Prevention Sharing minds, changing life styles Jean-Jacques Dohogne – ACR+ Summer School course – San Sebastian July 2011

Testing... Who buys at least once a month organic or ecological products? Who uses his reusable shopping bag 90% of times? Who is printing both sides 90% of times? Who is drinking tap water almost all the time? Who is composting at home or in the community?

Our consumption patterns...

… makes that we are literally eating away our planet and leaving a huge waste pile Spain 52% EU 38% 2099 data

Today Think globally, Act locally! Think Life Cycle, Close the Loop! Sustainable consumption and production Waste hierarchy, no trade off! Waste prevention benchmarking is key!

Think globally, Act locally! Think Life Cycle, Close the Loop! Sustainable consumption and production Waste hierarchy, no trade off! Waste prevention benchmarking is key!

Ecological rucksack Resource indicators Ecological Rucksack is the total quantity (in kg) of the natural material that is disturbed in its natural setting and thus considered the total input in order to generate a product - counted from the cradle to the point when the product is ready for use - minus the weight (in kg) of the product itself. In each product or service that we use, we are carrying "in a rucksack" the materials that were moved from their locations in nature to make the goods or services. These are called ecological rucksacks. The ecological rucksacks indicate the amounts of materials that were moved in nature to make the goods, and so the ecological rucksacks represent the degree of stress exerted by the goods on the environment. Here, MI is the ecological rucksack or material intensity, and Mi is the weight of the material in terms of kilograms, and Ri is the rucksack factor. The rucksack factor (or MI factor) is the amount (in kilograms) of materials moved to obtain 1 kilogram of the resource. For example, Steel: 21 (One kilogram of steel carries an ecological rucksack of 21 kilograms.), Aluminum: 85, Recycled Aluminum: 3.5, Gold: 540,000, Diamond: 53,000,000, Rubber: 5

540 tons natural materials Ecological rucksack 540 tons natural materials 1kg gold Resource indicators 10 tons kg WEEE 1kg gold Source: Umicore 2011

Ecological rucksack Resource indicators 85 kg natural materials 1kg Aluminium Resource indicators 1kg Aluminium 3,5 kg recycled aluminium Source: Umicore 2011

Ecological footprint 1900’ 1950’ 2010’ 6 ha 5,6 ha Productive surface available per person 2 ha 3 ha Ecological footprint of the rich countries per person 1,4 ha The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. An ecological footprint is a standard measurement of a unit’s influence on its habitat based on consumption and pollution.[1] It compares human demand with planet Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. For 2006, humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.4 planet Earths – in other words, humanity uses ecological services 1.4 times as fast as Earth can renew them.[2] Every year, this number is recalculated — with a three year lag due to the time it takes for the UN to collect and publish all the underlying statistics. While the term ecological footprint is widely used,[3] methods of measurement vary. However, calculation standards are now emerging to make results more comparable and consistent.[ The first academic publication about the ecological footprint was by William Rees in 1992.[5] The ecological footprint concept and calculation method was developed as the PhD dissertation of Mathis Wackernagel, under Rees' supervision at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, from 1990–1994.[6] Originally, Wackernagel and Rees called the concept "appropriated carrying capacity".[7] To make the idea more accessible, Rees came up with the term "ecological footprint," inspired by a computer technician who praised his new computer's "small footprint on the desk."[8] In early 1996, Wackernagel and Rees published the book Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.[9] Ecological footprint analysis compares human demand on nature with the biosphere's ability to regenerate resources and provide services. It does this by assessing the biologically productive land and marine area required to produce the resources a population consumes and absorb the corresponding waste, using prevailing technology. Footprint values at the end of a survey are categorized for Carbon, Food, Housing, and Goods and Services as well as the total footprint number of Earths needed to sustain the world's population at that level of consumption. This approach can also be applied to an activity such as the manufacturing of a product or driving of a car. This resource accounting is similar to life cycle analysis wherein the consumption of energy, biomass (food, fiber), building material, water and other resources are converted into a normalized measure of land area called 'global hectares' (gha). 1 ha 1900’ 1950’ 2010’

Municipal waste – top of iceberg 600 kg 500 kg 3500 kg Industrial waste Switch to vegetarian diet reduces the resource consumption per person per year with 1600 kg Resource indicators 2900 kg Resources 50.000 kg 41.500 kg Source: ACR+, 2011

