Appendix F

Appendix F
July 2011

LIMITATIONS
The preparation of the Waste Assessment has relied on information from multiple sources,
including SWAP Analysis from the legacy councils, the Auckland Regional Council Waste
Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 2009, permits, contracts, consents, and annual reports.
The accuracy of these sources is contingent on the best information available at the time and
the degree of disclosure from the Waste Industry.
It is not possible to calculate, with any degree of precision, up-to-date tonnage and
composition of waste being disposed to landfill in the Auckland region without mandatory
industry disclosure. Information has also been sought from landfill and refuse transfer station
operators, who have no obligation to supply the requested information. In some instances
information has been voluntarily provided, however on others the requests have been declined
to supply information for this purpose.
Financial analysis and modelling has relied on the best financial information available at the
time of drafting of the waste assessment.
The proposed way forward, a rigorous analytical stepped process with continuous validation of
data, will mitigate the potential for discrepancies / errors in further waste minimisation
planning.

Page 1 of 591
Page 2 of 591
APPENDIX F - SUPPORTING REPORTS & DATA UPDATE
1. Auckland Council Waste Assessment data update pg 4
2. Social impacts of user charges for kerbside refuse pg 14
3. Issues papers for the draft Waste Management & Minimisation Plan pg 38
4. Evaluating potential transport inefficiencies in Auckland waste pg 141
5. Waste to energy for Auckland pg 228
6. Report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance Solid Waste pg 294
7. Reclaiming Aucklands Resources A resource recovery network for the
Auckland region pg 305
8. Consultation pg 402
a. Analysis of Local Board feedback on draft Waste Management
and Minimisation Plan issues (non-statutory) and copies of Local
Board and other Council feedback pg 403
b. Summary of pre-consultation sessions with waste operators
(non-statutory) pg 505
c. Integrated Report: Public Opinion Research and Engagement pg 515
d. Medical officer of health review of the waste assessment pg 574
SUPPORTING RESEARCH BACKGROUND PAPERS
Page 3 of 591
AUCKLAND COUNCIL WASTE ASSESSMENT DATA UPDATE
WASTENOT JULY 2011

Page 4 of 591

PAGE 1

Auckland Council
Waste Assessment
Data Update

Prepared for:
Auckland Council
Solid Waste Business Unit

August 2011
Page 5 of 591

UPDATE OF DATA
AUCKLAND COUNCIL WASTE ASSESSMENT

WASTE NOT CONSULTING
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 1
2 CHAPTER 3 THE WASTE PROBLEM.............................................................................................. 2
2.1 SECTION 3.2-1 TOTAL WASTE TO LANDFILL......................................................................................... 2
2.2 SECTION 3.4-2 COMPOSITION OF WASTE TO LANDFILL........................................................................ 3
2.3 SECTION 3.4-4 DOMESTIC KERBSIDE REFUSE IN THE AUCKLAND REGION.......................................... 4
2.4 SECTION 3.4-6 COUNCIL DOMESTIC KERBSIDE WASTE COMPOSITION................................................. 5
2.5 SECTION 3.5-1 KERBSIDE RECYCLING TONNAGE AND COMPOSITION............................................... 5
3 CHAPTER 5 FUTURE DEMAND........................................................................................................ 6
3.1 SECTION 5.8-2 FORECASTS.................................................................................................................... 6

Document quality control

Version Date Written by Approved by Distributed to
Final 1.6 9 August 2011 BM BM MF/PS - AC

Contact Details
Bruce Middleton
Director
Waste Not Consulting
PO Box 78 372, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1245
Ph: 09 360 5188
Email: bruce@wastenot.co.nz

Page 6 of 591

UPDATE OF DATA

PAGE 1
1 Introduction
The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requires all territorial authorities to have reviewed their
waste management and minimisation plans by 1 July 2012. Prior to this review, a waste
assessment, as required by s(51) of the Act, must be made.
Development of the Auckland Council waste assessment was initiated in 2009 under the
auspices of the Auckland Transition Agency. The waste assessment was finalised in early
2011, with the preferred strategic direction from the waste assessment being taken to the
council for consideration in February 2011.
A significant proportion of the waste-related data that was included in the waste assessment
was drawn from a document prepared by the former Auckland Region Council, the Auckland
Waste Stocktake & Strategic Assessment 2009 (ARC Stocktake).
1
The ARC Stocktake
document was initiated in mid-2009 and much of the data that it included was, for several
reasons, not up-to-date. As a result, much of the data in the waste assessment is, at the time of
writing (July 2011), from three to five years old. Given that the full effects of the 2008 global
economic crisis occurred in the 2009-2010 period, substantial changes in waste generation and
disposal took place between the generation of the data for the ARC Stocktake and the
preparation of the waste assessment.
This document updates the key data contained in the waste assessment. This new data will
provide an updated context for the draft Auckland Council Waste Management and
Minimisation Plan that is expected to be released in the near future.
The structure of this document is based on the structure of the waste assessment. Each section
heading and sub-heading in this update is the same as the relevant chapter in the waste
assessment.

1
Wilson, D., Middleton, B., Purchas, C. and Crowcroft, G. (2009) Prepared by Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd,
Waste Not Consulting Ltd, Sinclair Knight Merz for Auckland Regional Council. Auckland Regional Council Technical
Report 2009-107.
Page 7 of 591

UPDATE OF DATA

PAGE 2
2 Chapter 3 The waste problem
2.1 Section 3.2-1 Total waste to landfill
The estimates of total waste to landfill used in the waste assessment were taken from the 2009
ARC Stocktake report. The tonnages in the ARC Stocktake report were based on information
provided by the landfill operators to Auckland Regional Council specifically for the project.
The ARC Stocktake does not contain tonnages for individual landfills, but only aggregate
figures for all facilities. The tonnages for individual landfills in Table 3.2-1 of the waste
assessment were based on other data sources that have not been made available for the
preparation of this update.
To provide the necessary information for this update while preserving the commercial-
sensitivity of the data, Auckland Council engaged an independent third party to collect and
analyse historical and current information from the three major landfill operators in the
Auckland region (Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd Redvale landfill, EnviroWaste
Services Ltd Hampton Downs landfill, and Waste Disposal Services Whitford landfill).
Tonnage for Auckland Councils Claris landfill was provided separately by the council.
The information collected by the independent third party was provided to Auckland Council in
aggregated form so tonnages from individual landfills could not be identified. The information
included tonnages to landfill from both inside and outside the Auckland region, special wastes
and general wastes, and levy-paid and non-levy paid wastes.
In Table 2.1, the aggregate tonnages provided to Auckland Council by the independent third
party are identified in the second row as Updated tonnages. The tonnage for Claris landfill
has been added to this total for the 2010 data as Claris landfill was included in the 2007-2008
data.
Table 2.1 Updated tonnages to landfill from Auckland region
Total tonnes of waste to landfill from
Auckland region
1 July 2007 to
30 June 2008
1 January 2010 to
31 December 2010
ARC Stocktake report and Auckland
Council waste assessment
1,396,432 N/A
Updated tonnages 1,373,307 1,174,078

The tonnage used in the ARC Stocktake report for 2007-2008 was within 2% of the updated
tonnage for that period. The updated tonnage for 2010 indicates a 15% decrease in waste to
landfill during the two-year period (based on the updated tonnages for both periods). This
two-year period corresponds to the first two years following the global financial crisis that
began in 2008.

Page 8 of 591

UPDATE OF DATA

PAGE 3
Per capita annual disposal figures for the Auckland region are presented in Table 3.2-2 of the
waste assessment. Using Statistics NZ medium population projections for the Auckland
population in 2010, the updated figures are shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Updated tonnes per capita per annum of waste to landfill
Per capita per annum
tonnes to landfill
2002-2003 2007-2008 2010
Tonnes to landfill 1,050,000 1,396,432 1,174,078
Population of Auckland region 1,296,000 1,414,700 1,463,000
Tonnes per capita per annum 0.810 0.987 0.803

In accordance with the reduction in total waste to landfill, which is associated with the global
financial crisis, the per capita disposal of waste decreased between 2007-2008 and 2010 from
0.987 tonnes per capita to 0.803 tonnes per capita. The per capita reduction was on the order
of 19%.
2.2 Section 3.4-2 Composition of waste to landfill
The composition of waste to landfill in Table 3.4-1 of the waste assessment was taken from the
ARC Stocktake report and was based on 2006 surveys of the composition of waste being
disposed of at Redvale and Whitford landfills. The surveys are undertaken regularly as part of
the former Auckland Regional Councils resource consent conditions for the facilities and are
in the public domain.
Since the 2009 writing of the ARC Stocktake report, a waste composition survey at Redvale
landfill has been conducted and reported to the former Auckland Regional Council. By using
the same methodology for calculating the composition of waste to all landfills as was used in
the ARC Stocktake (which used the composition of general waste at Redvale as a surrogate
composition for the general waste at Hampton Downs landfill), the composition in Table 2.3
on the next page has been calculated. The categories used for the composition are those
recommended by the Ministry for the Environments Solid Waste Analysis Protocol 2002.
Page 9 of 591

UPDATE OF DATA

PAGE 4
Table 2.3 Estimated composition of Auckland region waste to landfill in 2010
Waste category Tonnes/year % of total
Paper 96,404 8.2%
Plastics 94,215 8.0%
Organics 228,069 19.4%
Ferrous metals 51,596 4.4%
Non-ferrous metals 8,638 0.7%
Glass 24,449 2.1%
Textiles 45,783 3.9%
Nappies & sanitary 37,962 3.2%
Rubble, concrete, etc. 109,886 9.4%
Timber 171,093 14.6%
Rubber 10,721 0.9%
Potentially hazardous 295,264 25.1%
Total 1,174,078 100.0%

2.3 Section 3.4-4 Domestic kerbside refuse in the Auckland region
In Table 3.4-3 of the waste assessment, the total waste stream is broken down into
Commercial waste and Domestic (kerbside) waste. For this update, in Table 2.4 below the
Domestic (kerbside) waste figure has been calculated by adding the most recent extrapolated
annual tonnage of Auckland Council kerbside refuse collections and an estimate of annual
tonnage collected by private waste operators.
The tonnage of Auckland Council kerbside refuse has been updated using an annualised
tonnage based on data from the first eight months since the formation of Auckland Council.
The private operators tonnage is based on licensed operator data from the former North Shore,
Rodney, and Waitakere areas and various data sources and estimates for the other areas. The
private operators tonnage used in the calculations is the best estimate available at the time of
writing.
Table 2.4 Sources of waste to landfills in the Auckland region
Source Tonnes/annum
2010
% of total
2010
% of total
2008
Commercial waste 925,488 79% 84%
Domestic (kerbside) waste 248,590 21% 16%
Total waste 1,174,078 100% 100%

The proportion of kerbside waste in the overall waste to landfill has increased substantially
since 2008. This is associated with the effects of the global financial crisis. In general,
economic downturns result in a greater proportional reduction of commercial waste than of
kerbside refuse.
Page 10 of 591

UPDATE OF DATA

PAGE 5
2.4 Section 3.4-6 Council domestic kerbside waste composition
The tonnage and composition of Auckland Council kerbside refuse in Table 3.4-5 of the waste
assessment have been updated using an annualised tonnage based on data from the first eight
months since the formation of Auckland Council and composition data from the most recent
waste composition surveys.
Table 2.5 Auckland Council domestic kerbside waste composition
Waste category Tonnes/annum % of total
Paper 20,526 10.5%
Plastics 21,816 11.2%
Organics 108,036 55.5%
Ferrous metals 3,946 2.0%
Non-ferrous metals 1,358 0.7%
Glass 3,534 1.8%
Textiles 7,118 3.7%
Nappies & sanitary 22,915 11.8%
Rubble, concrete, etc. 2,141 1.1%
Timber 1,519 0.8%
Rubber 205 0.1%
Potentially hazardous 1,449 0.7%
Total 194,564 100.0%

2.5 Section 3.5-1 Kerbside recycling tonnage and composition
The tonnage and composition of kerbside recycling included in the Table 3.5-1 of the waste
assessment were taken directly from the ARC Stocktake report. For the updated data in Table
2.6, the tonnages have been updated based on annualising the first 8 months of Auckland
Council data for total recyclable materials and contamination. The composition of recyclable
materials is the same as used in the waste assessment and has not been updated.
Table 2.6 Domestic kerbside recycling quantities for the Auckland region
Tonnes/annum % of total
HDPE 2,103 1.5%
PET 2,440 1.8%
Mixed plastic 2,992 2.2%
Subtotal plastics 7,552 5.5%
Aluminium cans 616 0.4%
Steel cans 3,475 2.5%
Paper/cardboard 65,122 47.4%
Glass 54,855 39.9%
Contamination 5,762 4.2%
Total 137,383 100.0%
Page 11 of 591

UPDATE OF DATA

PAGE 6
3 Chapter 5 Future demand
3.1 Section 5.8-2 Forecasts
The forecasts of waste to landfill in the waste assessment were based on three separate factors:
Recorded waste data projections were made based on data from a five-year period
Population growth Statistics NZ medium population growth scenario for Auckland
Council
GDP growth an estimated 3% annual increase in GDP was used as the basis for the same
growth in waste to landfill
The analysis of recorded landfill data has been changed from the waste assessment with the
use of an extended dataset of waste to landfill.. In Figure 3.1 below this extended historical
dataset, which dates to 1984
2
, has been graphed and a linear trendline calculated. The data
used for the figure also includes the tonnages given in Table 3.2-2 in the waste assessment and
Table 2.2 in this document.
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
1
9
8
4
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
8
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
6
1
9
9
8
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
8
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
8
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
2
T
o
n
n
e
s

t
o

l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Historical data
Linear trendline

Figure 3.1 Auckland region waste to landfill recorded data projections
The historical data clearly shows the effect of the economic downturn of the early 1990s and
the global financial crisis of 2008. If the trend from 1984-2010 continues, by 2021 1.7 million
tonnes of waste will be disposed of to landfill annually.

2
Auckland Regional Waste Stream Report 1995 ARC Technical Publication no. 72 1996
Page 12 of 591

UPDATE OF DATA

PAGE 7
The data from the trendline in Figure 3.1 has been included in the combined projections shown
in Figure 3.2, which updates Figure 5.8-2 in the waste assessment. The figure includes
projections based on the following:
Recorded waste data trendline taken from Figure 3.1. This varies markedly from the
Recorded data projection in Figure 5.8-2 of the waste assessment because a larger historical
dataset has been used.
Population growth Statistics NZ medium population growth scenario for Auckland
Council. This is the same as used in Figure 5.8-2 of the waste assessment.
GDP growth an estimate of 3% annual increase in GDP has been applied to the waste
tonnages for 2009-2010. This is the same as in Figure 5.8-2 of the waste assessment and
assumes that waste disposal is directly proportional to changes in GDP.
900,000
1,100,000
1,300,000
1,500,000
1,700,000
1,900,000
2,100,000
2,300,000
2,500,000
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
7
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
2
T
o
n
n
e
s
/
a
n
n
u
m

.
Medium population growth 3%GDP growth Historical trendline

Figure 3.2 Auckland region waste to landfill overall projections
By 2032, the historical data trendline and the 3% GDP growth projection produce similar
waste forecasts of 2.1-2.3 million tonnes to landfill annually. This is equivalent to
approximately a 1.6% annual increase in waste disposal per capita.

Page 13 of 591
SOCIAL IMPACTS OF USER CHARGES FOR KERBSIDE REFUSE
AUCKLAND COUNCIL SOCIAL & ECONOMIC RESEARCH TEAM
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING UNIT JULY 2011

Page 14 of 591
1/23

SOCIAL IMPACTS OF USER CHARGES
FOR KERBSIDE REFUSE

Prepared by Ross Wilson, Analyst
Social and Economic Research Team
Research, Investigations & Monitoring Unit
July 2011
Page 15 of 591
2/23
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The literature indicates that a shift to user charges
1
for refuse could be expected to
have both beneficial and adverse social impacts, as follows:

Beneficial social impacts:
Polluter pays encourages greater recycling and refuse reduction.
Refuse reduction should benefit the environment for all of the community.
Employment should be stimulated in the recycling industry, helping unskilled
labour find gainful work and income.
Total solid waste costs to the community should fall, freeing up the communitys
funds for other pressing needs.
Equity will improve in the sense that those who directly generate refuse will
directly pay for it.
Small households and those who recycle more will have reduced costs.

Adverse social impacts:
Illegal dumping could increase although past experience elsewhere suggests it
should be minor.
Former Auckland City households have similar or higher incomes and similar
refuse generation, so affordability should be similar to the rest of the region.
Former Manukau City has a higher proportion of high refuse generating
households, so affordability could be a greater problem although less than 14
percent might pay $8 or more per week, and less than 4 percent might pay $12 or
more per week.
Tenants in the former Auckland City will face an initial cost increase similar to
tenants in the rest of the region.
Former Manukau City has a higher proportion of tenants (33 percent of
households), so there could be more people affected by the shift, in the short
term (although the average amount is only $4 a week). Longer term, it should
become part of the rent versus services rental package.
Special circumstances may apply to certain user groups, such as remote and
rural households, community organisations and apartment blocks.

2 INTRODUCTION

This paper is a high level and narrowly focussed Social Impact Assessment of the
likely main effects of introducing user charges to the two remaining former cities of
the Auckland region that dont already have them for kerbside refuse collection. It
should be viewed in the wider context of the Draft Auckland Waste Management and
Minimisation Plan, which also includes proposed measures to further support and
encourage alternatives such as recycling.

The former Auckland and Manukau Cities have 55 percent of the regions population,
and are the only former cities of the Auckland region that dont already have
household user charges as the main funding for household kerbside refuse
collection. Instead, the cost is currently built into their property rates - $30.6 million
per annum (including inorganic), which is $189/year per dwelling for Auckland and
$258/year for Manukau (including GST).

1
The phrase user charges is in this report used inter-changeably with user pays, polluter pays, PAYT
(Pay As You Throw) and direct charges see Appendix One.
Page 16 of 591
3/23
In Manukau, residents are permitted to set out, at no direct cost, an unlimited number
of refuse bags per household for the weekly collection. In Auckland, each dwelling is
provided with a 120-litre wheeled bin, which is emptied weekly. Both Manukau and
Auckland collections are funded through rates paid by the property owner rather than
directly by the householder.

3 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

The report begins by describing the different methods to calculate user charges. Next
the report looks at international and local evidence of the beneficial impacts on and of
recycling (including employment generation) and reduction of refuse. Illegal dumping
is also addressed. Then the report considers the prevalence of large, high refuse
generating and low income households. Next the report looks at the issue of shifting
the cost from landlords to tenants. Lastly, the report considers users with special
circumstances such as rural locations, then finishes with some concluding remarks.

4 TYPES OF USER CHARGE FOR POLLUTER PAYS REGIME

If Council decides to introduce polluter pays user charges to the entire region, then it
has several options available. The practicality of each of the charging options is
affected by the form of refuse collection.

The two main forms of refuse collection are bins and bags, usually collected weekly.
Bins are typically 120 litre, which is twice the volume of a standard 60 litre bag. Most
households only require 1 bin per week, or less, but some need more. There are four
main user charge systems available for bins and bags:
Weekly charge per bin
Bin charge by weight or volume
Bin charge per pickup
Bags charge per bag

Weekly charge per bin
If bins are charged for weekly, then most households would pay the same regardless
of actual usage, and it is very similar to the current targeted rate rather than a true
user charge that is proportional to usage.

The main difference is that low-usage households would have the option of opting
out of the system and making their own arrangements. Average cost for the
remaining participants would increase correspondingly. In theory, the process of loss
of market share could continue until council served only the highest usage
households, at a correspondingly high cost and high weekly charge

(Another difference is that in rental properties, the user charge is paid directly by the
householder to Council, whereas currently in Auckland and Manukau it is paid by the
landlord and becomes just one of many costs to be recovered via the rent.)

To be more like a true user charge, the bins would need to be charged for either by
weight (or volume) or per pickup.

Bin charge by weight or volume
Charging for kerbside refuse collection
by weight requires costly monitoring and invoicing systems (and has already
been rejected by all of the previous Auckland councils)
Page 17 of 591
4/23
by volume could only be done by coarse categories of bin size, and would limit
flexibility of response to a households changing requirements
encourages frequent storage of refuse for more than a week and sometimes for
more than two weeks
o (potential nuisance and hygiene issues);

Bin charge per pickup
Charging for bins per pickup is a fairly accurate user charge, but has the following
drawbacks:
households that reduce their refuse, but put out a partly full bin, still pay the same
for it
encourages frequent storage of refuse for more than a week and sometimes for
more than two weeks
o (potential nuisance and hygiene issues);
requires households to estimate whether remaining bin space will last for another
week
o (risk of surplus refuse needing storage with no bin)

Bags charge per bag
User charges for bags are on a per-bag basis, either pre-purchased or via stickers.
These are the simplest types of systems and are the most widely used in New
Zealand. Most households put out one or two 60 litre bags, and sometimes none.
(North Shore also offers 40 litre bags, which are cheaper to buy, but more expensive
on a per litre basis.) The charge is only an approximation to usage, in that the charge
is the same per bag regardless of how full the bag is. However, there is the
opportunity to keep it for a week until it is fuller.

System Accuracy (Sensitivity)
In general, the smaller the increments that are able to be charged by the system, the
more price sensitivity there is within the system. Fixed weekly charges or volume
based systems are the least price sensitive, while weight based are the most price
sensitive, with bag and pay per pickup systems in between.

5 RECYCLING - INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE

User pays for refuse will encourage more recycling and less residual disposal to
landfill. International evidence suggests a reduction in refuse of around 15 percent, of
which about half is from increased recycling. Internationally, Experts disagree about
the effect of variable collection fees on household waste disposal behaviour, as well
as the seriousness of possible side-effects.
2
The main emphasis of international
research is on disposal behaviour (especially reduction and recycling) and on illegal
dumping as a side effect; the main negative social issues of potential financial
impacts on tenants and on high volume lower income households are acknowledged
but seldom analysed impartially in detail.

USA
In the USA, for example, the national Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
emphasises the effect of PAYT (Pay As You Throw, another term for user pays) on
a communitys waste reduction and recycling. It gives them an incentive to reduce
waste, and it can be very effective: after implementing PAYT, communities typically
report reductions in waste amounts of 25 to 35 percent, including significant

2
Bauer, Scott and Marie Lynn Miranda. 1996. The urban performance of unit pricing: An analysis of variable rates
for residential garbage collection in urban areas. Report prepared for the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation;
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Page 18 of 591
5/23
increases in recycling. To date, nearly 2,000 communities across the country have
successfully implemented PAYT.
3

The US EPAs focus for the social impact is on transparency and on rewarding
reduction, reuse and recycling. One of the most important advantages may be the
fairness PAYT offers to community residents. When the cost of managing trash is
hidden in taxes, or charged at a flat rate, residents who recycle and prevent waste
end up subsidizing their neighbours wastefulness. Under this kind of program,
residents pay only for what they throw away.
4

Europe
In Europe, PAYT schemes have until recently been less popular and widespread
than in the USA. The main exceptions are Switzerland, former East Germany and to
a lesser extent Scandinavia, Netherlands, former West Germany and Italy. As
landfills become more scarce and costly, however, there appears to be increasing
acceptance of PAYT in Europe. A recent study
5
found that individual incentives for
waste diversion efforts have increased the recognition of pay-as-you-throw (PAYT)
as an effective instrument for recycling-oriented waste management and financing.
On this basis, PAYT has become a practical reality in an increasing number of
countries in Europe. Even countries with traditional reservations for direct charging
have started to make consideration of PAYT part of the revision of their national
policy programmes.

Waste reduction complexities
In terms of calculating the waste reduction impacts of polluter-pays systems it should
be noted that, while charging will reduce the quantity of residual waste collected, how
that reduction is comprised can be quite complex. For example a report in the
Netherlands by Proietti cites a study conducted for the VROM (The Netherlands
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment) by KPMG in 1995-1996.
This reported a 12 percent to 30 percent reduction in household refuse owing to
polluter-pays schemes, including:
6 percent to 8 percent due to improved sorting (for recycling) by householders
3 percent to 10 percent due to unintended activity (such as waste tourism, illegal
dumping etc)
3 percent to 12 percent due to genuine prevention measures (calculated).

This indicates that polluter pays systems squeeze waste in a number of directions.
The users response will vary according to a range of factors including scheme type,
the availability of alternative routes, education, and enforcement. The literature does
however clearly show that charging for household waste moves material from refuse
to kerbside recycling. Beyond this however, changes in flows of material caused by
charging schemes (and corresponding financial and social impacts) are generally
poorly understood.

Waitakere City Refuse Reduction Impact of Polluter Pays

3
Pay-As-You-Throw Success Stories, EPA530-F-97-007 April 1997, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W),
4
Ibid
5
Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe A review of pilot research and implementation
studies, Jan Reichenbach, Waste Management Volume 28, Issue 12 December 2008,
Page 19 of 591
6/23
The international findings are consistent with the local experience of the former
Waitakere City when they introduced user pays. For the former Waitakere City, Table
1 below compares the domestic refuse bag data from the twelve audits that have
been conducted since the introduction of user-pays bags in 1999. Mean weight per
set out and number of bags per set out have fallen over 15 percent in 11 years, only
a fraction of which is due to reduction in average household size. Virtually all of the
15 percent reduction was in the first three years following introduction of user pays,
supported by the introduction of kerbside recycling at the same time.

Table 1 Waitakere City changes in refuse over time

Mean # bags
per set out
Mean weight
per bag
Mean weight
per set out
1999 1.69 6.56 kg 11.09 kg
2000 1.61 6.87 kg 11.06 kg
2001 1.45 6.78 kg 9.83 kg
2002 1.38 6.98 kg 9.60 kg
2003 1.49 6.88 kg 10.27 kg
2004 1.55 6.68 kg 10.37 kg
2005 1.47 6.83 kg 10.08 kg
2006 1.52 6.59 kg 10.02 kg
2007 1.44 6.55 kg 9.44 kg
2008 1.46 6.98 kg 10.12 kg
2009 1.39 6.94 kg 9.61 kg
2010 1.36 6.67 kg 9.03 kg

6 SOCIAL BENEFITS OF INCREASED RECYCLING

Given that recycling is more labour intensive than landfilling, the net result will be an
increase in overall employment in the solid waste sector. The additional jobs will tend
to be largely unskilled, which will tend to benefit low-income households (being the
ones that include unskilled labourforce, for which demand has now increased).

Job creation example Bristol City
Bristol City, in England, estimated
6
that enhanced recycling could generate between
46 and 71 additional direct jobs, for a city of 400,000 people - larger than the former
Manukau City but comparable to the former Auckland City. They note that Most of
the jobs will be in the manual or unskilled sector involving recycling materials and
compostable materials collection and sorting and driver or plant operation type work.
The jobs created include two new waste parks, where the new jobs would be to sort
and recycle the waste delivered by householders.

Job creation Auckland region

6
Draft Household Waste Management Strategy for Bristol, Bristol City Council, 2000
Page 20 of 591
7/23
A survey of the main recycling firms in the Auckland region in 19987 found that over
1,700 employees were already directly involved in recycling in the Auckland region.
Gross turnover of those businesses was $132 million. However, only 6 percent of
their materials were from household kerbside collection, with a further 9 percent from
residential/private pick up and 8 percent collected from residential drop-offs; the main
sources were 62 percent from the commercial and institutional sectors, and 15
percent were from in-house or other collection.

By 2005, a new survey
8
found that the sector had grown to 1,908 employees, with
associated gross turnover of $147 million. The new survey did not quantify materials
sources.

Job creation example California
The state of California is an example of what can be achieved with the recycling
industry. A recent report9 found that California has created a mainstream industry of
statewide importance comprised of 5,300 business operations employing more than
85,000 workers and generating $4 billion in salaries and wages along with $10 billion
worth of goods and services annually. Californias population of 37 million is 26
times that of the Auckland region, which suggests Auckland could potentially have
over 3,000 workers employed in the recycling sector.

Intrinsic benefits of recycling
A report by Covec
10
notes that in New Zealand, some members of the community
value recycling and waste reduction for its own sake, regardless of any other
economic or social benefits; amongst other reasons, because such activity is viewed
as consistent with a less consumerist society. This suggests that they are prepared
to incur additional costs to obtain additional recycling.

7 EQUITY: FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO HOUSEHOLDS THAT RECYCLE MORE

Financial benefits to households that recycle more

Rates-funded systems disadvantage households that recycle more, by not rewarding
them relative to households that dont recycle. They pay the same rate regardless.
Similarly, the existing rates funded regime is regressive, in the sense that lower
income households currently pay the same fixed weekly rate as wealthier
households; the poorer households are paying a higher proportion of their income,
and with no opportunity to avoid or reduce the cost.

Under user pays, the cost to the household will depend on the amount of refuse put
out. With the switch to user charges, a household that recycles more could make
substantial savings. Lower income households will have an opportunity to reduce
their costs, by putting out less refuse. They can reduce, re-use and recycle more, to
reduce the amount of refuse generated per person. (In fact, the empirical evidence
suggests high and medium income households are also likely to reduce their refuse
under user charges; the link to income is only weak)

7
Survey of Recycling Businesses in the Auckland Region, Waste Not Limited, Prepared for Zero
Waste New Zealand, 1998
8
Auckland Recycling Industry Study, Envision New Zealand Ltd, 2005
9
Identifying Opportunity In The Green Economy - Waste Industry, LURA Consulting, Prepared for
North Simcoe County, 2010
10
Potential Impacts of the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill: Update Report, Covec, Prepared for
Packaging Council of New Zealand, May 2008

Page 21 of 591
8/23

To the extent that recycling is self funding, or at least cheaper than landfilling, then
those savings are net benefits for the community as a whole.

To the extent that reduction and recycling is cheaper than refuse disposal, user pays
will reduce total costs of solid waste management. The financial benefit can be spent
on desired goods and services to generate additional benefits at an individual or
community level which could also include a wider range of resource recovery
initiatives throughout the community.

8 EQUITY: FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO SMALL HOUSEHOLDS

Financial benefits to small households
While a polluter-pays system can be seen as disadvantaging large households on
low incomes, a rates-funded system disadvantages small households on low
incomes. In the former Auckland City, a small household generating a very small
amount of residual refuse pays the same targeted rate each year ($164.44 plus GST
for 2010/2011) as a household making maximum use of the kerbside services.
Depending on their demand, a small household could save $50 a year or more with
the switch to user charges.

The same applies in the former Manukau City, where nearly 40 percent of
households have only 1 or 2 occupants.

9 ILLEGAL DUMPING PROBLEMS

Illegal dumping in the region
While it might be anticipated that changes to a kerbside refuse collection system,
particularly those that involve an increase in cost to householders, might result in
increased illegal dumping, this has not been the experience of councils in the
Auckland region. When the former Waitakere City and Papakura District Councils
changed from rates-funded to polluter-pays refuse collections in 1999 and 2006
respectively there were no noticeable increases in illegal dumping. In both cases
however the change-over was accompanied by a public education campaign and a
well-funded enforcement programme. In fact both councils took a zero tolerance
approach to illegal dumping which prevented any increase.

When the former Auckland City Council trialled the introduction of 120-litre wheelie
bins as replacements for the existing 240-litre bins, no increase in illegal dumping
was detected in the trial areas.

Waste Tourism
A similar problem to illegal dumping is waste tourism, particularly when areas using
different funding systems are in close geographical proximity. Residents of the former
Papakura District, for example, can avoid polluter-pays bag charges by dumping their
refuse bags in the nearby Manukau City, where the collection is rates-funded. A
common polluter-pays system across the region will largely avoid this.

Lack of International Evidence
A review by Covec
11
finds that there is little empirical evidence of unauthorised
tipping in response to increased landfill disposal prices or unit charging for collection
and disposal; this does not suggest that it does not occur, just that it has been little

11
Potential Impacts of the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill: Update Report, Covec, Prepared for
Packaging Council of New Zealand, May 2008
Page 22 of 591
9/23
studied. Covec note that a recent OECD report had numerous references to the
issue, for example, but these are largely theoretical and anecdotal.

Illegal dumping in the USA
In the USA, a review
12
of nationwide studies found that illegal dumping is not a
problem for the vast majority of municipalities that implement PAYT programs. In
general, there is not an increase in roadside rubbish as a result of PAYT programs.
Typically, the problems with illegal dumping stay the same if you had it before the
program, you may still have it. And, it is more common for bulky items such as
tyres and sofas. to be abandoned than it is for common household refuse.

10 FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLDS

Financial Costs Current Situation
User charges will encourage people to reduce, re-use and recycle more and throw
away less, and so should reduce the TOTAL cost to the affected communities.
However, the change-over will alter the distribution of who pays how much so there
will be some adverse financial effects, as well as some households that pay less.

Table 2 shows the 2010/11 solid waste weekly rates component of the areas of the
region covered by each of the former councils on a household basis, plus the polluter
pays charges imposed by the councils.

Table 2: Solid waste weekly rates component per household

Former Council Weekly Rates Bag Price
Manukau City $4.31 n/a
Auckland City $3.06 n/a
Papakura District $2.67 $1.30
Rodney District $1.53 [varies]
North Shore City $0.77 $1.80
Franklin District $1.01 $2.00
Waitakere City (-$0.32) $2.00

Currently, the amount a household pays for refuse collection (including inorganics) is
fixed for Manukau City at $258/year ($4.31 weekly or $224/year, plus GST) and for
Auckland City at $189/year ($3.06 weekly or $164.44/year, plus GST).

Financial Impacts on Low income households
As with other council services, a major concern related to polluter-pays funding of
kerbside refuse collections is the effect on the least affluent of households. In a rates-
funded system, the costs of kerbside refuse services are either shared equally
amongst all properties, through a targeted rate, or, if the service is funded through
general rates, distributed relative to the rates paid on the property.

In a completely polluter-pays funding system, it is the households that dispose of the
most waste that pay the highest costs. As the most important factor in the amount of
waste generated by a household has been found to be the number of people living in
that household, this means that it is generally the largest households that generate
the most waste.

12
Smart (Pay-As-You-Throw) Implementation Handbook, Connecticut Department Of Environmental
Protection, Reprinted 2004.
Page 23 of 591
10/23

11 REFUSE VOLUMES PER HOUSEHOLD

The cost per household of shifting to polluter pays for refuse generation by Manukau
City and Auckland City households can be benchmarked against former cities in the
region that have already shifted to primarily polluter pays, specifically North Shore
City and Waitakere City.
13

North Shore and Waitakere
For the former North Shore City, nearly 70 percent of participating households set out
a single bag of refuse, and the overall average was 1.5 bags. Less than 5 percent set
out 4 bags or more.

For the former Waitakere City, the number of bags set out per household overall
average was 1.4 bags (for households that set out any refuse that week) Over two-
thirds of households set out a single bag of refuse, and less than 3 percent set out 4
or more.

Former Auckland City
In the former Auckland City, over a third of all properties set out an average of 91 to
120 litres of refuse each week. (Equivalent to 2 bags). Most of the remainder set out
90 litres or less. Only 15 percent set out an average of more than the 120 litre (2 bag)
capacity of the MGB each week
14
.

Only 3 percent of properties set out more than 140 litres of refuse. The implications
are that at least 85 percent of Auckland City users would need only two 60 litre bags
per week; up to 12 percent would need 3 bags per week; and the remaining 3
percent would need 3 bags or more per week.

Overall, households in the former Auckland City set out the same volume or less as
Waitakere and North Shore households.

Former Manukau City
In the former Manukau City, a recent survey found that the number of bags set out in
a given week varied from none to more than 10. The overall average set out
(including zeroes) was 1.8 bags.

Average set out rate (i.e. one or more bags rather than none) in any given week was
79.9%. The average number of bags set out (when any were) was 2.38 bags
15
. On
the occasions on which bagged refuse was set out:
only one bag was placed at kerbside 40.4 percent of the time.
two bags were set out 27.8 percent of the time,
three bags were set out in 14.1 percent of instances.
four or more bags were set out 17.7 percent of the time.
six bags or more were set out 5 percent of the time

Manukau high volumes versus other parts of the region

13
See Appendix Two: Refuse Costs (Quantities) Per Household
14
While this would appear to indicate that the 120-litre capacity MGB is only marginally adequate for
many properties, the Auckland survey was done before the introduction of recycling wheelie bins. The
new recycling wheelie bins provide households with a greater volume capacity for recycling than was
previously available.
15
This compares with an average bag set out rate of 2.22 bags as recorded by the Solid Waste Analysis
of domestic refuse undertaken for Manukau City Council in October 2010.
Page 24 of 591
11/23
The proportion of households setting out four bags or more in a given week were as
follows:
North Shore 5 percent
Waitakere 3 percent
Auckland city 3 percent
Manukau 18 percent

Clearly, Manukau has a much higher proportion of households that are setting out
higher than average quantities of refuse.

Manukau variations in weekly average volumes
For a given household, the amount of refuse set out in a given week can vary. The
average number of bags for each household over a period of time will necessarily
show less variation and fewer extremes than the above snapshot of a single week.
Unfortunately, data for weekly average set-out of bags (or kilograms) is not available
for given households over a period of several weeks for Manukau. However, the
overall picture seems to suggest that Manukau households put out more refuse than
other parts of the region. Similarly, the likelihood is that Manukau will have a higher
proportion of high refuse generating households.

As a worst case scenario we could assume that high set out households had no
variation, in which case their share of households is simply their share of set-out
multiplied by the set out rate of 79.9 percent:
four bags or more for up to 14 percent of households ($8/week at $2/bag)
six bags or more for up to 4 percent of households ($12/week at $2/bag)

(These estimates take no account of reduced demand due to increased recycling.)

In order to cross-check likely proportions of consistently high refusing generating
households, the next section looks at the distribution of household sizes.

12 HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS

The most important determinant of a households refuse quantities is household size.
Larger households tend to put out more refuse, simply because there are more
people generating refuse. (There are other influences, such as household
composition and demographics (eg babies using disposable nappies), but their
impacts have been found to be relatively minor.)

According to the latest census
16
, the average household sizes (number of usual
residents) are as follows:
Auckland Region: 2.93
Auckland City: 2.73
Manukau City: 3.42

Auckland city households are slightly smaller than the regional average, which
confirms that their problems of high refuse generating households are likely to be
comparable to the rest of the region that already has polluter pays.

Manukau City households have on average 16 percent more occupants than the
regional average, which suggests moderately higher refuse generation. (Their refuse

16
2006 Census, Number of Usual Residents in Household
Page 25 of 591
12/23
generation per person is also higher, but only by a similarly moderate proportion, and
that could reduce if recycling increases.)

However, concealed within the averages is the fact that Manukau has substantially
more large and very large households, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Household Size Distributions By Former City

Auckland
Region
Auckland
City Manukau
One Usual Resident 82,825 19.1% 33141 23.2% 12,941 13.7%
Two Usual Residents 130,697 30.1% 44338 31.0% 23,623 25.1%
Three Usual Residents 78,199 18.0% 25383 17.7% 16,970 18.0%
Four Usual Residents 75,857 17.5% 22621 15.8% 18,130 19.2%
Five Usual Residents 36,413 8.4% 9957 7.0% 10,585 11.2%
Six Usual Residents 15,507 3.6% 4098 2.9% 5,478 5.8%
Seven Usual Residents 6,854 1.6% 1747 1.2% 2,949 3.1%
Eight or More Usual Residents 7,295 1.7% 1720 1.2% 3,605 3.8%
Total 433,647 100.0% 143005 100.0% 94,281 100.0%

In particular, 6.9 percent of Manukaus households have 7 or 8 or more residents
(namely double the size of the average Manukau household). This proportion is twice
as many as the 3.3 percent for the region as a whole These large households could
be seen as a proxy for the four bags average set out households (namely at least
double the 1.8 bag average set out), who would face costs of $8 a week or more.

Household size versus income
Manukau household incomes are not correspondingly higher to reflect their greater
occupancy (and refuse generation) in fact average household income is slightly
lower
Auckland Region: $63,400
Auckland City: $66,100
Manukau City: $62,300

Similarly, Manukau City as a whole has a comparable distribution of household
incomes to the region as a whole. The proportion of low income households is not
less, despite the larger average household size. Consequently, households in
Manukau are generally providing for more people for the same money. Income per
resident (including children) is correspondingly lower relative to the rest of the region.
The implication is that affordability is likely to be an issue for a larger proportion of
Manukau residents than for the rest of the region.

The detailed correlation between household size, refuse generation and income is
not known, but indicative data is available at the former ward level, as shown in Table
4.

Table 4 Manukau Income Distribution versus Refuse Generatiion

Clevedon Howick Mangere Manurewa Otara Pakuranga Papatoe Average
Median HH
income

59,120

58,969

41,385

47,324

43,248 53,220

38,769

48,441
Refuse
Kgs/Hh/Wk 10.06 7.95 12.28 10.31 13.09 7.86 8.69 9.75
Page 26 of 591
13/23
Income:Refuse
$/Kg

5,877

7,417

3,370 4,590

3,304 6,771

4,461

4,968
Income/Kg as
% of average 118% 149% 68% 92% 66% 136% 90% 100%

Relative to the rest of Manukau, households in Otara and Mangere tend to have
lower incomes and higher refuse generation.

13 WHO PAYS TENANT OR LANDLORD

In most cases for rented properties, introduction of user pays refuse collection shifts
the responsibility for refuse payment from landlord to tenant. Under the current
uniform waste charge, landlords generally pay this expense. Experience in other
councils where user pays has been introduced show that the tenant pays the cost of
buying refuse bags, and no compensation is made, initially at least, through any
immediate direct lowering of rentals by landlords to compensate for the change.

Manukau City Tenant Concentrations
The area that was formerly Manukau City, in particular, has significant proportions of
households (33 percent or 27,012 households17) that are tenanted. Introduction of
user pays will therefore impose new costs on approximately a third of that
community. The concentration of rental properties varies in different locations across
Manukau City. Table 5 summarises variation based on the old ward system, and
indicates the range from 47 percent of households tenanted in Otara to 20 percent in
Howick.

Table 5 Percentage of Householders Renting

(Source: Based on Statistics NZ Census 2001adjusted to 2002)

Of those renting, 73 percent live in Mangere, Manurewa, Otara and Papatoetoe.

Tenant Incomes and Refuse Generation - Manukau City
The amount payable averages around $4 per week. In addition, sectors of the
community with higher levels of refuse will also face higher costs. In some cases
these two groups coincide.

Variations in average number of residents per household, waste contribution and
socio-economic factors occur between wards. As a consequence, the effects of user
pays will not be equal per household across the different former wards of the former
Manukau City. Table 6 outlines the relative composition of the city based on the old
wards, with the contribution each makes to the total refuse and the relative
household incomes. Household income is shown as an average for each ward, but
there is also a wide range from very low to high household incomes within each
ward.

17
2003 data from Manukau City Council Environmental Management Committee 13 February 2003
User Pays Refuse Workshop Notes
Clevedon Howick Mangere Manurewa Otara Pakuranga Papatoetoe Manukau City
Population 11423 50166 46674 67522 36009 38497 40673 290963
% Pop. 4% 17% 16% 23% 12% 13% 14% 100%
No. of Hh's 4032 16783 11142 19692 8347 13173 12958 86126
% Hh's 5% 19% 13% 23% 10% 15% 15% 100%
% Hh's renting 22% 20% 43% 35% 47% 26% 37% 33%
Hh's renting 887 3357 4791 6892 3923 3425 4794 28422
Page 27 of 591
14/23

Table 6: Manukau Ward Characteristics & Refuse Generation

Otara and Mangere in particular have relatively higher proportions of renters, higher
refuse generation, larger households but lower household incomes, and so would be
hardest hit initially by a switch to user pays. Papatoetoe similarly has the lowest
average income, and a substantial proportion of renters.

Mitigating Factors
The actual financial impact of user charges on households will be mitigated by two
factors. Firstly, household refuse from some parts of Manukau City has a high
proportion of dense food waste. The volume of refuse is typically more comparable to
other parts of the city and region (but still higher than the regional average).
Secondly, there will be increased opportunities and incentives to reduce the
quantities, and therefore costs, of household refuse, including by increased recycling.

Housing New Zealand as Major Landlord
Housing New Zealand is a major landlord in Manukau, with 7,122 rental dwellings
18
,
which is a quarter of total rentals. Discussions have been held with them in the past
to investigate ways of minimising costs to their tenants. They have indicated
willingness to support and promote any Council education programme for their
tenants. However, it is understood that they will not support a reduction in rent to
offset any reduction in the property rates charge.

Long Run Adjustments
Initially, the switch in payment from property owner to occupant will lead to the full
impact being born by the tenant. In the long run, the combination of lower costs to
landlords, and reduced disposable income for tenants, can be expected to exert a
downward pressure on rents that exactly offsets (on average) the shift in cost burden
onto tenants. Eventually, refuse charges will become just part of the total package of
property related costs to be apportioned between the tenant and landlord. Other
examples include water, electricity, telephone and grounds maintenance.

Both rates and user pays systems of funding refuse collection are common
throughout New Zealand. The method of funding refuse collection, and the type of
collection receptacle used, generally does not appear to be an issue of such
significance that it influences where people choose to live, including within the region.
Communities do adapt and accept changes, over time.

Mitigation of Adverse Financial Impacts

The social impact of polluter-pays depends on the extent to which households have
additional opportunities to reduce their refuse. These include providing households

18
Ibid, citing 2001 census data
Clevedon Howick Mangere Manurewa Otara Pakuranga Papatoetoe City
% Pop.
4% 17% 16% 23% 12% 13% 14% 100%
% Hh's
5% 19% 13% 23% 10% 15% 15% 100%
% Hh's renting
22% 20% 43% 35% 47% 26% 37% 33%
Nos./ Hh 2.83 2.99 4.19 3.43 4.31 2.92 3.14 3.40
% of refuse 5% 16% 16% 24% 13% 12% 13% 100%
Refuse Kgs/Hh/Wk 10.06 7.95 12.28 10.31 13.09 7.86 8.69 9.75
Median HH Income $ 59120 58969 41385 47324 43248 53220 38769 48441
Page 28 of 591
15/23
with additional services to divert waste, such as an organics collection, offering
additional services to households with a demonstrated need, and providing
educational programmes. For example, when the former Auckland City Council
trialled the replacement of its 240-litre wheelie bins with 120-litre bins in 2000, the
council provided waste reduction advice to a large household that was struggling with
the new service. After receiving a compost bin and extra recycling crates from
council, the household of twelve people found that the new service was adequate for
their needs.

A study of high refuse-generating households in the former Auckland City in 2009
19

found that households which consistently set out over-full wheelie bins had significant
opportunity to reduce the volume of waste set out. The study found that
On average, 46% of the waste generated by high refuse-generating households was
classified as food wastes (9.11 kg per average bin weight, or 17% by volume),
followed by residual wastes (4.24 kg per average bin weight, 34% by weight or 25%
by volume). Sanitary/nappies materials made up a further 3.22 kg of the average bin
weight (or 16% by weight and by volume). On average, recyclable materials (i.e.
cardboard and other recyclable materials accepted in kerbside collections) made up
13% of the average bin weight (2.58 kg) or 37% of the bin volume.

The study indicated that the areas in which the high-refuse generating households
were located all had significantly high proportions of private dwellings that have 8 or
more usual residents living in them than the city as a whole.

14 SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Remote Locations
In remote locations such as the Hauraki Gulf Islands, special consideration is
required as to whether these residents would be expected to pay for the full cost of
the service or would the services be subsidised by other residents across the region
using the collection service. A separate waste plan or section of the waste plan for
the Gulf islands may be necessary to cater for the unique issues faced by island
communities. Similarly in rural areas changes to the collection service provided need
to be appropriate and cost effective i.e. drop offs rather than kerbside collection.

Community Organisations
Manukau City Council operated an inclusion policy for some community
organisations, including sports clubs, churches and other community organisations
that have permanent locations. These organisations could register and receive refuse
and recycling services funded from general rates.

Apartment Blocks Existing Opt-Outs
In Manukau City, large, residential apartment blocks, motels etc. that were
commercially operated and that did not pay the targeted rate did not receive any
council waste services but arranged alternative services from a commercial waste
collector.

Auckland City Council had a policy of rates remission for an approved
refuse/recycling collection service. This policy applied to large residential blocks e.g.
multi-unit dwellings and retirement villages that may arrange for their own approved
alternative refuse and recycling collection company(s). This meant that they could opt
out of using and paying for the council provided services. As a result of this policy

19
Assessment of Overfilled Wheelie Bins in Auckland City, Waste Not Consulting, Prepared for
Auckland City Council, August 2009
Page 29 of 591
16/23
Auckland City Council made remissions totalling $3.56 million per annum, which is
around 10 percent of its total cost of refuse collection.

15 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Legislative drivers and precedents
While the social effects of polluter-pays systems need to be taken into consideration
by Auckland Council, they should also be viewed in the context of legislative drivers
and precedents. The legislative drivers behind waste reduction, namely the Waste
Minimisation Act 2008 and the Climate Change Response Act 2002, both include
polluter-pays mechanisms.

It should also be noted that there is no distinction between low and high income
households in the recently implemented Emissions Trading Scheme, which, while
acknowledging there will be financial impacts on households, expects that
households can reduce costs by reducing energy use, installing insulation etc. A
similar argument can be made for polluter-pays refuse charging.

Household responsibility and capacity
Refuse collection is just one of many goods and services that large, low income
households require but have trouble paying for. The situation already exists in other
parts of the region, but would be more prevalent in Manukau (although still only a
minority). The underlying problem is not the funding mechanism, it is the households
lack of income relative to its needs. Rather than give them a hidden cross-subsidy
from other consumers, or build it into their rent, a better solution in the long term is to
improve their overall capacity to pay for what they need. Prepaid bags are then just
another grocery item for them to buy, along with bread, vegetables and other
household items.

Page 30 of 591
17/23
APPENDIX ONE: GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS

Cities, Councils and regions:
Auckland City - Former city comprising part of the Auckland region
Auckland City Council - Former council of the former Auckland City
Auckland Council Current council of the new city comprising all of the newly
defined Auckland region
Manukau City - Former city comprising part of the Auckland region
Region the newly defined Auckland region

Charges, paying and PAYT:
Direct charging see Polluter pays
PAYT Pay As You Throw see Polluter pays
Polluter pays (here) user charges regime as applied to refuse collection and
disposal
User charges see Polluter pays
User pays see Polluter pays

Page 31 of 591
18/23
APPENDIX TWO: REFUSE COSTS (QUANTITIES) PER HOUSEHOLD

REFUSE COSTS (QUANTITIES) PER HOUSEHOLD REST OF REGION

The cost per household of shifting to polluter pays for refuse generation by Manukau
City and Auckland City households can be benchmarked against former cities in the
region that have already shifted to primarily polluter pays, specifically North Shore
City and Waitakere City.

North Shore
For North Shore City, the distribution of the number of bags per household is shown
in Figure 4.1 below (excludes households that set out no bags that week). Nearly 70
percent of participating households set out a single bag of refuse, and the overall
average was 1.5 bags. Less than 5 percent set out 4 bags or more.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1 2 3 4 5 More
Number of bagsset out
%

o
f

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s

Figure 4.1 Household bag set out

Waitakere City distribution of bag set out
For Waitakere City, data was collected on the number of bags set out per household.
The distribution of the number of bags per household is shown in Figure 3.6 below,.
Overall average was 1.4 bags (for households that set out any refuse that week)
Over two-thirds of households set out a single bag of refuse, and less than 3 percent
set out 4 or more.]

Page 32 of 591
19/23
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1 2 3 4 5
Number of bags set out
%

o
f

h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s

Figure 3.6 Household bag set out Waitakere City

REFUSE COSTS (QUANTITIES) PER HOUSEHOLD MANUKAU CITY

Manukau Bag Set Outs

For Manukau City in 2010, surveyors gathered data on the number of refuse bags set
out by each dwelling each week. This data is presented in Figure 3.4 below, as the
number of bags set out by a dwelling, when one or more bags were set out in a given
week.

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More
Number of bags
%

o
f

d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
s

Figure 3.4 Number of bags set out

Page 33 of 591
20/23
The number of bags set out in a given week varied from none to more than 10. The
average number of bags set out was 2.38 bags
20
. On just over forty-percent of the
occasions on which bagged refuse was set out, only one bag was placed at kerbside
(40.4 percent of the time). Two bags were set 27.8 percent of the time, and three
bags in 14.1 percent of instances. More than three bags were set out 17.7 percent of
the time. Six bags or more were set out 5 percent of the time

For a given household, the amount of refuse set out each week can vary from week
to week. The average number of bags for each household over a period of time will
necessarily show less variation, and fewer low and high extremes, than a snapshot of
a single week. Unfortunately, data is not available for weekly average set-out of bags
for given households over a period of several weeks for Manukau.

However, the number of bags set out for Manukau City is high relative to the region,
so the overall average must also be high. The likelihood is that there will also be a
higher proportion of high-bag-setout households

Manukau bag weights

Given that their bags are free, Manukau households have no strong financial
incentive to ensure their bags are full. Some of the high-bag households might
actually be putting out half-full bags, so they would only need to buy a moderate
number of bags under user pays.

In 2010, Manukau bag weights were broadly similar to the rest of the region. The
average bag weight was 6.90 kg. The median bag weight was 6.14 kg (i.e. half of
the bags weighed less than 6.14 kg and half more). The heaviest bag weighed 24.84
kg. Figure 4.1, on the following page, shows the distribution of bag weights.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0
-
3

k
g
3
-
6

k
g
6
-
9

k
g
9
-
1
2

k
g
1
2
-
1
5

k
g
1
5
-
1
8

k
g
1
8
-
2
1

k
g
2
1
-
2
5

k
g
Kg per bag
%

o
f

b
a
g
s

Over three quarters (77 percent) of the bags weighed less than 9 kg. Almost four
percent of the bags weighed more than 15 kg, the maximum bag weight permitted to
be set out by Council

20
This compares with an average bag set out rate of 2.22 bags as recorded by the Solid Waste Analysis
of domestic refuse undertaken for Manukau City Council in October 2010.
Page 34 of 591
21/23
Unfortunately, data is not available regarding the correlation between bag numbers
and weights, so it is not possible to calculate the distribution of set out weights (and
therefore estimate full bag equivalent set outs) by household.

However, the average weight is comparable to the region, so the implication is that
the high bag set-out quantities will correspond to high refuse quantities. The impact
on volumes and bag numbers will be reduced, due to some Manukau City refuse
being high density such as ethnic food waste.

Manukau set out frequencies

For a given household, the amount of refuse set out in a given week can vary. The
average number of bags for each household over a period of time will necessarily
show less variation and fewer extremes than a snapshot of a single week.

Unfortunately, data for weekly average set-out of bags or kilograms is not available
for given households over a period of several weeks for Manukau.

The frequency with which the collection services were utilised [over a four week
period] is given in Table 3.4 below
21
,.

Table 3.4 Frequency of service usage overall city (Manukau)

Bagged refuse Recycling
Not used 2.7% 8.0%
Used 1 time only 6.0% 27.8%
Used 2 times only 13.3% 64.8%
Used 3 times only 28.1% NA
Used 4 times 50.0% NA
Participation rate -
service used at least
once in a 4-week
period
97.3% 92.0%
Average set out rate
in any given week
79.9% 78.5%

Half of the surveyed dwellings placed bagged refuse out for collection four times over
the four weeks of the survey, and 65 percent of dwellings placed their recycling MRB
at kerbside for its fortnightly collection twice in the four-week period (i.e. on both
possible occasions).

Unfortunately, the correlation between frequency of service usage and bag numbers
is not known, so it is not possible to calculate the distribution of average set outs for
each household over a period of time. Participation in the bagged refuse collection
showed little variance between the wards (other than low usage in Papatoetoe, which
has high MGB usage). Given the variation in incomes in the wards, the implication is
that income is not strongly correlated to frequency of refuse set out.

Manukau Recycling
Socio-economic factors have been found to be strongly associated with recycling
behaviour. Recycling participation rates in the most affluent streets were found to be
slightly lower than in the middle class streets, which were in turn found to have

21
Source: Manukau City Recycling and Refuse Participation Survey 2010 (Unpublished Draft), Waste
Not Consulting
Page 35 of 591
22/23
substantially higher participation than in the least affluent streets. The same trend
has been observed for paper recycling, and is more pronounced.

Participation in the recycling service varied substantially from ward to ward, from a
high of 86 percent of dwellings in Howick and Pakuranga ward to a low of 64 percent
in Otara. Participation in the paper collection varied to a greater degree than either
bagged refuse or recycling. Howick ward had the highest participation rate in paper
recycling at 72 percent; in Otara, 23 percent of dwellings participated. The
implication is that lower income households will have scope to improve their
recycling, and so will be able to reduce their refuse volumes and costs.

By analysing the refuse [composition] data on a per resident, per set out, it becomes
apparent that Manukau and Auckland city residents are setting out a similar quantity
of recyclable materials in their refuse (0.52 kg per person per set out in Manukau City
and 0.53 kg per resident per set out in Auckland City). North Shore City and
Waitakere City both set out less recyclable materials per resident per set out. This is
associated with both of these cities having a user pays refuse bag system, whereby
residents must purchase refuse bags. Both cities also have a recycling MRB service
and a separate paper collection.

Manukau Food Waste
Over half of the household waste collected (51 percent) comprise of materials
classified as organic. Of this 51 percent, 37 percent is kitchen/food waste, the
remainder 13 percent is garden/soil. Paper is the next highest at 25 percent. Plastic
is third at 12 percent and glass and metal each comprising 3 percent each. Kitchen
waste forms a significant part of the waste stream, especially for those most
adversely affected by the implementation of User Pays.

The quantity of food waste and greenwaste are still significantly higher in Manukau
City than in any of the other cities, which may be partly the consequence of residents
being able to dispose of as many bags of refuse as they wish, at no cost. Manukau
residents setting out more food waste is also associated with ethnic cuisine.
Polynesian food preparation typically produces more food waste, such as taro peelings
green banana skins and mussel shells.

If Council wished to further minimise the impact of user pays it could delay its
introduction until separated kitchen organic waste collection was introduced. This
would enable householders to further reduce their refuse. Kitchen waste however is
relatively dense and does not take up for its weight as much space in the rubbish bag
as may other wastes. Therefore the number of bags used may not decrease as
much as may initially be indicated by the reduction in weight of kitchen waste.

Home composting offers opportunity to reduce refuse for households that have
sufficient space and gardens to utilise the compost. However, commitment plus a
reasonable knowledge and skill is required if home composting is to be successfully
undertaken and not produce adverse environmental effects such as encouraging
vermin and production of methane gas. Reports indicate that there are currently less
than 10 percent of households that actively compost. This potentially could be
increased with targeted education and support programmes, however the pressures
in cities with busy lifestyles, trends to smaller sections and apartment living limits this
opportunity for many. Therefore for the majority this is not a viable option.

Page 36 of 591
23/23

REFUSE COSTS (QUANTITIES) PER HOUSEHOLD AUCKLAND CITY

Auckland City Distribution of Refuse Set Out

Figure 3.4 below shows histograms for the average weekly volumes of refuse
material presented by all properties. The following figures include properties which
did not set out that material. For properties which did not set out any given material
over the four-week survey period, the volume would be 0 litres.

Figure 3.4 Weekly volume of refuse set out all properties Auckland City

0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 More
Litres of refuse set out weekly
%

o
f

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s

Over a third of all properties set out an average of 91 to 120 litres of refuse each
week. A further 15 percent set out an average of more than the 120 litre capacity of
the MGB each week. While this would appear to indicate that the 120-litre capacity
MGB is only marginally adequate for many properties, the Auckland survey was done
before the introduction of recycling wheelie bins. The new recycling wheelie bins
provide households with a greater volume capacity for recycling than was previously
available.

Only 3 percent of properties set out more than 140 litres of refuse. The implications
are that at least 85 percent of Auckland City users would need only two 60 litre bags
per week; up to 12 percent would need 3 bags per week; and the remaining 3
percent would need 3 bags or more per week.

Page 37 of 591
ISSUES PAPERS FOR THE DRAFT WASTE MANAGEMENT & MINIMISATION PLAN
AUCKLAND COUNCIL SOLID WASTE BUSINESS UNIT - MAY 2011
Page 38 of 591

Issues Papers for the Draft Auckland
Council Waste Management and
Minimisation Plan

This is a series of issues papers to enable decision makers and stakeholders
to give their input into the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.
The plan is still at the very earliest stages of development. Some of these
papers need your answers to particularly important questions which will shape
the rest of the plan.

May 2011

Page 39 of 591

2

31 May 2011
Page 40 of 591

3
CONTENTS
Page

Glossary 4

Introduction 5

Questions that need to be answered 9

Issues Paper 1: KERBSIDE REFUSE AND RECYCLING SERVICES
Summary 11
Report 13

Issues Paper 2: FUNDING OF KERBSIDE SERVICES
Summary 35
Report 37

Issues Paper 3: INORGANIC COLLECTIONS
Summary 49
Report 51

Issues Paper 4: PUBLIC PLACE RECYCLING
Summary 71
Report 73

Issues Paper 5: GEOGRAPHICALLY REMOTE AREAS WASTE MANAGEMENT
AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
Summary 81
Report 83

Page 41 of 591

4

GLOSSARY

Inorganic waste: Large, bulky items discarded from households including items such as
furniture, appliances, bicycles, electronic equipment etc

Kerbside services: Refuse and recycling services provided to householders where materials
are collected from the kerbside

Materials Recovery Facility (MRF): A facility where recyclable materials are taken for
sorting, generally using a high degree of technology

Organic waste: Waste that decomposes. The two main types of organic waste are
greenwaste (garden prunings, grass clippings etc) and food waste (or kitchen waste)

Product Stewardship: A concept promoted in the Waste Minimisation Act (2008). Refers to
placing responsibility for disposal/recycling of end of life products on the parties involved in
design, supply, manufacture, distribution, retail and consumption of those products

Putrescibles: Organic waste capable of decomposing and causing obnoxious odours and
attracting pests. Includes food waste, animal waste etc

Recyclables: Refers to recyclable materials put out in kerbside recycling collections (eg
plastic, glass, aluminium and steel containers)

Refuse: Generally refers to waste destined for landfill

Resource recovery: Retrieval of recyclable and reusable goods and materials from the
waste stream

Resource Recovery Centre/Park: Facility where waste materials are taken to ensure
maximum resource recovery.

Transfer Station: Facility where waste is taken for consolidation prior to landfill. A certain
amount of resource recovery usually occurs at these facilities.

Waste levy: A levy on waste sent to landfill, imposed via the Waste Minimisation Act (2008).
The levy currently stands at $10/tonne but is expected to rise over time. The objectives of the
levy are to create a funding pool for waste minimisation initiatives and to increase the cost of
waste disposal.

Page 42 of 591

5
INTRODUCTION

1 What is the purpose of these issues papers?

The following set of issues papers provide the background information and some options to
help you provide input into the contents of the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation
Plan which has to be in place by July 1st 2012. These papers do not cover all the various
waste issues that needed to be considered, but cover the first fundamental choices that need
to be made to help shape the plan. There will be some further papers provided as the process
unfolds on topics such as advocacy, product stewardship, glass, and other issues relating to
the waste industry. Most of this first set of papers covers the parts of waste stream that the
council currently controls.

Based on discussions held with Local Boards earlier in the year on the environmental and
economic costs of waste in Auckland, and the impact of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008),
decisions on the strategic direction were made by the Regional Development and Operations
Committee in March 2011:
The vision: a long term aspirational goal of working towards Zero Waste with short to
medium term targets.
The preferred strategic direction: Option 3 of the Waste Assessment which
includes:
moves to gain operational influence over waste infrastructure to enable maximum
separation and resource recovery
new systems to maximise diversion including an organic waste collection service

These papers, therefore, are intended to help you work out the best way to meet the
principles of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008):waste minimisation, affordability, and equity,
and to minimise the amount of waste Auckland sends to landfill.

Also to be taken into account is the purpose of the waste levy - to increase the costs of waste
disposal, recognising its negative effect on the environment, society and the economy.

Given the requirements of the Waste Minimisation Act and the councils Zero Waste goal, it is
clear that some changes are required in the way Auckland deals with its waste.

What is signalled is that those who generate waste, and do not recycle, should pay for it.

The challenge is to find the right mix of services and ways of charging that will work for the
community and for business.

Dealing with waste is complex-there are a lot of different combinations to think about. The
papers try to canvass the different options based on the information that is available at
present.

The questions that will help guide the content of the plan follow.

Each issues paper has a brief summary of what is covered in the paper plus the
questions that need to be answered about that topic.

Page 43 of 591

6
2 What national laws direct waste management and minimisation?

Councils play an important role in managing waste, reducing the harm waste can cause, and
encouraging communities and businesses to reduce waste.
This role is recognised and legally formalised in the Waste Minimisation Act (WMA). Under
the WMA councils are required to develop a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
(WMMP) by 2012. Section 43 of the WMA requires the WMMP to contain a summary of the
councils objectives, policies, methods and funding to, achieve effective and efficient waste
management and minimisation within the territorial authoritys district.
Further, section 25 of the WMA states that a key purpose of the waste levy is to: increase the
cost of waste disposal to recognise that disposal imposes costs on the environment, society
and the economy.
This was reiterated by the Minister for the Environment in a letter sent to the Chief Executive
of Local Government New Zealand in June 2010
1
: In planning waste minimisation and
management activities, I encourage local government to show leadership in setting the right
price signals around waste disposal.
Waste management and minimisation in New Zealand is underpinned by the Governments
core policy, the New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS). The NZWS provides high level
direction to guide the use of the tools available to manage and minimise waste in New
Zealand.
Tools available include:
The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA)
Local Government Act 2002 (LGA)
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO)
Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)
Other legislation and tools include the Climate Change Response Act 2002 and Climate
Change (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008
International conventions
Ministry for the Environment guidelines, codes of practice
Voluntary initiatives
In addition, waste management and resource recovery on the Hauraki Gulf Islands is
influenced by the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA).
The HGMPA provides specific guidance on how the Resource Management Act (RMA) is to
be applied within the Hauraki Gulf and is given effect through RMA policy statements and
plans (amongst other mechanisms).

1
Letter from Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister for the Environment, to Eugene Bowen, Chief Executive, Local
Government NZ, 23 June 2010
Page 44 of 591

7
Compared to the RMA, the HGMPA places more emphasis on:
integrating the management of the Gulf across different physical environments,
management agencies and planning documents
inter-relationships between the Gulfs catchments, islands and the coastal marine
area.
3 Who does what regarding waste operations and planning?

Auckland Councils governance, policy development and operation of waste management is
conducted as follows:
Day to day solid waste operations and policy development are the responsibility of the
Solid Waste Business Unit.
Auckland Councils Governing Body and Local Boards share decision-making
responsibilities. The Governing Body focuses on the big picture and on region-wide
strategic decisions e.g. preparing and adopting the Long Term Plan and setting
regional strategies, policies and plans including the Spatial Plan and any existing
plans.. It will consult with and consider the views of the Local Boards before making
a decision which affects the communities in the Local Board area, or the
responsibilities or operations of the Local Board. The Governing Body is responsible
for the following waste activities:
Auckland Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
standards and guidelines for waste management and disposal
region-wide service standards, such as refuse and recycling services
landfill management.
Local Boards are responsible for community engagement, preparing Local Board
Plans, monitoring Local Board agreements and proposing local bylaws.
In principle Local Boards are generally responsible for making decisions on non-
regulatory activities except where decision-making on a region-wide basis will better
promote the well-being of communities across Auckland.
These exceptions apply when:
the benefits of a coordinated approach across Auckland outweigh the
benefits of making a local decision
the decision-making will be more effective if integrated with other decisions
that the governing body has to make
the impact of the decision extends beyond one Local Board area

Page 45 of 591

8

Page 46 of 591

9
QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED TO
GUIDE THE CONTENT OF THE PLAN

Kerbside Refuse and Recycling

Should wheelie bins or bags be used for kerbside refuse collections?
Should the same service be provided across the region or bags for rural and high
density multi-storey areas and bins for the rest?
Should recyclables be collected using:
a) A commingled system, where all materials are collected in a wheelie bin and
sorted at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)?
b) A hybrid two-stream system, where all materials apart from paper and cardboard
or glass are collected in a wheelie bin, with the paper and cardboard or glass put
out separately?
Funding of Kerbside Services

Should refuse services be paid for through rates or polluter pays?
Should recycling services be paid for through rates, user pays, part-user pays, or by
another mechanism (eg surpluses from other waste services, waste levy etc)?

Should a kerbside organic collection be provided by the council? If yes , should it be
funded by rates, user pays, part-user pays or by another mechanism (eg surpluses
from other waste services, waste levy etc)?
Inorganic Collections
Should kerbside inorganic collections be replaced with an alternative booking system
or be discontinued?
Public Place Recycling
Should public place recycling bins be further promoted and installed in town centres
and tourist areas?
If so, who should make the decisions on location and who should fund them?
Geographically Remote Areas
Given the geographic isolation of the Hauraki Gulf Islands (and some rural areas on
the mainland) should further work be done to see what sort of role the Local Boards
might play in shaping the way waste is managed, to reflect their unique situation?
Should Hauraki Gulf Islands and rural areas pay the actual cost of their waste and
recycling services or should the region contribute? If so, to what level?

Page 47 of 591

10

Page 48 of 591

11
ISSUES PAPER 1
Kerbside Refuse and Recycling Services

What this paper is about

The Waste Minimisation Act (2008) requires a reduction in waste sent to landfill, and
imposes a waste levy as a first step to increasing the costs of waste disposal, thereby
encouraging recycling/reuse alternatives. The council also has obligations under the
Health and Safety Act to provide a safe workplace for staff and contractors in waste
services.
The type and regularity of kerbside services affects both the cost and the effectiveness of
minimising waste to landfill. Currently there is a range of different services (or no service)
provided by the council across the Auckland region.
This paper, in order to best give effect to the Auckland Councils strategic direction,
discusses the variables of kerbside collection services bags or bins, how many, how
they are collected and how often. (How the service is charged for, is dealt with in Issues
Paper 2 - Funding of Kerbside Services.) It also briefly describes what might be needed
for a proposed new kerbside collection service for organic waste.
Given that there are so many variables possible in kerbside collections, the challenge is
to come up with a combination that achieves the best environmental, social and
economic outcomes.
Questions for this section
1. Should wheelie bins or bags be used for kerbside refuse collections?

2. Should the same service be provided across the region or bags for rural and high
density multi-storey areas and bins for the rest?

3. Should recyclables be collected using:
a) A commingled system, where all materials are collected in a wheelie bin and
sorted at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)?
b) A hybrid two-stream system, where all materials, apart from paper and cardboard
or glass, are collected in a wheelie bin, with the paper and cardboard or glass put
out separately?

