Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Update to SWMCB European Benchmarks Sigurd Scheurle – 3-25-2009."— Presentation transcript:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 NL Waste and GNP in 1985-2003

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

19 NL GHG Analysis

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

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



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

25 THANK YOU !! Questions ?

Download ppt "Update to SWMCB European Benchmarks Sigurd Scheurle – 3-25-2009."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google