When will we reach ‘peak oil’? Resource indicators

Wake up – we reach several peaks!! Depletion Main area of usage 2006-2026 2055-2100 Energy generation, chemical industry,… 2010-2025 2075 Energy generation 3500 kg 2100 2160-2210 Energy generation Resource indicators Passed? Drinking, agriculture, industry,… 50.000 kg Platinum 2020 Electronics, industry, medicine Silver 2020-2030 Electronics, pharmaceuticals Source: ITRE, 2009

“The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them” - quote Albert Einstein Resource indicators

Think globally, Act locally! Think Life Cycle, Close the Loop! Sustainable consumption and production Waste hierarchy, no trade off! Waste prevention benchmarking is key!

Cradle to grave system Life cycle thinking Take Make Waste Resource Product Waste

Technological & Biological Cycle of products Life Cycle Thinking Cradle2Cradle Redesign Rethink Reduce Technological & Biological Cycle of products Resources Products Waste Resources Waste Life cycle thinking Recycle Reuse Life cycle thinking seeks to identify improvements and to lower the environmental impacts of a product or service at all stages across its life cycle: from raw materal extraction and conversion, product manufacture, through distribution, use and eventual fate at end-of-life Repair Source: ACR+, 2011

Life Cycle Thinking Life cycle thinking Prepare for reuse Reuse Selling/ donate PRODUCT 2nd LIFE & more PRODUCT 1st LIFE RESOURCES WASTE Recycled materials Life cycle thinking ¨PARTS/ MATERIALS OTHER NEW PRODUCT Redesign Redesign for durability Redesign for repair Redesign for recycling & less hazardous materials In relation to waste the following measures are considered for the revised SCP/SIP: Ecodesign requirements for recycled content, recyclability, durability for priority product categories Horizontal eco-design criteria for packaging Extended warranty and support for product repair schemes for selected product categories Promote durability / banning of planned obsolescence General requirement for default setting of products Recycling Source: ACR+, 2011

Think globally, Act locally! Think Life Cycle, Close the Loop! Sustainable consumption and production Waste hierarchy, no trade off! Waste prevention benchmarking is key!

Sust. Cons & Prod. Action Plan Review prospects 2012 Eco-design requirements for recycled content, recyclability, durability … Eco-design criteria for packaging Extended warranty and support for product repair schemes Promote durability/ banning of planned obsolescence … Sustaineble Cons. & Prod. Source: DEFRA 2009

Sustaineble Cons. & Prod. How many of the consumers in Europe buy green products? Who says more than 30%? Sustaineble Cons. & Prod. Source: DEFRA 2009

75% know what a green product is Green Behavior Segments 95% would buy green 75% know what a green product is 63% looking for green Sustaineble Cons. & Prod. 47% saw green products 22% bought green Source: 2009 GMA/Deloitte Green Shopper Study, studied > than 6,000 shopper experiences in 11 major retailers

Think globally, Act locally! Think Life Cycle, Close the Loop! Sustainable consumption and production Waste hierarchy, no trade off! Waste prevention benchmarking is key!

Waste hierarchy Waste hierarchy A labels B C D E Waste prevention More efficient Strict avoidance A labels Waste prevention Reduction at source Waste minimi-sation Reuse Waste hierarchy B Prepare for reuse C Recycling Art.3 of ‘New Waste Framework Directive’ "Prevention" is defined as any measure taken before a substance, material or product has become waste, which reduces:  the quantity of waste, including through the re-use of products or the extension of the life span of products; the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and human health; or the content of harmful substances in materials and products; Strict avoidance   Examples: At producer level: through eliminating interim packaging for cosmetics and toothpaste, and avoiding materials that are hazardous to humans or to the environment. At consumer level: by not purchasing unnecessary goods, by buying services rather than goods, by using refill systems and by preventing delivery of unwanted mail. Reduction at source At producer level: by using smaller amounts of resources to provide the same product or service, for example by reducing foil thickness. At consumer level: by buying less hazardous goods, by avoiding the purchase of heavily packaged goods and by purchasing goods that are lighter, more compact and more durable. Reuse Using shopping bags more than once, domestic reuse of containers, and donation of goods to charities. Preparing for re-use EC definition: Preparing for re-use means checking, cleaning or repairing recovery operations, by which products or components of products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be re-used without any other pre-processing. D Inciner. + energy rec. E Lanfilling Less efficient

