities into benefits.”

Kootenay has already taken a number of significant steps

on the Zero Waste path including banning recyclable

products and yard and garden waste from landfill,

establishing Reuse Centres, charging variable tippingfees and producing marketable compost

from greenwaste.

The Kootenay Boundary Zero Waste strategy

(www.rdkb.com/recover/media/zerowast.pdf) includes:

Local initiatives:

• Build the concept of Zero Waste into all local

government undertakings

• Work with other agencies such as Community

Futures and Economic Development Commissions

• Ensure that our tipping fee schedules encourage

waste elimination and new resource recovery

businesses

• Invest in jobs through reuse and recycling

• Phase out open burning at landfills

• Establish centralized in-vessel composting facilities

• Educate consumers about the high cost of waste.

Shift the focus from industrial parks to resourcerecovery facilities

Local efforts to inf luence the Provincial government

• Lobby the Provincial government to make Zero

Waste a British Columbia objective

• Continue to promote Extended Producer Responsi-

bility (EPR)

• Encourage and support design for the Environment

(DFE)

• Lobby for, or if possible, enact, appropriate legisla-tion and economic instruments

• Continue to lobby for minimum recycled content

standards

• Encourage and support full cost accounting and

life cycle analysis

• Create a level playing field in the marketplace

• Lobby to implement tax shifting

• Support campaign finance reform

Regional District of Nanaimo. In 2001 the Regional

District of Nanaimo (RDN) on Vancouver Island, BC

adopted the goal of zero waste to address its urgent

disposal capacity shortfall. Already exporting one

quarter of its waste to the mainland, residents were

faced with significantly increased costs if all its waste

had to be exported.

The RDN and its member municipalities passed a major

milestone in 2000 by meeting and exceeding British

Columbia’s Ministry of Environment goal (set in 1989)

of 50% waste reduction by 2000. This was achieved by

user pays residential wastecollection, kerbside recycling

programmes, bans on paper, metal

and other recyclable materials to

landfill, and promotion of backyard

composting throughout the region.

British Columbia.

The Recycling Council of British

Columbia’s Zero Waste Working

Group has developed two Zero Waste Toolkits’– one for

local authorities to help them evaluate the benefits andfeasibility of Zero Waste (Zero Waste Tool Kit for Local

Government, May 2002) and one for retail businesses

(Zero Waste One Step at a Time, May 2002).

www.rcbc.bc.ca/hot/zeroframe.htm

ENGLAND:

Bath and North East Somerset Council adopted a

Zero Waste target with intended waste policies for the

next six year to:

• Aim for “Zero Waste” for Bath & North EastSomerset, which will steer the development of

future policies and services.

• Maintain waste reduction and recycling as a

strategic focus of the council.

• Work in partnership with the voluntary sector, the

community sector, and the private and public

sectors to pursue more sustainable waste manage-

ment practices.

• Attract external funding to carry out further trials

and research work in partnership with outside

organisations.

• Seek to manage waste (including recyclables) on a

local/sub-regional basis, adhering to the proximity

principle where possible, to reduce transportation

impacts. www.bathnes.gov.uk/wasteservices/

Policies/Strategy.htm

INDIA:

Kovalam is a small fishing village and a significant

tourist destination in South India. It adopted a Zero

Waste vision as a means to solve major environmental

and economic crises it is facing. Tourism is being



severely threatened by increasing pollution caused by

waste discarded by tourists. A local campaign and local

initiatives are starting to create a waste-free

environment. One example is trying to find alternatives

to bottled water so that tourists can drink safely without

littering the beaches with discarded containers.

www.zerowastekovalam.org

PHILIPPINES:

Communities in the Philippines that have official Zero

Waste goals include:

• Candon City, Ilocos Sur

• Municipality of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija

• Municipality of Pilar, Sorsogon

• Municipality of Linamon, Lanao del Norte

• Municipality of Sigma, Capiz

USA:

California has a Zero Waste goal set by the Californian

Integrated Waste Management Board in 2001. The plan

mandates that Californian cities and counties must

divert 50% from landfills. Alameda County has gone

further and set itself a goal of achieving 75% by 2010.

In 2002 San Francisco adopted a goal of 75% landfill

diversion by 2010, with a long term goal of Zero Waste, with the date set once 50% diversion is met

(www.grrn.org/zerowaste/resolutions/

sf_zw_resolution_9-29-02.pdf). High level strategies that

have been identified are to:

• Establish a goal of Zero Waste, with an interim goal

of 75% waste diversion by 2010, for City govern-

ment and the city as a whole

• Develop programs in all sectors (i.e., residential,

commercial/industrial and City government) with

only recycling and/or composting streams (i.e.,eliminate the “trash” stream)

• Improve material processing and develop new

markets to minimize “residuals” requiring disposal

• Launch additional outreach campaigns to educate

generators and decision makers about waste

prevention (i.e., source reduction, reuse, boycott-

ing “residual” items), new programs and legislation,

and buying recycled

• Increase incentives for generators and service

providers to separate materials properly for

highest use

• Pass legislation (e.g., mandatory diversion partici-

pation by all organizations, building managers,

janitors, employees and residents; require use of

recyclable and compostable materials and ban

them from landfill; and expanded recycled content

purchasing requirements) and enforce any penal-

ties as necessary

• Demand cradle to cradle producer responsibility

for all products, starting with the most hazardousand those constituting the largest share

of “residuals”

• Level the playing field for Zero Waste by support-

ing efforts to eliminate subsidies and internalize

externalities for virgin material production

and wasting

Del Norte County, California adopted the Del Norte

Zero Waste Plan in 2000. The plan describes

programmes for Del Norte’s continual movements

towards Zero Waste, including market incentives andcontract provisions to encourage waste reduction,

mechanisms to encourage and expand waste prevention,

development of resource recovery infrastructure and

advocacy of life cycle design use

www.grrn.org/reports/zwap/zwap.pdf

Santa Cruz County, California , adopted its Zero Waste

resolution in 1999 www.grrn.org/zerowaste/

resolutions/santa_cruz_110299.html

Seattle,Washington adopted Zero Waste as a guiding

principle in 1998, aiming to recycle 60% of all wastegenerated by 2008.

www.ci.seattle.wa.us/util/solidwaste/

SWPlan/default.htm

Carrboro -North Carolina resolved to create a Zero

Waste Plan in 1998.

www.grrn.org/zerowaste/CZWRes.html



Appendix 3

RESPONSES TO ZERO WASTE

STRATEGY SURVEY JULY 2003

The following question was put by Envision New Zealand to Zero Waste experts from New Zealand

and around the world :

You’ve recently been appointed Waste Manager for a

city that has adopted a target of Zero Waste by 2015.

