GETTING THERE!

The Road to Zero Waste

o Wa
er 2020 s

te
Z

Strategies for Sustainable Communities

Prepared for Zero Waste New Zealand Trust

by

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

mailbox@envision-nz.com

For:

PO Box 33 1695

Takapuna

Auckland

mailbox@zerowaste.co.nz

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

1
 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.

2
 INTRODUCTION
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
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
3
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.
- 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 countries,
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.
 SECTION ONE: THE ZERO WASTE
JOURNEY SO FAR
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 perfect
Zero 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

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 2001
5
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

4
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 were
largely 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.
• • • waste accumulate. Cheap waste disposal to landfills
“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 Spiegelman6
• • • of “Integrated Waste Management” has served to main-
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 Waste
campaign in New Zealand. Since then it has spread to
communities and other countries around the world.
6
Beyond Recycling:The Future of Waste. Enough! Spring 2000.The Centre for the New American Dream’s quarterly magazine
7
Zero Waste New Zealand Trust , 2002. www.zerowaste.co.nz
5
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
(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
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
the more reasonable assumption …is that any BENEFITS TO NEW ZEALAND OF ZERO WASTE
liner will begin to leak eventually.”8
Tourism
• • • Our clean environment is our nation’s biggest asset -
inextricably linked to the success of our export and
THE SOLUTION tourism industries. The international perception of New
Zealand as a clean green country and a clean source of
A crisis demands action - a breakthrough! And the
breakthrough strategy for solving our waste crisis is a food for the world is worth fighting for.
very simple one - Zero Waste is a “whole system” Exports
approach to redesigning resource flows comprised of an
underpinning philosophy, a clear vision, and a call to Zero Waste is a powerful signal to our overseas markets
action - all based on the notion that we CAN eliminate that New Zealand’s primary produce comes from an
waste. Zero Waste is a clear vision for eliminating waste environment with less of the health hazards associated
that: with landfill leachate contamination. Even the percep-
tion of food contamination is a serious threat.
1. Has concrete goals
Imports
2. Is a single call to action
By recycling and reusing the maximum amount of
3. Engages the national psyche materials and products we will significantly cut down
on imported materials and make sure that those we do
4. Predicts and redesigns the future
import are used to the full.
5. Creates a climate of continual improvement

6. Out - competes existing waste disposal methods Global Warming/Climate Change

7. Creates a new economic model enabling the market Landfills are a source of greenhouse gas emissions.
to drive the change 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
Zero Waste is a whole-system approach to ad- landfill 0.8 metric tonnes of carbon equivalent are
dressing the problem of society’s unsustainable saved10. No other avenue for reducing these emissions
resource flows. Zero Waste encompasses waste provides such a range of other positive outcomes.
elimination at source through product design and Local Economic Development
producer responsibility, and waste reduction
strategies further down the supply chain such as Hard-hit communities are already taking control of a
Cleaner Production, product dismantling, recy- huge untapped, and increasingly valuable resource - to
cling, re-use and composting. Communities that create local businesses, and wealth, from waste11.
implement Zero Waste strategies are aiming to
switch from wasteful and damaging waste dis- Employment
posal methods to value-added resource recovery An economic sleeping giant will be awakened through
systems that will help build sustainable local reuse of the vast quantities of separated materials that
economies. As such Zero Waste is in complete will come on stream - creating a huge labour market. The
opposition to landfilling and incineration.9 recovered-materials industry in New Zealand is already a
significant part of the economy12.
• • •
Reduced Liability
A National Vision of Zero Waste
Our long-term waste disposal costs will be greatly
By setting a national target of ‘Towards Zero Waste’, New
reduced - and we will take the burden of cleaning up
Zealand became the first country to aim to eliminate,
leachate- contaminated waterways and polluted beaches
rather than manage waste. We can potentially gain
from future generations.
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.
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 Consulting
9
Wasted Opportunity: A Closer Look at Landfilling and Incineration. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust, 2001
10
Zero Waste . Robin Murray. Greenpeace Environmental Trust. 2002 . Wasted Opportunity: A Closer Look at Landfilling and Incineration. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust 2001
11
Creating Wealth from Waste. Robin Murray. Demos 1999
12
Survey of Recycling Businesses in the Auckland Region. Waste Not Ltd Auckland. 1998