Treating waste as a resource 2030 targets considered in the EC Roadmap Resource Efficiency 2009 2030 Recycling & composting = 42% Prevention = 15% Prepare for reuse/Recycling & composting = 80/90% Waste hierarchy Incineration = 20% Flanders 2010 = 73% Landfilling = 38% Art.3 of ‘New Waste Framework Directive’ "Prevention" is defined as any measure taken before a substance, material or product has become waste, which reduces:  the content of harmful substances in materials and products; the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and human health; or the quantity of waste, including through the re-use of products or the extension of the life span of products;  Examples: Strict avoidance   At consumer level: by not purchasing unnecessary goods, by buying services rather than goods, by using refill systems and by preventing delivery of unwanted mail.  At producer level: through eliminating interim packaging for cosmetics and toothpaste, and avoiding materials that are hazardous to humans or to the environment. Reduction at source At consumer level: by buying less hazardous goods, by avoiding the purchase of heavily packaged goods and by purchasing goods that are lighter, more compact and more durable.  At producer level: by using smaller amounts of resources to provide the same product or service, for example by reducing foil thickness. Reuse  Using shopping bags more than once, domestic reuse of containers, and donation of goods to charities.  EC definition: Preparing for re-use means checking, cleaning or repairing recovery operations, by which products or components of products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be re-used without any other pre-processing. Preparing for re-use Incineration = 5-10% Landfilling = 5 % Source: waste issues in the context of resource efficiency -Pavel Misiga (EU 2011)

Roadmap towards sustainability ‘Requires managed austerity & design philosophy’ Product life time doubled or tripled Energy consumption/ cap like 1960s/ 1970s Recycling overall 90% Measure of performance Waste hierarchy Product life time increase by > 50% EU strategy on prevention & recycling Aims to limit waste production; no overall waste prevention target Main focus: reducing the environmental impact of waste and products that will become waste To be effective: reduced impact must be at every stage of the life-cycle Life-cycle thinking requires an improved knowledge of the impact of resource use on waste generation and management Energy consumption/ cap like 1950s/ 1960s Recycling overall 50% 2010 2020 2030 Source: TNO, 2010

Secondary raw materials Useful economic instruments Eco-taxes Deposit refunds EPR fees Products Green certificates Incineration taxes Raw material taxes Raw materials Waste Incineration Life cycle Waste hierarchy Disposal Disposal taxes Recycled products Selective collection Tax rebates Waste collection taxes (PAYT) Secondary raw materials Tax rebates

Think globally, Act locally! Think Life Cycle, Close the Loop! Sustainable consumption and production Waste hierarchy, no trade off! Waste prevention benchmarking is key!

Is Spain producing above EU27 average MSW? Waste prevention EU 27 (2009)= 505 kg/inh/y Spain (2009)= 545 kg/inh/y

We can reduce with 100 kg/inh/y!

Waste generation EU 15 in kg/inh/y Waste generation EU 15 in kg/inh/y ACR+ -100 kg benchmark Waste generation EU 15 in kg/inh/y (with prevention) Waste generation EU 15 in kg/inh/y Waste prevention -100 kg or -15% 600 kg/inh/y 500 kg/inh/y

Waste hierarchy detailed Complete prevention of waste generation by reducing material intensity in production & consumption A++ Strict avoidance Multiple use of a product in its original form, for its original purpose or for an alternative, with or without reconditioning Minimising material cosumption Waste prevention Waste prevention A+ Reduction at source Reuse A

Waste prevention as a multi-instrumental approach How? Legal instruments Economic instruments Educational instruments Communication tools Technical instruments and technologies Why? Resources (saving material and energy resources) Climate change (reducing GHG emissions) Socio-economic (creating sustainable jobs & lifestyles) Financial (saving money) Waste prevention

Think globally, Act locally! Think Life Cycle, Close the Loop! Sustainable consumption and production Waste hierarchy, no trade off! Waste prevention benchmarking is key!