What are the key actions that you would put in an

action plan to help the city animate its Zero Waste

strategy?

Replies from 26 respondents (names at end):

• Implement full user pays for waste (10)

• Introduce producer responsibility – including takeback schemes etc. (9)

• Provide community education (schools,

businesses etc) (9)

• Introduce differential pricing structures at transfer

and landfill to encourage source separation

of materials (8)

• Ensure there are kerbside systems so householders

can sort at source (8)

• Establish a resource recovery park (economic

development park) (6)

• Establish pick-up systems for foodwaste (6)• Establish systems to keep greenwaste out of

the landfill (6)

• Involve the community in a consultative

process (6)

• Establish processing plants for recyclables

and organics (5)

• Establish local infrastructure for

resource recovery (4)

• Get the organic waste out of the waste stream

first (4)

• Know your community’s waste stream (4)

• Employ the right people to turn the plan

into action (4)

• Landfill bans for certain materials that are toxic or

that are easily recycled. (4)

• Develop a waste minimisation advisory service for

public and business that can answer all

their questions (4)

• Implement a Zero Waste awareness

raising campaign (3)

• Publicise the zero waste target and action plan (3)

• Alter contracts so incentives in place for

resource recovery (3)• Establish a local levy on waste to landfill (3)

• License waste collectors (to provide information

on the quantity and composition of waste that

they handle) (3)

• Develop a plan (3)

• Maintain community ownership of the

waste stream (3)

• Identify the sources of major waste streams and

work with these (3)

• Accurately measure the success of zero

waste initiatives (3)

• Reduce size of residual waste bag (3)

• Introduce landfill levies (3)

• Communities and councils need to collaborate to

push for new legislation (2)

• Establish pick up systems for

commercial sector (2)

• Establish a waste exchange (2)

• Re-sort residual material to landfill to get

recyclables out (2)

• Establish free household hazardous waste collec-

tion or drop-off facilities (2)

• Instigate regular pick-ups of bulky items eg fridges,

beds etc. (2)• Collaborate with neighbouring councils and

regional council (2)

• Unlimited free recycling (2)

• Establish local research and development fund (2)

• Make sure your trade waste bylaw enshrines waste

reduction as a licence condition and get rid of

contaminants that will make bio-solids useless (2)

• Network with other similar communities to find

markets (A cooperative of recyclers would be able

to achieve better prices) (2)

• Find local solutions (2)

• Support community initiatives and develop robust

working relationships (2)

• Develop a Zero Waste team that has skills to turn

council policy or vision into an

implementation plan (2)

• Promote consumer buying power within

the community (2)

• Collaborate nationally and regionally with other

councils to provide consistent information to

residents on waste reduction and recycling (2)

• Council should adopt green purchasing policies (2)

• Council should implement in house councilrecycling systems (2)

• Create a visioning document to guide decisions at

every level of the community. (1)

• Set realistic interim targets (1)

• Set yearly targets of waste diversion from

the landfill (1)

• Both the local council and regional council need to

fully support Zero Waste (1)

• Once you have a community-based plan, work to

develop public and political support for

the plan (1)• Take action rather than making resolutions (1)

• Keep the politicians involved and

well informed. (1)

• Involve the local recycling industry – find out who

does what and support them. (1)



• Treat each waste stream as separate and concen-

trate on finding one solution at a time (1)

• Budget for developing alternative uses for

wasted materials (1)

• Concentrate on things that have other drivers (eg

energy efficiency) (1)

• Plan for all disposal (recyclables and residuals)

having a cost (1)

• Pick the easy waste minimisation initiatives first (1)

• Consider the implications of the Special Consulta-

tive Procedure of the Local Government Act (1)

• Tailor recycling contracts as “partnerships” with

council. Build service provision base price struc-

ture offset with commodity profit share.(1)

• Change zoning rules to encourage the develop-

ment of recycling businesses and resource recov-

ery parks. (1)

• Require recycling of construction, demolition and

land-clearing materials.(1)• Require recycling plans and reports as a condition

of operating a business in the community.(1)

• Ban compactor trucks to landfill – as they are not

compatible with full resource recovery (1).

• Recycling targets and systems for schools and

other public institutions (1)

• Impose Cleaner Production requirements on the

manufacturing sector with a target date

of compliance (1)

• Impose heavy fines on those found

dumping illegally (1)

• Free disposal for all household hazardous waste (1)

• Develop complete strategies to eliminate hazard-

ous wastes from all waste streams (1)

• Remove free inorganic collection (1)

• Take the whole basket approach to recyclables (1)

• Payment for returned packaging. (1)

• Incentives for collectors if organics less than 10%

of residual. (1)

• Require public drop-off facilities to be clean and

professionally run (1)

• Establish woodwaste and concrete

recycling operations (1)• Introduce user-pays refuse collections (1)

• Establish public place recycling bins (1).