6
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.
7
• 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 concept
of 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
8
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 more
time 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 The first councils to adopt Zero Waste targets (in 1998)
recognised the validity of the Zero Waste campaign and were Opotiki District Council and Christchurch City
took the first step away from management, to elimina- Council – the early adopters in the Zero Waste story, and
tion of waste. No other country had gone so far as to two of the most successful. Christchurch adopted Zero
make Zero Waste a national goal. Waste independently of the Zero Waste campaign. As
part of the campaign, presentations were made to
The Zero Waste campaign in New Zealand has been councils, Rotary Clubs, public meetings, workshops and
supported by three key strategic initiatives. conferences around the country and the Zero Waste
message began to filter out to other communities. In
1. Supporting the Community Sector 1999 Zero Waste New Zealand challenged the rest of
New Zealand’s 74 district and city councils to adopt
There is an active community sector in New Zealand led
‘Zero Waste by 2015’ targets, offering the first ten that
by practical, far-sighted individuals who have tried to fill
accepted the challenge, technical, networking and
the vacuum resulting from the ‘hands-off’ Government
financial support. The response was enthusiastic and by
style of the 1980’s and taken ownership of problems in
mid 2000, 25 councils had committed to Zero Waste. No
their communities. These people intuitively understand
further funding was provided after this time but coun-
the power of Zero Waste as a motivator - and the need
cils kept on adopting Zero Waste targets and now 51%
for urgent change.They have an urgency to stop wasted
have done so. The momentum continues with more
resources filling up landfills - and instead use them to
councils indicating their intention of adopting Zero
create local jobs and small businesses.
Waste targets in the near future.
These people know that recycling and resource recov-
ery on their own are not enough to create a Zero Waste
Criteria for Councils adopting Zero Waste policies
society. They see and deal with a growing avalanche of
developed by Zero Waste New Zealand Trust in
non-recoverable materials on a daily basis and know that
1999:
the solution lies with product design and Extended
Producer Responsibility. But they also know that action a) A minuted resolution from a full Council meeting
must be taken to recover materials and products that confirms Council’s commitment to a target of zero
can be reused and recycled, and that each community waste to landfill by 2015, with a review in 2010 (to
must build the infrastructure for a sustainable materials allow Council to re-evaluate the Zero Waste target
economy at the local level. in relation to its obligations under the Local Gov-
The community pioneers have been under-funded and, ernment Act, Amendment No. 4)
in the past, often dismissed as fringe elements. Zero
b) A commitment is made to full and open commu-
Waste New Zealand Trust with the support, and often
nity consultation and ownership of a Zero Waste
alongside, Community Employment Group has given
strategy involving community, council and business
these groups recognition, technical support, mentoring,
sector partnerships.
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 added
their 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.
9
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 and
to 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
13
Zero Waste New Zealand: Profile of a National Campaign. September 2000
14
Ministry for the Environment. December 2000
15
Robin Murray. Demos 1999
16
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)
17
Zero Waste Council Report, July 2002. Zero Waste New Zealand Trust
10
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
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 on
Zero 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
18
Architext. Issue 93, April 2003
11
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 has
embraced the concept and is beginning to ‘walk the talk’
by implementing its own Zero Waste strategy for
Parliament buildings.
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 flourishing in communities that have adopted Zero
Waste. At grassroots, council, private and corporate
level, 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 and
Recycling 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.
19
Wasting and Recycling in the USA. 2000
20
Brenda Platt and David Morris.The Economic Benefits of Recycling. Institute for Local Self Reliance. February 1993
21
See Zero Waste and Envision New Zealand websites
22
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
12
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 was
the 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)
Residual waste and
• Reduced the size of the recyclables collection
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 have
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 given
responsibility 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 collection
for town residents
(residual waste has to
be self-hauled to the
resource recovery
centre or a bin-hire
company employed)
• Fortnightly recyclables Enclosed Composting Unit
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
13
• 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
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)
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:

Dunedin City Council adopted its Zero Waste goal in • Mission fatigue on the part of councils and commu-
October 1999 and set about developing a long-term nity groups that have been leading the charge but
strategic implementation tool to help it achieve this. are out of energy and finances to carry on
Staff worked in partnership with Zero Waste Advisors • Consolidation of the waste industry as it fights the
from Waste Not Ltd and Meritec to develop the ‘Dunedin threat posed by increasingly effective community
Zero Waste Strategy Tool’, a computer spreadsheet waste reduction initiatives
system that provides a framework for turning the vision
of zero waste into practical initiatives. A suggested • Ineffective use of resources as national communi-
implementation programme was devised for Dunedin cation campaigns fail to capitalize on established
and the tool’‘genericised’ for use by other councils, community campaigns and the national Zero Waste
becoming’‘ZAP - Zero Waste Action Plan (see Appendix movement
4 for further details).
• Cynicism by the public at the lack of integrity
One of the between the vision of the Government’s Waste
priorities Strategy and its commitment to achieving it
identified through
the process was • Loss of New Zealand’s lead. Zero Waste is taking off
the establishment overseas - and New Zealand’s example has played a
of a Resource big part in this. It has been’‘the inspiration’ for
Recovery Centre. many other countries.
An upgrade of the
Green Island
Landfill to include
this and a Transfer
Resource Recovery Centre
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 Council

now estimates that it is recovering around 28% of its
residential waste.