Page 49 of 591

12

Page 50 of 591

13
1 To collect or not to collect
1.1 Dont all councils provide waste and recycling services?
Of the seven territorial authorities that made up the new Auckland Council, six delivered
kerbside collection services, all through contracted service providers. The exception is
the former Rodney District, where the council did not provide any kerbside refuse or
recycling collections for many years until introducing a kerbside recycling service in 2003.
Kerbside refuse collections in the former Rodney District continue to be provided only by
private waste operators, and there have been as many as five collectors providing the
service at one time.
Several other councils in New Zealand dont provide all kerbside services. Kaikoura and
Western Bay of Plenty District Councils, for example, do not provide a kerbside refuse
collection service, and Rotorua District Council and Tauranga City Councils provide
recycling drop-off centres rather than a kerbside recycling collection.
1.2 Will Auckland Council continue to provide kerbside refuse services?
Although Auckland Council has not yet adopted a new Waste Minimisation and
Management Plan, taking into consideration its obligations under the WMA, its Zero
Waste goal and the new strategic direction to gain more influence over the waste stream,
it is clear that the council will continue to provide kerbside refuse services.
2 Private kerbside waste collections
2.1 What role do private waste collectors play in kerbside refuse collection?
Auckland Councils decision to take a new strategic direction and gain greater access to
the waste stream was made in response to the current situation in the region, where
private waste operators control most of the waste stream. This has been regarded as a
major impediment to the council fulfilling its responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation
Act.
Private waste operators collect kerbside refuse from households in all parts of the
Auckland region directly in competition to the local councils services (other than the
former Rodney District). The proportion of kerbside refuse that they collect varies
substantially from area to area. In most cases, the variation is related to the services
provided by the local council and how these services are funded. Private operators
collect primarily using 240-litre wheelie bins, although smaller wheelie bins are also
available. In the former North Shore City and Rodney District, there are also private
refuse bag collection services available.
There are a number of reasons why householders may choose to use private sector
services. Often this is done because the private sector service offers more capacity than
the council service, is more convenient (in the form of wheelie bins), or is seen as being a
better value service than the councils.
In the former Rodney District, where the council does not provide a kerbside refuse
collection service, all kerbside refuse is collected privately. In the former Auckland and
Page 51 of 591

14
Manukau cities, where the kerbside services appear free to the householder (because
they are paid for by rates, rather than directly by the householder), the private industry
collects from a very small proportion of households, probably less than 5%, according to
the limited data available. As the waste industry in these areas is not required to report
on tonnages collected, precise figures are not available.
In the former Auckland City, householders may choose a private wheelie bin service
because the councils 120-litre wheelie bin does not provide enough volume for their
waste. In the former Manukau City, where householders can set out an unlimited number
of refuse bags, a private wheelie bin may be chosen for its convenience and for its ability
to hold materials, like branches, that are not easily disposed of through the councils bag
collection service.
In areas where the council system is based on a polluter-pays model, with householders
purchasing pre-paid bags or stickers, the private waste collectors control a much greater
share of the kerbside market. In these areas, householders may decide that the private
services offer a better value for money than the councils service or that private wheelie
bins are more convenient than the councils bags.
In the former North Shore, Papakura, and Franklin areas, where the council provides a
polluter-pays bag service, private waste operators collect from about 15-20% of all
households. Because households that use 240-litre wheelie bins generally set out more
waste than bag users, this means the private waste operators may collect 25-40% of all
kerbside waste.
This situation is not unique to the Auckland area. Private waste operators provide
kerbside collection services in most parts of New Zealand. In some areas, private waste
operators collect close to 80% of all kerbside refuse.
2.1.1 Is leaving refuse collection to the private sector a realistic option?
Some of the issues relating to the collection of kerbside refuse by private collectors are
discussed below. If the private sector was left to provide services the only way the council
could meet its waste minimisation objectives would be for it to provide exclusive licences
to operators, as outlined in management models 1 and 2 in the Waste Assessment
2
.
These licences would allow operators to operate in specific geographical areas,
potentially the 21 Local Board areas. Licences would be let on very specific criteria
including the percentage of waste allowed to landfill, the charges made to residential
properties and the services provided.
Despite the council potentially being able to establish some degree of regulatory control
over private sector kerbside refuse collections by licensing, the new strategic direction
adopted by the council indicates that it is likely to continue to provide these services itself
to residents by outsourcing contracts to private operators.
2.2 What are the issues with private waste collectors?
To householders, private waste operators can be seen as offering a convenient,
competitive collection service that might provide better value for money than the council
service. Local councils, on the other hand, have a number of concerns relating to private
waste collectors:

2
Auckland Council Waste Assessment pages 4-5
Page 52 of 591

15
1. The aims of private waste collectors run counter to councils waste minimisation
responsibilities. The Waste Minimisation Act (2008) requires councils to
minimise waste but the same obligations do not apply to the waste industry. . In
general, when a householder has a large 240-litre wheelie bin, the data shows
that the householder recycles less, disposes of more greenwaste, and sets out a
greater weight of waste than if he/she used a smaller receptacle. When the
former Auckland City Council switched from a 240-litre wheelie bin to a 120-litre
wheelie bin for its kerbside refuse service, the average bin weight decreased
from 17 kg per bin to less than 11 kg per bin per week. The present Government
recognises this problem, commenting in its 2006 pre-election environmental
policy
3
that:
There are many barriers to waste reduction and safe disposal. They include:.
In other places, local authorities have been proactive in establishing user-pays, safe
waste disposal policies and kerbside recycling facilities. But their efforts are
sometimes being undercut by waste companies offering a cheap, bulk wheelie bin
service, which effectively removes the incentive on households to segregate their
wastes for recycling. Again, this is possible because these operators are not being
charged the full costs of meeting the communitys waste management objectives.
The waste levy, introduced in 2009, also supports the current Governments
intent for waste producers to pay the full cost of disposal. The levy was
introduced to raise revenue for promoting and achieving waste minimisation, but
also to, increase the cost of waste disposal to recognise that disposal imposes
costs on the environment, society, and the economy.
2. Private waste collectors tend to cherry-pick the areas they collect from, and
dont necessarily provide kerbside services to remote, sparsely-populated areas
where collection is less commercially viable. The former Rodney District Council
had to subsidise private waste collectors to operate in some remote areas.
3. Private waste collectors, by providing an alternative to a councils service, can
reduce the effectiveness of a councils waste reduction initiatives. If a council
reduces the capacity or increases the cost of its services to encourage waste
reduction, householders can change to a private service to avoid changing their
waste disposal behaviour.
4. Unless private waste operators are required by licensing conditions
4
to report the
quantity of household waste being collected, councils are unable to determine
the total amount of household waste being collected. This makes it impossible to
monitor the effects of waste minimisation initiatives or measure progress towards
waste minimisation goals.
5. In areas like the former Rodney District, where there are several competing
private waste collectors, in any given area there may be collections occurring on
two or three days of the week. This means the kerbside has wheelie bins or
bags set out several days a week and there are a large number of truck
movements, with each company using a separate vehicle.

3
A Bluegreen vision for New Zealand 2006
4
Licensing could be done through a Solid Waste bylaw. The scope and effectiveness of the bylaw is
likely to be determined by the level of influence that the council has over the waste stream.
Page 53 of 591

16
6. Despite the former Rodney District Council having no direct involvement with
kerbside refuse collections, the council still receives large numbers of customer
enquiries relating to the services and complaints relating to the operations.
Managing these residents concerns represented a significant cost to the council.
7. As private waste operators increase their share of the kerbside refuse market,
the efficiency of the councils collection decreases, so the cost per household
increases. If a council is only collecting bags from half of the households in an
area, the collection is less efficient and, as a result, more expensive per
household.
8. Looking at broader environmental effects, such as greenhouse gas emissions,
traffic congestion, and wear and tear on roads, the effects of several vehicles
collecting kerbside waste from households are much greater than for a single
vehicle doing the same job.
3 KERBSIDE REFUSE COLLECTION
3.1 When will all of Auckland receive the same kerbside refuse services?
Throughout Auckland (except in the former Rodney District), the councils kerbside refuse
collections are contracted to private service providers. The existing contracts have a
range of expiry dates, which has required the council to re-negotiate many of the
contracts to end at the same time. Most of the contracts will now expire in 2013, with the
council having an option to extend them for two further one-year periods.
New types of services might be introduced once the existing contract terms have expired.
Whether all areas of the Auckland region will have identical kerbside refuse services, and
what these services might be, has yet to be decided. These decisions will be made as
part of the waste minimisation and management planning process.
3.2 What objectives does the council need to consider?
When these contracts expire, Auckland Council will have an opportunity to rationalise the
refuse collection system, possibly by standardising services throughout the region. When
considering what types of kerbside refuse collection services to provide, the council will
need to take into account several general objectives, including:
1. The councils newly-adopted Zero Waste goal
2. Meeting its obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act to reduce waste to
landfill.
3. Maintaining public health
4. Providing an efficient, cost-effective service
5. Addressing community expectations
6. Fulfilling its responsibilities as an employer under the Health and Safety in
Employment Act 1992
Page 54 of 591

17
7. Reducing the harm caused by waste and increasing resource efficiency, as per
the New Zealand Waste Strategy.
3.3 What are the councils options for kerbside refuse collections?
With all of the councils major existing refuse collection contracts expiring over the next
five years, there is virtually a clean slate for the council to start again and redesign a
new system. The major questions that Auckland Council will be considering are:
1. What the service configuration should be for kerbside refuse collection. This
includes variables such as the type of receptacle (bag or wheelie bin) and the
frequency of collection.
2. How a kerbside refuse collection will be funded (through rates or polluter-pays).
3. What services will be provided for remote areas, such as the Hauraki Gulf
Islands and rural areas of the former Rodney and Franklin districts.
The first question is discussed in the following sections. Funding issues, and waste
services in remote areas are discussed in separate issues papers.
It should be remembered that decisions on kerbside refuse collections wont be made in
isolation, as the various kerbside services need to be co-ordinated to act in unison to
produce the best results. Auckland Council will be making decisions on the complete
package of services it provides, including recycling services and a possible organic waste
collection service.
3.4 What is in kerbside refuse?
The composition of all of the former councils kerbside collections is measured regularly
using a consistent methodology. The composition is measured in terms of about 30
different classifications. In the following table, the composition of all of Auckland
Councils residential kerbside refuse collections combined is shown in terms of fourteen
major classifications.
Also shown is an assumed composition of privately-collected kerbside refuse. While the
composition of privately-collected wheelie bins has not been measured extensively in the
Auckland region (other than in Rodney) data from other areas in New Zealand is
available and has been combined and used as surrogate data. The final columns of the
table show the composition of the councils kerbside refuse combined with the privately-
collected refuse.

Page 55 of 591

18
Table 1: Composition of domestic kerbside refuse in Auckland
5

Council kerbside
refuse
Private kerbside
refuse
Combined kerbside
refuse
Tonnes per year of
kerbside refuse
Tonnes
per year
% of
total
Tonnes
per year
% of
total
Tonnes
per year
% of
total
Paper 18,885 10.4% 7,543 13.1% 26,428 11.1%
Plastic 21,206 11.7% 5,553 9.6% 26,758 11.2%
Organic
Kitchen waste

72,115

39.8%

15,526

26.9%

8,7641

36.7%
Greenwaste 18,542 10.2% 9,566 16.6% 28,108 11.8%
Other Organic 5,918 3.3% 1,680 2.9% 7,597 3.2%
Organic - Subtotal 96,575 53.4% 26,772 46.4% 123,347 51.7%
Ferrous 3,226 1.8% 1,081 1.9% 4,307 1.8%
Non-ferrous 1,254 0.7% 491 0.9% 1,745 0.7%
Glass 3,747 2.1% 2,995 5.2% 6,741 2.8%
Textiles 7,006 3.9% 2,220 3.9% 9,227 3.9%
Sanitary paper 22,313 12.3% 4,253 7.4% 26,566 11.1%
Rubble 3,408 1.9% 4,061 7.0% 7,469 3.1%
Timber 1,530 0.8% 1,781 3.1% 3,311 1.4%
Rubber 272 0.2% 100 0.2% 372 0.2%
Potentially hazardous 1,581 0.9% 798 1.4% 2,379 1.0%
Total 181,001 100% 57,649 100.0 238,650 100.0

Over half of the kerbside refuse collected by Auckland Councils services from residential
properties is organic waste. Of that organic waste, 80% is kitchen waste. Paper, plastic,
and sanitary paper (which includes disposable nappies) comprise similar proportions of
the councils kerbside refuse around 10% - 12% each. Privately-collected kerbside
refuse is similar in composition to the councils collections, but is assumed to contain
more recyclable materials and a higher proportion of greenwaste.

5
Waste Not Consulting Ltd 2011. Unpublished data analysis
Page 56 of 591

19
3.5 Refuse bags or wheelie bins?
There are only two practical options for the type of receptacle refuse is collected in
refuse bags or wheelie bins. The options for each type of receptacle are discussed in the
next two sections, and in section 3.5.3 the relative merits and disadvantages are
discussed.
3.5.1 Are there any options for refuse bags?
The options to consider regarding kerbside refuse bags are limited to the type of material,
the size of the bag, and the bag colour.
Most councils have opted to use plastic bags, but some councils, such as Rotorua,
continue to use multi-wall paper bags as the official refuse bag. These Kleensaks,
which were used in Auckland City prior to the introduction of wheelie bins, are more
puncture-resistant than plastic bags, and generally have a smaller capacity, which
reduces health and safety issues related to overweight bags.
On the other hand, multi-wall bags are more expensive than plastic bags, degrade more
quickly in landfills (which results in greenhouse gas emissions), and do not perform as
well when wet or when filled with wet materials.
Refuse bags are available in a range of sizes, with the primary considerations for bag
size being convenience for the user and health and safety issues for the collector. If a
bag is too small, it is not user-friendly for the householder, and if it is too large, the bag
may be too heavy to be lifted safely by the collector. Within this range, a council is able
to offer residents a choice of polluter-pays refuse bags. In the former North Shore City,
for example, the council offers residents the choice of purchasing either 40-litre or 60-litre
rubbish bags.
3.5.2 What are the options for wheelie bins?
There are two main variables that affect the functionality of wheelie bins. Most, but not
all, wheelie bins are collected by vehicles fitted with automated external lift arms, so the
design of the bin is constrained by what vehicles are able to handle efficiently with
minimal damage to the bins.
The most obvious variable is the capacity of the bin. The sizes most commonly used by
councils for kerbside refuse services are 120-litre and 240-litre. Other sizes are also
used, with the former North Shore and Waitakere area residents being provided with 140-
litre wheelie bins for recycling.
3.5.3 What are the advantages and disadvantages of bags vs. bins?
3.5.3.1 Waste reduction
There is little, if any, inherent advantage in the bag or wheelie bin itself when it comes to
reducing kerbside refuse. It is the capacity of the receptacle, the number of receptacles
put out for collection, the frequency of collection, and the funding mechanism (whether
the service is polluter pays or rates-funded) that are important in reducing waste to
landfill.
Page 57 of 591

20
When the volume of refuse that a household can set out each week is limited,
householders tend to make use of other disposal options, such as recycling more
materials, disposing of less greenwaste through the kerbside refuse system, or taking
waste directly to a transfer station.
Wheelie bins have a distinct advantage if waste reduction is to be achieved by reducing
the frequency of refuse collection. While a fortnightly wheelie bin refuse collection has
proven acceptable in many locations when combined with an organics collection, a
fortnightly bagged refuse collection could create odour and vermin issues and be much
less acceptable to users.
If polluter-pays is to be used as a tool for reducing waste, bags have an advantage over
rates-funded wheelie bin refuse collections, as currently used in the former Auckland City
area. The incentive for householders to reduce waste is greater if a cost is incurred for
every bag of refuse that is set out as compared to a flat fee for a regular wheelie bin
collection. However polluter-pays wheelie bin systems are possible using technologies
that charge per lift of a bin, or on the weight of the bin. These systems (discussed in more
detail in the funding issues paper) are common overseas and provide a similar economic
incentive to reduce waste as pre-paid bags.
3.5.3.2 Health and safety
The health and safety aspects of wheelie bins compared to bags have gained in
prominence in recent years. If wheelie bins are collected using automated systems, such
as trucks with automated mechanical lift arms, there is a reduction in the risk of accidents
compared to manual workers collecting bags from the kerbside.
Manual collectors of refuse bags are at risk from a variety of causes including traffic
hazards, sharp objects in the refuse, and repetitive strain injuries from lifting bags, some
of which can weigh as much as 18-20 kg.
Health and safety concerns around manual collections intensified following two fatalities
in the waste sector in 2001. The Accident Compensation Commission and the
Department of Labour approached CEOs of major waste companies to express their
concern and to encourage the sector to develop guidelines. As a consequence draft
guidelines were developed by the Waste Management Institute of New Zealand Health
and Safety Sector Group in 2002
6
, followed by a health and safety strategy in 2006
7
.
Although these are not legally binding, they are admissible in court and can be used in
evidence of good practice
8
.
An assessment of the benefits and costs of bag and bin collections commissioned by the
Waste Management Institute of New Zealand Health and Safety Sector Group concluded
that,
9
Clearly there is a marked difference in the injury rates between manual and
automated collection methods, with manual methods more likely to result in injury.

6
NZ guidelines for waste and recoverable resource collection, processing and disposal operation of
rear loading compaction collection trucks safety requirements 2002
7
Health and safety in the waste industry industry strategy. WasteMINZ 2006
8
Manukau District Court. Department of Labour v Alpha Refuse Collections Ltd 22 March
2011.Sentencing notes for a waste industry fatality in which judge cited these strategies and guidelines.
9
Morrison Low Associates 2010, An assessment of the health and safety costs and benefits of manual vs
automated waste collections. Position report for WasteMINZ.
Page 58 of 591

21
Auckland Councils obligations under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 are
to provide for the systematic management of health and safety at work. The councils
main responsibility as an employer, which includes engaging contractors, is to make the
workplace safe by systematically identifying hazards and managing any hazards by
eliminating them, isolating them, or minimising them, in that order of preference.
There is strong preference for wheelie bins over bags from a health perspective also. The
Medical Officer of Health, in his review of Auckland Councils Waste Assessment notes
that, The clear public health preference is for bins due to the much better:
Isolation of refuse from interference by domestic and wild animals.
Control of odour and dust.
Isolation of refuse from insect pest species e.g. flies and wasps
10
.
3.5.3.3 Costs
When the funding system is the same (i.e.polluter-pays or rates-funded) neither bags nor
wheelie bins has a clear advantage when it comes to refuse collection costs. While the
automated collection of wheelie bins requires lower labour inputs than manual bag
collections, this is offset by the high capital costs of the automated collection vehicles and
bins and the faster collection times of the manual collection.
As well as the higher capital costs of automated collection vehicles for wheelie bins, the
start-up costs for wheelie bin systems are much greater than for bag systems, as wheelie
bins need to be purchased and distributed to every household.
On an on-going basis, wheelie bins are more expensive to administer, as large
databases need to be maintained to keep track of all the bins that are provided to
householders and determine which properties are eligible for wheelie bins. Bins also
require on-going service and replacement, which refuse bags dont. Establishing a
polluter-pays funding arrangement for wheelie bin collections (e.g. on a per weight or
collection frequency basis) would also be more costly compared to a user-pay refuse bag
arrangement.
Any decision taken by Auckland Council needs to consider the assets owned by former
councils. All households in the former Auckland City have been provided with 120-litre
wheelie bins for refuse. The council may decide to base any new systems around this
existing asset, or may choose to make these bins redundant, as was done when
Auckland City Council changed from 240-litre to 120 litre wheelie bins in 2001.
3.5.3.4 User convenience and acceptance
When it comes to refuse bags and bins, one size definitely does not fit all households.
Many householders consider that wheelie bins take up too much space and create odour
issues if not cleaned. The size and number of wheelie bins is a particular problem for
small properties or for those with restricted access to the street frontage. Many inner city
residents, in particular, do not have suitable storage for wheelie bins on their properties
and some are stored on the footpaths, in contravention to waste bylaws.

10
Review of the Auckland Council Darft Waste Assessment. 1 April 2011. Medical Officer of Health. Auckland
Regional Public Health Service.
Page 59 of 591

22
Even for larger properties, if there are a small number of people in the household and
little waste is generated, being required to find space for two or three wheelie bins can be
a concern. A single person household may only generate the equivalent of a refuse bag
of waste and recycling every fortnight, but that household is still required to store and use
the same number of wheelie bins as large households.
Moving wheelie bins from the house to the kerbside can also cause problems for the
aged, disabled, or householders with physical impairments. Large recycling wheelie bins,
such as the 240-litre bins provided by the former Auckland City Council, can weigh over
20 kg when full of paper and glass bottles, and can be particularly difficult to move
around properties with stairs or steep driveways. For many householders in hilly
suburbs, their only option is to use a vehicle to tow their wheelie bin to the kerbside.
Despite these potential problems, most householders find wheelie bins to be more
convenient than refuse bags. Disposing of refuse into a wheelie bin doesnt involve as
much contact with the refuse as putting it into a bag and refuse can be compacted more
easily and safely into a wheelie bin than into a bag. Householders may also find wheelie
bins to be more hygienic as they can be stored outside and arent subject to animal strike
in the same way as refuse bags.
3.5.3.5 Street amenity
The kerbside set out of both refuse bags and wheelie bins inevitably reduces the amenity
value of the streetscape environment. A preference for either wheelie bins or bags is a
matter of personal taste, with some residents preferring the look of wheelie bins and
other residents preferring the look of bags.
There are issues relating to the creation of litter from setting out kerbside refuse. As
refuse bags are more susceptible to animal strike, bags are more likely to be associated
with litter on the kerbside, although wheelie bins can create litter when they tip over or as
they are being emptied.
Refuse bags leave a tidied streetscape when they have been collected, as the street is
left completely cleared. Emptied wheelie bins, on the other hand, can be left on the
kerbside for hours, or days, after the collection is completed. This is particularly an issue
when householders go away on holiday.
Bins can also block pedestrians and other footpath users and are subject to being blown
over on windy days.
3.6 How will refuse collections be funded?
Funding options for refuse collections are discussed in Issues Paper 2: Funding of
Kerbside Services.
4 KERBSIDE RECYCLING COLLECTION
4.1 When will all of Auckland receive the same kerbside recycling services?
In all parts of the Auckland region, Auckland Councils kerbside recycling collections are
contracted to private service providers. The existing contracts have a range of expiry
Page 60 of 591

23
dates, which has required the council to re-negotiate some of the contracts so that they
end at the same time. In the former Franklin District, the crate-based recycling contract
expired in October 2011 and a contract variation was used to include the districts
collections with the collections in Manukau.
New types of services might be introduced in different areas at different times as the
existing contract terms expire. Whether all areas of the Auckland region will have
identical kerbside recycling services, and what these services might be, has yet to be
decided. These decisions will be made as part of the waste management and
minimisation planning process.
4.2 What decisions does the council need to make about kerbside recycling?
The objectives that Auckland Council must consider when making decisions relating to
kerbside recycling are the same as those relating to kerbside refuse collections. These
are listed in section 3.2. Waste minimisation, in line with the councils Zero Waste goal,
and meeting community expectations are, potentially, the most important considerations.
The questions that need to be answered about kerbside recycling are similar to those for
kerbside refuse collections:
1. Should the council provide a kerbside recycling collection?
2. What type of kerbside recycling system should be provided?
3. How should a kerbside recycling collection be funded?
While these questions when applied to kerbside refuse are quite contentious, there is
likely to be much less debate relating to kerbside recycling. Funding considerations are
discussed in a separate issues paper.
4.3 Does Auckland Council need to provide a kerbside recycling service?
Most, but not all, councils in New Zealand provide a kerbside recycling service to
residents. Rotorua District Council, for example, does not have a kerbside collection, but
provides recycling drop-off points in several locations throughout the district. Tauranga
City Council and Far North and Western Bay of Plenty District Councils provide a small
number of drop-off points but the kerbside recycling services are provided by private
operators on a user-pays basis.
As a kerbside recycling collection has been shown to be one of the most effective means
of reducing waste to landfill, and as it is a service that the community has come to expect
will be provided, it is likely that the council will continue to provide this service, particularly
in light of its new Zero Waste goal.
4.4 What is the best kerbside recycling system?
While there are many variables to be considered when planning a kerbside recycling
system, the focus is generally on where and how the recyclable materials are sorted.
The other variables, such as the type of container and frequency of collection, tend to be
dependent on the sorting system that is chosen. The best sorting system is not
necessarily a constant, but might change over time as technologies change and as
community expectations on what can be recycled change.
Page 61 of 591

24
4.4.1 How has kerbside recycling changed over the years?
The first kerbside recycling system in New Zealand was introduced in Devonport in the
late 1970s. Like all of the systems that were introduced for the next twenty years, the
system was based on residents setting out their recyclable containers in a reusable
plastic crate and paper and cardboard being bundled and set out separately. The
materials in the crate were partially sorted as they were put into the collection vehicle and
the paper was collected in a separate vehicle. Any further sorting was done at a
centralised sorting facility.
In the early 2000s, councils started to introduce commingled systems, using wheelie
bins. The systems in the former North Shore and Waitakere City areas were amongst
the first to introduce wheelie bins for recycling collection. Those councils chose to
provide a fortnightly collection of 140-litre wheelie bins with a separate paper collection.
All materials in the wheelie bins are sorted at a centralised sorting facility.
The former Auckland and Manukau City Councils introduced a fully commingled system
in 2008. Households are provided with a 240-litre wheelie bin, which is collected
fortnightly, into which all recyclable materials, paper included, can be placed. A new
sorting facility was purpose-built for sorting the collected materials.
Due to issues relating to the quality of materials collected in fully commingled systems,
there is a trend starting for separate collections of different materials. Several councils,
including Wellington and Dunedin, are moving towards separate glass collections. The
new Wellington system will provide residents with a 140-litre wheelie bin for a fortnightly
collection of all recyclable materials other than glass. Glass will be recycled with a
fortnightly collection of the existing 45-litre crates.
4.5 What are the different types of kerbside recycling systems?
There are many ways that kerbside recycling systems can be classified, but the four
basic types described briefly below are useful for discussing the relevant issues.
The four system types are:
1. Kerbside sort systems - This refers to systems where recyclable material is
manually collected and sorted at the kerbside or on the vehicle. For example, a
vehicle may have four compartments where paper, glass, plastic and cans are
separated by the operators as the material is collected. Any unsorted materials
are taken to a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) for sorting.
2. Commingled systems - All recyclable material is collected in a single wheelie bin,
which is emptied into the collection vehicle with an automated arm. All material
is taken to a MRF for sorting.
3. Hybrid or two-stream systems This is essentially a variation on commingled
collections where all materials, apart from glass or paper, are collected in one
container with glass or paper handled separately. Materials are collected in
separate compartments on vehicles or in separate vehicles. There is no manual
sorting at the kerbside.
4. Dry recycling systems - Dry recycling systems are also a variation on
commingled recycling systems but collect a much wider range of materials than
Page 62 of 591

25
the conventional recyclable commodities of plastic bottles, glass, cans, and
paper. Materials may include textiles, shoes, electronic goods and small
household appliances, and batteries.
Of these options only the commingled and hybrid systems can realistically be considered
by Auckland Council due to the large investment in commingled systems it has inherited
from former councils. In the future, however, it may be possible to transition from either
of these systems to a dry recycling system to increase the type and amount of materials
recovered.
If in the future, given the aim to increase recycling and resource recovery contained in the
Waste Minimisation Act, more collection points or a network of Resource Recovery
centres could be established, to provide an extra option for people with a lot of
recyclables to drop off directly and help deal with peak recycling times such as
Christmas.
4.6 How do commingled recycling systems work?
Commingled systems, particularly systems using wheelie bins, have gained in popularity
significantly in recent years. While some councils, such as New Plymouth District
Council, have a commingled system using shopping bags, and others, such as
Mackenzie District Council, have official user-pays recycling bags, most large councils
have moved to systems using recycling wheelie bins. While recycling bags can be
collected manually (in New Plymouth they are collected in the same vehicle as the
rubbish bags), wheelie bins are generally collected using automated systems.
There are a number of reasons for the increase in the popularity of commingled wheelie
bin collections, including:
increased focus on health and safety considerations, with automated systems
shown to be safer
less street litter than with open-top crates
higher perceived levels of user-friendliness as less sorting is required by
residents and only a single recycling wheelie bin is required to give the same
volume as several recycling crates
with an increased range of materials being collected (plastics, in particular), the
volume required to store the material for collection has increased, and automated
collection trucks tend to have a much larger capacity than manual collection
vehicles.
As the recyclable materials are collected together in a single compartment of the vehicle,
sorting of materials takes place at a MRF. The former Auckland and Manukau City
Councils operated a completely commingled recycling collection, with residents placing
all materials into a 240-litre wheelie bin collected fortnightly. The collected materials are
taken to the Visy MRF in Onehunga for sorting.
4.7 How do two-stream/hybrid systems work?
Two or three stream systems are variations of commingled systems and can be, to an
extent, a hybrid between the commingled and kerbside sort approaches. In two-stream
Page 63 of 591

26
recycling systems, one material, usually glass or paper, is collected in a separate
container and loaded onto a separate vehicle or vehicle compartment. These systems
can be totally automated and collected in a single vehicle with a single lift if the bin and
vehicle are both split into two compartments.
The philosophy behind the approach is to attempt to preserve material quality by keeping
the most problematic materials (paper and glass) separate. This approach attempts to
combine the advantages of both the commingled and kerbside sort systems. The former
North Shore and Waitakere City Councils operated two-stream systems, with paper
collected separately. All materials collected from kerbside recycling in these areas is
taken to the Onyx MRF in Henderson. Wellington City Council is changing its kerbside
sort system to a two-stream system, with glass being collected in alternate weeks to
other materials.
4.8 How do the kerbside recycling systems compare?
4.8.1 User convenience and acceptance
Commingled systems are generally perceived to be more user friendly than kerbside
sort systems. A householder survey, undertaken after the introduction of the former
Waitakere City Councils two stream system in 2005 showed 92% of respondents
preferred the new wheelie bin system to the old crate system. Prior to the introduction of
the system public submissions were fairly evenly split in preference between the wheelie
bin and crate system.
Kerbside sort systems sometimes require the householder to sort their recyclable
material into different material streams, such as separating paper and containers, which
might be considered inconvenient. In addition, kerbside recycling systems that do not
use wheelie bins require householders to carry material to the kerbside, whereas wheelie
bins can be wheeled to the kerbside.
As with kerbside refuse systems, however, on some properties, such as those with stairs
or steep driveways, it might be easier for householders to carry crates to the kerbside.
Smaller properties may also find it easier to store the crates commonly used for kerbside
sort systems rather than a wheelie bin.
Large households may find issues with the typical capacity of the crates used in kerbside
sort systems and may require additional crates for their recycling. This is potentially less
convenient than the single large-capacity wheelie bin typically used in a commingled
system.
4.8.2 Health and safety
Comparing the health and safety issues of different recycling systems is similar to
comparing manual refuse bag collections and automated wheelie bin collections.
Recycling collections pose greater risks than refuse collections however, due to the type
of materials being collected (glass in particular) and the issues involved in manually
picking up crates.
4.8.3 Reducing waste to landfill
Broadly speaking, the quantity of material that is ultimately diverted from landfill by a
kerbside recycling system is dependent on a range of factors, including the number and
Page 64 of 591

27
types of materials that are collected, the frequency of collection, the capacity of the
containers provided to householders, and the education that is provided.
There is evidence showing that commingled systems collect significantly higher quantities
of materials from households due to the capacity and ease of use of wheelie bins. This
does not necessarily result in more material being diverted from landfill when the entire
recycling process is considered however. This is due to commingled systems performing
less well in terms of the quality of recycled materials produced.
Looking at the entire recycling process from kerbside to a new product, fully commingled
systems collect more material than kerbside sort systems but collect more contamination,
such as rubbish bags, which must be landfilled, and there is cross-contamination of
materials, such as glass in paper, during transport and unloading. This can result in a
lower proportion of high-quality materials being recovered at the MRF and more material
being rejected by reprocessors.
In the Auckland region, the Visy MRF, which accepts material from the former Auckland
and Manukau City Councils and, as of November 2010, Franklin District Council, has had
well publicised material quality issues, particularly in respect of the ability of the plant to
separate glass. The company says that these issues are being addressed through
technological improvements. In general, it appears that some of the problems that result
in commingled systems producing lower quality materials can be mitigated through better
operational procedures and improved technology.
The problems associated with glass in kerbside recycling collections are discussed in
more detail in a separate future issues paper
4.8.4 Carbon impacts
The carbon impacts of recycling derive from several sources: reduced energy use from
the avoidance of extraction of virgin materials, avoidance of greenhouse gases generated
in landfill, and energy involved in the collection and sorting of material.
There are significant carbon benefits associated with recycling. Little of the research that
has been done in this field differentiates between the carbon impacts of different
collection methods. On the basis that most of the carbon benefits arise where the
recycled material is substituted for virgin materials, collection methods that maintain
material quality and close the loop more effectively, are likely to have greater carbon
benefits.
4.8.5 Capital costs
Commingled systems tend to have higher capital costs than kerbside sort systems. The
vehicles used tend to be more highly engineered compactor vehicles, with bin-lifts or
mechanical arms, costing in the order of $300,000 - $400,000 each. Relatively simple
non-compacting multi-compartment vehicles, with a value in the order of $100,000, are
used for kerbside sort systems.
Commingled systems require a more sophisticated MRF than those used for kerbside
sort systems. Although some MRFs are relatively simple manual picking lines, such as
that used for the two-stream collection in the former North Shore and Waitakere areas,
the trend is towards increasing levels of automation, for reasons of cost effectiveness,
health and safety, and material quality. The Visy MRF in Onehunga, which has a
Page 65 of 591

28
reported capacity of approximately 70,000 tonnes per annum, had an initial capital cost of
approximately $22 million.
Also important in terms of capital costs is the cost of bins. Commingled systems generally
require wheelie bins, which cost in the order of $40-$50 each (depending on size and
economies of scale). By comparison, recycling crates, as typically used in kerbside sort
systems, cost in the order of $10-15.
Because Auckland Council already has a substantial, inherited investment in a
commingled collection system, comparing the capital costs of the various systems may
not be particularly relevant. The decision on which system to use will ultimately be
determined by the assets the council owns and their projected lifespan.
4.8.6 Operational costs
Labour costs on kerbside sort systems are invariably greater than for commingled
systems due to the manual sorting techniques employed and the consequently higher
staffing levels. This is particularly true if high pay rates and high levels of staff training
are provided, both of which are important in ensuring service quality and managing health
and safety risks.
Other operational costs such as vehicle and plant maintenance, fuel, road user charges,
and insurance will tend to be greater for commingled systems, reflecting the use of larger
and more expensive plant and equipment.
Commingled systems, because of their ability to easily provide the householder with large
capacity through a wheelie bin, can operate on a fortnightly basis with minimal impact on
participation and capture rates. Fortnightly collections can provide savings on collection
costs on the order of 30% compared to weekly collections. (Collection costs for
fortnightly collections cost more than half of that for weekly collections because of higher
set out rates and more material being collected from each household. This makes
collection slower and more costly).
4.8.7 Revenue and markets for recovered materials
The overall cost of kerbside recycling is dependent on the market value of the materials
once they have been collected and processed. Markets for recycled commodities are
influenced by prevailing economic conditions and, most significantly, by commodity prices
for the equivalent virgin materials. As such, market values for recovered materials can
vary rapidly and significantly.
In the latter part of 2008, during the global financial crisis, international markets for
recycled commodities fell sharply. Prices for aluminium cans dropped from $1000 to
$100 a tonne. Plastics, on average, fell from $280 to $200 a tonne, steel from $700 to
$100 a tonne, and copper from $8000 to $4000 a tonne. Cardboard and paper prices
also dropped 90 percent.
Since that time, demand and prices have recovered to a degree, but not to previous
highs. While the fall in prices was dramatic, prices were falling from record highs and
have, in real terms, returned roughly to the prices prevalent in 2006.
Page 66 of 591

29
Price fluctuations will always occur with recycled materials but can be minimised by
stockpiling materials until prices rebound as the former Waitakere City Council did
during the 2008 downturn.
In terms of the differences between kerbside sort and commingled systems, the issue of
revenue and markets is closely aligned with the quality of the material being produced.
Research into how markets for recycling can be optimised concluded that minimising
contamination and maximising quality was crucial. Ensuring the highest returns based on
the quality of the material requires that the quality can be assessed by the target market,
whether visually or through utilising a collection methodology that is acknowledged as
resulting in a high quality product.
The ability of kerbside sort systems to deliver consistently high levels of product quality
means they are in a more advantageous position when selling into the market and will
generally command higher prices and maintain demand during downturns in the market.
Similarly, a hybrid or two-stream system (such as commingled system with a separate
collection for glass) can also deliver a consistently high level of product quality. These
factors have been important in Wellington and Dunedin City Councils deciding to move to
a separate glass collection.
4.8.8 Overall costs
In competitive tenders for kerbside recycling systems, a former council in the Auckland
region received lower tender prices for commingled systems than for kerbside sort
systems. This is perhaps the best comparison of the actual costs of the two systems.
4.8.9 Local economic impacts
While one of Auckland Councils primary concerns with regard to waste management is
to ensure material is diverted from landfill to beneficial use, there are wider economic
issues that deserve consideration.
Material produced from kerbside recycling systems that is of lower quality tends to find
markets offshore, as countries with lower labour costs are able to further manually sort
material to enable it to then be reprocessed. For local reprocessors, this is not an
economically viable option, and they therefore require higher quality material from the
kerbside system.
Providing material that can be used locally for reprocessing will have economic benefits
in terms of reduced need to import material, retaining the value of recovered resources
locally, and providing local employment.
4.8.10 How will kerbside recycling collections be funded?
Funding options for kerbside recycling collections are discussed in Issues Paper 2:
Funding of Kerbside Services.
Page 67 of 591

30
5 KERBSIDE ORGANIC WASTE COLLECTION
5.1 Why would Auckland Council start to collect organic waste?
Organic waste collection isnt a new idea. Night soil collections in Auckland continued
into the 1960s. Prior to local body amalgamation in 1989, Mt Albert Borough Council
provided a kerbside greenwaste collection to its residents.
With the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 emphasising local governments responsibility to
reduce waste to landfill and Auckland Council adopting a Zero Waste goal, organic waste
is an obvious target for waste reduction. As shown in the table in section 3.4, over half of
the councils kerbside refuse is organic waste, made up predominantly of food waste and
greenwaste, most of which is compostable. With the limited control the council currently
has over other waste streams in the Auckland region, reducing organic waste in kerbside
refuse is the councils best opportunity to achieve a meaningful reduction in waste to
landfill.
Other benefits of diverting organic waste from landfill include the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions from landfills and assisting the beneficial use of a valuable resource that
results if processed organic wastes are returned to the soil. The use of compost and
other soil amendments has other economic and carbon-related benefits.
5.2 Are there other options for householders to reduce organic waste to
landfill?
Unlike refuse and recycling, there are several methods other than kerbside collections
available to householders to divert organic waste from landfill. These include home
composting, in-sink food waste disposal units, worm composting, transfer station drop-off
points, private garden waste collections, and EM Bokashi (a micro-organism-enhanced
anaerobic fermentation process).
While all of these options, other than in-sink food waste disposal units, have been
promoted in the past by councils in the Auckland region, the persistence of high
proportions of organic waste in kerbside refuse would tend to indicate that, at best, their
promotion has achieved only a moderate success. However, as the on-site means of
disposing of organic waste are generally recognised as having the best environmental
outcomes, these options could be seen as complementary to a kerbside organic waste
collection rather than as an alternative means, on their own, of diverting waste from
landfill.
Councils have not specifically promoted the use of in-sink waste disposal units, nor have
they actively discouraged their use. This option has been available to householders for
some time and the use of these units is a question of the householders personal
preferences. Although industry research indicates that around 34% of houses are fitted
with in-sink units
11
, the substantial quantities of food waste in kerbside refuse indicate
that these units are not being used to a significant degree by the community.

11
MWH, (2008) Food waste management in New Zealand, prepared for Parex Industries
Page 68 of 591

31
5.3 How would organic waste be collected?
The method by which organic waste is collected will be determined, to a large degree, by
whether the collection is for food waste or food waste plus greenwaste. The decision on
what materials to collect can not be made until Auckland Council has determined how to
fund such a service, and whether or not a kerbside collection is feasible.
At its meeting on 15 March 2011 the Regional Development and Operations Committee
of Auckland Council resolved to adopt an aspirational goal of working towards Zero
Waste so the council has little choice but to seriously consider the separate collection
and processing of these materials from the general domestic waste stream
The main issue with an organic waste collection is that it requires householders to
separate their organic waste and put it in a dedicated organics receptacle for collection at
the kerb-side. Depending on the system chosen for kerbside refuse and recyclables
collections this could mean householders are required to put up to three containers out at
the kerbside. Based on Christchurch City Councils experience with its 3 bin system
(discussed in section 6) three bins may be acceptable to the community.
5.3.1 Food waste only
Food waste only collections are relatively common overseas, in particular in some parts
of Europe, but there are none in New Zealand. A large-scale trial of a food waste only
collection is currently being conducted in Putaruru. For a one-year period, all 2200
households are being provided with a 23-litre roadside container with a lock-down lid, a
7-litre kitchen caddy, and a supply of biodegradable bags. Early results of the trial should
be available in mid-2011.
Food waste only collections can be set out either in bags for manual collection, as in
Putaruru, or in wheelie bins. As households generate, on average, less than 2.7 kg of
food waste per week, large wheelie bins are impractical for a food waste only collection.
While the size of a wheelie bin that can be lifted by an automatic arm is limited to those
about 80-litres or over, bins of that size can be manufactured to have a lower carrying
capacity by inserting a false bottom. Going to this extreme is questionable however, as
the weight of the average bin is three times heavier than the average weight of material it
would collect.
It is estimated that there are about 70,000 tonnes of kitchen waste disposed of through
Auckland Councils kerbside refuse collections, with a further 16,000 tonnes collected
from residential properties by private waste operators.
5.3.2 Food waste and greenwaste
Mixed food waste and greenwaste collections are becoming more common in New
Zealand, with Christchurch and Timaru being two examples. Timaru District Council
provides householders with a 240-litre wheelie bin for organic waste that is collected
fortnightly. Christchurch City Council provides an 80-litre wheelie bin that is collected
fortnightly. The bulky nature of material in a mixed food waste and greenwaste
collection, to a large extent, precludes manual collections, so automated collections are
the safest option and the norm.
While council collections that include greenwaste are very popular with householders, the
council has to consider the amount of material these collections draw into the kerbside
Page 69 of 591

32
collection system. When a council kerbside collection service includes greenwaste, large
amounts of material that were previously dealt with in other ways by householders end up
being disposed of through the kerbside system.
Sources of this additional greenwaste could be from householders who:
Previously disposed of greenwaste at transfer station drop-offs
Previously paid for a private greenwaste collection service
Composted at home, or disposed of greenwaste in other ways on their own property
Previously disposed of greenwaste in private refuse wheelie bins
It is therefore highly recommended that any move toward a mixed food waste and
greenwaste collection is undertaken in the smallest possible wheelie bin (80 L) to
minimise the impact on existing greenwaste collectors.
5.4 What are the options for processing organic waste, if it is collected?
The councils of the Auckland region have been considering the options for organic waste
collections for nearly a decade. In that time, considerable research has been
commissioned into the options available for processing the collected materials.
Identifying practical processing methods is important as the choice of processing method
needs to be considered in conjunction with identifying the types of organic waste that can
be collected.
The research identified a number of emerging technologies such as waste to energy, as
well as established technologies such as composting.
6 Christchurchs 3-bin system
6.1 How does Christchurchs 3-bin system work?
Christchurch City Council introduced its new 3-bin kerbside collection system in March
2009. The 3-bin system includes the first kerbside organics collection by a major
metropolitan council in New Zealand. The system provides most properties in the city
with 3 wheelie bins for their refuse and recycling:
1. A red 140-litre bin for household rubbish. The rubbish bin is collected fortnightly,
alternating with the recycling bin.
2. A yellow 240-litre bin for household recycling. This bin is also collected
fortnightly, alternating with the rubbish bin.
3. A green 80-litre bin for organic waste, such as food scraps and garden trimmings.
The organic bin is collected weekly.
The 3-bin system replaced the old system that used plastic bags for refuse, a 45-litre
recycling crate, and a separate loose paper collection. All collections were provided on a
weekly basis.
Page 70 of 591

33
6.2 Where do all the waste materials go?
All residual waste from Christchurch is disposed of at Kate Valley Landfill. The landfill is
owned by Transwaste Canterbury Ltd, a public-private joint venture between the five
councils in the region (50%) and Canterbury Waste Services Ltd (50%), which is owned
by Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd.
All organic waste that is collected from the councils organic bins is processed at the
Organics Processing Plant in Bromley. The plant has a capacity of 80,000 tonnes per
year, and also processes the greenwaste collected at transfer stations in the city. The
plant was built as part of a public-private partnership with Transpacific Industries Group
(NZ) Ltd on a build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT) basis. The facility was severely
damaged in the February 2011 earthquake so will have to be rebuilt.
All recyclable materials collected by the councils kerbside collections are processed at
the Sockburn facility owned by EcoCentral Ltd (formerly MetaNZ Ltd), which is wholly
owned by the council. The facility was built on a design-build-finance-operate (DBFO)
basis.
6.3 Has the 3-bin system reduced waste to landfill?
The success of Christchurch City Councils 3-bin system in reducing the amount of waste
to landfill cannot, as yet be determined and the earthquakes have meant that analysis of
its effectiveness has been delayed. Preliminary indications are, however, that the system
was working well and that waste to landfill was reducing.
6.4 Do residents like the system?
Christchurch City Councils Residents Survey Research Report in 2010 found a high
level of satisfaction amongst residents with the new 3-bin system. The level of
satisfaction with the kerbside recycling system was found to be 95%. The kerbside
rubbish collection service had a 92% satisfaction level.
The organic waste collection system, by contrast, had only a 77% satisfaction level, with
16% of residents being dissatisfied. This dissatisfaction is likely to be related to the size
of the organic waste bin. Respondents to the survey were asked which service they felt it
was most important for the council to improve. The highest number of responses stated
that the organic waste bin was too small.

Page 71 of 591

34

Page 72 of 591

35
ISSUES PAPER 2
Funding of Kerbside Collections


Charging methods for kerbside refuse and recycling services currently vary considerably
across the Auckland region. In some parts of the region, householders pay directly for the
refuse that goes to landfill through the purchase of bags or stickers. In other parts of the
region, ratepayers pay indirectly through their rates bill. Kerbside recycling collections are
generally paid for either through rates or by revenue from other waste service operations
(such as revenue from the sale of bags.)
The intent of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008) is to minimise waste to landfill, while raising
the cost of disposal to landfill (the intention of the Waste Levy) and maximising
recycling/reuse opportunities. Choices need to be made on how to fund each service
(including a possible new organic waste collection service) according to a spectrum from full
polluter-pays to fully rates-funded to best achieve the intent of the Act.
The paper points out that research and experience both in New Zealand and overseas,
clearly demonstrate that the most effective method of minimising kerbside refuse is by taking
a polluter-pays approach, where householders pay directly for the refuse they put out on the
kerb by either purchasing bags or a sticker, or using wheelie bins with embedded technology
that records the number of lifts or weights. Polluter pays mechanisms are implicit in some
other pieces of government legislation as well, to deal with environmental effects. The paper
discusses the likely effects of taking a polluter-pays approach for kerbside collections, the
possible impacts, and what has been done to help people deal with such a change.
Alongside this, are the implications of having a rates-funded refuse charge and the three
different forms of rates funding that are possible.
For maximising the collection of recycling and organic waste the paper describes the
potential for using revenue from other waste operations, some form of rates funding or part-
polluter pays or a mix of these. The ultimate aim is to encourage people to divert more of their
waste away from the landfills.

Questions for this section are on the next page.

Page 73 of 591

36

Questions:

1. Funding kerbside refuse and recycling

Should refuse services be paid for through rates or polluter pays?

Should recycling services be paid for through rates, user pays, part-user pays, or by
another mechanism (eg. surpluses from other waste services, waste levy
etc)?
2. Kerbside organic waste collections

Should a kerbside organic collection be provided by the council?

If yes, should it be funded by rates, user pays, part-user pays or by another
mechanism (eg surpluses from other waste services, waste levy etc)?

$$ ? $$ ?
$$ ?
Page 74 of 591

37
1 Funding kerbside REFUSE services
1.1 Why does it matter how kerbside refuse services are funded?
While there are many issues that need to be taken into account when looking at how
Auckland Council is to fund kerbside refuse services, a major consideration is the effect on
waste reduction. Systems that require residents to pay directly for the amount of refuse they
dispose of have been found to be one of the most effective ways to encourage residents to
recycle more materials and dispose of less refuse.
The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 recognised the importance of the relationship between
waste disposal and its economic cost to the waste generator by introducing a levy for all
waste disposed of at a disposal facility.
Section 25 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 states:
The purpose of this Part is to enable a levy to be imposed on waste disposed of
to:
(a) raise revenue for promoting and achieving waste minimisation; and
(b) increase the cost of waste disposal to recognise that disposal imposes costs
on the environment, society, and the economy.
The Parliamentary Commission for the Environment supports this view, stating in its
report, Economic instruments for waste management
12
that, Because the full costs of
landfill disposal are not reflected in disposal prices, and disposal prices are not passed on
efficiently to decision makers or at decision points, volumes of waste are greater than is
optimal.
Similarly the current Government recognises the problem, commenting in its 2006
environmental policy
13
that, There are many barriers to waste reduction and safe
disposal. They include:
In other places, local authorities have been proactive in establishing user-pays, safe
waste disposal policies and kerbside recycling facilities. But their efforts are
sometimes being undercut by waste companies offering a cheap, bulk wheelie bin
service, which effectively removes the incentive on households to segregate their
wastes for recycling. Again, this is possible because these operators are not being
charged the full costs of meeting the communitys waste management objectives.
1.2 How are public good, private good and polluter pays defined?
Public good is a definition, when used in the context of waste services, that generally refers
to waste minimisation services that are provided for general public benefit to meet
environmental policies/standards. In most cases these cannot be linked to specific individuals
who use the service or it is impractical to attempt to link them for example litter services,
public place recycling, environmental promotions/education, enforcement of illegal dumping,
hazardous waste services etc. The cost of these services is commonly satisfied through
general rates. The community as a whole benefits from them.

12
Covec Ltd. November 2005
13
A Bluegreen vision for New Zealand 2006
Page 75 of 591

38
Private good on the other hand, refers to services provided to meet environmental
policies/standards that are linked to specific individuals for example kerbside recycling
collections. In some cases it is warranted to impose a certain degree of user pays charging,
as both the community and the individual clearly benefit from the service provided. In most
cases however the costs of these private good services are satisfied through general rates, or
subsidised by other waste services, or the Governments waste levy.
Polluter Pays. Outside the public good/private good definition lie services such as residual
refuse disposal where materials inevitably go to landfill. These are the areas where central
Government has promoted, through legislation that local authorities provide financial
disincentives to minimise the amount of waste sent to landfill. For this reason they are the
areas where polluter pays is the obvious funding mechanism. In addition the legislation
provides the ability for local governments to subsidise other private good services through any
polluter pays service surpluses.
1.3 How are kerbside refuse services funded now?
In the seven former cities/districts of the Auckland region, a variety of systems were used
for funding kerbside refuse services. These systems will remain in place until Auckland
Council replaces its existing service contracts.
The former Auckland City Council provided every eligible property with a rates-funded
weekly refuse collection using 120-litre wheelie bins.
Residents of the former Franklin District Council purchased pre-paid stickers which
are placed on rubbish bags set out for weekly kerbside collection.
Residents of the former Manukau City Council can set out an unlimited number of
rubbish bags per collection for the rates-funded weekly kerbside collection.
The former North Shore City, Papakura District, and Waitakere City Councils sold
official pre-paid rubbish bags for the weekly kerbside collections.
The former Rodney District Council provided no kerbside refuse collection. Residents
pay private service providers directly for refuse collection.
1.4 What are the councils options for funding kerbside refuse services?
A fuller discussion of Auckland Councils funding options for kerbside refuse services is
included in Appendix A of the Waste Assessment. This section summarises the major issues
from the reports in Appendix A. These issues were considered by the council when choosing
to adopt its new strategic direction for waste management, which includes a polluter-pays
policy.
There are two general funding mechanisms currently used for kerbside refuse services in the
Auckland region:
Polluter-pays Often referred to as user-pays for other council services, the term polluter-
pays has become the preferred term for environmental services. In a polluter-pays system,
there is a direct relationship between a householders use of a service and how much is paid
for the service. In a completely polluter-pays system, if a householder doesnt use a service
at all, they do not pay anything for it.
Page 76 of 591

39
The polluter-pays policy that is one of the councils preferred options from the Waste
Assessment is described in the assessment as:
The polluter pays principle aims to transfer the responsibility and cost of dealing with
waste from local government to those who actually generate the waste. It will ensure
fairness and promote waste minimisation and recycling by rewarding those who reduce
waste, whilst ensuring those who choose to place more waste out for collection pay the
full cost.
Rates-funded In a rates-funded system, the costs of a service are paid for by the
council, so the costs are ultimately borne by the ratepayer. In a completely rates-funded
system, it is possible that a ratepayer pays the full costs for a service that they do not use
at all.
Rather than thinking of kerbside refuse and recycling services as being funded totally through
either one mechanism or the other, it is more useful to consider polluter-pays and rates-
funded as end points on a continuum. There are funding systems that could include
elements from both mechanisms, and all services need not be funded in the same way.
1.5 How could polluter-pays work for kerbside refuse services?
The options for polluter-pays kerbside refuse services need to be considered in conjunction
with the type of refuse container that is provided generally either plastic bags or wheelie
bins. The advantages and disadvantages of these receptacles are discussed in Issues Paper
1: Kerbside Refuse and Recycling Services.
How could polluter-pays for refuse bags work?
Most of the former councils in the Auckland region based their kerbside refuse collections on
prepaid plastic bags (or stickers) that are purchased by residents from local shops or from the
council. This system is used in former North Shore City, Waitakere City, Papakura District,
and Franklin District Councils. In the former Rodney District, where the council did not
provide a kerbside refuse collection, a polluter-pays system is in place in which residents can
buy a private waste operators pre-paid bags or pay the operator for a wheelie bin service.
The two councils that didnt use pre-paid bags or stickers were Auckland City, which provided
a rates-funded 120-litre wheelie bin service, and Manukau City, where residents could set out
an unlimited number of plastic refuse bags for the rates-funded collection.
Other councils in New Zealand use different variations on polluter-pays bags funding
systems. Matamata District Council, for instance, provides each household with 52 free
refuse bags per year. Residents are able to purchase more bags if they are required.
Christchurch City Council, before it introduced its 3-bin system in 2009, provided each
household with 26 free refuse bags per year, with additional bags being available for
purchase. These systems are rates-funded for a limited volume of refuse each year, and then
polluter-pays for any additional volume of refuse.
How could polluter-pays for refuse wheelie bins work?
A completely polluter-pays system would result if Auckland Council decided to provide
exclusive collection licences to waste operators as per management models 1 and 2 in the
Auckland Council Waste Assessment, or by outsourcing contracts (and charging on a per lift,
Page 77 of 591

40
weight, or volume basis) as per management model 3
14
.

Under the licensing model the
householder would pay the private waste operator directly for the service.
Private operators generally provide wheelie bin services. Polluter-pays systems for wheelie
bins are not commonly used in New Zealand. The different types of systems and some of
their advantages and disadvantages include:
Volume-based systems in which the householder pays a fee (annually or otherwise)
to the service provider for a given size of wheelie bin. Different fees can be charged
for different sizes of bin. A volume-based system requires the service provider, such
as the council, to establish and operate significant billing and record-keeping
systems, as each user of the service must be sent a regular invoice. This may
require invoicing the householder directly, rather than the ratepayer.
Volume-based systems are the least effective polluter-pays system in terms of waste
minimisation, as once a bin of a certain size has been purchased; the householder
has no incentive to reduce the amount of waste being disposed of. Were wheelie
bins to become the primary kerbside refuse receptacle used by Auckland Council in
the future, a volume-based polluter-pays system would be the least effective in
assisting the council meet its Zero Waste goal. A small number of councils in New
Zealand use volume-based polluter-pays systems for residents to purchase extra
services, such as a larger refuse wheelie bin.
Pay per pickup systems charge the householder each time their wheelie bin gets
emptied. The on-vehicle technology for this system is relatively simple, but requires
some method by which the vehicle can identify the bin for billing purposes. Fitting
bins with electronic chips is the easiest way to accomplish this. This system requires
the service provider to establish accurate customer databases and operate and
maintain record-keeping and invoicing systems. Pay per pickup is reasonably
effective at encouraging the householder to reduce the amount of waste disposed of.
The less often the householder sets out their bin for collection, the less they pay. As
a pay per pickup system would encourage waste minimisation, it would contribute to
Auckland Council reaching its Zero Waste goal. Charging based on pay per pickup is
used by some private waste operators in New Zealand, but not by any councils.
Weight-based systems rely on the collection vehicles being equipped with a
weighing mechanism in the lifting arm to weigh the bin and its contents and for the
vehicles to be able to identify each individual bin. The weighing technology is
available, but is expensive to purchase and must be maintained to high standards.
As with the pay per pickup system, the service operator needs to establish accurate
record-keeping and billing systems. Weight-based systems have been shown to be
the most effective at reducing waste to landfill, but are also the most expensive to
establish. There are no council weight-based systems in New Zealand, although they
are in regular use in Europe.
1.6 What are the options for rates funding for kerbside refuse services?
Rates funding for kerbside refuse collections can take a number of different forms, some of
which contain an element of polluter-pays. Because all rates-funded systems charge the
ratepayer rather than the householder, there is no incentive for occupiers of rental properties
to reduce the waste they put out on the kerbside.

14
Page 4-5 Auckland Council Waste Assessment
Page 78 of 591

41
Some councils choose to pay for kerbside refuse services out of general rates. When a
service is paid for in this way, the separate cost of the service is not transparent to the
ratepayer (i.e. it is not itemised on the rates bill) and there is no incentive for the householder
to reduce the amount of refuse that is disposed of through the service. When services are
paid from general rates, a resident with higher rates essentially pays more for the same
services than a resident with a lower rates bill.
Paying for kerbside refuse services from a uniform annual general charge is a more
equitable funding system, as all properties pay the same amount for the services covered by
this charge. However there is no economic incentive for householders to reduce their usage
of these services.
Targeted rates allow a more targeted distribution of costs, as the council can choose to rate
only the properties that are provided with a service, allow ratepayers to opt in and out of the
service, or provide extra services at an extra cost. The former Auckland City Council, for
example, allowed certain multi-unit residential units to opt out of the targeted rate for refuse
collection if a suitable service was contracted from a private sector service provider. There
can be a mild incentive for waste reduction, if the ratepayer is able to reduce the cost paid in
exchange for a reduction in service, such as with a differential targeted rate based on a
menu of options.
1.7 What are the issues related to the funding of refuse services?
Waste reduction
All of the available research shows that polluter-pays charging results in householders
reducing the amount of refuse that is disposed of through a kerbside refuse service. Rather
than pay more for refuse disposal, most householders will use any cheaper disposal options
available to them, such as recycling more or composting their organic waste.
The waste reduction benefits of polluter-pays funding is apparent in the former councils in the
Auckland region. The lowest amounts of refuse per capita are set out in those areas where
the council provides a polluter-pays bag service. The highest amount of refuse per capita is
collected in the former Manukau City, where residents can set out an unlimited number of
bags at no apparent cost, as refuse collection services are paid from general rates. The
following table
15
compares the former council services.

15
Auckland Council Waste Assessment Appendix A. Background Paper No. 2: Household Residual
Waste Collection
Page 79 of 591

42
Table 1: Former council waste services
Former
council
Residual waste
collected (kg/
annum/head of
population)
Collection service
description
Funding method
Manukau City 186 Unlimited number of
bags placed out each
week
Fully rates funded
Auckland
City
175 120L wheelie bin
collected weekly
Targeted rate (one
charge per property
receiving service)
Rodney
District
161 Mixture of bag and bin
user pays services
100% private
collections no council
refuse service
Papakura
District
162 Weekly polluter-pays
bags
Fully polluter-pays
North Shore
City
142 Polluter-pays pre-paid
bags, weekly
Fully polluter-pays
Franklin
District
133 Bag collection with
polluter pays stickers
(except Tuakau which
has 120L wheelie bins
collected weekly)
Largely polluter-pays
Waitakere
City
134 Polluter-pays pre-paid
bags weekly
Fully polluter-pays

Weight-based systems have been found to be the most effective form of polluter-pays for
reducing waste. Volume-based systems are the least effective form. Pay per pickup and
polluter-pays bags are more effective than volume-based systems, but less effective than
weight based systems.
16

The waste reduction benefits of polluter-pays make it the most appropriate system with
regards to the councils Zero Waste goal. Polluter-pays is included in Option 3 in the Waste
Assessment, which is the councils chosen strategic direction.
Social issues
As with other council services, a major concern related to polluter-pays funding of kerbside
refuse collections is the effect on the least affluent of households. In a rates-funded system,
the costs of kerbside refuse services are either shared equally amongst all properties, through
a targeted rate, or, if the service is funded through general rates, distributed relative to the
rates paid on the property.
In a completely polluter-pays funding system, it is the households that dispose of the most
waste that pay the highest costs. As the most important factor in the amount of waste
generated by a household has been found to be the number of people living in that
household, this means that it is generally the largest households that generate the most
waste. An analysis of the relationship between waste generation, household numbers, and
household income in the former Manukau City found that those households that generate a
larger proportion of the waste would have the greatest difficulty in paying for its collection
under a polluter-pays system.

16
D. Hogg, D. Wilson, A. Gibbs, M. Astley and J. Papineschi (2006) Modelling the Impact of
Household Charging for Waste in England, final Report to DEFRA.
Page 80 of 591

43
However, a study of high refuse-generating households in the former Auckland City in 2009
found that households which consistently set out over-full wheelie bins had significant
opportunity to reduce the volume of waste set out. The study found that:
17

On average, 46% of the waste generated by high refuse-generating households
was classified as food wastes (9.11 kg per average bin weight, or 17% by volume),
followed by residual wastes (4.24 kg per average bin weight, 34% by weight or 25%
by volume). Sanitary/nappies materials made up a further 3.22 kg of the average
bin weight (or 16% by weight and by volume). On average, recyclable materials
(i.e. cardboard and other recyclable materials accepted in kerbside collections) made
up 13% of the average bin weight (2.58 kg) or 37% of the bin volume.
The study indicated that the areas in which the high-refuse generating households were
located all had significantly high proportions of private dwellings that have 8 or more usual
residents living in them than the city as a whole.
There are options available to the council to reduce the social impact of polluter-pays. These
include providing households with additional services to divert waste, such as an organics
collection, offering additional services to households with a demonstrated need, and providing
educational programmes. When the former Auckland City Council trialled the replacement of
its 240-litre wheelie bins with 120-litre bins in 2000, the council provided waste reduction
advice to a large household that was struggling with the new service. After receiving a
compost bin and extra recycling crates from council, the household of twelve people found
that the new service was adequate for their needs.
While a polluter-pays system can be seen as disadvantaging large households on low
incomes, rates-funded systems disadvantage small households on low incomes. In the
former Auckland City, a household generating a very small amount of residual refuse pays the
same targeted rate each year ($164.44 plus GST for 2010/2011) as a household making
maximum use of the kerbside services.
While the social effects of polluter-pays systems need to be taken into consideration by
Auckland Council, it should be noted that the legislative drivers behind waste reduction, the
Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the Climate Change Response Act 2002 both include
polluter-pays mechanisms. It should also be noted that there is no distinction between low
and high income households in the recently implemented Emissions Trading Scheme which,
while acknowledging there will be financial impacts on households, expects that households
can reduce costs by reducing energy use, installing insulation etc
18
. A similar argument can
be made for polluter-pays refuse charging.
If the Council decides on a polluter pays approach of charging for refuse to landfill, other
ways of incentivising people to reduce their refuse could be explored, drawing on any
successful overseas experience that might work in Auckland.
Effect on rates
A polluter-pays refuse service can reduce the councils rates bill to residents by changing
kerbside refuse collection from a cost to the council, when it is rates-funded, to a system that
charges only those who use the service. In addition, with polluter-pays, any surplus derived

17
Waste Not Consulting (2009) Assessment of Overfilled Wheelie Bins in Auckland City, prepared for Auckland City
Council
18
What ETS means for householders and individuals. www.climatechange.govt.nz
Page 81 of 591

44
from charges can be used to offset the costs of other waste services such as education and
kerbside recycling.
The following table
19
shows the solid waste weekly rates component of each of the former
councils on a household basis
20
.
Table 2: Solid waste weekly rates component per household
Former
Council
Auckland
City
North
Shore
City
Waitakere
City
Rodney
District
Manukau
City
Franklin
District
Papakura
District

Weekly
Rates

$3.06

$0.77

(-$0.32)

$1.53

$4.31

$1.01

$2.67

An analysis conducted for the Waste Assessment found that moving the entire city to a
polluter-pays funded kerbside refuse collection service (including a polluter-pays inorganic
collection service) would result in a reduction in rates of approximately $30,600,000 per
annum. The analysis also found that moving the entire city to a rates-funded kerbside refuse
service (with a rates-funded yearly inorganic collection service) would result in an additional
requirement on rates of approximately $16,500,000 per annum.
Council market share
Some of the waste reduction advantages of polluter-pays kerbside refuse collection can be
negated by private waste operators undercutting the councils service and drawing
householders away from the council system. This can be overcome by the council issuing
exclusive licences to operators for specific geographical areas. Two licensing management
models systems are shown in the Waste Assessment under Strategic Option 3.
A rates-funded collection, on the other hand, is likely to result in an increased market share
for the council compared to a polluter-pays system and would have a negative impact on the
private waste operators. By providing any kerbside refuse service local authorities compete in
the refuse market place and this inevitably affects private enterprise operating in the same
market. In such cases, councils must weigh up the public good aspect of their actions. The
Waste Minimisation Act 2008 took these considerations into account when it adopted as its
purpose to encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal. Reducing
waste to landfill would immediately have a negative effect on the landfill operators, but the
public good aspect of waste reduction has been judged to be of greater importance. There
may well be different business opportunities also in the expansion of the recycling industry
which would mean a change, not necessarily a loss of business..
Illegal dumping
While it might be anticipated that changes to a kerbside refuse collection system, particularly
those that involve an increase in cost to householders, might result in increased illegal
dumping, this has not been the experience of councils in the Auckland region. When the
former Waitakere City and Papakura District Councils changed from rates-funded to polluter-

19
Page 6 Auckland Council Waste Assessment
20
Councils had different funding methods and services. The table indicates 2010/11 solid waste services against
rates costs and does not include polluter pays charges imposed by the councils. While these polluter pays charges
vary by council it could be assumed that an average of $2 per week could be added to the weekly costs where user
charges exist.

Page 82 of 591

45
pays refuse collections in 1999 and 2006 respectively there were no noticeable increases in
illegal dumping. In both cases however the change-over was accompanied by a public
education campaign and a well-funded enforcement programme. In fact both councils took a
zero tolerance approach to illegal dumping which prevented any increase.
When the former Auckland City Council trialled the introduction of 120-litre wheelie bins as
replacements for the existing 240-litre bins, no increase in illegal dumping was detected in the
trial areas.
21

A similar problem to illegal dumping is waste tourism, particularly when areas using different
funding systems are in close geographical proximity. Residents of the former Papakura
District, for example, can avoid polluter-pays bag charges by dumping their refuse bags in the
nearby Manukau City, where the collection is rates-funded. A common polluter-pays system
across the region will avoid this.
Operational issues
Rates-funded systems are much simpler for councils to operate and administer and so have
low administrative costs but, as pointed out before, are less successful in minimising waste.
Polluter-pays systems are generally more expensive to administer, particularly if the system
involves invoicing householders, rather than ratepayers but are more successful in minimising
waste.
2 What are the funding options for kerbside
RECYCLING?
The basic options for funding kerbside recycling services are the same as for kerbside refuse
services; the service can be funded either through a user-pays system or by a rates-funded
system. The former councils of the Auckland region all provided kerbside recycling services.
All of these services were rates-funded, with the exception of the former Waitakere Citys.
The kerbside recycling collection in Waitakere was funded through a combination of surplus
from the polluter-pays refuse sales, and income from the council-owned transfer station. In
other words refuse services could be priced to significantly fund recycling services providing
further incentives towards waste minimisation.
User-pays kerbside recycling systems are not common. A small number of New Zealand
councils, such as Kaipara and Mackenzie District Councils, have user-pays bag systems.
Such a system reduces the cost of the service to ratepayers while still making it available for
those who wish to use it. Other councils, such as Western Bay of Plenty District Council, that
rely on the private waste industry to provide kerbside refuse services also rely on private
operators to provide user-pays recycling collections.
User-pays recycling bags are also used by a few councils for specific areas. Both Auckland
and Christchurch have a council-operated user-pays recycling bag system in their central
business districts.
The main reason for user-pays kerbside recycling systems not being more common is the
effect on waste reduction of charging for these services. By maintaining a price differential
between refuse services and recycling services, councils are able to provide an economic

21
Waste Not Ltd (2001) Trial of Integrated Waste Management System for the Auckland City Isthmus, prepared for
Auckland City
Page 83 of 591

46
incentive that encourages residents to recycle more. Any charges for recycling services
would reduce this pricing differential (unless refuse disposal prices are also increased), and
would likely result in less recycling.
The options for rates-funding of kerbside recycling services are the same as for kerbside
refuse services. These are described in section 1.6. Many councils use a combination of
rates-funding mechanisms for their kerbside services. Christchurch City Council, for instance,
has a targeted rate that covers the kerbside recycling and organics bin collections while the
refuse collections are paid from general rates.
While a change to a user-pays system can not be discounted, it is likely that Auckland
Council, particularly in light of its Zero Waste goal, will provide a rates-funded kerbside
recycling system. A decision is needed therefore on whether kerbside recycling will be
funded:
with a targeted rate
from general rates
or from the surplus from other waste services operations.
The strategic direction adopted by the council includes management model 7
22
, which
outlines the councils preferred options for managing waste in the region. A rates funded
and/or waste levy funding source is included in the management model for an expanded use
of the fortnightly recycling collection.
3 What are the funding options for ORGANIC waste
collections?
The basic options for funding organic waste collections are the same as for kerbside refuse
and recycling services; the service can be funded either through a user-pays system or by a
rates-funded system.
Most organic waste collections are provided by the private sector on a user-pays basis. In the
Auckland region, for example, there are private sector collections of food waste from
commercial operations and private sector collections of greenwaste from residential
properties. Council-provided user-pays organic collection systems are not common in New
Zealand. South Taranaki District Council charges residents an annual fee for a greenwaste
bin. Christchurch City Councils system is discussed in the next section.
The options for funding a regional organic waste collection include both rates-funded and
polluter-pays models. Whichever system is chosen the key is to maintain a price differential
between the refuse service and the organic waste service to provide an economic incentive to
encourage residents to divert waste away from landfill.
The options for rates-funding of organic waste collection services are the same as for
kerbside refuse services. These are described in section 1.6.
While a user-pays organic waste collection is possible under the new strategic direction
chosen by the council, it is more likely that Auckland Council, particularly in light of its Zero

22
Auckland Council Waste Assessment page 121
Page 84 of 591

47
Waste goal, would provide either a rates-funded or a part-user-pays organic waste collection
to give residents the strongest incentive to use the service.

3.1 How does Christchurch fund its 3-bin system?
Christchurch City Council introduced its new 3-bin kerbside collection system in March 2009.
The system incorporates several features that are included in the management model
adopted by Auckland Council.
Christchurchs 3-bin system includes the first kerbside organics collection by a major
metropolitan council in New Zealand. The system provides most properties in the city with 3
wheelie bins for their refuse and recycling:
4. A red 140-litre bin for household rubbish. The rubbish bin is collected fortnightly,
alternating with the recycling bin.
5. A yellow 240-litre bin for household recycling. This bin is also collected fortnightly,
alternating with the rubbish bin.
6. A green 80-litre bin for organic waste, such as food scraps and garden trimmings. The
organic bin is collected weekly.
The 3-bin system replaced the old system that used plastic bags for refuse, a 45-litre
recycling crate, and a separate loose paper collection. All collections were provided on a
weekly basis.
Within the area serviced by Christchurch City Councils collections, every separately used or
inhabited part of a rating unit is assessed with the Waste Minimisation Targeted Rate. The
full charge for the Targeted Rate is set by the 2010/2011 Annual Plan at $116.28. A part
charge of $87.21 is paid by rating units outside the kerbside collection area.
This Targeted Rate pays only for the net operating cost of the collection and processing of
recycling and organic waste. The Targeted Rate does not pay for the rubbish collection
service or disposal.
The balance of the net operating costs for the councils refuse minimisation and disposal
activities is funded through a uniform annual general charge. The major cost paid from this
charge is residual waste collection and disposal.
Christchurch City Council receives revenue related to its kerbside residual waste disposal
services through its part-ownership of Transwaste Ltd. Transwaste operates Kate Valley
Landfill and is owned jointly by local councils. The councils 2010/2011 Annual Plan
estimates the councils share of profits from Transwaste will be $1.8 million for the year.
Prior to the introduction of the 3-bin system, the council allocated every household with
coupons redeemable for 26 rubbish bags per property each year. Residents could purchase
additional bags if needed. All other costs for the kerbside residual waste and recycling
services were funded by general rates.