• Establish markets for recyclables and organics (1)

• Initiate organic gardening within the city (1)

• Use an advanced pyrolysis waste

destruction plant (1)

• Kerbside collection of specified materials (batter-

ies, waste oils, paints; clothes, Christmas tree, new

or nearly new items, unwanted presents) (1)

• Put residuals through an MBT process (1)

• Instigate a 2-sort system, “wet” for composting and“dry” for sorting and recycling. (there are no more

trash cans!) (1)

• Instigate a 3 stream waste collection - organics,

recyclables and residual waste (1)

• Be creative (1)

• Develop an Enviroschools programme (1)

• Community initiatives fund for waste reduction

activities and research etc.(1)

• Encourage householders to buy a cloth shopping

bag from the super markets, instead of

plastic bags (1)

• Publicise results of waste minimisation (1)

• Council should design Zero Waste architecture (1)

• Council should publish data on its waste produced,

department by department (1)

• Levy on plastic bags (1)

• Eliminate environmental and tax subsidies

for disposal (1)

• Retail stores to offer customers the option of “de-

packaging” their purchases (1)

• More government effort to stimulate local com-

modity reprocessing (1)

Respondents: Andy Budd, Manager, Kahurangi Employment Trust

Anne Lister, Environmental Health Assistant, Gisborne

District Council

Ben Somaratne, Solid waste Engineer, Waitakere City

Council

Bill Sheehan, Coordinator, Grass Roots Recycling Net-

work

Danielle Kennedy, Refuse and Recycling Officer, North

Shore City Council

Dave Hock, Asset Manger, Urban, Selwyn District Council

Duncan Wilson, Eunomia Consulting, UK Elizabeth Citrino, Californian Resource Recovery

Association

Eric Lombardi, Managing Director, EcoCycle, Boulder,

Colorado

Gary Kelk, Manager, Cleanstream, Waiheke Ltd

Gunter Pauli, Managing Director, ZERI Institute

Ian Bywater

Jan Burberry, Auckland City Council

John Ransley, Manager, Innovative Waste Kaikoura

Kim Heck, Administration Manager, Central Otago

Wastebusters

Mal Williams, Manager, Clych Recycling, WalesMahlon Aldridge, EcoAction, Santa Cruz, California

Marian Shore, Manager - Waitaki Resource Recovery

Trust

Miles Hibbert Foy

Peter Anderson, Anderson Consulting

Peter Fredericsen, Managing Director, Materials Process-

ing Ltd

Richard Tong, Tong and Associates

Robert Brodnax, Environment Waikato

Robin Murray

Sonia Mendoza, Mother Earth Unlimited, PhilippinesTony Watkins, New Zealand Institute of Architects



Appendix 4

ZERO WASTE PLANNING TOOLS

1. URBAN ORE’S CLEAN DOZEN SM

– THE 12 MASTER CATEGORIES

Dan Knapp and Mary Lou Van Deventer of Urban Ore,

Berkeley California, have studied the theory and practice

of resource recovery for 24 years and have segmented

the discard stream into 12 distinct master categories –

the Clean DozenSM, as they call them. Their primary

focus for achieving Zero Waste is on addressing the

materials flows themselves – to make sure that systems

are in place to tackle everything within each of the 12

master categories which are:

• Reusable goods (items useful as-is in their manufac-

tured form)

• Metals

• Chemicals

• Glass

• Paper

• Polymers

• Textiles

• Wood

• Plastics• Ceramics (stone, tile, brick, concrete)

• Plant debris

• Soils

• Putrescibles (food, animal bodies, sludges

and manures)

Dan and Mary Lou have tested the validity of the 12

master categories at Urban Ore and believe the catego-

ries profile all commodities in the resource supply

efficiently, with “nothing left out and nothing left over”.

The master categories may be subdivided many timesinto sub-streams. The more sub-streams there are, the

more commercial niches, and the more niches, the more

economic development as measured by income. Also,

the purer the sub-flows are, the more they are worth.

Reuse businesses alone may have up to a hundred

itemised categories in the cash registers of their com-

bined retail departments, narrowing down even to types

of doors.

Dan and Mary Lou believe that the emphasis must go on

developing the infrastructure for resource recovery

before anything else. After more progress has been madein developing Resource Recovery Parks and other

resource recovery facilities, recycling-resistant prod-

ucts”– such as those where incompatible materials are

bonded and cannot be separated may have to be banned

from commerce or landfills by regulation.

2. THE ZERO WASTE WORKBOOK:

A TOOLKIT FOR ZERO

WASTE COMMUNITIES

The California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA) is

working in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region Nine, to develop a “Zero Waste Tool Kit”, to help communities interested in

implementing comprehensive waste reduction and

recycling plans. The project started at a planning session

at the CRRA conference in July 2002 and the final

document is due for completion in mid 2004. Elizabeth

Citrino is the author of the document and completed

sections will be posted on her website -

www.home.inreach.com/lcitrino

Although aimed primarily at California communities the

Toolkit will provide useful guidelines for all Zero Waste

communities. It sets a series of tasks to work through as

a practical way of helping communities find the tools

and strategies that will work best for them and covers

areas such as Planning, Policies, Programmes, Problems,

and Resources.

3. ZAP (ZERO WASTE

ACTION PLAN)

After Dunedin City Council adopted its Zero Waste

policy it employed Zero Waste consultants Waste NotLtd and Meritec Ltd to develop a planning tool to assist

the selection, prioritisation and implementation of

initiatives to help it achieve its goal. While recognising

that effective waste minimisation involves a partnership

between central government, local government, private

business, community groups and the general public, the

ZAP tool concentrates on operations at a local authority

level and how these interact with those of other sectors.

The tool has since been‘genericised’ for use by

other councils.

Forty nine waste minimisation initiatives were identified,and grouped in 5 key areas or ‘themes’ to allow quite

different initiatives to be prioritised and implemented

concurrently. The key areas being:

The prioritisation process then follows a sequence of:

• Stage 1: - Assigning all identified waste

minimisation initiatives to one of the 5 key areas.

• Stage 2: - Prioritising each initiative within each of

the 5 key areas. Initiatives are ranked against the 3

‘sustainability assessment’ criteria: environmental,social, and economic outcomes, along with a fourth

category ‘other’ to cover such issues as’‘risk’. The

‘interactiveness’ of the ranking system is useful for

public consultation.



• Stage 3: - Assessing each initiative for: waste

diversion; costs for investigation, set up and

operation; employment opportunities; landfill

savings and funding sources. The costs are ex-

pressed as total project costs, yearly costs, and cost

per tonne over a 20 year timeframe.