23
The “MacKenzie Model” of solid waste management. MacKenzie District Council 2002
24
See Dunedin Case study in ‘Resourceful Communities. A Guide to Resource Recovery Centres in New Zealand.’ Envision 2003

14
 • Zero Waste Ireland
4 WHO ELSE IS GOING FOR
ZERO? • Zero Waste New Zealand Trust
www.zerowaste.co.nz
Zero Waste is rapidly spreading around the globe. Its
clear and uncompromising message is being embraced • Zero Waste North (Canada)
by different cultures – and at all levels of society – from www.footprintbc.com/zerowastenorth/
NGOs and recycling industry coalitions to local munici- A new organisation, Zero Waste International Alliance, is
palities, state, regional and national governments (see also being formed to link these campaigns, towns and
Appendix 2 for more information). cities and to help establish internationally recognised
Zero Waste policies have been adopted in: benchmarks and standards for Zero Waste.
www.zwia.org
Australia: Canberra ACT, Western Australia, South
Australia, Eurobodalla Shire Council, in New South Wales BUSINESSES
Canada: Toronto, Regional District of Kootenay Bound- Major international businesses that have adopted Zero
ary (British Columbia) , Regional district of Nanaimo Waste targets include:
(British Columbia)
• Ricoh Group
England: Bath and North East Summerset Council
• Toyota
India: Kovalam
• Interface Carpets
Philippines: Candon City- Ilocos Sur, Municipality of
San Isidro- Nueva Ecija, Municipality of Pilar –Sorsogon, • Bell Canada
Municipality of Linamon- Lanao del Norte, Municipality
• Kimberley Clark
of Sigma- Capiz
• DuPont Inc
USA: California, San Francisco City, Del Norte County –
California, Santa Cruz- California, Seattle-Washington, • Hewlett-Packard
Carrboro – North Carolina
• Honda Motor Corp
Growing numbers of campaigns run by NGOs and
recycling organisations are also promoting the Zero • Xerox Corp
Waste message around the world: These companies are becoming more competitive than
• Californian Resource Recovery Association their competitors - not only by drastically reducing
www.crra.com/newmill.html waste disposal costs but also by promoting sustainable
business practices and capturing customer loyalty.
• GAIA - Global Anti Incineration Alliance
www.no-burn.org • • •
• Grass Roots Recycling Network (USA) “The whole concept of industry’s dependence on
www.grrn.org ever faster once through flow of materials from
depletion to pollution is turning from a hallmark
• KWMN and waste Movement (Korea) of progress into a nagging signal of
www.waste21.or.kr/ or www.grrn.org/zerowaste/ uncompetitiveness.” Paul Hawken, Natural
kwmn.htm Capitalism
• 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

15
 SECTION TWO: THE ROAD TO ZERO WASTE
FOR 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-
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.
16
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.

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.
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

1. Adopt a Zero Waste target
policy follow.
2. Plan for success
3. Put the incentives in the right place Be inspirational. Create the community’s Zero Waste
4. Develop the infrastructure for vision in such a way that it will inspire people. Create a
o Wa
recycling and resource recovery
er 2020 s
te
logo (as Porirua City and Tasman District Councils have
Z

5. Engage the community

6. Walk the talk
done) and write a visioning document that articulates
7. Lobby to change the rules
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

7 Key Strategies for Communities
S T R AT 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 vision
sets 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 everyone
lined 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.
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 the
final 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.

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.

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’
17

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 programmes
introduced 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 dioxins
by 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 a
timeframe 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.
18
S T R AT 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 outlines
different 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 influence
and 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
19
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 keep
support 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 are
numerous ‘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 are
the players? Where are they situated? What services do
they provide? What do they need to enable them to
activate council’s new direction?
• • • council.
‘Identify community groups that can work with
council and develop robust working relationships
with these groups.’ Marian Shaw, Waitaki Re-
source Trust
• • • its wasted resources, it can manage them for local
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 flows 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
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 Facilities. Peter Anderson, Brenda Platt and Neil Seldman. Facts to Act On. No 42, November 2002
20
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
Maintain community ownership of the waste
(resource) stream
If the community maintains ownership or control over
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.
Understand the Economics of Zero Waste The following graphs show that in both giant (London)
and tiny (Kaikoura) communities a recycling and waste
One of the most commonly asked questions is whether
reduction-focused waste strategy provides significant
it will it cost more to implement a Zero Waste strategy
savings in the long run although it requires additional
than the current waste management system. This needs
investment at the outset.
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 Kaikoura Landfill Options
of spending enormous funds on landfilling valuable and
14,000,000.00
recyclable resources is driving change the move to Zero
12,000,000.00
Waste - as a cost reduction strategy. IWK Plan
10,000,000.00 Landfill/Transfer
2.The longer term economic benefits of
8,000,000.00
alternative systems $
6,000,000.00

The resource recovery industry is still relatively imma- 4,000,000.00

ture and has a long way to go before it can take us to
2,000,000.00
Zero Waste. It has to compete not only against the
existing wasting infrastructure that has been built over 0.00
02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

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 amount
of 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 initial
investment required to achieve long term savings and
returns to the community in terms of jobs and
business opportunities.
20
Year
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.