Page 85 of 591

48

Page 86 of 591

49
ISSUES PAPER 3
Inorganic collections

Unlike most of the rest of New Zealand, Auckland Council currently offers inorganic collection
services across most of the region. The type of service varies. The Waste Minimisation Act
(2008) with its emphasis on waste minimisation, along with the councils obligation to
minimise health and safety risks, has prompted a review of the current services. The provision
of a kerbside service in particular, where people can put out unlimited quantities of inorganic
waste, combined with the mess, the increasing health and safety risks and the significant
cost, has come under more scrutiny.
In this paper a range of alternatives are discussed.
The Auckland Council needs to decide first, whether it still wishes to provide a service or not,
given the substantial cost to ratepayers and lack of incentive to minimise waste.
If it wishes to continue the service, however, there are a number of ways described in this
paper for how that might be done to better achieve the purposes of the Act, such as where
the waste is collected, and how it is paid for.
Given the preferred strategic direction of the council the paper ultimately leans towards the
argument for an inorganic booking service, as a compromise between no service (which
would best fit with the legislation and the Zero Waste goal of the council) and providing a
service which maximises resource recovery, causes less mess on the street, reduces health
and safety risks and puts most of the cost on those who use the service.
Question for this section:

Should kerbside inorganic collections be replaced with an alternative booking system or be
discontinued?
Page 87 of 591

50

Page 88 of 591

51
1 Why were inorganic collections introduced?
Inorganic waste refers to large, bulky items discarded from households and includes
items such as furniture, appliances, bicycles, and electronic equipment. Inorganic waste
is defined slightly differently in the waste bylaws of each of the former councils in the
Auckland region, but a general description is domestic solid waste that will not fit within
an Approved Receptacle (such as rubbish bags or wheelie bins).
Inorganic waste disposal services were initially introduced in Auckland as a way of
addressing vermin and hygiene problems linked to waste accumulation on properties.
They began when councils still owned landfills and well before there was any
understanding of the need, or imperative for, waste minimisation. Initially councils gave
tip passes to ratepayers with their rates notices to enable them to take trailer-loads of
waste to the landfill for disposal. With the closure of small local landfills councils started
providing collection services and eventually most councils in the region provided one.
Public demand was such that it would have been very difficult for a council not to provide
a service when neighbouring councils did.
Although inorganic collections have become an established service in many parts of
Auckland, very few councils outside the region provide them. A review of inorganic
collections undertaken in 2006 by the former North Shore City Council found that only
eight councils in New Zealand provided collection services and of these, five were in the
Auckland region (Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere, Manukau and Papakura).
In 2009 the former Waitakere City Council replaced its inorganic collection with an
inorganic booking system (explained in section 2.3.2). This change was made in
response to the councils new obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 as well
as health and safety issues, street amenity issues and cost.
2 How is inorganic waste collected in Auckland?
2.1 Summary of current services
Inorganic waste is collected annually in the areas of the former Manukau City, North
Shore City and Papakura District Councils and biennially in the former Auckland City
Council area. The former Franklin District provides a drop off service and there is no
council service provided in the former Rodney District. During the current waste
management planning process, these services continue to be provided by Auckland
Council.
Table 2.1 following, shows the inorganic service provided in each area along with
tonnage collected, cost and funding method.

Page 89 of 591

52
Table 2.1 Council household inorganic waste services
Former Council Area
Service Provided Tonnage
collected/dropped
off
Funding method &
approximate cost*
Waitakere
Inorganic booking
system
850 tonnes (2009/10) Part polluter-pays
$166,500*
North Shore
Kerbside service
annual
Approximately 2,800
(2009)
Rates
$486,500*
Auckland
Kerbside service
biennial
12,000 (2009) Rates
$1,886,000* (Biennial
figure/2)
Manukau
Kerbside service
annual
11,800 (2008/2009) Rates
$2,465,000*
Rodney
No service provided
by council

Papakura
Kerbside service
annual
1,400 tonnes (2008) Rates
$319,000*
Franklin
Drop off arrangement No information
available
Rates
$50,000*
Total for region
(annual)
$5,373,000

*These are forecast costs from 2011/2012 budgets and may differ from those in the Darft
Waste Assessment
While the collection is provided for all households, not every household participates.
Surveys indicate that 67% or less actually use the service which costs the region $5.3
million annually. The former Rodney area is not included as it does not have a council
collection. Participation rates vary dramatically between suburbs that receive collections,
depending on the demographics of each area. Participation levels can be as low 9% in
some areas. Establishing participation is not as obvious as counting waste piles outside
households due to the high incidence of illegal dumping occurring in current inorganic
collections.
Based on the highest participation level of 67% it is, therefore 15 times more expensive
to collect kerbside inorganic waste than it is to pick up kerbside recyclables. In addition,
the indirect costs of inorganic collections are significantly higher due to additional officer
time required for administration including monitoring collection, enforcement of illegal
dumping and attending to calls/complaints to council.
There are currently five ways residents dispose of inorganic waste in Auckland. These
are:
Page 90 of 591

53
Council-provided kerbside inorganic waste collection service:
Residents put inorganic waste on the kerbside when advised by the council and a
contractor picks it up. This rates funded service is provided on an annual basis in the
former North Shore City, Manukau City, and Papakura District areas, and on a
biennial basis in the former Auckland City area. In all collections a different area is
collected each week. In the former Auckland City Council area collection takes place
over a 19 week period. All material is collected in vehicles which compact the material
to make collection and transportation more economical. A high proportion of the
material collected is damaged by the compaction process. Some recycling of metals
and tyres is undertaken by the contractor during collection but the remainder of the
material goes directly to landfill. Collections from the former Manukau City, North
Shore City, Auckland City (including Hauraki Gulf Islands) and Papakura District
Council areas are taken directly to disposal facilities where no further separation of
materials takes place.
Council-provided inorganic booking system:
This is the method used out west since 2009 and involves the property owner booking
a collection from the council during a scheduled collection period. Residents can
book one pre-paid (polluter pays) pick up per year. The inorganic material is collected
from inside the property boundary rather than from the kerbside. Residents
collections are scheduled to ensure material is picked up as efficiently as possible
and to minimise truck movements in residential areas. The system is designed for a
pilot vehicle to travel ahead of the main collection vehicle to pick up quality reusable
items which are then processed at the Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Centre and
sold. The resulting revenue is used to fund the centres activities. All other materials
are picked up using a soft-compacting vehicle and unloaded at the Waitakere facility.
Recyclable materials such as metal, timber, and cardboard are recovered at the
facility.
Collections provided by private waste operators:
In the former Rodney District, private waste operators pick up inorganic waste. This
service is arranged and paid for by the resident. Recovery of reusable or recyclable
materials is at the operators discretion.
Council-provided drop-off days:
In the former Franklin District, six locally-advertised weekend drop off days are held in
rural locations throughout the area. These collection days are organised by the
council, with community groups providing the labour. Residents can drop their
inorganic waste off for a fee, part of which goes to the organisation that provides
voluntary labour for the day. The fee also covers the cost of running the drop off day
including publicity, traffic management and waste disposal. Although this service is
provided, residents are still encouraged by the council to drop inorganic material off at
transfer stations in Waiuku and Pukekohe.
Transfer station drop-off:
Transfer stations are used for the aggregation of waste, which is then bulk hauled to
landfill. Domestic inorganic waste can be dropped off at most, but not all, of the 17
transfer stations around the region. A limited amount of resource recovery occurs at
these facilities. The only major transfer station with a strong focus on resource
recovery (including reusable items) is the council owned and operated Waitakere
Refuse and Recycling Station. Residents can drop off household hazardous waste,
Page 91 of 591

54
electronic waste and whiteware at no cost, and other unwanted items and waste
material for a fee. Items of value are recovered and sold while recyclable materials
(cardboard, metal, wood) are separated for reprocessing. This helps minimise the
waste sent to landfill, while revenue from the sale of goods and materials subsidises
the cost of the refuse and recycling stations activities. Although this facility is not
working to its full capacity as a resource recovery centre, it could provide a model for
how other transfer stations in the region could be operated. Together these facilities
could form the nucleus of a resource recovery network. A description of a possible
resource recovery network for the Auckland region is provided in section 4.2.
2.2 Why do inorganic services vary across the Auckland region?
Prior to local government amalgamation in 2010, each council had its own Waste
Management Plan, and made its own decisions on inorganic collection services based on
the objectives of the plan thus services vary across the region.
2.3 What are the advantages and disadvantage of each system?
The following section summarises the advantages and disadvantages of each system.
2.3.1 COUNCIL-PROVIDED KERBSIDE INORGANIC WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
With these rates-funded services residents put inorganic waste on the kerbside when
advised by council, and a contractor picks it up.
Advantages of kerbside inorganic waste collection services
The advantages of kerbside inorganic collections are:
Convenience
Although this service is the least used kerbside waste service, many residents
have come to expect the convenience of being able to easily dispose of large
amounts of bulky waste on the kerbside at seemingly no cost (the cost being an
unidentified part of a rates bill).
Kerbside collection is convenient for residents who have difficulty transporting
inorganic waste themselves, such as the elderly, the physically less able or
those without access to suitable transport options especially trailers.
Kerbside collections are convenient for the small number of properties that have
no area for collection within their boundary.
Recycling/reuse
A proportion of the material set out for collection is recovered and reused or
recycled. There is provision in the councils contracts for steel and tyres to be
collected separately and supplied to the recycling market. However the reality is
that commercial scavengers take valuable material (illegally) before it can be
accessed by council contractors. Material is also collected by the general public;
however there is no way to quantify the amount diverted from landfill. There are
more efficient ways to make sure items are recovered and made available for
reuse for example through resource recovery facilities.
Page 92 of 591

55
Disadvantages of kerbside inorganic waste collection services
The disadvantages of kerbside inorganic collection are:
Legislation
Inorganic collections do not support the councils obligation under the Waste
Minimisation Act to reduce waste, or help the council work towards its Zero
Waste goal, as there is no direct financial cost to use this disposal service.
Inorganic collections take the pressure off manufacturers to provide endof-life
solutions for their products. Product Stewardship schemes, as intended by the
Waste Minimisation Act, are less likely to eventuate for many products while
councils fund an easy alternative.
Waste volumes
Rates-funded inorganic collections go against the polluter-pays philosophy. By
providing an easy disposal option, with the cost within the rates bill, there is no
incentive for residents to reduce the amount of waste they produce.
The amount of waste put out in inorganic collections is linked to economic
growth. In positive economic times the increase in inorganic waste is out of
proportion to population growth.
23
Although the causes have not been
investigated it may be due to increasing consumption of short-lived, non-
repairable items and a symptom of a throw-away culture.
Scavenging
Although scavenging may be viewed positively by some people because they
see goods and materials circulating within the community, it causes far more
problems than it solves. Many of the scavengers patrolling the streets are
commercial scrap metal dealers, who break and damage items to remove
valuable metals. For example windows are broken to remove aluminium and
CRT television tubes are broken to remove copper. This renders items useless
for resale as well as creating hazards for pedestrians and collectors. If these
items were taken to a resource recovery centre they could be resold, helping pay
for recycling services and providing the community with access to low cost
goods. Alternatively these items could be dismantled for recycling, creating
employment opportunities. When left damaged on the kerbside they only go to
landfill.
Scavenging is illegal but enforcing bylaws takes significant council time and
resources. Former council bylaws state that it is an offence to remove inorganic
waste placed in a waste collection area
24
(on the kerbside) if it is repeatedly
being taken for resale or commercial gain, or if it is removed in a manner likely to
cause injury, mess or damage.

23
Waste Not Consulting Ltd (2007), Composition of Auckland City Inorganic Refuse Collection, report to Auckland
City Council
24
North Shore City Bylaw Part 4 (2000), Rodney District Council Chapter 19 (1998), Waitakere City Council Waste
Bylaw (2005), Auckland City Bylaw No. 22 (2006)
Page 93 of 591

56
Where recycling attempts are incorporated in the council collections, recovery
rates are low. In the former Auckland City Councils 2007 collection, a recycling
rate of less than 10% was achieved despite surveys showing that 30% to 50% of
the inorganic collection material is reusable or recyclable.
25
The low rate of
recovery is because these surveys took place after scavenging had removed
and/or damaged many items of value.

TVs and computers are smashed by scavengers to take out metal and components of value
Cost
Kerbside inorganic collections are expensive for the council to run and time-
consuming to organise, manage, and administer. Additionally, recoverable
materials that could be sold to help offset costs are collected (illegally) by
commercial scavengers who receive the financial benefits.
Commercial dumping
A number of businesses free-load off the kerbside inorganic collections by
disposing of large quantities of business waste, even though this is not permitted
by most of the former councils bylaws. For example during a recent collection in
the former Auckland City area a tyre shop truck was observed by a member of
the public dumping a load of tyres. Issuing infringement notices or making
prosecutions for this kind of offence requires precise details from witnesses which
can be very difficult to obtain. Business waste can also include hazardous and
prohibited wastes, which the council must remove to protect public health and
safety.

25
Waste Not Consulting Ltd (2007), Composition of Auckland City Inorganic Refuse Collection, report to Auckland
City Council
Page 94 of 591

57

The inorganic collection provides cover for tyres to be dumped. The inorganic collection run in
Manukau in 2010 picked up 16,064 tyres at a cost of $60,071 (the cost borne by ratepayers to pay
for their collection and recycling).
Cross-boundary dumping
Cross boundary dumping is a significant issue in the Auckland region due to
collections running at different times of the year and sometimes in different years.
Residents put waste out in their own collection (often putting out multiple loads as
the collection progresses), but also make use of neighbouring areas collections.
This represents an additional cost to local ratepayers as well as creating a
nuisance for residents when other peoples waste appears on their kerbside.
Lack of amenity
The mess caused by inorganic collections affects the amenity value of the entire
region and is at odds with New Zealands 100% Pure marketing image. As the
gateway to New Zealand, Auckland provides the first impression to many
visitors, and that impression is negative during inorganic collections. Rapid clean
ups are required, often at short notice, during VIP visits and important events.
With the upcoming Rugby World Cup the inorganic collection in the former
Manukau City area has been rescheduled so visitors do not see piles of waste
on the street when they fly into Auckland Airport.
Inorganic collections also create noise and traffic problems due to scavengers
operating at all times of the day and night.

Inorganic refuse, after being neatly piled on the kerbside by the resident,
has been scattered by scavengers looking for items of value
Page 95 of 591

58
Health and safety
There are significant public health and safety issues attached to inorganic
collections and it is Auckland Councils responsibility to manage these risks.
Accidents relating to inorganic collections have occurred, including a child being
hit by a vehicle while scavenging and a vehicle striking inorganic refuse that had
been scattered on the road by scavengers. Footpaths are often blocked, forcing
school children, other pedestrians and mobility scooters to use the road. In
Manukau it is necessary in some areas to use barriers to prevent waste from
encroaching on roads and footpaths.
Inorganic collections present a wide range of risks to contractors as well. A
recent study into the health and safety issues of refuse collections showed that
inorganic collections present the most risks of any waste collection service and
are most likely to result in a work injury.
26
Auckland Council has obligations
under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 to manage health and
safety at work. The councils main responsibility as an employer, which includes
engaging contractors, is to make the workplace safe by identifying hazards and
managing any hazards by eliminating them, isolating them, or minimising them,
in that order of preference.
Environmental
Commercial scavenging of fridges, air conditioners and dehumidifiers creates
environmental hazards as chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), hydro chlorofluorocarbons
(HCFC) and hydro fluorocarbons (HFC) are released into the atmosphere when
scavengers remove precious metals at the roadside

Inorganic refuse blocking the footpath on a main thoroughfare
Equity
Rates funded collections mean all ratepayers pay for the service even though
not all use it. This means some ratepayers are subsidising others.

26
Morrison Low (2010) An assessment of the health and safety costs and benefits of manual
vs automated waste collections position report for WasteMINZ
Page 96 of 591

59
Administration
It is extremely difficult to police collections - including what and how much
material is put out, where it is placed and when. Despite comprehensive
communication of the dos and donts many residents do not follow instructions
and the council and contractors are left to deal with the aftermath. Proper
enforcement would be extremely expensive and difficult because it is not
possible to positively identify the source of the material.
The amount of notice residents are given before a collection is also an issue. If
collection times are advertised with a long lead time commercial scavengers
have time to organise themselves, but if it is too short residents complain they
were not well enough informed.

Hazardous materials set out for an inorganic kerbside collection.
Criminal activity
Residents report being concerned over security during the inorganic collection
and of feeling intimidated by scavengers
Scavenging in the Auckland region has resulted in complaints to councils over
perceived criminal activities. In 2009 the police in the North Shore identified a
link between inorganic collections and burglaries.
Complaints have also been laid over strangers walking onto properties and the
theft of items during scavenging that were not placed out for collection
including lawnmowers and boats.
Page 97 of 591

60

Empty chemical containers from a suspected P-lab, put out for collection in a North Shore
inorganic collection
2.3.2 COUNCIL-PROVIDED INORGANIC BOOKING SYSTEM
This is the system introduced in the west in 2009 as a replacement for its kerbside
inorganic collection. The system was introduced with the intention to a) remove inorganic
waste from the kerbside and b) move the city towards a complete user pays system in a
staged process. A political decision was made to start the user charge at $10 per
collection, with the intention of increasing this to $15, then $20.
Advantages of a council-provided inorganic booking system
The advantages of a council-provided inorganic booking system, collected from private
property are:
Legislation
The service is part-polluter pays, which is in line with the Waste Minimisation Act.
All residents have access to the service but only those who want it will use it.
Waste volumes
Significantly less waste is collected and landfilled. Prior to the introduction of the
inorganic booking system 4,500 tonnes of waste was collected in the western
inorganic collection (in 2007/2008). In the first year of the inorganic booking
system (2008/2009) 664 tonnes was collected, with 850 tonnes collected in the
following year. The Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Centre identified a
significant increase in the number of residents dropping waste off themselves (at
a cost) in these years.
Not only are residents putting out less waste but there is no waste entering the
system through cross boundary or commercial dumping.
A maximum of one cubic metre of material is collected from each property. While
some residents may think this is a negative, having become accustomed to
putting out large amounts in the inorganic collection, this is a positive from a
waste minimisation point of view.
Page 98 of 591

61
Costs
In 2007/2008 inorganic collections cost the former Waitakere City Council
$639,000. The following year the inorganic booking system cost the council
approximately $160,000, representing a cost decrease to the council of 74%.
Convenience
Goods and materials do not have to be taken out to the kerbside making it easier
for all residents, but particularly those who have difficulty moving and
transporting items for example the elderly and the physically less-able.
Collection from private property is more convenient for residents without street
frontages.
Amenity
There are no complaints about mess on the streets, noise or scavengers.
Health and safety
There are no health and safety risks for pedestrians and fewer risks for collectors,
who deal mainly with whole items rather than broken goods and materials.
Resource Recovery
Items are not damaged by scavenging so can potentially be resold.
Administration
Collections are planned and controlled eliminating most of the administration and
policing requirements of the inorganic collections.
Disadvantages of a council-provided inorganic booking system
The disadvantages of the inorganic booking system are:
Waste volumes
Residents can still dispose of one cubic metre of waste per year in a relatively
easy way. There is no incentive to dispose of less than this amount.
Convenience
The collection is only once a year for each property, so residents still need to plan
ahead.
Cost
The system is partly polluter pays in the west so there is still some subsidisation
by the council (although the original goal was to make the service fully polluter
pays over time). This is because the charge to the householder does not cover
the entire cost of the collection as there is a fixed cost involved in keeping a
Page 99 of 591

62
collection fleet available. If a small number of households use the service the
fixed cost component of the service increases on a per user basis - and
decreases as more people use the service.
2.3.3 COLLECTIONS PROVIDED BY PRIVATE WASTE OPERATORS
The only inorganic waste services provided in Rodney are those provided by private
waste operators. These are provided at a cost (polluter pays) to those residents who
request them.
Advantages of collections provided by private waste operators
The advantages of collections provided by private waste operators are:
Legislation
The service is completely polluter pays which encourages waste minimisation
and is in line with the principles of the Waste Minimisation Act
Convenience
The door to door service provided by private companies is convenient for
residents, particularly those who are less able to transport inorganic waste
themselves, such as the elderly, the physically less-able or those who do not
have access to suitable transport
Pick ups can be scheduled at any time and are not dependent on council
schedules
Cost
There is no cost to the council for providing services.
Disadvantages of collections provided by private waste operators
The disadvantages of collections provided by private waste operators are:
Service level
As the service is left to the market there may be no service provided in certain
areas (e.g. isolated rural areas).
Waste volume
There is no limit to the amount of waste residents can dispose of (at a cost).
Resource recovery is at the discretion of the operator. If the operator has a
financial interest in a landfill there is no incentive to reduce the amount of waste
sent for disposal.
Page 100 of 591

63
2.3.4 COUNCIL-PROVIDED DROP-OFF DAYS
Residents in rural areas in the former Franklin District have the option of using council-
run drop off days which provide drop off points for residents around the area. One such
drop-off point is shown in the photo below.

Advantages of council-provided drop-off days
The advantages of council-provided drop off days are:
Convenience
The service is convenient for rural residents who do not need to drive a long way
to drop off their inorganic waste. This is significant in rural areas where residents
may only travel into town periodically.
Resource recovery
Metal and wood are separated out for reuse, as far as possible, in a controlled
environment.
Community participation
The collections foster a sense of community and are seen to benefit all
participants - the community group helping run the day, the council, and
residents.
Some community groups offer assistance to those who do not have trailers or are
unable to move large/unwieldy items.
Administration
The service is relatively easy to organise and cost effective in comparison with
large-scale kerbside collections.
Page 101 of 591

64
There are no issues to manage in terms of people picking over kerbside waste,
causing traffic hazards and litter problems, or complaints about unsightly and/or
unsafe piles of rubbish.
Education
Any items that are not suitable for collection are rejected. An explanation as to
why it cannot be accepted and advice about proper disposal is provided,
facilitating community education.
Disadvantages of council-provided drop-off days
The disadvantages of council-provided drop off days are:
Convenience
The service may be inconvenient for some residents, particularly those who are
less able to transport inorganic waste themselves, such as the elderly, the
physically less-able or those who do not have access to suitable transport.
There is a narrow window of opportunity to take advantage of the collection day
as it only occurs on one morning per year in each area.
Rural focus
The service works in rural areas but is unlikely to be as suited to urban
environments due to lack of suitable drop off locations.
Health and safety
Working with voluntary labour poses significant health and safety risks to the
council and contractor, even when only used in a limited capacity and outside the
main work area. While these hazards can be minimised, an argument could be
made that only trained staff who are experienced in avoiding hazards and who
have protection equipment should be employed.
Charging
Fees charged can be inconsistent as loads are judged by eye. Fees charged on
the basis of weight are more consistent and fair.
2.3.5 TRANSFER STATION DROP-OFF
Transfer stations can be either privately owned and operated, or owned and operated by
the council. The main difference between the two is that privately owned transfer station
may have less incentive to divert waste from landfill if the owners have interests in
landfills and rely on landfill revenue for a return on investment. Council ownership and/or
operation of transfer stations makes resource recovery a priority because the council has
an obligation to minimise waste to landfill under the Waste Minimisation Act.

Page 102 of 591

65
Advantages of transfer station drop-offs are:
Legislation
The service is fully polluter pays and is therefore in line with the waste
Minimisation Act
Convenience
There is flexibility for residents to dispose of inorganic waste when it suits them
and no need to stockpile material for collection. Transfer stations are open all
year round in comparison with kerbside inorganic collections which are only
provided annually or every two years.
Amenity
Neighbourhoods do not have piles of inorganic material left on the streets.
Illegal disposal
There is no risk of cross boundary dumping, commercial dumping or disposal of
unacceptable materials.
Health and safety
Health and safety risks are reduced.
Cost
There is no cost to council for provision of services.
Disadvantages of transfer station drop-off are:
Convenience
The service may not be convenient for residents, particularly those who are less
able to transport inorganic waste themselves, such as the elderly, the physically
less-able or those who do not have access to suitable transport
Resource recovery
There is no mandate for privately owned transfer stations to recover resources
and reduce waste to landfill: this will only be done only for commercial purposes.
However council run transfer stations have a legislative requirement to reduce the
amount of waste to landfill so focus more on resource recovery.

Page 103 of 591

66
3 What inorganic waste services do other councils
provide?
As noted in section 1 there are very few councils outside the Auckland region that
provide inorganic waste collections. Of the eight councils identified in a 2006 survey, five
were in the Auckland region. Inorganic waste collections are therefore very much an
Auckland phenomenon.
Other councils deal with inorganic waste in a variety of ways from providing services
through small community-run recycling facilities to large metropolitan resource recovery
operations. The models that work in small communities may not necessarily transfer well
to large city environments - and vice versa.
The following section gives three examples of how other New Zealand cities deal with
inorganic waste.
3.1 Tauranga
Tauranga City Council provided inorganic collections to residents in 1997, 1999 and
2002. However due to increasing waste volumes and costs the council decided to
discontinue the collection and there are no future inorganic collections planned in
Tauranga City Councils 10 year plan.
3.2 Christchurch
In Christchurch a council-owned subsidiary owns land and buildings at three locations
around the city for the consolidation, reuse and recycling of the citys waste. At each of
these three locations there is an Eco-Drop where reusable materials can be dropped off
by the public. At each Eco-Drop, reusable items like old furniture and appliances are
collected and repaired, then sold to the public through the Super Shed, a retail outlet
that sells more than 2,200 tonnes of used goods and material each year.
27

The Super Shed retail outlet

27
Christchurch City Council (2008), Christchurch Rubbish and Recycling Facts and Stats
Page 104 of 591

67
1.3 Porirua
Porirua replaced its annual inorganic collection with an on request system in 2003. A
resource recovery centre was established as a joint effort between local community
group Mana Community Enterprises (MCE) and Porirua City Council, with the council
owning the facility and MCE operating it.
28

MCE was established to provide rehabilitation with a work skills focus for people with
psychiatric and related disabilities. Resource recovery offered MCE a way to mitigate the
problems clients had in moving towards paid employment and ensured that contracts with
organisations such as Porirua City Council were picked up by local businesses.

The resource recovery centre (called Trash Palace) is located just inside the entrance to
the Porirua landfill. It provides recycling opportunities to anyone going to the transfer
station and has three distinct areas for unloading, retail, and education. Reusable items
are dropped off by the public or collected from private properties in Porirua using the
council funded on request service.
Residents get two free pickups a year and these are arranged between the resident and
MCE. Residents make items of high value available to Trash Palace (either dropping it off
or via the on request service) because they know they will be looked after and that funds
from their sale will go to a good cause.
According to Porirua City Council
29
the key drivers for the change were:
The increasing cost of the inorganic collection
Councils Zero Waste policy
Councils strategic goal of economic development and employment
Reasons for the success of the new service included:
Flexibility in the building design
Supportive council who saw the big picture and invested for success
Designing and siting the facility to be a draw-card for residents and visitors
Committed individuals involved.
The service was well received and no complaints were received over the discontinuation
of the annual kerbside collection.

28
Envision New Zealand (2003) Resourceful Communities A guide to resource recovery centres in New Zealand
29
Porirua City Council (3 June 2003) Report to Infrastructure Committee Feedback on inorganic collections
Page 105 of 591

68

Trash Palace resource recovery centre
4 What are the options for the future?
Auckland Council can not continue providing kerbside inorganic collections because they
are contrary to the intent of the Waste Minimisation Act and pose too many health and
safety risks. Another solution must therefore be found. The three most viable options are
to:
A. Provide an inorganic booking system
B. Provide an inorganic booking system supported by a network of resource
recovery parks
C. Provide no inorganic collection service.
4.1 Option A: Council provided inorganic booking system
This option resolves a number of issues by offering a service that, although it may be less
convenient than the current kerbside inorganic collections, still provides residents with a
council-coordinated service.
Based on the experience of councils who have made this change, Auckland residents
would accept a transition to this type of system. A phone survey undertaken prior to the
introduction of the western booking system
30
showed that although most (68%) residents
liked the existing inorganic collection, 34.5% thought there were problems associated
with it (scavenging, mess, public health and safety and dumping) and 28.2% said that
although they thought the service was necessary, it could be replaced with an alternative.
When asked to choose between three alternatives the most popular option was a part-
user pays/part-council subsidised collection system.
A survey carried out after the introduction of the new booking system
31
showed that 80%
of the services customers rated the service as excellent, with 96% rating the services as
at least satisfactory, meeting the councils customer satisfaction targets. Most

30
Waitakere Inorganic Collection Phone Survey. Envision NZ Ltd. June 2005
31
Waitakere City Council (2010), Inorganic Waste Collection Service Customer Satisfaction Survey
Page 106 of 591

69
importantly, nearly 80% of customers were happy with the new service (60% preferred
the new service and 18.6% found it comparable to the old service).
There was no noticeable increase in illegal dumping when the booking system was
introduced. This was due to the accompanying roll out of an education programme which
informed residents of the changes and a strict enforcement programme which stopped
negative behaviour.
4.2 Option B: Council provided inorganic booking system supported by a network
of resource recovery parks
This option is identical to option A, but with the addition of a network of resource recovery
parks across the Auckland region that the inorganic booking system would feed into. The
resource recovery network concept, explained in an Envision NZ Ltd report,
32
proposes
establishing a network of resource recovery facilities across the region based on a
nucleus of seven large resource recovery parks. These parks could be established by
redesigning existing transfer stations to maximise resource recovery. Up to 60 smaller
recycling depots would feed into these hubs, creating opportunities for local enterprises
to provide resource recovery and waste minimisation services.
A resource recovery network would provide local collection points where goods and
materials picked up by the inorganic booking system could be offloaded, sorted, repaired
and/or refurbished for sale through retail facilities attached to the facilities.
When the resource recovery network was proposed in 2005, former councils in the region
agreed that the approach was desirable but due to lack of ownership or management
control of infrastructure, it was not viable to pursue at the time. Now that Auckland
Council has chosen Option 3 of the Waste Assessment as its strategic direction (gaining
access to the entire waste stream by obtaining administrative/operational influence over
transfer stations), the resource recovery network could be a viable option.
4.3 Option C: Discontinue kerbside inorganic collections
Although discontinuing the inorganic collection might not be a popular decision, the
councils primary responsibility is to meet its legislated obligation to minimise waste, not
to make disposal easy for residents. By discontinuing the kerbside inorganic collections,
Auckland Council would resolve most of the environmental, social and health and safety
problems inorganic collections create. Residents would be expected to make use of the
existing options available to dispose of their unwanted goods and materials: for example
by taking them to a transfer station or resource recovery facility or by making
arrangements with private waste operators. This is what currently happens in most other
cities in New Zealand.
The absence of an inorganic waste collection should encourage residents to take more
responsibility for the waste they produce, as well as affecting purchasing decisions,
encouraging them to choose quality goods over short lived products. Also, if there is no
easy way to dispose of bulky waste, there will be more incentive to repair and refurbish
than to throw away. The impact should be a reduction in the amount of inorganic type

32
Reclaiming Aucklands Resources: A Resource Recovery Network for the Auckland Region. Envision NZ Ltd 2005.
Funded by the Community Employment Group, Auckland Regional Council, Waitakere City Council, North Shore City
Council, Auckland City Council and Manukau City Council
Page 107 of 591

70
waste going to landfill and an increase in the amount of material reused or recycled
through existing systems.
Discontinuing inorganic collections may also encourage industry to establish Product
Stewardship schemes to deal with end of life products, as per the provisions of the Waste
Minimisation Act. Without an easy disposal option consumers will start demanding
disposal solutions and industry will have a stronger incentive to provide them.
Illegal dumping would be addressed, as it has been done successfully elsewhere, by
implementing properly resourced public education and enforcement programmes.

Page 108 of 591

71
ISSUES PAPER 4
Public Place Recycling

Public place recycling is relatively recent in New Zealand. The service was originally provided
to contribute to the clean, green image for overseas visitors, provide a convenient place for
visitors to drop recyclables, and it has an element of education about the desirability of
recycling.
The service tends to be dependent on seasons, the weather and the bins location; therefore
the quantity of material collected varies a lot, requiring a flexible collection service. In terms of
diverting waste from landfill the service is, relative to kerbside collections, very expensive
both to install/ maintain bins and to collect /process materials. It does not sit easily with either
the product stewardship or polluter pays intent of the Waste Minimisation Act (2008). It is,
however, seen as very useful by visitors and the community.
This paper raises questions about who might best have responsibility for this service, who
should specify and fund it, whether there could be ways of reducing its cost and whether it
should be extended.

Should public place recycling bins be further promoted and installed in town centres
and tourist areas?

If so, who should make the decisions on location and how should they be funded?

Page 109 of 591

72

Page 110 of 591

73
1 Public place recycling bins
1.1 Why did councils start putting recycling bins in public places?
The idea of putting recycling bins in public places is relatively new in New Zealand, although it
has been established for many years overseas. A few New Zealand councils started installing
public place recycling bins in the early 2000s, particularly in popular tourist towns like Kaikoura.
These councils installed public recycling bins as part of their commitment to their environmental
goals (Kaikoura had a Zero Waste goal and Green Globe accreditation), to provide recycling
services for tourists who expect these services, and as a public education tool. Reducing the
amount of waste sent to landfill was a lesser consideration, as public recycling bins have limited
capacity to affect waste volumes.

Recycling bins in Kaikoura 2002
The first council to install bins in the Auckland region was the former North Shore City Council
which ran a trial of recycling bins on the Promenade on Takapuna Beach in 2002/2003.
In 2007 the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) started a nation-wide initiative called the Recycling in
Public Places Initiative (RIPPI). This programme involved central government partnering with local
government to establish a network of recycling bins in public places across New Zealand.

Love-NZ branded bins in Wellington
Page 111 of 591

74
The main objectives of the RIPPI programme are to raise public awareness of the need to recycle
and to meet tourists expectations.
RIPPI started with a pilot project in four centres then expanded until, by 2009, 537 bins were
installed in major cities and tourist destinations.
In the Auckland region RIPPI bins, using the MfE-specified LoveNZ Recycle with care brand,
were installed in the former North Shore, Auckland, Rodney, and Waitakere areas. RIPPI partially-
funded the councils purchase of the bins and servicing costs for one year.
Since the RIPPI funding finished, all of the bins that had been installed continue to be serviced by
Auckland Council and additional temporary bins have been installed at several Manukau beaches
over the summer.

Recycling bin in central Auckland
1.2 What public place recycling services does the council provide?
Prior to amalgamation, five of the former councils in the Auckland region established separate
public place recycling services. The contracts for all of these services have now been assumed
by Auckland Council. The services offered as at April 2011 are listed in the table below.
Table 1: Public place recycling in former council areas
Former council
area
Number of
bins
Location Material collected
Auckland 44 CBD
All recyclable
containers and
paper/cardboard
Waiheke
3 year-round,
8 more from
November-
Easter
Rural and
beaches
All recyclable
containers and
paper/cardboard
Franklin None - -
Manukau
42 from
November-
Easter
Beaches
All recyclable
containers and
paper/cardboard
Page 112 of 591

75
North Shore 9
Town centres
and beaches
All recyclable
containers,
no paper/cardboard
Papakura None - -
Rodney 5
Warkworth and
Orewa beach
Plastics #1,2, and 5,
no paper/cardboard
Waitakere 10 CBD, beaches
All recyclable
containers,
no paper/cardboard

In total, there are 71 permanent public place recycling bins in Auckland year-round, with another
50 temporary bins being added for the November-Easter summer season.
1.3 How much does it cost to provide public place recycling services?
The cost to the council for public place recycling includes both the capital cost of installing a bin
(usually paired with a litter bin) and the ongoing servicing costs.
The cost of purchasing and installing recycling bins ranges from $1,500-$4,000. The higher cost
bins are used in the Viaduct Basin where strict design controls dictate what type of bin is installed.
The servicing of each bin (which includes collecting material and cleaning the bin) costs $19/week
(about $1000/year) for each bin. In addition, there are repair costs and the cost for processing
the material at the Visy Materials Recovery Facility in Onehunga.
As explained in more detail in section 2.6.1, the diversion cost of materials from public place
recycling bins is $2,300 per tonne compared to a cost of $145 per tonne for kerbside recycling.
Given this extremely high cost the question must be asked whether the council is in the best
position to take responsibility for public place recycling, or whether the cost should fall on
producers and/or consumers. (Product Stewardship will be covered in a future paper.)
1.4 How do public place recycling bins perform?
1.4.1 North Shore City trials
The results of the 2002/03 trial in the former North Shore City provided information that was
useful when public place recycling bins were introduced several years later. Key findings of the
trial were:
When two identical bins, one for litter and one for recycling, were placed next to each other
with only the signage identifying the purpose of each bin, the recycling bins contained about
66% recyclable material and 34% contamination (non recyclable material). The adjoining
litter bins contained about 17% recyclable material.
When a custom-designed recycling bin was used, about 92% of the material was recyclable
and 8% was contamination.
About two-thirds of the material collected in the recycling bins, by weight, was glass
containers
Page 113 of 591

76
The composition of the material collected varied significantly depending on where the bins
were situated.
1.4.2 Ministry for the Environment and Auckland City RIPPI bin audits
The material collected in the recycling bins in the four centres involved in the RIPPI pilot project
was audited monthly for a one year period. The RIPPI bins in Auckland were also audited during
the winter of 2009.
In each of the three cities where RIPPI bins have been audited, glass was the largest component,
ranging from 59% in Auckland and Christchurch to 74% in Wellington. PET plastic drink bottles
were the second largest recyclable component in all three cities ranging from 7.8% in Auckland to
10.2% in Christchurch, followed by, in declining order, aluminium cans, HDPE plastic drink bottles
and steel cans.
The proportion of recyclable materials in the public place recycling bins was similar between the
three cities, ranging from 83%-94%.
The results of the Auckland RIPPI audits showed that recycling bins that were placed next to litter
bins collected a higher proportion of recyclable materials than bins that were not placed next to
litter bins.
The quantity of material collected in the public place recycling bins varied significantly between
the three cities. In Auckland, an average of less than 4 kg per week was collected from the 22
bins that were audited whereas in Christchurch, each bin averaged more than 13 kg per week.
The quantity collected from the Auckland bins was markedly lower than Christchurch and
Wellington, probably because the Auckland audits were conducted in winter, when use of outdoor
public places is much lower (the other cities were audited over a full year) and not long after the
bins were installed (before the public had got used to them being available) and before the
council had found the best places to install them.
1.4.3 Do public place recycling bins perform differently in different places at different times?
Of all the municipal waste streams, public place litter and public place recycling are the most
variable. Some waste streams, such as those collected by a councils domestic kerbside refuse
collection, remain relatively constant over time and between different locations. Public place litter
and recycling, on the other hand, vary considerably between locations and over time.
At many sites, the quantity of public place litter and recycling that is generated fluctuates sharply
on a day-to-day or season-to-season basis. A bin that is filled to overflowing on a sunny day may
receive very little use the next day if the weather has deteriorated. Bins at beaches that require
frequent emptying during the summer holiday period may not require emptying for several days at
a time in the winter.
The composition of public place litter and recycling also varies substantially from location to
location. A bin in an urban setting, such as on a street in a central business district, receives
waste markedly different to that on a beach. Both litter and recycling bins in town centres are
frequently used for the disposal of business waste.
Page 114 of 591

77
1.5 What about recycling at events?
Waste management at public events is increasing in importance, with several of the former
councils requiring event operators to prepare waste management plans as part of the process for
applying for an event permit. While providing recycling at these events is not mandatory for
private event organisers, the former councils, and now Auckland Council, ensure that recycling
occurs at council-organised events.
Recycling services at public events are always provided by private recycling operators, who
provide and service recycling bins and other infrastructure as necessary. The council controls no
assets for this purpose, and uses contracted service providers for its own events.
Waste management planning for the Rugby World Cup 2011 is well-advanced and recycling
facilities at fan zones and festival sites are included wherever possible. The public place
recycling programme, initiated in the CBD in 2009, is going to be extended to include high
pedestrian areas such as Queen Street and the Viaduct Harbour. Temporary recycling bins will be
a major feature of the waste management at all of the venues, the Stadium Walk-up route, and
possibly other areas where the public will be congregating throughout the event.
1.6 What are the important issues relating to public place recycling?
1.6.1 Cost
The most contentious aspect of public place recycling is the balance between the cost to the
council for providing the service and the waste diversion benefits that are derived from the
service.
From a waste minimisation perspective, it is clear, from the information provided in sections 1.3
and 1.4, that public place recycling is an expensive method for diverting material from landfill.
Looking at the costs for the Auckland CBD, each public place recycling bin costs an average of
$1000 per annum to service (excluding the cost of processing the material).
When the Auckland CBD recycling bins were audited in 2009, each bin collected an average of
3.72 kg of material per week. If, as expected, the quantity increases over time to the same level
as in Wellington (8.24 kg/bin/week), each bin will collect about 0.43 tonnes of material per year.
This equates to a diversion cost of $2300 per tonne of material. This compares to the cost of
$145 per tonne for kerbside recycling and processing (averaged across the whole region and
including proceeds from material sales). If waste diversion was the key driver for installing public
recycling bins there are cheaper ways of achieving it. For example it might be possible to run the
contents of public litter bins over a sorting line at a Materials Recovery Facility to recover
recyclable materials.
The wider environmental costs of public place recycling also need to be considered. If a
collection such as the one in Aucklands CBD is undertaken in combination with the collection of
kerbside recycling in the area, it would be relatively efficient. In other areas provided with public
place recycling bins, such as Manukau beaches and Waiheke Island, there are fewer
opportunities to combine the public place bin servicing with kerbside recycling collections, and
additional vehicle movements would be required.
These separate collections would use more fuel than combined collections, add to traffic
congestion, and emit more greenhouse gases due to their inefficiency. An overall life cycle
Page 115 of 591

78
analysis of these public place recycling collections may show a minimal, or possibly negative,
environmental benefit from a waste diversion perspective.
1.6.2 Public relations and education
Waste diversion, however, which can be quantified and analysed, was not put forward by any of
the former councils as the primary reason for providing public place recycling services. As the
former North Shore City Council stated on its website, relative to the RIPPP trials:
The council is trialling this scheme to encourage the public to recycle when they are
away from home, and to send a good signal to visitors and tourists about the importance
of looking after our environment.
Any educational, social, and public relations benefits that are gained from public place recycling
are much more difficult to quantity than the economic and environmental costs and benefits.
In 2009 MfE commissioned user surveys in Taupo
33
measuring residents and visitors awareness
of the presence and purpose of the LoveNZ branded recycling bins. About half (53 percent) the
residents recalled seeing the bins and of these most (89 percent) thought they were useful or very
useful. Of the visitors, 33% of domestic and 35% of overseas visitors recognised the branded
bins. Of these, almost all (98 percent and 97 percent respectively) thought they were useful or
very useful.
Although providing tourists with access to recycling facilities and educating the public are
perfectly valid reasons for central and local governments to promote public recycling, they are
related more to branding and public relations than waste minimisation. If Auckland Council
decides to expand its network of public recycling bins this needs to be borne in mind.
1.7 Are there any other public recycling options?
A system that is complementary to public recycling bins has recently been launched, aimed
specifically at tourists and other road-users. The On the Road Recycling
34
programme, is run by
Northland community enterprise
35
, and is polluter pays. Holiday makers are provided with pre-
paid recycling bags that they can drop off at specified collection points on their journey. The
scheme currently operates only in Northland but there are plans for it to be extended throughout
the country within 12 months, dependant on funding.
1.8 Where does producer responsibility come into it?
As with other waste and recycling issues, the question of equity and fairness needs to be
considered with regards to public place recycling. These services are funded through rates,
which means the services are funded by all ratepayers even though they are used by relatively
few. Perhaps as importantly, public place recycling services are a council-funded service that
provides an environmentally-friendly disposal option for the products of the packaging industry
which make up 95%-100% of the material collected in public recycling bins. The packaging
industry and retailers are able to internalise benefits of publicly-funded, environmentally-friendly
disposal options for products they sell, while externalising all of the costs to the ratepayer. This
runs counter to the Waste Minimisation Acts aim to make waste producers responsible for
products throughout their entire life-cycle.

33
The Awareness of the Presence & Purpose of LoveNZ Recycling Bins. Research NZ. July 2009
34
www.ontheroad.org.nz
35
The Community, Business and Environment Centre (CBEC)
Page 116 of 591

79
The beverage industry in Australia estimates that between 25 percent and 45 percent of all
beverages are consumed away from home.
36
A similar situation is likely to exist in New Zealand,
meaning that up to 45 percent of beverage containers will not be recycled through household
kerbside collections but will be discarded at private premises, such as bars and restaurants, and
in public places. Product Stewardship, as intended by the Waste Minimisation Act, is the only way
for the cost of recycling packaging discarded in public places, to be borne by producers and
consumers (polluter-pays) rather than ratepayers. Container deposit legislation, which places a
small deposit on the sale price of all beverages (which is refunded when the empty containers are
returned for recycling), is a form of Product Stewardship that operated in New Zealand up until the
1970s and is still common overseas.
1.9 What are the funding options?
In light of the strong education/public relations role public recycling bins perform, an argument
could be made for them to be funded in a different way to other waste minimisation services.
There could also be discussion about who makes the decisions on where they are located and
who funds them. For example if Local Boards feel it is important for their community to provide
public place recycling facilities they could be part or fully funded through future local budgets. Or
decisions and funding might better be made on a region-wide basis. Alternatively, the cost of bins
could be subsidised by advertising. A number of options exist for advertisement-supported public
recycling bins that could be operated independently of the council and provide local business
opportunities. Concurrently the council could also choose to advocate to government for much
stronger product stewardship so that those who create the waste take responsibility for it.

36
Australian Beverage Packaging Consumption, Recovery and Recycling Quantification Study. September 2008
Page 117 of 591

80

Page 118 of 591

81
ISSUES PAPER 5

Geographically Remote Areas
Waste Management and Resource Recovery

The Hauraki Gulf Islands and more remote areas present a unique challenge for Auckland Council
to achieve the three goals of the current waste legislation: waste minimisation, equity and cost
effectiveness. Sea access and remoteness inevitably mean that many services are more expensive
to deliver, raising regional cost equity questions, and there are challenges around predicted
population increase (Waiheke) and seasonal variations. With the formation of Auckland Council all
waste services and allocation of costs are being reviewed. This paper discusses possible changes
in order to manage waste on the islands and in remote rural areas in line with the Waste
Minimisation Act (2008) aiming to arrive ultimately at a mix of services and charges that most
residents and ratepayers feel is reasonable, while being fair to the rest of the region.
For Waiheke, this could mean a different charging system, reviewing how and what kerbside
collections are made, and/or a possible reduction in some services. For Great Barrier Island, there
are options describing retaining or removing the kerbside collection service, changes to the landfill
site, reviewing charging levels, and the council gaining greater influence over the management of
waste.
In recognition of their geographic isolation and the cost of providing services, the paper discusses
the possibility of shaping services somewhat differently from the rest of the region, and exploring
the potential for Local Board involvement. The paper has more detail than others as the topic was
not covered in the Waste Assessment.
Kawau and Rakino are also briefly discussed in this paper and rural issues are also covered in the
other papers.
Given the geographic isolation of the Hauraki Gulf Islands (and some rural areas on the
mainland) should further work be done to see what sort of role the Local Boards might
play in shaping the way waste is managed, to reflect their unique situation?
Should Hauraki Gulf Islands and rural areas pay the actual cost of their waste and
recycling services or should the region contribute? If so, to what level?

Page 119 of 591

82

Page 120 of 591

83
1. What is the purpose of this issues paper?
As indicated before, Auckland Council has recently completed a Waste Assessment to meet the
requirements prescribed in Section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) to conduct an
assessment prior to reviewing its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.
The Hauraki Gulf Islands were not discussed in detail in the Waste Assessment because they
generate a relatively small percentage of Aucklands waste stream and because they have a
number of waste issues that differ significantly from the rest of Auckland. As result they can be
treated separately.
The purpose of this issues paper is to recognise the specific issues and challenges faced by the
Hauraki Gulf Islands and provide in-depth information on current waste management and resource
recovery practices. This will enable the council, including the Local Boards, to determine waste
management and minimisation priorities and assist in selecting methods for addressing the various
waste streams. Some of these issues also relate to rural areas.
1.1 What are the key features of the Hauraki Gulf Islands?
The Hauraki Gulf Islands population and number of occupied households vary considerably with
the seasons, with a large influx occurring during holiday periods. The main industries on the islands
are centred around catering for tourists and visitors, with viticulture and farming being the other
main land use activities particularly on Waiheke Island. Because of the impact of seasonal
variations it is necessary for the council to ensure that waste infrastructure and services have the
ability to respond to peak waste volumes.
Table 1-1 Hauraki Gulf Island statistics
Hauraki Gulf
Island
Population (permanent) Number of
properties
Industries
Waiheke 8,000
32,000 (holiday periods)
6639 Tourism/Accommodation
Viticulture,
Farming, Retail
Rakino 16 198 -
Great Barrier 852 1332 Tourism/Accommodation
Farming
Kawau 80 (approx) 300 (approx) Tourism/Accommodation

1.1.1 Waiheke Island
Waiheke Island is located in the Hauraki Gulf, 17.1 km from Auckland. It is the third most populated
island in New Zealand. The island has a permanent population of approximately 8,000 residents.
During holiday periods this population swells to approximately 32,000. Outside of holiday periods
many properties are unoccupied.
Page 121 of 591

84
Auckland Council contracts the operation of the Waiheke Island transfer station. All waste and
recyclables collected on the island from the kerbside collection, litter bins and private commercial
collection services are delivered to the transfer station.
In 2009/2010, approximately 4,332 tonnes of waste, 1,849 tonnes of dry recyclables and 998
tonnes of greenwaste were handled at the transfer station. Approximately 1,800 tonnes of waste
and 850 tonnes of dry recyclables are collected from the kerbside with the remainder being
delivered directly to the transfer station. Approximately 632 tonnes of inorganic waste is collected
during the biennial inorganic collection.
1.1.2 Rakino Island
Rakino is a small island north-east of Motutapu Island. There are in the vicinity of 198 properties on
Rakino although the permanent population is only 16 as of 2010. It also has a limited ferry service.
Approximately 50 tonnes of waste are collected annually from Rakino. In addition 12 tonnes
37
of
glass, plastic and cans, and 10 tonnes
38
of paper and cardboard are collected. Approximately 20-30
tonnes of inorganic waste are collected during the biennial inorganic collection.
1.1.3 Great Barrier Island
Great Barrier Island is situated 100 kilometres to the north-east of central Auckland in the outer
Hauraki Gulf. With an area of 285 square kilometres it is the fourth-largest island in New Zealand. It
is inhabited by a small population of 852 people mostly living from farming and tourism. The
majority of the diverse environments of the island (around 60% of the total area) are administered
as nature reserves by the Department of Conservation. Approximately 800 tonnes of waste and 60
tonnes of dry recyclables are brought to the Claris landfill from the kerbside collection, drop-off
points and direct delivery. Approximately 50 tonnes of inorganic waste is collected during the
biennial inorganic collection.
1.1.4 Kawau Island
Kawau Island is 8 km off the coast and 45 km north of Auckland. The island has a small population
of permanent residents and many holiday dwellings. It is also a popular destination for pleasure
craft cruising the Hauraki Gulf. Most of the population is based at South Cove, North Cove and Bon
Accord Harbour. Although there is little data available from the former Rodney District Council, it is
estimated that Kawau households generate approximately 50 - 70 tonnes of waste and recyclables
per year.
2.1 What is the history of waste management on Waiheke Island?
Some Waiheke Island residents have expressed a desire for a greater involvement in decision
making over local issues, particularly with regards to waste management. Waiheke Island waste
has been the subject of much debate over recent years, partly around the change in waste services
from bags to wheelie bins and partly around waste minimisation activities. The awarding of a 10
year contract in 2009 for all waste related services, including operation of the islands transfer
station to Transpacific Industries (TPI), caused controversy.

37
100 cubic metres converted to weight using a density of 0.12 t/m
3

38
170 cubic metres converted to weight using a density of 0.06 t/m
3

Page 122 of 591

85
2.1.1 How do the waste services operate?
Auckland Council manages collection, transportation and disposal of waste and recyclables on
Waiheke Island. The council owns a transfer station in Ostend which is leased to TPI who operate
the transfer station and also undertake the collection, transportation and disposal contracts. TPI
hold a 10 year build, own, operate and transfer (BOOT) contract for the day-to-day operation of the
transfer station which has recently undergone a complete upgrade. Auckland Council still owns the
land and ownership of the transfer station will revert to the council at the end of the contract term.
2.1.2 What are the existing terms of the waste contracts?
The following contracts for waste services on Waiheke Island expire on 30th June 2019:
Collection of municipal solid waste
Collection of recyclables
Redevelopment and operation of the Waiheke Waste Transfer Station and haulage of
materials
The contract for operation of the summer barge situated in Man O War Bay from December to
February expires in 2011.
2.1.3 How does waste collection work?
Collection on the island is split into five areas, each of which has its collection on a different
weekday. Residents have the choice of either 140 L wheelie bins or 60 L bags for collection.
Residents who do not live on main collection routes such as Orapiu or the Loop Track, have drop
off facilities in key locations. Two additional throw and go bins are located at Kennedy Point and
Matiatia to cater for visitors leaving the island before scheduled collections. Pre-paid council bags
can also be dropped off at the transfer station.
2.1.4 What are the options for waste diversion?
Waste diversion on the island, in the form of recycling collections, occurs on the same day as
general waste collections. Households have the choice of either a 240 L wheelie bin collected
weekly or householder supplied plastic bags (usually old supermarket bags). Householders and
businesses can also drop recycling off at the transfer station. Visitors and residents are also able to
utilise the throw and gobins which have a compartment for recyclables. The most notable
difference between Waiheke and mainland Auckland is that recycling is collected weekly on
Waiheke.
Bulk recyclables are separated at the transfer station and on-sold. Re-useable goods are also
removed from the waste stream by transfer station staff and sold by a local charity organisation.
2.1.5 What are the current options for greenwaste?
Before 2010 greenwaste was processed into mulch and compost for resale at the Waiheke Transfer
Station. Following the new contracts in 2009 greenwaste was shipped off-island to Puketutu Island
on the mainland for composting.
Page 123 of 591

86
Recently a private greenwaste business, Greenacres Waiheke, has reportedly received resource
consent to process greenwaste and is now producing a range of mulch and compost products. As
a consequence greenwaste from the transfer station is now taken to this facility.
Currently most greenwaste can be dropped off free at the transfer station. Fees are only charged
for greenwaste that contains noxious weeds or a particular problem plant such as pampas, flax,
ginger, etc that are not suitable for composting.
2.1.6 Are any waste education programmes being undertaken?
In accordance with their contract, TPI provide a range of waste education programmes on Waiheke
Island.These include:
educating households on compliance issues
developing waste minimisation strategies with businesses (such as vineyards)
school and community education.
Following on from the transfer station upgrade, a waste minimisation learning centre is being
constructed. Many of the community and school education programmes will be able to be run out
of this centre in the future and it will provide a base for tours of the transfer station facility.
2.2 What are the existing waste services on Great Barrier Island?
Auckland Council manages the collection and disposal of waste generated on Great Barrier Island
and also provides collection, sorting, reuse and disposal services for a range of diverted materials,
a biennial inorganic collection and a summer barge in Man O War Passage, Port Fiztroy from
December to February for refuse. As part of the scope of waste services, the council owns and
contracts for the operation of the Claris landfill on Great Barrier Island.
The waste collection and landfill management contracts expired on 30 June 2009 but have been
extended to 30 June 2011.
2.2.1 How does waste collection work?
Refuse and recyclables generated on Great Barrier Island are collected under contract with the
council by Great Barrier Cartage (GBC) and transported to the Claris landfill for storage, treatment
or disposal. A rates-funded kerbside refuse collection is provided for households on the southern
end of the island (in the Tryphena area). Refuse bags are collected on a weekly basis for much of
the year, and twice weekly during the peak summer period (December to February). No kerbside
collection of recyclables is currently provided.
Drop-off facilities are located at 21 sites, 11 of which include refuse facilities only and 16 with a
range of recycling facilities. The 11 refuse skips/bins provide a solution for those who are not on
the kerbside collection route.
2.2.2 What are the options for waste diversion?
In previous waste management plans an emphasis was placed on providing on-island waste
solutions wherever practicable. For cardboard the intention was to place it in a pit at Claris landfill
Page 124 of 591

87
where it could be soaked with rainwater and mixed with greenwaste and left to degrade into low
grade compost. This has not eventuated. Options to bale cardboard and ship it back to the
mainland are currently being investigated.
Abandoned vehicles are processed on-island (tyres, batteries, engines, tank fluids and crushed
bodies are transported off site), as is glass - which is collected from drop off facilities and
transported to Claris for crushing then, reportedly, used as drainage aggregate on the island.
Other recovered materials are stored at the landfill, and baled for transport to the mainland.
Transportation is the responsibility of the contractor.
2.2.3 How does Claris landfill operate?
The Claris landfill is situated off Gray Road, approximately 1km north of Claris Airport on Great
Barrier Island. Auckland Council operates the Claris landfill on land owned by the council. In
addition to its primary function as a refuse landfill, the site also has consents to receive, and provide
treatment for, septic tank pump-outs, to operate as a car storage and crushing facility, and to accept
a small quantity of household hazardous waste. The Claris landfill is the only site currently
consented to accept, treat and dispose of these waste materials on the island.
Claris landfill does not charge a fee for waste disposal at the facility. All revenue is derived from the
councils rating income. This was based on the policy of reducing illegal dumping, combined with
the high cost of transporting waste off the island and the small population base from which funding
would be sought.
Reports have indicated that the amount of refuse sent to the landfill is in the order of 800 tonnes per
annum and the life of the landfill could be between 29 and 51 years. However, based on a recent
assessment of current filling rates and realistic compaction rates, the life of the landfill is likely to be
between 10 and 25 years (bearing in mind the current consent is only for 16 years - until 2027). If
robust resource recovery initiatives were introduced and the amount of refuse sent to landfill
reduced by 50% (to 400 tonnes/annum) this could, however, be extended to between 25 and 45
years.
2.2.4 What are the recent capital investment and operational improvements at Claris landfill?
The weighbridge installation in 2009 has been the most important upgrade to the Claris landfill,
allowing waste tonnages to be monitored, and providing accurate records for the council to help
estimate remaining landfill space.
A realigned internal access road was constructed in 2010. This road provides improved access to
the site while allowing landfilling operations to proceed unrestricted.
Recent options that have been raised for consideration have included:
Purchase of a mulcher for greenwaste and paper to allow the production of better
quality compost
Purchase of a baler to efficiently process recyclables ready for shipping
Development of a resource recovery facility, including housing for the baler and
acquisition of land from DoC
Page 125 of 591

88
Use of the roading maintenance contractors hammer mill to crush glass at the landfill
The short term trial and potential purchase or lease of a compactor to increase
compaction rates and extend landfill life
2.2.5 Are any waste education programmes being undertaken?
Waste education on the island has met with some success. Courses have been provided through
the Create Your Own Eden programme. Islanders attending the courses were provided with a free
compost bin, bokashi bucket or worm farm to encourage home processing of organic material.
The three schools on the island are all undertaking various organic matter diversion schemes as a
means of educating students and the wider community. All the schools have vegetable patches
and compost systems.
2.2.6 What are the options for greenwaste diversion?
A 2009 report conducted by Sustainable Organic Systems and Associates concluded that a
centralised composting system would not be practical on the island because:
(i) it did not resonate with the local way of doing things organic material is used by
permanent residents for backyard compost, food scraps for pigs, ducks, dogs and
chooks. Cardboard is used for mulch and paper for fires or otherwise buried
(ii) there is no one on the island interested in, or passionate about making commercial
compost
(iii) greenwaste (prunings, clippings etc) used in making compost is a bulky low value
material. Transport costs associated with collecting and transporting the material to a
centralised facility, when coupled with onsite management costs would frequently
eclipse the value of the finished product.
The report recommended additional capital expenditure to provide a low speed shredder and baler
to cater for cardboard and paper, and greenwaste. The report also proposed that Claris landfill
should be expanded to include a recycling centre with a shed to house the baler.
2.3 What are the existing waste services on Rakino Island?
Waste services on Rakino Island consist of 11 drop off points for refuse and recycling. The waste is
collected by a local operator and taken to a holding area in Home Bay to await transportation to the
mainland. The collection contract also provides for the removal of abandoned vehicles. The island
has a biennial inorganic collection. The current contract has a variation to service just one property
without road access, by boat, at a cost to the council of $200 per month.
The contracts for Collection and Disposal and Transportation will expire on 30 June 2012, although
either party may terminate these contracts by giving the agreed notice period.
Approximately 50 tonnes of waste are collected annually from Rakino, plus 12 tonnes of glass,
plastic and cans and 10 tonnes of paper and cardboard. Approximately 30 tonnes of inorganic
waste is collected during the biennial inorganic collection.
Page 126 of 591

89
2.4 What are the existing waste services on Kawau Island?
The philosophy for waste on Kawau Island is pack it in, pack it out and, as such, no waste services
are provided on the island. At Sandspit Wharf on the mainland, molok bins are provided for refuse
and recycling. There are also mainland-based bins at Leigh, Scott Landing, Omaha and Opahi Bay
intended for the use of boaties and holiday makers returning from Kawau.
Around 320 tonnes/annum of waste and recyclables are deposited in the mainland based bins,
which are intended for waste from Kawau. Of this, it is estimated that 50-70 tonnes comes from
households on Kawau, 150 tonnes comes from boaties and the remaining 100-120 tonnes is
assumed to come from mainland residents.
Illegal dumping on Kawau has been highlighted as a problem in the past. Mobile Garbage Bins Ltd
are engaged to regularly remove any waste dumped at the yacht club and surrounding areas. The
yacht club has complained about the problem and various options have been considered including
a moored waste barge. However the scale of the problem has yet to be determined.
2.5 What is the future demand for waste services on the Hauraki Gulf Islands?
Consideration of current and future demand for waste management and minimisation services is
essential for forward planning and service delivery. Effective assessment of the demand for
services in the short, medium and long term ensures the sustainable provision of waste services for
the Hauraki Gulf Islands. The following section identifies key demand forecasting assumptions and
management considerations, and how these can be expected to impact on future service provision.
The forecasting of future demand can also help the council scope suitable options for managing the
demand for some waste services.
The future demand in Hauraki Gulf waste management and minimisation services will be driven by
a number of primary drivers including:
demographic change e.g. population and/or household changes
change in commercial and industrial activity/economic conditions (tourism and
agriculture being the major industries)
impact of waste flows from other areas
consumption patterns/quality of purchased products
national policy, legislation and regulation
impact of waste minimisation programmes, services and future initiatives (demand
management strategies)
community expectation
cost of services
Page 127 of 591

90
2.5.1 How will the demographics/population on the islands change?
Figure 0-1 Comparison of populations of island communities within the Hauraki Gulf

The residential population of Waiheke is projected to grow from the current 8,000 residents to
11,300 by the year 2031 (Statistics New Zealand, 2007). Waiheke has an additional number of
temporary residents (3,400) with holiday homes on the island. While these residents are not
included in the residential population, they need to be considered in terms of future waste planning.
The population of Great Barrier Island is in decline. The New Zealand Census information shows
the island has had a declining population since the mid 1990s, falling from 1,080 in 2001 to 890 in
2006.
3. General issues and options
3.1 What are the councils key objectives
From a regional perspective the Hauraki Gulf Islands produce a very small proportion of the waste
Auckland Council has to deal with. However the costs are proportionally very high.
Auckland Council has key objectives for the entire Auckland region around:
1) Waste Minimisation: Systems must be in place to encourage residents to maximise
resource recovery opportunities and minimise waste to landfill in line with the councils
obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act and its Zero Waste goal.
2) Cost Effectiveness: The council has prioritised the importance of keeping rate increases
to a minimum. Any waste services must be efficient and effective.
3) Equity: The council needs to be fair to all residents, regardless of which part of the city
they live, or how much rates income they contribute. In terms of waste services, this relates
to the opportunity to access waste services as well as an equitable distribution of the costs.
Page 128 of 591

91
The services provided for the Hauraki Gulf Islands should align with these objectives.
3.2 How are public good, private good and polluter pays defined?
Public good is a definition, when used in the context of waste services, that generally refers to
waste minimisation services that are provided for general public benefit to meet environmental
policies/standards. In most cases these cannot be linked to specific individuals who use the service
or it is impractical to attempt to link them for example litter services, public place recycling,
environmental promotions/education, enforcement of illegal dumping, hazardous waste services
etc. The cost of these services is commonly satisfied through general rates. The community as a
whole benefits from them.
Private good on the other hand, refers to services provided to meet environmental
policies/standards that are linked to specific individuals for example kerbside recycling collections.
In some cases it is warranted to impose a certain degree of user pays charging, as both the
community and the individual clearly benefit from the service provided. In most cases however the
costs of these private good services are satisfied through general rates, or subsidised by other
waste services, or the Governments waste levy.
Polluter Pays. Outside the public good/private good definition lie services such as residual refuse
disposal where materials inevitably go to landfill. These are the areas where central Government
has promoted, through legislation that local authorities provide financial disincentives to minimise
the amount of waste sent to landfill. For this reason they are the areas where polluter pays is the
obvious funding mechanism. In addition the legislation provides the ability for local governments to
subsidise other private good services through any polluter pays service surpluses.
3.3 How should Hauraki Gulf Island waste services be paid for?
Currently properties on Waiheke, Great Barrier, and Rakino Islands, pay a targeted rate of $164.44
for refuse collection. Properties on Kawau Island do not pay a targeted rate for refuse collection.
Some of the residents on Waiheke, Great Barrier and Rakino Islands receive a rebate for this
component of their rates bill because they do not receive a kerbside collection as there is no road
access to their property. This is in line with the former Auckland City Councils Policy for remission
of rates in miscellaneous circumstances.
Residents living in an urban environment can take advantage of the economies of scale associated
with collecting and disposing of waste. A rubbish truck can collect large volumes of waste over a
small geographical area and the cost of capital expenditure to meet mandated environmental
conditions at the landfill can be spread over the large volumes of waste received.
It is not possible for residents of the Hauraki Gulf Islands to take advantage of these same
economies of scale. Additionally the stretch of water between the islands and the mainland makes
transportation of materials extremely expensive.
This means that a basic service provided on the Hauraki Gulf Islands will cost considerably more
than the same service provided on the mainland. In a polluter-pays environment, Hauraki Gulf
Islanders must pay more for their waste services than residents on the mainland simply because
the services cost more to provide. It is hard to justify the subsidy of waste services through general
rates where those services do not create a public good. There seem to be two main alternatives. If
Hauraki Gulf Island residents want to avoid the high costs of waste disposal they can take
appropriate action to minimise their waste. Alternatively residents may prefer reduced levels of
waste service, which are cheaper to provide.
Page 129 of 591

92
The polluter pays approach is favoured for its consistency with Government policy and its
environmental benefits. The important goal of polluter pays, when adopted as a disincentive, is to
provide lower cost (or rates funded) private good alternatives to allow people to minimise their
waste and costs
The table below shows the current cost of providing waste services to the Hauraki Gulf Islands.
Table 3-1 Cost of waste services on Hauraki Gulf Islands
No of
separately
used or
inhabited
properties
Total cost
of waste
services for
island
Cost per
property
for waste
services
Revenue
from refuse
collection
targeted
rate
Revenue
from
rubbish
bag sales
Shortfall Shortfall
per total
property
Waiheke 6639 $2,678,484 $403 $877,945 $40,794* $1,759,745 $265
Great Barrier 1332 $912,357 $685 $113,464 $0 $798,893 $600
Rakino 198 $123,240 $622 $18,911 $0 $104,329 $526
Kawau 300 $89,000 $296 $0 $0 $89,000 $296
Combined 8469 $3,803,081 - $1,010,319 $40,794 $2,751,968 -
*This figure is the 2009/2010 revenue from rubbish bag sales
The total revenue from targeted waste charges and direct user charges on the Hauraki Gulf Islands
is in the order of $1,051,000, compared to an actual cost of waste services of $3,803,000 - a
shortfall of around $2,752,000.
It seems unlikely, based on the Revenue and Financing Policies of the former councils that waste
services would be deemed to be more than 50% public good. Based on the arguments in 2.2 above
it is more likely to be somewhere in the realm of 5 - 30%. Even at the higher end of this scale, the
outcome would be that Hauraki Gulf Island residents would still be required to pay more for their
waste services or choose a reduction in levels of service to fit within a fiscal window.
It is often suggested, although not substantiated, that instances of illegal dumping increase when
the user charges for waste are increased. Illegal dumping, along with other unlawful strategies for
dealing with waste (such as burning) have been highlighted as potential risks of adopting a polluter
pays approach. The appropriate response to illegal dumping is increased investigation and
enforcement. The council recognises that increasing the capacity to investigate may be necessary,
but would prefer, based on past experience in some parts of the city, to incur this cost (some of
which would be recouped through fines) than make policy based on the illegal dumping actions of a
few.
The number of properties who actually pay the refuse collection targeted rate is shown in the
following table.

Page 130 of 591

93
Table 3-2 Hauraki Gulf Island properties that pay targeted refuse rate
No of separately
used or inhabited
properties
No of properties
paying refuse
collection
targeted rate
Refuse collection
targeted rate
% of properties
paying waste
charge
Waiheke 6639 5339 $164.44 80.42%
Great Barrier 1332 690 $164.44 51.80%
Rakino 198 115 $164.44 58.08%
Kawau 300 0 0 0.00%
Combined 8469 6144
Some Waiheke, Great Barrier and Rakino Island residents receive a rebate for the targeted refuse
rate component of their rates bill. Rebates are given for coastal properties that do not have direct or
indirect road access and for vacant land.
The targeted rate is called the Targeted Rate for Refuse Collection. However this name is
somewhat of a misnomer as income from this rate is put towards the full gambit of waste services.
While many Hauraki Gulf Island residents do not have access to kerbside collection services they
are able to dispose of their waste in other ways (drop off points, transfer stations etc) and these
services need to be paid for.
3.4 What about providing fewer services?
The level of service provision obviously plays a fundamental role in how much services cost. If
service levels on the Hauraki Gulf Islands were reduced, (and correspondingly the cost of providing
the service) but the targeted rate remained the same, the proportion of subsidy required from
general rates would decrease, bringing the Hauraki Gulf Islands more in-line with the rest of the
region.
In Chapter 4 some possible changes to service levels are proposed with specific regard to services
currently provided on Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island.
3.5 Once regional outcomes have been set, how could services and decision making
in the Hauraki Gulf Islands and rural areas reflect their special nature?
Section 2 briefly discussed the fact that many Waiheke Islanders would prefer a system that gives
them greater decision making power over their waste services. On the other hand the high cost of
delivering services to the Hauraki Gulf Islands and the small population base will always make the
islands expensive to service.
. Thus further work could be done to explore what sorts of variations might be possible to reflect the
special nature of the Hauraki Gulf Islands and rural areas. Local Boards would still be required to
meet and report against key performance indicators to achieve regional outcomes. The level of
general rates funding received would remain set at the level prescribed by Auckland Council and
it seems likely given the earlier analysis, that the council will be seeking to significantly reduce the
amount of general rates subsidy the Hauraki Gulf Islands receive. Compliance strategies could also
become the domain of the Local Boards, provided the agreed key environmental indicators are met.