• Stage 4: - Prioritisation of the waste minimisationinitiatives using:

-Tabulated summary of initiatives, waste diversion,

costs, employment and funding source.

-Specific local conditions.

-Timing considerations (some initiatives require

others to have started).

-Public consultation.

ZAP helps planners and engineers, particularly those in

larger councils, steer a path through the complexity

involved in taking all potential waste minimisation

initiatives into account - plus implementation

timeframes, budgets and other factors. It provides

opportunity for interaction so can also potentially assist

collaborative council-community decision making.However it may be too complex for small communities

where a simpler approach may work better. For more

information on ZAP contact Waste Not Ltd -

[email protected]

Key Area Description Initiatives ( some examples )

Take Direct ActionInitiatives that deal directly with the waste stream.(16 initiatives).

- Kerbside Collections- Compost Operations- Cleaner Production- Recycling Facilities

Change the RulesLegal and economic incentives to incentivise wasteminimisation rather than disposal. (14).

- Extended Producer Responsibility - Landfill Bans- Landfill Levy - Purchasing Policies & Contracts

Foster New Ideas

Creation of mechanisms to develop and test new social,

technical and economic solutions. (5).

- Awards for Waste Minimisation- Research & Development

- Pilot Schemes- Educational Courses

Communicate & Educate

Informing the community of the issues, providingopportunity for input and participation. (8).

- Buy Recycled Campaign- Festivals & Events- Public Consultation- Education Material & Programmes

Monitor and Feedback

Assessment and reporting on waste streamcharacteristics and the success ( or not ) of zero wasteinitiatives. (6).

- Waste Analysis Data- Participation Rate Surveys- Interim Goals- Waste Operator Licensing & Reporting



Appendix 5

CLEAN-STREAM CONTRACTS FOR

OPTIMUM WASTE DIVERSION

CONTRACTS TO FOCUS MUNICIPAL AND

PRIVATE SECTOR RESOURCES ON WASTE

REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY.

Introduction

Mal Williams from Clych Recycling in Wales first pro-

posed the idea for ‘Clean-Stream36 Contracts’- a compre-

hensive system of total resource recovery using the

Clean-Stream brand.

• • •

“We do not have a waste problem we have a

MIXED-WASTE problem. Just as we create waste

when we mix materials in our waste bins we can

abolish it by putting materials out separately.”

Mal Williams

• • •

The aim is to create a culture of resource recovery

within the waste industry by building in incentives that

will allow the market to achieve rapid waste reduction

results. It is hoped that by performing within the Clean-Stream contract environment, industry will automati-

cally achieve waste reduction results that are more

aligned with the interests and desires of the wider

community. At present, partly due to the way contracts

are written, disposal to landfill is inevitably the core

activity with recycling often seen as a marginal “nice to

do if you can””activity. The aim is to make it more

profitable to reduce waste than to dispose it to

landfill.

• • •

“In this industry landfill is top of the profit

hierarchy but bottom of the sustainable waste

management hierarchy.” Mal Williams

• • •Clean-Stream Contracts

For Clean-Stream contracts to work effectively, in most

areas there would be just one contract for recycling and

residual waste based on four streams of materials

collected from kerbside.

A council would write a Clean-Stream contract and put

it out for tender. Contractors would tender on the basis

of a clear understanding and interpretation of Clean-

Stream contracts based on Clean-Stream specifications

and performance standards.

The four streams would be:

1.Organic waste (green waste and food waste )

2.Normal kerbside recyclables (glass, paper, cans,

aluminum cans, plastic etc)

3.Reusable, repairable or recyclable household bulky

items (furniture, appliances etc)

4.Residual waste for disposal to landfill.

The contractor would undertake to collect the four

streams but could sub-contract parts out, for example

household bulky items, composting or the publiceducation element.

High Diversion Rates

The successful contractor would be chosen not only on

demonstrated ability to carry out the work based on

attributes and price, but also on projected diversion/

reduction rates.

There would be an expectation of a high diversion rate

with a maximum37 residual waste component – perhaps

between 20 -25%. If, after a settling in period, the

contractor is shown to be exceeding this amount, then

notification would be given. If after a period of grace for

improvements, performance is still unsatisfactory the

contractor would be penalised for non-performance.

Communication

The contractor would be expected to manage the

communication strategy for the Clean-Stream Contract,

in conjunction with the local authority.

Continual Improvement

Clean-Stream contracts would be based on continual

improvement. Contractors would undertake to achieve

a total reduction rate for the period of the contract. If

for example it was 75%, he/she may only divert 35-45%

in the first year of the contract. But as diversion systems,

technologies, markets and the results of public educa-

tion have an impact there should be increasing opportu-

nities to improve performance in subsequent years.

36 Several community based recycling initiatives in New Zealand have used the name CleanStream – for example Clean Stream Waiheke. These should not be confused with

the Clean-Stream brand for contracts.37 There may need to be a progressive reduction in residual amounts starting at 60% and each year reducing by between 10 and 20% or whatever the successful bidder

undertakes to divert over and above council’s guidelines.38 By taking the “basket approach” operators can use high value commodities to subsidise low value ones and spread risk to the benefit of the community. This is les likely

with several different collection contracts.



Impact on Existing Players

Clean-Stream contracts would be most effective as one

contract (because of opportunities to cross-subsidise

within the same contract by the contractor 38 ) which

may give rise to fears that monopolies could develop,

eliminating opportunities for smaller local companies.

It is presumed that smaller operators would, in many instances, get sub-contracts to handle commodities and

down-stream processing activities. There may be ways

of de-linking collection from processing and other

aspects of the waste reduction system through the

contract process to avoid a monopoly over the waste

resource stream.

The system would be weighted against landfill disposal

which might provide a more level playing field for local

operators who are currently unable to compete because

of the fees charged by their landfill-owning competitors.

Landfills would last much longer and if prices rose for disposal, they would become more valuable to investors.