21
 • • •
“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.
• • •
Disposal of waste to landfill the core function
Waste Reduction and recycling the core function
S T R AT E G Y 3
PUT THE INCENTIVES
IN THE RIGHT PLACE
A continuous and continually changing flow of
initiatives, solutions and ideas are going to be required
to 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
22
(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.
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 have
bans 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.
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 clean
streams 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.

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 License waste collectors
community interest.
License waste collectors so that performance standards
can be enforced and accurate data collected on the
Ban toxic materials from landfill quantities and types of waste going to landfill.
Ban all materials that will create toxic leachate problems
The example in the section on landfill bans highlights
in the future. If the material is not currently recyclable,
the perils facing councils planning in a mixed economy
store it until pressure can be brought to bear on manu-
with some private sector operators. Councils are
23
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 waste
collectors 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 within
their 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.
24
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 reusable
materials. 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 assist
new 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 local
businesses 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.
 S T R AT 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.
25
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 from
75 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 in
areas 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 are
given 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.
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, recycling
drop-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 and
Parks 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 to
the 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.
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
26
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 a
pilot 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 the
scale.
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.
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 on
sustainability 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
recovery
It’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.
30
Creating Wealth from Waste, Demos 1999
27
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 collections
of 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 waste
is 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
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 Waste
concepts, 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 AT 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
31
Robin Murray, Zero Waste conference, Kaitaia, December 2000
28
• 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
• • • Create a Zero Waste fund (possibly funded through a
“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.
Rees32
• • •
32
Rees 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
29
“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 the
public 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
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)
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 District
Council 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.
Opotiki sign
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 AT 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.
34
Architext. Issue 93, April 2003
30
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 all
employees. 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 AT 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 is
that 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.
Councils, community groups and citizens, must remind • Plastic bag levies
designers, manufacturers, marketers and retailers of their
responsiblity to redesign material flows, and that there is • National measuring, monitoring and reporting on
not an endless supply of cheap waste disposal available our journey towards Zero Waste
and paid for by communities.

There is nothing more powerful in terms of the flow of

anything – whether it is water, oil, effluent or waste
materials 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 on
change. (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)

31
KEY STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITIES – SUMMARY TABLE
1. ADOPT A ZERO
2. PLAN FOR SUCCESS
WASTE TARGET
Be inspirational Involve the community in the
planning process
Set a target date Develop a Zero Waste task
force including community,
recyclers and industry to
turn council policy into an
implementation plan.
Set intermediate or Build public and political
stretch targets support for the plan
Align your Zero Waste Employ the right people to
and intermediate turn the plan into action
targets with the
government’s Waste
Strategy
Set targets for Map the recycling and resource
different sectors of recovery industry
the community
Change the language Know your community’s waste
stream
Identify – and work with the
big wasters
Identify the service gaps
Maintain community
ownership of the waste
(resource) stream
Learn from the leaders
Understand the economics of
Zero Waste
3. PUT THE INCENTIVES IN
THE RIGHT PLACE
Ensure all waste disposal fees
reflect the true cost of wasting.
Introduce extended operator
liability
Set differential pricing to
create financial incentives that
encourage resource recovery
and discourage wasting
Introduce Pay as You Throw
Ban recyclable materials from
landfill
Ban toxic materials from
landfill
Ensure all waste contracts
encourage recycling and
discourage wasting.
License waste collectors
Establish a local landfill levy or
surcharge
Develop demolition standards
Require deconstruction plans
Change zoning and incentives
for resource recovery facilities
Encourage recycling plans for
businesses
Develop resource recovery
facility standards
32
4. DEVELOP THE
INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR RECYCLING AND
RESOURCE RECOVERY
Match the wasting
infrastructure
Reduce the capacity of
residual waste bags and bins
Provide kerbside collections
to all householders.
Develop multiple-stream
collections
Develop Resource Recovery
Centres (or Parks with
‘feeder’ facilities
Get organic waste out of
the system as a priority
(foodwaste and greenwaste)
Establish or support local
processing plants for
recovered materials
Establish recyclable
collection systems for
business, schools and other
institutions
Provide convenient
household hazardous waste
recovery
Establish waste exchanges
Provide recycling facilities in
public places and events
Regular pick up of bulky
goods
Stockpile resources above
ground – rather than below
ground
Manage residuals through
the transition to Zero Waste
– eg mechanical biological
treatment
 5. ENGAGE (AND INSPIRE) THE
6. WALK THE TALK 7. LOBBY FOR NEW RULES
COMMUNITY