Page 131 of 591

94
4. Island specific issues and options
4.1 Waiheke Island
A number of reports are available with specific relevance to Waiheke Island waste management
practices. These have been written by consultants on behalf of the former Auckland City Council
and other interested parties and include:
Table 4-1 Waiheke previous reports
Sponsoring
organisation
Report Author/ consultant
Auckland City Council Waiheke Island Waste Management Review Impact Environmental
2008
Auckland City Council Essentially Waiheke Auckland City Planning
Group 2000
Hauraki Gulf
Enhancement Society
Evaluation of Environmental and
Sustainability Impacts of Waiheke
Waste Management Options
Eunomia research and
Consulting 2009
Hauraki Gulf
Enhancement Society
History Of The Planned Development of The
Waiheke Resource Recovery Park 2004-2008
Envision New Zealand
2009

4.1.1 Governance
Waste management on Waiheke has been a contentious issue in the recent past. A key issue
involves a stronger local voice and involvement in waste management on the island. While the
Waiheke Local Board, like other Boards, can make some decisions on variations to service levels
there are limited opportunities at the moment for it to further influence the shape of their services.
This is largely a result of the long term contract that the former Auckland City Council signed with
TPI for delivery of waste services on the island. As the contract does not expire till 2019 any
changes to service provision must be managed through variations to the existing contract.
Options may exist, after that, to have greater influence, and that could be explored with the council
in the next eight years, (or before that, if the council gains more influence over the waste stream.)
4.1.2 Collection options and levels of service
The frequency of collection, type of receptacles and level of service on Waiheke differ to those in
the rest of Auckland. This is further complicated by a recent decision to allow residents the choice
of bins or bags. This presents a unique situation where recycling is collected weekly as opposed to
fortnightly in other parts of Auckland. Residents have the choice of placing recyclables out in old
supermarket bags or a 240L recycling bin, or dropping them off at the transfer station or at specific
points such as the throw and go points at Kennedy Point or Matiatia. Refuse is equally
complicated; residents have the choice of a 140 L wheelie bin, or an allocation of a years supply
(52) of 60L bags for kerbside collection. There is also an opportunity for residents to drop bags off
Page 132 of 591

95
at collection points, or directly at the transfer station free of charge. While qualifying residents get a
rates funded allocation of 52 bags they can also purchase additional bags from authorised outlets.
There is evidence of an unofficial market in bags. It is not uncommon to see a years supply of bags
advertised on Trade Me, Waitrade or in the Gulf News.
Options for the future will have to be considered including the rationalisation of the various
receptacles and collection methods, and how to move to a polluter pays system, if this is to be
implemented.
4.1.3 Waste diversion at the transfer station
The Waiheke transfer station has been recently redeveloped under a system whereby TPI lease the
land and pay redevelopment costs, and the ownership reverts to the council after 10 years. Waste
from the transfer station is shipped off the island to the Whitford landfill which is jointly owned by
TPI and Auckland Council. TPI are contractually required to separate and recycle viable materials,
and report back regularly to the council with mass balance data. They are paid a fixed price for the
service; there is no payment incentive for increased diversion.
4.1.4 Organics options
Currently most greenwaste can be deposited free of charge at the transfer station by all users
including commercial operators, unless it contains noxious weeds or problem plants (such as
palms, bamboo, tree roots etc) in which case a charge applies.
Greenwaste used to be transferred off the island, but recently a private greenwaste business,
Greenacres Waiheke, started up and greenwaste is now taken from the transfer station to this
facility for processing into mulch and compost products.
Drop off and transport incur a cost, so options for charging for greenwaste disposal need be
considered.
Other alternatives for organics include an organic waste collection (including food waste) that could
be provided for an additional cost. Food waste processing can be problematic but there is a
possibility that five of the Vertical Composting Units that are currently unused at the Waitakere
transfer station could be re-sited on Waiheke. This could offer an interesting solution and may be
worthy of further investigation. If it was to be pursued, a full cost benefit analysis would be required
along with consideration of the effects on the existing green waste processor, or some sort of
partnership explored.
4.1.5 On-island versus off-island options
The previous waste plan for Waiheke and the Hauraki Gulf Islands supported the principle of
dealing with waste on the island where possible. This is considered to be the default position
especially given the increasing transportation costs involved in shipping waste off the island.
Historically, innovative solutions for waste treatment and diversion have been developed on the
island.
4.1.6 Tourism / boats / barge waste
Waiheke experiences a significant influx of visitors in the summer. Waste increases by almost 150
tonnes a month over the summer period. Additional services are required such as molok bins for
beach users, and a waste barge for boaties. While the waste barge is useful, the costs of operating
Page 133 of 591

96
it fall on ratepayers of the Auckland region. In the interests of fair and transparent charging, a
polluter pays system could be investigated where boaties purchase bags which can be deposited
on waste barges on any of the Hauraki Gulf Islands.
4.2 Great Barrier Island
The fundamental issue around waste on Great Barrier Island is what level of processing or
treatment (including disposal) should occur on the island versus the mainland. This question raises
several factors that need to be considered:
(i) there have been concerns about the speed at which the Claris landfill is filling. The
installation of the landfill weighbridge in 2009 has confirmed these concerns and the need
to examine the future of the landfill.
(ii) the establishment of the Visy Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) may now provide the
most efficient solution for processing diverted materials.
(iii) the relatively high cost of delivering existing and additional waste services to Great
Barrier Island.
A 2010 study
39
assessed various on-island versus off-island scenarios and discussed four
variations. These are summarised below:
1) Status quo existing landfill operations with limited improvements to meet minimum
legislative requirements and improve operations i.e. purchase of buffer strip, compactor
and generator; and remediation of hazardous waste area. Drop-off facilities and kerbside
refuse collection service unchanged.
2) On-island maximised services including additional capital expenditure
a. Drop-off stations and retention of kerbside collections
b. Drop-off stations excluding kerbside collections
3) On-island minimised services and minimal transfer station operations maintained at Claris
a. Drop-off stations and retention of kerbside collections
b. Drop-off stations excluding kerbside collections
Optimised scenario based on the options above a further option was developed taking into
account the relative costs, risks, and practicalities For a discussion of what services constitute the
Option 1 the status quo, refer to Chapter 2 Great Barrier Island existing waste services.
4.2.1 Option 2 On-island maximised services
Claris landfill

39
Great Barrier Island Waste Strategy Review. May 2010. Morrison Low
Page 134 of 591

97
Under this option the Claris landfill would continue to deliver its current levels of service to the
public. This option also provides for further expansion into the adjacent DoC land to optimise the
operations, providing a more efficient and cost effective service.
This additional area was identified for waste related activities, including the stockpiling of clay for
final cover, establishing a resource recovery centre and allowing the transfer of the car crushing
facility to allow the final landfill contour design to be completed.
Landfilling would continue, with improved compaction improving operations and extending the
lifespan of the facility.
Septage would continue to be treated through sand filter technology with residual sludge disposed
of to landfill.
Greenwaste would continue to be separated at the landfill but would be chipped more finely with a
small capital investment required for new machinery.
Collection
While this option is titled on-island maximised services, it is still worth taking a look at the current
operation to see where efficiencies could be made. It has been identified that several drop-off
stations have very low usage. It is recommended that one refuse station (Cape Barrier Road) and
one recycling station (Mulberry Grove Shop) close. The cost savings in closing these two stations
are in the order of $5,000 each per annum.
Kerbside collections account for approximately 5% of the total refuse collected on the island and,
based on the current collection contract, are expensive considering the amount of refuse collected.
Therefore, even under the maximised scenario it is worth considering options with and without
kerbside collections (including recycling). It is also difficult to see how the second summer refuse
collection service can be justified under any future scenario. The report recommends that this
collection service be stopped.
4.2.2 Option 3 On-island minimised services
Claris landfill
Under this option the landfill no longer operates as a refuse disposal site but continues to operate
as a septage treatment facility, car crushing facility, hazardous waste facility and greenwaste
reception area.
The landfill would then be converted to a transfer station which would provide for recyclables and
hazardous drop-off as occurs currently. Appropriate consents would need to be gained for this,
beyond 2027.
Operationally this option has reduced operating costs although these are offset by the additional
refuse transport costs to the mainland.
Logistically this option is the most difficult, requiring transfer of waste in compactor units to the
mainland for disposal at Whitford landfill. This option would require an initial capital investment to
develop a transfer station and close the landfill including the purchase of the buffer land and
Page 135 of 591

98
additional landscaping required by the consents. These are significant costs that would have to
occur immediately.
Collections
The drop-off and kerbside collection improvements considered were identical with the off-island
option ensuring a robust comparison between the two options can be undertaken.
4.2.3 Option 4 Optimised scenario
This option was developed after considering the relative costs, risks, and practicalities of the
previous scenarios, but recognising the problems identified up front with the status quo situation.
This option is considered to minimise the risk to the council while also providing an appropriate level
of service at the most cost effective price.
Claris landfill
The optimised scenario provides for the purchase of the entire piece of DoC owned land to both
satisfy the consenting requirements and to allow for stockpiling of capping material to reduce costs
in the long run. This scenario excludes this land being used for a resource recovery centre and the
relocated car crushing operation. While these would be desirable from an operational and waste
minimisation perspective the report concludes that the costs to implement and operate them are
significant.
This option allows for the purchase of plant for compaction and limited greenwaste treatment only
i.e. purchase of a hogger or other mulching equipment. All other landfill activities under this
scenario are continued as per the status quo, with car crushing, hazardous waste storage, septage
treatment and greenwaste separation continuing at landfill as well as the landfilling of waste.
Collections
Because a relatively small amount of refuse is collected through the kerbside collection, the
optimised scenario proposes that this service be discontinued. This would place a corresponding
demand on the drop-off locations. Therefore the optimised scenario does not propose to shut any of
the drop-off locations.

Page 136 of 591

99
4.2.4 Comparison of options
The summary of comparative costs is as follows:
Table 4-2 Comparison of Great Barrier Island waste options
40

Waste
Management
Option
Total
NPV
$/T
41

%
Change
Assumptions and Additional Comments
Status Quo $673 - Landfill remains open. Assumes purchase of buffer strip only,
compactor, generator + remediation of hazardous waste area.
Collection and drop-off locations unchanged.
On Island
Maximised
Services
With Kerbside
Collections
$748 11% Landfill remains open. Full additional land purchase and
Resource Recovery Centre construction. Refuse kerbside
collection service continues. Recycling collection introduced.
Limited rationalisation of drop-off locations.
On Island
Maximised
Services
No Kerbside
Collections
$691 3% Landfill remains open. Full additional land purchase and
Resource Recovery Centre construction. Refuse kerbside
collection stopped. Limited rationalisation of drop-off locations.
On Island
Minimised
Services
With Kerbside
Collections
$756 12% Landfill closed and converted to Refuse Transfer Station.DoC
land purchased for buffer strip only.
Refuse kerbside collection service continues. Recycling
collection introduced. Limited rationalisation of drop-off locations.
On Island
Minimised
Services
No Kerbside
Collections
$700 4% Landfill closed and converted to Refuse Transfer Station, DoC
land purchased for buffer strip only.
Refuse kerbside collection service stopped. Limited
rationalisation of drop-off locations.
Optimised
Scenario
$647 -4% Landfill remains open. Full additional land purchase no
Resource Recovery Centre or car crushing relocation. Refuse
kerbside collection service stopped,
Drop-off locations as per existing. .
Comparatively the kerbside options are dearer than the non kerbside options in the order of
$35/tonne reflecting the higher cost of collecting at kerbside over the duration of the modelling

40
Great Barrier Island Waste Strategy Review. May 2010. Morrison Low
41
Costs were modelled over a twenty year period and discounted back to Net Present Values on a per tonne
basis to allow comparison between options. These calculations are based on 2007 costs and were developed
for a comparative assessment only. They were focused upon collection and disposal costs of core waste
services and did not include all public good costs nor administrative overheads. While not aligning exactly with
current 2010 costs the relative costs still provide a useful basis for comparison.
Page 137 of 591

100
period (with cost escalations built into future periods), as well as with additional cost for recycling at
kerbside.
On-island minimised options are slightly more expensive than the comparable on-island maximised
options ($5-$6/tonne). The minimised options are more expensive due to the costs for transport
and immediate closure of the landfill.
While most of the above options have costs dearer than the status quo option, the Optimised
Scenario provides the lowest cost alternative and is also less than the status quo. This is a
reflection of progressive closure of the landfill, the decision not to build the resource recovery centre
and the removal of all kerbside services from the island.
4.2.5 Other considerations
There are also non-monetary considerations that need to be taken into account when making a
decision on the future of waste services on Great Barrier Island. Briefly, key issues which must also
be considered are:
Retaining the landfill cost increases and environmental compliance
There are environmental risks involved in maintaining and operating an unlined landfill. All tests
undertaken to date from bore water samples surrounding the site have shown no detrimental
environmental impacts, so this risk is currently rated as minimal.
It is believed that by maintaining a landfill at Great Barrier Island, the council can maintain a
stronger control on costs into the future and will be more able to comply with its obligations under
the Waste Minimisation Act to encourage communities to be responsible for the waste they
generate. Education and other waste minimisation objectives may be enhanced by retaining the
landfill, rather than by moving waste off-island and encouraging an out of sight out of mind
philosophy.
The utilisation of the remaining landfill space is an issue and better compaction of waste will extend
landfill life significantly. It is recommended that trials be undertaken to assess the benefits of
improved compaction against the costs to provide this.
There are also significant site constraints which have led to recommendations that the site be
extended to provide for waste related activities.
Logistical issues
Distance, coordination issues and a limited number of sailings currently affect the servicing of Great
Barrier Island. Any on-island minimised operation would require sufficient resources to maintain
services during peak periods and when unforeseen circumstances occur such as bad weather and
cancelled sailings. This risk should be able to be mitigated through the selection of a sufficiently
experienced contractor.
Levels of service, community expectations and affordability
The cost of the operation is a significant aspect of this review exercise. Lower cost options are
likely to involve lower levels of service and it is up to the council, the board and the community to
determine which options represent the best value for money.
Page 138 of 591

101
Level of recycling
The level and approach to recycling is currently poor. New contracts should have provision to
maximise the diversion of materials from landfill in the most cost effective manner.
5. Summary of Options
Auckland Council has three goals for the more remote areas in relation to the delivery of waste
services: Waste Minimisation: Cost Effectiveness: Equity.
Maximising the achievement of these goals for more remote areas may involve some trade-offs. It
is unlikely that any policy initiative is going to be able to completely satisfy all of these goals
simultaneously. It is up to the council and these areas to decide what trade-offs they are most
comfortable with.
5.1 Funding
It is difficult to see that the current funding arrangements for waste services in the islands meet
either waste minimisation or equity considerations. The low use of polluter pays, the relatively blunt
application of the targeted refuse rate and the degree to which the Hauraki Gulf Island services
require subsidy from general rates, create a less-than optimal situation.
The application of the targeted refuse rate, as it applies to Hauraki Gulf Island residents, should be
reviewed. The current situation where just over 50% of the residents of Great Barrier Island, for
example, contribute towards the cost of waste is unsustainable.
Whether or not the level of the targeted rate needs to be increased is something that the council,
the boards and residents may wish to consider. However, when the increased targeted rate is
weighed up against the goals of waste minimisation, cost effectiveness and equity, it is hard to
justify. It is cost effective insofar as it is an administratively efficient method of getting revenue but it
does not achieve waste minimisation objectives.
A more equitable strategy from both a cost effective and waste minimisation perspective suggests
an increase in the range of polluter pays services on the islands. Examples of potential charges are
for disposal of septage at the Claris landfill, greenwaste charges at the Waiheke transfer station and
pay-per-use bins at locations frequented by boaties.
5.2 Governance
Given the geographic isolation of the Gulf Islands and the rural areas of the city, further work could
be done, to enable the Boards to shape particular aspects of future local waste services. Its Local
Boards are in the best position to know what waste education strategies and market mechanisms
are going to produce the best results for their communities. Locally driven initiatives are likely to
garner high support and may produce additional community benefits that the council is unable to
foresee or measure.
5.3 Levels of service
This paper has identified some areas where a reduction in levels of waste services could be
explored. These include landfill operating hours and kerbside collections on Great Barrier, weekly
Page 139 of 591

102
collection of recyclables on Waiheke, the option of bags or bins on Waiheke, and the placement of
drop off points on a number of islands and the mainland.

Page 140 of 591
AUCKLAND COUNCIL: EVALUATING
POTENTIAL TRANSPORT INEFFICIENCIES IN AUCKLAND WASTE
ERNST & YOUNG - MAY 2011
Page 141 of 591

Auckland Council : Evaluating potential transport
inefficiencies in Auckland Waste
31 May 2011
Reliance Restricted

Gareth Galloway
Partner
Ben King
Executive Director
Transaction Advisory Services Transaction Advisory Services
T +64 9 300 7066 T +64 9 300 8129
M +64 274 899 075 M +64 274 899 831
F +64 9 309 8137 F +64 9 309 8137
E Gareth.galloway@nz.ey.com E Ben.king@nz.ey.com
Sophie Dawson
Manager
Graeme Horne
Senior Manager
Transaction Advisory Services Advisory Services
T +64 9 377 4790 T +64 9 377 4790
M +64 274 899 109 M +64 216 487 56
F +64 9 309 8137 F +64 9 309 8137
E Sophie.dawson@nz.ey.com E Graeme.horne@nz.ey.com

Page 142 of 591

Dear Sirs
In accordance with your instructions, we have performed the work set out in our
engagement letter dated 10 March 2011 in connection with the evaluation of
transport inefficiencies in Auckland waste.
Purpose of our report and restrictions on its use
This report was prepared on the specific instructions of Auckland Council (the
Council) solely for the purpose of the evaluation and should not be used or relied
upon for any other purpose. Save as set out in the engagement letter, it should
not be quoted, referred to or shown to any other parties unless so required by
court order or a regulatory authority, without our prior consent in writing which will
not be unreasonably withheld.
The sections of this report are private and confidential. Accordingly, persons who
have not been authorised by us to have access to our report (unauthorised
persons) should read no further but by reading unauthorised persons must
accept that they do so at their own risk and that Ernst & Young Transaction
Advisory Services Limited, its directors, employees and agents neither owe nor
accept any duty of care of responsibility to them and shall not be liable in respect
of any loss, damage or expense of any nature which is caused by any use the
unauthorised person may choose to make of this report.
If unauthorised persons choose to rely upon any of the contents of this report they
do so at their own risk.

Scope and nature of our work
The scope and nature of our work, including the basis and limitations, are detailed
in our engagement letter.
Our work in connection with this assignment is of a different nature to that of an
audit or a review of information, as those terms are commonly understood in
Auditing Standards applicable to audit and review engagements. Our report to
you is based on inquiries of and discussions with the Council and private sector
waste operators, a review of documents made available to us, and analytical
procedures applied to data provided. We have not, except to such extent as you
requested and we agreed to undertake, sought to verify the accuracy of the data
or the information and explanations provided by the Council. Further, Ernst &
Young Transaction Advisory Services Limited makes no recommendation
regarding the valuation of transport efficiencies.
We do not consider there have been any material variations to our original scope
as documented in our engagement letter. However, due to non-availability of data
from private sector operators, we have not been able to estimate potential
transport inefficiencies across the waste sector in Auckland as a whole.
Our report
Our report outlines our analysis and findings in relation to the scope agreed.
The entire report should be read for a full understanding of our findings and
recommended next steps.
Ernst & Young Transaction Advisory Services Limited
41 Shortland Street
Auckland 1010 New Zealand
PO Box 2146 Auckland 1140

Tel: +64 9 377 4790
Fax: +64 9 309 8137
www.ey.com/nz

Reliance Restricted
Auckland Council
560 Mount Albert Road
Three Kings
Auckland

Attention: Stephen Drumm
Manager, Infrastructure and Environmental Services Solid Waste Business Unit

31 May 2011
Page 143 of 591

Our work commenced on 10 March and was completed at 31 May 2011, hence
does not reflect events or information past this date.
Information received
We have not sought to establish the reliability of information given to us except as
specifically stated in the report. Consequently, we give no assurance on such
information.
Where we have quantified financial information based on data provided to us
these quantifications have been based on analytical procedures carried out on
information supplied to us, and should be regarded as illustrative. Such analysis
is necessarily subjective.
References to Ernst & Young Transaction Advisory Services Limited or Ernst &
Young in the report relate to our advice, recommendations and analysis and do
not indicate that we take any responsibility for the information concerned or are
assembling or associating ourselves with any financial information including
prospective financial information.
The information contained in this report has been primarily based on:
Information obtained from Council waste mangers regarding Council
Controlled Waste,
Auckland Council Waste Assessment (ACWA), and
Discussions with the Council and various private sector waste operators and
consultants.
It is your responsibility to consider our findings and make your own decision
based on the information available to you, including such findings and
recommendations.
We wish to place on record our appreciation of the assistance we have received
from the Council.
Yours faithfully

Gareth Galloway Ben King
Partner Executive Director
For and on behalf of Ernst & Young Transaction Advisory Services Limited
Page 144 of 591

Abbreviations
Abbreviations
31 May 2011
Evaluation of potential waste transport efficiencies
FINAL.docx
ACWA Auckland Council Waste Assessment report 2011
Ernst & Young Ernst & Young Transaction Advisory Services Limited
Council Auckland Council
CCO Council Controlled Organisation
CCTO Council Controlled Trading Organisation
CCW Council Controlled Waste
Covec Covec Limited
ESL Envirowaste Services Limited
LEV Low Emission Vehicle
MCC
NSCC
Manukau City Council (now part of Council)
North Shore City Council (now part of Council)
OPEX Operational expenditure
RTS Refuse Transfer Station
TPI Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Limited
WMA Waste Minimisation Act (2008)

Page 145 of 591

Contents
Contents
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
Key findings and next steps 1

Introduction 4
1. Report background ............................................................................................................................... 5
2. Objectives and scope ............................................................................................................................ 7
Background relevant to our assessment 8
3. Context - the Auckland region waste landscape ................................................................................... 9
4. Key commercial arrangements ........................................................................................................... 13
5. Potential drivers of waste transport inefficiencies ............................................................................... 16
Council Controlled Waste - Case Study 20
6. Introduction and background .............................................................................................................. 21
7. Case study .......................................................................................................................................... 23
8. Case study assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 24
9. Finding of quantification ...................................................................................................................... 26
Non Council Controlled Waste 33
10. Consultations and previous assessments and reports ....................................................................... 34
Qualitative assessment: other waste
transportation inefficiency areas 38

Appendices
A. Benchmark cost of waste collection (CCW)
B. Case study details
Page 146 of 591

Contents
Contents
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
C. Assumptions
D. Sources of information
E. Previous studies and consultations
F. Auckland non Council Controlled Waste Transport review - work programme assessment
questionnaire
G. Detailed description of transfer station optimisation approaches
H. Ernst & Young work plan: waste transport inefficiencies
I. Engagement letter
Page 147 of 591

Key findings and next steps

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
1

Page 148 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
2
Key Findings
CCW streams
f We have undertaken a high level case study analysing potential waste transport inefficiencies related to
distances travelled from collection areas to and from RTS and landfills. The case study covered three
sub areas of Auckland Council region and suggested indicative inefficiencies in the order of 13%. If
these inefficiencies were extrapolated on a simple basis across all Council Controlled Waste (CCW) in
the wider Auckland Council region this would equate to indicative cost savings in the order of $1.9m to
$2.3m p.a.
f These efficiencies are premised on a hypothesis that taking kerbside waste to the nearest RTS or landfill
is optimal from a kilometres travelled perspective. We note that not all private sector operators fully
accept this hypothesis, e.g. citing double handing impacts.
f We have identified a report prepared by a third party that, when adjusted to reflect certain current market
parameters (e.g. diesel costs) indicates benchmark waste collection costs per tonne in the order of $7 to
$8 per km. We have shared this analysis with the key private sector operators and sought their
comments.
f Other potential waste related savings that could be additional to the above indicative CCW transport
inefficiencies, include the following:
Congestion impacts
RTS / landfill waiting times
Emissions / pollution
Road damage
Truck configurations
RTS / landfill opening hours and nights hours
Bulk hauling at night
These areas of potential savings should be considered by the Council.
Non CCW streams
f We have not been able to analyse levels of potential waste transport inefficiencies in non CCW due to a
lack of available data. We have however, tested views of private sector waste operators and the Council
in relation to this matter.
Page 149 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
3
f Private sector waste operators have a range of views in respect of potential waste transport
inefficiencies, including the following:
One of the private sector operators we met with believes that levels of transport inefficiency in
relation to the entire waste stream could be in the order of 10% to 15%
We further note that this estimated range is broadly similar to the indicative output of the CCW case
study referred to above. We note that were a simple extrapolation of the CCW indicative inefficiency
level of 13% applied to the non CCW stream this could equate to a potential waste transport saving in
the order of $14m. We strongly emphasise the indicative nature of this extrapolation and recommend
that detailed analysis is undertaken in relation to in this matter should private sector operator data be
made available (see next steps below).
Three of the industry participants with whom we met have expressed the view that evaluating waste
efficiencies solely in relation to transport is ineffective; consideration should be applied to the whole
waste value chain.
Next Steps
We recommend the following Next Steps should be considered by the Council.
Element Action
Council Controlled Waste f Modelling and quantification of potential transport savings for Central Auckland, West Auckland, Manukau, Franklin,
Rodney, Papakura applying the assessment methodology in this report
f Quantification of other waste value chain factors such as congestion / waiting, pollution, road damage, fleet maintenance
Non Council Controlled Waste f Obtain data from industry
f Development of an case study example applying data from industry
f Extrapolation of a case study across non CCW waste streams
f Estimations of potential non Council Controlled Waste transport inefficiency levels
f Quantification of other waste value chain factors such as congestion / waiting, pollution, road damage, fleet maintenance
Transport route and infrastructure optimisation modelling f Detailed operational modelling considering factors including existing transport routes and inefficiencies, optimal RTS
locations, optimal depot / yard locations, truck sizes, congestion impacts and demographics
f Further to a previous proposal made to you, a specialist Ernst & Young operational modelling team could assist you with
this analysis.

Page 150 of 591

Introduction

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
4
Introduction
1. Report background
2. Objectives and scope
Page 151 of 591

Introduction : Report background
Introduction
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
5
Report background
Auckland Council (the Council) has engaged Ernst & Young Transaction Advisory Services Limited (Ernst &
Young) to support the Council in its evaluation of potential waste transport inefficiencies in the Auckland
region. As described in the ACWA report, the Auckland regions waste transport inefficiencies have been
noted to include areas such as:
f When longer (in kilometres travelled and time) transport journeys are undertaken due to Refuse Transfer
Station (RTS) and landfill site ownership.
f Where on some routes an RTS is passed en-route to other RTS or landfills further afield.
f Direct transport from kerbside / collection to landfill therefore missing opportunity for consolidation or
diversion.
f Journeys through congested areas which could be avoided (e.g. haulage across Harbour Bridge).
The two main private sector operators and industry participants have indicated to the Council through
submission that they did not fully accept some or all of these assertions.
The scope of this evaluation had two components:
f Part A In relation to non Council Controlled Waste (non CCW) in the Auckland region (excluding
Council Controlled Waste).
f Part B In relation to Council Controlled Waste (CCW) collection services in the Auckland region (a sub-
set of Part A).
In relation to Part A it was acknowledged and agreed between us that the level of analysis and observations
would be dependent on the quality and extent of any information made available by the Council, sourced
from private sector waste operators and available in the public domain. For Part A, as at the date of this
report, no substantive data has been forthcoming from private sector operators that would enable
estimation of potential waste transport inefficiencies.
In this report:
f CCW refers to the domestic solid waste kerbside refuse collection for which the Council is responsible,
i.e. where Council controls waste contracts with the private sector. CCW is estimated by the ACWA to
represent approximately 15% of all waste to landfills in the Auckland region.
f Non CCW refers to all other waste in Auckland that is collected/transported and disposed of at either
land transfer stations or landfills. The majority of non CCW is generated by commercial activity and
industry in the region, and represents approximately 85% of waste to landfills in the Auckland region.
Overview
As described in the ACWA report, the Auckland
regions potential waste transport inefficiencies
have been noted to include areas such as:
X Where longer (in kms travelled and time)
transport journeys are undertaken due to
Refuse Transfer Station (RTS) and landfill
site ownership.
X Where on some routes an RTS is passed en-
route to other RTS or landfills further afield.
X Direct transport from kerbside / collection to
landfill therefore missing opportunity for
consolidation or diversion.
X Journeys through congested areas which
could be avoided (e.g. haulage across
Harbour Bridge).
Some private sector operators have indicated to
Council that they do not accept some or all of
these assertions.
Page 152 of 591

Introduction : Report background
Introduction
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
6
In relation to both Part A and Part B, this report notes elements and areas that potentially impact transport
inefficiencies.
In relation to Part B, this report evaluates potential transport efficiencies based on data provided by the
Council for a selection of geographic case studies and illustrates indicative financial savings that could be
achieved from making transport journeys between collection areas, existing refuse transfers stations, and
landfills across the Auckland region more efficient.
Findings have been informed through consideration of data provided by the Council and from discussions
with the Council and industry.
Page 153 of 591

Introduction : Objectives and scope
Introduction
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
7
Objectives and scope
Ernst & Young was engaged to support the Council to evaluate transport related inefficiencies in waste
within the Auckland region, and where information permitted, translate this into financial terms.
For Part A, non CCW, this included:
f Review of prior reports in areas relevant to non CCW transport elements (see below).
f Discussion with various private sector waste operators to gather perspectives on the extent of any waste
transport inefficiencies.
f If possible, analysis of potential transport inefficiencies across the waste industry resulting from any data
received from private sector waste operators. No such data was received.
For Part B, CCW, this included:
f Understanding and information permitting, evaluating potential inefficiencies in the transport of CCW. As
part of this, determining possible efficiency improvements from potential re-routed journeys to closest
Refuse Transfer Stations.
Reports we referred to as part of our work included the following. For the avoidance of doubt we have not
read the documents listed below in their entirety nor have we been required to do so.
f ACWA
f Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 2009
f Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 2009

Page 154 of 591

Background relevant to our assessment

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
8
3. Context - the Auckland region waste landscape
4. Key commercial arrangements
5. Potential drivers of waste transport inefficiencies
Page 155 of 591

Background relevant to our assessment : Context - the Auckland region waste landscape
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
9
Context the Auckland region waste landscape
Introduction
The Auckland region waste market differs from others in New Zealand in terms of infrastructure ownership
particularly transfer stations and landfills. Specifically, it does not feature significant local authority
(Auckland Council) involvement in the ownership of infrastructure, following the previous transfer of asset
ownership to the private sector.
Auckland Council data from 2007 / 2008 suggested that the Auckland region disposed of an estimated 1.4
million tonnes of waste each year. We note that one industry source estimates the current disposal tonnage
to be less than this (circa 1.2 million tonnes). The reasons given for this include waste minimisation
education, an increase in the separation of waste as well as recycling and the general effects of recession
reducing non CCW industrial and commercial volumes in particular.
The ACWA report states that about half of Aucklands waste goes to landfill sites without being processed
for re-use or recycling and that there are currently an estimated one million waste-related truck journeys
throughout the Auckland region each year. This statistic indicates that average tonnage carried on these
journeys is between one and one and a half tonnes implying that most journeys are undertaken in smaller
tucks.
The tables to the left show the sources of waste to landfill in the Auckland region and landfill details as per
the ACWA.
Council Controlled Waste refers to the vast majority of kerbside collections however some private sector
kerbside collections do occur where residents have opted to use private sector waste bins rather than
Council Waste bags.
We understand that generally CCW contracts are engaged separately for collections and disposals:
f Collection contracts cover waste transport from collection to the initial disposal point (whether RTS or
landfill)
f Disposal contracts cover cost of disposal and if applicable handling at RTS and transport to landfill
Two industry participants we met with have commented that this arrangement is unlikely to drive efficiency
within Auckland and that it could be inferred that many of the suboptimal routing highlighted in the Case
Study may have arisen as a result of these separate contracting arrangements.
The location of transfer stations and landfills, and their ownership, is important when seeking to understand
any potential existing transport inefficiencies. A map showing the locations of refuse transfer stations and
landfills that service the Auckland region is shown below.
Auckland region waste tonnages 2007 / 2008
Category Tonnes Percentage
Non Council Controlled Waste (e.g. commercial and industrial
waste)
1,206,000 86%
Council controlled waste 190,000 14%
Total waste 1,396,000 100%
Source: Adapted from ACWA. The figure for Council controlled waste is adapted from the following:
f AWCA Appendix C-3, p47 Annual tonnage of council collection in 2009 was 192,611 tonnes
f AWCA Appendix C-4 p3 Annual tonnage of council kerbside collections in 2010 was 188,536 tonnes

Auckland landfills Auckland region 2007 / 2008
Landfill Owner /
operator
Percentage
market share
Estimated
tonnes per year
Remaining life
Redvale TPI 51% 717,000 10-11 years
Hampton Downs ESL 34% 479,000 20+ years
Whitford Waste Disposal
Services (joint
venture between
TPI and former
Manukau City
Council)
14% 200,000 30+ years
Total 100% 1,396,000
Source: Adapted from ACWA
Page 156 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
10

Transfer stations and landfills that serve the Auckland region
Source: ACWA

The Council has a statutory responsibility to promote efficient and effective waste management and
minimisation across the region.
1
In light of Council controlling only circa 15% of waste collection, its current
ability to fulfil that responsibility and influence transport logistics is arguably somewhat constrained.

1
Primary legislation driving waste management and minimisation planning is the Waste Minimisation Act (WMA), the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
Page 157 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
11
Waste service providers
The majority of Auckland waste management infrastructure (i.e. fleet, transfer stations, and landfills) is
owned and operated by private waste companies, in particular Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Limited
(TPI) and EnviroWaste Services Limited (ESL). There are around 250 private sector waste collection and
disposal companies operating across the region in total. These industry arrangements influence waste
journey routes from collection to disposal.
Transfer stations and landfills
The regions waste is currently sorted at 17 refuse transfer stations and bulk hauled for disposal mostly to
three landfills (Redvale, Whitford and Hampton Downs).
2
It is noted in the ACWA report that if managed
effectively, the combined capacity of the existing landfills provides sufficient capacity to services the
regions waste disposal needs for several decades
3
. It also notes that due to consenting risks and due to
the substantial capital investment requirements, it is unlikely that there will be any further additions into the
Auckland landfill market until required by the closure of Redvale in 10 to 15 years.
Previously, when the landfill serving Auckland was within the urban areas of the region, waste was
delivered directly to the facility. Now given the number and location of landfills and RTS, there are a myriad
of transported waste journeys, often determined by commercial objectives of private operators.
Waste processes
Reflecting the above, the following diagram summarises the general process by which waste is collected
and recycled or disposed of in the Auckland region.

2
Only eight of the 17 refuse transfer stations are used for Council-collected domestic waste. Of the 17 refuse transfer stations, the Council owns transfer stations in Devonport, Helensville, Waiheke, Waitakere and
Waiuku.
3
However based on consultation during our analysis, private industry experts highlighted that the lifespan of Redvale Landfill is limited (see Table at the beginning of this section) and a future landfill is likely to be
further north/outside of Auckland, potentially adding to transport costs and inefficiencies
Page 158 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
12
Auckland region waste overview
Source: Ernst & Young (modified form publicly available reports)
Domesti c waste
CCW kerbside
col l ecti on
(16%)
Non Council Controlled
Waste
(84%)
Commerci al waste
Refuse transfer stati ons
17 in total
Council uses Wiri, Rosedale, Pikes
Point, Papakura, Pukekohe, Waitakere
Council owns Devonport, Helensville,
Waiheke, Waitakere and Waiuku
Landfi l ls
Redvale (TPI),
Hampton Downs (ESL),
Whitford (council/TPI)
Recycl i ng/recovered
materi al s
Contracted to Visy
(Onehunga)
Cl eanfi l l
Focus area of
this report

Note: Light grey boxes indicate waste activities controlled by the Council. This report focuses on these activities.

Page 159 of 591

Background relevant to our assessment : Key commercial arrangements
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
13
Key commercial arrangements
Swapping arrangements
To counter transport inefficiencies, two waste collection and disposal firms have swapping arrangements
in place.
Under the swapping arrangements, landfills accept quantities of waste from other companies transfer
stations. Swapping is intended to reduce trans-region hauling and rationalises bulk hauling.
To some degree, waste swapping should mitigate transport inefficiencies however we understand that the
efficiencies could be impeded if one of the parties reaches a cap (due to mutually agreed disposal volume
restrictions). Swapping arrangements have been in place for the last eight to nine years and are reviewed
every two years. Industry sources expect this arrangement to continue as in their view it works effectively
and is commercially beneficial to the parties involved. 95% of the volumes swapped are bulk hauled from
RTS.
In our discussions with the parties to the swapping arrangements both asserted that on the whole, they
work effectively.
One of the parties to the swapping arrangements has made further commentary as follows:
Swap arrangements in principle are efficient as they reduce the cost of transport for both parties, however
they do not necessarily maximize the benefits. The inherent problems with them are:
f They are temporary, traditionally short term duration (less than 2 years)
f They are dependent upon the goodwill / desire of both parties to agree conditions
f No guarantees that a swap agreement will be renegotiated
f They can be materially impacted by market pressure and / or customer contract losses
f They only work when both parties have controlled waste in the other parties region which match
f They do not necessarily optimize cost reduction opportunity
f There is no mechanism determining value transfer
f There is no mechanism for independent facilitation of the agreement
In summary, the swap is suboptimal and contractually short term.
Council and some private sector experts, as detailed in the ARC Waste Stocktake, comment that the
swapping arrangements lack transparency and certainty, and if they were to break down (for example if TPI
Page 160 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
14
acquired a landfill in Waikato or ESL acquired a landfill north of Auckland), could further increase potential
transport inefficiencies.
Waste disposal levy
The Waste Minimisation Act (2008) WMA introduced a waste disposal levy of $10 per tonne of waste paid
to central government by the operators of waste disposal facilities. Half of the levy revenue collected is
subsequently paid by central government to territorial authorities (shared pro rata by population) to be spent
on promoting and achieving waste minimisation. The remainder of the levy revenue forms a contestable
fund for waste minimisation projects available to Councils and the private sector. The waste disposal levy is
added gate fees. The legislative context of the disposal levy is set out below:
Waste Minimisation Act 2008 No 89, Public Act
S25 Purpose of Part
The purpose of this Part is to enable a levy to be imposed on waste disposed of to:
b) increase the cost of waste disposal to recognise that disposal imposes costs on the environment, society,
and the economy.
S46 Funding of plans
(1) A territorial authority is not limited to applying strict cost recovery or user pays principles for any
particular service, facility, or activity provided by the territorial authority in accordance with its waste
management and minimisation plan.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a territorial authority may charge fees for a particular service or facility
provided by the territorial authority that is higher or lower than required to recover the costs of the service or
facility, or provide a service or facility free of charge, if
(a) it is satisfied that the charge or lack of charge will provide an incentive or disincentive that will promote
the objectives of its waste management and minimisation plan
As outlined in the WMA, the levy has two objectives: to raise revenue, and to provide incentives for waste
reduction through increasing landfill charges which is expected to provide an incentive to reduce quantities
going to landfill. Auckland Council receives between $4 million and $5 million each year from the waste levy
revenue.
Gate fees
The Councils basis for the adoption of the waste levy is that competitive gate fees negatively influence
waste minimisation behaviour, i.e. the greater the volume of waste disposed of at transfer stations and
landfills, the lower the gate fees. Waste contracting parties have advised us that in their view:
Page 161 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
15
f While the public might be influenced by gate fees, they tend to largely dispose of waste at the most
convenient drop off, rather than the one with the competitive gate fees.
f Currently gate fees are do not significantly affect waste minimisation behaviour
We note the sensitivity of users to price and anticipate that at some (currently unknown) price level gate
fees would influence waste minimisation behaviour.
Bulk hauling
Bulk haulage from transfer stations represents in the region of 40% of waste sent to landfill
4
. The Council
asserts that more waste is bulk hauled from transfer stations to Hampton Downs than to Redvale landfill.
Bulk hauling arrangements, through compacting waste consolidation into larger trucks, enables waste that
is collected at RTS to be more efficiently transported to landfill. It is a key component of the aforementioned
swapping arrangements.
Trucks disposing at RTS typically have payloads of 0.5 to 10 tonnes. Bulk haul trucks from RTS to landfill
typically have 22 to 25 tonne payloads.
We have been advised that there are limited swapping arrangements outwith bulk hauling and therefore
private sector transporting companies typically take waste to their own RTS, rather than the nearest RTS,
therefore potentially contributing to transport inefficiencies.
Council has stated that previous disclosure by landfill owners suggest that up to 69% of all transactions in
one of Aucklands major landfills are made up of trucks carrying less than 10 tonnes of waste.

4
ACWA, Appendix C-3 Auckland Waste Stocktake and Strategic Assessment 2009, p23 (p297 of 471)
Page 162 of 591

Background relevant to our assessment : Potential drivers of waste transport inefficiencies
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
16
Potential drivers of waste transport inefficiencies
Council Controlled Waste collection services
The Council contracts for, and hence is ultimately responsible for, domestic non Council Controlled Waste
kerbside refuse collection in the region. CCW represents approximately 15% of waste taken to landfills in
Auckland via Transfer stations or direct.
While the Council has overall control of how domestic waste is collected, sorted and disposed of, the waste
is collected by private contractors (the Council does not own or operate waste vehicles).
5
There is no
uniformity between the services provided between different legacy Councils. CCW is collected from
domestic kerbsides and is either taken directly to one of the three main landfills or taken to one of eight of
the 17 transfer stations.
6

The Council owns and controls a small percentage of transfer stations and landfills.
7
Legacy Councils have
various contracts with private providers handling and disposing of CCW. The number of these contracts and
how they operate create potential transport inefficiencies in the following areas:
f Where CCW is taken directly to a landfill which is not the closest landfill near to the collection area
f Where CCW is taken directly to a transfer station which is not the closest transfer station near to the
collection area
f Where CCW is taken directly to a landfill and bypasses transfer stations in doing so
f Where bulk hauled CCW is taken directly from a transfer station to landfill which is not the closest landfill
to the transfer station.
Some examples of transport related inefficiencies in CCW
An example given by the Council of potentially inefficient transportation of CCW is waste collected from
Devonport which is transported to Redvale landfill in Dairy Flat (this is a 56 kilometre round trip including
busy NSC roads). The trucks pass three RTS (Devonport, Constellation Drive, and Rosedale) enroute.

5
Council does not provide a domestic kerbside collection service in Rodney. The service is provided by five private waste operators.
6
Council takes waste to the following transfer stations: Wiri, Rosedale, Pikes Point, Papakura, Pukekohe, Waitakere, and Visy processing facility in Onehunga
7
The Council owns a part share of the Whitford landfill, which is an unincorporated joint venture under Waste Disposal Services between Manukau City Council and TPI. The Whitford landfill accepts approximately
15% of the regions waste. The Council also owns the small landfill on Great Barrier Island. Council owns the following RTS in the Auckland region: Devonport, Helensville, Waiheke, Waitakere and Waiuku
Page 163 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
17
Another example of potential transport inefficiencies provided by the Council is that some of the major
transfer stations (such as in Constellation Drive, Pikes Point, Wiri and East Tamaki) that are located in
highly-populated areas do not take CCW from surrounding waste collection areas.
The following table shows major transfer stations and their respective use by the legacy Councils within the
same area. It suggests that only three of the transfer stations service the Council collections in their area.
CCW transportation
Transfer station Owner / operator Currently used for Council
collections in that area
Could benefit Council to use Consented / maximum volume
(tonnes per annum)
Pukekohe ESL Yes Yes 30,000
Papakura TPI Yes Yes 60,000
Waitakere Council Yes Yes 100,000
Constellation Drive ESL No Yes 85,000
Patiki ESL No Yes 70,000
Wiri ESL / JJ Richards No Yes 200,000
Pikes Point ESL / TPI No Yes 150,000
East Tamaki TPI / Council No Yes 100,000
Silverdale Metrowaste No Yes 30,000
Devonport Council No Yes 10,000
Rosedale TPI No No 50,000
Based on data from Council waste experts

The Council believes that the former Manukau City collection area presents a further example of transport
inefficiency where:
f Waste is taken straight to landfill (in two to four person trucks) rather than via transfer station in trucks
not suited for landfill site conditions
f Parts of Manukau are closer to Wiri RTS than Whitford landfill & vice versa. Council believe that
transport efficiencies could be obtained if both locations were available and waste could be taken to the
closest location
f Private sector operators differ in their view on the most efficient disposal points dependent on ownership
of the RTS and landfills reflecting on whether commercial and / or marginal costs are involved
Non Council Controlled Waste collection services
The majority of non Council Controlled Waste is generated by commercial activity and industry in the region.
The ACWA indicates that it represents approximately 86% of waste to landfills in the Auckland region. It
comprises non Council Controlled Waste collected by private sector collectors and waste self hauled to
Page 164 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
18
transfer stations or landfills by businesses directly. In the context of this report, it excludes domestic
kerbside waste collected under contract with the Council.
The Councils views on potential transport inefficiencies within this waste stream include the following:
f Uncertainty of the extent and level of transport inefficiencies in non CCW services, including
effectiveness of swapping arrangements
f Some RTS facilities in Auckland are very close to each other (owned by different companies), and
therefore could locations be optimised to reduce transport inefficiencies / is there a need for
rationalisation of RTS
f Private sector waste operators often drop their gate fees to offset transport costs, in order to attract
customers
Private sector perspectives include the following:
f Commercial drivers mean that operators seek to minimise costs, including transport
f There are limited transport related savings that could be achieved across regional non CCW due to
high competition (15 main operators are active in Auckland)
f Large industry players have sophisticated modelling and are continually optimising routes and costs
f One private sector operator believes that there are some examples of transport inefficiencies in the non
Council Controlled Waste system in Auckland but these cases are often outliers
f Another private sector operator believes that journeys from collection to transfer station represent the
majority of transport inefficiencies in the non Council Controlled Waste system in Auckland
f One private sector operator estimates overall transport inefficiencies in waste collection (including non
CCW and CCW) to be between 10% to 15%
f Having RTS close to each other drives competitive prices for the customers
f If Council controlled all waste, it would reduce competition and innovation and prices for ratepayers
would go up (including transporting)

Page 165 of 591

Council Controlled Waste - Case Study

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
19
6. Introduction and background
7. Case study
8. Case study assumptions
9. Finding of quantification
Page 166 of 591

Council Controlled Waste - Case Study : Introduction and background
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
20
Introduction and background
This section considers potential transport inefficiencies in Council Controlled Waste (the micro
assessment). The following are covered:
f Summary of previous reports in these areas
f Relevant points from discussions with industry
f Quantification of CCW transport inefficiencies through high level case study
Review of ACWA and other relevant reports in areas relevant to CCW transport elements
There have been no detailed previous assessments in the CCW area which we are aware of. However, as
detailed in the ACWA, as confirmed by the Council and some private sector operators and as summarised
in Appendix E, inherent transport inefficiencies may include:
f Where CCW is taken directly to a landfill which is not the closest landfill to the collection area.
f Where CCW is taken directly to a transfer station which is not the closest transfer station to the collection
area.
f Where CCW is taken directly to a landfill and bypasses transfer stations in doing so
f Where bulk hauled CCW is taken directly from a transfer station to landfill which is not the closest landfill
to the transfer station.
The following table summarises the current initial disposal drop-off point for CCW collected in each of the
areas (whether it be a transfer station or landfill).
Collection and disposal locations
Collection area Current initial disposal point Closest point (yes or no or in part)
North Shore Redvale Landfill In part
Waitakere Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Station Yes
Auckland City (East, West and Central) Wiri Transfer Station
Rosedale Transfer Station
Pikes Point Transfer Station
No
No
Need further information
Franklin Pukekohe Transfer Station In part
Manukau Whitford Landfill In part
Papakura Papakura Transfer Station Yes
Rodney Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Station
Constellation Drive Transfer Station
Lawrie Road Transfer Station
Silverdale Transfer Station
Redvale Landfill
Need further information
Source: Ernst & Young
CCW
The table below shows the waste collection and
refuse contracts that are in place in our three case
study areas (source ACWA).

Case study areas
Service description Contractor Expiry
North Shore City Council
Kerbside refuse collection Onyx Group Ltd Jun 2015
Kerbside refuse disposal Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd Jun 2014
Kerbside recycling collection Onyx Group Ltd Jun 2015
Waitakere City Council
Kerbside refuse collection Onyx Group Ltd Jun 2015
Kerbside recycling collection Onyx Group Ltd Jun 2015
Auckland City Council - East
Kerbside refuse collection -
East
Enviroway Ltd Jun 2013
Kerbside refuse disposal Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd Jun 2013

Page 167 of 591

Council Controlled Waste - Case Study : Introduction and background
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
21
As summarised previously there are many circumstances and anecdotal evidence of where CCW journeys
to transfer stations or disposal landfills appear inefficient from a distance travelled perspective.
Relevant points from discussions with Council and analysis of industry data
We understand that industry participants have reviewed scenarios of whether savings could potentially be
generated by diverting CCW from transfer stations directly to landfill.
Such an arrangement would need to ensure savings generated (i.e. from waste operators only needing to
pay a landfill disposal amount as opposed to RTS receipt/bulk haul/disposal costs) compared favourably
against additional distance and resulting cost to the new disposal point and lost time at the landfill due to
congestion etc. From our discussions with industry, opinions differed as to whether it was most cost
effective to dispose initially at the transfer station and bulk haul to landfill, and would depend on which
particular location under consideration.
Although not part of this scope of work, Auckland Council believes that analysis of the appropriateness of
current transfer station locations, and optimal new transfer station locations could result in further transport
efficiencies. Further to this, and also not part of this scope of work, the location of the depot / yard, where
waste vehicles are stored when not in use, and their proximity to collection areas and disposal points could
also impact on transport efficiencies.
Case Study: Potential quantification of CCW transport inefficiencies
To test the Councils hypothesis that there are potential transport inefficiencies we have undertaken a Case
Study. This is by way of high level analysis on the collection and disposal of CCW in North Shore, East
Auckland, and Waitakere.
We have chosen these areas because:
f It provides a mix of bag and bin collection.
f The same operator contracts in North Shore and Waitakere. Contrasts can be drawn which will reflect
the different Council management systems and by-laws which are in place in these areas.
f They provide a mix of potential transport efficiencies.
f Of the three areas Auckland Council expect to find the Waitakere area to be most efficient of all the
Auckland areas and North Shore and East Auckland areas to be less efficient regarding CCW transport.
This high level case study should in no way be considered a substitute for detailed analysis on a route by
route basis across the region.
Page 168 of 591

Council Controlled Waste - Case Study : Case study
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
22
Case study overview
As agreed with you, the purpose of case study was to identify any additional kilometres being travelled due
to transportation to RTS / landfills not being the closest destination to collection areas. A cost per kilometre
assumption is then applied to any such additional kilometres to produce a dollar output.
Data collection
We were provided with data for the relevant legacy Councils contracts for the week of 21 February to 25
February 2011. This was viewed as a typical collection week. Auckland Council expected the tonnage of
waste for this week to be approximately in the middle of the range observed over a year. The following data
was provided for the three case study areas:
Waste journey data provided by Auckland Council in the three case study areas over the last week of February 2011
East Auckland North Shore Waitakere
f Truck registration
f Truck capacity in tonnes
f Travel times from collection area to Wiri Transfer Station
f Weight of waste disposed of per trip to RTS
f Number of bins emptied per trip to RTS
f Time of disposal at RTS per trip
f Fuel used per truck per day
f Distance travelled per truck per day
f Hours worked per truck per day
f Maps of 40 collection routes
f Truck registration f Truck registration
f GPS data for each truck registration and day that recorded
the following information every few minutes:
f GPS data for each truck registration and day that recorded
the following information every few minutes:
Time Time
Speed of truck Speed of truck
Kms travelled since ignition on Kms travelled since ignition on
Driver Driver
Address of truck location Address of truck location
f Redvale landfill data: f Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Station data:
Truck registration Truck registration
Date and time in Date and time out
Date and time out Weight in
Weight in Weight out
Weight out f Maps of collection routes
f Maps of collection routes
Source: Auckland Council
A detailed list of the data files provided by Council is in Appendix D.
Page 169 of 591

Council Controlled Waste - Case Study : Case study assumptions
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
23
Case study assumptions
A number of assumptions agreed with you have been made as part of the case study. A list of these
assumptions is included in Appendix C.
In addition to quantitative data, we also collected anecdotal information from discussions with Council and
industry. This information and the way in which it is reflected in our assumptions for analysing the data is as
follows:
f The cost of collection varies depending on the type of waste receptacle
8
. For instance:
Bag collection
f Labour costs are higher, i.e. trucks require a driver and runners to collect the refuse and load it into a
rear loader
f Bags cost around 15 cents and cannot be reused.
Bin collection
f Labour costs are lower, i.e. trucks require only one driver (a side loader is used to empty the bins)
f Bins cost more and have approximately a seven year lifespan
9

f Trucks can potentially cost more for bin collection as they have an automated arm (side loader) to pick
up the bin and empty its contents into the truck
Industry sources prefer bins to bags for the following reasons:
f Health and safety (there have been bag collection related fatalities in recent years)
f Cost efficiency
f Tidiness (there are other costs associated with spillage and cleanup from bag collection)
Different costs have been assumed depending on whether bins or bags are used:
f Bins are used in East Auckland
f Bags are used in Waitakere and North Shore
As agreed with you, it is assumed in the case study that the waste receptacle used is the same as actual in
each of the case study areas.

8
Note that anecdotal evidence suggests that the waste receptacle may affect the volume of waste and therefore waste minimisation. For example households tend to wait until a bag is full before putting it out for
collection, however a bin would usually always be put out for each collection time regardless of how full it is.
9
Industry sources say this figure from Covec is low and bins have a life of approximately 15 years
Page 170 of 591

Council Controlled Waste - Case Study : Case study assumptions
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
24
Households
There is inconsistency regarding the number of households serviced on different days. For example, a truck
fleet might be contracted to collect waste from 5,000 households on one day and only 3,500 the next. This
results in spare capacity in the fleet on some days.
Time / congestion
f The time taken for a truck to drop waste off to a landfill or transfer station can vary significantly:
Transfer stations usually involve a quick drop off process and there is only a short driving distance to
the drop off area within the facility (approximately 100 metres), although they may have long
unloading times depending on the facilities available at the transfer station and compaction and
storage technology available within the trucks collecting and disposing of waste
Landfills usually involve a longer drop off process (often with queuing) and there is usually a long
driving distance to the tip point within the facility (up to 2 km)
Congestion on roads can differ depending on time of the day therefore impacting journey times.
Seasonality
f There is seasonality in the volume or tonnage of waste collected, i.e. tonnage is higher in summer and
lower in winter due in part to higher refuse from garden waste, and to a lesser extent fresh fruit and
vegetable peelings, in summer.
f Unloading at a landfill is typically more time consuming in winter
As per Council advice we have assumed that the data from the last week of February is a typical week and
annualised potential transport inefficiencies based on this weeks data have been produced.
Following discussions with Council, the existing truck capacities for each of the three case study areas have
been used.
Page 171 of 591

Council Controlled Waste - Case Study : Finding of quantification
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
25
Case study methodology
In this section we set out the case study approach.
We have discussed the case study methodology in some detail with Auckland Council, industry sources and
industry experts including sharing supporting calculations and assumptions. Whilst the parties have not
undertaken a detailed review, they appeared broadly comfortable with the approach.
Collection areas
The case study relates to three Auckland Council waste collections areas: East Auckland, North Shore and
Waitakere.
We have split each of these three case study areas into smaller sub collection areas.
For each of the sub collection areas a mid-point location has been approximated. Maps of the North Shore
and East Auckland sub collection areas and selected mid points are shown below. The 40 collection areas
in East Auckland are reflective of current collection schedules and routes and illustrated on the following
pages.
North Shore - collection mid points
1
2
3
4

Number of sub collection areas
Location case study areas Number of average sub-collection areas
East Auckland 40
North Shore 4
Waitakere 2

Page 172 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

26
East Auckland 40 sub collection points

Page 173 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
27
Disposal
For each of the midpoint locations in the average collection areas we estimated the closest disposal point
(either transfer station or landfill). A summary of this is shown below:
Current and estimated closest disposal points for each average collection area
Location Average collection area Current disposal (ex GPS) Estimated closest disposal points (ex Wises)
East Auckland All 40 collection areas Wiri transfer station Pikes Point transfer station
North Shore NS1 Redvale landfill Constellation Drive refuse transfer station
North Shore NS2 Redvale landfill Devonport transfer station
North Shore NS3 Redvale landfill Rosedale transfer station
North Shore NS4 Redvale landfill Constellation Drive refuse transfer station
Waitakere Both average collection areas Waitakere refuse and recycling station Waitakere refuse and recycling station
Source: Current disposal as per Auckland Council, other data as per Ernst & Young
Note that the current and estimated closest disposal points for the Waitakere region for the sub collection
areas are the same. Therefore no transport efficiencies are found in this case study for the Waitakere area.
Patiki Road transfer station is also in the Waitakere region although not far from the Waitakere refuse and
recycling Station (approx 5 km). If the Waitakere area was split up into more than 2 average collection
areas some transport efficiencies might be found, although we anticipate that any transport efficiencies
found based on distance travelled are unlikely to be significant.
Distance saved
Using Wises website
10
we established the driving distance from each selected midpoint of the sub collection
areas to the existing disposal point and the proposed closest disposal point.
Using the driving distances we calculated the potential distance saved for each trip to disposal for each of
the sub collection areas assuming the waste trucks drove to the closest transfer station or landfill for
disposal rather than the existing disposal location.
For example East Auckland average collection area 1 (EA1) is in Epsom. The midpoint of this collection
area is estimated to be 1 Cornwall Park Avenue, Epsom. The distance (from Wises website) from the
midpoint to Wiri Transfer Station (currently used) is 19km and to Pikes Point Transfer Station (closest
estimated) is 7km. The distance saved by disposal at the closest transfer station is therefore 12km per trip.
The distance saved would then depend upon the number of trips per day to the initial disposal facility. For
one trip per day from EA1 to disposal 12km saved is assumed being the trip from collection area to disposal
point. For 2 trips from EA1 to disposal, 36 km saved per day is assumed as follows:
f The first trip from collection area EA1 to disposal point (12km)

10
www.wises.co.nz
Page 174 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
28
f Trip from disposal point back to collection area EA1 (12km)
f The second trip from collection area EA1 to disposal point (12km)
On average for two trips per day for EA1 the distance saved is 18km per trip to disposal. It is assumed once
the truck makes the final disposal for the day it is driven back to the yard for storage overnight. No distance
savings are assumed for trips to and from the yard.
Bulk haul from transfer station to landfill
In Waitakere and East Auckland the current used and proposed closest disposal points are transfer stations
(not landfill) to ensure comparing like with like in case study. Once the waste is processed at the closest
transfer station it is then transported to landfill. It is assumed for Waitakere and East Auckland that the
waste is bulk hauled from the transfer station to landfill as per current arrangements and we have not
included this waste journey in this case study.
We note that based on our discussions with private sector operators there is a view that distance
inefficiencies may include exist in relation to the transfer of East Auckland waste to landfill, given that
Hampton Downs is currently used for some proportion of that waste but Whitford is significantly closer.
For North Shore the current disposal point is Redvale landfill and the closest disposal point for each
average collection area are transfer stations. For this location we have considered the additional impact of
transporting (via bulk haul) the compacted waste from transfer station to landfill. Based on GPS analysis,
the weight transported per trip from collection to disposal on the North Shore ranges from approximately 2
to 10 tonnes and on average circa 8 tonnes. A typical bulk haul truck has a larger capacity than this, so
fewer trips would likely be required to landfill than to transfer station. Industry experts say that a typical bulk
haul truck used in Auckland transport waste from transfer station to landfill has a 25 tonne capacity.
Therefore a 25 tonne bulk haul payload has been applied in our case study. It has also been assumed that
the same tonnage of waste disposed at the transfer station is transported to landfill and no waste sorting
has taken place at the transfer station.
We have calculated a bulk haul factor in tonnes per kilometre. This is the proportion of the driving distance
for the journey from the transfer station to Redvale landfill based on the tonnage transported. Applying this
factor for each trip to the transfer station we can calculate (in kilometres) what the distance saved by
disposal at the nearest transfer station would be reduced by, in order for the waste to complete the journey
to Redvale landfill.
A table of the bulk haul to landfill factor for the north shore transfer station is shown below
Page 175 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
29
North Shore bulk haul to landfill
RTS RTS Address Landfill Landfill address Distance (kms) Tonnage Bulk haul factor: Distance /
tonne
(km / tonne)
Devonport 27 Lake Road, Devonport Redvale Landfill Access Road, Dairy Flat 27.1 25 1.08
Constellation Drive 4 Home Place, Mairangi Bay Redvale Landfill Access Road, Dairy Flat 15.7 25 0.63
Rosedale 101 Rosedale Road, North Shore Redvale Landfill Access Road, Dairy Flat 14.7 25 0.59
Source: Auckland Council, http://www.wises.co.nz
Ref: Bulk haul to landfill - Section AN Analysis
Benchmark cost of transporting waste
A benchmark cost has been derived (cost per kilometre) for a waste truck with either bag or bin collection.
The cost is made up of four elements:
f Truck acquisition and maintenance costs
f Bag or bin costs
f Labour costs
f Fuel costs
The benchmark cost is based the cost of waste disposal in city locations from Covecs report for the Ministry
for the Environment in 2007. A detailed description of the assumptions and calculation is in Appendix A.
In this case study we apply the following benchmark costs:
f Bag: $7.87 / km
f Bin: $6.67 / km
Case study outputs: Indicative cost savings
Indicative costs savings per trip to disposal
Using the distance saved (in kilometres) and taking into account the bulk haul factor, we calculated an
indicative cost saving per trip to the disposal applying the benchmark cost (in $ / km).
We emphasise the indicative nature of this output given the high level nature of the case study of kilometres
saved and degree of estimation within the cost per kilometre assumption.
A table of the collection areas, current and proposed disposal points distance and indicative cost saving per
trip and bulk haul factor is shown in Appendix B.
Page 176 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
30
Case study indicative transport efficiency cost savings
We have calculated high level indicative potential efficiency saving for each of the three areas through
applying the indicative cost savings per trip to the kerbside collection trip/GPS data from Auckland Council
over the week of 21 to 25 February 2011. This has been expanded to an indicative efficiency saving per
annum through simple extrapolation over 52 weeks.
A summary of the calculated indicative transport efficiency savings for the case study areas is shown in the
table to the left.
More detailed supporting analysis for North Shore and East Auckland areas can be found in Appendix B.
We have not shown a detailed table for Waitakere as there are no transport inefficiencies identified for this
area in the case study.
Extrapolation of case study to the Auckland region
We have undertaken a simple and high level extrapolation of the transport inefficiencies savings per annum
from the three case study areas to the whole of the Auckland region using two bases:
f estimated number of households
f tonnage of waste collected
Details are shown in the table below. The assumed average number of people per household is 2.97
(based on 2006 census data).
Table of transport inefficiencies in this case study
Location Number of
households
(000)
(2006)
Estimated
number of
households
(000)
(2011)
Estimated
tonnage of
waste
collected/dis
posed of
(000 tonnes)
Indicative
cost savings
($000)
Extrapolatio
n based on
households
Indicative
cost savings
($000)
Extrapolatio
n based on
tonnage
Average
indicative
cost savings
($000)
Kms saved
(%) Based
on
households
Kms saved
(%) Based
on tonnage
Average kms
saved (%)
Case study areas:
East Auckland n/a 60 34 416 416 416 22% 22% 22%
North Shore 72 85 20 439 439 439 17% 17% 17%
Waitakere 62 74 23 - - - - % - % - %
Implied total over Auckland 436 495 208 1,931 2,305 2,118
Weighted Average (%) 13% 14% 13%
Source: Auckland Council, Statistics New Zealand
Ref: Transport efficiency - Section AN Analysis
Conclusion of CCW transport inefficiencies assessment (based on high level data set):
f Based on the potential savings from efficiency improvements for the case studies mentioned, the simple
extrapolation shows that there could be an average indicative range of 13% to 14% reduction in
Case study outputs: indicative transport efficiencies
Location Indicative cost savings
($000 pa)
Travel distance saved (%)
East Auckland 416

22%
North Shore 439

17%
Waitakere - - %
Total 855

Page 177 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
31
kilometres travelled and an indicative range of $1.9m to $2.3m annual cost savings from transporting
CCW to the closest transfer station locations than to where it is currently collected.
f We note that from discussions with private sector parties these appear to be within the intuitive estimate
put forward by these parties.
f The CCW case study applies a number of high level assumptions and point estimates. We strongly
recommend more detailed analysis be undertaken that covers all areas of Auckland on a street by street
and collection by collection basis

Page 178 of 591

Non Council Controlled Waste

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

32
10. Consultations and previous assessments and reports
Page 179 of 591

Non Council Controlled Waste : Consultations and previous assessments and reports
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

33
Non Council Controlled Waste Macro Assessment
Introduction
The scope agreed with you contemplated us undertaking, information permitting, an analysis of non CCW.
In the event, no information has been made available by private sector operators to enable us to undertake
such analysis. In the absence of such data we have endeavoured to present qualitative views on areas of
potential inefficiencies garnered from discussions with Auckland Council and private sector operators plus
referral to previous assessments and reports.
Review of ACWA report in areas relevant to non Council Controlled Waste transport elements
The Auckland Waste Assessment states that private ownership of transfer stations and restricted access
linked to final disposal sites and loyalty agreements has produced significant transport inefficiencies
11
. The
Assessment notes this is particularly the case in respect of Council Controlled Waste and also states that
the issue of transportation waste is particularly pertinent in the Auckland region as Auckland has significant
transportation/congestion problems which create inefficiencies.
12,13

This report suggests that transport savings could be made. Testing of this proposition was undertaken
through our discussions with waste contracting parties and industry.
Discussion with waste contracting parties
We met with and / or discussed potential waste transport inefficiencies with a number of market participants
and related consultancy parties. We also reviewed the consultations that took place as part of the ACWA so
we could compare industry perspectives. Refer to Appendix E.
As detailed in the observations opposite, and as previously articulated in the ACWA report, industry has
differing views on whether the current system creates and results in transport inefficiencies. These views
also differ from those of Council.
Examples of potential transport inefficiencies
Based on information that we have researched or which has been provided to us by industry sources, we
present some anecdotal examples of potential transport efficiencies in respect of non Council Controlled
Waste.
Private sector operators provided the following examples

11
ACWA Chapter4 p38 (p45 of 168)
12
Auckland Council understands that operators make decisions on routes aimed at avoiding congestion. Hence efficiencies based solely on distance do not represent all of the transport efficiencies that could be
made.
13
ACWA Chapter 4 p39 (p46 of 168)
Industry perspectives (private sector waste
operators)
Observations: Transport inefficiencies
X One private sector operator believes there are inefficiencies in
respect of waste journeys as trucks drive past the closest
disposal point to use their own transfer station or landfill.
Another private sector operator refutes this point.
Observations: CCW
X Industry views differ as to whether waste should go to transfer
station prior to landfill, depending on location and ownership of
the facility
X Council could consider aligning length of contracts with life of
trucks in order to maximise truck usage efficiency
X Council could consider optimising collection area days in
consultation with private operators
X Council could consider ensuring only full trucks go to disposal
points
X Council could consider harmonising collection receptacles to
bins throughout the Auckland region only for health and safety,
cost and tidiness reasons
X Council could consider increasing the frequency of recycling
collection
X Gate fees dont affect operators behaviours because costs are
incorporated as fixed prices in contracts
Observations: Swapping
X Two major operators mutually agree a tonnage of waste per
annum for disposal at each others landfills
X The two major private sector operators consider that volume
swapping arrangements on the whole enhance efficiencies
X 95% of waste involved in the swapping arrangements is bulk
hauled to landfill
X Council perspective differs from private sectors. Refer to page
15.
Observation: Queuing
X Queuing at landfill or RTS doesnt affect behaviours because
costs are incorporated as fixed prices in contracts
Observations: Future situation
X More flexible opening hours for landfills and RTS
X Additional segregation of waste e.g. organics, to increase
waste minimisation
X Harmonisation of waste equipment at disposal facilities where
effective e.g. Devonport RTS has no compaction equipment
Page 180 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

34
Example 1: Cost per tonne of transporting waste collected in North Shore
From North Shore collection point to: Cost Per Tonne (23 tonne transfer vehicle) Costs include
Redvale $7.22
Operating cost and depreciation Hampton Downs
Avoidable transport cost
$17.17
$9.95

Source: Industry estimates

The table illustrates the potential impact of any journeys from the North Shore collection point or RTS to
Hampton Downs have an avoidable transport cost of circa $10.00 per tonne. Providing swap arrangements
work effectively then this cost inefficiency would be mitigated albeit we note that industry views differ as to
whether this wholly occurs.
Example 2: Transporting biosolids
f North Shore biosolids are transported from Constellation Drive RTS to Hampton Downs rather than
Redvale (an additional distance of approximately 63km). A private operator asserts this was awarded to
the lowest option regarding gate fees.
f Army Bay biosolids are transported to Whangarei landfill rather than Redvale landfill which is closer (an
additional distance of approximately 123km). A private operator again asserts this was awarded to
contract pricing terms.
Example 3: Private Bin contractors
We questioned a number of private bin contractors. In particular we discussed with them:
f What influences whether they dispose of collected waste at either a transfer station of landfill
f If waste is disposed of at a RTS or at a landfill, how do they determine which one to go to
f Do they have loyalty or tolling agreements in place and how does this influence their waste transporting
journeys
f How are they paid, e.g. cost per tonne transported, etc
Overall, our discussions demonstrated that smaller private bin contractors generally transport waste
efficiently. Specifically:
f They generally transport small volumes of waste (e.g. two or three cubic metres). Collection is often on a
casual basis and routes are often not planned.
f Waste is generally disposed of at transfer stations that are in the general vicinity of the collection area. It
is inefficient to go to landfills and wait in longer queues for small volumes of waste. An example provided
Industry perspectives (private sector waste
operators)
Observations: Commercial arrangements
X There are currently misaligned commercial relationships in
relation to transfer stations and landfill ownership and control
which results in higher waste haulage costs
Observations: RTS and landfills
X Private waste operators / transporters are incentivised to use
their own transfer stations and landfills and therefore non
Council Controlled Waste is not hauled / transported in the
most efficient way
Observations: Competition
X Competition for Council kerbside collection services and private
sector commercial and industrial services is strong and creates
an efficient market benefitting the entire community through
competitive market pricing
Page 181 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

35
by one private bin contractor is waste regularly collected in Avondale that is disposed of at Patiki Road
transfer station.
f Private contractors are generally paid on a volume or per bin basis (rather than an hourly basis).
f Some of the RTS parties encourage private bin contractors to sign loyalty agreements (not all prefer to
do this as it gives them flexibility to go to the transfer station nearest to collection). However some
private bin contractors are influenced by lower prices offered through loyalty agreements and, within
reason, will mainly use only one RTS.
f An example from another private bin contractor is waste collected in Northwest Auckland and Rodney
which is taken to Patiki Road transfer station because of a loyalty arrangement. However, if this same
contractor collects waste from Manukau, they are prepared to take the waste to a transfer station closer
to collection, despite the loyalty arrangement as transport cost / time savings negate benefits of price ex
loyalty agreement
Example 4: How commercial drivers impact transport behaviour
The facilities at the RTS will impact the time taken to unload, and may also impact what vehicle size can
efficiently deposit waste. This in turn impacts whether trucks will use RTS or proceed straight to landfill.
Private sector waste operators therefore review related cost and time impacts and these commercial drivers
impact the approach taken. One of the private sector operators made the point that 50% of their truck
drivers are owner /operators and paid a cost per tonne of waste disposed. Thus the drivers are incentivised
to maximise tonnage disposed.
Conclusion
No data has been made available by private sector operators hence we are unable to draw conclusions in
respect of the level of transport inefficiencies that may exist in non Council Controlled Waste. Conversations
with various parties suggest a broad view that efficiencies do exist to some degree and one private sector
operator estimated levels tending to sit within the 10% to 15% range. We note that this is not inconsistent
with the indicative transport efficiencies observed in the case study of CCW flows.

Page 182 of 591

Qualitative assessment: other waste transportation inefficiency areas

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

36
Qualitative assessment: other waste
transportation inefficiency areas

Page 183 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

37
Qualitative assessment: other potential waste transportation inefficiency areas
There are a number of other inefficiency areas that could potentially be reduced as a result of decreasing
the number of waste related journeys in Auckland.
We have not sought to directly quantify these nor have we apportioned these to either non Council
Controlled Waste or Council Controlled Waste. However, we have sought to identify other areas of transport
inefficiencies and provide comment as set out below:
Road damage
The greater the number of truck journeys undertaken on local roads and the larger or heavier the truck, the
greater the amount of road damage.
A report prepared by Kansas University Transportation Research Institute in December 2009, titled
Estimating Highway Pavement Damage Costs Attributed to Truck Traffic looked at annual highway
damage associated with processed meat and related industries in southwest Kansas. The report used an
annual damage cost per truck per mile of approximately US$0.02 for heavy trucks (e.g. tractor trailers). This
equates to an annual damage cost of NZ$0.015 per truck per kilometre.
Per the ACWA, there are estimated to be over 978,000 waste collection truck trips per annum in the
Auckland region
14
. A reduction in truck trips of 10%, assuming an average trip of 50km, would result in a
saving of circa $75k pa.
Carbon emissions
Based on potential journey reductions that could be gained from re-routing truck journeys, there would be
associated carbon cost savings due to reduced emissions. We note that time spent idling will also affect
carbon emissions.
Maintenance and cleaning requirements
There are increased maintenance and cleaning requirements for collection trucks that transport waste
directly to landfill (e.g. Manukau waste is transported directly to Whitford landfill). Transporting directly to
landfill, subject to vehicle type, can lead to increased downtime and the need for additional trucks.
Transporting to transfer stations and then reloading into trucks designed to dispose in landfill conditions will
reduce maintenance costs.
Traffic congestion
Auckland has significant congestion issues. This is not isolated to waste transportation, but is pertinent to
the Auckland region and national economy. Inefficient transport of waste exasperates the situation.