The Clean-Stream concept is still being developed for

use in New Zealand. For updates on progress see the

Envision website www.envision-nz.com



Appendix 6

MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL

TREATMENT

The original concept of Mechanical Biological Treatment(MBT) was to provide a pre treatment technology for

residual waste before landfill. The idea was to achieve

reductions in the volume, toxicity and biological

reactivity of waste, to minimise environmental problems

associated with landfilling untreated waste such as

landfill gas and leachate.

In Nova Scotia an MBT solution was introduced as a

result of local opposition to increased landfill or an

alternative incinerator proposal. Local action groups

raised sufficient funds to hire their own consultants

who proposed the MBT plant. The result was that the

local councils turned down the incinerator plant and

agreed to the plan put forward by the action groups.

They also involved the groups in designing the scheme

and came up with a conclusion that no organic waste,

toxic waste or recyclable material should go to landfill.

They created a 3 stream system with all households

being provided a kerbside collection of dry recyclables,

kerbside collection of organics (for 72% of households)

plus home composting education and a collection of

residuals. This meant that the MBT process was seen asthe very last step for the material that could not be

recovered or diverted. The residual waste is screened for

bulky items, recyclables and toxics and then stabilised

using a trough system with 14 bays.

From a Zero Waste point of view MBT is only appropri-

ate when all other options have been used and as a final

treatment for the residual fraction. Flexibility is the key

and large plants wth high capital costs that require

ongoing flows of material are still seen as an end of pipe

“draw” on resources.

Dominic Hogg of Eunomia, a Zero Waste consultancy in

the UK, makes the following comments: “We must never

see MBT as a substitute for source separation. As far as

materials quality is concerned, we will never make

‘compost’ of the same quality, or extract paper of the

required quality for mills, from residual waste. This is

why Europeans are seeking more and more to:

a) Set standards for the quality of recovered paper

grades (so that now, mills are not accepting paper

from collections where paper is co-collected

alongside glass, for subsequent MRF separation);and

b) Distinguish clearly between stabilised biowaste (a

waste) and compost (a product) through more or

less well defined limit in terms of levels of

impurities (plastics, inerts etc), potentially toxic

elements (such as heavy metals) and organic

contaminants (such as plasticisers). The recent

European Communication on a Soil Strategy

considers this in terms of ‘prevention of build up’

of these elements in soil.”39

MBT facilities will potentially help to extract materials

that were not totally extracted through source separa-

tion - but they are not a substitute.

The key point is that large - scale MBT plants such as in

Alberta and the new one proposed for Sydney, are of

such a vast scale that they may not be viable if the

community reduces the feedstock of wasted materials

through application of Zero Waste technologies and

initiatives. It has to be said that these large scale MBTplants are still considerably better than landfills or

incinerators but do not provide the flexibility and

system optimisation of smaller local MBT plants built as

part of an integrated Zero Waste strategy.

• • •

“The amazing thing about Novia Scotia’s landfills

it that there are no Seagulls” Paul Connett

• • •

39 Eunomia has written a major report for WRAP (Waste and Resources Action Programme) that is downloadable in stages from the website

– www.wrap.org.uk



Appendix 7

THE NEW ZEALAND

WASTE STRATEGY

“TOWARDS ZERO WASTE AND A

SUSTAINABLE NEW ZEALAND”

1. BACKGROUND

The New Zealand Waste Strategy began at a workshop

convened by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE)

and Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) on 24 May

2000. Around 100 people representing local govern-

ment, recyclers, industry and community groups came

together in Wellington to give their ideas on a new

National Waste Strategy. The day-long meeting inspiredhuge optimism that New Zealand was finally going to

address its long neglected waste issues.

Then, in July 2000 a multi-sector Waste Minimisation and

Management Working Group was established to advise

MfE and LGNZ on the development and implementation

of a National Waste Strategy. Advice from this group was

included in a draft discussion document called “Towards

a National Waste Minimisation Strategy”. This was

launched by the Minister for the Environment, the Hon

Marian Hobbs, at the Zero Waste conference in Decem-

ber 2000 in Kaitaia. The document called for submis-sions into the final Waste Strategy.

In response to this request Zero Waste New Zealand

Trust wrote and released ’The End of Waste, Zero Waste

By 2020’ as a resource to help the Zero Waste Network

make submissions on the Waste Strategy. The document

provided up to date information on overseas trends and

initiatives and painted a picture of what New Zealand

could achieve if it were bold enough to adopt a Zero

Waste policy. Three key recommendations were made:

1.Adopt a national vision of Zero Waste by 2020

2.Adopt intermediate targets, such as 50% waste

reduction within 3 years and 80% within 5 years

3.Establish a Zero Waste Agency to drive the change.

Submissions on the Strategy

By March 1st 2001, 251 submissions had been received

by MfE. Of these, 59%, called for the adoption of a Zero

Waste vision – many also calling for a target date of

2020. 68% called for the establishment of a central

agency to coordinate waste prevention and

minimisation initiatives. 49% commented on the need

for a national waste levy with 82% in favour and 17%against.

The New Zealand Waste Strategy was launched by the

Minister for the Environment Marion Hobbs, in

March 2002.

2. KEY FEATURES

The Vision

The vision of the New Zealand Waste Strategy is Towards

Zero Waste and a Sustainable New Zealand, and it is arecurrent theme throughout the document. One section

asks “what are the impediments to achieving Zero

Waste?” while another says that”“Towards Zero Waste

and a Sustainable New Zealand” is “a vision for a society

that values its environment and resources”. Other

references include: “Towards Zero Waste and a Sustain-

able New Zealand requires new ways of thinking at

every level of the community” and”“Towards Zero Waste

and a Sustainable New Zealand will require an upgraded

information base for future waste management and

minimisation”

Core principles

The Strategy has 6 core principles to guide central and

local government in its implementation.



1.Global citizenship

The effects of waste aren’t confined to our backyard.

We must take responsibility for its global consequences

2.Kaitiakitanga/stewardship

We’re all responsible for looking after our environment.