Publicise the community’s Zero Waste Adopt green procurement guidelines National landfill levy to help fund
policy and communicate the vision community waste initiatives

Provide Zero Waste advisory services Establish recycling systems within all Extended Producer Responsibility
for businesses Council operations including industry stewardship
programmes and container deposit
programmes

Promote consumer buying power and Link with (and enhance) other National landfill bans for recyclable
behaviour initiatives – eg eco-tourism and toxic materials

Collaborate nationally, regionally and Full cost accounting for waste disposal
with neighbouring councils to provide
consistent information

Be creative! National Zero Waste communication

campaign linking with community
campaigns
Encourage local innovation and Packaging levy
participation through a Zero Waste
fund

Develop joint ventures Minimum recycled content standards

Monitor, measure and publicise the Research and development grants/tax

results 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

33
 SECTION FOUR: THE ROAD TO ZERO
WASTE 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 significant
reductions 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. 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
5 Key Recommendations for NZ
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.
34
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 local
infrastructure 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 Australia
recently 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.
 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 been
included - 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 California
enabled Resource Recovery Centres to charge the
public to receive monitors that made it economically
viable to recycle them.
• • • equipment recycling regulation.
“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
• • • Columbia’s environment since being put in place in
Similarly, Vancouver imposed a landfill ban in the mid-
35
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 be
achieved 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 most
provinces. 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
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 household
paint, 300 thousand equivalent litres of household
flammable products, and 70 thousand equivalent litres
of household pesticides from entering British
1994 and 1996.
Alberta has eliminated tyres from going to landfill. The
5. A NATIONAL
Tire Recycling Management Association of Alberta is an
industry run organisation that receives and distributes a ZERO WASTE AGENCY
$3 per tyre levy paid by the purchasers of new tyres.
Robin Murray in his book ‘Creating Wealth from Waste’
The Director of Operations, Kevin O’Neil pointed out
eloquently puts the case for A Zero Waste Agency for the
recently that the levy has enabled the association to
UK and makes the comment that “Any profound change
support the development of a tyre recycling industry,
needs an entrepreneurial force to drive it”. Sixty eight
which in turn has resulted in almost 100% of all tyres
percent of the submissions on the New Zealand Waste
being recycled in Alberta. Over 200 people are em-
Strategy were also in favour of establishing a central
ployed in this emerging industry and Alberta is a leader
agency to drive new policy.
in tyre recycling technologies. For further information
see www.trma.com The Zero Waste Agency would be responsible for making
sure that the intermediate national targets are met and
Beverage Container Deposits that New Zealand is on target to achieve Zero Waste by
2020. The Zero Waste Agency would essentially be a
Although beverage container deposits or, as they are
cheerleading organisation, preferably just outside of
commonly known, ‘bottle bills’ can be implemented as
government in the same way that WRAP (Waste and
part of industry stewardship agreements they are
Resources Action Programme), a government organised,
summarised here separately because of their unique
non government organisation (GONGO) is separate
advantages as a stand-alone strategy regardless of how
from the UK Government. Closer to home the Energy
other regulations are implemented.
Efficiency and Conservation Authority is also a model.
The term ‘bottle bill’ is commonly used to describe a law
The Zero Waste Agency would have a clear mandate to
that requires a minimum refundable deposit on beer,
empower and harness the entrepreneurial forces within
soft drink and other beverage containers in order to
the community, business and institutional sectors to
insure a high rate of recycling or reuse. Deposits on
work together for the common goal of Zero Waste. The
beverage containers are not a new idea. The original
agency would also operate a fund to help develop the
deposit-refund system was created by the beverage
infrastructure for resource recovery around New
industry as a means of guaranteeing the return of their
Zealand, funded by a percentage of the national landfill
glass bottles to be washed, refilled and resold.
levy. No country in the world has had the conditions for
Our neighbours in South Australia have been running a aiming for Zero Waste more clearly established than
container deposit refund system since 1975 and have New Zealand.
recently expanded it to cover all drink containers apart
The recommended budget for the agency would be $10
from milk bottles (see ‘Who else is going for Zero’).
million per annum - of which $1million would be for
Canada also has excellent schemes (see appendix 3 for
administration, $1milllion for research and internally
further information)
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
“Society is telling us in unmistakeable terms that infrastructure on a matching grant basis. 50% of all
we share equally with the public, the grants made by the agency ($3.5million) must be for
responsibility for package retrieval and development of ‘up stream’ extended producer responsi-
disposal… This industry has spent hundreds of bility initiatives, such as design for the environment,
millions of dollars….in the attempt to dispute, reverse manufacturing, supply chain and logistics
deflect, or evade that message. It is interesting to projects, and stewardship programmes. Of the
speculate on the state of our public image, and remaining funds ($3.5 million), 50% ($1.75million)
our political fortunes had that same sum been would be targeted at assisting recycling businesses and
devoted to disposal or retrieval technology.” the remaining $1.75 million for local community
Dwight Reed, President National Soft based initiatives.
Drink Association

• • • No country in the world has had the conditions for

aiming for Zero Waste more clearly established than
The Ministry for the Environment would be responsible New Zealand.
for negotiating the Industry Stewardship Agreements
with Industry and could require a seat on the board of
each industry established Stewardship council.