14
AWCA Appendix B-1 Submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee, p60 of 113
Congestions assessment
Location Average speed (km / hr)
East Auckland 37.2
North Shore 33.6
Waitakere 27.0
Page 184 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

38
There are an estimated 2,622 waste truck journeys each day, with around 583 truck journeys to the three
main landfills each day.
15
Reducing the current number of waste related journeys (and potentially planning
trips at off-peak times) would reduce the amount of unproductive time trucks spend in traffic and reduce the
waste industrys contribution to road congestion.
As a result of traffic congestion, drivers sit idle in traffic and spend a longer time on the road. For every
additional hour, a cost per truck based on typical hourly labour costs alone is around $30. CCW is currently
collected during the daytime from Monday to Friday which includes peak traffic times. Within the three case
study areas traffic congestion particularly affects East Auckland and North Shore.
In order to gain a sense of potential congestion impacts, we have selected three waste journeys from end of
collection to disposal in each of the case study areas within the last week of February from the truck GPS
data. The average speed of the waste trucks in each area is given to the left. We note that this sample size
is very limited and hence drawing any conclusions must be done with caution. The results produced are
contrary to the Councils expectations in relation to relative congestion in the case study areas.
The data implies that congestion is highest in Waitakere and lowest in East Auckland. We note that East
Auckland travel times are approximately 40% quicker than those in Waitakere.
Whilst we have no evidence to suggest what the drivers of this differential might be (and we again note that
the sample size is very limited), we anticipate that in East Auckland and North Shore case study areas the
waste trucks might have greater use of motorways relative to local roads on journeys from the end of
collection to disposal. This is unproven and requires further consideration.
Nevertheless it would be more time, and therefore cost, efficient if waste trucks could collect and dispose of
waste at lowest traffic times e.g. at night. However, large trucks are currently used and we understand
these are considered too noisy for residential waste collection at night. Council believes that noise of
transfer station and landfill operation would also be an issue and consent conditions currently prohibit
operation at night primarily for this reason. Council also believes that operations at landfills, and to some
extent transfer stations would also be more hazardous at night.
One industry source says that trucks begin waste collection at 3am and are often waiting for the disposal
facility to open at around 5am. Time savings from running trucks at night would result in cost savings. Other
considerations through running waste trucks at night are:
f Labour costs (less hours worked but higher night payment rate)
f Reduction in truck size and therefore cost
f Possible a reduction in fleet size

15
Waitakere Council report
Page 185 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

39
f Opening / closing hours of RTS and landfills
Comparison of landfill and transfer station disposal
Depending on collection location fleet size (and therefore transport costs) could possibly be reduced if
disposals occur initially at transfer stations as opposed to landfill (which generally requires larger trucks).
There are also indirect benefits of being able to schedule journeys of trucks of a larger period going to
transfer stations due to fewer restrictions on opening hours than landfills.
Landfill disposals can also contribute to a greater volume of fleet repairs and down time and subject to
usage levels at the time of disposal, significant waiting times can occur. These issues could be overcome
by bulk hauling from RTS.
Comparing disposal at landfill and RTS
Issue Landfill Transfer station
Queuing times Often longer times e.g.10 mins to 1 hour
16
Often shorter times or no queues e.g. 2 to 15 mins
Distance within facility to tip point Often longer distance e.g. up to 1 km Often shorter distance e.g. 100m
Roading at the facility Often poor quality (can result in increased maintenance and repairs to trucks) Often better quality
Opening hours Council imposed restrictions on opening hours Often more flexible opening hours
Fees Often lower gate fees Often higher for receipt at transfer stations then bulk haul disposal
Source: Industry interviews
Due to the issues above an operator may be able to run a smaller fleet for a transfer station disposal and
then bulk haul to landfill depending on location.
Trucks
The following table shows examples from the three case study areas of fleet and truck size, number of
households serviced and the weight of waste transported for CCW.
Comparison of fleets
East Auckland North Shore Waitakere
Initial disposal point Wiri transfer station Redvale landfill Waitakere refuse and recycling station
Fleet size 10 trucks 8 trucks 8 trucks
Truck capacity 10 tonnes 8.5 to 10 tonnes 8.5 to 10 tonnes
Households serviced 60,245 85,000 74,000
Weight transported Domestic Commercial
Minimum 4 tonnes 2 tonnes 1 tonne 0.1 tonne
Maximum 12 tonnes 10 tonnes 10 tonnes 5 tonnes
Average 8 tonnes 7 tonnes 6 tonnes 1.0 tonne
Sample Size 81 60 66 18

16
At Redvale landfill in the week of 21 to 25 February 2011 the average time spent by a truck at the facility was 14 minutes with a minimum time of 9 minutes and a maximum time of 30 minutes for the CCW fleet of
trucks servicing the North Shore area.
Page 186 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

40
To address transport inefficiencies the type of truck for kerbside collection would change if the collection
system is changed. For example, large trucks (approx 10 tonnes) are currently used for bin collection in
urban / city areas. This size truck has difficulty manoeuvring in many collection areas. If the nearest
transfer station is used in each collection area, smaller trucks could be used, positively impacting transport
costs as well as road damage and traffic on roads. Large bulk haul trucks (25 tonnes) would then transport
compacted waste from RTS to landfill.
Seasonality factors
Waste volumes over the year vary for example, volumes in winter are down whilst in the summer are higher.
This means that transport inefficiencies will not be a uniform amount each week / month.
Integration of collection and disposal contracts
Currently there are circumstances where private sector collection and disposal contracts for CCW in legacy
Council areas are let to different parties. Whilst this may create financial savings, particular disposal
charges, it may contribute to additional transporting journeys as wastes travels to required disposal
locations with agreed disposal charges. The alignment of collection and disposal contracts and contract
requirements could reduce excess transport journeys; however in the current circumstances we note that
this may affect contract pricing.
Optimisation of collection areas
Currently collection areas (particularly with respect to CCW) on any one day may be quite disparate. For
example on a Monday CCW is collected in the Albany area, Devonport area and Northcote /Birkenhead
area; and on a Tuesday in the Torbay / Northcross area, Beach Haven / Birkdale area and Bayswater /
Belmont area.
Realignment and optimisation of collection areas may also increase efficiency with respect to:
f distance travelled
f consistency regarding the number of households serviced on different days
f as far as possible ensuring only full trucks go to disposal points.

Page 187 of 591

Appendix A : Benchmark cost of waste collection (CCW)

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

41
Appendix A
Benchmark cost of waste collection (CCW)
Page 188 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

42
Benchmark cost of waste collection in city locations
Case study benchmark cost assumptions
We have utilised a benchmark transport cost for waste collection to disposal, which comprises the following
costs:
f Trucks (acquisition and maintenance costs)
f Waste bags or bins
f Labour
f Fuel
The benchmark transport cost is calculated in three units:
f $ per truck
f $ per tonne
f $ per km
The estimated cost is based on data from a public report entitled Recycling: Cost Benefit Analysis
prepared for the Ministry for the Environment by Covec Limited (Covec) in April 2007. Covec is an
economics consultancy firm.
The table to the left shows Covecs assumptions for kerbside waste collection for city locations and these
assumptions updated for 2011 prices.
Inflation only
Prices over four years from 2007 to 2011 have been inflated assuming an average CPI of 2.7% (source:
Statistics NZ).
Diesel price
As at 8 March 2011 the retail diesel price in Auckland was $159.9 cents/litre (source AA Petrolwatch). The
historical average weekly diesel price in New Zealand over the last four years is shown in the graph below.

Table of Covec and revised 2011 assumptions for kerbside
waste collection for city locations
Covec (2007) ($) Proforma 2011 ($)
Trucks Bag Bin Bag Bin
Truck ($ / truck) 225,000 225,000 250,302 250,302
Lifetime of truck (yrs) 7 7 7 7
Tonnes/truck pa 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,750
Fixed costs/truck pa 2,000 2,000 2,225 2,225
Households/truck 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800
Bags/bins
Bag/bin ($/item) 0.12 36 0.15 40
Life (yrs) 0 7 0 7
Kg/household/week 7.5 15.0 7.5 15.0
$/tonne 16.0 9.5 20 11
Labour
Driver ($/hour) 16 16 18 18
Runner ($/hour) 14 14 16 16
Runners/truck 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0
Hours/day 8 8 8 8
Days per week 5 5 5 5
Labour/truck pa 76,960 62,400 85,614 69,417
Fuel
Litres/100km 45 45 45 45
Distance per truck per day
(km) 111 111 111 111
Fuel price - diesel ($/litre) 0.90 0.90 1.5 1.5
Fuel ($/truck pa) 11,700 11,700 19,481 19,481
Source: Covec, Ernst & Young, Statistics NZ, Ministry of Economic Development

Page 189 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

43
Historical diesel price
Source: Ministry of Economic Development
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
Apr
2007
Jun
2007
Aug
2007
Oct
2007
Dec
2007
Feb
2008
Apr
2008
Jun
2008
Aug
2008
Oct
2008
Dec
2008
Feb
2009
Apr
2009
Jun
2009
Aug
2009
Oct
2009
Dec
2009
Feb
2010
Apr
2010
Jun
2010
Aug
2010
Oct
2010
Dec
2010
Feb
2011
D
i
e
s
e
l

p
i
r
c
e

(
c

/

l
i
t
r
e
)
We have adopted a diesel price of $1.50 / litre for the purpose of adjusting the Covec data.
Indicative cost analysis
Collection costs vary depending on location. Location affects distance travelled per truck per day,
households per truck, and tonnes per truck. In this case study, the assumptions above for city locations
have not been altered for locations, distances, number of households or tonnes per truck.
Covecs summary costs of waste collection are in the table below.
Covec summary costs of waste collection in 2007
Bag Bin
$/truck pa $/tonne $/truck pa $/tonne
Trucks 48,216 12.90 48,216 12.90
Bags/bins 52,800 16.00 31,285 9.50
Labour 76,960 20.50 62,400 16.60
Fuel 11,700 3.50 11,700 3.50
Total 189,676 52.90 153,601 42.50
Source: Covec

We have applied two methodologies to derive an estimate of the benchmark transport cost for waste
collection to disposal for the purpose of this report:
1 Inflate Covecs summary costs of waste collection to 2011 dollars
Page 190 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

44
2 Calculate costs by first principles using the assumptions above.
Method 1: Inflation
The table below summarises the costs derived by adjusting for inflation. The costs in $/truck pa are
calculated by inflating the Covec costs of waste collection over four years from 2007 to 2011. The $/tonne
and $/km are calculated from the $/truck pa figure assuming a truck collects 3,750 tonnes pa and travels
111 km per day (as per Covec).
Method 1: Estimated cost of waste collection in 2011 adjusted for inflation
Bag Bin
$/truck pa $/tonne $/ km $/truck pa $/tonne $ / km
Trucks 53,638 14.30 1.86 53,638 14.30 1.86
Bags/bins 58,738 15.66 2.04 34,803 9.28 1.21
Labour 85,614 22.83 2.97 69,417 18.51 2.41
Fuel 13,016 3.47 0.45 13,016 3.47 0.45
Total 211,006 56.27 7.31 170,874 45.57 5.92
Source: Covec, Ernst & Young

In this method, the calculated benchmark cost is approximately:
f $5.90/km for bin collection
f $7.30/km for bag collection
Method 2: additional adjustments for fuel and bin/bag costs
Whilst inflation adjustment is helpful we considered that this benchmark analysis would benefit from
adjustments to key assumptions. The key adjusted assumptions are:
f Diesel price from $0.9 per litre adjusted to $1.5 per litre
f Bag cost from 12 cents adjusted to 15cents as per discussions with Auckland Council
f The other assumptions have been inflation adjusted:
truck acquisition and maintenance costs
bin cost
$/t assumption for bag and bin
labour costs
The results of these adjustments are set out below.
Page 191 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

45
Method 2: Estimated cost of waste collection in 2011
Bag Bin
$/truck pa
17
$/tonne $/ km $/truck pa $/tonne $ / km
Trucks 53,307 14.2 1.85 53,307 14.2 1.85
Bags/bins 68,640 20.0 2.38 50,346 10.6 1.74
Labour 85,614 22.8 2.97 69,417 18.5 2.41
Fuel 19,481 5.2 0.68 19,481 5.2 0.68
Total 227,042 62.24 7.87 192,551 48.49 6.67
Source: Covec, Ernst & Young
In calculating the costs in the table above we made the following assumptions:
f The acquisition cost of the truck is depreciated over a seven year life applying the double declining
balance method (as per Covec calculations)
f Each household uses one bag per week
f Each household has one bin, the cost of which is split equally over a seven year life
f Diesel price is $1.50 per litre
f A truck collects 3,750 tonnes per annum
f A truck travels 111km per day.
In this method, the calculated benchmark cost is approximately:
f $6.70/km for bin collection
f $7.90/km for bag collection
The increase in benchmark cost from method 1 is mainly due to higher fuel cost assumptions and higher
calculated costs for bins.
We have applied these benchmark costs calculated by method 2 in our case study.
Benchmark cost cross-check
We undertook a benchmark cross-check to substantiate our assumptions.
We looked at the cost of collection to disposal figures published in An investigation into Methods of
Garbage Handling by The University of British Columbia, April 2010 (UBC) and used the UBC figures in
order to cross check the benchmark cost derived from the Covec numbers above. UBC used the following
cost assumptions. Note the costs are in Canadian dollars.

17
$/truck pa assuming a truck collects 3,750 tonnes pa and travels 111km per day
UBC assumptions for the cost of waste collection in CAD
UBC (CAD $)
Trucks
Truck ($/truck) 175,000
Lifetime of truck (yrs) 15
Bins
Bin ($) 267,000
Life (yrs) 15
Labour
Driver and runner ($ / truck pa) 80,000
Fuel
Fuel ($/truck pa) 30,000
Source: UBC

Page 192 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

46
Below is a chart of the historical exchange rate between the Canadian dollar and New Zealand dollar. For
this case study we have assumed an exchange rate of 1.38 NZD/CAD.
Historical exchange rate for New Zealand and Canadian Dollars
Source: www.xe.com

The table to the left shows the calculated benchmark cost/truck/pa using the UBC assumptions (bins only).
The UBC derived cost is lower for trucks and bins than the Covec derived cost (being depreciated over
twice the assumed lifespan) and higher for labour and fuel. Nevertheless, the total UBC benchmark cost of
$209,024/truck/pa is only 8.6% higher than the benchmark cost derived from the Covec assumptions for
bins using method 2 above ($192,551/ truck/pa). It is less than 0.5% different from the average benchmark
cost derived from the Covec assumptions for bins and bags using method 2 above ($209,796/truck/pa).
The UBC figures demonstrate that the benchmark cost we have used is in the right ballpark.

Estimated cost of waste collection in 2011 derived from UBC
figures and converted into NZD
NZD$ / truck / pa
Trucks 32,660
Bins 24,564
Labour 110,400
Fuel 41,400
Total
209,024
Source: UBC, Ernst & Young

Page 193 of 591

Appendix B : Case study details

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx
47
Appendix B
Case study details
Page 194 of 591

Case study details
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

48
Table of average collection areas, midpoints and indicative cost savings per trip
Region Truck (if
applicable)
Day (if
applicable)
Area code Area description Midpoint (street address) Closest RTS Address of
closest RTS
Proposed
distance
(kms)
Current disposal
(per Council GPS
data)
Current
disposal
address
Current
distance
(kms)
Kms
saved
Cost per
km ($ /
km)
Indicative
cost savings
per trip ($)
Kms / tonne to
bulk haul
landfill
North Shore n/a n/a NS1 Northcote,
Birkenhead, Beach
Haven, Glenfield
237 Glenfield Rd, Hillcrest Constellation Drive 4 Home Place,
Mairangi Bay
6.6 Redvale Landfill Access
Road, Dairy Flat
20.7 14.1 7.9 111 0.6
North Shore n/a n/a NS2 Devonport Takapuna 66 Anzac St, Takapuna Devonport 27 Lake Road,
Devonport
Road, Dairy Flat
24.0 19.2 7.9 151 1.1
North Shore n/a n/a NS3 Albany, Greenhithe 170 Albany Highway,
Greenhithe
Rosedale 101 Rosedale
Road, North
Shore
Road, Dairy Flat
17.1 10.2 7.9 80 0.6
North Shore n/a n/a NS4 East Coast Bays 115 Sunrise Avenue,
Murrays Bay
Constellation Drive 4 Home Place,
Mairangi Bay
Road, Dairy Flat
16.6 13.9 7.9 109.35 0.6
East Auckland n/a n/a EASingle Royal Oak, Ellerslie,
St Johns, St Heliers
2 Grand Drive, Remuera Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
6.1 Wiri 196 Wiri Station
Road, Wiri
19.4 13.3 6.7 88.74 0.0
East Auckland ABZ901 Mon EA1 Epsom 1 Cornwall Park Avenue,
Epsom
Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
19.0 12.0 6.7 80 0.0
East Auckland ABZ909 Mon EA2 Remuera / Greenlane 1 Risk Avenue, Greenlane Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
19.2 12.5 6.7 83 0.0
East Auckland ABZ903 Mon EA3 Ellerslie 100 Somerfield St, Ellerslie Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
16.2 8.5 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ910 Mon EA4 Ellerslie 1 Raphoe Place Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
17.3 11.3 6.7 75 0.0
East Auckland ABZ905 Mon EA5 One Tree Hill 1 Gladwin Road Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
17.3 13.4 6.7 89 0.0
East Auckland ABZ906 Mon EA6 Oranga 1 Tawhiri Road, One Tree
Hill
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
17.7 14.5 6.7 97 0.0
East Auckland ABZ907 Mon EA7 Royal Oak 1 Viewland Ave, Royal Oak Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
15.6 11.2 6.7 75 0.0
East Auckland ABZ908 Mon EA8 Oranga, Royal Oak,
One Tree Hill
1 Garside Place, Oranga Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
17.8 15.1 6.7 101 0.0
East Auckland ABZ901 Tue EA9 Otahuhu 1 Water Street, Otahuhu Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
9.9 3.2 6.7 21 0.0
East Auckland ABZ902 Tue EA10 Otahuhu 1 Hall Avenue, Otahuhu Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa

Road, Wiri
8.8 2.8 6.7 19 0.0
Page 195 of 591

Case study details
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

49
Region Truck (if
applicable)
Day (if
applicable)
closest RTS
Proposed
distance
(kms)
Current disposal
(per Council GPS
data)
Current
disposal
address
Current
distance
(kms)
Kms
saved
Cost per
km ($ /
km)
Indicative
cost savings
per trip ($)
Kms / tonne to
bulk haul
landfill
East Auckland ABZ903 Tue EA11 Otahuhu 1 Luke St, Otahuhu Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
10.4 4.7 6.7 31 0.0
East Auckland ABZ910 Tue EA12 Mount Wellington /
Otahuhu
1 Te Apunga Place,
Westfield
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
14.1 8.4 6.7 56 0.0
East Auckland ABZ905 Tue EA13 Te Papapa/Penrose 1 Edinburgh St, Onehunga Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
15.6 14.4 6.7 96 0.0
East Auckland ABZ906 Tue EA14 Onehunga 1 Waller St, Onehunga Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
13.6 11.9 6.7 79 0.0
East Auckland ABZ907 Tue EA15 Royal Oak, Onehunga 100 Selwyn St, Onehunga Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
14.1 11.9 6.7 79 0.0
East Auckland ABZ908 Tue EA16 Ellerslie 1 Stanway Place, Ellerslie Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
16.0 12.6 6.7 84 0.0
East Auckland ABZ901 Wed EA17 Mt Wellington 1 Bean Place, Mt
Wellington
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
13.2 7.2 6.7 48 0.0
East Auckland ABZ902 Wed EA18 Mt Wellington 1 Malone Road, Panmure Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
13.8 7.5 6.7 50 0.0
East Auckland ABZ909 Wed EA19 Mt Wellington 1 Reliable Way, Mt
Wellington
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
14.9 10.1 6.7 67 0.0
East Auckland ABZ910 Wed EA20 Mt Wellington 1 Tidey Road, Mt
Wellington
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
15.2 8.1 6.7 54 0.0
East Auckland ABZ905 Wed EA21 Tamaki/Panmure 50 Court Crescent,
Panmure
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
16.2 7.4 6.7 49 0.0
East Auckland ABZ906 Wed EA22 Tamaki 1 Tobruk Road, Panmure Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
16.9 7.6 6.7 51 0.0
East Auckland ABZ907 Wed EA23 Wai o Taiki Bay, Glen
Innes, Point England
1 Aveline Place, Glen Innes Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
19.1 7.7 6.7 51 0.0
East Auckland ABZ908 Wed EA24 St Johns 1 Delemere Place, Glen
Innes
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
18.4 7.6 6.7 51 0.0
East Auckland ABZ901 Thu EA25 Oraki 1 Apihai Street, Orakei Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
22.0 8.6 6.7 57 0.0
Page 196 of 591

Case study details
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

50
Region Truck (if
applicable)
Day (if
applicable)
closest RTS
Proposed
distance
(kms)
Current disposal
(per Council GPS
data)
Current
disposal
address
Current
distance
(kms)
Kms
saved
Cost per
km ($ /
km)
Indicative
cost savings
per trip ($)
Kms / tonne to
bulk haul
landfill
East Auckland ABZ902 Thu EA26 Mission Bay 1 Dudley Road, Mission
Bay
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
22.8 8.5 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ909 Thu EA27 Mission Bay /
Kohimarama
1 Holgate Road, Mission
Bay
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
23.9 8.5 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ904 Thu EA28 Kohimarama 100 Southern Cross Road,
Kohimarama
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
24.0 8.5 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ905 Thu EA29 St Heliers 1 Kaimata St, St Heliers Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
25.1 8.6 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ906 Thu EA30 Kohimarama 1 Summerhill Place,
Kohimarama
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
24.0 8.6 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ907 Thu EA31 Glendowie 1 Cranbrook Place,
Glendowie
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
20.3 3.5 6.7 23 0.0
East Auckland ABZ910 Thu EA32 St Heliers 1 Waimarie Street, St
Heliers
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
25.8 8.5 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ909 Fri EA33 Remuera 1 Hapua St, Remuera Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
21.3 8.5 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ902 Fri EA34 Remuera 1 Aldred Road, Remuera Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
19.3 8.5 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ903 Fri EA35 Remuera 1 Kitiwara Road, Remuera Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
19.2 8.5 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ904 Fri EA36 Epsom/Remuera 1 Mainston Road Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
18.7 8.5 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ905 Fri EA37 Meadowbank 1 Dover Place,
Meadowbank
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
20.4 8.5 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ906 Fri EA38 St Johns Park 1 Coldham Crescent, St
Johns Park
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
17.4 8.5 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ907 Fri EA39 Meadowbank, St
Johns Park, St Johns
1 Archdall St, Meadowbank Pikes Point 81 Captain
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
21.1 8.5 6.7 57 0.0
East Auckland ABZ910 Fri EA40 St Johns / Remuera 1 Howard Hunter Ave, St
Johns
Springs Road,
Te Papapa
Road, Wiri
18.4 4.2 6.7 28.02 0.0
Page 197 of 591

Case study details
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

51
Region Truck (if
applicable)
Day (if
applicable)
closest RTS
Proposed
distance
(kms)
Current disposal
(per Council GPS
data)
Current
disposal
address
Current
distance
(kms)
Kms
saved
Cost per
km ($ /
km)
Indicative
cost savings
per trip ($)
Kms / tonne to
bulk haul
landfill
Waitakere n/a n/a WTK1 Massey, Te Atatu,
Henderson, Glen
Eden, Titirangi
4 Lincoln Road, Henderson Waitakere Refuse
and Recycling
Station
50 The
Concourse,
Henderson
3.6 Waitakere Refuse and
Recycling Station
50 The
Concourse,
Henderson
3.6 0.0 7.9 0.00 0.0
Waitakere n/a n/a WTK2 Swanson, Henderson
Valley, Bethells
Beach, Piha
228 Mountain Road,
Henderson Valley
Waitakere Refuse
and Recycling
Station
50 The
Concourse,
Henderson
15.2 Waitakere Refuse and
Recycling Station
50 The
Concourse,
Henderson
15.2 0.0 7.9 0.00 0.0
Source: Auckland Council, http://www.wises.co.nz, Covec, Ernst & Young
Ref: Average collection areas and indicative cost savings per trip - Section AN Analysis

Table of East Auckland routes and transport savings
Route Truck Collection area Collection
area code
Tonnage Kms Trip to Wiri TS 1
(mins)
Trip to Wiri TS
2 (mins)
Fuel
(litres)
Hours Day No of
trips
Kms saved per trip
to RTS
Total kms
saved
Time saved per trip
(hours)
Time saved
(hours)
Cost per km ($
/ km)
Indicative
cost
savings ($)
1 ABZ901 Remuera / Greenlane EA1 15 113 21 22 103 12 Mon 2 18.0 36 0.1 0.2 7.3 264.2
2 ABZ909 Remuera / Greenlane EA2 17 131 15 32 129 12 Mon 2 18.8 38 0.1 0.2 7.3 275.2
3 ABZ903 Ellerslie EA3 18 117 21 21 137 11 Mon 2 12.8 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 187.1
4 ABZ910 Ellerslie EA4 16 113 14 23 219 10 Mon 2 17.0 34 0.1 0.2 7.3 248.8
5 ABZ905 One Tree Hill EA5 17 105 15 26 112 8 Mon 2 20.1 40 0.2 0.4 7.3 295.0
6 ABZ906 Oranga EA6 15 115 n/a n/a 220 10 Mon 2 21.8 44 0.2 0.4 7.3 319.3
7 ABZ907 Royal Oak EA7 15 100 21 34 103 10 Mon 2 16.8 34 0.2 0.3 7.3 246.6
8 ABZ908
Oranga, Royal Oak, One
Tree Hill EA8 18 147 34 26 267 12 Mon 2 22.7 45 0.2 0.5 7.3 332.5
9 ABZ901 Otahuhu EA9 15 107 18 21 83 12 Tue 2 4.8 10 - - 7.3 70.5
10 ABZ902 Otahuhu EA10 20 158 11 32 200 12 Tue 2 4.2 8 0.1 0.2 7.3 61.6
11 ABZ903 Otahuhu EA11 22 92 14 18 111 11 Tue 2 7.1 14 0.1 0.1 7.3 103.5
12 ABZ910 Mount Wellington / Otahuhu EA12 19 100 15 22 107 11 Tue 2 12.6 25 0.1 0.3 7.3 184.9
13 ABZ905 Te Papapa/Penrose EA13 20 134 11 25 149 9 Tue 2 21.6 43 0.3 0.5 7.3 317.0
14 ABZ906 Onehunga EA14 17 103 10 12 90 11 Tue 2 17.9 36 0.2 0.5 7.3 262.0
15 ABZ907 Royal Oak, Onehunga EA15 18 116 11 14 120 11 Tue 2 17.9 36 0.2 0.4 7.3 262.0
16 ABZ908 Ellerslie EA16 17 124 44 24 141 12 Tue 2 18.9 38 0.2 0.3 7.3 277.4
17 ABZ901 Mt Wellington EA17 22 132 15 15 126 11 Wed 3 12.0 36 0.1 0.3 7.3 264.2
19 ABZ909 Mt Wellington / Ellerslie EA19 19 103 n/a n/a 134 10 Wed 2 15.2 30 0.1 0.3 7.3 222.4
21 ABZ905 Panmure EA21 21 101 25 34 117 8 Wed 2 11.1 22 0.1 0.1 7.3 162.9
22 ABZ906 Tamaki EA22 20 117 24 29 117 10 Wed 2 11.4 23 0.1 0.1 7.3 167.3
23 ABZ907
Wai o Taiki Bay, Glen
Innes, Point England EA23 15 124 21 27 139 10 Wed 2 11.6 23 0.1 0.1 7.3 169.5
24 ABZ908 St Johns EA24 17 128 28 38 133 10 Wed 2 11.4 23 0.1 0.1 7.3 167.3
25 ABZ901 Oraki EA25 12 139 35 25 122 9 Thu 2 12.9 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 189.3
Page 198 of 591

Case study details
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

52
area code
Tonnage Kms Trip to Wiri TS 1
(mins)
Trip to Wiri TS
2 (mins)
Fuel
(litres)
Hours Day No of
trips
Kms saved per trip
to RTS
Total kms
saved
Time saved per trip
(hours)
Time saved
(hours)
Cost per km ($
/ km)
Indicative
cost
savings ($)
26 ABZ902 Mission Bay EA26 15 144 27 35 123 11 Thu 2 12.8 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 187.1
27 ABZ909 Mission Bay / Kohimarara EA27 16 130 25 27 132 12 Thu 2 12.8 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 187.1
28 ABZ904 Kohimarama EA28 12 140 30 30 147 12 Thu 2 12.8 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 187.1
29 ABZ905 St Heliers EA29 16 96 26 38 117 6 Thu 2 12.9 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 189.3
30 ABZ906 Kohimarama EA30 16 126 31 39 112 12 Thu 2 12.9 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 189.3
31 ABZ907 Glendowie EA31 14 153 29 25 - 10 Thu 2 5.3 11 0.1 0.2 7.3 77.1
32 ABZ910 St Heliers EA32 15 146 29 32 141 12 Thu 2 12.8 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 187.1
33 ABZ909 Remuera EA33 15 123 25 60 124 11 Fri 2 12.8 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 187.1
36 ABZ904 Epsom/Remuera EA36 13 118 18 29 124 12 Fri 2 12.8 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 187.1
37 ABZ905 Meadowbank EA37 15 112 19 32 110 7 Fri 2 12.8 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 187.1
38 ABZ906 St Johns Park EA38 15 142 19 0 - 11 Fri 2 12.8 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 187.1
39 ABZ907
Meadowbank, St Johns
Park, St Johns EA39 7 126 23 44 251 10 Fri 2 12.8 26 0.1 0.2 7.3 187.1
40 ABZ910 St Johns / Remuera EA40 16 142 25 37 128 11 Fri 2 6.3 13 0.1 0.2 7.3 92.5
Total (for last week of Feb 2011) 658 4,926 5,219 420 724 1,090 8,001
Total (annualised) 34,218 256,142 271,378 21,850 37,669 56,690 416,056
Percentage kilometre savings (%) 14.7% 22.1%
Source: Auckland Council, Covec, Ernst & Young, http://www.wises.co.nz
Ref: East Auckland routes (40 average collection points) - Section AN - Analysis

Table of North Shore routes and transport savings
area code
Landfill Tonnage Kms Hours Day No of
trips
Kms saved
per trip to
RTS
Add kms bulk
haul from RTS
to landfill
Kms
saved
Cost per
km ($ /
km)
Indicative
cost
savings ($)
n/a
CWP543 Birkenhead, Chatswood NS1 Redvale 8.74 131.5 9:48 Mon 1 14.1 5.5 8.6
8.7
75
n/a
CWP543 Beach Haven, Coatesville NS1 Redvale 14.68 183.5 10:52 Tue 2 21.2 9.2 33.1
8.7
286
n/a
CWP543 Northcote NS1 Redvale 12.5 147 10:06 Wed 2 21.2 7.9 34.5
8.7
298
n/a
CWP543 Mairangi Bay NS4 Redvale 9.16 116.1 10:05 Thu 1 13.9 5.8 8.1
8.7
71
n/a
CWP543 Sunnynook NS4 Redvale 11.84 109.9 7:22 Fri 2 20.9 7.4 34.3
8.7
297
n/a
CYK705 Unsworth Heights NS1 Redvale 15.54 198 10:56 Mon 2 21.2 9.8 32.5
8.7
282
n/a
CYW184 Paremoremo, Albany, Schnapper Rock NS3 Redvale 14.1 274.5 17:02 Mon 2 15.3 8.3 22.3
8.7
193
n/a
CYW184 Torbay NS4 Redvale 17.58 189.2 16:38 Tue 3 23.2 11.0 58.5
8.7
506
n/a
CYW184 Browns Bay NS4 Redvale 8.6 53 10:09 Wed 1 13.9 5.4 8.5
8.7
74
n/a
CYW184 Greenhithe NS3 Redvale 6.78 138.3 10:21 Thu 1 10.2 4.0 6.2
8.7
54
Page 199 of 591

Case study details
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

53
area code
Landfill Tonnage Kms Hours Day No of
trips
Kms saved
per trip to
RTS
Add kms bulk
haul from RTS
to landfill
Kms
saved
Cost per
km ($ /
km)
Indicative
cost
savings ($)
n/a
CZK53 Stanley Point, Devonport, Fairview Heights NS2 Redvale 14.28 195 11:35 Mon 2 28.8 15.5 42.1
8.7
364
n/a
CZK53 Devonport, Narrow Neck NS2 Redvale 16.14 192.1 9:44 Tue 2 28.8 17.5 40.1
8.7
347
n/a
CZK53 Hillcrest NS1 Redvale 13.7 289 17:26 Wed 2 21.2 8.6 33.7
8.7
292
n/a
CZK53 Forrest Hill, Milford, Takapuna NS2 Redvale 18.4 246.9 17:17 Thu 2 28.8 19.9 37.7
8.7
326
n/a
CZK53 Totara Vale NS1 Redvale 14.82 167.7 10:00 Fri 2 21.2 9.3 33.0
8.7
286
n/a
CZN191 Northcote Point, Birkenhead NS1 Redvale 13.58 258.9 11:17 Mon 2 21.2 8.5 33.8
8.7
292
n/a
CZN191 Birkdale NS1 Redvale 15.04 167 8:45 Tue 2 21.2 9.4 32.9
8.7
284
n/a
CZN191 Browns Bay, Rothesay Bay NS4 Redvale 7.94 166.1 10:53 Wed 1 13.9 5.0 8.9
8.7
77
n/a
CZN191 Riverhead, Coatesville, Glenfield NS1 Redvale 16.7 202.3 11:03 Thu 2 21.2 10.5 31.8
8.7
275
n/a
CZN191 Forrest Hill NS1 Redvale 18.12 228.9 10:10 Fri 3 23.5 11.4 59.1
8.7
512
n/a
DSK225 Devonport, Torbay, Long Bay NS4 Redvale 13.5 168.6 11:11 Mon 2 20.9 8.5 33.2
8.7
287
n/a
DSK225 Torbay, Waiake NS4 Redvale 14.76 134.4 9:55 Tue 2 20.9 9.3 32.4
8.7
281
n/a
DSK225 Takapuna, Hauraki NS2 Redvale 9.08 129.3 10:03 Wed 1 19.2 9.8 9.4
8.7
81
n/a
DSK225 Glenfield NS1 Redvale 18.16 149.4 10:05 Thu 2 21.2 11.4 30.9
8.7
267
n/a
DSK225 Castor Bay, Milford NS4 Redvale 12.28 140.2 8:56 Fri 2 20.9 7.7 34.0
8.7
294
n/a
DSD 258 Albany, Pinehill, Oteha, Browns Bay NS4 Redvale 6.06 120.8 10:31 Wed 1 13.9 3.8 10.1
8.7
87
n/a
DSD 258 Mairangi Bay, Campbells Bay, Castor Bay, Sunnynook NS4 Redvale 14.06 153.1 10:59 Thu 2 20.9 8.8 32.9
8.7
284
n/a
DSD 258 Coatesville, Bayview, Glenfield NS1 Redvale 14.16 149 8:15 Fri 2 21.2 8.9 33.4
8.7
289
n/a
EZJ198 Albany, Paremoremo, Birkenhead, Northcote NS1 Redvale 3.62 185.4 14:12 Mon 1 14.1 2.3 11.8
8.7
102
n/a
EZJ198 Torbay, Browns Bay, Northcross, Beach Haven, Belmont NS1 Redvale 8.3 198.4 10:52 Tue 2 21.2 5.2 37.1
8.7
321
n/a
EZJ198 Hillcrest, Northcote, Takapuna NS1 Redvale 3.2 196 10:27 Wed 1 14.1 2.0 12.1
8.7
105
n/a
EZJ198 Milford, Castor & Mairangi Bays, Forrest Hill, Glenfield, Greenhithe NS4 Redvale 6.42 200.7 11:12 Thu 2 20.9 4.0 37.7
8.7
326
n/a
EZJ198 Milford, Takapuna, Forrest Hill, Rosedale, Glenfield NS1 Redvale 5.24 172.1 9:46 Fri 2 21.2 3.3 39.0
8.7
338
n/a DKG133 Forrest Hill NS4 Redvale 6:43 64 3:40 Fri 1 13.9 3.3 10.6
8.7
92
n/a
FKH853 Beach Haven NS1 Redvale 6.0 67.7 Tues 1
14.1 3.8 10.3
8.7
89
Total (for last week of Feb 2011) 5,884
683 974 8,433
Total (annualised) 305,968
35,493 50,672 438,505
Percentage kilometre savings (%)
16.6%
Source: Auckland Council, Covec, Ernst & Young, http://www.wises.co.nz
Ref: North Shore routes (4 average collection points) - Section AN Analysis

Page 200 of 591

Appendix C : Assumptions

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

54
Appendix C
Assumptions
Page 201 of 591

Assumptions
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

55
Case study assumptions
The following assumptions have been discussed and agreed with you and are included in the quantitative
case study of potential transport efficiencies.
Benchmark cost of waste collection in city locations
f Assumptions for benchmark cost are detailed in Appendix B.
Data sample
f Waste collection and disposal from 21 to 25 February 2011 is a typical week, and it is reasonable to be
able to extrapolate data for this week over a year
RTS and landfills
f No new RTS or landfill locations can be created
f Unlimited capacity for receipt of waste at RTS and landfill exists
f The address for Rosedale Road Transfer Station is 101 Rosedale Road, North Shore
Activity / loads
f No consideration in relation to optimisation of collection day areas or ensuring each truck disposes a full
load at each trip has been made.
f Truck payload for bulk haul to landfill is 25 tonnes
Distance
f Driving distances are based on Wises website figures (www.wises.co.nz)
Indicative cost savings
f No distance savings are assumed for trips to and from the yard.
f Only the distance saved is considered in quantitative indicative cost savings case study. Any change in
travel time due to shorter driving distance is not considered separately.
f Time saved from a potentially shorter time spent at RTS compared to landfill is not factored into the
indicative cost savings case study.
f The number of bins collected in East Auckland for the week 21 to 25 February 2011 in the data provided
is the same as the number of households in the East Auckland area (used as a basis for extrapolation to
the wider Auckland region as this figure is not available from NZ statistics).
Page 202 of 591

Assumptions
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

56
f Annualised weight of waste collected in East Auckland for the week 21 to 25 February 2011 is used as a
basis for extrapolation to the wider Auckland region as this figure is not available from NZ statistics.
Bulk haul
f Assume East Auckland and Waitakere bulk haul from the RTS to the closest landfill.
Bags or bins
f Assume same waste receptacle is used as actual for the week 21 to 25 February 2011
Households
f Assume all residential households in the three case study areas use Council waste services. This is true
for East Auckland as all households are provided with bins by the Council. In Waitakere and North Shore
official Council waste bags are available for purchase at supermarkets and other outlets. Some
households in North Shore (and possibly Waitakere) pay for private waste operator bins instead of using
Council waste bags.

Page 203 of 591

Appendix D : Sources of information

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

57
Appendix D
Sources of information
Page 204 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

58
References
The following resources were consulted during development of this report:
f ACWA, Auckland Council
f Report of the Royal Commission Solid Waste section
f "Recycling: Cost Benefit Analysis", Ministry for the Environment Report, April 2007
f An investigation into Methods of Garbage Handling by The University of British Columbia, April 2010
Data collected from Auckland Council
East Auckland data for 21 to 25 February 2011
f Excel workbook entitled 21-25TH February 2011 Auckland Council 30032011.xls, date 3/4/2011 size
39kB
f ACC collection route maps Monday runs 1 to 8: Pdf document entitled img-3301333-0001.pdf, date
30/3/2011, size 10.534MB
f ACC collection route maps Tuesday runs 9 to 16: Pdf document entitled img-3301334-0001.pdf, date
30/3/2011, size 9.133MB
f ACC collection route maps Wednesday runs 17 to 24: Pdf document entitled img-3301336-0001.pdf,
date 30/3/2011, size 10.338MB
f ACC collection route maps Thursday runs 25 to 32: Pdf document entitled img-3301337-0001.pdf,
date 30/3/2011, size 8.604MB
f ACC collection route maps Friday runs 33 to 40: Pdf document entitled img-3301340-0001.pdf, date
30/3/2011, size 12.548MB
North Shore data for 21 to 25 February 2011
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - CWP543.xls, date 29/3/2011 size
728kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - CYW184.xls, date 31/3/2011 size
794kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - CZK53.xls, date 28/3/2011 size 877kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - CZN191.xls, date 31/3/2011 size 817kB
Page 205 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

59
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - DSD258.xls, date 29/3/2011 size
651kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - EZJ198(Lane).xls, date 28/3/2011 size
796kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle- DSK225.xls, date 31/3/2011 size 731kB
f Weight data at Redvale landfill for CCW from 21 to 25 February 2011 for CCW: Excel workbook entitled
graemeacnthshore25feb11.xls, date 28/3/2011 size 22kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled FKH853 21-26 FEB.xls, date 5/4/2011 size 1,297kB
Waitakere data for 21 to 25 February 2011
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle- DSK225.xls, date 28/3/2011 size 731kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - DTF863.xls, date 28/3/2011 size 346kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - DKG133.xls, date 31/3/2011 size
611kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - DHE950.xls, date 31/3/2011 size
664kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - CZN191.xls, date 28/3/2011 size 817kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - CZK53.xls, date 28/3/2011 size 877kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - CYK705.xls, date /293/2011 size 783kB
f GPS data: Excel workbook entitled Activity Report By Vehicle - CWP543.xls, date 29/3/2011 size
728kB
f Weight data at Waitakere refuse and recycling centre for domestic CCW: Excel workbook entitled 21-25
February 2011 WCC Dom.csv, date 28/3/2011 size 7kB
f Weight data at Waitakere refuse and recycling centre for commercial CCW: Excel workbook entitled 21-
25 February 2011 WCC Com.csv, date 28/3/2011 size 2kB
North Shore and Waitakere data
f Excel workbook entitled Onyx Fleet List.xls, date 28/3/2011 size 22kB
Page 206 of 591

Appendix E : Previous studies and consultations

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

60
Appendix E
Previous studies and consultations
Page 207 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

61
Previous consultation with industry experts
During development of the ACWA document, the Council engaged in consultation with waste industry
stakeholders. While the full consultation is included in the document, the key relevant points from this
consultation are summarised below. A range of different views were provided:
f Industry points of view
Current collection/transfer station market is viewed as inefficient by some parties - even with
swapping arrangements (it would be worse without swapping arrangements)
Pikes Pt transfer station is in a good location but it is under-utilised. It is not serving the local area -
local waste is transported to more distant transfer stations and as a result there have been difficulties
maintaining payload weights at the facility - it takes only minor CCW but has the capacity to take all
the local area's waste. The existing agreements need to be improved
Regionally coordinated use of the existing transfer stations for a resource recovery centre network is
a good idea
Competition for Council kerbside collection services and private sector commercial and industrial
services is strong and creates an efficient market through competitive pricing
Landfill gate rates calibrated too low - which undermines waste reduction.
Landfilling is the most efficient and effective way to deal with waste. Council should only be dealing
with the waste that it controls.
With respect to collection contracts the most efficient way is to provide services via either the private
market or on a contractual basis with Council. Council should limit their direct involvement.
For collections, the private sector is best placed to deliver these services - there is already
competition encouraging this market efficiency. For collection, Low Entry Vehicles need to be used
with driver sorting if required, runners on the street is not appropriate.
Meetings undertaken by Ernst & Young
We have met with the following parties during our analysis:
f Steve Drumm, Auckland Council
f Jon Roscoe, Auckland Council
f Warwick Jaine, Auckland Council
f Stuart Gane Auckland Council
Page 208 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

62
f Bruce Middleton, WasteNot Consulting
f Duncan Wilson, Eumonia Consulting
f Various private sector waste service providers and operators

Page 209 of 591

Appendix F : Auckland non Council Controlled Waste Transport review - work programme assessment questionnaire

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

63
Appendix F
Auckland non Council Controlled Waste Transport review - work programme assessment questionnaire
Page 210 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

64
Auckland non Council Controlled Waste Transport review - work programme assessment
questionnaire
Responses to the questions below were considered in tandem with the information detailed in the recorded
consultations set out in the Auckland Waste Assessment
Industry questionnaire
Category and question Response
Collection and disposal arrangements (with Auckland Council and other parties)
f What is the perception of possible transport inefficiencies in existing
operations based on current waste collection/drop off/disposal
Council controlled waste Other Bulk haulage
Collection and disposal: Council Controlled Waste
f What impact could a change in collection contracts across the Auckland
region have on waste transport/logistics costs:
Assuming landfill/transfer station arrangements stay as they are
Assuming landfill/transfer arrangements change:
via reduction in number
via change in control
by way of more centrally located assets
Could the Council influence journeys through new standards and
policies (e.g. regulations)?
How do you price in journeys to transfer stations/landfills in current
CCW contract pricing?
f What assumptions are applied re disposal point?
Transport Costs (where applicable, following our discussions, could data be collected in an specific area / period on which we could therefore base a case study)
f Is there a benchmark cost of waste transportation per kilometre travelled
(or other metric please state) that you are aware of:
General
Mixed bag (if data is known)
Mixed bin (if data is known)
Bulk haulage
f Is there an average of typical truck size collection load / what is it.
What type of truck
What proportion of waste is collected in that size truck
Council controlled waste Other Bulk haulage
Waste volume and tonnage
f Would you be able to provide an area case study breakdown of data
capturing average collection point, transported waste volume and disposal
point (transfer station, landfill, etc) for a day / week for an Auckland area.

Swapping arrangements
f Describe how swapping arrangements typically work
Are they taking place between vehicles going to opposing companies
transfer stations, landfills or both
What proportion of swapping relates to bulk haulage
Transfer station Landfill
f To what extent do you feel the swapping arrangements you have in place
work effectively?
Page 211 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

65
f If the Council controlled transfer stations and required waste to be
channelled through transfer stations, what impact would this have on
swapping arrangements?
Landfills / transfer stations and waste journey interfaces
f Are the landfills you currently transport / dispose of waste to necessarily
the closest/conveniently-located, i.e. could transport costs be reduced by
using alternate landfill/transfer stations closer by?
f Do you have loyalty arrangements in place regarding disposal to transfer
stations/landfill?
f What are they?
f What visibility is there in respect of whether trucks go via transfer stations
or straight to landfill?
Who makes the decision of where trucks go
What is the criteria which determines where trucks go

Page 212 of 591

Appendix G : Detailed description of transfer station optimisation approaches

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

66
Appendix G
Detailed description of transfer station optimisation approaches
Page 213 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

67
Approach
The approach would use and replicate actual volumes by day/week and simulates how each collection
round and RTS trip could be conducted, looking to optimise performance as a whole. The model would
therefore seek to optimise vehicle collection routes and refuse transfer overall.
Optimising the operation and ensuring operational practicality
The approach would be based on generating actual schedules that consider both the individual collections
and refuse transfer under many different potential situations and operating circumstances. As well as
ensuring that the prior higher level analysis is accurate and that the proposed approach can be operated in
practice, it helps to find the optimal routing and scheduling to establish the maximum benefits. It also
identifies and underpins how the required changes can be implemented and begins the process of
identifying actual revised schedules. We have also used such tools to demonstrate to sceptics that new
arrangements can work, which is often a valuable aid in what can be politically or emotionally charged
debates.
As might be expected, such an approach requires a much greater degree of data than the higher level
approach. At the least, it will require start and end points of existing collection rounds and expected
volumes for an analysis that keeps the rounds as at present. To take full advantage of the opportunity, it
will require more detail of the individual rounds to identify how they may be re-composed optimally and
assigned to RTS locations under the Auckland Council entity.
To carry out the work, we would use a specialised vehicle scheduling tool that generates routes and
schedules based on the real road network of an area and incorporates well-tested algorithms that produce
optimised solutions whilst obeying all operational constraints. There are a number of such tools available
and we would be happy to consider using any that you wish, though our initial preference would be to use
Paragon (http://www.paragonrouting.com/uk).
As an example of look and feel of these tools, area to depot assignment and individual route screenshots
from other projects are shown below.
Page 214 of 591

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

68
Assignment of depots to areas and creating of actual street level routes

Once the data has been set up and the model calibrated, it would be very easy to run many scenarios and
many more other investigations (e.g. restrictions on access to Auckland CBD by time of day, revising day of
week or frequency of collections in specific areas, whether different summer and winter schedules may be
of benefit, etc).

Page 215 of 591

Appendix H : Ernst & Young work plan: waste transport inefficiencies

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

69
Appendix H
Ernst & Young work plan: waste transport inefficiencies
Page 216 of 591

Appendix H : Ernst & Young work plan: waste transport inefficiencies
31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

70
Approach
Our phased approach to this work was discussed and agreed with you throughout the engagement and is
outlined in the diagram below.
Source: EYTAS
Step 2: Data analysis
(week 3)
X Focus on data set for case
study of selected CCW route(s)
Compare actual kms with
optimal kms
Primary estimate of savings
X Extrapolation of scenarios.
Potential ranges of robustness
considered
X Consider other factors that
impact inefficiencies, e.g.
schedules, time, emissions,
road damage
X Analyse data for wider solid
waste
X Review swap arrangements
X Internal validation of work
undertaken
Step 4: Reporting
(week 4)
X Present analysis and scenarios,
for CCW. Present analysis and
scenarios of full assessment
(data permitting)
X Contrast findings
X Incorporate feedback from
Steve Drummand Jon Roscoe
into final report
X Draft reporting
X Final reporting
Step 3: Discussions with
third parties (focusing
on CCW and overall
solid waste transport)
(week 3/4)
X Interviews with key industry
participants
X Undertake market soundings
supported by structured
questionnaire (prepared at
Step 2) in order to clarify
data and gain market
perspective
X Compare results with AWA
submissions
X Discussions with other private
sector waste transport
operators
X Test CCW findings with industry
Step 1: Data collection
(week 1/2)
X Background interviews
Stephen Drumm, Jon Roscoe
(ongoing)
X Collect data on CCW routes, e.g.
kms travelled/routes from
contract managers via
questionnaire
Focus on council controlled
waste (CCW) (15%)
X Collect data for Solid Waste
X Review existing documents (e.g.
AC Waste Assessment)
X Undertake Ernst & Young
research from Ernst & Young
network and internet.
Confirm assumptions
X Determine costs/km ranges
X Prepare sector summary,
e.g. levies, transfer stations,
contracts, volumes
Work collaboratively with Auckland Council throughout

Page 217 of 591

Appendix I : Engagement letter

31 May 2011
FINAL.docx

71
Appendix I
Engagement letter
Page 218 of 591
Ernst & Young Transaction
Advisory Services Limited
41 Shortland Street
Auckland 1010 New Zealand
PO Box 2145 Auckland 1140

Tel: +64 9 377 4790
Fax: +64 9 309 8137
www.ey.com/nz

Auckland Council 10 March 2011
560 Mount Albert Road
Three Kings
Auckland 1042

Attention: Stephen Drumm
Manager: Assets and Infrastructure
Infrastructure & Environmental Services, Solid Waste Business Unit

Dear Sirs

Logistics Evaluation of Auckland Waste Strategy

Thank you for choosing Ernst & Young Transaction Advisory Services Limited (we or EY) to support
Auckland Council (the Council) in its evaluation of logistical financial efficiencies in Auckland waste
collection services.

This cover letter, together with its appendices, (collectively, this Agreement), describes and documents
the arrangements between us, including our respective obligations. The scope of the Services is
referred to in our Statement of Work at Appendix A and set out in full in the Detailed Work Scope at
Appendix B. Additional terms and conditions specific to the Services are set out in Appendix C.

If any affiliate or related entity or any other person, will be affected by or wishes to benefit from this
engagement you will endeavor to procure that any such entity or person will comply with the terms of this
Agreement as if it were a party. The obligations of all entities and persons bound by the terms of this
Agreement will be joint and several.

Please sign and return the enclosed copy of this Agreement to confirm your acceptance of these terms.
If you have any questions about these arrangements, please contact us.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you.

Yours sincerely
Ernst & Young Transaction Advisory Services Limited

Gareth Galloway
Director
Ben King
Executive Director

Page 219 of 591
Page 220 of 591
STATEMENT OF WORK Appendix A
3
1. Introduction
The Solid Waste business unit of Auckland Council (the Council or Council) is seeking to evaluate financial
information related to its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (ACWMMP). This financial information
was constructed by another third party with assistance from Council staff. The ACWMMP needs to be
approved by Council in May in accordance with legislation. The Council has asked Ernst & Young Transaction
Advisory Services Limited (EY or EYTAS) to assist with this evaluation process.
2. Scope of services
Our detailed scope of work in relation to this engagement is set out in Appendix B.
In relation to our reporting, we note the following amendment to our attached terms and conditions (per
appendix C), refer clause 14. The Council, following consultation with EY, may include in its reports to the
Council, Council Sub-Committees or the Council Executive, extracts from our reports so attributed to EY.
3. Your obligations
Where applicable you will provide us with timely information, reports and documentation so we can provide
the services and where applicable you will specify deadlines and working timetables (if relevant to the
services).
4. Timetable
The current timetables for each work programme stage is as set out in Appendix B. You will confirm to us any
changes to the timetable.
5. Key Personnel
Ben King, an Executive Director, who specialises in public sector advisory in infrastructure and service
delivery models will lead our work on a day to day basis, supported by Graeme Horne, Sophie Dawson and
Jolene Manford. Gareth Galloway will act as the Engagement Partner for this assignment.
6. Fees
We have agreed fees for this work as detailed in the table below:
Fee estimate
PART 1 - Overall assessment $27,500 - 30,000
PART 2 - Micro assessment $17,500 - $20,000
TOTAL $45,000 - $50,000
7. Confidentiality
We will keep this engagement and its specific outputs as confidential and we will not discuss or share any
aspects of our engagement with other parties.
8. Conflicts
We are not aware of any conflicts of interest relevant to the services. Our Conflicts policy manages any
potential conflict scenario to ensure that the services we provide are free from actual or perceived conflicts.
9. Limitations
Our work in connection with this assignment will be of a different nature to that of an audit or a review of
information, as those terms are commonly understood in Auditing Standards applicable to audit and review
engagements. Our report to you will be based on inquiries of and discussions with Council management, a
questionnaire submitted to third party waste collection and disposal operators, a review of reports and
documents made available to us, and analytical procedures applied to data provided. We will not, except to
such extent as you request and we agree to undertake, seek to verify the accuracy of the data or the
information and explanations provided by Council management or others.
Page 221 of 591
DETAILED WORKING SCOPE Appendix B

4

Scope of goods/services specification (As per Council Terms of
Reference in RfP)
Ernst & Young approach
PART 1 - OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Objective: Estimate the cost of transport inefficiencies across the waste
industry including Council controlled collections
X We will work with you and at your premises to meet the overall Part 1 objective and provide a report for
you
X Identify data requirements to estimate transport inefficiencies in waste
industry for Auckland (including council controlled waste)
X Ascertain data availability re logistics info for the waste industry
from council staff
X Seek information and confirmations from TPI and EnviroWaste. If
reasonable information requests are not complied with, then best
information available will be used instead
X Any information gaps will require commentary in the output report
Step 1 Data Gathering and Analysis
X Identify, evaluate and test assumptions set out in previous relevant reports:
X WCC Report, Auckland Waste Stocktake, Royal Commission,
X Review other Council data available, where applicable contrast with benchmarks
X Working with Council, test the methodology in respect of estimated inefficiencies, including any
revisions to previous approach and what those impacts may be
X Note any information gaps
X Information permitting, construct a Case Study that can that can be used to extrapolate information
across the waste transport network
Step 2 Market Testing
X We would agree with you a market / stakeholder sounding questionnaire to elicit data and undertake
information gathering from TPI and Envirowaste
X We would undertake stakeholder soundings
X Using the information available evaluate the level of inefficiencies
X Cost the inefficiencies using robust costing assumptions
X Costs to include but not necessarily confined to vehicle running
costs, truck size efficiencies and transport infrastructure repairs
Step 3 Critiquing
X We take the Identified key assumptions and the market sounding outcomes and compare and contrast
these
X Comment on whether the identified inefficiencies represent a realistic "base case" for improvement
and whether the assumptions for measuring inefficiencies are consistent with available external data
X Highlight any areas that require additional work and input
X Consider a range of sensitivities and scenarios of possible efficiency levels and set out relevant
related assumptions

Page 222 of 591

5

Scope of goods/services specification (Peer Council Terms of
Reference in RfP)
Ernst & Young approach
X Provide a written report detailing:
X The results of the calculated level of transport inefficiencies
broken down into recognisable segments e.g. vehicle costs
X An evaluation of the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the
information available and used in the calculation
X The confidence levels regarding the reliability of calculation
X Suggest information requirements and additional modelling
needed to advance the levels of confidence and reliability
Step 4 Reporting
X Covering the results of our Part 1 work, reflecting our understanding of the requirements as set out in
Steps 1 3 above
X Provide our points of view based on the methodology applied
X Initial reporting through slide pack
X We would aim to have a draft report compiled for your review within three weeks of commencement
PART 2 - MICRO ASSESSMENT
Objective: Determine the cost inefficiencies inherent in Council controlled
waste stream collections
X We will work with you and at your premises to meet the overall Part 2 objective and produce a report for
you
X Review and obtain information from Council staff of the transportation
routes undertaken for Council controlled waste
X Test information back to source such as truck GPS data
X Calculate inefficiencies as above using robust cost assumptions
Step 1 Data Gathering and Analysis
X We will assess the robustness of inefficiencies previously calculated for the Council controlled waste
stream based on a methodology agreed with you
X Working with Council we will test the methodology in respect of previous estimation of cost
inefficiencies, including any revisions to previous approach and what those impacts may be
X Note any information gaps
X Test data against external benchmarks / third party sources
X We will set out suggested approaches on how you might calculate / achieve efficiency gains including
a methodology to calculate the full level of efficiency gain via an Operations Research based modelling
approach for waste transport
X Report
X The results of the calculated level of transport inefficiencies
broken down into recognisable segments e.g. vehicle costs
X An evaluation of the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the
information available and used in the calculation
X The confidence levels regarding the reliability of calculation
Step 2 Reporting
X This will cover the results of our Part 2 work, reflecting our approach as set out in Steps 1 and 2 above
X This will provide our points of view based on the methodology applied
X Initial reporting through slide pack
X We would aim to have a draft report compiled for your review 5 7 business days post commencement
of Part 2
Page 223 of 591
GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS Appendix C
6
Our Relationship with You
1. We will perform the Services using reasonable
skill and care.
2. We are a member of the global network of Ernst &
Young firms (EY Firms), each of which is a
separate legal entity.
3. We will provide the Services to you as an
independent contractor and not as your employee,
agent, partner or joint venturer. Neither you nor we
have any right, power or authority to bind the
other.
4. We may subcontract portions of the Services to
other EY Firms, who may deal with you directly.
Nevertheless, we alone will be responsible to you
for the Reports (as defined in Section 11), the
performance of the Services, and our other
obligations under this Agreement.
5. We will not assume any management
responsibilities in connection with the Services.
We will not be responsible for the use or
implementation of the output of the Services.
Your Responsibilities
6. You shall assign a qualified person to oversee the
Services. You are responsible for all management
decisions relating to the Services, the use or
implementation of the output of the Services and
for determining whether the Services are
appropriate for your purposes.
7. You shall provide (or cause others to provide) to
us, promptly, the information, resources and
assistance (including access to records, systems,
premises and people) that we reasonably require
to perform the Services.
8. To the best of your knowledge, all information
provided by you or on your behalf (Client
Information) will be accurate and complete in all
material respects. The provision of Client
Information to us will not infringe any copyright or
other third-party rights.
9. We will rely on Client Information made available
to us and, unless we expressly agree otherwise,
will have no responsibility to evaluate or verify it.
10. You shall be responsible for your personnels
compliance with your obligations under this
Agreement.
Our Reports
11. Any information, advice, recommendations or
other content of any reports, presentations or
other communications we provide under this
Agreement (Reports), other than Client
Information, are for your internal use only
(consistent with the purpose of the particular

Services).
12. You may not disclose a Report (or any portion or
summary of a Report), or refer to us or to any
other EY Firm in connection with the Services,
except:
(a) to your lawyers (subject to these disclosure
restrictions), who may use it only to give you
advice relating to the Services,
(b) to the extent, and for the purposes, required
by subpoena or similar legal process (of
which you will promptly notify us),
(c) to other persons (including your affiliates) with
our prior written consent, who have executed
our access letter, who may then use it only as
we have specified in our consent, or
(d) to the extent it contains Tax Advice, as set
forth in Section 13.
If you are permitted to disclose a Report (or a
portion thereof), you shall not alter, edit or modify
it from the form we provided.
13. You may disclose to anyone a Report (or any
portion or summary thereof) solely to the extent
that it relates to tax matters, including tax advice,
tax opinions, tax returns, or the tax treatment or
tax structure of any transaction to which the
Services relate (Tax Advice). With the exception
of tax authorities, you shall inform those to whom
you disclose Tax Advice that they may not rely on
it for any purpose without our prior written
consent.
14. You may incorporate into your internal documents
any summaries, calculations or tables based on
Client Information contained in a Report, but not
our recommendations, conclusions or findings. If
you then disclose such internal documents to
anyone, you shall assume sole responsibility for
their contents and you shall not refer to us or any
other EY Firm in connection with them.
15. You may not rely on any draft Report. We shall not
be required to update any final Report for
circumstances of which we become aware, or
events occurring, after its delivery.
Limitations
16. You (and any others for whom Services are
provided including any of the parties set out in
Schedule 1 of Appendix B) may not recover from
us, in contract or tort, under statute or otherwise,
any amount with respect to any loss of profit, data
or goodwill, or any indirect or consequential costs,
loss or damage in connection with claims arising
out of this Agreement or otherwise relating to the
Page 224 of 591

7
Services, whether or not the likelihood of such
loss or damage was contemplated.
17. (a) Unless prohibited by law, no term, condition
or warranty is implied, and no guarantees are
provided by us, except as expressly provided
in this Agreement.
(b) You (and any others for whom Services are
provided) may not recover from us, in contract
or tort, (including negligence), under statute
or otherwise, aggregate damages (including
interest and costs) in excess of four (4) times
the fees actually paid for the Services that
directly caused the loss or $100,000
(whichever is greater) in connection with
claims arising out of this Agreement or
otherwise relating to the Services.
18. If we are liable to you (or to any others for whom
Services are provided) under this Agreement or
otherwise in connection with the Services, for loss
or damage (including interest and costs) to which
any other persons have also contributed, our
liability to you shall be several, and not joint, with
such others, and shall be limited to our fair share
of that total loss or damage which is agreed
between us or ascribed to us by a court or tribunal
of competent jurisdiction based on our contribution
to the loss and damage relative to the others
contributions. No exclusion or limitation on the
liability of other responsible persons imposed or
agreed at any time shall affect any assessment of
our proportionate liability hereunder, nor shall
settlement of or difficulty enforcing any claim, or
the death, dissolution or insolvency of any such
other responsible persons or their ceasing to be
liable for the loss or damage or any portion
thereof, affect any such assessment.
19. The limitation in Section 17 will not apply to losses
or damages caused by our fraud or to the extent
prohibited by applicable law or professional
regulations.

20.

You may not make a claim or bring proceedings
relating to the Services or otherwise under this
Agreement against any other EY Firm or our or its
subcontractors, members, shareholders, directors,
officers, partners, principals or employees ("EY
Persons"). You shall make any claim or bring
proceedings only against us. The limitations in
Sections 16 through 18 and this Section 20 are
intended to benefit the other EY Firms and all EY
Persons, who shall be entitled to enforce them.
Indemnity
21. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law
and professional regulations, you shall indemnify
us, the other EY Firms and the EY Persons
against all claims by third parties (including your
affiliates) and resulting liabilities, losses, damages,
costs and expenses (including reasonable
external and internal legal costs and any goods
and services tax payable by us on amounts paid
by you under this indemnity) incurred by us which
is related to, arises out of, or is in any way
associated with the disclosure of any Report
(other than Tax Advice), or a third partys use of or
reliance on any Report (including Tax Advice),
except to the extent that we have specifically
authorized, in writing, the third partys reliance on
the Report.
Intellectual Property Rights
22. We may use data, software, designs, utilities,
tools, models, systems and other methodologies
and know-how (Materials) that we own or
license in performing the Services.
Notwithstanding the delivery of any Reports, we
retain all intellectual property rights in the
Materials (including any improvements or
knowledge developed while performing the
Services), and ownership of any working papers
compiled in connection with the Services (but not
Client Information reflected in them).
23. Upon payment for the Services, you may use any
Materials included in the Reports, as well as the
Reports themselves as permitted by this
Agreement.
Confidentiality
24. Except as otherwise permitted by this Agreement,
neither of us may disclose to third parties the
contents of this Agreement or any information
(other than Tax Advice) provided by or on behalf
of the other that ought reasonably to be treated as
confidential and/or proprietary. Either of us may,
however, disclose such information to the extent
that it:
(a) is or becomes public other than through a
breach of this Agreement,
(b) is subsequently received by the recipient from
a third party who, to the recipients
knowledge, owes no obligation of
confidentiality to the disclosing party with
respect to that information,
(c) was known to the recipient at the time of
disclosure or is thereafter created
independently,
(d) is disclosed as necessary to enforce the
recipients rights under this Agreement, or
(e) must be disclosed under applicable law, legal
process or professional regulations.
25. Either of us may use electronic media to
correspond or transmit information and such use
will not in itself constitute a breach of any
confidentiality obligations under this Agreement.
26. Unless prohibited by applicable law, we may
disclose Client Information to other EY Firms and
Page 225 of 591

8
EY Persons to facilitate performance of the
Services, to comply with regulatory requirements,
to check conflicts, or for quality, risk management
or financial accounting purposes.
27. With respect to any Services, and only to the
extent that U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission auditor independence regulations
apply to the relationship between you or any of
your associated entities and any EY Firm, you
represent, to the best of your knowledge, as of the
date of this Agreement, that neither you nor any of
your affiliates has agreed, either orally or in
writing, with any other advisor to restrict your
ability to disclose to anyone the tax treatment or
tax structure of any transaction to which the
Services relate. An agreement of this kind could
impair an EY Firms independence as to your audit
or that of any of your affiliates, or require specific
tax disclosures as to those restrictions.
Accordingly, you agree that the impact of any such
agreement is your responsibility.
Data Protection
28. We may collect, use, transfer, store or otherwise
process (collectively, Process) Client Information
that can be linked to specific individuals (Personal
Data). We may Process Personal Data in various
jurisdictions in which we and the other EY Firms
operate (which are listed at www.ey.com). We
will Process the Personal Data in accordance with
our Privacy Policy, applicable law and professional
regulations including (without limitation) the
Privacy Act 1993 and the Information Privacy
Principles under that Act. We will require any
service provider that Processes Personal Data on
our behalf to adhere to such requirements. A
copy of our Privacy Policy Statement may be
obtained on request.
29. You warrant that you have the authority to provide
the Personal Data to us in connection with the
performance of the Services and that the Personal
Data provided to us has been processed in
accordance with applicable law.
Fees and Expenses Generally
30. You shall pay our professional fees and specific
expenses in connection with the Services as
detailed in the applicable Statement of Work. You
shall pay our engagement administration charge
of 0% of our fees which covers our costs,
including courier charges, photocopying, postage,
telephone calls, facsimiles and stationery. You
shall also reimburse us for other reasonable
expenses incurred in performing the Services. Our
fees are exclusive of taxes or similar charges, as
well as customs, duties or tariffs imposed in
respect of the Services, all of which you shall pay
(other than taxes imposed on our income
generally). You shall pay our invoices within 14
days of the billing date. We shall issue our
invoices to you or as you may direct. If you direct
us to issue an invoice to another party, you shall
remain responsible for payment until our invoice is
paid in full. Accounts may be paid by electronic
funds transfer, internet banking or cheque. Credit
card payments are not accepted.
31. We may charge additional professional fees if
events beyond our control (including your acts or
omissions) affect our ability to perform the
Services as originally planned or if you ask us to
perform additional tasks.
32. If we are required by applicable law, legal process
or government action to produce information or
personnel as witnesses with respect to the
Services or this Agreement, you shall reimburse
us for any professional time and expenses
(including reasonable external and internal legal
costs) incurred to respond to the request, unless
we are a party to the proceeding or the subject of
the investigation.
Force Majeure
33. Neither you nor we shall be liable for breach of
this Agreement (other than payment obligations)
caused by circumstances beyond your or our
reasonable control.
Term and Termination
34. This Agreement applies to all Services performed
at any time (including before the date of this
Agreement).
35. This Agreement shall terminate on the completion
of the Services. Either of us may terminate it, or
any particular Services, earlier upon 14 days prior
written notice to the other. In addition, we may
terminate this Agreement, or any particular
Services, immediately upon written notice to you if
we reasonably determine that we can no longer
provide the Services in accordance with applicable
law or professional obligations.
36. You shall pay us for all work-in-progress, Services
already performed, and expenses incurred by us
up to and including the effective date of the
termination of this Agreement. Payment is due
within 14 days following receipt of our invoice for
these amounts.
37. Our respective confidentiality obligations under
this Agreement shall continue for a period of three
years following the termination of this Agreement.
The other provisions of this Agreement that give
either of us rights or obligations beyond its
termination shall continue indefinitely following the
termination of this Agreement.
Governing Law and Dispute Resolution
38. This Agreement, and any non-contractual
obligations arising out of this Agreement or the
Page 226 of 591

9
Services, shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of New Zealand. We
both agree and irrevocably submit to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Courts of New Zealand.
39. If there is a dispute relating to the Services or this
Agreement, the parties must submit the dispute to
mediation before having recourse to any other
dispute resolution process. Written notice of the
dispute will be given for it to be submitted to
mediation before a mediator chosen by the parties
or, where the parties cannot agree, by the
Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand
(AMINZ). The parties will use their best
endeavours to settle the dispute promptly. The
mediation will be conducted in accordance with
the AMINZ Mediation Guidelines to the extent that
they do not conflict with the provisions of this
Section. If the dispute is not resolved within 60
days after notice of the dispute, the mediation will
terminate unless the parties otherwise agree.
Miscellaneous
40. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement
between us as to the Services and the other
matters it covers, and supersedes all prior
agreements, understandings and representations
with respect thereto, including any confidentiality
agreements previously delivered.
41. Both of us may execute this Agreement (and
modifications to it) by electronic means. Both of us
must agree in writing to modify this Agreement.