Maori believe all living things are related and that

kaitiaki, or stewards, are obliged to maintain the life

sustaining capacity of the environment for present and

future generations

3.Extended producer responsibility

Those who make goods and deliver services should bear

some responsibility for them and any waste they

produce, throughout a product’s entire life-cycle.

4.Full – cost pricing

The environmental effects of making, distributing, using

and disposing of goods and services must be properly

costed and charged where they occur

5.Life-cycle principle

Things should be designed, made and managed so all

their environmental effects are accounted for and

minimised, until the end of their lives.

6.Precautionary principle

Lack of scientific certainty must never be used as areason for ignoring serious environmental risk.

Core goals

The document claims that reducing New Zealand’s

waste is as a cornerstone of Government’s commitment

to sustainable development and that it has three core

goals;

The strategy covers solid, liquid and gaseous wastes and

has three core goals:

• Lowering the social costs and risks of waste

• Reducing the damage to the environment from

waste generation and disposal

• Increasing economic benefit by more efficient use

of materials

National Targets

The strategy sets national targets for:

1.Waste minimisation, with specific targets set for:

Organic wastes

Special wastes

Construction and demolition wastes

2.Hazardous wastes, with specific targets set for:

Contaminated sites

Organochlorines

Trade wastes

Core Policies

The Strategy has five core policies that form the basis

for action:

1.A sound legislative basis for waste minimisation

2.Efficient pricing

3.High environmental standards

4.Adequate and accessible information

5.Efficient use of materials

Supporting Policies and Tools

The implementation of the Core Policies are said to

involve the development and use of a range of tools and

methods to assist businesses, community groups and

other parties contribute to achieve the targets and

significantly reduce waste. These include:

1.Financial encouragement of innovation

2.Government leadership programmes

3.Economic instruments (other than pricing) such as

levies

4.Extended Producer Responsibility

5.Voluntary agreements with industry

Programmes

The Strategy also lists key actions for putting policy into

effect under four programmes with specific objectives

outlined for each programme

1.Institutions and legislation

2.Waste reduction and materials efficiency

3.Information and communication

4.Performance standards and guidelines

Strategy Monitoring and Evaluation

The Ministry for the Environment in collaboration with

Local Government New Zealand is responsible for tracking progress and identifying any changes that may

be required and targets were first to be reviewed in

2003.



Appendix 8

BOTTLE BILLS OR CONTAINER

DEPOSIT LEGISLATION

The Bottle Bill Story

After World War II, cans began replacing glass bottles in

the beer industry. The convenience and disposability of

cans helped boost sales at the expense of refillable glass

bottles, and by 1960 approximately 47 percent of beer

sold in the U.S. was packaged in cans and no-return

bottles. Soft drinks, however, were still sold almost

exclusively in refillable glass bottles requiring a deposit.

Can market share was just 5 percent. With the central-

ization of the beverage industry, the decade of the

sixties witnessed a dramatic shift from refillable softdrink ‘deposit’ bottles to ‘no-deposit, no-return, one-way’

bottles and cans.

By 1970, cans and one-way bottles had increased to 60

percent of beer market share, and one-way containers

had grown from just 5 percent in 1960 to 47 percent of

the soft drink market. British Columbia enacted the first

beverage container recovery system in North America in

1970.

In 1971, Oregon passed the first bottle bill in the USA,

requiring refundable deposits on all beer and soft drink containers. By 1987, ten states (over one-quarter of the

U.S. population) had enacted some form of beverage

container deposit law or bottle bill.

The so-called ‘bottle bills” were intended not only to

reduce beverage container litter, but to conserve natural

resources through recycling and reduce the amount of

solid waste going to landfills. They proved to be ex-

tremely successful in achieving those goals.

Seven states reported a reduction of beverage container

litter ranging from 70 to 83 percent, and a reduction intotal litter ranging from 30 to 47 percent after imple-

mentation of the bottle bill. High recycling rates were

also achieved.

Today, ten states and eight Canadian provinces have a

bottle bill requiring refundable deposits on certain

beverage containers. No state bottle bill or deposit law

has ever been repealed. In fact, several states and

provinces have expanded their laws to cover beverages

such as juice and sports drinks, teas and bottled water

— beverages that did not exist when most bottle bills

were passed.

Once again Canada stands out for the way it has worked

with industry to come up with solutions that work. In

1970 British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in

North America to establish a mandatory deposit-refund

system for soft drink and beer containers. Almost every

other province or territory now have container deposit

legislation with recovery rates varying from 78 to 94%.

But with no deposit at all, Ontario’s soft drink container

recovery languishes at between 35 and 50%.

Saskatchewan uses the money from it’s beverage

container deposit to fund curbside recycling programsthat accept the containers as well as other recyclables.

Prince Edward Island prohibits non-refillable containers,

and Alberta and Nova Scotia have developed dairy

industry agreements for all milk containers. Deposit

programs on refillable bottles generate the best recovery

rates in Canada. Ontario’s beer bottles and Prince

Edward Island’s soft drink containers both sport a 98%

recovery.

www.container-recycling.org



Appendix 9

ZERO WASTE - JOB CREATION

AND LOCAL ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT Studies around the world show that the recycling and

recovered materials industries are major new areas of

jobs and economic development with many low to

medium skill level jobs being created – important for

communities that have lost their manufacturing base.

Unemployed people often still have the work ethic but

lack of opportunity puts them in the high-risk category

in terms of social problems and crime statistics.

The basic knowledge of materials and use of handling

equipment that many of these people have are valuablefor the operation of RRCs. Also the wide range of skills

involved in the many aspects of an RRC enables begin-

ners to staircase their way into more complex and

interesting work.

Because resource recovery initiatives are by their very

nature local, these positions cannot be lost to bigger

towns or overseas. Wages stay in the town, circulating in

the economy. Once materials have been recovered

there are more jobs created by processing, disassembly,

deconstruction and remanufacturing.