36
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

37
 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 first
thing 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 shopping
centres, 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. The
export 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
38
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’ factories
using’‘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 the
end 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 Waste
society 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 progressive
bans 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
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
39
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 in
its 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 and
provide 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 continue
to 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.
 • • • of scale, particularly with reference to use of fossil fuels.
“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
• • • students gain first hand experience. Emphasis in the
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 local
resource 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 retail
into 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
40
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 Waste
principles as part of their basic curriculum and have
their own recycling systems in place to ensure that
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 is
increasingly 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 more
products 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
41
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 Zero Waste Industrial System

Value-Added Businesses Value-Added Businesses

• Converting and production processes often make • Educated by manufacturers about how to avoid
scrap materials non-recyclable contaminating processes

• 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
• 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

42
 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.

43

COUNCIL
Opotiki District Council
Christchurch City Council
Kaikoura District Council
Selwyn District Council
Kawerau District Council
Nelson City Council
Far North District Council
Timaru District Council
Dunedin City Council
Gisborne District Council
Palmerston North City
Council
Masterton District Council
Carteron District Council
South Wairarapa District
Council
Mackenzie District Council
Hastings District Council
Westland District Council
Wairoa District Council
Otorohanga District Council
Ashburton District Council
Appendix 1
ZERO WASTE COUNCILS
DATE POLICY
GOAL MAJOR NEW INITIATIVES WEBSITE
ADOPTED
2010 September 1998 -Capacity of rubbish bags reduced www.odc.govt.nz
- 3 Resource Recovery Centres
(RRCs)
-Kerbside recycling.
December 1998 - Recovered Materials Foundation www.ccc.govt.nz/waste/
established managementplan/wastemanagementp
-Extensive resource recovery lanforsolidandhazardouswaste.pdf *
facilities throughout the city
2015 March 1999 - Innovative Waste Kaikoura
established
- Resource recovery facilities at
landfill
- Financial incentives to recycle
2015 August 1999 - 3 stream collection and RRC www.selwyn.govt.nz
planned
2015 August 1999 - RRC at landfill www.kaweraudc.govt.nz
- Financial incentives to recycle
- Diversion of greenwaste from
landfill
2015 September 1999 - Investigation of regional www.nelsoncitycouncil.co.nz
resource recovery
- RRC established with local
community group
2015 October 1999 -Slash Trash communication www.farnorth.govt.nz
campaign
-Support for local community
group
2015 October 1999 -In-house Zero Waste programme www.timaru.govt.nz
- Developing RRC
2015 October 1999 - Zero Waste strategy www.cityofdunedin.com/city/
-New RRC ?page=feat_zero_waste *
-Kerbside recycling
2015 October 1999 -Education centre www.gdc.govt.nz
-Full user pays landfill costs
-Kerbside recycling
No date November 1999 - Pilot organic waste collection www.gdc.govt.nz/
programme
-Community education
- RRPark planned
2015 November 1999 -Regional recycling strategy www.mstn.govt.nz
developed
-Kerbside recycling
2015 Adopted with -Regional recycling strategy www.cartertondc.co.nz/
Masterton as a developed
regional strategy -Kerbside recycling
2015 Adopted with -Regional recycling strategy www.swdc.govt.nz
Masterton as a developed
regional strategy
2014 November 1999 -Zero Waste Plan www.mackenzie.govt.nz
-3 stream collection
-3 RRCs
2015 November 1999 -Upgrade of RRC at Transfer ww.hastingsdc.govt.nz
station
-Community education
2015 February 2000 -Public education www.westlanddc.govt.nz
- Development of low-tech
recycling systems
2015 March 2000 -Weighbridge at landfill www.wairoadc.govt.nz
-Recycling facilities at landfill
-Kerbside recycling
2015 March 2000 - Zero Waste strategy www.otodc.govt.nz/aspcommon/
- Kerbside recycling layout1/ *
-Community education
2015 April 2000 -Support for local community www.ashburtondc.govt.nz
group
-Education centre at RRC
-Kerbside recycling
44
 DATE POLICY
COUNCIL GOAL MAJOR NEW INITIATIVES WEBSITE
ADOPTED
Central Otago District 2015 March 2000 - Support for local community www.codc.govt.nz
Council group
- RRC
-Kerbside recycling
Whakatane District Council 2015 March 2000 -Public communication campaign www.whakatane.govt.nz
- RRC planned
-Community education
Tasman District Council 2015 April 2000 -Support for local community www.tdc.govt.nz/servicesandfacilities
group .asp?page=Zero%20Waste *
- RRC
-Community education
Thames Coromandel District 2015 April 2000 - Planning in progress www.thepeninsula.co.nz/tcdc
Council