Waste prevention cases Benchmarking? What? “Systematic research into the waste prevention activity performances and the underlying processess and methods of one or more leading reference bodies in a certain field, and the comparison of one’s own performance and operating methods with these ‘best practices’, with the goal of locating and improving one’s own performance” Waste prevention cases Consequently, waste prevention benchmarking is a systematic process - it must have a framework and use a standard set of attributes that are measurable must be performed in a specific area or activity in relation to waste prevention must help to identify and adopt best known practices that can lead to improved performance. A benchmark is different from the adoption of targets and/or indicators in the sense that it is a reference, comparison method that allows for performance measurement. However, benchmarking is more than just running a comparative analysis or copying strategies. It is a matter of understanding those practices that make organizations the best-in-class and then adapting those practices for own use. To have a quantitative European reference Transfer successful know-how, concepts and instruments Compare cities and regions programmes, including quantitative data A flexible measuring tool taking into account differing realities Focuses on continual improvement.

Waste prevention cases ACR+ -100 kg benchmark Per waste stream Waste generation (kg/inh./y) Potential waste quantitative benchmark All Waste 600 100 Bio-waste 220 40 Paper waste 15 Packaging waste 150 25 Bulky & other waste 130 20 Waste prevention cases

Waste prevention cases Benchmarking - cases Waste prevention cases Composting Food waste Donations Unwanted mail Real nappies Sharing resources and time Waste aware shopping

Bio-waste, best practices Definition “Bio-waste” ACR+ -100 kg benchmark Bio-waste, best practices Bio-waste generation (kg/inh./y) Potential bio-waste quantitative benchmark 1 Bio-waste 220 40 Green scaping 10 Smart gardening Smart food consumption Home, community & on-site composting 20 Waste prevention cases Definition “Bio-waste” “Biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises and comparable waste from processing plants”

Bio-waste, best practices ACR+ -100 kg benchmark Bio-waste, best practices Reduce Home composting Reduce Smart gardening Reuse Food banks Waste prevention cases 39

On-site leave composting Royal Parks (UK) Waste reduction Target 100% leave waste by 2005 Result 100% of the leave waste composted Waste prevention cases 10.000 trees 3000m3 green waste 1800m3 compost  

CO2 emissions down by 25200 tons Food redistribution Fareshare (UK) Participation Target 100.000 vulnerable people 6000 volunteers 2200 community org. & charities Result 25.000 people benefit every day Waste prevention cases Waste reduction   Target Redistribute 20.000 tons of food/y Result CO2 emissions down by 25200 tons 10.500 tons of food redistributed

Is home composting waste prevention? Kent Council (UK) Participation Target 35% of the HHLDs by 2010/11 Result Is home composting waste prevention? 34% of HHLDs in 2008 Waste reduction Waste prevention cases Target Results   18500 biowaste reduction 103.000 compost bins sold 250 active compost advisors Residual waste from 733 to 704kg/hhld/y 13875 biowaste reduction 75000 compost bins sold 185kg biowaste composted/hhld/y

Packaging waste, best practices Get rid of one way packaging ACR+ -100 kg benchmark Packaging waste, best practices Get rid of one way packaging Packaging waste generation (kg/inh./y) Potential packaging waste quantitative benckmark 2 Packaging Waste 150 25 Encourage refillable/ returnable bottles 12 Promoting tap water Encouraging reusable bags 1 Fighting excess packaging 10 Waste prevention cases

Waste prevention cases ACR+ -100 kg benchmark Packaging waste, best practices Reduction at source Strict avoidance Reuse Waste prevention cases

Waste prevention cases Marks & spencer PlanA (UK) Participation Target All M&S shops 92 reduction Result 100% Waste reduction Waste prevention cases Target Reduce weight of non-glass packaging by 25% by 2012 Reduce single use carrier bag by 33% by 2010  Sometimes the answer's so simple it's staring you in the face. For this packaging project, we just took the tray out of the pack of beans. Instant 92% reduction! We're continuing this approach across our vegetables and fruit lines Results Non-glass packaging reduced by an average of 20% (from 25gr to 20gr) Single use carrier bags decreased by 64%

Packaging optimisation Negative Environm .impact Optimum Pack design Waste prevention cases Minimal Environm. impact Underpacking Overpacking Minimum material