42. You represent that the person signing this
Agreement on your behalf is expressly authorized
to execute it and to bind you and any of your
affiliates or others for whom Services are
performed to its terms.
43. You agree that we and the other EY Firms may,
subject to professional obligations, act for other
clients, including your competitors.
44. Neither of us may assign any of our rights,
obligations or claims under this Agreement.
45. If any provision of this Agreement (in whole or
part) is held to be illegal, invalid or otherwise
unenforceable, the other provisions shall remain in
full force and effect. Sections 17(b) and 21 do not
apply if:
(a) such provision is prohibited by applicable law,
regulation, the rules and interpretations of the
U.S. SEC or other applicable rules and
interpretations concerning auditor
independence;
(b) the Services include income tax preparation
services associated with the preparation of
U.S. tax returns for a U.S. SEC audit client; or
(c) the Client is a U.S. SEC audit client and
performance of these non-audit Services will
have more than an insignificant effect on EYs
audit engagement by either:
(i) affecting EYs audit procedures or
scope; or
(ii) producing information that would be
used by EY as audit evidence.
46. If there is any inconsistency between provisions in
different parts of this Agreement, those parts shall
have precedence as follows (unless expressly
agreed otherwise): (a) the Cover Letter, (b) the
applicable Statement of Work and any annexes
thereto, (c) these General Terms and Conditions,
and (d) other annexes to this Agreement.
47. We may use your name publically to identify you
as a client, but we may refer to you in connection
with the Services only if, in doing so we do not
disclose any of your confidential information, or it
is a matter of public knowledge that we are
providing them (or have provided them)

Page 227 of 591
DISCUSSION PAPER: WASTE TO ENERGY FOR AUCKLAND
CAMPBELL MACPHERSON - MAY 2011
Page 228 of 591
Campbell MacPherson Limited Private and Confidential

Waste to Energy For Auckland Discussion Paper Page 1 of 65

Pri vat e and Conf i dent i al

DI SCUSSI ON PAPER

WASTE TO ENERGY FOR AUCKLAND

Pr epar ed F or

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
SOLID WASTE BUSINESS UNIT

Pr epar ed by

MAY 2011

Page 229 of 591


CONTENTS

GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................. 3

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 6
2. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE ............................................................................................... 13
3. OVERVIEW OF WTE TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................... 15
4. USE OF WTE INTERNATIONALLY ....................................................................................... 23
5. KEY ISSUES SURROUNDING WTE ...................................................................................... 24
6. USE OF WTE IN NEW ZEALAND ......................................................................................... 33
7. AUCKLAND COUNCIL WASTE STRATEGY ........................................................................... 39
8. KEY FEATURES OF THE AUCKLAND SOLID WASTE MARKET ............................................. 45
9. HIGH LEVEL ECONOMIC COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS ........................................................... 51
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 60

APPENDIX 1: IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Page 230 of 591


GLOSSARY

3-Rs Reduce, reuse and recycle
ACWA Auckland Council Waste Assessment 2011
AD Anaerobic digestion is the process in which volatile organic
materials are broken down in the absence of oxygen.
APC Air pollution control
ASR Automobile shredded fuel
ATT Advanced Thermal Technologies (i.e. thermal WTE
technologies other than conventional combustion).
Biogas Biogas typically refers to a gas produced by the biological
breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen.
Biomass Biomass, a renewable energy source, is biological material
from living, or recently living organisms.
Bottom Ash Comprises heterogeneous material discharged from the
burning grate of the incinerator (grate ash) and material that
falls through the burning grate to be collected in hoppers
below the furnace.
BOOT Build, own, operate and transfer
C&D Construction and demolition
Campbell MacPherson Campbell MacPherson Limited
Capex Capital expenditure
CCGT Combined cycle gas turbine
CH
4
Methane
CHP Combined heat and power
CO Carbon monoxide
CO
2
Carbon dioxide
Council Auckland Council
CV Calorific value
Discussion Document Auckland Plan Discussion Document 2011
Diverted materials Materials diverted from landfill such as materials collected for
recycling, composting or other recovered or treated
materials.
ECNZ Environmental Choice New Zealand
EnviroWaste EnviroWaste Services Limited
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (USA)
Fly Ash Finely divided particles of ash which are normally entrained in
the combustion gases. Fly ash is recovered from the gas
stream by a combination of precipitators and cyclones.
Gasification The process of combusting waste in an oxygen starved
environment.
Page 231 of 591


GHG Green house gas
GONZ Global Olivine (NZ) Limited
GO SRRF Global Olivine sustainable resource recycling facility
GOWA Global Olivine West Australia Limited
GWh Gigawatt hours
Mixed/unsorted waste Waste containing various components of various sizes and
composition
IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy
kWh Kilowatt hours
LCA Life cycle assessment
MBT Mechanical biological treatment
MfE Ministry for the Environment
MJ Megajoules
MJ/kg Megajoules per kilogram
MRF Materials Recycling Facility
MSW Municipal Solid Waste is waste which is collected for or on
behalf of a local authority. MSW generally comprise waste
from households, civic amenity sites, street-sweepings, local
authority collected commercial waste, and some
nonhazardous industrial waste.
Mtpa Million tonnes per annum
MWh Megawatt hours
NGO Non-Government organisations
NO
2
Nitrogen dioxide
NO
x
Nitrogen oxides
NZWS New Zealand Waste Strategy
O
3
Ozone
ONZ Olivine (NZ) Limited
PREL Peterborough Renewable Energy Limited
Pyrolysis The process of heating waste in the absence of oxygen.
RDF Refuse derived fuel is a fuel product recovered from the
combustible fraction of household waste.
RMA Resource Management Act
SEL Sustainable Equities Limited
SO
2
Sulphur dioxide
Solid Waste Waste to landfill, cleanfill or managed fill or diverted to other
uses (e.g. recycled).
SWBU Solid Waste Business Unit, Infrastructure and Environmental
Services, Auckland Council
Page 232 of 591


Syngas Syngas (from synthetic gas) is the name given to a gas mixture
that contains varying amounts of carbon monoxide and
hydrogen.
TA Territorial authority
tpa tonnes per annum
tpd tonnes per day
TPI Transpacific Industries Limited
UK United Kingdom
USA United States of America
WDS Waste Disposal Services
WMMP Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
WMA Waste Minimisation Act
WTE Waste to Energy

Page 233 of 591


1. EXECUTI VE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

Campbell MacPherson has been engaged by the Solid Waste Business Unit (SWBU) of
Auckland Council (Council) to prepare a discussion paper (Discussion Paper) on the
viability and suitability of applying Waste to Energy (WTE) technology to processing
solid waste from within the Auckland Council region. This Discussion Paper also
includes recommendations regarding Councils role in WTE given its strategic waste
objectives and the current ownership structure of the Auckland solid waste market.

1.2 WTE Technologies

Section 3 provides a high level overview of current WTE technologies. In brief there
are a wide range of WTE technologies currently utilised worldwide and/or being
promoted by private sector interests. The two core technologies generally applied to
solid waste are:-

Thermal energy conversion - combustion, gasification, pyrolysis and other
emerging thermal technologies.
Biochemical/biological energy conversion anaerobic digestion (AD) to treat
organic waste.

Each technology has different costs and benefits which can lead to different
performance claims and a gap between actual and design performance outcomes.
Combustion is well established and commercially proven for use in processing mixed
solid waste streams, while gasification and pyrolysis technologies are commercially
proven to a limited degree and rely on a degree of pre-processing of solid waste.
Anaerobic digestion has been used for many years to treat solids from waste water
and sewerage.

Unsorted solid waste is a low energy feedstock and therefore energy efficiency for
electricity production using WTE is generally low (eg 10-30%). Application of
combined heat and power (CHP) systems can increase overall energy efficiency levels
to 70-90% in thermal WTE plants.

WTE technologies are evolving rapidly with ongoing research and development and it
is likely that thermal alternatives to combustion will become increasingly
commercially proven over time.

1.3 Use of WTE Internationally

WTE facilities are widespread in Europe, Japan and the USA. Europe has around 450
operating plants, predominantly using combustion technology. The evolution and
growth of WTE has a regional context linked to such issues as electricity pricing,
availability of land suitable for landfilling, emissions controls, government regulations
etc. It is important to note that the growth of WTE worldwide predates the recent
Page 234 of 591


emphasis on greenhouse gas reduction and impact of climate change on the global
ecosystem.

A number of fast developing economies such as India and China are promoting the use
of WTE as a solution to address growing waste volumes (due to economic growth),
scarce land and the need for additional energy sources.

The record of WTE use in Australia could be best described as developmental, with
limited application of AD and mechanical biological treatment (MBT) technology used
for organic processing. In terms of culture, capital costs and population density, etc
both New Zealand and Australia have historically favoured landfill as the final waste
solution rather than considering WTE technologies.

1.4 Key Issues Surrounding WTE

Section 5 provides a discussion around the international issues facing WTE as a
legitimate waste management option. Key issues include:

The position of WTE in the Waste Hierarchy.
Possible conflicts with waste minimisation initiatives.
The types of emissions generated by WTE facilities.
The performance of WTE facilities against emissions standards.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions/avoided emissions.

The waste hierarchy adopted by many developed countries (including New Zealand)
promotes WTE ahead of landfill but below waste minimisation tools such as
reduction, reuse and recycling. Debate regarding WTE is often viewed by proponents
in terms of its potential benefits vs. landfill, and conversely by its detractors in terms
of its shortcomings compared with other options further up the waste hierarchy.

1.5 Use of WTE in New Zealand

At this stage New Zealand has no established record of utilising WTE technologies as
a solution to process unsorted municipal or commercial solid waste. We note that it
Source: WTE worldwide: Waste Management World, Vol. 9, Issue 6.
WTE Facilities Worldwide
Page 235 of 591


is standard practice to use AD to treat the solid waste component from
sewerage/waste water treatment plants.

To date there has been little published research on the potential use of WTE in New
Zealand. This could be a function of:

Predominance of landfill as a low cost waste management option.
Lack of any WTE facilities in NZ and limited facilities in Australia on which to
benchmark performance.
Limited Council-controlled waste volumes in areas such as Auckland.
Lack of interest from landfill owners to promote WTE ahead of landfill.
Limited project finance availability and risk appetite of local investors.

We are aware of several New Zealand-based parties active in either promoting their
own proprietary WTE Technology or representing established international WTE
vendors. Two of these organisations have been briefly reviewed in this Discussion
Paper as examples of WTE approaches.

1.6 Auckland Council Waste Strategy

In Section 7 we outline New Zealands extensive
waste legislation and the policy framework
establish by central Government and the new
Auckland Council. The current legislative
environment and the strategic direction of
Auckland Council places heavy emphasis on the
waste hierarchy and pursuing waste
minimisation including reducing waste volumes
sent to sanitary landfills.

We also acknowledge a recent development in
the Auckland waste sector with the launch of a
new spatial planning process to help achieve the Mayors vision of Auckland
becoming the worlds most liveable city. The discussion document proposes a
medium term 40% reduction in Auckland waste with a longer term target of zero
waste. Such a target could provide an opportunity in future for a WTE facility to
process waste not able to be reused or recycled by conventional means.

1.7 Key Features of the Auckland Solid Waste Market

Waste composition and sustainable supply of feedstock are critical success factors for
a WTE facility. In terms of composition an accurate assessment of the organic versus
inorganic fraction is important. This ratio influences the potential energy value
derived from the solid waste feedstock. Furthermore WTE facilities operate on a
24/7 continuous basis and require a regular supply of waste to maintain their
operational viability.

Page 236 of 591


Recent data on the size of the Auckland waste stream indicates annual volumes of
4.85Mtpa. However, this includes C&D waste and material sent to cleanfills and
managed fills which is unsuitable for WTE feedstock.

Estimated Auckland Solid Waste Stream

Source: Auckland Council Waste Assessment 2011

Of the circa 1.4Mtpa currently sent to sanitary landfills, a significant proportion
comprises soils etc that are unsuitable for WTE. Furthermore the organic component
is likely to reduce as Council implements its planned kerbside source-separation and
processing of food waste / green waste. Residual material available for diversion to a
WTE could therefore be a low as circa 400,000 - 500,000 tpa.

Another factor to highlight is that Council only controls circa 10% of the Auckland
waste stream. This implies that a WTE supplier would need to target the private
sector that currently controls 90% of the solid waste stream in Auckland. We
recognise that the major Auckland solid waste companies, Transpacific Industries
(TPI) and EnviroWaste Services (EnviroWaste), both have significant sunk investment
in their existing landfill operations and collection/transfer networks.

Auckland Council recently published its Waste Assessment which proposed Council
assuming greater control and ownership of Aucklands waste infrastructure together
with other initiatives for greater waste minimisation including:-

Greater separation at source;
Diversion of organic waste from landfill;
Increased emphasis on recycling/reuse/recovery at Aucklands transfer stations;
Use of price/regulatory signals at the landfill gate to motivate greater diversion;
and,
Widespread adoption of the polluter pays principle.

Collectively these initiatives, when implemented in Auckland, are expected by the
Council to reduce waste to landfill by up to 300,000tpa. The introduction and
establishment of a WTE facility in Auckland by a private sector operator could add
additional competition for solid waste feedstock.

Currently the Auckland landfill market is largely controlled by TPI and EnviroWaste.
Council does own 50% of the Whitford landfill under a joint venture structure which
Page 237 of 591


is managed by TPI. The newest landfill at Hampton Downs, owned by EnviroWaste,
has an estimated lifespan of 40-50 years based on current volumes. However, the
Redvale landfill owned by TPI has a much shorter remaining consented life. It is
possible that the national waste levy and the emission trading scheme costs may
drive landfill operators such as TPI to consider WTE opportunities in the future ahead
of, or in addition to, constructing new landfill facilities in Auckland.

1.8 High Level Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis

Section 8 of this Discussion Paper highlights indicative capex and operating costs and
potential revenue streams from operating a WTE plant in Auckland. The operating
design life for a WTE facility is generally 20-30 years.

In our view the current economics around a WTE plant for Auckland look marginal.
The actual viability of a WTE project will depend on a range of factors specific to the
proposal including:-

Project capital costs (including consenting costs).
Location and waste transport logistics.
Availability and cost of capital.
Plant operating costs.
Financial impact of GHG charges on WTE vs. alternative options.
Landfill gate prices.
Electricity prices.
Market for recyclables.

Thermal WTE plants are generally expensive to build and operate. Indicative capital
costs for a thermal facility are in the order of NZ$70M NZ$120M for a 100,000tpa
plant, increasing to NZ$125M 205M for a 200,000tpa plant. AD plants are generally
smaller and cheaper to operate but lack the flexibility to handle mixed waste streams.

Electricity generation costs of WTE are likely to be marginal at best when compared
to current wholesale/industrial electricity prices. WTE facilities do have the benefit of
being able to charge tipping fees for receiving waste feedstock. However, in Auckland
a WTE facility would have to compete for feedstock against incumbent landfills with
low gate prices and the ability to marginally price to maintain their existing volumes.

The potential for conversion of existing thermal power plants to using Auckland solid
waste is essentially restricted to the Huntly Power Station. However, we are not
aware of any plans by Genesis to partially or fully convert any of its generation units
to accommodate solid waste or refuse derived fuel (RDF). We have identified a range
of potential risks and impediments to this concept and consider it is unlikely to have
any merit in the current operational/ownership environment.

1.9 Conclusions and Recommendations

In our view WTE represents an important tool for waste management. A number of
technologies are well proven internationally on a commercial scale whilst others are
Page 238 of 591


rapidly advancing towards commercial viability. New Zealand has been slow to
examine WTE due to the historical predominance of landfills as a waste management
solution. However, diversion of waste to landfill is now both a central and local
government priority and WTE deserves further consideration in the New Zealand
context.

Our analysis of the critical success factors for developing WTE in Auckland indicate a
range of impediments and risks around knowledge gaps, available volumes of solid
waste, Council control of the waste stream and marginal economic viability.

We consider that Council should have a minimal role in promoting WTE for
Auckland at present for the following reasons:

WTE is relatively low on the waste hierarchy. Therefore a key issue, from a
Council perspective, is that the feedstock used for any New Zealand WTE
facility should not (now or over the plants lifespan) cannibalise the
components of the solid waste stream that could otherwise have been
diverted through other means further up the waste hierarchy (i.e. reduction,
re-use or recycling).
Capital costs of WTE facilities are significant and there are a number of
investment risks which may be beyond Councils risk appetite.
Council currently has insufficient control over the Auckland solid waste
stream to supply a WTE facility (aside from the option to use AD to process
organic waste).
We note that the WTE proposal put forward by Global Olivine (NZ) Ltd to
Council requires a waste feedstock that is in excess of the total Auckland
waste currently going to landfill. As noted above Council does not control
this level of waste and is focusing on reducing waste to landfill by investing in
initiatives to reduce, reuse or recycle waste which are higher on the waste
hierarchy.
Existing private/commercial landfill operators are best placed to divert landfill
material to WTE and assess WTE economic and operational viability.
Existing landfill operators have a significant sunk investment in existing
landfill and transfer station infrastructure.
Community/political acceptance for using WTE on the non-organic fraction of
solid waste will likely require clear evidence that this waste cannot be cost-
effectively captured and recycled i.e. that the benefits (financial,
environmental etc) of WTE would outweigh the costs.

Based on the results of this Discussion Paper, our recommendations to Council are
as follows:

Council should focus its financial and operating resources on projects that
maximise waste reduction, reuse and recycling ahead of lower waste
hierarchy solutions such as WTE.
Approaches to Council from WTE providers should be redirected to the key
private sector waste companies.
Page 239 of 591


Discussions with TPI and EnviroWaste are recommended to obtain their views
on whether WTE is viable to reduce waste to landfill or eliminate/scale down
future landfill development for Auckland.
Council should continue to monitor technological and operating performance
of commercially operating WTE plants in other countries (and developments
in New Zealand) to increase its knowledge of WTE options.

Given the complex issues of ownership of the waste stream in Auckland, the recent
formation of the new Auckland Council, the relative abundance of landfill solutions
and current low landfill charges in the region, Auckland Council is not in a position
to play a leadership role in WTE at the present time.

It appears that the private sector is best placed to develop a WTE facility in Auckland,
particularly under the current industry structure where large private sector players
control the majority of the Auckland solid waste stream. However, there is no clear
indication at this stage that economic drivers are in place to ensure viability of WTE in
the Auckland waste market.

Page 240 of 591


2. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE

2.1 Background

Campbell MacPherson has been engaged by the Solid Waste Business Unit (SWBU) of
Auckland Council (Council) to prepare a discussion paper (Discussion Paper) on the
viability and suitability of applying Waste to Energy (WTE) technology to processing
solid waste from within the Auckland Council region.

Auckland Council has recently released the Auckland Council Waste Assessment
(ACWA) which provides a framework for developing the Councils Waste
Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) a requirement under the Waste
Management Act 2008 (WMA). The ACWA (Section 7.6.8) notes that this assessment
has not compared waste disposal technologies such as landfill vs. incineration or
mechanical biological treatment etc.

This Discussion Paper seeks to introduce and review (at a high level) the key issues
around WTE use and covers a broad scope as outlined below. The Discussion Paper
also provides our view on the suitability of WTE given the current central and local
government waste strategy and policies, applicability of WTE technologies and other
practical issues with respect to the Auckland solid waste market and Councils role as
a key waste industry stakeholder.

2.2 Scope and Deliverables

Council has requested that this Discussion Paper cover the following key issues with
respect to WTE and its applicability to the Auckland solid waste market.

Overview of key types of WTE facilities.
The use of WTE internationally.
Key features of the Auckland solid waste market as a feedsource for a WTE plant.
New plant vs. conversion of existing electricity generation assets.
Review recent approaches to Council from several WTE vendors.
Identify (if possible) any previous or current feasibility studies on WTE in New
Zealand.
Consider WTE in the context of the Waste Minimisation Act and its objectives and
priorities.
Consider WTE in the context of Councils stated solid waste strategy and
aspirations.
Assess practical issues in developing a WTE in Auckland and provide a high level
cost/benefit analysis.

A draft copy of this Discussion Paper was provided to the SWBU for its review and
comment prior to finalisation.

Page 241 of 591


2.3 Solid Waste Definitions

International solid waste feedstock for WTE plants commonly comes from Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) collected by or on behalf of local authorities. The term MSW
generally comprises waste from households, council sites and local-authority
collected commercial waste. This differentiates solid waste from other waste sources
such as privately collected commercial and industrial waste, C&D waste and
mining/quarrying waste.

For the purposes of this Discussion Paper we have focused on Auckland solid waste
including both domestic household waste (collected by both Council and private
operators) and commercial waste (collected by private operators) but excluding
industrial waste and C&D waste.

2.4 Sources of Information

This Discussion Paper utilises a wide variety of publically available information on the
international WTE market, technologies and trends, together with information on the
local solid waste market provided in the Auckland Council Waste Assessment (2011)
and other public documents, and relevant central government policy and legislation
pertaining to the waste industry.

2.5 Conditions

This Discussion Paper is issued to Auckland Council subject to the conditions provided
in Appendix 1 and is not to be released to any third parties without Campbell
MacPhersons express written consent.

Page 242 of 591


3. OVERVIEW OF WTE TECHNOLOGIES

3.1 Overview

WTE technology has become an integral part of solid waste management in a
number of countries because of its ability to reduce (not replace) the need for
landfills, provide a reliable source of energy and destroy contaminants that may be
present in the waste stream. WTE technologies for solid waste can be classified as
either thermal or biochemical/biological processes

Thermal energy conversion involves the combustion of waste and primarily
uses combustion, gasification and pyrolysis technologies. The core
difference between these technologies is the level of oxygen used in the
combustion process.

Biochemical/biological energy conversion utilises naturally occurring
microbes which convert organic material into biogas or ethanol using
anaerobic digestion or fermentation technology.

Solid Waste to Energy Pathways

Source: Waste to Energy: A Guide for Local Authorities. May 2005.

WTE applications for processing solid waste are commonly focused on thermal
technologies and are discussed in more detail below. Biological processes such as
anaerobic digestion are widely used to assist in the processing of the liquid waste
(sewerage, sludge etc) to generate electricity and heat, although they also have
application in treating the separated organic component of the solid waste stream.

We outline below the key features of thermal processing technologies and a brief
description of biological technologies and mechanical biological treatment.

Solid Waste
Thermal Processing
Combustion
Heat and
Power
Gasification
Heat and
Power
Chemical
Feedstocks
Pyrolysis
Heat and
Power
Chemical
Feedstocks
Biochemical / Biological Processing
Anaerobic
Digestion
Heat and
Power
Chemical
Feedstocks
Fermentation
Ethanol
Page 243 of 591


3.2 Conventional Combustion

Conventional combustion is a well established and proven technology, and is
therefore the most common method currently being used to generate energy from
waste. Within conventional combustion, three technologies are primarily used;
single-stage combustion, modular two-stage combustion and fluidised bed
combustion.

Single-stage Combustion

Single-stage combustion (sometimes referred to as mass burn incineration) is the
most common form of waste to energy technology and basically involves burning
solid waste in a single combustion chamber, the process can be summarised in 3
stages; combustion, energy recovery and by-product processing. First, waste (which
requires minimal processing prior to being incinerated) is feed into a hopper which
in turn feeds waste onto a moving grate. The first stage of the moving grate heats
the waste to remove excess water content, the second stage of the moving grate
involves burning the waste which oxidises more combustible material, the third
stage of the moving grate involves oxidising fixed carbon.

The three stages above take place in conditions where insufficient oxygen is
available for complete combustion, therefore secondary oxygen is supplied above
the moving grate to ensure complete combustion of all volatile gases released.

Sufficient supply of oxygen is the key element in single-stage combustion. The
heated gas produced as a result of the combustion stage is used as a heat source
and/or in a heat recovery boiler which produces steam to power an electricity
generating turbine. Finally, ash produced during combustion is processed to remove
any recyclable metals and heated gases leaving the combustion chamber which
contain various pollutants are processed prior to being released into the
atmosphere.

Modular Two-stage Combustion

The primary difference between a single-stage combustion facility and a modular
two-stage facility is that the latter has two combustion chambers rather than one. In
a two-stage combustion facility, combustible waste is first incinerated in an
environment that has been starved of oxygen, this results in volatile gases being
released from the waste. These volatile gases are then moved to an oxygen rich
chamber and completely combusted. Heated gas from the second combustion
chamber is then used as a heat source and/or in a heat recovery boiler to generate
electricity.

Modular two-stage incinerators are sometimes referred to as a gasification
technology, however they are not true gasifiers
1
.

1
Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010
Page 244 of 591


Fluidised Bed Combustion

Fluidised bed combustion utilises a liquid bed of inert material to combust waste.
This combustion technology requires a more homogenised fuel, therefore prior to
being incinerated waste is shredded and sorted to generate a uniform feed size.

Processed waste is fed into the combustion chamber which contains inert material
(usually sand) which is maintained in liquid form by passing oxygen through the bed
from below (Initially the bed is pre-heated by an auxiliary fuel). The combustion of
waste occurs within the fluidised bed and the resulting flue gases are contained in a
combustion zone above the bed, where the heat is collected and used as a heat
source and/or in a heat recovery boiler to generate electricity.

Efficiency of Conventional Combustion

Modern incinerators that only generate electricity generally produce approximately
750 850kWh/tonne of waste
2
. However, when both electricity and heat are
utilised, the amount of energy produced per tonne of waste increases significantly.
For example a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facility located in Italy produces and
the equivalent of 1150 kWh per tonne of waste
3
.

Summary indicated thermal efficiencies of various conventional combustion
technology variations are shown below. Standard efficiency rates for electricity
generation only range from 17% - 30%. However, this increases to 70% - 85% using
CHP.

Source: Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010.

2
Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010.
3
Energy Potential Conversion Efficiencies for Conventional Combustion Waste to Energy Plants
Plant Type
Electricity Generation Only 17 - 30
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) 70 - 85
Heating Stations with Sales of Steam and/or Hot Water 80 - 90
Steam Sales to Large Chemical Plants 90 - 100
CHP and Heating Plants with Condensation of Humidity in Flue Gas 85 - 95
CHP and Heating Plants with Condensation and Heat Pumps 90 - 100
Note
The figures quoted in the above table are derived from addition of MWh of heat and MWh of
electricity produced, divided by the energy output from the boiler. No detailed account is taken
of other important factors such as: process energy demand (support fuels, electrical inputs)
or displacement of electricity and heat generation.
Reported Potential
Thermal Efficiency %
Page 245 of 591


Conventional Combustion Summary

Summary features of conventional combustion WTE facilities are as follows:

Conventional Combustion Summary
Feedstock Municipal/commercial solid waste, biomass.
Minimal waste preparation / pre-processing required.
Designed to process variable waste streams.
Residual to Disposal 5% (by weight) if the majority of bottom ash can be
marketed for other applications.
Up to 20 to 25% by weight if there is no market for
recovered materials from the ash (0.2 to 0.25 tonnes
per input tonne).
Landfill capacity consumption reduced by 90 to 95%.
Potential Energy and
Revenue Streams
Revenue potential for: electricity, heat (steam and/or
hot water), recovered recyclable metals, construction
aggregate.
Electricity production, 0.5 to 0.6 MWh/annual tonne of
solid waste for older facilities.
Electricity production rates of between 0.75 to 0.85
MWh/annual tonne for newer facilities.
Scalability Various sizes of mass burn units; use of multiple units
also possible.
Reliability Numerous facilities operating worldwide with proven
operational success.
Less complex than other WTE approaches.
Scheduled and unscheduled downtime reported as
<10%.

Source: Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010

3.3 Gasification

Gasification is the partial combustion of waste in an oxygen starved environment.
This process results in a synthetic gas (syngas) being created which primarily
comprises methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Syngas can then either be
immediately combusted in a secondary oxygen rich chamber which in turn powers a
heat recovery boiler (similar to the process used by modular two-stage combustion),
cooled and cleaned prior to being used directly in gas engines or combusted in a
heat recovery boiler, stored to provide alternative fuels, or further refined i.e.
hydro-conversion.

The three primary types of gasification technologies available are fixed bed, fluidised
bed and entrained bed gasification, these technologies are not as common as
conventional combustion technology due to being less commercially proven and
reliable
4
. Typically gasification technologies require a much more homogenous
waste in comparison to conventional combustion technologies, pre-processing of
waste is therefore required. This pre-processing may be in the form of sorting,

4
Page 246 of 591


shredding and/or sizing of solid waste which may include the separation of a high-
calorific fraction commonly referred to as a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). This adds
additional cost and complexity to gasification plant operations.

Fixed Bed Gasification (up-draught)

A fixed bed gasifier can be described in four steps, the pre-heating zone, pyrolysis
zone, gasification zone and combustion zone. First, waste is fed into the top of the
gasifier (pre-heating zone) where it is heated and dried by rising syngas resulting
from the gasification occurring below. Second, the waste moves down the gasifier
where it is further heated and de-volatised (pyrolysis zone). The de-volatised waste
is then gasified by reacting with steam (fed into the bottom of the gasifier) and
carbon dioxide (gasification zone). Finally, near the bottom of the gasifier, oxygen
(feed into the bottom) reacts with the remaining char (combustion zone).

A modern form of gasification that utilises a similar process to fixed bed gasification
is known as high temperature conversion of waste, which claims to require a less
homogenous fuel and utilised higher temperatures than standard fixed bed
gasification.

Fluidised Bed Gasification

Fluidised bed gasification is similar to the process of fluidised combustion. The
difference being that oxygen is not as readily available in fluidised bed gasification,
resulting in the formation of syngas which is extracted and processed.

Entrained Bed Gasification

In an entrained bed gasifier, fuel and oxygen enter the gasification chamber in con-
current flow. The ratio of waste to oxygen is maintained at a level so that the heat
generated in the chamber is above that required to melt ash, this temperature is
much higher than the temperatures reached in fixed bed gasification. Because of
these high temperatures, gasification rates are generally higher than those achieved
in either fixed bed or fluidised bed gasifiers
5
. The molten ash and syngas created as a
result then flow through a quench system which cools the gas and solidifies the ash.
The syngas is then separated and further processed.

Efficiency of Gasification

Generally gasification technologies generally have lower energy recovery efficiency
than single-stage combustion technologies, with standard electricity generation
efficiency reported at 10% - 20%. This reflects the more complete combustion that is
achieved in single-stage combustion compared to gasification. Also the energy input
required for gasification technology is higher
6
. The combination of gasification with

5
Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry. Emil Raymond Riegel, James Albert Kent. 2003
6
Page 247 of 591


Combined Cycle Turbines (CCT) can improve electricity efficiency to 30% and
combined CHP gasification plants can deliver up to circa 90% energy efficiency.

Source: Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. August 2010.

Gasification Summary

Summary features of gasification WTE facilities are as follows:

Gasification Summary
Feedstock Automobile shredder residue (ASR), biomass, black liquor,
coal, hospital waste, municipal/commercial solid waste,
organic waste streams, plastics, PVC, refinery residues,
sludge, tires.
Waste preparation/pre-processing required by technology.
Difficulties in accepting variable (heterogeneous) waste
streams.
Residual to Disposal <1 % if bottom ash can be marketed for other applications.
10 to 20% if it is not marketable (0.1 to 0.2 tonnes of
residue per 1 tonne of input waste).
Landfill capacity consumption reduced by up to 95%.
Revenue Streams
Revenue potential for: electricity, syngas, aggregate
recovered from ash.
solid waste.
Scalability Usually built with a fixed capacity; modular.
Individual modules range in size from approximately
40,000 to 100,000 tpa.
Reliability At least seven plants in operation in Japan at a large scale
with over two years of operating experience.
Limited data available in other jurisdictions to assess
operational success with solid waste feedstock in regards
to technical reliability.
Complex operation.
Scheduled and unscheduled downtime reported as
approximately 20%, however other reports indicate
potential for up to 45% downtime.

Energy Potential Conversion Efficiency for Syngas created by Gasification Waste to Energy Plants
Syngas Use
Electricity Generation by Steam Boiler and Turbine 10 - 20
Burned in Reciprocating Engines 13 - 28
Combined Cycle Turbines up to 30
Combined heating and Power ~ 90
Note
The figures quoted in the above table are derived from addition of MWh of heat and MWh of
electricity produced, divided by the energy output from the boiler. No detailed account is taken
of other important factors such as: process energy demand (support fuels, electrical inputs)
or displacement of electricity and heat generation.
Reported Potential
Thermal Efficiency %
Page 248 of 591


3.4 Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is a process in which waste is thermally heated in the absence of oxygen.
First, like gasification, the waste must be processed to reduce the size of large items
and create a homogenous feedstock. This is achieved by shredding, drying and
sorting the waste. Second, the waste is feed in to the pyrolysis and then typically
indirectly heated
7
. The by-product of this process is a mixture of solid char, syngas
and oxygenated oils
8
. However, to maintain consistent levels of these by-products,
the process and fuel must be carefully monitored.

Whilst there are a relatively small number of plants in commercial operation
globally, Pyrolysis is not generally considered a commercially proven technology for
converting waste to energy at the present time
9
.

Pyrolysis Summary

Summary features of pyrolysis WTE facilities are as follows:

Pyrolysis Summary
Feedstock Biomass, automotive shredder residue, coal, hospital
waste, municipal/commercial solid waste, plastics,
polyvinyl chloride, sludge, tires, wastewater.
Waste preparation/pre-processing required by
technology.
Difficulties in accepting variable waste streams.
Residual to Disposal If treated, residues reduced to 0.1 to 0.3 tonnes per
input tonne.
>30%, if residue not treated.
Landfill capacity consumption reduced by up to 90%.
Revenue Streams
Revenue potential for: electricity, syngas, pyrolysis oil.
solid waste.


3.5 Summary of Thermal Technology

Thermal technologies are the most applicable WTE methods for processing solid
waste. Conventional combustion has been widely used for many years to treat
unsorted solid waste. Gasification and pyrolysis are developing technologies which
are still establishing themselves in the market but have excellent potential for the
future.

Summary features of the key types of thermal technologies are shown below:

7
Cost of Incineration and Non-incineration energy from waste technologies. January 2008.
8
9
Page 249 of 591


Characteristic Conventional Combustion Gasification Pyrolysis
Single-
stage
Fluidised
Bed
Two-
stage
Applicable to
unprocessed solid
waste, with
variable
composition
Yes No Yes No No
Commercially
proven system
with relatively
simple operation
and high degree of
reliability
Yes Yes Yes Commercially proven
to a limited degree,
more complex than
combustion and less
reliable, very costly
No
Reasonably
reliable set of
performance data
Yes No Yes Limited data,
operational problems
have been
documented.
Limited data,
operational
problems
have been
documented.


In addition to the above technologies, many emerging thermal technologies exist
but are yet to be commercially proven on a large scale. These technologies include:

Plasma arc gasification
Gasplasma
Thermal cracking technology
Thermal oxidation

WTE technological advancements and commercialisation are evolving rapidly and
these technologies (or others yet to be developed) could become mainstream in the
foreseeable future.

3.6 Overview of Biological Treatment and MBT

Biological WTE technologies are generally not applicable to unsorted solid waste due
to its significant inorganic fraction. However, these processes are widely used to
treat sewerage waste and are finding increasing application in treatment of pre-
separated solid organic waste as outlined below.

Biological treatment for energy recovery is generally via anaerobic digestion (AD) a
process whereby organic (generally food) waste is digested by naturally occurring
bacteria in a sealed bio-reactor in the absence of oxygen. The process produces
biogas (comprising mainly methane and CO
2
) which is then captured to produce
Page 250 of 591


energy (heat and electricity). The by-product organic residue is generally used for
composting.

AD is predominantly used to process food waste (with some ability to handle
minimal green waste). The process is claimed to extract 50-70% of the energy
contained in the biomass. The biogas can be used to develop electricity at an
efficiency rate of 30 - 35% of the energy content of the biogas
10
or for other fuel
uses However, this electricity production can vary considerably depending on the
methane content of the biogas.

In general, AD plants have much lower electricity yields than equivalent thermal
WTE facilities due to the lower energy content of the feedstock. For example, a
recent study
11
based on using a UK-based food waste source, assuming 110 170m
3

methane per tonne of waste and 30% electricity generation efficiency, indicated
potential electricity production of 0.15 0.24 MWh per tonne of feedstock.

The main biological alternative to AD is composting. Whilst composting does enable
use of the full green waste + food waste components of the solid waste stream, it is
not a WTE technology and is not considered further here. AD is generally considered
more expensive than composting but cheaper than thermal WTE technologies.

Another process that is often considered part of biological WTE technology is
Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). This process is capable of handling mixed
solid waste and typically includes an initial mechanical preparation stage (e.g.
sorting, shredding and crushing) to produce a series of processed waste streams
suitable for recycling or subsequent treatment. The treatment stage commonly
includes use of AD and/or composting, and therefore MBT does not necessarily
produce energy.

10
Waste and Climate Change, ISWA, 2009
11
Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Food Waste on Merseyside: A Practical Assessment, Dec. 2010
Page 251 of 591


4. USE OF WTE I NTERNATI ONALLY

New Zealand has no WTE facilities for solid waste and thus the performance of this
technology in managing local sources of solid waste has yet to be assessed (see further
discussion in Section 6).

This section provides a brief overview of the current state of international WTE development
to provide perspective on the history and use of WTE globally.

4.1 Background

WTE plants have been in operation in developed countries for well over 50 years with
mixed success. Early adopters have included the USA, Europe and Japan.

Many of the existing plants are based on conventional combustion of solid waste to
produce steam for heat / electricity generation purposes. However, WTE technology
continues to develop at a rapid rate and other processes such as gasification and
pyrolysis are likely to find increasing commercial application and acceptance in the
future.

According to a recent report by Stantec
12
, conventional combustion facilities
generally range in capacity from circa 36,500 to 365,000 tpa, with maximum size
generally limited by the calorific value of the waste input stream.

4.2 USA

The USA was an early adopter of WTE technology and has been through both boom
and bust periods in WTE development. WTE took-off during the 1970s and 1980s
with the construction of around 180 new plants. However, the impact of higher
emissions standards, larger lower-cost landfill development and profitability issues
has seen the number of plants more than halve.

12
Waste to Energy : A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices, Aug. 2010.
WTE Facilities Worldwide
Source: WTE worldwide: Waste Management World, Vol. 9, Issue 6.
Page 252 of 591


There are currently just under 90 WTE facilities operating in 24 different States in the
USA
13
. These plants have a total aggregate capacity to process around 35 million tons
of MSW to generate up to 2,572 MW of electricity and an equivalent of 218 MW of
steam.

The WTE industry in the USA has largely stagnated and most of the operating facilities
are at least 15 years old
14
. Indeed, between 1996 and 2007 no new WTE plants were
constructed in the USA due to environmental and political pressure
15
.

There is evidence of renewed interest in WTE facilities in the USA. A new 1,500 ton
per day combustion WTE plant is being developed in Fredrick Country, MD and State
legislation is being considered that would provide incentives for electricity generation
through WTE incineration. Opponents, including environmental groups, are opposing
the plant and the legislation.

A number of local USA authorities are considering new WTE facilities using non-
combustion technologies other such as gasification, plasma arc gasification, pyrolysis
and AD
16
.

4.3 Europe

The European experience with WTE facilities has generally been more successful. The
trend in Europe has been towards marginal increases in the volume of waste
generated per capita over the last 10 years with decreased volumes sent to landfill
and increased use of recycling, composting and incineration (i.e. combustion).

Municipal waste generation and treatment, EU-27, 1995-2008
(kg per capita)

Source: Eurostat Energy, Transport and Environment Indicators, 2010 Edition

Eurostat reports that energy production from MSW more than doubled during the
period 1998 to 2008 with major new WTE capacity led by Germany, France and Italy.
There are currently around 450 operating WTE plants throughout Europe. Over 90%

13
The 2010 ERC Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants.
14
Waste-to-Energy Plants, Global Energy Network Institute. June 2010
15
Waste-to-energy: A review of the status and benefits in USA. January 2009.
16
Conversion Technologies Update. Letter to Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utility Commission from R.W. Beck
Inc. October 27, 2010.
Page 253 of 591


of these employ mass burn incineration technology with around 30 utilising fluidised
bed technology
17
.

European countries with higher WTE
uptake also generally exhibit greater
levels of recycling and lower disposal
volumes to landfill, as shown below.

Waste Management for the EU 25 (2005)

Source: Institute for European Environmental Policy; EEA

It appears there has been greater adoption of WTE in Europe for a number of reasons
including;

Lack of space and high cost of landfilling.
Higher costs of electricity in many EU countries.
European directives on reducing biodegradable waste to landfill.
Use of WTE plants to supply steam for local district heating loops.
Utilisation of combustion by-products (as an alternative to disposal of ash to
landfill).
Strict pollution control regulations.
Social/community acceptance.

17
Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. Aug. 2010
AEB WTE Facility Amsterdam
Page 254 of 591


4.4 Other Countries

Other Countries utilising WTE technology include Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, China
and Canada. Japan is reported to process up to 70% of its MSW using WTE
18
and has
been an early adopter of locally developed gasification technology.

Developing nations in Asia are taking an increased interest in WTE technologies. New
plants continue to be developed in countries such as India, China, Taiwan, Macau and
others where population density is high and/or there is high demand for
energy/electricity from all sources due to rapid economic growth.

Europe and Asia (in particular China) are likely to lead growth in the WTE industry in
the future. One recent report
19
indicates the Chinese Government is calling for the
construction of 200 WTE facilities by 2020.

There has been limited adoption of WTE in Australia to date. A small number of waste
facilities operate in the greater Sydney area using the biomass to generate waste to
energy. These include the Earthpower AD plant in Camellia, NSW and the UR-3R MBT
plant at Eastern Creek, NSW. A report by Wright Corporate Strategy in 2009
20
noted
that (in reference to these facilities):

Alternative waste technology (AWT) schemes have gained recognition as an
important waste strategy toolbox option in Australia. This recognition comes in spite
of some notable failures, commissioning delays, and persistent product quality
shortcomings. Some AWT systems implemented in Australia were previously not full
proven and commercialised, and few have had a life-cycle record of successful
operation unlike sewage treatment, waste treatment is a fledgling industry.

18
WTE worldwide : Waste Management World, Volume 9, Issue 6
19
WTE worldwide : Waste Management World, Volume 9, Issue 6
20
Public Review Landfill Capacity and Demand. Wright Corporate Strategy Pty Ltd, March 2009.
Page 255 of 591


5. KEY I SSUES SURROUNDING WTE

Waste minimisation and environmental issues play a critical part in the assessment of
whether to accept or reject WTE as a waste management and minimisation option. Key
issues include:

The position of WTE in the Waste Hierarchy.
Possible conflicts with waste minimisation initiatives.
The types and levels of emissions generated by WTE facilities.
The performance of WTE facilities against emissions standards.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions/avoided emissions.

Reactions to the above issues are often highly polarised and impartial perspectives on the
WTE debate are rare. This section provides our views based on a high-level review of current
literature on WTE with respect to its credentials as a waste management option.

5.1 WTE in the Waste Hierarchy

New Zealand and a number of other developed countries such as the USA and
European Union have adopted similar strategic approaches to waste management
and minimisation. This is often referred to as the waste hierarchy since it
prioritises the way in which communities approach the issue of waste management

The waste hierarchy favours waste prevention followed by (in order of priority),
minimisation, reuse, recycling, recovery (generally energy recovery) and finally
disposal.

The waste hierarchy underpins much of the waste strategy in these jurisdictions and
reduction (minimisation), reuse and recycling the (3-Rs), have become prominent
features of many central and local government waste strategies.

WTE falls towards the bottom of this hierarchy and there is considerable debate
internationally regarding the extent to which resources should be applied to WTE as
a waste management strategy.

Proponents of WTE generally view the technology from the perspective of its
potential to divert waste from landfill and the associated benefits including lower
GHG emissions and superior energy (heat and/or electricity) production. These
groups often include commercial providers of WTE technology. Some proponents
seek to have WTE recognised as a renewable energy source due to its biomass
component.

Detractors of WTE include zero-waste proponents who view WTE as diverting
public attention, effort and resources away from their fundamental perspective that
all waste is avoidable and all focus should be placed on effectively eliminating
waste treatment (including WTE) and disposal. These groups strongly reject the
Page 256 of 591


renewable energy argument. Those against WTE also often cite concerns that WTE
poses risks in terms of its environmental effects.

Further information on the application of the waste hierarchy as part of the New
Zealand National Waste Strategy and Auckland Council waste strategy is provided in
Section 7 of this paper.

5.2 Potential Conflicts with Waste Minimisation

The drive towards waste minimisation in developed countries including New Zealand
has raised concerns that development of WTE facilities may conflict with 3-R
initiatives.

A recent report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy
21
notes that
little conclusive evidence regarding conflicts could be identified. However, it
acknowledges that the potential risks are clear and include:

Failure to recognise the resource use and GHG benefits associated with
reusing/recycling raw materials.
Demand pull for waste by new WTE facilities that require a minimum
quantity of waste annually.
The need for WTE facilities to operate over long time horizons to generate
adequate financial returns and ensure ongoing viability.

The experience in Europe, where countries with high levels of recycling are also
often the largest users of WTE, makes it difficult to argue a meaningful conflict
exists. In these countries WTE has essentially been substituted for
landfilling/disposal as the bottom rung in the waste hierarchy.

The IEEP report notes that risks of conflict are likely to be higher in countries where
incineration and recycling collectively dominate the waste management stream (i.e.
there is more likely to be a direct trade-off between the two). This is not the case in
New Zealand where disposal via landfill still predominates as a waste management
method.

Further discussion regarding WTE in the context of the New Zealand and Auckland
waste strategies is provided in Section 7.

5.3 Emissions from WTE Facilities

Commercial WTE facilities are currently dominated by combustion technology. The
low-energy heterogeneous mixed waste used to fuel these plants generates a
variety of air and solid emissions and residues that require rigorous pollution
control. These include:

21
Preparing for the Review of the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste, IEEP, Oct. 2010.
Page 257 of 591


Air pollutant emissions.
GHG emissions (CO
2
and NO
x
).
Residual ash (fly ash and bottom ash).

Early facilities in countries such as the USA performed poorly from an environmental
perspective and the legacy of this performance appears to continue to colour the
debate on WTE today. Significant tightening of emissions legislation in both the USA
and Europe now provides much stringent compliance regimes. These regulatory
changes, together with advances in WTE technology and pollution control systems,
have led to major reductions in WTE air emissions.

Air Pollutant Emissions

Key air emissions of concern include sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides, dioxin/furan,
carbon monoxide, cadmium, lead, mercury. These pollutants are often cited as a key
risk issue by community/lobby groups opposed to WTE facilities. However, modern
Air Pollution Control (APC) technologies are available to meet air emissions
guidelines. The extent and nature of the potential emissions from WTE facilities
means that the cost of APC systems are generally high.

Reviews of the air emission performance of WTE facilities appear limited. A paper by
Psomopoulos et. al. in 2009 noted significant improvement in air emissions
performance of modern WTE plants in the USA over the previous decade due to
upgrading of the remaining US WTE facilities as a result of tightened air emission
regulations. However, this is also likely to have reflected the significant number of
plants that were closed during this period due to their poor environmental track
record and/or financial performance.

Psomopoulos et. al. noted that average WTE emissions from the remaining WTE
plants in the USA are (with the exception of NO
x
) well below EPA maximum
emissions standards.

Emissions From US WTE Facilities
Pollutant Annual Emissions Annual Emissions Reduction
1990 2000 (%)
Dioxins/Furans, g TEQ* 4,260 g 12 g 99.7
Mercury 41.1 tonnes 2 tonnes 95.1
Cadmium 4.3 tonnes 0.3 tonnes 93
Lead 47.4 tonnes 4.3 tonnes 90.9
Hydrochloric Acid 42,636 tonnes 2,429 tonnes 94.3
Sulphur Dioxide 27,909 tonnes 3,705 tonnes 86.7
Particulate Matter 6,300 tonnes 643 tonnes 89.8
* Toxic equivalent (sum of substance amounts multiplied by toxicity equivalency)
Source: C.S. Psomopoulos et al., Waste Management 29, 2009
Page 258 of 591


NZ Emissions Legislation

Any new WTE facility in Auckland would need to comply with New Zealand air
quality regulations including the National Environmental Standards for ambient air
quality (see below) and the Resource Management Act (RMA).

National Environment Standards for ambient air quality from 1 September 2005
Pollutant Standard Time Average Allowable exceedances
pa
Carbon monoxide (CO) 10 mg/m
3
8 hours (running mean) 1
Fine particles (PM
10
) 50 g/m
3
24 hours 1
Nitrogen dioxide (NO
2
) 200 g/m
3
1 hour 9
Ozone (O
3
) 150 g/m
3
1 hour 0
Sulphur dioxide (SO
2
) 350 g/m
3

570 g/m
3

1 hour
1 hour
9
0

GHG Emissions

Landfilling has traditionally been the largest source of GHG emissions from the
waste sector. Landfill operations emit both CO
2
and methane. Methane has a global
warming potential 21 times greater than that of CO
2
. Reducing biodegradable waste
to landfill has become a high priority in the EU as a means of reducing risks around
landfill leachate and reducing landfill GHG emissions. The introduction of gas
recovery systems, energy production and the flaring of surplus gas have also
contributed to reduced landfill GHG emissions and renewable energy recovery.

Compared to landfilling (without gas recovery), thermal WTE technologies are
reported to avoid most GHG generation, resulting in only minor emissions of CO
2
.
GHG emissions have become increasingly important internationally as carbon credits
and trading schemes have been developed. In most countries WTE facilities play a
minimal role in overall generation of GHGs and indeed are considered to deliver a
net GHG benefit when compared with landfills.

We note that new best-practice New Zealand landfills daily cap refuse with a layer
of soil/clay and have gas capture and energy generation/flaring as an integral part of
Average Emissions of 87 US WTE Facilities
Pollutant Average Emission US EPA Standard Average Emission Unit
(% EPA Standard)
Dioxin/Furan, TEQ basis 0.05 0.26 19.2% mg/dscm*
Particulate Matter 4 24 16.7% mg/dscm
Sulphur Dioxide 6 30 20.0% ppmv
Nitrogen Oxides 170 180 94.4% ppmv
Hydrogen Chloride 10 25 40.0% ppmv
Mercury 0.01 0.08 12.5% mg/dscm
Cadmium 0.001 0.02 5.0% mg/dscm
Lead 0.02 0.2 10.0% mg/dscm
Carbon Monoxide 33 100 33.0% ppmv
* Dry standard cubic metre of stack gas
Source: C.S. Psomopoulos et al., Waste Management 29, 2009
Page 259 of 591


their operations. These initiatives serve to significantly reduce the amount of
methane escaping to the atmosphere. However, they are generally considered to be
less effective and efficient than a biogas generation plant specifically built for that
purpose. For example landfill gas generation is less consistent than in WTE facilities
and emissions occur over a much longer timeframe including during and following
the operational life of the site. Emissions from WTE processes take place at
approximately the same time as the waste is treated.

Residual Ash

One of the obvious benefits of WTE facilities is that they reduce the volume of solid
material transferred to landfill. Combustion of waste can reduce the volume of
waste by up to 90% and weight by up to 75%. However, the processes that generate
energy from waste also produce by-product solid materials in the form of particulate
matter recovered from flue gases or fly-ash and the bottom ash/slag that is left as
a non-combustible residue.

Fly-ash is often considered to be a hazardous substance, although it can also have
applications in industry including potential for incorporation into asphalt and other
road products or blended in small amounts with cement as a binding agent. Steel
(that has not been previously recycled) can be recovered from bottom ash with the
residual material also used for various construction/roading products.

Research and scientific debate
23
continues regarding how bottom ash is best
used/disposed to minimise its long term environmental effects.

23
See Waste Management 2007; 27(8) S75-84; Waste Management 2009; 29(7) 2071-7; and, Chemosphere 2011;
82(11) 1556-62.
Page 260 of 591


6. USE OF WTE IN NEW ZEALAND

6.1 History of WTE Facilities

The application of combustion or gasification technologies to generate energy from
the New Zealand waste stream has had little attention to date. We are not aware of
any examples of WTE technology currently or historically being used to treat MSW
or its equivalent in New Zealand. Australia has a small number of biological WTE
plants in operation with reported mixed success.

We note there was a proposal in the late 1990s by private New Zealand company
Olivine (NZ) Limited (ONZ) to undertake a $223 million conversion of the Meremere
power station into a WTE plant. News reports at the time indicate that the plans
included the combustion of up to 1 million tonnes of refuse per year, with a similar
facility planned for Gisborne. ONZ were unable to secure resource consents for
Meremere and both the Meremere and Gisborne proposals were terminated by the
Company. The Managing Director of Olivine Limited was Warwick Davies, the
current Managing Director of related company Global Olivine (NZ) Limited (see
further discussion in Section 6.4).

WTE technology in New Zealand to date has focussed on biogas initiatives (see
Section 6.2). Whilst there have been no public announcements to date, our
discussions with local representatives of WTE technology suppliers suggest that
ongoing increases in transport and landfill costs are driving other Councils to look
seriously at WTE options for solid waste, particularly where these can be
incorporated with materials recycling facilities.

6.2 Biogas Generation Facilities

There is a much longer history of treating liquid waste/sludge using AD technology
to generate energy from biogas (mainly methane), and more recently utilising
methane derived from landfills to generate electricity. These technologies all utilise
various organic/biomass components of the solid or liquid waste stream and the
energy produced is therefore considered to be renewable and can be used to
generate carbon credits.

Examples of biogas facilities in New Zealand include Wastecares Mangere
wastewater treatment site which has used AD since the 1960s to generate
electricity and heat, and Christchurchs wastewater treatment plant. Biogas is also
collected and utilised for energy at a number of New Zealand landfills including
Redvale, Hampton Downs, Burwood and others. Further information on biogas in
New Zealand can be found at www.biogas.co.nz

We note that AD technology is applicable to the development of energy facilities
using the organic component of the solid waste stream. Parts of Australia (e.g.
Sydney) are using this technology to treat biomass. The Eastern Creek UR-3R was
developed in 2004 and processes up to 260,000 tpa of Sydneys MSW. The facility
uses a combination of mechanical separation and sorting of recyclables together
Page 261 of 591


with biological treatment of the organic component to produce energy and
compost. A review of the UR-3R development
24
noted that due to the resistance
from the public and NGOs against waste treatment facilities such as incineration,
gasification and pyrolysis, an MBT solution was chosen.

6.3 Analysis of WTE by former Auckland Councils

Discussions with the Auckland Council SWBU indicate that little historical analysis
has been undertaken by the various former Auckland city and district councils with
respect to utilising WTE as part of their solid waste management options.

An assessment of options for the management of organic kitchen waste in 2002
25

included a review of composting vs. incineration vs. anaerobic digestion. However,
the report noted that incineration it is not commonly used to process the organic
fraction of the waste stream since food waste has a lower calorific value (circa
5.6MJ/kg) than general MSW (8.7 12.1 MJ/kg) and therefore produces limited
energy. Incineration also fails to recover any of the residual organic carbon.

6.4 Review of Recent Proposals to Council

We are aware that Auckland Council has recently received several unsolicited
approaches from WTE companies/agents with information on options/technology
that could be used to develop WTE facilities using Auckland solid waste. These are
summarised briefly below.

We stress that these technologies are not necessarily representative of the broader
WTE industry nor have they been pre-selected by Council or Campbell MacPherson.
The summaries below are high level in nature and are based on limited non-
confidential information provided by the Companies and/or available from public
sources.

GO-SRRF

Proposal

Global Olivine (NZ) Limited (GONZ), formerly known as Global Olivine Limited, has
proposed that Council and/or its associated CCOs invest in the development of the
Global Olivine Sustainable Resource Recovery Facility or GO-SRRF.

The GO-SRRF is a large and complex industrial development. The major component
is a WTE gasification facility to generate electricity and heat, combined with other
industrial processes to separate/ generate various recyclables and end products
from the solid and liquid waste stream. The proposed facility would use circa 1.55 -

24
Mechanical Biological Treatment: Case Study 2: Eastern Creek UR 3R Sydney, Report to IEA Bioenergy Task 36,
April 2007.
25
Assessment of Options for the Management of Organic Kitchen Waste, August 2002, Waste Not.
Page 262 of 591


1.92 million tpa of waste including MSW, industrial waste, commercial waste,
sewerage sludge and other solid and liquid wastes.

GONZ claims that the GO-SRRF would be a zero-waste facility with no residue to
landfill. Quoted annual outputs based on using 1.92 Mtpa of waste include 1,688
GWh of electricity together with a range of recycled products (plastic, glass, metals
etc) and residual water.

GONZ quote capital costs to develop the GO-SRRF of US$1.35 billion and would
require a waste supply contract together with power and water off-take contracts.
The Company states that environmental consents for its WTE technology were
previously granted in Western Australia and Peterborough UK.

GONZ Track Record

GONZ is a privately owned New Zealand company. Key personnel include Managing
Director Warwick Davies. The company was incorporated in September 2001 and is
based in Auckland.

The Company is yet to construct or operate its GO-SRRF technology. GONZ and its
related companies have made a number of attempts to develop thermal WTE
facilities in different countries over the last 15 years.

As discussed in Section 6.1, Warwick Davies, through related company ONZ, sought
to establish a WTE plant at Meremere, south of Auckland in the late 1990s but
resource consents were not granted and the project did not proceed.

In the early 2000s another related company Global Olivine West Australia Limited
(GOWA) sought to develop at large WTE facility (along similar lines to that now
proposed for Auckland) at Kwinana in Western Australia. Whilst the EPA
recommended that environment consents be granted
26
, the local Council appears to
have discontinued negotiations with GOWA and the proposed facility did not
proceed.

In 2005 Peterborough Renewable Energy Limited (PREL) proposed a large 250
million WTE facility using Global Olivine technology. The local Council is believed
to have declined the original proposal and reports indicate that a revised application
was submitted by PREL for a much smaller facility that no longer used Global Olivine
technology
27
.

Potential for Development in Auckland

In our view the GONZ proposal would represent a step change in the capture and
management of the Auckland waste stream. We understand that GONZ has
significant technical, environmental and financial modelling developed over many

26
Waste to Energy and Water Plant, Lot 15 Mason Road, Kwinana : Global Olivine Western Australia. Report and
recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority, December 2000.
27
Peterborough UK Community website, October 2007.
Page 263 of 591


years in relation to its technology. However, analysis of this in any detail is beyond
the scope of this Discussion Paper.

Our initial review of this proposal has highlighted several major challenges to
overcome including:

The GO-SRRF would require considerable political support from both
central government and Auckland Council. The current National Waste
Strategy and Auckland Council strategic direction on waste management
and minimisation are unlikely to favour the GO-SRRF based on the waste
hierarchy concept.
The GO-SRRF would effectively make all other landfill, waste management
and recycling facilities redundant. Operators and owners of those facilities
(e.g. EnviroWaste and TPI) are therefore unlikely to be supportive.
Council also has significant sunk investment into the current Auckland
waste management infrastructure including part ownership of Waste
Disposal Services, direct ownership of a number of transfer stations and the
BOOT arrangement with Visy for the material recycling facility in
Onehunga.
The Auckland waste stream is currently largely controlled by EnviroWaste
and TPI
29
who are unlikely to supply waste to the GO-SRRF for the reasons
outlined above.
It would be problematic to legally capture the entire Auckland waste
stream.
The project scale is large and requires significant (US$1 billion +) capital
expenditure and funding. Projects of this scale are always more difficult to
develop and fund than smaller facilities. Any funding would no doubt be
conditional on waste supply contracts and electricity and water off-take
contracts being in place prior to development.
There are no GO-SRRF facilities currently in operation that can be assessed
in respect of their technical, operating, environmental and financial
performance.
GONZ is a small private New Zealand company with no track record in
constructing or operating a major WTE facility.

Whilst the GO-SRRF technology appears to have considerable potential, extensive
technical assessment would be required to confirm this. Given the issues outlined
above we consider that the current likelihood of successfully bringing together all of
the required elements is low.

We understand that the GO-SRRF technology is currently being assessed for use
offshore and it may be instructive for Council to assess the GO-SRRF further once
one of these this facilities is in operation. This will also provide time for Council to
complete its WMMP and further develop its strategic objectives including increasing
control of the Auckland solid waste stream.

29
Auckland Council Waste Assessment, 2011.
Page 264 of 591


Sustainable Equities Limited

Sustainable Equities Limited (SEL) is a New Zealand company formed in 2010 as an
amalgam of interests in the municipal waste and biomass waste commercialisation
sectors. Key SEL personnel include CEO Rob Adamson (former CEO of Ngati
Tuwharetoa Holdings Limited) and founder and Head of Marketing Alan Merrie.

SEL has partnered with a number of international technology suppliers, whose
products and services they market in New Zealand and in other parts of the world.
These suppliers include:

Sterecycle a UK based waste conversion process using autoclave
technology.
International Environmental Solutions (IES) a USA-based pyrolysis system.
Range Industries a New Zealand-based technology for processing plastic
waste.

Of the SEL suppliers the Sterecycle process appears most applicable to processing
unsorted solid waste. According to SEL, a combination of the steam and pressure in
the autoclave and the rotation of the vessels results in:
(i) the organic fraction of the waste being broken down into a fibrous
lignocellulosic biomass; and
(ii) the non-organics being sterilised and steam cleaned.

The organic component is then separated from the non-organics and can be used in
a variety of applications including generation of heat and electricity. The non-organic
component is sorted and recyclables, in particular plastics, can be collected. The
process is claimed to reduce the volume of input waste material by 60/70 %.

SEL Track Record

Whilst no formal proposal has been made by SEL to the Auckland Council, the
company has advised Council that it has a number of projects nearing feasibility.

SEL has yet to bring a project through to commissioning and commercial operation.
Information provided by SEL indicates that Sterecycle has one operating facility in
Yorkshire processing circa 100,000 tpa of MSW and has recently received conditional
planning permission from Essex County Council to develop a 240,000 tpa capacity
resource recovery facility combining an autoclave plant, a materials recycling facility
and a combined heat and power facility
30
.

The IES Advanced Pyrolytic System has been demonstrated with a 50-tpd pilot
plant located in Romoland, California (Riverside County). According to a recent
public report
31
the pilot plant has operated intermittently since 2004 for the purpose
of testing, and has processed various types of waste including in excess of 6,000 tons
of post-MRF MSW.

30
http://www.sterecycle.com/news.htm
31
Evaluation of Municipal Solid waste Conversion Technologies, Alternative Resources Inc., April 2008.
Page 265 of 591


Potential for Development in Auckland

The Sterecycle process essentially uses the organic component of the solid waste
stream to generate energy. As such it is likely to compete directly against well
established AD technology for conversion of biomass into energy. We note that
Auckland Councils current plans to source separate organic waste and process it via
composting +/- AD would impact on the availability of organic material for the
Sterecycle process or other similar processes requiring organic feedstock. The IES
pyrolysis technology may have application in processing special wastes (e.g.
hazardous waste, tires etc).

No publically available financial information is available from SEL regarding the likely
capital and operating costs of Sterecycle or IES technology, electricity generation
costs and other fundamentals. It may be helpful for Auckland Council to monitor the
development of SELs other projects and re-address this technology once
commercial viability and costs/benefits have been proven.

Page 266 of 591


7. AUCKLAND COUNCI L WASTE STRATEGY

7.1 Overview

This section considers WTE for Auckland in the context of the wider New Zealand
Waste Strategy, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the recently promulgated
strategic waste objectives from the Auckland Council.

7.2 Legislative Review

Waste management and minimisation in New Zealand is underpinned by the
Governments core waste policy, The New Zealand Waste Strategy -Reducing Harm
Improving Efficiency 2010 (NZWS). The NZWS sets the overall framework, strategic
vision, objectives and broad targets for achieving waste minimisation. A number of
Acts of Parliament provide the legal framework for waste management and
minimisation in New Zealand, with the primary legislation driving waste management
and minimisation planning being the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) and the
Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

The following is a brief review of these key policies and legislation impacting on the
management and minimisation of waste with specific implications for the
development of WTE.

7.3 The New Zealand Waste Strategy - NZWS

Central Government from time to time via its agency the Ministry for the
Environment (MfE) promulgates a national waste strategy (i.e. the NZWS). The NZWS
presents a vision of minimising waste and sets out a practical programme of
strategies and proposed actions for waste reduction and management.

The NZWS provides the strategic framework that councils are legally required to
have regard to the in the development of their local Waste Management and
Minimisation Plans, as required by the s44 of the WMA 2008. The regulatory tools
provided by the WMA were designed to enable ways the NZWS can be implemented
and how progress can be measured over time.

Effective and efficient waste management and minimisation planning is underpinned
by the Governments two core goals as stated in the revised 2010 NZWS and which
are:
Reducing the harmful effects of waste, and;
Improving the efficiency of resource use.

The 2010 NZWS replaces the ambitious zero waste vision of the 2002 strategy as
many of its targets were unable to be measured or achieved. This revised 2010
strategy enables a more flexible and pragmatic approach to waste management and
minimisation.
Page 267 of 591


The MfE considers that effective and efficient waste management and minimisation is
achieved when less waste is sent to landfill, when resources are used wisely, when
the economic cost of managing waste is reduced and when social costs and risks are
minimised.

Government policy outlines an overarching objective of reducing waste to landfill by
20 percent per capita by 2015 based on a 2010 baseline and the NZWS includes an
emphasis on the reduction of organic waste sent to landfill.

The NZWS is silent on the use of technologies such as WTE but it does place
considerable emphasis on the use of increased recycling, reuse and recovery which by
definition reduces the waste stream that would ultimately be available for processing
via a WTE plant or sending to landfill.

7.4 Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) 2008

The enactment of the WMA in 2008 represented a major change in the Governments
approach to managing and minimising waste. The WMA recognises the need to focus
efforts higher in the waste hierarchy, i.e. reducing and recovering waste earlier in its
life cycle, thereby shifting focus away from treatment and disposal options (i.e.
landfill).

This change in focus is reflected in new tools enabled by the WMA such as a
framework for developing accredited product stewardship schemes and a national
levy on waste to landfill set initially at $10 per tonne (i.e. a landfill tax). The purpose
of the levy was not only to generate revenue but also provide a yardstick to more
accurately measure the volumes of waste sent to landfills.

Furthermore the current Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith stated in his
foreword to the 2010 NZWS that getting waste disposal pricing policies right is
crucial to improving waste minimisation . The purpose of the (waste) levy is to
increase the price of waste disposal to better reflect the cost of waste on the
environment, society and the economy The funds from the national levy are to be
used to promote or achieve waste minimisation through a contestable fund or via
MfE for per capita allocation to TAs.

Taken together the WMA and other Acts provide the legislative tools to support
progress toward the strategic vision of waste minimisation outlined in the NZWS. The
WMA represents an update and modernisation of waste legislation to emphasise and
promote waste minimisation. Policy makers have established a mechanism (the
national waste levy) whereby they can use price signals to motivate polluters, both
private households and businesses to divert their current waste volumes from
landfill.

The purpose of the WMA (clause 3) is to:

encourage waste minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal in order to;
(i). protect the environment from harm; and
(ii). provide environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits.
Page 268 of 591


The WMA contains seven parts. Part 3 and Part 4 are critical and provide for the
establishment of a waste disposal levy, and the responsibilities of territorial
authorities in relation to waste management and minimisation respectively.

The WMA requires TAs to consider a six step hierarchy of waste minimisation (listed
in descending order of importance as per clause 44 (a) of the WMA) that essentially
mimics the waste hierarchy used in other developed countries;
(i). Reduction (lessening waste generation).
(ii). Reuse (reuse of products in their existing
form).
(iii). Recycling (making into new products e.g.
packaging, or composting).
(iv). Recovery (extracting materials or energy
for further use).
(v). Treatment (changing the volume or
character of waste for safe disposal).
(vi). Disposal (deposit of waste on land set apart
for the purpose, or incineration).

The WMA in part follows international practice where the key waste reduction
instruments used are often:
Source separation (e.g. organic waste).
Legislated producer responsibility.
Encouraging development of reuse/recycling facilities.
Legislated reduction over time in waste (or its biomass fraction) to landfill.
Polluter pays principle.
Implementation of landfill and incineration taxes.

WTE technology would fall predominantly into a fourth tier response to waste
minimisation with a common focus on electricity and/or heat generation and some
potential for extracting/recycling materials from the residual ash. The residue
resulting from the WTE process is also clearly much smaller than the initial volume of
the waste feedstock, thereby contributing to reduced volumes of waste to landfill (i.e.
a contribution to tier five also).

The key issue, from a WMAs waste hierarchy perspective, is that the feedstock
used for any New Zealand WTE should come directly as a result of diversion from
landfill that would not otherwise have been diverted through other means (i.e.
reduction, re-use or recycling).

Whilst, it is likely to be straightforward to demonstrate that a well functioning WTE
plant could reduce waste to landfill, it is likely to be more problematic to convince
key waste minimisation stakeholders such as Auckland Council, that a WTE plant
Page 269 of 591


would not (now or over its lifespan) cannibalise the potential recyclable
components of the household waste stream.

Because the WMA legislation is relatively new its full impact on social behaviour, solid
waste volumes diverted from landfill and industry structure has not yet been felt to
any significant degree in the Auckland waste market.

7.5 Previous Waste Minimisation Priorities

In 2007-8 the Auckland Waste Officers Forum produced a draft Strategic Priorities for
Waste document for the Auckland region. The agreed priorities for waste
minimisation action were cited as:
i) Organic and food waste;
ii) Construction and demolition (C&D) waste;
iii) Recyclable and packaging;
iv) Hazardous waste;
v) Inorganic/special waste, and;
vi) Illegal dumping and litter.

It is important to note that none of the previous Auckland councils identified WTE
plants as a priority or desired outcome, even given the publicity surrounding the
proposed conversion of the former ECNZ coal fired power station at Meremere by a
private sector investor (Olivine) seeking to capture waste in the Auckland and Waikato
regions.

7.6 Auckland Council - Strategic Direction Options on Waste

The current legislation requires councils to play a central lead role in contributing
toward the achievement of the national targets and TAs are legally required to
complete a waste assessment and produce new Waste Management and
Minimisation Plans (WMMPs) by July 2012. These plans are intended to provide
goals within the context of the waste issues facing its district/city and its desired
community outcomes.

The Auckland Council has recently published its Auckland Council Waste Assessment
(ACWA) with its recommendations for the strategic direction of its WMMP in order to
maximise waste minimisation and diversion from landfill.

The ACWA report is a vital document and outlines that the most significant areas of
opportunity for the Auckland Council;
in order to give effect to the WMA
to implement a waste minimisation strategy is to focus on recycling/reuse of
organic waste;
reducing C&D waste; and,
increasing the emphasis on recovery and recycling at Aucklands transfer
stations.
Page 270 of 591


The overarching theme of the ACWA report is to reduce volumes sent to Auckland
landfills for disposal by recovering/reusing as much as possible from the existing
waste stream. An associated but long term strategy is to make consumers and
producers accountable for the ultimate disposal costs of the products they
produce/consume.

The ACWA authors identified three core options for Council to consider for its WMMP
as summarised below.

Option 1 Continue with the status quo with some streamlining
Council provides licence to operators.
Exclusive collection licence tendered for each area
(to correlate with 21 local boards).
All services funded on polluter pays basis.

Option 2 Continue with the status quo with new activities to
maximise diversion
Organic waste collection.
AC outsources waste contracts.
Funding via polluter pays, rates funding or a mix.

Option 3 Take action as in Option 2 but also move to have
operational influence over the entire waste stream to
landfill.
Council has operational control of all transfer
stations and kerbside residential collection
contracts.
Advocacy for legislation to require industry to
comply with the WMA.
A supporting solid waste bylaw.
Polluter pays funded.

In order to improve waste minimisation and hence reduction of volume to landfills
the ACWA proposes offering additional recycling, recovery and reuse services at each
Auckland refuse transfer station. Auckland currently hosts seventeen transfer stations
owned and operated by a variety of parties including Auckland Council.

Option 3 also seeks to control landfill disposal rates and tonnages through
management of landfill disposal contracts by Council as the sole transfer station
owner and gatekeeper of the Auckland waste stream. No consideration was given
in the ACWA to the potential for WTE to reduce solid waste to landfill as part of the
Councils overall WMMP.

The ACWA recommended Option 3 as it was considered to offer potential to deliver
the most significant reduction in solid waste volumes to landfill (up to 0.3Mtpa).

Page 271 of 591


7.7 Integration with the Auckland Plan

In March 2011 Auckland Council released the new Auckland Plan discussion
document (Discussion Document). This document is intended to become the
blueprint for building the Auckland region over the next 30 years. Mayor Browns
vision embraces Auckland becoming an eco city.

The aspirational goal for Auckland Council is to turn Auckland into the worlds most
liveable city. This long term plan is the strategic planning tool for Auckland and is the
responsibility of the Auckland Council (Mayor plus 20 councillors), 21 local boards,
CCOs and those central government agencies which provide services, infrastructure
and other investment required to implement the Auckland Plan. (The term Auckland
Plan is used to describe the spatial plan for Auckland required by the Local
Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009).

Due to the planning horizon timeframe the Auckland Plan covers a broad range of
high level factors including economic, social, quality of life, environmental,
infrastructure issues, etc. Public submissions are called for by 31 May 2011. Although
the Discussion Document is informal, the next stage is the development of a draft
Auckland Plan that will be published in August 2011.

The Discussion Document makes some mention of the solid waste infrastructure in
Auckland. On page 20 there is comment that the Plan proposes playing a leading
role in promoting a low carbon footprint for Auckland. We need to lead by example in
energy efficiency, in the promotion of walking, cycling and public transport and in
landfill and waste management. (underlining ours).

The Discussion Document discusses creating a sustainable global environment and
proposes three areas of focus;
1. Greenhouse gas emission reduction.
2. Climate change adaption.
3. Energy and resource use and security.

The Discussion Document suggests a 40% reduction of waste with a zero waste
long term target (see page 101). A priority area was identified as the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions to make Auckland an eco-city including the
reduction/removal of green waste from landfills (page 103).

Waste minimisation is therefore clearly set out as a key target and action item for
Auckland Council with a strong commitment to reduce the present waste volumes
being sent to landfill.

The Discussion Document also briefly refers to the three strategic options that the
Councils Environment and Sustainability Forum has discussed and sets out the key
attributes of Option 3 including the point that the Forum had recommended Option 3
which would (in theory) allow the greatest waste reduction to landfill and requires
more of the costs to be taken on by whoever creates the waste (i.e. the polluter pays
principle). This Option 3, they state would make a significant contribution to Auckland
becoming an eco-city.
Page 272 of 591


8. KEY FEATURES OF THE AUCKLAND SOLI D WASTE MARKET

8.1 Overview

The purpose of this Section is to consider the potential for a WTE facility taking into
account the size of the current solid waste stream in Auckland, its composition and
other key structural features of the Auckland solid waste market.

8.2 Auckland Solid Waste Volumes

Data Availability and Quality

The recent release of the ACWA provides the most up-to-date publicly available data
on the Auckland solid waste stream. However, the ACWA authors state they have
strong misgivings surrounding the quality and relevancy of the waste data they were
able to obtain. Much of the data is old and predates the July 2009 national waste
levy. Private operators (TPI and EnviroWaste) control much of the Auckland waste
stream and do not release public information on the composition, diversion, or
recycling volumes under their control.