Buller District Council
Hurunui District Council
Porirua City Council
Ruapehu District Council
North Shore City Council
Central Hawkes Bay District
Council
Kapiti Coast District Council
Waitaki District Council
Waimate District Council
Tauranga District Council
Western Bay of Plenty
District Council
Rodney District Council
Waimakariri
2015 May 2000 -Focus on removing greenwaste www.bullerdc.govt.nz
from waste stream
-Education programmes
2015 May 2000 -Support for local community www.hurunui.govt.nz
group
-RRC
-Community education
2015 May 2000 - Zero Waste Coordinator www.pcc.govt.nz *
employed
-Kerbside recycling
- RRC
2015 July 2000 - Resource recovery facilities at www.ruapehudc.govt.nz
landfill
-Education campaign
August 2001 -Community education www.northshorecity.govt.nz/our_
programme environment/waste_minimisation/
-Community waste minimisation default.htm *
fund
-Focus on C&D waste
2015 June 2001 - New contracts to encourage www.chbdc.govt.nz
source separation
2015 May 2001 -Modular drop-off designed www.kcdc.govt.nz
- RRC planned
-Diversion of greenwaste
2015 June 2001 -Kerbside recycling www.waitaki.net.nz/civic/wdc
-Education in schools
- RRC
2015 August 2001 -Resource recovery facilities www.waimate.org.nz/localgovt
being built
-Kerbside recycling
2015 Sept 2001 -Resource recovery facilities at www.tauranga.govt.nz/files/
transfer stations WasteManagementPlan.pdf
-School education programmes
-Kerbside recycling
2015 Sept 2001 - Greenwaste processing facilities www.wbopdc.govt.nz
planned
-Kerbside recycling
2020 December 2001 - Zero Waste Plan www.rodney.govt.nz/documents/
-Kerbside recycling zero%20waste%20plan.pdf *
-Zero Waste Coordinator
employed
2015 March 2003

Queenstown Lakes District pending May 2003 - New Waste Minimisation Officer www.qldc.govt.nz
Council employed

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

45
 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-
46
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 landfill
site closed in 2002 and waste has to be trucked to a
private landfill in Michigan, increasing disposal costs by
more than 300%.
47
‘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 and
that 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 tipping
fees 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 resource
recovery facilities
Local efforts to influence 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
48
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 waste
collection, 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 and
feasibility 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 East
Somerset, 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.
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 hazardous
and 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 and
contract 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

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
Seattle, Washington adopted Zero Waste as a guiding
principle in 1998, aiming to recycle 60% of all waste
generated 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

• 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,

49
 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 take
back 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)
50
• 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 council
recycling 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)
51
• 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, Wales
Mahlon 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, Philippines
Tony Watkins, New Zealand Institute of Architects
 Appendix 4
ZERO WASTE PLANNING TOOLS
1. URBAN ORE’S CLEAN DOZENSM
– 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 times
into 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 made
in 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.
52
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 Not
Ltd 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 minimisation
initiatives using:
-Tabulated summary of initiatives, waste diversion,
costs, employment and funding source.
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 -
wastenot@xtra.co.nz

-Specific local conditions.

-Timing considerations (some initiatives require

others to have started).

-Public consultation.

Key Area Description Initiatives (some examples)

- Kerbside Collections
Initiatives that deal directly with the waste stream. - Compost Operations
Take Direct Action
(16 initiatives). - Cleaner Production
- Recycling Facilities

- Extended Producer Responsibility

Legal and economic incentives to incentivise waste - Landfill Bans
Change the Rules
minimisation rather than disposal. (14). - Landfill Levy
- Purchasing Policies & Contracts

- Awards for Waste Minimisation

Creation of mechanisms to develop and test new social, - Research & Development
Foster New Ideas
technical and economic solutions. (5). - Pilot Schemes
- Educational Courses

- Buy Recycled Campaign

Communicate Informing the community of the issues, providing - Festivals & Events
& Educate opportunity for input and participation. (8). - Public Consultation
- Education Material & Programmes

- Waste Analysis Data

Assessment and reporting on waste stream
Monitor and - Participation Rate Surveys
characteristics and the success (or not) of zero waste
Feedback - Interim Goals
initiatives. (6).
- Waste Operator Licensing & Reporting

53
 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.
• • • household bulky items, composting or the public
“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
• • • reduction rates.
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.
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
education 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/
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

“In this industry landfill is top of the profit
hierarchy but bottom of the sustainable waste improvement. Contractors would undertake to achieve
management hierarchy.” Mal Williams 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-
Clean-Stream Contracts nities to improve performance in subsequent years.
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.
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.
54
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 contractor38) 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

55
 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 as
the 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.
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 MBT
plants 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
• • •

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

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
56
 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 inspired
huge 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.
57
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 a
recurrent 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 a
reason 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
58
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 soft
drink ‘deposit’ bottles to ‘no-deposit, no-return, one-way’
bottles and cans.
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 programs
that 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

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 in
total 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

59
 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.
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.