In Germany the waste and recycling sector is bigger

than either steel or communications. In his book,

Creating wealth from Waste, Robin Murray estimates that

an intensive programme of recycling in the UK could

create 40,000 and 55,000 new jobs. In a New Zealand

context the same increase would result in 2,711 - 3,389

new jobs.

• ‘Recycling is an economic development too as well

as an environmental tool. 10X as many jobs just

sorting recyclables. 25X as many jobs

remanufacturing from recycled materials.” NeilSeldman, president, Institute for Self reliance.

• “Recycling is an engine of urban job creation.”

Reinventing Waste – Towards a London Waste

Strategy.” Ecologika. August 1998

• A survey of just 64 recycling businesses in

Auckland in 1998, carried out by Waste Not Ltd,

found that: The 64 businesses collected 641,649

tonnes of material for reuse and recycling; 69% of

the tonnage collected was post consumer materi-

als; Gross annual turnover of the 64 businesses wasat least $132 million, And at least 1,736 people

were employed. The average wage was $12 per

hour (well above the national average at the time).

• A study by R.W. Beck Inc in 2002, prepared for the

USA National Recycling Coalition showed that

there are currently 56,000 recycling businesses

operating in the country. These businesses operate

in 26 recycling and reuse categories. They employ

over 1.1 million people. They generate an annual

payroll of $US37 billion and gross annual revenues

of $US236 billion. (By comparison the total annual

revenue of the US waste industry is less than

$US50 billion.) This clearly shows that the recy-

cling industry is a value-added business, generating

much higher revenue than the waste industry –

with only a fraction of the volume of

material handled.



RESOURCES

A Rural Cooperative Recycling Tool Kit: Regional

Purchasing, Recovery, Processing and Market Development. Del Norte Solid Waste Management

Authority. April 2002

A Zero Waste Tool Kit for Local Government.

Recycling Council of British Columbia’s Zero Waste

Working Group. May 2002. (www.rcbc.ca)

Bath and North East Somerset Waste Strategy -

www.bathnes.gov.uk/wasteservices/default.htm

Beyond Landfill: A Diverting Future. Toronto City.

Task Force 2010. 2001. New Policies and Practices.

Toronto City. www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/

involved/swm/net/polprac.htm

Beyond Recycling: The Future of Waste. Enough!

Spring 2003. Helen Spiegelman

Bringing Zero Waste to Kootenay Boundary .

Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, Canada.

www.rdkb.com/recover/media/zerowast.pdf

Building a Deconstruction Company . D Livingston

and M Jackson, Institute for Loacal self Reliance. 2001

Building Savings. Strategies for waste Reduction of

Construction and demolition Debris from

Buildings. US Environmental Protection Agency.

www.epa.gov/osw

Can Recycling Succeed When Landfills are

Permitted to Pollute?. Peter Anderson. Keynote speech

to the Colorado Summit for Recyclin.2002

Community Waste Prevention Toolkit . INFORM.

www.informinc.org/cwp_00.php

Cool waste Management. A State of the Art Alternative to Incineration for Residual Municipal

Waste. Greenpeace Environmental Trust. 2003

Creating Wealth from Waste. Robin Murray.

Demos 1999

Del Norte Zero Waste Plan. Del Norte Solid Waste

Management Authority. 2000.

www.grrn.org/reports/zwap/zwap.pdf

Don’t Throw Away That Food. Strategies for

Record Setting Waste Reduction. US Environmentalprotection Agency. www.epa.gov/osw

Draft Metropolitan Adelaide Waste to Resources

Plan – Infrastructure and Kerbside Services.

Prepared by Nolan- ITU for the Environmental

Protection Authority. April

2003.www.environment.sa.gov.au/epa/pdfs/

metro_adelaide_plan.pdf

Drivers for Separate Collection in the EU, Optimi-

zation and Cost Assessment of High- Capture

Schemes. E. Favoino, M. Ricci, A. Tornavacca. Working

Group on Composting and Integrated Waste

Management, Monza, Italy

Envisioning Resource Recovery Parks: Twelve

Strategic Imperatives. Dr Dan Knapp and Mary Lou

Van Deventer, Urban Ore. 2001

Eurobodalla Shire Council. Waste Minimisation

Strategy Initiatives. 2001

Executive Summary of Dunedin’s Zero Waste

Strategy. Dunedin City Council, Waste Not Ltd and

Meritec Ltd. October 2001

Extended Producer Responsibility: Container

Deposit Legislation Report . Zero Waste New Zealand

Trust. 2002

Fighting Waste Industry Consolidation with Local

Ownership of Recycling Facilities. Facts to Act On.

No 42, November 2002. Institute for Local Self Reliance

Independent Review of Container Deposit

Legislation in New South Wales. Executive Summary.

Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation

Program Overview , Sept 2002

Maximising Recycling Rates: Tackling Residuals.

Community Recycling Network.2000

More jobs, less damage: a framework for

sustainability growth and environment . Rees W E

(1995) Alternatives, 21 (4)

No Time to Waste. MacKenzie District Council- com-

munity flyer. 2002

No Waste by 2010. 2002 Progress Report. ACT

NoWaste. www.nowaste.act.gov.au/strategy/

thestrategy.html

Nova Scotia: Too Good to Waste. A Summary of the

Nova Scotia Solid Waste-Resource Management Strategy.

www.gov.ns.ca/enla/emc/wasteman/strasumm.htm

Otorohanga Zero Waste Strategy. Towards a

cleaner, healthier and environmentally friendly

way of life. September 2002

Packaging for the Environment: A Partnership for

Progress. New York, Stilwell et al. 1991. American

Management Association

SECTION SIX: RESOURCES AND LINKS



Porirua City Council Zero Waste Resolution .

www.pcc.govt.nz

Putrescibles Report Summary. Zero Waste New

Zealand Trust . 2002

Recycling in New Zealand: A $100 million + Export

Industry. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust 2001

Re-Inventing Waste. Towards a London Waste

Strategy. Ecologika. 1998

Resourceful Communities. A Guide to Resource

Recovery Centres in New Zealand. W. Snow and J.

Dickinson, Envision New Zealand. July 2003.