The data also generally predates the recent recession and it is likely that current
waste volumes are reduced to due lower levels of economic activity and
consumption of raw materials and products by households, commercial and
industrial entities. However, we would expect that waste generation will increase
again as the New Zealand economy improves over the next 24-36 months.

Information provided in this section should therefore be considered as
approximate only and based on available data in the ACWA report.

Estimated Solid Waste Volumes

It is estimated that the total volume of solid waste generated in the Auckland Council
region is in the order of 4.85Mtpa.

Estimated Auckland Solid Waste Stream

Page 273 of 591


The MSW component of the Auckland waste stream (excluding biosolids) is small
and currently comprises around 365,000tpa from Council and private kerbside
collections.

Of the total waste generated, approximately 1.4Mtpa of refuse is sent to sanitary
landfills. From a WTE perspective the waste feedstock would likely come from further
diversion of the 1.4Mtpa of waste currently sent to sanitary landfill. This presents
both risks and opportunities to incumbent landfill operators. Further analysis is
outlined below.

8.3 Auckland Solid Waste Composition

Data available in the ACWA covers composition of solid waste material to landfill as
well as the composition of solid waste material for domestic kerbside waste.

Information on landfill waste composition indicates that the largest category,
comprising 350ktpa (25%), is potentially hazardous waste. This largely represents
contaminated soils and sludges that are unlikely to be suitable for a WTE plant or any
other diversion use. We have excluded this material in our solid waste calculations.

The next largest category is putrescibles (largely food waste and green waste)
representing 266ktpa (19%). We note that Council is expected to make future
diversion of this waste component a priority with likely processing an end use as
compost. We have therefore excluded this material from our anticipated available
solid waste material for WTE.

Whilst the majority of C&D waste is diverted to cleanfill/managed fill operations a
small proportion of the total C&D volume (circa 313ktpa) currently ends up in
sanitary landfill (see rubble and timber categories below). There is some potential to
divert this C&D material to WTE although this is likely to be challenging in terms of
both the ability to divert/sort this material and the unattractiveness of its non-
combustible components such as rubble.


Estimated Composition of Auckland waste to landfill (2007-2008)
Classification Tonnes/ year %
Potentially Hazardous 349,535 25.0%
Putrescibles 266,249 19.1%
Timber 191,592 13.7%
Paper 145,015 10.4%
Plastic 124,646 8.9%
Rubble 121,539 8.7%
Ferrous Metals 55,874 4.0%
Textiles 41,787 3.0%
Nappies and Sanitary 41,465 3.0%
Glass 31,939 2.3%
Rubber 17,309 1.2%
Non-ferrous Metals 9,482 0.7%
Total 1,396,432 100.0%
Page 274 of 591


Excluding potentially hazardous waste and putrescibles there remains
approximately 780ktpa of waste potentially available as a WTE feedstock. If the
C&D material going to sanitary landfill is also excluded then the potentially
available WTE feedstock reduces to only 467Ktpa.

8.4 Control of the Auckland Solid Waste Stream

Whilst there appears in principle to be sufficient suitable solid waste to give
consideration to developing a WTE plant for Auckland, the current ownership
structure of the Auckland waste market presents severe restrictions on the practical
availability of solid waste feedstock.

Council Control

Council estimates that it only controls around 480,000tpa or circa 10% of the
Auckland waste stream with the balance controlled by private/commercial sources.
Of this, approximately 180,000tpa is Councils kerbside refuse collections.

If Council introduced domestic organic collection (circa 96,000 tpa) this would leave
only 85,000tpa of Council controlled MSW. In our view these volumes are likely to
be insufficient for consideration of any significant or sustainable long-term WTE
operation.

Councils ownership of the Auckland landfill market includes its 50% interest in Waste
Disposal Services (WDS), a Joint Venture with TPI that owns and operates the
Whitford landfill. Council also owns six transfer stations and has a BOOT with Visy in
respect of the MRF facility at Onehunga.

Private/Commercial Control

As discussed the Auckland solid waste market is currently controlled by mainly
commercial/private operators. Key players are EnviroWaste and TPI who collectively
control the majority of the Auckland waste stream through their respective landfill
and transfer station networks.

TPI is an ASX-listed company with a substantial Australasian waste business and a
market capitalisation of over A$1 billion. TPI operates in New Zealand through its
local subsidiary Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Ltd and owns the Redvale landfill
north of Auckland with around 50% share of the Auckland landfill market.

The other major landfill servicing Auckland is Hampton Downs, south of Auckland,
owned by EnviroWaste, with around 35% share of the Auckland landfill market.
Hampton Downs also takes waste from outside the Auckland region including the
Waikato and further afield.

Redvale is believed to be the largest landfill by volume servicing Auckland, followed
by Hampton Downs. Whitford is currently limited to a maximum of around 200,000
tpa based on existing consents and operational parameters.

Page 275 of 591


Estimated Total Waste to Landfill from the Auckland Region for 2007-2008

Landfill Estimated tpa

Redvale Landfill (TPI) 717,000

Hampton Downs (EnviroWaste) 478,782

Whitford Landfill (WDS) 200,000

Claris Landfill (Council) 650

Total Estimated Tonnes 1,396,432
Source: Auckland Council Waste Assessment, 2011

TPI and EnviroWaste have separately developed their own proprietary network of
transfer stations in the Auckland region to capture solid waste market share for
delivery to their respective landfills. As discussed, Council also has interests in six
transfer stations in Auckland. Locations of transfer stations and landfills are shown
below.

Auckland landfills and transfer stations

Source: Auckland Council Waste Assessment, 2011

Page 276 of 591


The current Auckland waste market structure and volumes make it highly unlikely
that any new entrant could develop a WTE facility without the support of one or
other of TPI or EnviroWaste. Both of these companies are substantial commercial
entities and would presumably evaluate WTE as part of their waste management
strategic options. WTE may be a commercially feasible alternative or addition to their
existing waste infrastructure.

8.5 Implications for Development of WTE in Auckland

We understand that Aucklands three main sanitary landfills are operated to industry
best practice. Existing landfill operators servicing Auckland have significant sunk cost
and investment in their operating landfills. They are therefore currently motivated to
continue to supply sufficient waste to those landfills to justify that investment and
the ongoing financial viability of their operations in the Auckland region.

Hampton Downs is the most recently consented landfill and has a commercial target
lifespan of at least a further 40-50 years. There would appear to be little incentive at
present for EnviroWaste to give serious consideration to developing a WTE facility
that would cannibalise its existing landfill operation.

TPIs Redvale landfill is nearing the end of its consented life and probably has a
further 10-15 years of operation. Given the extensive planning and consenting
process required to develop a new landfill it is possible that TPI is already giving
consideration to it options for waste treatment/disposal beyond Redvale. Given the
Auckland waste volumes controlled by TPI, a WTE plant could present an alternative
option for consideration.

As clearly identified in the ACWA report, Council has minimal current control over the
Auckland solid waste stream and its knowledge of waste and diversion flows and
waste composition is incomplete. Council is currently not in a position to supply
sufficient volumes of MSW to a third party for a WTE plant.

In the event that Council is able to secure a higher level of control of the Auckland
solid waste market (e.g. through successful execution of the ACWA Option 3) then
additional volumes of commercial waste may be available for diversion to WTE.

Any such changes in control are only likely to occur through Council engaging and
working with TPI and EnviroWaste. During this process Council would have the
opportunity to discuss with these parties their own intentions for WTE and whether
there is a realistic option to substitute Aucklands next new landfill with a greenfield
WTE plant.

Page 277 of 591


9. HIGH LEVEL ECONOMIC COST/BENEFIT ANAYLSI S

9.1 Overview

The financial performance and longevity of WTE facilities can vary depending on a
range of factors including;

Type of WTE technology.
Scale and throughput of the facility.
Capital expenditure (capex) cost (including feasibility and consenting).
Operational performance (downtime, thermal and electric efficiency etc).
Environmental performance.
GHG emissions and carbon tax/credits costs.
Operating costs.
Regulatory and legislative environment.
Competition for source waste material (e.g. comparative cost of landfilling).
Markets and pricing for WTE outputs (e.g. electricity, heat, recycled products,
other by-products.

The initial design life for a WTE is generally in the order of 20-30 years. This period is
designed to provide sufficient operating life to recoup capital costs and generate an
adequate rate of return on these substantial industrial assets.

Whilst no WTE plants are currently operating in New Zealand using solid waste, we
can utilise publicly available international data on capital and operating costs of
different types of plants to provide a high level view on the likely economics of
developing a plant using Auckland solid waste.

9.2 Benchmarking International WTE Costs

Two recent publicly available studies provide useful benchmarking information on
WTE capex costs and operating costs. A study by SLR Consulting commissioned by the
Greater London Authority in 2008
32
looked at a range of combustion and non-
combustion WTE technologies at different scales and configurations. Another report,
prepared by Stantec for the province of British Columbia in 2010
33
reviewed a similar
suite of technologies including high level capex and operating cost data provided by
the technology suppliers.

Both reports note the challenges in accurately determining cost information outside
of a formal confidential procurement process. This reflects issues around how
different WTE suppliers present their financial and operating performance and the
underlying assumptions they use including the energy value and composition of the

32
Costs of Incineration and Non-incineration Energy from Waste Technologies, SLR Consulting Limited, 2008
33
Waste to Energy: A Technical Review of Municipal Solid Waste Thermal Treatment Practices. Aug. 2010
Page 278 of 591


waste stream inputs, requirements for feedstock preparation, parasitic energy
requirements and costs, and varying presentation of energy efficiency.

The SLR Consulting report sought to normalise cost data based on nominal MSW
treatment capacities of 100,000, 150,000 and 200,000 tpa for thermal treatment
facilities (i.e. combustion, gasification and pyrolysis). Whilst the report noted that
biogas (i.e. AD) facilities are not suitable for treating MSW, the study also included
costs for this method as a means of treating either source-separated organic kitchen
wastes or other biodegradable wastes using smaller nominal plant capacities of
15,000, 22,000 and 30,000 tpa.

Capital Costs

Capex costs vary widely for WTE facilities depending on their technology, capacity
and other factors. The SLR Consulting report notes that economies of scale are
generally available to all WTE technologies although capex costs are notably lower for
AD facilities as shown below.

Source: Costs of Incineration and Non-incineration Energy from Waste Technologies,
SLR Consulting Limited, 2008

Based on current exchange rates (1 = NZ$2.06) the SLR Consulting report indicates
that capex costs for combustion facilities range from NZ$72M - NZ$103M (median
NZ$93M) for a 100,000/115,000 tpa plant, through to a range of NZ$124M
NZ$185M (median NZ$157M) for a 170,000/200,000 tpa plant. This equates to
NZ$666 to NZ$1,000 per annual design tonne. Capex costs for combustion technology
reported by Stantec (converted to NZ$ at current exchange rate of $C1 = $NZ1.32)
ranged from NZ$845 to NZ$2,223 per annual design tonne.

Equivalent analysis by SLR Consulting on gasification/pyrolysis technology (converted
to NZ$ at current exchange rates) indicates that capex costs for these facilities range
from NZ$78M - NZ$124M (median NZ$103M) for a 100,000/115,000 tpa plant,
through to a range of NZ$124M NZ$206M (median NZ$175M) for a
170,000/200,000 tpa plant. This equates to around NZ$670 to NZ$1,192 per annual
design tonne. Although we note that the lowest capex cost of $617 per annual design
tonne was recorded for a 150,000 tpa capacity facility. Capex costs reported by
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
N
Z
$

/

t
p
a
tpa (000's)
Comparison of Capital Costs of WTE Technologies
Combustion
Anaerobic Digestion
Gasification / Pyrolysis
Page 279 of 591


Stantec (converted to NZ$ at current exchange rates) were highly variable ranging
from NZ$177 to NZ$1,861 per annual design tonne for gasification technologies and
ranging from NZ$213 - $1,222 per annual design tonne for pyrolysis technologies.

Indicative capital costs reported by SLR Consulting for biogas (AD) technologies
(converted to NZ$ at current exchange rates) were NZ$6.2M NZ$8.2M for a 15,000
tpa plant, through to NZ$12.4M NZ$16.5M for a 30,000 tpa plant. This equates to
NZ$374 to NZ$578 per annual design tonne. The Stantec report did not include
biogas/ AD capex cost data.

Based on the above data it is clear that development of a thermal WTE plant in
Auckland would require a significant capital commitment even at relatively modest
capacity levels (i.e. 100,000 200,000 tpa).

Although the capital cost of developing the current landfill assets in Auckland is not
known it is likely to be far lower, on both an absolute and per annual design tonne
basis than a thermal WTE plant. A smaller biogas plant targeting the food-based
segment of the Auckland waste stream is likely to have a somewhat lower capex costs
per design tonne than a thermal plant. However, there are likely to be additional
collection costs to deliver source separation of the organic feedstock which would
need to be factored in.

Operating Costs

Based on current exchange rates (1 = NZ$2.06) the SLR Consulting report indicates
that operating costs (excluding any interest charges or revenue streams) for
combustion facilities are in the order of NZ$103/t - NZ$134/t for a 100,000/115,000
tpa plant, reducing to a range of NZ$82/t NZ$93/t for a larger 170,000/200,000 tpa
plant. Operating costs for combustion technology reported by Stantec (converted to
NZ$ at current exchange rates) ranged from NZ$51/t - NZ$139/t.

Equivalent analysis by SLR Consulting on gasification/pyrolysis technology (converted
to NZ$ at current exchange rates) indicates that operating costs for these facilities
range from NZ$103/t - NZ$144/t for a 100,000/115,000 tpa plant, reducing to a range
of NZ$82/t NZ$113/t for a larger 170,000/200,000 tpa plant. Operating costs
reported by Stantec (converted to NZ$ at current exchange rates) for gasification
technologies ranged from NZ$49/t - NZ$155/t with similar operating costs over a
marginally lower range from NZ$39/t NZ$138/t for pyrolysis technologies.

Although operating cost ranges appear broadly similar for the various thermal
technologies, the data for combustion plants is likely to be more reliable than that for
other less proven technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis.

Indicative operating costs reported by SLR Consulting for biogas (AD) technologies
(converted to NZ$ at current exchange rates) were relatively constant over the
different nominal plant capacities and ranged from NZ$23/t - NZ$66/t. The Stantec
report did not include biogas/ AD operating cost data. Biogas plants appear to
present an attractive proposition from an operating cost perspective although
additional costs need to be factored in to account for source separation of the
feedstock.
Page 280 of 591


Impact of Emissions Trading Scheme

Under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (the Act), the solid waste disposal
facility sector enters the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) from 1
January 2013. According to the Ministry for the Environment
34

Operators of landfills whose waste stream contains some element of household
waste will have obligations under the ETS. Emissions from wastewater treatment are
not included in the scheme.

Landfill operators will have obligations for the methane emitted through the
biodegradation of organic waste. Waste incinerators emit carbon dioxide, methane
and nitrous oxide; however the carbon dioxide from combusting organic waste will
not be included in the scheme

The current legislation (Climate Change (Waste) Regulations 2010) appears to apply
specifically to waste disposal and therefore excludes WTE. This implies no
additional ETS costs would be incurred by a WTE facility under the current rules.

Whilst landfill operators will face additional costs under the ETS these costs are likely
to be significantly mitigated where an operator has modern gas capture technology in
place to minimise methane and other GHG atmospheric emissions.

9.3 Economic Viability

Given the wide variation in capital and operating costs outlined above our comments
on the economic viability of a WTE plant for Auckland are necessarily general in
nature. At a high level, the profitability of a WTE facility will be a function of its capex
and operating costs relative to revenues generated. Potential revenue sources
include:

Tipping fees.
Sale of electricity to adjacent industries or into the national grid.
Sale of recyclable materials recovered after processing.

Tipping fees

A key feature of WTE facilities is that, unlike other thermal energy (e.g. coal or gas-
fired) plants, they are able to receive their key energy feedstock at no cost since it
generally represents material that would otherwise be charged to be collected and
sent to landfill. In many cases WTE actually charge to receive MSW from providers
since the opportunity cost of land-filling charges in many developed countries
continues to increase as land-filling is actively discouraged. For example, a recent
report
35
noted that the UR-3R facility in NSW, Australia was charging A$95/t for
mixed residual waste with a further premium of $30/t charged for waste with a
depleted organics content (i.e. where a council had a green waste collection system).

34
http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/participating/waste/
35
Alternative Waste Technologies: An Update Report. Wright Corporate Strategy, April 2008.
Page 281 of 591


Whilst landfill charges for major Auckland waste customers are not publicly known,
we understand that Auckland landfill prices are lower than other parts of New
Zealand.

Retail pricing for small commercial volumes of waste to central Auckland transfer
stations are currently in the order of $125/t 135/t (+ GST) which includes a
transport cost component for subsequent transfer to landfill. However, wholesale
rates for major customers are likely to be much lower. Established landfills such as
Hampton Downs and Redvale are also in a strong position to marginally price in order
to compete strongly against new competition.

We note that a report by Morrison Low to Council in 2011
36
assumed an Auckland
Council landfill disposal rate of $68/t.

Aucklands current low landfill charges are likely to be a significant impediment to
WTE financial viability particularly if the facility is not owned by one of the two major
existing landfill operators (i.e. if it had to compete directly against marginally priced
landfill for waste feedstock). Whilst the national waste levy has increased landfill
costs it remains low by international standards and is unlikely to have any significant
positive impact on WTE economics in Auckland.

Electricity Generation

WTE facilities have a wide variety of configurations that can produce electricity, heat,
syngas and other energy outputs depending on the technology (or technologies)
applied. The scale of electricity generation from WTE facilities is generally small
compared with other thermal energy plants and reflects their comparatively smaller
size and the lower calorific value of the waste feedstock.

Information from the SLR Consulting and Stantec reports provides benchmark ranges
for electricity generation capacity of various international WTE facilities (excluding
any CHP contribution). This allows us to undertake a high level comparison of WTE
electricity generation costs compared with current market prices for domestic New
Zealand electricity.

For the purposes of this analysis we have assumed a WTE plant operating life of 25
years and assumed an efficiency of 700KWh/tonne for conventional combustion,
600KWh for gasification and 650KWh for pyrolysis as provided in the Stantec report.

Estimated electricity generation costs are shown in the tables below using the SLR
Consulting and Stantec datasets respectively. Estimates using SLR Consulting data,
together with our assumptions, indicate combustion plants are likely to be able to
generate electricity at a cost in the order of 16c 25c/kWh (median 20c/kWh),
gasification plants show greater variability, ranging from 17c 31c/kWh (median
24c/kWh).

36
Investigation into Preferred Options for Food Waste/Organics Collection and Processing Stage 2, Jan. 2011.
Page 282 of 591


Estimates using Stantec data, together with our assumptions, indicate combustion
plants are likely to be able to generate electricity at a cost in the order of 12c
33c/kWh (median 18c/kWh), gasification plants again show greater variability,
ranging from 9c 38c/kWh (median 21c/kWh), while pyrolysis plants are also highly
variable, from 7c 29c/kWh (median 15c/kWh).

The trend in New Zealand electricity prices has been one of significant increases over
the last 10 years as shown below.

Estimated Electricity Generation Costs for WTE Facilities (based on SLR Consulting Report)
NZ$
1
Capital Cost / annual Operating Cost / Est. Capital and
WTE Technology design tonne tonne Operating Cost /KWh
2
Conventional Combustion
Highest Reported Cost 1000 134 0.25
Lowest Reported Cost 666 82 0.16
Median Reported Cost
3
842 108 0.20
Gasification / Pyrolysis
3
944 113 0.24
Biogas
Highest Reported Cost 548 66 n/a
Lowest Reported Cost 374 23 n/a
4
461 44 n/a
Notes
1 Adjusted from source report assumi ng 1 = $NZ 2.06
2
3 Average of reported range for operati ng costs
4 Average of reported range for capi tal and operati ng costs
Source: Costs of Inci nerati on and Non-i nci nerati on Energy from Waste Technol ogi es, SLR Consul ti ng Li mi ted, 2008
Esti mate assumi ng pl ant l i fe of 25 years for al l technol ogy and effi ci ency of 700KWh/tonne for conventi onal
combusti on and 625KWh/tonne for Gasi fi cati on/Pyrol ysi s
Estimated Electricity Generation Costs for WTE Facilities (based on Stantec Report)
NZ$
1
Capital Cost / design Operating Cost / Est. Capital and
WTE Technology tonne tonne Operating Cost /KWh
2
Conventional Combustion
Median Reported Cost 1018 85 0.18
Gasification
3
Pyrolysis
3
Notes
1
Adjusted from source report assumi ng $CAN 1 = $NZ 1.32
2
3
Based on esti mates provi ded by technol ogy vendors not actual costs from an operati ng pl ant.
Source: Waste to Energy: A Techni cal Revi ew of Muni ci pal Sol i d Waste Thermal Treatment Practi ces, Stantec, August 2010
Esti mate assumi ng pl ant l i fe of 25 years for al l technol ogy and effi ci ency of 700KWh/tonne for conventi onal combusti on,
600KWh for gasi fi cati on and 650KWh for pyrol ysi s
Page 283 of 591


Source: NZ Energy Data File 2010

The range of implied electricity generation costs outlined for WTE plants above falls
broadly within the current range of New Zealand electricity prices. Published
electricity price information from the Ministry of Economic Development
37
indicates
recent average prices in the order of 17c/kWh on a weighted consumption basis with
average pricing ranging from 11.7c/kWh for industrial users, 15.6c/kWh for
commercial users, through to an average of 24.4c/kWh for residential customers. This
places New Zealand at the low end of the international electricity cost curve as shown
below.

Source: NZ Energy Data File 2010

A WTE plant would presumably need to sell into the wholesale/industrial electricity
markets where pricing is currently low by OECD standards. In our view, WTE facility
electricity generation is therefore likely to have marginal economics in the New
Zealand market. Tipping fees and recycling revenues would assist in improving these
economics to some degree. However, tipping fees would be at the expense of third
parties supplying waste to the WTE facility (e.g. Council).

37
New Zealand Energy Data File 2010
0
5
10
15
20
25
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

P
r
i
c
e
:

N
Z

C
e
n
t
s
/
K
W
h
New Zealand Electricity Consumer Prices (Nominal)
Residential
(incl. GST)
Commercial
(excl. GST)
Industrial
(excl. GST)
National Average
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

P
r
i
c
e
:

N
Z

C
e
n
t
s
/
K
W
h
International Electricity Prices: September 2009
Industrial
Residential
Page 284 of 591


Sale of Recyclables

WTE facility suppliers often refer to recycling as part of their economic benefits. In
thermal plants this is often represented by the ability to recover steel and other
metals from the residual bottom ash component and/or processing bottom ash into
construction/roading products. Whilst this recycling is viewed by WTE proponents as
a benefit it would seem more sensible and cost effective to maximise re-use and
recycling of materials prior to entering the WTE plant. As such we have not
considered this further.

Further Comments

Notwithstanding the issues around sourcing waste feedstock, our high-level analysis
above suggests some commercial potential for operating a WTE plant in Auckland.
However, in our view the economics are likely to be marginal and the degree of
volatility in the data means that any project would need to proceed with caution.

Specific and in-depth project feasibility studies would be required on any WTE facility
proposed for Auckland in order to justify its likely financial and operating
performance and return on capital invested. This would be best undertaken and
funded by a private sector operator with appropriate commercial experience and
expertise.

Application of CHP technology has the potential to drastically improve overall thermal
WTE plant efficiency. Maximising the secondary use of heat and/or syngas generated
from the WTE process is likely to be an additional important variable in the overall
attractiveness of a WTE proposal from a financial perspective.

9.4 Conversion of an Existing Thermal Power Plant

Options for conversion of existing thermal energy generation assets to run on solid
waste are limited. The only substantial thermal energy plant within range of Auckland
is the Huntly Power Station owned by Genesis Energy. This facility currently
comprises six generating plants;

4 x 250MW units capable of running on coal, natural gas or a combination of
the two.
1 x 400MW combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) unit known as e3p.
1 x 48MW open cycle gas turbine.

The original four dual-fired 250 MW units were designed to run on coal from the
Huntly coalfield (or natural gas). In recent years Genesis has supplemented its use of
Huntly coal with the purchase of significant quantities of imported coal from
Indonesia with a similar specification.

Whilst we are not aware of any detailed study on conversion of Huntly Power Station
to alternative feedstock such as solid waste we believe that any such study would
likely identify a number of significant impediments. Key challenges would include;
Page 285 of 591


Huntly coal has a CV of approximately 22MJ/kg. Unprocessed solid waste
from Auckland would likely have a CV of around 9 10MJ/kg and would
therefore be unsuitable as an energy source.
Processing of solid waste into a higher CV RDF could potentially increase the
CV to circa 15-19 MJ/kg. However, this would still be well below that required
by the existing generation units.
Huntly is capable of burning up to circa 3Mtpa of coal. Large volumes of solid
waste would likely be required in order to generate sufficient RDF to make a
meaningful contribution to Huntlys feedstock inputs, even on a blended
basis.
Huntly Power Station is approximately 70kms from Auckland and therefore
solid waste transport logistics and costs are likely to be significant.
Existing pollution control equipment at Huntly would likely need to be
extensively upgraded to deal with the additional quantities and types of
pollutants generated by solid waste.
Extensive changes to Huntlys existing environmental resource consents
would likely be required and (given that no thermal WTE facility has yet been
consented in NZ) the consenting process could be long, expensive and not
without risk of failure.
External environmental and/or local community groups may object to
combustion of solid waste at Huntly Power Station.
GHG emissions charges could be prohibitive unless the waste feedstock has
been pre-processed and has a significant biomass component that could be
classified as renewable.
Huntly is the largest thermal power station in New Zealand and is a vital part
of the national electricity infrastructure. Genesis is therefore likely to be risk
adverse in assessing any new alternatives to well established power
generation technology.
Huntly has moved from a base load to a peak load generator. Electricity
generation has therefore much more seasonal. This would create challenges
around storage of WTE feedstock.
Tainui have a first right of refusal over Huntly Power Station and it is possible
that Government asset sales may lead to a change of ownership of the Huntly
plant in the future including a possible sale to Iwi interests.

In our view, any development of WTE technology for Auckland is far more likely to be
feasible based on a new plant using the latest best practice rather than attempting to
refit an old facility that was not designed for that purpose.

There is some potential for utilising a biomass-derived RDF as a partial substitute
subject to cost and other issues. However, we note that Council already has well
developed plans to capture the organic component of the solid waste stream for
composting and other recovery initiatives.

Page 286 of 591


Other opportunities include using various greenwaste sources as a substitute for
fossil fuels in regional industrial facilities. An example of this is the Golden Bay
Cement plant located near Whangarei. This is New Zealands largest cement plant
and has historically used 100% thermal coal as a fuel source. In 2004 the company
began utilising sawdust and woodchip from the timber processing industry as a
partial replacement for coal and this woodwaste material now constitutes 26% of the
facilitys fuel mix
38
.

38
http://www.goldenbay.co.nz/mainmenu10/page191/Alternative+Energy+Project.html
Page 287 of 591


10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATI ONS

10.1 Critical Success Factors

This Discussion Paper presents our high level review of WTE technologies and their
potential use in the Auckland solid waste market. Our report has been prepared for
Auckland Council and therefore focuses on the how WTE might play a role in
Councils wider solid waste strategies and plans.

In our view the critical success factors for developing WTE in Auckland are as follows:

Critical Success Factor Current Status Comments
Proven commercial WTE
technology
Yes Combustion technologies are favoured over
other less well proven technologies at present.

Alignment with Council
Waste Strategy

No Council has higher priority opportunities in the
waste hierarchy.
AD is an option for processing source-separated
organic waste.

Access to sufficient
quantities of suitable solid
waste
Council - No
Private - Marginal
Council does not control sufficient solid waste to
develop WTE other than the option to use AD to
treat organic waste.

Able to meet strict
environmental standards.
Yes Latest APC technologies are able to deliver strict
compliance with international and NZ
environmental standards. Resistance still
possible from environmental lobby groups
depending on technology used.

Divert significant waste
from landfill.
Marginal Difficult to demonstrate actual diversion unless
there is a clear trade-off between WTE and
development of a new landfill.

No negative impact on
reuse/recycling initiatives
Unknown Council would require knowledge and access to
commercial waste streams as well as careful
cost/benefit analysis and long-term planning.

Minimal hazardous
residues to landfill.
Yes Subject to technology and viability of recycling
and post-processing of bottom ash materials.

Economically viable Marginal Challenges of higher capital and operating costs
than landfill + low NZ wholesale electricity prices
and low Auckland landfill charges.

Favourable community and
public perception
Unknown Alternative thermal technologies (ATT) are likely
to be favoured over combustion. Biogas and
composting likely to be favoured over ATT.

Minimal GHG emissions Yes Minor emissions of CO
2
likely from thermal WTE.
Minor emissions of methane likely from AD.

Page 288 of 591


10.2 WTE Technology

Our high-level review of WTE technologies indicates an extensive array of
technological solutions is available from a wide range of international commercial
suppliers. Key issues include the extent to which a certain technology has been
technically and commercially proven and the strength and track record of the
promoter/supplier and proposed operator of the facility.

In terms of thermal treatment, combustion WTE plants currently represent the most
proven group of WTE technologies with extensive use and track record throughout
USA, Europe and Asia. Whilst the historical performance of some these plants
(particularly in the USA) has led to a poor image and limited uptake in some
countries, WTE facilities elsewhere (e.g. in many EU countries) have been able to
demonstrate viability and environmental performance. This is particularly the case
where such plants utilise CHP technology to maximise energy recovery from the
waste feedstock and provide heating for use by adjacent industries/domestic use.
Any WTE facilities developed in Auckland should seek to maximise energy recovery
and benefits.

Other so called advanced thermal technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis
are also commercially available, although their track record is shorter and the
technologies are generally less well proven. These technologies do have some
advantages over combustion WTE due to their range of potential energy outputs i.e.
exhaust gas for stream turbine / syngas for gas engine or turbine / reformed syngas
as a feedstock for a fuel. However, they are generally less able to handle general solid
waste as a feedstock and often require some form of pre-processed RDF.

Biological treatment is seldom used to process unsorted solid waste but is can be
applied to the organic waste fraction to generate biogas (predominately methane).
It is generally accepted that these biogas plants are more effective and efficient than
equivalent methane capture/energy conversion by landfills. Countries such as
Australia have favoured biological (and MBT) processes over thermal processes as a
means to help reduce waste to landfill and New Zealand has used AD technology to
help process liquid waste streams for many years.

10.3 WTE as a Waste Management Tool

There is a wide variety of international views on the use of WTE as a bona-fide
technology in dealing with solid waste. At one end of the spectrum many proponents
of zero-waste often disregard WTE, preferring to focus on waste prevention, reuse
and recycling as the only legitimate drivers of waste management and minimisation.
At the other end of the spectrum WTE technology suppliers extol the virtues of their
facilities in terms of diversion of waste from landfill, lower GHG emissions (vs. landfill)
and ancillary recycling capabilities.

The over-arching waste hierarchy adopted by New Zealand, along with many other
developed countries, will continue to play a key role in the allocation of resources to
the management and minimisation of waste. WTE sits above landfill in this hierarchy
Page 289 of 591


but below other waste minimisation initiatives such as prevention, reuse and
recycling.

Other key issues that often accompany the debate on utilising WTE include
environmental effects and potential cannibalisation of materials that would
otherwise have been reused or recycled and GHG emissions. Our review of the
current literature suggests that environmental effects of modern WTE facilities can be
mitigated through pre-sorting (i.e. removal of recyclables) of feedstock and
application of stringent environmental controls on air emissions and residual ash.

Arguments around potential cannibalisation of recyclables are difficult to prove but in
our view are likely to have validity. Detailed analysis would be required to establish a
clear long-term volume of solid waste suitable for WTE that could not otherwise be
practically reused or recycled in a cost-effective manner.

10.4 WTE Uptake in New Zealand

Thermal WTE has been largely ignored in New Zealand to date. The thermal
technologies that have been applied extensively in Europe, USA and other countries
have not historically found favour in New Zealand, as landfills have dominated waste
management in this country.

A thermal WTE plant was proposed at Meremere, south of Auckland in the 1990s but
did not proceed. Biological treatment methods have found greater application to
sewerage treatment plants and other industrial facilities and more recently methane
capture has become a requirement at sanitary landfills which has led to minor
amounts of electricity generation.

Despite improvements in emissions controls conventional combustion may be
challenging to promote from a political/community perspective. We anticipate that
the continued improvements in WTE technology, particularly in the areas of
gasification and pyrolysis, will lead to a renewed examination of WTE in New Zealand
over the next decade as increasing landfill levies and other measures focus attention
on minimising waste to landfill.

Long-term supply of feedstock to a WTE plant is a critical issue and project funding
(either by private operators, banks or councils) is likely to be predicated on securing
both long-term supply agreements for waste as well as off-take agreements for
energy (e.g. electricity, syngas etc).

10.5 WTE in the context of the Auckland Councils Strategic Waste Direction

In our view there has been little debate or analysis to date by Auckland Council (or
other New Zealand territorial authorities for that matter) on the merits of using WTE
to process solid waste. The ACWA (Appendix C) includes detailed previous reports on
optimal methods to separate and process the organic waste (food waste +/- green
waste) component, which focussed on composting and AD options.

Page 290 of 591


Whilst the NZWS and WMA do not preclude the use of WTE, it is clearly a lower-level
waste management tool that sits below reduction, reuse and recycling but above
disposal to landfill. It is important that Council utilise its internal resources to focus,
first and foremost on initiatives around the top of the waste hierarchy before
considering applying resources to WTE. This is clearly the thrust of the ACWA which
recommends a range of proposed measures including:

Polluter pays residential waste services.
Banning organic waste to landfill.
Banning packaging to landfill.
Enacting cleanfill licencing regulation.
Implementing source-separated organic waste collection and composting.
Extending producer responsibility and product stewardship schemes.
Council control/influence of key waste infrastructure (e.g. transfer stations
and landfills).

We note that, despite all of the above initiatives, the ACWAs most aggressive option
(Option 3) is still expected by Council to deliver up to a 0.3Mtpa reduction in the
current circa 1.4Mtpa of Auckland solid waste to landfill.

10.6 What Role Should Council Play in WTE?

There are a number avenues available to central Government and/or Council that
would positively influence WTE development in Auckland, these include:

Various taxes/levies/regulatory restrictions on waste to landfill.
Specific tax incentives or other regulatory benefits that favour WTE.
Supply of solid waste or processed RDF as a WTE feedstock.
Funding support/investment in a WTE facility.

At this point WTE has a low profile in New Zealand and there appears to be little or
no appetite from central Government to specifically promote or encourage WTE as a
waste management tool. The waste levy and other initiatives are likely to
progressively discourage waste to landfill over time, and this will indirectly promote
all other elements in the waste hierarchy including WTE.

We consider that Council should have a minimal role in promoting WTE for
Auckland at present for the following reasons:

WTE is relatively low on the waste hierarchy. Therefore a key issue, from a
Council perspective, is that the feedstock used for any New Zealand WTE
facility should not (now or over the plants lifespan) cannibalise the
components of the solid waste stream that could otherwise have been
diverted through other means further up the waste hierarchy (i.e. reduction,
re-use or recycling).
Page 291 of 591


Capital costs of WTE facilities are significant and there are a number of
investment risks which may be beyond Councils risk appetite.
Council currently has insufficient control over the Auckland solid waste
stream to supply a WTE facility (aside from the option to use AD to process
organic waste).
We note that the WTE proposal put forward by GONZ to Council requires a
waste feedstock that is in excess of the total Auckland waste currently going
to landfill. As noted above Council does not control this level of waste and is
focusing on reducing waste to landfill by investing in initiatives to reduce,
reuse or recycle waste which are higher on the waste hierarchy.
Existing private/commercial landfill operators are best placed to divert landfill
material to WTE and assess WTE economic and operational viability.
Existing landfill operators (and Council) have significant sunk investment into
their existing landfill and transfer station infrastructure.
Community/political acceptance for using WTE on the non-organic fraction of
solid waste will likely require clear evidence that this waste cannot be cost-
effectively captured and recycled i.e. that the benefits
(financial/environmental etc) of WTE would outweigh the costs.

Based on the results of this Discussion Paper, our recommendations to Council are
as follows:

Council should focus its financial and operating resources on projects that
maximise waste reduction, reuse and recycling ahead of lower waste
hierarchy solutions such as WTE.
Approaches to Council from WTE providers should be redirected to the key
private sector waste companies.
Discussions with TPI and EnviroWaste are recommended to obtain their views
on whether WTE is viable to reduce waste to landfill or eliminate/scale down
future landfill construction in Auckland.
Council should continue to monitor technological and operating performance
of commercially operating WTE plants in other countries (and developments
in New Zealand) to increase its knowledge of WTE options.

Given the complex issues of ownership of the waste stream in Auckland, the recent
formation of the new Auckland Council, the relative abundance of landfill solutions
and current low landfill charges in the region, Auckland Council is not in a position
to play a leadership role in WTE at the present time.

It appears that the private sector is best placed to develop a WTE facility in Auckland,
particularly under the current industry structure where large private sector players
control the majority of the Auckland solid waste stream. However, there is no clear
indication at this stage that economic drivers are in place to ensure viability of WTE in
the Auckland waste market.

Page 292 of 591


APPENDI X I . IMPORTANT INFORMATI ON

This Discussion Paper (Discussion Paper) has been prepared by Campbell MacPherson Limited
(Campbell MacPherson) solely for Auckland Council, Infrastructure and Environmental Services,
Solid Waste Business Unit (Council, the Recipient) based on information from public sources.

This Discussion Paper is supplied to the Recipient subject to the terms and conditions of the following
paragraphs.

Campbell MacPherson
Campbell MacPherson is supplying this information as a matter of interest to the Recipient. The
Recipient must make its own assessment of that information. Although it is tendered in good faith
Campbell MacPherson, and their respective agents, employees, consultants, directors and officers
make no representations or warranties concerning the accuracy or implications of the Discussion
Paper. The Councils relationship is such with Campbell MacPherson that the directors, shareholders,
and employees of Campbell MacPherson do not assume personal liability to the Recipient in respect
of the Discussion Paper.

No Representation etc
None of Campbell MacPherson, the directors, officers, associates and employees of Campbell
MacPherson and associated companies or businesses (collectively the Providers) make any
representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the
information contained in this Discussion Paper or subsequently provided to the Recipient by any of
the Providers including, without limitation, any historical financial information, the estimates and
projections and any other financial information derived there from, and nothing contained in this
Discussion Paper is, or will be relied upon as, a promise or representation, whether as to the past or
the future.

Errors or Omissions
Except insofar as liability under any law cannot be excluded, the Providers shall have no responsibility
arising in respect of the information contained in this Discussion Paper or in any way for errors or
omissions (including responsibility to any person by reason of negligence).

Estimates and Projections
The opinions, estimates and projections contained in this Discussion Paper involve significant
elements of subjective judgment and analysis which may or may not be correct. There are usually
differences between forecast and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not
occur as forecast and these differences may be material. The Recipient should undertake their own
independent review of the relevant assumptions, calculations and sources upon which the opinions,
estimates and projections in this Discussion Paper are based.

Page 293 of 591
REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON AUCKLAND GOVERNANCE
VOLUME 1, PART 5, CHAPTER 30 SOLID WASTE - MARCH 2009
Page 294 of 591
653 Auckland Governance, Volume 1: Report
30. Solid Waste
30.1 This chapter addresses solid waste management, which includes collection
and disposal of refuse, the operation of refuse transfer stations and landlls, and the
management of closed landlls. It also covers waste minimisation, which is accomplished
by reducing packaging, and by reuse, recycling, and resource recovery. Solid waste
excludes wastewater and sewage, the management of which is discussed in Chapter 26,
The Three Waters.
30.2 While this chapter focuses on council functions, it should be noted that there is
signicant private sector involvement in solid waste management. Private companies
own and operate refuse collection systems, transfer stations, and landlls. Some private
sector activity derives from contracts let by the territorial authorities, but there are also
large solid waste management businesses that are not connected to councils. The private
sector is also involved in green waste collection and composting, and clothing collection,
reuse, and recycling.
30.3 The volume of waste going to landlls (as well as the adverse eects of such waste)
is signicant in Auckland, as it is in the rest of New Zealand.
About 3.2 million tonnes of waste goes to landlls each year in New Zealand and,
according to the Ministry for the Environment, each year we throw away about $250
million worth of potentially reusable resources. Not only is this a huge waste of
resources but also landlls contribute to New Zealands greenhouse gas emissions
and are a signicant source of toxic leachate .
1
Central government policies
30.4 The Waste Minimisation Act 2008, discussed below, is the most recent of a number
of central government policy initiatives. The New Zealand Waste Strategy (2002) sets
targets for reducing a range of waste streams as well as for improving landll practices by
2010. The strategy is not binding on territorial authorities.
30.5 The New Zealand Packaging Accord (2004) is a voluntary agreement by industry
with the Government to take responsibility for the complete life cycle of packaging.
Producers and brand owners agreed that when they developed new packaging they would
give higher regard to factors such as using fewer materials and using recycled materials.
They also agreed to look at production eciency, and the potential for recycling into other
products after the packaging was no longer needed. The packaging accord has been given
credit for signicant reductions in packaging waste.
2
1 Dr Russel Norman, MP, from the third reading debate in Parliament of the Waste Minimisation Bill, 11
September 2008, available at www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates, accessed February 2009.
2 Lester Thorley, Packaging Accord report shows New Zealanders well on the way to reducing waste,
Ministry for the Environment media release, 15 October 2008.
Page 295 of 591
654 Report of the Royal Commission, March 2009
30. Solid Waste
Local government role
30.6 Local government has an important role in solid waste management under the
Waste Minimisation Act 2008. Under the Act, territorial authorities must promote
eective and ecient waste management and minimisation within their districts. They
do so to full the purposes of the Act, which are to protect the environment and provide
environmental, social, economic, and cultural benets.
3
Local government involvement
in collecting and disposing of waste has a separate and much older rationale, which is to
safeguard public health and amenity. For all these reasons, it is clear to the Commission
that local government should have an ongoing role in solid waste management.
30.7 The Waste Minimisation Act requires territorial authorities to formulate waste
management and minimisation plans.
4
They are required to consider, in making their
plans, six methods of waste minimisation in this order of importance:
(1) reduction (lessening waste generation)
(2) reuse (reuse of products in their existing form)
(3) recycling (making into new products)
(4) recovery (extracting materials or energy for further use, or composting)
(5) treatment (changing the volume or character of waste for safe disposal)
(6) disposal (deposit of waste on land set apart for the purpose, or incineration).
5
30.8 Each of the Auckland territorial authorities has a waste management plan
formulated under earlier legislation.
6
These are stand-alone plans for each territorial
authority. Councils in Auckland have not taken up the option under the Waste
Minimisation Act of preparing joint plans.
7
This is another example of territorial authorities
failing to cooperate. However, the councils plans are similar in many respects, and the
possibility of joint action is contemplated in most of the plans.
30.9 An important aspect of improved waste minimisation is public participation, which
depends on public knowledge and understanding of available options and of the systems
put in place by local authorities. Councils have adopted dierent systems with bags, bins,
and tubs in dierent sizes and colour schemes, dierent charging regimes, and dierent
collection frequencies. Opportunities have been lost to standardise the hardware and
systems throughout the region, which the Commission considers would assist in building
public knowledge and participation. For example, if the same system were adopted in
3 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, sections 3 and 42.
4 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, sections 42 and 43.
5 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, section 44.
6 Local Government Act 1974, Part 31, sections 538 and 539 contained planning requirements similar to the
Waste Minimisation Act.
7 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, section 45.
Page 296 of 591
30. Solid Waste
each district, television and newspaper publicity to promote household participation
would be more cost-eective.
Quantities of waste
30.10 Comprehensive statistics for the Auckland region of the quantities of waste and
recyclables collected and sent to landll or other destinations were not obtainable by the
Commission.
8
Although territorial authorities held statistics for their own areas, it was not
possible to aggregate these into regional statistics the gures measured dierent waste
streams and were not comparable.
30.11 The Commission considers that an important goal in the future should be to improve
data collection. As noted above, there is a large private sector involvement in waste
management, and councils do not necessarily have knowledge of all activities. However,
improvements could be made. In 2007, a report from the Oce of the Auditor-General
commented on the importance of such information, in a report on waste management
plans:
Most plans included some information about the quantity and composition of waste
in the district, although fewer identied how much waste was expected in the future.
While baseline information about waste data and composition is an important
starting point for preparing a waste management plan, territorial authorities also
need to consider how much waste they can expect in the future so they can better
plan services to provide for future demand.
9
30.12 The overall waste stream in the Auckland region seems to be increasing slightly. For
the period since 2002, gures obtained from three of the city councils indicate a trend
towards increased recycling (see Table 30.1).
Waste disposal levy
30.13 The Waste Minimisation Act introduced a waste disposal levy, which will aect solid
waste management by all parties, including territorial authorities. The levy is paid to the
Government by the operators of waste disposal facilities at the rate of $10 per tonne.
10
Half the levy money collected is paid by the Government to territorial authorities (shared
pro rata by population) to be spent on promoting and achieving waste minimisation. The
8 The Commission inquired with the Ministry for the Environment and Auckland Regional Council, but neither
had up-to-date regional statistics. One diculty of compiling statistics is that data have been collected in
the past by agencies using dierent denitions of waste.
9 Waste management planning by territorial authorities, Oce of the Auditor-General, Wellington, 2007,
paragraph 2.64 (available at www.oag.govt.nz/2007/waste-management, accessed January 2009).
10 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, section 27 states $10 per tonne or other prescribed amount.
Page 297 of 591
30. Solid Waste
Table 30.1 Refuse and recycling quantities for three Auckland councils
Year to 30 June 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
North Shore City
1
Total refuse (tonnes) 27,665 26,334 26,055 27,405
Total recycle (tonnes) 20,852 22,367 24,938 24,314
Auckland City
2
Total refuse (tonnes) 83,864 84,331 87,998 87,026 84,611
Total recycle (tonnes) 37,618 39,537 41,119 41,095 42,910
Manukau City
3
Total refuse (tonnes) 70,328 73,776 81,136 84,932 88,613 88,115
Total recycle (tonnes) 15,794 18,125 19,750 20,536 20,713 21,409
Sources:
1
North Shore City Council, December 2008;
2
Auckland City Council, October 2008;
3
www.manukau.govt.nz, accessed
January 2009.
remainder of the levy money forms a contestable fund for waste minimisation projects
available to councils and the private sector.
11
30.14 The levy has two objectives: to raise revenue, and to provide incentives for waste
reduction. For councils, the major implication will be the capital funding that becomes
available for waste minimisation. For everyone who produces waste, the eect of the levy
will be to increase landll charges. This is expected to provide an incentive for people to
reduce quantities going to landll, for example by changing business practices to reduce
waste output.
30.15 The money available to councils will be signicant. Assuming 3.2 million tonnes (as
quoted in paragraph 30.3) is disposed of to landll nationally in the rst year, the levy
revenue at $10 per tonne will be $32 million. Half will be paid to councils after deduction
of costs, leaving say $15 million, of which Auckland councils on a pro rata population basis
will receive $4.8 million (their share for 32% of the population of New Zealand).
30.16 This calculation overstates the actual sums that will be available, as the levy will
probably result in a reduction in waste going to landlls (as it is intended to do), and
there is a lack of accurate statistics. But it indicates that there may be signicant sums of
money available to Auckland councils from the waste minimisation fund. North Shore City
Council has separately estimated that its annual return from the levy will be $800,000.
12
Signicant new investment in high-technology methods of waste minimisation might be
made if this revenue stream were pooled regionally and invested as a block. Conversely,
11 Waste Minimisation Act 2008, sections 31, 32, and 38.
12 Report on the Waste Minimisation Act prepared for Infrastructure and Environment Committee of North
Shore City Council, 16 October 2008, pp. 1 and 5.
Page 298 of 591
30. Solid Waste
if the money were split between each of the existing councils, new investment might be
discouraged as it might not be possible for any of them to realise signicant economies of
scale.
30.17 The contestable fund, representing the other half of the levy revenue, might
be more readily secured by a whole of Auckland initiative, rather than by individual
territorial authorities. The potential scale of an Auckland regional waste minimisation
proposal could make it more competitive.
Advances in technology
30.18 Technology recently developed to sort materials recovered from kerbside recycling
oers opportunities to make recycling more ecient. This technology requires large
capital investment, but it can yield signicant economies of scale by replacing labour-
intensive manual sorting methods with mechanised sorting.
30.19 Auckland and Manukau City Councils have separately contracted with Visy
Recycling NZ Ltd to introduce this new technology to Auckland. This has resulted in Visy
constructing a new materials recovery facility (MRF) at Onehunga to sort and recover
recyclables collected at kerbsides.
13
The scale and cost of this facility, an investment
of about $24 million, was beyond the scope of a single council. Neither council had the
volume of material to justify its own plant, but their combined volumes being funnelled
through the same company crossed the threshold to make the new sorting technology
viable.
30.20 The MRF is complemented by a new kerbside collection system. In 2008, larger
240-litre recycling bins were introduced by Auckland and Manukau City Councils, and
collections are now made fortnightly. Sorting is done at the MRF and not at the kerbside,
as in the past. Householders put all recyclable material (paper, cardboard, plastics
numbered 1 to 7, glass bottles, tins, and aluminium cans) into the one bin which is
transported to the MRF for sorting.
30.21 The new system has already produced eciency gains in Auckland City and
improvements in waste minimisation. In the rst three months of the new system,
quantities of material put out for recycling increased by about 10%, with a corresponding
reduction in garbage put out for collection. This was attributed to people nding it easier
to recycle because they could now put all recyclables into a single larger bin.
14
30.22 Waitakere and North Shore City Councils have also collaborated in solid waste
management. Waitakere City Council operates an MRF at Henderson using older
technology and more labour than the Visy facility, but still eectively sorting and
recovering large volumes. The Henderson MRF sorts materials from the Waitakere and
13 The materials recovery facility is described at www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/services/rubbish/mrf.asp
(accessed January 2009)
14 Personal comment from Auckland City Council group manager. (Longer-term trends are not yet apparent.)
Page 299 of 591
30. Solid Waste
North Shore Cities kerbside recycling collection.
15
This is one of the few remaining
council-owned waste management facilities in the Auckland region, most other councils
having privatised or closed their transfer stations and landlls.
30.23 Other councils put less eort into materials sorting and recovery. The Commission
does not criticise the various measures and processes of individual councils, but
considers that opportunities to improve output and eciency are being lost, especially
in sorting and recovery. This is mainly because of the relatively small scale of the waste
stream from each councils district, which does not allow available technology to be
adopted eciently by individual districts. The obvious conclusion is that the waste
streams need to be combined, by one means or another.
30.24 Apart from the materials currently being recycled (glass, plastic, paper, etc.),
the Commission considers that there are other opportunities for waste streams to be
combined and treated as one. One example is organic waste, including food scraps and
green waste, which has an estimated volume of 260,000 tonnes per annum, or about
one-quarter of the total volume of regional waste going to landll.
A regional waste management strategy
30.25 The Auckland Mayoral and Chief Executives Forums decided in July 2006 to sponsor
the development of a regional waste management strategy, but no strategy has so far
been agreed.
30.26 The Commissions attention was drawn to the need for a regional approach to
separation of organic waste from the general waste stream. Organic waste could have
a number of end uses including composting and biofuel production. The Commission
believes that opportunities like these are not being fully considered because of the
fragmented approach of the current governance system. An all-of-Auckland approach is
required to implement these kinds of proposals, because they need to be founded on a
combined waste stream, capital investment, and a public education campaign to support
separate organic collection. Box 30.1 contains an example of an eective regional waste
minimisation campaign conducted by the combined eorts of Seattle City Council and
King County.
30.27 The eciency gains available in materials sorting can be contrasted with kerbside
collection of garbage or recyclables, where signicant new economies are limited. As
noted above, the new MRF in Auckland has facilitated fortnightly collections using larger
bins. This change has produced eciency gains in collection. However, beyond this it is
generally considered there is little further scope to increase eciency in the kerbside
collection. Most councils have already contracted out kerbside collection to the private
sector. The Commission sees value in the continuation of a competitive collection
industry with a number of viable contractors able to make competitive tenders. A regional
15 Some recovered material (for example bicycles, furniture, and toys) are separated for reuse and sold.
Page 300 of 591
30. Solid Waste
Box 30.1 Seattle Natural Lawn Care Program
The following passage illustrates how Seattle City Council has developed and carefully promoted a
programme for reducing the environmental impacts of maintaining lawns:
many people currently recognize that the typical urban or suburban lawn can
waste valuable resources. Water, fertilizer and pesticides go into maintaining
a green lawn that produces large amounts of problematic grass clippings.
Motivated by the broader mission of Seattle Public Utilities which now deals
with water conservation, drainage and wastewater issues, as well as solid waste
management we created the Natural Lawn Care program with our partner
agency, King County Water and Land Resource Division. Its objective is to take
a broad brush approach to changing lawn care habits. The program shows how
grasscycling [where lawn clippings are mulched rather than removed], reduced
use of soluble fertilizers and pesticides and moderate use of water can create a
healthy lawn ecosystem that is much easier on the environment and safer for the
people in that environment.
This year, market research indicated that our target audience for this message
consists mostly of middle-aged (30 to 65 age range), suburban and urban
males. As this eort is becoming regional, we were able to purchase time for a
30-second TV spot that will go to audiences watching Seattle Mariner baseball
games. It would be hard to get to our target audience in a better way. The ads use
a talking salmon and water protection as a theme, which is timely in light of the
proposed endangered species listing of chinook salmon in our region. A mix of
radio advertising also is planned for this year.
A great deal of interagency cooperation has gone into creating a coherent
message that can be accepted by all the parties. Cooperation leverages agency
monies and helps smaller agencies that are working with smaller budgets. It also
creates an integrated message that avoids confusion for residents.
Source: Woestwin, Carl, Evolution of Home-Based Strategies for Residential Organics, Biocycle, May 1998: 3739.
approach to solid waste management does not necessarily imply a change to the number
of collection contracts let within the region.
Waste and sustainability
30.28 The close connection between solid waste management and broader environmental
issues such as sustainability are highlighted by the quotation from the parliamentary
debate at the beginning of this chapter, and by the Seattle case study referred to in Box
30.1. In the Seattle example, lawn mulching was promoted as a way to reduce the volume
of green waste going to landlls, to reduce the amount of water irrigating lawns, and to
cut down the use of pesticides and fertilisers, among other outcomes.
Page 301 of 591
30. Solid Waste
30.29 In Auckland, these environmental issues are not managed together. Territorial
authorities are responsible for solid waste, and the Auckland Regional Council is
responsible for various environmental matters including water use and quality. All the
councils do useful work in publishing tips on sustainable gardening (a search for garden
waste on most council websites yields numerous relevant articles), but the Commission
believes that a broader approach is lacking. In particular, there is no coordination
between councils to manage interrelated issues through public education or a media
campaign such as that described in Seattle. As a result, opportunities to improve
sustainability are being lost on a number of fronts.
Submissions to the Commission
30.30 The submissions on solid waste are summarised in Chapter 16, Infrastructure, in
Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions. Solid waste was not commented on in detail
by many submitters, perhaps suggesting that solid waste management is not widely
perceived to be a problem. In the submissions received, the major issue identied was the
fragmentation of investment and management between territorial authorities.
30.31 The Packaging Council of New Zealand made the most detailed submission on the
subject. It advocated a regional approach to waste management decisions (which should
be consistent with national decisions), together with regional service delivery, saying,
The economics of waste management services, particularly with regards to the
recovery of recyclables, is best handled on a regional scale. Without volume recovery
operations can be uneconomically viable which potentially compromises the range of
materials which can be recovered this is a situation which is occurring across the
Auckland region today.
16
30.32 The Packaging Council acknowledged the value of the Visy MRF in recovering
recyclables collected from kerbsides in Auckland City and Manukau City, saying it was
testament to how eective waste policies can be implemented when a strategic focus is
applied, rather than just a localised solution. However, the Packaging Council left open
whether a regional vision needed direction from a regional agency, or could be achieved
through joint action by territorial authorities.
30.33 Another submitter favoured a regional agency taking over management of solid
waste for other reasons, saying that it was unsatisfactory for the existence of waste
facilities to be simply at the whim of private enterprise.
17
16 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Packaging Council of New Zealand, p. 4.
(All submissions are available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz.)
17 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Barry Carter, p. 2.
Page 302 of 591
30. Solid Waste
The Commissions view of improvements required
30.34 The Commission notes that solid waste collection and disposal by councils is
generally satisfactory if considered on a day-to-day basis. It appears to the Commission
that council collection services are adequately addressing basic public health and the
most direct environmental eects, and progress has been made by all councils in waste
minimisation in recent years.
30.35 However, the Commission sees many opportunities being lost as a result of the
current governance arrangements. Lost opportunities include
q failure to integrate solid waste management with other environmental initiatives
q lack of public education programmes across the region using television and
other media, for example in relation to recycling and managing hazardous waste
to reduce the waste stream
q failure to provide uniform systems for kerbside collection, which would help the
public education eort
q failure to utilise new technologies fully, so that the economies of scale available
from region-wide plants are realised.
30.36 These lost opportunities could be recouped by bringing all waste management
and environmental management responsibilities under a regional organisation. The
Commission agrees with the Packaging Council that the economics of waste management
services, particularly the recovery of recyclables, are best handled on a regional scale.
This is because of the need to combine the waste streams to achieve cost-eectiveness,
and the large investment sums needed for new sorting technology and facilities.
30.37 Arguments for a regional approach are strengthened by the availability of levy
money to local authorities under the Waste Minimisation Act. Aucklands share of this
money would have optimum value if kept together and invested in regional facilities,
rather than being claimed by individual councils. A regional body would be in a good
competitive position to make claims on the contestable fund, as it could demonstrate
good rates of return on the investment of new capital.
30.38 Given the Commissions overall recommendation for the reorganisation of local
government in Auckland the creation of an Auckland Council as a unitary authority to
govern the whole region (see Chapter 14, The Auckland Council: Key Features) solid
waste management is an appropriate function of the Auckland Council.
30.39 The Commission envisages that the Auckland Council will produce a regional waste
management plan that investigates waste minimisation projects, and integrates solid
waste management with other environmental programmes and with service delivery.
The possible advantages of creating a council-controlled organisation for solid waste
management might be considered. A regional waste management plan should recognise
dierent circumstances in parts of the region, such as the Hauraki Gulf islands, where
a dierent approach might be worked out in consultation with local people. A regional
Page 303 of 591
30. Solid Waste
plan could also recognise and encourage eorts to minimise waste by the community,
including not-for-prot groups, which can make a valuable contribution.
30.40 There are other ways to bring about a regional approach. Local councils could
use more joint ventures to obtain economies of scale, or a specialised regional waste
management agency (along the lines of Watercare Services) could be created. Joint
ventures can help improve outcomes, but the Commission considers they are not reliable
enough to be a favoured form of governance. And a stand-alone agency, along with local
council management, has the disadvantage of possibly isolating waste management from
a broader sustainability agenda. The Commission considers that solid waste management
can and should be part of a broadly integrated environmental management eort. If a
separate solid waste agency were to be created, then its mandate and responsibility
would need to include joint action on environmental matters with other agencies.
30.41 An all-of-Auckland approach to waste management is also favoured because of
the opportunities for targeted campaigns to recover specic items such as packaging,
computers, televisions, and hazardous waste, for reuse, recycling, or return to their
manufacturer.
30.42 In the Commissions view, governance by the Auckland Council will meet public
needs for waste management. Most people will want waste collection services that are
reasonably frequent, reliable, and ecient, with high environmental standards, but will
not have strong preferences as to who provides the service. Standard service levels can be
worked out by the Auckland Council to meet the needs of most people across the region.
Individuals who want additional waste collection services can arrange these privately.
Recommendation
30A The Auckland Council should develop a Regional Waste Management Strategy,
including strategies for management of organic waste and integration of waste
management with other environmental programmes.
Page 304 of 591
RECLAIMING AUCKLANDS RESOURCES A RESOURCE RECOVERY NETWORK
FOR THE AUCKLAND REGION
ENVISION - JULY 2005
Page 305 of 591

Reclaiming Aucklands Resources
_________________________________________________________
A Resource Recovery Network for the
Auckland Region

Iiepaied vilh lhe suppoil of lhe Connunily LnpIoynenl Cioup, AuckIand TeiiiloiiaI
LocaI Aulhoiilies and AuckIand RegionaI CounciI
Ju!y 2005
Page 306 of 591

RecIaining AuckIands Resouices Lnvision Nev ZeaIand ii

Acknnw!cdgcmcnts
Lnvision vouId Iike lo lhank lhe Connunily LnpIoynenl Cioup
1
, lhe AuckIand
RegionaI CounciI, Wailakeie Cily CounciI, Noilh Shoie Cily CounciI, AuckIand Cily
CounciI, and Manukau Cily CounciI - vho have aII conliiluled lo lhe funding of lhis
iepoil.
The aulhois vouId aIso Iike lo expiess lheii gialilude lo lhe CounciI and ARC Wasle
Manageis, as veII as Resouice Recoveiy Cenlie opeialois lhioughoul Nev ZeaIand lhe
USA, UK and AusliaIia vho shaied lheii line and knovIedge lo nake lhis iepoil
possilIe. SpeciaI lhanks lo }on Roscoe fion Wailakeie Cily vho assisled vilh coIIeclion
of iegionaI vasle dala. We vouId aIso Iike lo especiaIIy lhank AuckIand Cily CounciI
foi aIIoving lhe coslings fion a Resouice Recoveiy Iaik Concepl Sludy (piepaied ly
Lnvision in 2OO3) lo le used as lhe laseIine foi eslinaling cosls of lhe pioposed
Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik.
DIsc!aImcr:
Vievs in lhis iepoil aie lhose of lhe aulhois and nol necessaiiIy lhose of lhe sponsoi
oiganisalions.

Lead Aulhois, Waiien Snov, }uIie Dickinson
Dala AnaIysis: David enlhan
Layoul Design: CIenda Keegan

Lnvision Nev ZeaIand Lld
Unil 5/192 Vicloiia Slieel Wesl
I.O. ox 91-1155
AuckIand
Ihone: O9 3O3 4746
Iax: O9 3O9 9645
LnaiI: naiIloxenvision-nz.con
Welsile: vvv.envision-nz.con

1
The Depailnenl of Lalouis Connunily LnpIoynenl Cioup has since leen dislanded and iepIaced vilh a nev
piogianne Lnleipiising Connunilies undei lhe Minisliy of SociaI DeveIopnenl.
Page 307 of 591

RecIaining AuckIands Resouices Lnvision Nev ZeaIand iii
In a nutshc!!
ThIs rcpnrt prnpnscs a nctwnrk nf rcsnurcc rccnvcry facI!ItIcs acrnss thc
Auck!and rcgInn cnnsIstIng nf 7 majnr Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Park Hubs, and up
tn 60 sma!!cr CnmmunIty Rccyc!Ing Dcpnts.

Auck!andcrs bury nvcr nnc mI!!Inn tnnncs nf wastc cach ycar In !andfI!!s at an
cstImatcd annua! cnst nf $162 mI!!Inn.

Yct at !cast 25% nf thIs matcrIa! cnu!d casI!y bc dIvcrtcd frnm !andfI!! In 5
ycars and as much as 85% In 10 ycars If thc apprnprIatc facI!ItIcs and pn!IcIcs
wcrc put In p!acc.

Thc nctwnrk cnu!d bc fundcd by savIngs frnm ha!tIng thc InnrganIc
cn!!cctInns, a mndcst wastc !cvy and thc sa!c nf rcusab!c and rccyc!ab!c
matcrIa!s.

Thc Nctwnrk wnu!d savc mI!!Inns nf dn!!ars, prcscrvc rcsnurccs, suppnrt
hundrcds nf ncw jnbs and busIncsscs acrnss thc rcgInn and hc!p mnvc
Auck!and tnwards a sustaInab!c futurc.
Thc Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Nctwnrk rcquIrcs thc samc !cvc! nf cnmmItmcnt and
cnnrdInatInn that nthcr Infrastructurc prnjccts such as rnadIng rcccIvc. ThIs Is
nn!y pnssIb!c wIth thc !cadcrshIp and fncus nf thc Maynrs and c!cctcd
nffIcIa!s nf thc Auck!and rcgInn's !nca! authnrItIcs.
Page 308 of 591

RecIaining AuckIands Resouices Lnvision Nev ZeaIand iv
Page 309 of 591

RecIaining AuckIands Resouices Lnvision Nev ZeaIand v
ExccutIvc 5ummary
This iepoil pioposes a suslainalIe soIulion lo AuckIands gioving vasle piolIen - a
nelvoik of iesouice iecoveiy faciIilies spanning lhe AuckIand iegion fion Rodney lo
Iapakuia.

The Nelvoik vouId le nade up of 7 najoi Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls and
appioxinaleIy 6O snaIIei Connunily RecycIing Depols.

Rapid econonic giovlh, incieasing popuIalion and lhe piivalisalion of AuckIands
vasle infiasliucluie have iesuIled in lhe iapid iise of vasle acioss lhe iegion. In lhe 1O
yeais since 1983/84, vasle pioduclion has aInosl lielIed, fion 366,OOO lonnes lo ovei 1
niIIion lonnes pei annun.

The cosl lo AuckIandeis lo fiII lhe iegions IandfiIIs is eslinaled lo le ovei $162 niIIion
pei annun oi ovei $1.6 liIIion foi lhe nexl 1O yeais - a najoi cosl lhal viII conlinue lo
giov if iising vasle pioduclion is nol addiessed in a syslenic vay.

A najoi finding of lhis iepoil is lhal iecycIing and iesouice iecoveiy is consideialIy
cheapei lhan vasle disposaI. The aveiage cosl (acioss lhe AuckIand iegion) lo coIIecl
and dispose of doneslic vasle is $154.98 pei lonne vhiIsl lhe aveiage cosl lo coIIecl and
iecycIe doneslic vasle is $77.21 pei lonne.

Wasle is a iegionaI issue
2
and yel is deaIl vilh in a fiagnenled nannei vilh each IocaI
aulhoiily doing ils lesl vilhin ils loundaiies. As a iesuIl, lhousands of lonnes of
iecycIalIe and ieusalIe naleiiaIs fIov acioss loundaiies lo fiII up IandfiIIs eveiy yeai.
Yel al Ieasl 25 of lhe AuckIand iegions vasle couId le diveiled fion IandfiII lhiough
ieuse, iecycIing oi conposling vilhin five yeais.

The pioposed Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik viII change lhe iegions focus fion vasle
disposaI lo iesouice iecoveiy. Il viII aIso heIp lhe iegion neel (aIlhough nol on line)
one of lhe key oljeclives in lhe Nev ZeaIand Wasle Slialegy, 'NIncty fIvc pcrccnt nf
thc pnpu!atInn wI!! havc acccss tn cnmmunIty rccyc!Ing facI!ItIcs by Dcccmbcr 2005'.

The Nelvoik can le luiIl in slages. The fiisl slage, lhe eslalIishnenl of 7 Resouice
Recoveiy Iaik Huls viII cosl an eslinaled $17 niIIion (excIuding Iand puichases). The
second slage vouId le lo eslalIish Connunily RecycIing Depols. This couId le done
ovei line, ly lhe piivale secloi and connunily oiganisalions.

Consliuclion of lhe Nelvoik couId le funded ly:

ReaIIocaling funds lhal aie cuiienlIy going lovaids lhe inoiganic coIIeclions
inposing a nodesl IandfiII Ievy of lelveen $5 and $1O pei lonne of vasle senl lo
IandfiII
Incone fion lhe saIe of ieusalIe pioducls and iecycIalIe naleiiaIs.

UnIike olhei najoi infiasliucluiaI piojecls, once luiIl lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik
viII le IaigeIy seIf-funding. Cosls of lhe Nelvoik viII le fuilhei offsel ly ieduclions in
lhe lolaI cosl of vasle disposaI lo IandfiII.

2
Wasle has acluaIIy nov lecone a lians-iegionaI issue, vilh lhe lianspoilalion of sone of AuckIands vasle lo Hanplon
Dovns in lhe Waikalo
Page 310 of 591

RecIaining AuckIands Resouices Lnvision Nev ZeaIand vi

Il is eslinaled lhal 2OO - 3OO jols and nany nev IocaI lusinesses couId le ciealed in lhe
AuckIand iegion, lhiough lhe eslalIishnenl of lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik. In line
lhis couId expand lo 2,5OO nev jols vilh expansion of lhe iecoveied naleiiaIs indusliy.

Olhei Iaige cilies aie pioving lhal il is possilIe lo ieduce vasle dianalicaIIy. Toionlo
ieduced ils vasle ly 21 in lvo yeais, San Iiancisco has diveiled 63 of ils vasle and
in Nev ZeaIand, Chiislchuich is lhe Ieading cily, diveiling 57 of ils vasle.
ChampInnIng a RcgInna! Apprnach tn thc Wastc CrIsIs
Like AuckIands liaffic congeslion, vasle iequiies iegionaI cooidinalion vilh sliong
Ieadeiship lo avoid liggei, noie inliaclalIe piolIens in lhe fuluie.

The Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik is an oppoilunily foi lhe Mayois of AuckIands IocaI
aulhoiilies and lhe Chaiinan of lhe AuckIand RegionaI CounciI and olhei eIecled
officiaIs lo chanpion a iegionaI soIulion lo soIving AuckIands vasle piolIen, al Iess
oveiaII cosl lhan lhe cuiienl syslen. Il viII aIso heIp IocaI counciIs neel lheii
olIigalions undei lhe Nev ZeaIand Wasle Slialegy, and nove lhe AuckIand iegion
lovaids lhe goaIs of zeio vasle and suslainaliIily.

This iepoil pioposes lhe eslalIishnenl of a RegionaI Wasle Slialegy Cioup lo heIp
cooidinale eslalIishnenl of lhe Nelvoik and lo deveIop suppoiling iegionaI poIicies
and slialegies.