The basic knowledge of materials and use of handling

equipment that many of these people have are valuable
for 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.” Neil
Seldman, 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 was
at 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

60
 SECTION SIX: RESOURCES AND LINKS

RESOURCES Protection Authority. April

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
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

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
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

Building Savings. Strategies for waste Reduction of Independent Review of Container Deposit
Construction and demolition Debris from Legislation in New South Wales. Executive Summary.
Buildings. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation
www.epa.gov/osw
Program Overview , Sept 2002
Can Recycling Succeed When Landfills are
Maximising Recycling Rates: Tackling Residuals.
Permitted to Pollute?. Peter Anderson. Keynote speech
Community Recycling Network.2000
to the Colorado Summit for Recyclin.2002
More jobs, less damage: a framework for
Community Waste Prevention Toolkit. INFORM.
sustainability growth and environment. Rees W E
www.informinc.org/cwp_00.php
(1995) Alternatives, 21 (4)
Cool waste Management. A State of the Art
No Time to Waste. MacKenzie District Council- com-
Alternative to Incineration for Residual Municipal
munity flyer. 2002
Waste. Greenpeace Environmental Trust. 2003
No Waste by 2010. 2002 Progress Report. ACT
Creating Wealth from Waste. Robin Murray.
NoWaste. www.nowaste.act.gov.au/strategy/
Demos 1999
thestrategy.html
Del Norte Zero Waste Plan. Del Norte Solid Waste
Nova Scotia: Too Good to Waste. A Summary of the
Management Authority. 2000.
Nova Scotia Solid Waste-Resource Management Strategy.
www.grrn.org/reports/zwap/zwap.pdf
www.gov.ns.ca/enla/emc/wasteman/strasumm.htm
Don’t Throw Away That Food. Strategies for
Otorohanga Zero Waste Strategy. Towards a
Record Setting Waste Reduction. US Environmental
cleaner, healthier and environmentally friendly
protection Agency. www.epa.gov/osw
way of life. September 2002
Draft Metropolitan Adelaide Waste to Resources
Packaging for the Environment: A Partnership for
Plan – Infrastructure and Kerbside Services.
Progress. New York, Stilwell et al. 1991. American
Prepared by Nolan- ITU for the Environmental
Management Association
61
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.
62
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 - San Francisco Environment - www.sfenvironment.org
www.bathnes.gov.uk
South Australia EPA - www.environment.sa.gov.au/epa
BusinessCare- www.businesscare.org.nz
Recycling Council of British Columbia -www.rcbc.ca
Canberra ACT NoWaste. www.nowaste.act.gov.au
Recycling Operators of New Zealand - www.ronz.org.nz
City of Toronto - www.city.toronto.on.ca
Resources for the Future - www.rff.org
Community Employment Group - www.ceg.govt.nz
Target Zero Canada - www.targetzerocanada.org
Container Recycling Institute -
The Bottle Bill Resource Guide - www.bottlebill.org
www.container-recycling.org
The Product Stewardship Institute, University of Massa-
Envision New Zealand - www.envision-nz.com
chusetts/Lowell - www.productstewardshipinstitute.org
Health Care Without Harm - www.noharm.org
Towards Zero (Scotland) - www.towardszero.com
GAIA - Global Anti Incineration Alliance
United States Environmental Protection Agency - Prod-
www.no-burn.org
uct Stewardship - www.epa.gov/epr/index.htm
Government of Nova Scotia - www.gov.ns.ca
Waste Not Ltd - www.wastenot.co.nz
Grass Roots Recycling Network - www.grrn.org
WasteMINZ - www.wasteminz.org.nz
Institute For Local Self-Reliance www.ilsr.org
West Australia EPA - www.environ.wa.gov.au
KWMN and Waste Movement (Korea)
ZERI Institute - www.zeri.org
www.waste21.or.kr
Zero Waste Alliance (USA) - www.zerowaste.org
Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation.
www.mpsc.com Zero Waste America - www.zerowasteamerica.org

Ministry for the Environment - www.mfe.govt.nz Zero Waste International Alliance - www.zwia.org

Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, Zero Waste Kovalam - www.zerowastekovalam.org
Australia. - www.nccnsw.org.au Zero Waste New Zealand Trust - www.zerowaste.co.nz
Regional District of Nainaimo, British Columbia. Zero Waste North (Canada) - www.footprintbc.com
www.rdn.bc.ca
Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, Canada.
www.rdkb.com

63