Rodney District Council Draft Zero Waste Plan.

March 2002.

San Francisco Resolution for Zero Waste and 75%

Diversion Goal by 2010 grrn.org/zerowaste/ resolutions/sf_zw_resolution_9-29-02.pdf

San Francisco Zero Waste Implementation Plan.

City and County of San Francisco Department of the

Environment. 2003

Social Enterprise Guide to Recycling. Social

Enterprise London. 2002.

Survey of Recycling Businesses in the Auckland

Region.Waste Not Ltd Auckland. 1998

Tasman District Council Strategy Brochure.February 2001.

The End of Waste – Zero Waste by 2020. W Snow and

J Dickinson, Zero Waste New Zealand Trust. 2000

The “MacKenzie Model” of Solid Waste

Management. MacKenzie District Council. 2002

The Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation

Business Plan 2001-2004.

The New Zealand Waste Strategy. Towards zero

waste and a sustainable New Zealand. Ministry for the Environment. March 2002

The Impact of Waste Industry Consolidation on

Recycling . Peter Anderson, Joan Edwards, Michael

Garfield, Judi Gregory, Gary Liss, Eric Lombardi and Peter

Montague. MSW Magazine. June 2001

The Ten Cent Incentive to Recycle. Container

Recycling Institute. 2003

The WRAP Business Plan. Creating markets for

recycled resources.Waste and Resources Action Plan. June 2001.

The Zero Waste Workbook: A Toolkit for Zero

Waste Communities. Prepared by Elizabeth Citrino for

the Californian Resource Recovery Association and the

USEPA, Region 9. Completion date 2004.

Towards a Framework for Evaluating Packaging

Stewardship Programmes. Journal of Environmental

Planning and Management, 39 (4) 1996

Towards Zero Waste. A Materials Efficiency

Strategy for Victoria. EcoRecycle. March 2003

Towards Zero Waste Kovalam. A Draft Report.Greenpeace 2001. www.zerowastekovalam.org/

zerowaste%20final%20report.pdf

Town of Carrboro. A Resolution Supporting the

Creation of a Zero Waste Plan. 1999.

www.grrn.org/zerowaste/CZWRes.html

US Recycling Economic Information Study.

Prepared for the National Recycling Coalition by R. W,

Beck Inc. 2001

WAste 2020 Draft Strategy. Towards Zero Waste

by 2020. WAste 2020 Taskforce. Department of Environ-mental Protection. September 2000

Wasted Opportunity: A Closer Look at Landfills

and Incineration . Zero Waste New Zealand Trust 2001

Wasting and Recycling in the USA . Grass Roots

Recycling Network. 2000

We Can Go Beyond Recycling to Zero Waste.

Grass Roots Recycling Network. 2001

Working Towards Zero Waste (Media Release).

Government of South Australia. 22nd January 2003

Zero Waste. Robin Murray. Greenpeace. 2001

Zero Waste – Motion put to New Zealand Institute

of Architects AGM. Architext. April 2003.

Zero Waste – A new target and new approach for a

new century. Regional District of Nanaimo, British

Columbia.–www.rdn.bc.ca/garbage_recycle/garbage.asp

Zero Waste - A Powerful Driver for Sustainability .

Warren Snow. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust. 2000

Zero Waste by 2010. An Integrated Waste

Elimination Strategy for New South Wales. Nature

Conservation Council of New South Wales. http://

www.nccnsw.org.au/waste/context/

Zero Waste Council Report . Zero Waste New Zealand

Trust, July 2002. www.zerowaste.co.nz

Zero Waste New Zealand Campaign . Zero Waste New

Zealand Trust, September 2000

Zero Waste One Step at a Time. Recycling Council of British Columbia’s Zero Waste Working group. May 2002.

www.rcbc.ca



USEFUL LINKS

Bath and North East Somerset Council -

www.bathnes.gov.uk

BusinessCare- www.businesscare.org.nz

Canberra ACT NoWaste. www.nowaste.act.gov.au

City of Toronto - www.city.toronto.on.ca

Community Employment Group - www.ceg.govt.nz

Container Recycling Institute -

www.container-recycling.org

Envision New Zealand - www.envision-nz.com

Health Care Without Harm - www.noharm.org

GAIA - Global Anti Incineration Alliance

www.no-burn.org

Government of Nova Scotia - www.gov.ns.ca

Grass Roots Recycling Network - www.grrn.org

Institute For Local Self-Reliance www.ilsr.org

KWMN and Waste Movement (Korea)

www.waste21.or.kr

Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation.

www.mpsc.com

Ministry for the Environment - www.mfe.govt.nz

Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales,

Australia. - www.nccnsw.org.au

Regional District of Nainaimo, British Columbia. www.rdn.bc.ca

Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, Canada.

www.rdkb.com

San Francisco Environment - www.sfenvironment.org

South Australia EPA - www.environment.sa.gov.au/epa

Recycling Council of British Columbia -www.rcbc.ca

Recycling Operators of New Zealand - www.ronz.org.nz

Resources for the Future - www.rff.org

Target Zero Canada - www.targetzerocanada.org

The Bottle Bill Resource Guide - www.bottlebill.org

The Product Stewardship Institute, University of Massa-

chusetts/Lowell - www.productstewardshipinstitute.org

Towards Zero (Scotland) - www.towardszero.com

United States Environmental Protection Agency - Prod-

uct Stewardship - www.epa.gov/epr/index.htm

Waste Not Ltd - www.wastenot.co.nz

WasteMINZ - www.wasteminz.org.nz

West Australia EPA - www.environ.wa.gov.au

ZERI Institute - www.zeri.org

Zero Waste Alliance (USA) - www.zerowaste.org

Zero Waste America - www.zerowasteamerica.org

Zero Waste International Alliance - www.zwia.org

Zero Waste Kovalam - www.zerowastekovalam.org

Zero Waste New Zealand Trust - www.zerowaste.co.nz

Zero Waste North (Canada) - www.footprintbc.com

Road to Zero Waste

Documents

Transcript of Road to Zero Waste