Waste prevention cases Levy on plastic bags Ireland – nation wide Waste reduction Target 90% reduction in single-use plastic Bags by 2002 Results 94% reduction or 328 21 single–use bags/inh/y 1.2 billion 72 million single-use bags per year Waste prevention cases   Levy 2002 = 0,15% Levy 2007 (reviewed) = 0,22%

CO2 emissions down by 10 tons Public water fountain Municipality of Castelfidardo(IT) Mineral & sparkling water Participation Target All inhabitants (19.000 inh) Result 5% or 800 inhabitants Waste reduction Waste prevention cases 300.000 liter/y tapped corresponding to 200.000 bottles of PET (1,5l) prevented or 6000 kg of PET Results   CO2 emissions down by 10 tons Investment cost = 23.364 Euros

Paper waste, best practices ACR+ -100 kg benchmark Paper waste, best practices Paper waste generation (kg/inh./y) Potential paper waste quantitative benckmark 3 Paper Waste 100 15 Reducing unwanted and unaddressed mail 4 Encouraging dematerialisation through ICT 9 Reducing kitchen, tissue and towel paper 2 Waste prevention cases

Waste prevention cases ACR+ -100 kg benchmark Paper waste, best practices Reduction at source Strict avoidance Reuse Waste prevention cases

Office paper use reduction Public company AMIAT in Turin (IT) Participation Target 350 employees Result 100% Waste prevention cases Waste reduction Measures Draft mode printing Two sides copies Reuse one-sided copies Reuse enveloppes Use digital documents Email : do not print the mail if not necessary, … Results   Paper use went down by 80% 35 tons/y 7 tons/y or 100kg/empl/y 20 kg/empl/y

Flanders: 10% of population has a sticker No junk mail North London (UK) Flanders: 10% of population has a sticker Participation Waste reduction Target Results Waste prevention cases 10% of the population 18kg/hhld/y paper waste prevented   Result 7% of the population

Bulky waste, best practices ACR+ -100 kg benchmark Bulky waste, best practices Bulky waste generation (kg/inh./y) Potential bulky waste quantitative benckmark 4 Bulky waste 52 40 Promote textiles waste prevention 15 Promote furniture waste prevention 20 Promote WEEE prevention 17 Waste prevention cases

Bulky waste, best practices ACR+ -100 kg benchmark Bulky waste, best practices Reduction at source Borrowing library Avoidance Dry cleaning Reuse Waste prevention cases Community laundries Sweden

Textile Waste prevention North Wales (UK) Participation Result 14 large and national charities operating 69 shops distributed over the North Welsh territory Waste reduction Waste prevention cases Results 1543 tonnes (2.25kg/inh/y) or 8,6% the potential total amount of waste textiles in North Wales were collected. 226 tonnes (0.33 kg/inh/y) or 15% were sold to the public and 85% or 1317 tonnes were sold to textile merchants as ‘charity rag’.  

Textile Waste management Collection Processing Commercialise Sales to clients 30 to 40% International projects Containers Street Retailers Schools Door-to-door Voluntary bring Treatment process Sorting Labelling Cleaning Cutting Baling …   50 to 55% Recycling Incinerated/ landfilled 10 to 15%

Waste prevention cases Reuse association AERSS Spain Total of 6327 tons reused Participation 5061 persons involved (employees + volunteers) Result Waste prevention cases Waste reduction Results Per year Collected Reused   +/- 11% reused Furniture 19.600 tons 2.196 tons +/- 10% reused WEEE 5.293 tons 506 tons Textile +/- 30% reused 10.284 tons 3193 tons

Reusable nappies in nurseries Sant Cugat del Vallès (SP) Waste reduction Target 150kg/child/y or 34 Tons/y (228 pupils) Results 126kg/child/y or 28 Tons/y (228 pupils) Year 1: 7 nappies/day - Year 2: 5 nappies/day +/- 6000 nappies/ child till 2,5 year Waste prevention cases  

Waste prevention cases Redistributing paint Community RePaint scheme (UK) Participation 2292 community groups received paint 10424 individuals received paint 82 full time jobs created 72 part time jobs created 132 volunteers assisting 366 million liters paint sold/y 55 million unused/ stored,… Waste reduction Waste prevention cases 316.641 liters of paint collected 215.848 liters of paint redistributed   Market value of waste diverted = 1,5 million Euro

Together we can make a change