Page 311 of 591

RecIaining AuckIands Resouices Lnvision Nev ZeaIand vii
Tab!c nf Cnntcnts
1 IntrnductInn.................................................................................................................................. 8
1.1 Iuipose of lhe Repoil .................................................................................................................. 8
1.2 Why Taigel Wasle` ...................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Aloul Lnvision............................................................................................................................. 8
2 Wastc Trcnds................................................................................................................................ 9
2.1 WoiIdvide Wasle Tiends............................................................................................................ 9
2.2 The CiaduaI Move lovaids Resouice Recoveiy and SuslainaliIily..................................... 9
2.3 The Ciovlh of Iioducl Wasle.................................................................................................. 1O
2.4 RecycIing Is Nol Lnough........................................................................................................... 12
2.5 Lxlended Iioducei ResponsiliIily........................................................................................... 12
2.6 Zeio Wasle - lhe 21
sl
Cenluiy SoIulion.................................................................................... 12
3 Auck!and's GrnwIng Wastc Prnb!cm.................................................................................... 14
3.1 ackgiound ................................................................................................................................. 14
3.2 AuckIand Region Wasle VoIunes and Conposilion............................................................ 15
3.3 AuckIands Wasle IaciIilies ...................................................................................................... 18
3.4 AuckIands Cuiienl RecycIing Syslen.................................................................................... 2O
3.5 The Cosl of Wasle Managenenl in AuckIand........................................................................ 21
3.6 The Lffecls of Iiivalisalion of lhe Wasle Sliean................................................................... 24
3.7 The IiolIen vilh lhe Iiee-Maikel Appioach ....................................................................... 24
4 Thc Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Nctwnrk ........................................................................................... 26
4.1 Whal lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik WouId Look Like.................................................... 26
4.2 ianding ...................................................................................................................................... 28
4.3 Hov lhe Nelvoik WouId Opeiale........................................................................................... 29
4.4 A Iianevoik foi Nev and Lxisling RegionaI Inilialives..................................................... 32
4.5 RepIacing lhe Inoiganic CoIIeclions ........................................................................................ 32
4.6 Key Diiveis foi LslalIishing lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik ........................................... 32
5 Estab!IshIng thc Infrastructurc fnr a Ncw Markct tn F!nurIsh ......................................... 36
5.1 LslalIishing lhe Infiasliucluie foi a Nev Maikel lo IIouiish............................................. 36
5.2 usinesses Thal CouId Co-Locale al lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik Huls ........................... 37
6 Estab!IshIng thc Nctwnrk........................................................................................................ 42
6.1 IIanning....................................................................................................................................... 42
6.2 Slaging.......................................................................................................................................... 42
6.3 Selling Aside Land..................................................................................................................... 43
6.4 ConlioI / Ovneiship of IaciIilies ............................................................................................ 43
7 FundIng thc Nctwnrk................................................................................................................ 44
7.1 The Lcononics of Resouice Recoveiy ..................................................................................... 44
7.2 Whal lhe Nelvoik viII Cosl ..................................................................................................... 45
7.3 Ways of Iunding lhe Nelvoik................................................................................................. 47
8 Hnw Much Wastc WI!! thc Nctwnrk DIvcrt? ....................................................................... 50
8.1 'Massive and Rapid Wasle Reduclion.................................................................................... 5O
8.2 Wasle Reduclion Lslinales....................................................................................................... 5O
9 Emp!nymcnt Outcnmcs fnr thc Nctwnrk.............................................................................. 54
9.1 Lslinale of }ols Ciealed fion lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik Huls...................................... 54
Page 312 of 591

RecIaining AuckIands Resouices Lnvision Nev ZeaIand viii
9.2 Lslinale of }ols Ciealed fion lhe Connunily RecycIing Depols...................................... 56
9.3 Dovnsliean LnpIoynenl enefils ......................................................................................... 56
9.4 usiness Inculalion.................................................................................................................... 57
9.5 Lneiging Tiends Affecling LnpIoynenl............................................................................... 57
10 BcncfIts nf thc Nctwnrk tn Auck!and.................................................................................... 59
1O.1 The enefils foi AuckIand......................................................................................................... 59
11 MakIng thc Nctwnrk Happcn................................................................................................. 62
11.1 RegionaI Cooidinalion............................................................................................................... 62
11.2 A RegionaI Wasle Slialegy Cioup........................................................................................... 63
11.3 DeveIoping a RegionaI Slialegy ............................................................................................... 64
11.4 LegisIalive TooIs foi ellei Managenenl of lhe Wasle Sliean - lhe Chiislchuich
LxanpIe ....................................................................................................................................... 69
11.5 The RoIe of lhe Iiivale Secloi................................................................................................... 71
12 Rcpnrt Cnnc!usInns................................................................................................................... 72
12.1 ConcIusions ................................................................................................................................. 72

AppcndIccs....................................73

Appendix 1: Ovneiship of AuckIands Wasle DisposaI IaciIilies............................................... 74
Appendix 2: The usiness Case foi Diive-lhiough RecycIing Cenlies ....................................... 75
Appendix 3: Kaikouia Case Sludy..................................................................................................... 78
Appendix 4: Ioiiiua Case Sludy........................................................................................................ 8O
Appendix 5: HaIifax SuslainaliIily Ciovlh Iaik, UK.................................................................... 86
Appendix 6: ackgiound Assunplions and Woikings on hov Much Wasle lhe Nelvoik
WouId Diveil ................................................................................................................. 88
Appendix 7: ackgiound Assunplions and Woikings foi Cosl and Incone Iiojeclions......... 9O
Appendix 8: Case Sludy: The usiness Case foi Cil-loaid Recoveiy Thiough lhe Resouice
Recoveiy Nelvoik........................................................................................................ 92

Page 313 of 591

RecIaining AuckIands Resouices Lnvision Nev ZeaIand Iage 8 of 96
1 IntrnductInn
_____________________
1.1 Purpnsc nf thc Rcpnrt
This iepoil pioposes a 21
sl
Cenluiy soIulion lo iising vasle voIunes lhal enliaces
vasle nininisalion, jol ciealion, IocaI econonic deveIopnenl, iegionaI co-opeialion,
and suslainaliIily.

The iepoil is viillen foi lhe Mayois and eIecled officiaIs of lhe TeiiiloiiaI LocaI
Aulhoiilies of lhe AuckIand Region and lhe Chaiinan and CounciIIois of lhe AuckIand
RegionaI CounciI.
1.2 Why Targct Wastc?
Wasle is one of lhe nosl visilIe indicalois of lhe suslainaliIily of oui sociely and as
such, vasle nininisalion is a key diivei foi suslainaliIily. Ovei lhe pasl 5O yeais lheie
has leen a iapid inciease in vasle, diiven ly lhe lvin faclois of incieasing consuneiisn
and gioving popuIalion.

AddilionaIIy lhe loxicily of lhe vasled iesouices ve aie pioducing is incieasing.
Conlined vilh lhe deveIopnenl of Iong-Iife naleiiaIs such as pIaslics, lhe vasle
piolIen is casling a Iong and evei-deepening shadov ovei lhe fuluie.
1.3 Abnut EnvIsInn
Lnvision is an enviionnenlaI consuIlancy lased in AuckIand, focused on deveIoping
and pionoling suslainalIe deveIopnenl slialegies. The aulhois have expeilise in
pIanning and inpIenenling connunily deveIopnenl and vasle nininisalion
inilialives.

Lnvision is cuiienlIy voiking vilh connunilies aiound Nev ZeaIand and in AusliaIia,
lo deveIop concepls and designs foi iesouice iecoveiy faciIilies and iecenlIy conpiIed
'ResouicefuI Connunilies - A Cuide lo Resouice Recoveiy Cenlies in Nev ZeaIand
3
.

3 This iepoil vhich vas suppoiled ly lhe Minisliy foi Lcononic DeveIopnenl and lhe Minisliy foi lhe Lnviionnenl can
le dovnIoaded fion vvv.envision-nz.con
Page 314 of 591

2 Wastc Trcnds
______________________
2.1 Wnr!dwIdc Wastc Trcnds
Il is nov knovn lhal hunanily is Iiving leyond lhe neans of lhe Lailh lo neel oui
cuiienl denand foi naluiaI iesouices and lo accepl oui vasles. RapidIy gioving vasle
voIunes aie inpacling on lhe Lailhs iesouices and lhe needs of fuluie geneialions.

The dala used lo nake lhis giaph is fion lhe U.S. Census uieau's HisloiicaI Lslinales of WoiId IopuIalion
vvv.census .govl/ipc/vvv/voiIdhis.hlnI and TolaI Midyeai IopuIalion foi lhe WoiId: 195O-2O5O.
vvv.census.govl/ipc/vvv.voiIdpop.hlnI.

LxponenliaI popuIalion giovlh, conlined vilh incieasing affIuence is incieasing lhe
fIovs of vasles in deveIoped and deveIoping counliies. Iinding lellei vays lo nanage
oui iesouices and vasle is pail of a suslainalIe fuluie.
2.2 Thc Gradua! Mnvc tnwards Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry and
5ustaInabI!Ity
19th Ccntury DIspnsa! Mcthnds
When vasle had lo le disposed in lhe 19
lh
Cenluiy, il vas usuaIIy in unsupeivised
iullish dunps on unused Iand al lhe edge of lovn, vilh conpaialiveIy IillIe inpacl.
Graph 1:
Page 315 of 591

RecIaining AuckIands Resouices Lnvision Nev ZeaIand Iage 1O of 96
Durable goods
15.7%
Nondurable goods
27.3%
Containers &
packaging
32.5% Yard trimmings
12.0%
Food scraps
11.2%
Inorganic wastes
1.5%
Product wastes (75.4%)
Biowastes (23.2%)
Inorganics (1.5%)
Graph 2: Compostion of U.S. municipal solid waste by product and non-product categories, 2001 (Data
source: U.S. EPA 2003). Chart by Product Policy Institute.

20th Ccntury Trcnds
Thioughoul lhe 2O
lh
Cenluiy, lhe piinaiy node of disposaI vas (and in nany cases sliII
is) dunping inlo IandfiIIs. ul as lhe 197Os lioughl a nev enviionnenlaI avaieness,
connunilies legan lo seek aIleinalive vays lo deaI vilh lhe gioving nounlains of
vasle.
Ear!y Rccyc!Ing (1970s) UntI! Tnday
Ovei lhis peiiod, lhe piinaiy neans of disposaI vas sliII IandfiII - vilh iecycIing oflen
an add-on lo lhe ieaI lusiness of vasle disposaI. AIlhough pulIic enlhusiasn foi
iecycIing ienains high, lheie is incieasing fiuslialion lhal lhe gains nade lhiough
iecycIing aie leing oveilaken and counleied ly popuIalion giovlh, consuneiisn and
nev foins of disposalIe, non-iecycIalIe packaging and pioducls.
21
st
Ccntury Mndc!
Al lhe leginning of lhe 21sl Cenluiy, lhe focus is noving fion end-of-lhe pipe
iecycIing, lo a noie sophislicaled appioach lhal enconpasses lhe vhoIe suppIy chain
fion pioducl design lo disposaI. Il aIso incIudes lhe vhoIe of sociely - vilh eveiyone
pIaying lheii pail, nol jusl lhe end useis al lhe end of lhe pipe.

2.3 Thc Grnwth nf Prnduct Wastc
A IillIe undeislood liend in lhe nake-up of oui vasle sliean is lhe iise of pioducl
vasle. A nev iepoil, 'Uninlended Consequences
4
, ly lhe Iioducl IoIicy Inslilule
iaises lhe aIain al lhe iise in quanlilies of pioducl vasles and lhe inaliIily of nunicipaI
vasle syslens lo slen lheii fIov.

Iioducl vasles aie cIassified ly lhe U.S. LnviionnenlaI Iioleclion Agency inlo lhiee
najoi gioups, each conlaining a Iaige nunlei and vaiiely of pioducls and naleiiaIs.
Iioducl vasles incIude: conlaineis and packaging (32 of lolaI nunicipaI soIid vasle
geneialion), nonduialIe goods (defined as pioducls used Iess lhan lhiee yeais, 27),
and duialIe goods (defined as pioducls having a Iifeline of lhiee yeais oi noie, 16).

4 iII Sheehan and HeIen SpiegeInan, Iioducl IoIicy Inslilule, vvv.pioduclpoIicy.oig
Page 316 of 591

Graph 3. Generation of products, biowastes and inorganic wastes, at the start of each decade from
1960 to 2000. A. Total tons generated. (Source: U.S. EPA 2003) Chart by Product Policy Institute.
0
50
100
150
200
250
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
T
o
n
s

(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
TOTAL
Products
Biowastes
Inorganics
A nuch-ciled sludy
5
sanpIed vasle coIIecled in Nev Yoik Cily lelveen 19O3 and 19O5.
Il found lhal pei-capila, annuaI geneialion of nunicipaI vasle vas 559 kg of vhich 75
vas ashes, 15 vas gailage (noslIy food sciaps) and 8 vas iullish (pioducl vasle)
This conpaies vilh lhe pievious giaph vhich shovs lhal pioducl vasles have iisen lo
75.5 of lhe U.S. nunicipaI soIid vasle sliean.

The aulhois of Uninlended Consequences concIude lheii iepoil vilh lhe foIIoving:

Ovei line, pioducl vasles shouId incieasingIy le nanaged lhiough infiasliucluie
piovided and funded ly pioduceis as an exlension of lhe pioduclion and consunplion
syslen, vhiIe MSWM (MunicipaI SoIid Wasle Managenenl) shouId focus on
enviionnenlaIIy sound nanagenenl of liovasles and olhei liodegiadalIe naleiiaIs.

The Iaige anounl of pioducl vasle noving daiIy lhiough Nev ZeaIand liansfei
slalions and slievn ovei lhe slieels duiing inoiganic coIIeclions aie a giaphic indicalion
of lhe need foi a nev appioach lo lhe nanagenenl of iesouices and vasle. An
addilionaI piolIen, and pail of lhe ieason vhy pioducl vasle is leIov lhe iadai foi
nany vasle nanageis, is lhal vasle conposilion sludies do nol highIighl pioducl vasle
as a specific calegoiy. This has conliiluled lo lhe cuiienl pulIic conpIacency aloul lhe
iise of shoil Iived-and non iepaiialIe pioducl vasle.

5
Iaisons 19O6, Moise 19O8, Heiing & CieeIey 1921
Page 317 of 591

2.4 Rccyc!Ing Is Nnt Ennugh
RecycIing is Iess eneigy inlensive lhan IandfiIIing lul sliII has an enviionnenlaI cosl
and on ils ovn viII nol luin lack lhe lide of vasle lhal is svanping oui consunei
socielies. UnIess iecycIing is pail of a 'vhoIe-syslen slialegy, il ienains an 'end-of-
pipe iesponse lo vasle. If ve aie lo vin lhe lallIe againsl vasle, ve nusl design vasle
oul of pioducls al lhe slail of lheii Iife, use CIeanei Iioduclion syslens in
nanufacluiing, exanine lhe ioIe of naikeling in pionoling consuneiisn, and even
queslion consuneiisn ilseIf.
2.5 Extcndcd Prnduccr RcspnnsIbI!Ity
The piincipIe of Lxlended Iioducei ResponsiliIily (LIR) vheie pioduceis aie expecled
lo lake iesponsiliIily foi lhe vhoIe Iife cycIe of lheii pioducls is spieading aiound lhe
voiId. Sone conpanies such as Iishei and IaykeI and IhiIips aie aIieady designing
eIeclionic goods and appIiances so lhal lhey can le disnanlIed easiIy
6
. The Resouice
Recoveiy Nelvoik viII heIp lhe AuckIand iegion lo inlegiale vilh eneiging liends Iike
LIR. The Resouice Recoveiy Iaik Huls (desciiled in pail 4) viII le lhe naluiaI pIaces
lo eslalIish disassenlIy pIanls foi aII soils of pioducls designed so lhal aII pails aie
iecycIed oi ieused.
2.6 Zcrn Wastc - thc 21
st
Ccntury 5n!utInn
The goaI of Zeio Wasle is uIlinaleIy lo eIininale vasle lhiough naxinising iesouice
iecoveiy, nininising vasle, ieducing consunplion and ensuiing lhal pioducls aie
nade lo le ieused, iepaiied oi iecycIed lack inlo indusliy oi hainIessIy lack inlo lhe
naluiaI enviionnenl.

The Zeio Wasle concepl nighl seen lo le an inpossilIe laigel. Hovevei il has
heIped lo change alliludes in indusliy and sociely and is iapidIy spieading aiound lhe
voiId as a diivei foi noie iapid change.

Moie lhan 6O of LocaI Aulhoiilies in Nev ZeaIand have adopled Zeio Wasle laigels
incIuding AuckIand Cily, Wailakeie Cily, Rodney Disliicl and Noilh Shoie Cily.
These counciIs aie suppoiled ly lhe Nev ZeaIand Wasle Slialegy, vhich has sel a
vision Tovaids Zeio Wasle and a SuslainalIe Nev ZeaIand.

Auck!and's prnpnscd Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Nctwnrk wI!! prnvIdc thc Infrastructura!
framcwnrk fnr changc that wI!! cnab!c EPR (Extcndcd Prnduccr RcspnnsIbI!Ity) tn bc
Imp!cmcntcd and Zcrn Wastc tn bc scrInus!y pursucd.
A 5ystcms Apprnach tn MatcrIa! F!nws and Wastc
In Iine vilh nodein suslainaliIily lhinking, a syslens appioach is iequiied lo
effecliveIy nanage vasle. Syslens donl voik vhen fiagnenled, lul lhe cuiienl syslen
foi ieuse and iecycIing in lhe AuckIand iegion is nol onIy fiagnenled, lul laieIy
visilIe.

On lhe olhei hand, lhe vasle disposaI syslen is convenienl, highIy visilIe and efficienl.
As a iesuIl ovei 1 niIIion lonnes of vasle aie IandfiIIed each yeai of vhich iniliaIIy 25

6
This design piocess has lecone knovn as design foi disassenlIy
Page 318 of 591

couId innedialeIy le ieused oi iecycIed and as nuch as 8O diveiled fion IandfiII if
lhe piopei faciIilies veie in pIace.

The Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik viII iniliaIIy acl as a conpIenenlaiy syslen lo lhe
vasle disposaI syslen, vilh lhe ain of ieducing ieIiance on disposaI lo IandfiII. To
achieve lhis, lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik nusl le noie visilIe, noie convenienl
and cheapei lhan lhe cuiienl vasle disposaI syslen.
RcgInna! CnnpcratInn
The syslens appioach denands a IeveI of iegionaI co-opeialion vhich al piesenl
doesnl exisl. This is lhe key iequiienenl foi a 21
sl
Cenluiy iesouice iecoveiy syslen -
one lhal can heIp Iead lo lhe naleiiaIs ievoIulion lhal IauI Havken and Anoiy and
Hunlei Lovins laIk aloul in The LcoIogy of Conneice and NaluiaI CapilaIisn.
Page 319 of 591

3 Auck!and's GrnwIng Wastc
Prnb!cm
_____________
3.1 Backgrnund
In spile of vigoious effoils ly IocaI CounciIs, AuckIands vasle
voIunes conlinue lo iise. Lveiy yeai, AuckIandeis geneiale
enough iullish lo fiII a iugly foollaII fieId lo lhe heighl alove
lhal of lhe Lnpiie Slale luiIding. Al piesenl, lhe piedoninanl
disposaI oplion is lo IandfiII lhis vasle and an infiasliucluie of
liansfei slalions and IandfiIIs has leen luiIl lo achieve lhis. ul
lhis piesenls Iong-lein enviionnenlaI piolIens, as veII as
leing expensive and a vasle of iesouices.

Tnwards a 21
st
Ccntury 5n!utInn
The oId soIulion vas lo sinpIy keep dunping iullish in IandfiIIs and finding nev ones
vhen lhey fiIIed up. ul lhe 21sl Cenluiy denands a giealei focus on suslainaliIily -
and lellei connunicalion vilh a nuch noie vocaI and enviionnenlaIIy avaie pulIic.

As lhe ARC noles in ils 2OOO, Wasle Managenenl in lhe AuckIand Region iepoil:
The pulIic hovevei have conceins ovei lhe inpacl of IandfiIIing on suiiounding Iand
due lo lhe Iack of avaieness of vasle disposaI piaclices, a pooi iecoid of pasl IandfiII
opeialions, lhe polenliaI foi nuisance faclois such as odoui lIoving, Iillei, nelhane gas
piolIens, and lhe Iack of allenlion ly pIanneis and opeialois lo aeslhelics.

Thus, lhe issue of iepIacing exisling IandfiIIs vhen lhey iun oul of space lecones quile
a fiaughl one. And lhis sels lhe scene foi nininising lhe voIunes of vasle going lo
IandfiII ly encouiaging sophislicaled iecycIing and vasle ieduclion via iesouice
iecoveiy faciIilies.

Eter ear Auck|anders generate enough rubblsh to
fl|| a rugb footba|| fle|d to the helght abote that
of the Emlre State bul|dlng.
Page 320 of 591

Graph 5. REFUSE COMPOSITION Auckland Regional Landfills 1997
Paper 16.4%
Plastic 9.3%
Glass 2.2%
Metal 7.5%
Organic 27.6%
Special Waste 9.9%
Construction and Demolition Waste 20.1%
Other 7%

Graph 4. Auck!and RcgInn Wastc QuantIty (PrnvIdcd by Auck!and RcgInna! CnuncI!)

AuckIands IandfiIIs viII legin lo ieach capacily in lhe foieseealIe fuluie. AuckIand
nusl lheiefoie pIan foi exlending lhe Iifespan of ils IandfiIIs lhiough vasle avoidance,
ieuse and iecycIing
7

3.2 Auck!and RcgInn Wastc Vn!umcs and CnmpnsItInn
The AuckIand RegionaI CounciIs 2OOO iepoil aIso noles: Recenl figuies shov Nev
ZeaIandeis pioduce appioxinaleIy 2.5 kg of iullish pei day. The anounl of doneslic
iullish giovs al a siniIai iale lo giovlh in popuIalion. IndusliiaI vasle on lhe olhei
hand lends lo fIucluale in accoidance vilh econonic condilions. The conposilion
peicenlages olviousIy vaiy significanlIy lelveen doneslic and indusliiaI useis - vilh
oiganic vasle conpiising noie lhan 4O of lhe doneslic vasle sliean vheieas lhe
liggesl peicenlage in indusliiaI vasle cones fion lhe consliuclion and denoIilion
indusliies.

As AuckIands popuIalion keeps gioving and ieaches lhe piedicled lvo niIIion peopIe
ly 2O3O, lhe vasle piolIen is onIy sel lo gel voise - al a line vhen lhe iegions
IandfiIIs viII le ieaching lheii expecled capacily.

7
Source: Auckland Regional Council Waste Management in the Auckland Region report, 2000

AUCKLAND REGION WASTE QUANTITY (tonnes disposed to landfill)
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
Page 321 of 591

ConneiciaI and indusliiaI vasle nakes up ovei 55 of lhe lolaI vasle sliean.
Theiefoie vasle nininisalion vilhin lhe indusliiaI and conneiciaI seclois is ciilicaI if a
ieduclion in lolaI vasle voIunes is lo le achieved. This vasle nininisalion in indusliy
is even noie inpoilanl in econonic loon lines, lecause duiing lhese peiiods
indusliiaI vasle lends lo iise significanlIy.

The ongoing giovlh of vasle voIunes in lhe AuckIand iegion conliasls shaipIy vilh
lhal of Chiislchuich Cily - vhich has nainlained conlioI of ils vasle sliean and ils
vasle faciIilies.

Chiislchuich Cily CounciI says lhal: CeneiaIIy ovei lhe Iasl len yeais lhe anounl of
vasle IandfiIIed has consislenlIy faIIen as lhe anounl iecycIed and conposled
incieased. Hovevei in 2OO3/O4 sliong econonic giovlh in Nev ZeaIand and in lhe
Cily iesuIled in a shaip inciease in lhe anounl of vasle pioduced. This cIeaiIy
denonsliales lhe Iink lelveen econonic aclivily and vasle geneialion. The chaIIenge is
lo lieak lhis Iink and have piospeiily vilhoul leing vaslefuI.

Chiislchuich has aiound 327,OOO iesidenls and 13O,OOO househoIds. Lach yeai in
Chiislchuich peopIe lhiov oul 238,OOO lonnes of vasle. Thal equales lo 726 kiIogians
of vasle senl lo IandfiII foi eveiy peison oi 4O lus Ioads of iullish pei day. Lven if
peopIe do nol diieclIy lhiov oul lhis anounl of vasle, lhe facl lhal lhey aie pail of lhe
Chiislchuich connunily and enjoy lhe pioducls, seivices and quaIily of Iife lhe Cily
offeis neans lhal lhey conliilule lo lhis nounlain of iullish.

The giaduaI decIine in vasle pei peison fion 1994 vas geneiaIIy in-Iine vilh lhe
CounciIs vasle ieduclion laigel of 65 ieduclion in vasle pei peison ly 2O2O.
Hovevei, lhe iecenl inciease in vasle geneialion caused ly a luoyanl econony has
neanl lhal an even giealei IeveI of effoil is iequiied lo achieve lhis laigel.
8

Chiislchuichs success al ieducing vasle is a iesuIl of CounciIs nix of inlegialed
poIicies, vasle ieduclion infiasliucluie, educalion piogiannes and suppoiling lyIavs
(e.g. Iicensing of vasle coIIeclois and vasle Ievies).

8
Chiislchuich Rullish and RecycIing Iacls and Slals, Chiislchuich Cily CounciI
Waste Generated Per Person in Christchurch Each Year
833
785
746
725
709
712
680
658
664
726
731
704
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06
Financial year ending 30 June
K
i
l
o
g
r
a
m
s

o
f

w
a
s
t
e

/

p
e
r
s
o
n

/

y
e
a
r
Actual
Target
Projected
Graph 6:
Page 322 of 591

What Wc Wastc

|xanp|cs cf jus| scnc cf |nc na|cria|s uas|cd in cnc daq a| Auc||ands Pi|cs Pcin| Transfcr S|a|icns
inc|uding dcs|s, |inocr, app|ianccs gio-ocard c|c. Tnis s|crq is rcpca|cd dai|q a| |ransfcr s|a|icns
acrcss |nc Auc||and rcgicn. Tnis na|cria| fi||s cur |andfi||s unncccssari|q - and uas|cs ta|uao|c
rcscurccs |na| ccu|d oc rccqc|cd and sc|d, cr rcnanufac|urcd.
Page 323 of 591

3.3 Auck!and's Wastc FacI!ItIcs
The AuckIand iegions vasle disposaI syslen has giovn in iesponse lo iising vasle
voIunes and piivalisalion of vasle nanagenenl in lhe nid 198Os. Theie aie lvo lasic
conponenls of lhe cuiienl vasle disposaI infiasliucluie:
LandfiIIs
Tiansfei Slalions

These faciIilies aie 'fed ly:
Keilside househoId vasle coIIeclions
Inoiganic coIIeclions
ConneiciaI vasle diop off
usiness and iesidenliaI diop-off
1) LandfI!!s
Theie aie lhiee najoi opeialionaI IandfiIIs in lhe iegion:
RedvaIe (Daiiy IIal)
Cieennounl (Lasl Tanaki)
Whilfoid

Cieennounl is due foi cIosuie in }uIy 2OO5, aflei vhich vasle viII le liucked oulside
lhe iegion lo Hanplon Dovns in lhe Waikalo.
2) Transfcr 5tatInns
Tiansfei Slalions aie faciIilies foi consoIidaling vasle. They piovide a cenliaI disposaI
poinl vhich ieduces lhe opeialing cosls of conneiciaI and doneslic iefuse coIIeclois
and lhe dislances individuaIs have lo liaveI lo dispose of vasle.

Wasle is lioughl lo lhe slalion, dunped in lhe liansfei slalion 'pil, conpacled, and pul
inlo luIk hauIage vehicIes lhal lake il lo IandfiII.
LncatInn nf Transfcr 5tatInns
Theie aie cuiienlIy 16 liansfei slalions in lhe AuckIand iegion Iocaled al:
WeIIsfoid HeIensviIIe
Waikvoilh SiIveidaIe
AIlany ConseIIalion Diive (Maiiangi ay)
RosedaIe Road Devonpoil
Waiheke IsIand Wailakeie
Ialiki Road, Wailakeie Lasl Tanaki
Iikes Ioinl (Onehunga) Iukekohe
Waiuku Takanini

This Iisl does nol incIude piivaleIy opeialed haid/cIeanfiII siles vhich accepl cIean used
denoIilion aggiegales (conciele, iullIe, liicks elc.) and eailh naleiiaI vilh no noie
lhan 5 oiganic naleiiaI vood.

Page 324 of 591


Laige quanlilies of iecycIalIe naleiiaIs aie disposed al AuckIands liansfei slalions
KcrbsIdc Hnuschn!d Wastc Cn!!cctInns
WeekIy keilside coIIeclion of househoId vasle is IaigeIy undeilaken ly IocaI counciIs
and conliacled oul lo piivale-secloi fiins.
InnrganIc Cn!!cctInns
CoIIeclion of househoId inoiganic vasle is undeilaken in Noilh Shoie Cily, Wailakeie
Cily, AuckIand Cily, Manukau Cily and Iapakuia Disliicl CounciIs on an annuaI oi
lienniaI lasis. Sone iecycIing of nelaIs and lyies is undeilaken lul nosl of lhe vasle
coIIecled goes lo IandfiII.

Page 325 of 591

3.4 Auck!and's Currcnt Rccyc!Ing 5ystcm
The physicaI infiasliucluie foi iecycIing and iesouice iecoveiy in AuckIand cuiienlIy
consisls of:
RecycIing faciIilies foi a naiiov iange of high vaIue naleiiaIs al liansfei slalions
and IandfiIIs
RecycIing and Resouice Recoveiy Cenlies (Wailakeie Cily, Waiheke IsIand)
Iiivale iecycIing soiling faciIilies such as AII-iiles al Takanini and Slieelsnails al
Olahuhu
Iiivale lusinesses lhal deaI vilh specific pails of lhe vasle sliean (sciap nelaIs,
pIaslics, second hand deaIeis elc)
Conposling opeialions

These aie fed ly:
Keilside iecycIing coIIeclions (naiiov iange of naleiiaIs)
RecycIing lins al Tiansfei Slalions (naiiov iange of naleiiaIs)
Iapei and caidloaid keilside coIIeclions
SeIf hauI
ConneiciaI diop off
Chaiily cIolhing lins
Caiden lag coIIeclions

AuckIands iesouice iecoveiy and iecycIing infiasliucluie is fiagnenled, uncooidinaled
and unalIe lo access nuch of lhe naleiiaIs going lo IandfiII - apail fion lhose vilh high
iesaIe vaIue.

The cuiienl lhinking is lhal onIy naleiiaIs lhal have exisling naikels shouId le picked
up and iecycIed ly counciIs. As a iesuIl, huge quanlilies of iecycIalIe and iecoveialIe
naleiiaIs sIip lhiough lhe syslen and end up vasled. The 21
sl
Cenluiys chaIIenge is lo
ieassign piioiilies and funding avay fion lhe vasle disposaI syslen inlo a iesouice
iecoveiy and iecycIing syslen. Theie aie successfuI nodeIs in olhei Iaige cilies lo
foIIov.
KcrbsIdc Rccyc!Ing Cn!!cctInns
Keilside coIIeclion of iecycIalIes fion househoIds aie caiiied oul ly aII lul one counciI
in lhe AuckIand iegion. The naleiiaIs coIIecled vaiy lelveen counciIs lul geneiaIIy
incIude sleeI cans, aIuniniun cans, pIaslic niIk lollIes, gIass lollIes, jais, cailonaled
diink lollIes, and pIaslics naiked vilh eilhei 1 oi 2 on lheii lase. Iapei and caidloaid
aie pul oul aIongside lhe iecycIing lin foi coIIeclion ly piivale coIIeclois.
Gardcn Wastc CnmpnstIng
Oiganic gaiden vasle nakes up 41.8 of lhe doneslic vasle-sliean, and 16.7 of lhe
lusiness vasle-sliean, accoiding lo a 1997 ARC suivey of lhe conposilion of IandfiIIs.

Keilside coIIeclions of gieenvasle aie nol offeied ly any of lhe counciIs. Residenls can
pay foi gaiden lag coIIeclions oi lake vasle lo Tiansfei Slalions vheie il is kepl
sepaiale foi conposling al anolhei sile - oi on-sile if faciIilies exisl (Wailakeie foi
exanpIe). Olheivise lhey can le laken lo disposaI poinls such as Lnviiofeils faciIily in
Manukau Cily oi Living Lailhs sile in Onehunga (soon lo shifl lo anolhei Iocalion).
Page 326 of 591

3.5 Thc Cnst nf Wastc Managcmcnt In Auck!and
Il is difficuIl lo caIcuIale vasle lonnages and associaled cosls acioss lhe AuckIand
iegion lecause so nuch of lhe vasle sliean is handIed ly lhe piivale secloi and so IillIe
infoinalion is avaiIalIe lo IocaI aulhoiilies. Il is aIso difficuIl lo conpaie lhe dala fion
each counciI lecause lheie is no connon dala iepoiling syslen. The lyIav cuiienlIy
leing pioposed ly Wailakeie, Noilh Shoie and Rodney lo Iicense vasle coIIeclois is
inlended lo inpiove dala galheiing.
CnuncI! Wastc Tnnnagcs and Cnsts
TalIe 1. sunnaiises lhe annuaI lonnages and cosls of doneslic vasle nanaged ly
counciIs in lhe AuckIand iegion.

Tab!c 1. CnuncI! Wastc Tnnnagcs and Cnsts
Council +
Estimated
Population
Residents
using
Council
Domestic
Collection
(% pop)
Council
Domestic
Waste
(tonnage
collected
p.a.)
Council
Recycling
(tonnage
collected
p.a.)
Total Council
Waste
Spending p.a.
(including waste
reduction and
recycling)
Council
Waste
Reduction
and
Recycling
Spending
Inorganic
Collections and
Landfill
Disposal
(tonnage and
annual spending )
Rodney
District 82,000
0 12,564 7,093 $1.67 million $1.3million None
North Shore
City
209,300
75% 23,700

20,800 $6.5 million $2 million

3,700 tonnes
$516,500
Waitakere City
180,000
96% 21,272

14,500 $ 4.6 million $1.4 million 5,000 tonnes
$435,000
Auckland City
420,700
99% 84,000 36,000 $16 million

$2.4 million 4,600 tonnes
$ 800,000
Manukau City
317,500
90% 63,298

18,125 $9.1million

$280,000 8,250 tonnes
$1 million

Franklin
District
53,000
4,980

Not available $1,573 million $40,000 Informal drop off
mornings
(Assume 1,000
tonnes)
$ 33,000
Papakura
District
43,000
95% 7,459 2,827 $1.9 million $250,000 1,100 tonnes
$216,000

TOTALS

217,273
Tonnes
99,345
Tonnes
$41,343,000 $7,670,000 23,650 Tonnes
$3,000,500

Nole: AuckIand Cilys iecycIalIe lonnages incIude counciI coIIeclions and papei/caidloaid lonnages
coIIecled ly IuII CiicIe and Iapeichase.

Dala piovided ly counciIs (in lhe alove lalIe) shovs lhal 34O,268 lonnes of doneslic
vasle is coIIecled foi disposaI oi iecycIing annuaIIy ly counciIs in lhe AuckIand iegion.
217,273 lonnes of lhis vasle is IandfiIIed al a cosl of $33. 6 niIIion and 99,345 lonnes
iecycIed al a cosl of jusl ovei $7.67niIIion
9
. AddilionaIIy 23,65O lonnes is coIIecled via
inoiganic coIIeclions and is IandfiIIed al a cosl of jusl ovei $3 niIIion.

9
The cosl of olhei vasle nininisalion inilialives is incIuded in lhe iecycIing figuies
Page 327 of 591

CnuncI! Rccyc!Ing/LandfI!! Cnst CnmparIsnn
ased on lhe dala in TalIe 1, lhe aveiage cosl lo coIIecl and dispose of doneslic vasle in
lhe AuckIand iegion is $154.98 pei lonne vhiIsl lhe aveiage cosl lo coIIecl and iecycIe
doneslic vasle is $77.21 pei lonne. The cosl lo coIIecl and dispose of inoiganic vasle is
$126.87 pei lonne (see giaph 7).

Graph 7: Regional Domestic Waste and Recycling Costs
Per Tonne
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
$180.00
Waste Inorganic Recycling
$
/
t
o
n
n
e

Of lhe 34O,268 lonnes of doneslic vasle coIIecled and/oi iecycIed annuaIIy ly counciIs
in lhe AuckIand iegion, a iespeclalIe 29 is iecycIed foi onIy 17 of lhe lolaI cosls,
vhiIsl lhe ienaining 71 is disposed lo IandfiII foi 83 of lhe lolaI cosls (see giaph 8)

Graph 8: Regional Domestic Waste and Recycling
Tonnage and Cost Comaprisons
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Waste Recycling Inorganic
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Cost %
Tonnes %

Iul sinpIy, il cosls aInosl lvice as nuch (in lhe AuckIand iegion) lo coIIecl and dispose
of a lonne of doneslic vasle as il does lo coIIecl and iecycIe a lonne of doneslic vasle.

Page 328 of 591

TalIe 2, leIov shovs conpaialive doneslic vasle and iecycIing veighls and
expendiluie pei capila.
Tab!c 2: DnmcstIc Tnnnagcs and Cnsts
Council Annual Domestic
Waste (kg per capita)
Annual Kerbside
recycling (kg per
capita)
Waste Expenditure
(per capita)
Rodney 153 86 $20.36
North Shore 150 99 $31.05
Waitakere 127 80 $25.55
Auckland 199 85 $28.03
Manukau 221 57 $28.66
Papakura 182 65 $44.18
Franklin Incomplete data Incomplete data Incomplete data
Whcrc thc Rcst nf thc Wastc Cnmcs Frnm
ARC dala indicales lhal lhe lolaI anounl of vasle IandfiIIed in lhe iegion is
appioxinaleIy 1,O5O,OOO lonnes annuaIIy. AuckIands counciIs coIIecliveIy nanage
24O,923 lonnes of lhis (nol incIuding lhe 99,345 lonnes lhey iecycIed) Ieaving
appioxinaleIy 8O9,O77 lonnes. This lonnage is eilhei coIIecled ly vasle conpanies on
lehaIf of lheii conneiciaI and doneslic cIienls oi seIf hauIed diieclIy lo liansfei
slalions ly lusinesses and iesidenls.

Nntc: "RcsIdcntIa! Othcr" rcfcrs tn rcsIdcntIa! wastc cn!!cctcd by prIvatc wastc cnmpanIcs nr sc!f-hau!cd
by rcsIdcnts tn transfcr statInns
Thc Tnta! Cnst nf Wastc DIspnsa! In thc Auck!and RcgInn
Apail fion counciI infoinalion, lheie is no dala avaiIalIe on vhal il cosls lhe AuckIand
iegion lo dispose of aII ils vasle each yeai, IaigeIy lecause lhe luIk of lhe vasle is
handIed ly piivale conpanies.

To aiiive al a faii eslinale il seens ieasonalIe lo assune lhal il cosls lhe conneiciaI
secloi and iesidenls seIf hauIing lo liansfei slalions on aveiage aiound lhe sane pei
lonne as CounciIs pay. Il couId le aigued lhal counciIs ieceive favouialIe luIk
Graph 9: Auckland Region Sources of Waste
58%
21%
2%
19%
Commercial Council Collection Council Inorganic Residential Other
Page 329 of 591

discounls lhal fev piivale secloi conpanies vouId ieceive, lul on lhe olhei hand lhe
cosl of coIIecling fion conneiciaI cIienls is piolalIy Iovei lhan lhe cosl of coIIecling
fion iesidenls.

Assuning lhal lhis is coiiecl, il can le deduced lhal lhe lolaI cosl of vasle nanagenenl
foi lhe AuckIand Regions conneiciaI secloi and iesidenliaI seIf hauI is $125.4 niIIion
pei yeai (8O9,O77 lonnes nuIlipIied ly $154.98). Add lo lhis counciIs doneslic vasle
coIIeclion cosls of $33,673,OOO and inoiganic coIIeclion cosls of $3,OOO,5OO and lhe lolaI
cosls of vasle disposaI in lhe AuckIand iegion aie eslinaled as foIIovs:
Tab!c 3: Tnta! Cnsts nf Wastc DIspnsa! In thc Auck!and RcgInn

Sector Tonnes Cost Per annum
Commercial + Self-Haul by Residents 809,077 $125,390,753
Council Domestic Waste Collections 217,277 $33,673,000
Council Inorganic Collections 23,650 $3,000,500
Totals 1,050,004 $162,064,253

Il appeais lheiefoie lhal AuckIandeis spend $162 niIIion each yeai on vasle disposaI,
oi $1.62 liIIion eveiy 1O yeais al cuiienl iales. To lhese cosls nusl le added lhe cosl of
lhe Ioss of IandfiII space and lhe Ioss of iesiduaI voilh, of lhe pioducls and naleiiaIs
lhal aie IandfiIIed vhich couId le iecoveied and ieused oi iecycIed.
3.6 Thc Effccts nf PrIvatIsatInn nf thc Wastc 5trcam
The advenl of IocaI goveinnenl iefoin and lhe piivalisalion liends of lhe Iale 8Os
IaigeIy handed conlioI of AuckIands vasle sliean lo piivale vasle conpanies.

Thiough Iack of enpoveiing incenlives and IegisIalion, vasle conpanies have focused
on vheie lhey nake lhe nosl ievenue - cailage and IandfiIIing. A fev Iaige vasle
conpanies nov have conlioI ovei an inlegialed syslen foi lhe iegion lhal 'gels iid of
AuckIands vasle.

The queslion nov leing openIy asked ly sone eIecled counciI iepiesenlalives and lhe
pulIic is vhelhei lhis infiasliucluie can deIivei on vasle ieduclion goaIs sel ly
Coveinnenl, counciIs and lhe connunily.
3.7 Thc Prnb!cm wIth thc Frcc-Markct Apprnach
The 198Os fiee naikel expeiinenl vilh piivalisalion of vasle has nol deIiveied a
dynanic iesouice iecoveiy syslen foi lhe AuckIand iegion oi significanl ieduclions in
lhe voIunes of vasle going lo IandfiII.

}on Roscoe, SoIid Wasle Managei al Wailakeie Cily piovided lhe foIIoving oveiviev of
lhe fIavs in lhe cuiienl nodeI
10
:
The vasle indusliy in Nev ZeaIand opeiales undei a fiee-naikel appioach, vhich vas
adopled undei piivalisalion and deieguIalion. The liue lusiness of lhe lvo najoi vasle
conpanies in Nev ZeaIand is fiIIing lheii IandfiIIs. This is achieved ly secuiing lhe

1O Connenls on papei, LvoIving RoIes of IulIic and Iiivale Secloi foi SoIid Wasle Managenenl ly Iaddy Cieshan,
Senioi IoIicy Advisoi, Minisliy foi lhe Lnviionnenl.
Page 330 of 591

vaIue chain and ovning lhe liansfei slalions, and ceilainIy lhe scianlIe conlinues in
AuckIand lo nonopoIise and doninale lhe liansfei slalion naikel.

As liansfei slalion 'naikel shaie lecones inpoilanl, lhe scianlIe foi secuiing lhe
'fionl gale vasle conpeles diieclIy vilh LocaI Coveinnenl vasle coIIeclion and
ieduclion inilialives. The lvo najoi piivale secloi conpanies effecliveIy ovn, and
econonicaIIy conlioI aII facels of lhe vaIue chain.

}on Roscoe poinls oul lhal lhe aveiage naikel cosl lo IandfiII vasle is as Iov as $17 pei
lonne
11
, and lhal lhe cosl lo iecycIe, vhich is lased on cosl of cailage/piocessing Iess
ieluin on pioducl, is $5O pei lonne. This neans lhal lecause lhe ieluins on iecycIing aie
vaiialIe (depending on naikels and olhei faclois), lhe vasle conpanies cheiiy pick lhe
high vaIue ilens foi iecycIing and lhose lhal cosl lhen noie lo piocess lhan lhe cosl lo
cail lo IandfiII - viII inevilalIy on lhe lasis of a lusiness decision, le cailed lo IandfiII.
In olhei voids as }on Roscoe puls il: The extractlon (of reusab|e and recc|ab|e
materla|) and dlterslon from |andfl|| ls not necessarl| ln the commercla| sectors best
lnterests".

Thc Ovcrscas ExpcrIcncc
In a papei enlilIed, The Inpacl of lhe Wasle Indusliy ConsoIidalion on RecycIing
Ielei Andeison, Lxeculive Diiecloi of lhe Cenlie foi a Conpelilive Wasle Indusliy,
expIains lhal lecause fiins Iike Wasle Managenenl (USA) aie Iisled on lhe Slock
Lxchange lhey nusl foIIov shoil-lein oljeclives lo neel invesloi denands. He quoles
inveslnenl anaIysls vho have slaled lhal, Rccqc|ing nas |cng occn |nc cncnq cf |nc sc|id
uas|c indus|rq, occausc i| s|ca|s tc|uncs |na| ucu|d c|ncruisc ncad fcr |andfi||s.

Ielei poinls oul lhal iecycIing is a lhieal lo lhe piofilaliIily of lhe vasle conpanies and
aigues lhal lhe piolIen has slenned fion lhe consoIidalion of lhe vasle indusliy and
lhe ciealion of Iaige congIoneiales lhal have snapped up nosl of lhe snaII opeialois.

AddilionaIIy lhe cIosuie of nany snaII, unconlioIIed IandfiIIs and nuch highei LIA
slandaids foi nev ones neanl highei cosls foi enliy inlo IandfiII ovneiship. This
changed lhe conpelilive gane lecause lhese nev high-cosl, engineeied IandfiIIs have
lecone lhe lollIe-neck in lhe vasle lusiness. In effecl lhey aie lhe 'choke poinls
enalIing lhe congIoneiales lo slail iaising piices foi IandfiII access - especiaIIy in lhose
aieas lhal do nol have pulIicIy-ovned IandfiIIs as safely vaIves.

Ielei aigues lhal vasle conpanies aie diiven lo inciease lheii piofils and ieluins lo
shaiehoIdeis, so lhey aie unIikeIy lo vanl lo diveil noie vasle fIovs fion lheii
IandfiIIs and concIudes lhal il is inpoilanl foi connunilies lo puisue iecycIing pailneis
vilh connon oljeclives.

11
Nol lo le confused vilh lhe cosls lo lhe highei cosls lo lhe connunily vhich incIude cosls of opeialing liansfei
slalions, piofil elc.
Page 331 of 591

4 Thc Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Nctwnrk
_________________________________________________________

A Rcscurcc Rccctcrq Par| is a fcca| pcin| fcr nunan, na|ura| and financia| rcscurccs, uncrc
cn|rcprcncuria| and inncta|itc ac|iti|q can ccnoinc ui|n ccnncrcia| fcrccs |c crca|c jcos and
ousincsscs frcn uas|cd na|cria|s and prcduc|s, uni|s| a| |nc sanc |inc rcducing uas|c dispcsa|
ccs|s, cntircnncn|a| inpac|s and |nc ccs|s cf inpcr|ing ncu na|cria|s in|c |nc ccnnuni|q.
12

4.1 What thc Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Nctwnrk Wnu!d Lnnk LIkc
The lvo najoi conponenls of lhe Nelvoik viII le Resouice Recoveiy Iaik Huls and
Connunily RecycIing Depols.
1) 5cvcn Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Parks (Hubs)
Resouice Recoveiy Iaiks aie essenliaIIy indusliiaI paiks vheie iecycIing lusinesses
cIuslei lo ieceive, piocess, liade and naikel discaided naleiiaIs and pioducls.

The Nelvoik viII consisl of aiound seven Resouice Recoveiy Iaiks - oi huls,
posilioned slialegicaIIy acioss lhe iegion. Sone couId le siled al exisling vasle faciIilies,
aIlhough lhese viII need lo le expanded lo cope vilh lhe naleiiaIs lhey viII le iequiied
lo handIe.
Cnmpnncnts nf thc Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Parks
The Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls viII acl in a siniIai vay lo vasle liansfei slalions,
accepling and consoIidaling ieusalIe oi iecycIalIe naleiiaIs, lhen seIIing oi foivaiding
lhen on. Lach Resouice Recoveiy Iaik hul viII le open lo lhe pulIic seven days pei
veek and viII have nosl oi aII of lhe foIIoving conponenls:

Drnp-nff, rcccIvIng, prnccssIng and stnragc facI!ItIcs fnr:
RecycIalIe naleiiaIs (papei, gIass, cans elc)
Used househoId goods (fuiniluie, vhilevaie, liic a liac elc)
Used naleiiaIs fion lusinesses - ielaiI, nanufacluiing elc
Oiganic naleiiaIs incIuding gieen vasle and kilchen vasle
Consliuclion and denoIilion vasle
Hazaidous vasle
5a!cs Arcas
Lach sile viII have a Re-Use Sloie foi lhe saIe of ieusalIe pioducls and a Iaige yaid foi
piesenlalion and saIe of good used pioducls, consliuclion naleiiaI, conposl elc.

12
ResouicefuI Connunilies Lnvision Nev ZeaIand 2OO3
Page 332 of 591

EducatInn, AdmInIstratInn, Caf and Tcchnn!ngy DIsp!ays
Lach sile viII have educalion faciIilies and an adninislialion cenlie. Theie is scope foi
an on-sile cafe, pIay aiea and lechnoIogy dispIays. A noie delaiIed Iisl of lhe polenliaI
aclivilies, shaied seivices and lusinesses lhal couId co-Iocale al lhe Resouice Recoveiy
Iaik huls can le found in Iail Iive.
On 5Itc BusIncsscs
A Resouice Recoveiy Iaik viII aIso ain lo alliacl and foslei lusinesses lhal uliIise
naleiiaIs fIoving inlo lhe sile. Il lecones, in effecl, a lusiness deveIopnenl cIuslei
suppoiling nev enleipiises lhal nay nol have leen vialIe vilhoul lhe syneigies and
suppoil of lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik sliucluie. On-sile lusiness lenanls viII iun lheii
ovn opeialions uliIising naleiiaIs lhal fIov lo lhe sile and viII le alIe lo seII lhiough
lhe cenliaI saIes aiea oi lhiough lhe onIine syslen Iinked lo lhe olhei Resouice
Recoveiy Iaik huls. They viII le a souice of ienlaI incone foi lhe Sile Managenenl
Aulhoiily (as desciiled in seclion 5.2).
5ma!! Transfcr 5tatInn
Theie nay le a snaII liansfei slalion foi iesiduaI vasle al each sile lo cieale a one-slop-
shop foi cusloneis. These liansfei slalions viII onIy ieceive non-iecycIalIe poilions of
Ioads lhal aie lioughl lo lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik. They viII nol le avaiIalIe foi
geneiaI vasle oi Ioads vheie lhe iecycIalIe poilion is veiy snaII. These viII le diveiled
lo exisling vasle liansfei slalions.
LncatInns
IdeaIIy each counciI vouId ovn (oi pail-ovn) ils ovn Resouice Recoveiy Iaik hul. Il is
envisaged lhal huls vouId le silualed in:
AuckIand
Manukau
Wailakeie (expanded exisling faciIily)
Noilh Shoie
Rodney
Iapakuia / IiankIin
Waiheke (exisling faciIily)
ExIstIng Examp!cs
Theie aie cuiienlIy no fuII scaIe Resouice Recoveiy Iaiks opeialing in Nev ZeaIand,
aIlhough lhe Recoveied MaleiiaIs Ioundalion in Chiislchuich iuns faciIilies in sepaiale
Iocalions aiound lhe cily lhal logelhei conline nany of lhe aclivilies of a Resouice
Recoveiy Iaik. Wailakeie Cily has aIso iecenlIy deveIoped a Resouice Recoveiy Cenlie
conlaining a nunlei of lhe conponenls oulIined alove, and AuckIand Cily is caiiying
oul a najoi upgiade of lhe iecycIing cenlie on Waiheke IsIand, as veII as invesligaling a
faciIily foi lhe nainIand. In addilion, Manukau Cily CounciI and Rodney Disliicl
CounciI aie Iooking al deveIoping iesouice iecoveiy faciIilies - so lhe huls of lhe
Nelvoik aie leginning lo foin.
Page 333 of 591

2) 5Ixty CnmmunIty Rccyc!Ing Dcpnts
Connunily RecycIing Depols (CRDs) aie snaIIei scaIe faciIilies vhich couId le
opeialed ly lhe piivale secloi, connunily enleipiises oi counciIs. They viII coIIecl and
consoIidale:
RecycIalIe naleiiaIs (papei, gIass, cans elc) - and opeiale coIIeclion seivices fion
conneiciaI and piivale cIienls vilhin lheii IocaIily.
Cieen vasle and possilIy kilchen vasle
uiIding naleiiaIs.
Used househoId goods (fuiniluie, vhilevaie, liic a liac elc).

Many vouId aIso iun connunily educalion piogiannes.

CRDs nighl aIso have snaII sloies and yaids foi lhe saIe of used goods and naleiiaIs,
depending on lheii size and Iocalion. Il is envisioned lhough, lhal nosl of lhe naleiiaIs
ieceived viII le soId inlo lhe Iaigei Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls foi piocessing and on-
seIIing inlo vaiious naikels. CRDs viII in luin le fed ly naleiiaIs diopped off ly IocaI
iesidenls and lusinesses.

Lach CRD vouId ideaIIy seivice aiound 2O,OOO-3O,OOO peopIe lo lake advanlage of lhe
dynanics of lhis size of connunily. Al lhis iale lhe AuckIand iegion vouId iequiie
appioxinaleIy 6O of lhese faciIilies. This conpaies vilh 14O lollIe depols sel up in
AdeIaide lo coIIecl leveiage conlaineis acioss a cily siniIai in size lo AuckIand.

A nunlei of vhal couId le leined eaiIy, oi fiisl geneialion Connunily RecycIing
Depols (usuaIIy caIIed Resouice Recoveiy Cenlies) aie aIieady opeialing successfuIIy
and piofilalIy aiound lhe counliy. Sone of lhe nosl successfuI (such as Opoliki and
Kaikouia) aie diveiling up lo 7O of lheii connunilies vasle-slieans, in conjunclion
vilh focused vasle ieduclion oi Zeio Wasle poIicies.

In AuckIand, one of lhe eaiIy liaiIlIazing counciIs vas Devonpoil oiough CounciI
vhich in 1977 eslalIished a Resouice Recoveiy Cenlie al lhe IocaI IandfiII. Anolhei vas
lhe veII-suppoiled RecycIing Cenlie al lhe enliance lo lhe ConsleIIalion Diive Tiansfei
Slalion, vhich vas cIosed ly lhe cuiienl sile opeialoi.

LxanpIes of connunily iecycIing faciIilies can le found in Appendices 3 and 4.

Sone such as lhe iecycIing cenlie al Devonpoil aIieady exisl, and viII onIy iequiie
upgiading. Olheis viII need lo le luiIl ovei line eilhei ly lhe piivale secloi oi ly
counciIs. As happened in Soulh AusliaIia, exisling luiIdings and faciIilies can le
nodified lo cieale lhe CRDs.
4.2 BrandIng
The success of lhe Nelvoik viII depend on IocaI palionage - lolh foi lhe suppIy of
feedslock and lhe denand foi pioducls and naleiiaIs. Il is inpoilanl lhal each of lhe
faciIilies ielains ils IocaI idenlily lo nainlain connunily luy-in and ovneiship.
Hovevei il is inpoilanl lhal lhe faciIilies have a connon lianding and inage so lhal
lhey can le iecognised vheievei peopIe liaveI vilhin lhe iegion and lo naxinise lhe
cosl of adveilising and pionolion.
Page 334 of 591


The Weslein Sydney Wasle oaid iecognised lhe inpoilance of lhis in lheii 2OOO iepoil,
'The usiness Case foi Diive -Thiough RecycIing Cenlies (see appendix 2). In lhis
iepoil lhey desciile lhe idea of lianding aII iecycIing faciIilies in lhe cily in a siniIai
vay lo pelioI slalions - vilh connon coIouis, Iayoul slyIe, nanes, unifoins and
slandaids of cIeanIiness elc.

The leininoIogy cuiienlIy in use (Resouice Recoveiy Iaik, Connunily RecycIing
Depol elc) is foi lhe puiposes of lhis iepoil. A unique nane foi lhe Resouice Recoveiy
Nelvoik viII need lo le deveIoped lo give il a ieadiIy idenlifialIe inage ieIevanl lo
AuckIand.
4.3 Hnw thc Nctwnrk Wnu!d Opcratc
Like convenlionaI vasle faciIilies, lhe Nelvoik viII accepl used iesouices - lul ils chief
puipose viII le lo iecovei, iecycIe, disnanlIe, iepaii, ieseII and liade lhe naxinun
anounl of naleiiaIs.

The Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls viII ieceive feedslock fion Connunily RecycIing
Depols and lhe IocaI connunily. These naleiiaIs viII le uliIised ly IocaI lusinesses
vilhin lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik hul and lusinesses oulside lhe Nelvoik. Lach node
of lhe Nelvoik viII le fiee lo liade vilhin oi oulside lhe Nelvoik.

Manageis of lhe faciIilies viII Ieain vheie lhe lesl naikels aie foi lheii pioducls lo
ensuie lhey gain highesl piices. Laige quanlilies of naleiiaIs lhal donl have IocaI uses
viII fIov diieclIy lo lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls vheie piocessois viII le Iocaled.

As noie and noie of AuckIands vasle sliean is diveiled inlo indusliy, lhe Nelvoik
viII lecone lhe neive cenlie of a iegionaI liading syslen and assisl lhe deveIopnenl of
a nuch liggei iesouice iecoveiy indusliy lhan aIieady exisls
5tandard OpcratIng PrIncIp!cs
Lach Resouice Recoveiy Iaik hul viII lake advanlage of IocaI condilions and
oppoilunilies lo evoIve ils ovn connunily 'fIavoui. Hovevei il viII need lo le
deveIoped vilhin lhe oveiaII fianevoik of lhe Nelvoik, and conpIy vilh slandaidised
opeialing piincipIes lo ensuie high slandaids aie nainlained.
CnmputcrIscd LInkIng nf thc Nctwnrk
The Nelvoik viII le Iinked ly a conpulei syslen foi slock conlioI and liading lelveen
faciIilies. The Nelvoik viII aIso Iink inlo lhe exisling iegionaI vasle exchange lo aIIov
infoinaI liansfei of goods lelveen lusinesses as veII as lhiough lhe foinaI iesouice
iecoveiy infiasliucluie. A velsile viII infoin lhe pulIic of faciIily Iocalions, opening
houis, goods and naleiiaIs accepled and soId, chaiging and voik oppoilunilies
(voIunleei and paid).
5pccIa!IsatInn
Lach faciIily nay speciaIise in a pailicuIai connodily oi naleiiaI. Ioi exanpIe lheie
nay nol le enough nalive linlei lo suppoil a fuiniluie nakei al oi neai eveiy hul. ul
coIIecliveIy lheie nay le enough lo suppoil one lusiness, so nosl of lhis naleiiaI
Page 335 of 591

vouId le senl lo lhal lusiness - vhelhei il vas siled vilhin lhe Nelvoik oi neaily. The
sane appIies lo pIaslics piocessing and any nunlei of olhei pioducls and naleiiaIs.

Ioi sone naleiiaIs, such as gil-loaid, il is IikeIy lhal aII lhe faciIilies in lhe Nelvoik
viII ieceive lhe naleiiaI on a sel fee lasis and send il lo one ie-piocessoi vho nay oi
nay nol le siled al oi neai one of lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls.

DisnanlIing of appIiances couId feasilIy lake pIace al each hul, vhiIsl conpulei
disassenlIy nighl le done ly a speciaIisl lusiness.

The Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls viII lecone lhe focaI poinl foi coIIeclion of used and
iecycIalIe pioducls and naleiiaIs. Huls viII lolh coopeiale and conpele vilh each
olhei foi goods and naleiiaIs depending on vheie lhe lesl ieluins Iie. This viII ensuie
naxinun efficiency in leins of naleiiaIs use and piofilaliIily of each sile.

The nassive suppIy of addilionaI naleiiaIs and pioducls viII nol onIy luiId lhe
Nelvoik lul aIso suppoil lhe giovlh of lhe oveiaII iecoveied naleiiaIs indusliy in lhe
AuckIand iegion (see Iail 5).
Page 336 of 591


Examp!c nf Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Park
Examp!c nf CnmmunIty Rccyc!Ing Dcpnt
Page 337 of 591

4.4 A Framcwnrk fnr Ncw and ExIstIng RcgInna! InItIatIvcs
As lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik deveIops, il viII piovide a pIalfoin foi expansion
and inlegialion of vasle ieduclion inilialives such as food vasle sepaialion and
coIIeclion, consliuclion and denoIilion iecycIing, hazaidous vasle disposaI and
leveiage conlainei iecycIing. TiiaIs couId le undeilaken ly counciIs al lhe huls lo
deveIop and iefine syslens lefoie inpIenenlalion.
4.5 Rcp!acIng thc InnrganIc Cn!!cctInns
Mosl AuckIand counciIs have annuaI oi lienniaI inoiganic coIIeclions, vheie unvanled
naleiiaIs and goods can le Iefl al lhe keilside foi pick up and disposaI. ul lhese
coIIeclions aie expensive and nessy, cieale pulIic heaIlh and safely issues and nany
vaIualIe pioducls aie iiieliievalIy danaged ly scavengeis. AIso nany peopIe viII nol
pul oul goods lhal viII le iuined duiing an inoiganic coIIeclion lul vhich couId easiIy
le disposed of al a Resouice Recoveiy Iaik.

Inoiganic coIIeclions piovide cIeai evidence of lhe denand foi used goods and
naleiiaIs as hoaids of laigain hunleis ioan lhe slieels seaiching foi lieasuies.
Inoiganic coIIeclions aie nol hovevei an efficienl vay of iedisliiluling goods
lhioughoul lhe connunily oi ieducing vasle. Coods aie danaged ly vealhei and ly
peopIe ienoving pails fion voiking appIiances and fuiniluie.

One AuckIand lased Resouice Recoveiy Cenlie senl oul IeafIels piioi lo lhe inoiganic
coIIeclion, asking iesidenls if lhey vouId piefei lo have ieusalIe goods picked up. They
found lhal peopIe aie nuch noie piepaied lo donale vaIualIe ilens, vhen lhey knov
goods viII le handIed piopeiIy and nol viecked on lhe ioadside.

Mosl naleiiaI pul oul foi inoiganic coIIeclions is picked up vilhin a veek oi lvo,
aIIoving IillIe line foi peopIe lo galhei good ieusalIe naleiiaI, vhich ends up going lo
IandfiII.

The Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik viII enalIe counciIs lo canceI lhe inoiganic coIIeclions
and iepIace lhen vilh noie convenienl and Iess coslIy aIleinalives. Ioi exanpIe peopIe
couId diop off unvanled goods al lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaiks oi Connunily
RecycIing Depols lhenseIves (and shop foi laigains vhiIe lhey aie lheie).

AIleinaliveIy counciIs nay eIecl lo eslalIish fiee pick up seivices as Ioiiiua Cily has
successfuIIy done, as an inleiin neasuie. These vouId le funded ly savings diveiled
fion lhe inoiganic coIIeclion and vouId enalIe iesidenls lo iing up lo oiganise one oi
lvo (as Ioiiiua has done) fiee pick ups pei yeai. LvenluaIIy lhis 'fiee seivice couId le
iepIaced ly a paid seivice vhen lhe Nelvoik is eslalIished lo calei foi lhe needs of lhe
eIdeiIy and lhose vilhoul lianspoil. (See Appendix 8 foi delaiIs of Ioiiiuas syslen).
4.6 Kcy DrIvcrs fnr Estab!IshIng thc Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry
Nctwnrk
The diiveis lhal aie foicing lhe need foi change and vhich aie ciealing an enviionnenl
conducive lo eslalIishing lhe Nelvoik aie nany and vaiied.
Page 338 of 591

RIsIng Wastc Vn!umcs
The Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik, conlined vilh poIicies lhal encouiage Lxlended
Iioducei ResponsiliIily (LIR) and peisonaI iesponsiliIily vilhin a lolaI Zeio Wasle
fianevoik, piovide lhe vay foivaid lo deaI vilh iising vasle voIunes and lo achieve
naxinun vasle ieduclion.
RIsIng Wastc Cnsts
The Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik has lhe polenliaI lo diveil lhousands of lonnes of
vasle fion IandfiII each yeai, saving disposaI fees, lhe cosl of inoiganic coIIeclion pick-
up and disposaI, and lhe need lo find and luiId nev IandfiIIs.
LandfI!! Dangcrs
Despile assuiances ly IandfiII pioponenls, IandfiIIs aie nol conpIeleIy safe. Ioi exanpIe
lhe U.S. LIA
13
slales lhal aII IandfiII Iineis viII evenluaIIy Ieak. The connunily lheiefoie
has lhe giealesl vesled inleiesl in lhe safely of IandfiIIs and lhe giealesl incenlive lo
cieale safei iesouice nanagenenl syslens.
DcstructInn nf Natura! Rcsnurccs
LandfiIIs (and incineialois) deslioy vasl quanlilies of vaIualIe ieusalIe iesouices and as
such aie nol suslainalIe
14
. The Nelvoik viII heIp uliIise lhe vaIue of naluiaI iesouices.
IncrcasIng Cnsts nf LandfI!!s
LandfiIIs aie piolalIy lhe nosl vaIualIe ieaI eslale in any connunily and viII le
neaiIy inpossilIe lo iepIace once fuII. As connunilies giaduaIIy inciease IandfiII
chaiges lo iefIecl lhe fuII cosl of disposaI, iesouice iecoveiy lecones a noie alliaclive
and enviionnenlaIIy sound oplion. Wasle disposaI chaiges iange in Nev ZeaIand fion
$25 lo $1OO pei lonne. In Luiope IandfiII chaiges can le as high as $2OO pei lonne.
DIffIcu!ty In FIndIng Ncw LandfI!! 5Itcs
Il is gelling noie and noie difficuIl lo find nev IandfiII siles lecause of pulIic
disappiovaI and lhe huge cosl invoIved. Iinding and ciealing a nev IandfiII sile cosls
niIIions of doIIais. A iecenl UK iepoil
15
shovs an aveiage ieduclion of 5,5OO in lhe
vaIue of houses Iying vilhin lhe zone of O.25 niIes of an opeialionaI IandfiII. The iepoil
suggesls a lolaI annuaI disanenily cosl lo UK honeovneis of 2.4 liIIion fion
IandfiIIs.
TnxIcIty nf Wastc
Sone highIy loxic naleiiaIs have leen phased oul of pioduclion in iecenl yeais, lul
sociely is sliII pioducing an incieasing vaiiely of loxic naleiiaIs and pioducls lhal donl
lieak dovn safeIy in IandfiIIs. Ioi exanpIe a conpulei noniloi conlains as nuch as 2kg
of Iead. These naleiiaIs pose iisks lo lhe enviionnenl and lheie is evidence shoving
lhal hunan heaIlh is jeopaidised ly cIose pioxinily lo IandfiIIs
16
. In IandfiIIs, oiganic
naleiiaIs nix vilh highIy loxic naleiiaIs and olhei pioducls, ciealing chenicaI

13
US LnviionnenlaI Iioleclion Agency, 53 IedeiaI Regislei 168, 1988, p33344-33345
14
Wasled Oppoilunily, A CIosei Look al LandfiIIs and Incineialion, Zeio Wasle Nev ZeaIand (2OO2)
15
A Sludy lo Lslinale lhe Disanenily Cosls of LandfiII in Cieal iilain, Depailnenl foi Lnviionnenl and RuiaI
Affaiis, Ieliuaiy 2OO3
16
Wasled Oppoilunily, A CIosei Look al LandfiIIs and Incineialion, Zeio Wasle Nev ZeaIand (2OO2)
Page 339 of 591

ieaclions and loxic Ieachale
17
. Many of lhese naleiiaIs, if iecycIed oi ieused viII in
luin ieduce lhe loxicily of IandfiIIs.
5trIctcr Rcgu!atnry EnvIrnnmcnt
Incieasing piessuie is leing pul on lusinesses and IocaI aulhoiilies lo ieduce vasle
going lo IandfiIIs. The Nev ZeaIand goveinnenl is yel lo inlioduce IegisIalive neasuies
such as vasle Ievies, IandfiII lans and pioducl slevaidship piogiannes, lul lhese aie
signaIIed as fuluie oplions in lhe Nev ZeaIand Wasle Slialegy - Tovaids zeio vasle
and a suslainalIe Nev ZeaIand.
IncrcasIng Pub!Ic ExpcctatInn
The pulIic is incieasingIy Iooking lo LocaI Coveinnenl lo piovide lellei iecycIing
seivices and faciIilies. IulIic avaieness of seivices avaiIalIe in olhei pails of lhe
counliy and oveiseas, pIus an incieasing desiie lo do lhe iighl lhing enviionnenlaIIy, is
heIping lo diive lhis denand. LocaI Coveinnenl can aIso lenefil fion lhe suppoil of
Coveinnenl piogiannes, (e.g. Depailnenl of Laloui, RegionaI DeveIopnenl elc.) as
veII as ieducing IandfiII cosls and iisks.

PrntcctIng Ncw Zca!and's "100% Purc" MarkctIng CampaIgn
Oui cIean enviionnenl is oui nalion's liggesl assel - inexliicalIy Iinked lo lhe success of
oui expoil and louiisn indusliies. Cuiienl vasle handIing nelhods pose seiious lhieals
lo oui iepulalion as a cIean, gieen louiisn deslinalion and as a souice of food foi lhe
voiId
Kyntn Targcts
LandfiIIs aie a najoi souice of gieenhouse gas enissions, and lheiefoie conliilule
lovaids inpeding oui aliIily lo neel Kyolo olIigalions. The Resouice Recoveiy
Nelvoik vouId enalIe us lo ieIy nuch Iess on IandfiIIs and heIp us neel oui Kyolo
Sunnil olIigalions ly ieducing CO2 and nelhane enissions. No olhei avenue foi
ieducing lhese enissions piovides such a iange of olhei posilive oulcones such as
ieduced cosls, enpIoynenl, lusiness oppoilunilies and enviionnenlaI pioleclion.
Jnb CrcatInn and Lnca! EcnnnmIc Dcvc!npmcnt
Lasl lul nol Ieasl, lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik has lhe capacily lo cieale hundieds
of jols acioss lhe AuckIand iegion (see Iail 9 foi delaiIs). As Rolin Muiiay puls il in his
look, 'Ciealing WeaIlh Iion Wasle
18
: RecycIing is lhe engine of uilan jol ciealion.

The liulh of lhis slalenenl is shovn ly inleinalionaI sludies lhal denonsliale lhal lhe
iecycIing and iecoveied naleiiaIs indusliies aie najoi nev aieas of jols and econonic
deveIopnenl. RecycIing piovides nany Iov lo nediun skiII IeveI jols, vhich aie
inpoilanl foi connunilies lhal have Iosl lheii nanufacluiing lase.

The lasic knovIedge of naleiiaIs and use of handIing equipnenl lhal nany Iov skiIIed
peopIe have aie vaIualIe foi lhe opeialion of iesouice iecoveiy faciIilies.

17
iovn, K and K.C. DoneIIy, An eslinalion of lhe iisk associaled vilh lhe oiganic consliluenls of hazaidous and
nunicipaI vasle IandfiII Ieachales. Hazaidous Wasle and MaleiiaIs, 1988 5(1):p. 1-3O
18
Muiiay, R., Crca|ing lca||n frcn las|c. 1999, London: Denos
Page 340 of 591

AIso lhe vide iange of skiIIs invoIved in lhe nany aspecls of a Resouice Recoveiy Iaik
enalIes leginneis lo slaiicase lheii vay inlo noie conpIex and inleiesling voik.

ecause iesouice iecoveiy inilialives aie ly lheii veiy naluie IocaI, lhese posilions
cannol le Iosl lo Iaigei lovns oi oveiseas. Wages slay in lhe connunily, ciicuIaling in
lhe econony. Once naleiiaIs have leen iecoveied lheie aie noie jols ciealed lhiough
piocessing, disassenlIy and ienanufacluiing.
Page 341 of 591

5 Estab!IshIng thc Infrastructurc
fnr a Ncw Markct tn F!nurIsh
__________________________________________________

Rccqc|ing ac|s as a nc|cr cf ncu prcccss |ccnnc|cgics and ncu prcduc|s. As uc can scc frcn
|ncsc ccun|rics |na| arc a|rcadq uc|| dcun |nc rccqc|ing rcad, |nis in |urn |cads |c cxpcr|ao|c
|ccnnc|cgics and cxpcr|ao|c sqs|cns..|n Gcrnanq, |nc uas|c and rccqc|ing scc|cr is oiggcr
|nan ci|ncr s|cc| cr |c|cccnnunica|icns. Rcoin Murraq, Crca|ing lca||n frcn las|c
19
.
5.1 Estab!IshIng thc Infrastructurc fnr a Ncw Markct tn
F!nurIsh
The Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik viII piovide lhe infiasliucluie iequiied lo capluie and
iecycIe a nuch Iaigei fiaclion of lhe vasle sliean. Ciealei quanlilies of iecoveied
naleiiaIs viII enalIe nev lusinesses lo deveIop and exisling ones lo giov. The
iecycIing indusliy in lhe AuckIand iegion is aIieady sulslanliaI, as shovn ly a 1998
iepoil
20
vhich shoved lhal jusl 96 iecycIing lusinesses in lhe AuckIand iegion veie
luining ovei $133 niIIion pei yeai and enpIoying noie lhan 17OO peopIe.
Thc C!ustcr Effcct
Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls opeiale on lhe cIuslei piincipIe - vheie siniIai
lusinesses in any given Iocalion cieale syneigies of nuluaI lenefil. CIusleiing snaII
lusinesses vilh Iaige opeialois vilhin a nanaged cIuslei enviionnenl is a veII-pioven
conneiciaI piincipIe.

usinesses co-Iocale lo gain syneigies, liading oppoilunilies and lhe lenefils of nuluaI
cusloneis as veII as exchanging infoinalion and Ieaining lhe Ialesl lechniques. The
conlined opeialions alliacl noie liade, ciealing nev niches foi suppoil lusinesses.

SiIicon VaIIey is a speclacuIai exanpIe of lhis piincipIe, lul lheie aie nany olhei lypes
of lusiness cIusleiing. oal luiIding, educalionaI and liaining oiganisalions, food haIIs
and oulIel sloies aie lul a fev exanpIes.
5harcd Rcsnurccs
An advanlage of cIusleiing lusinesses on one sile is lhal nany seivices can le shaied lo
ieduce cosls. A Iisl of possilIe shaied cosls and seivices foIIov:
CenliaI adninislialion and connunicalion seivices.
IionolionaI and naikeling seivices

19
Denos 1999.
20
Suivey of RecycIing usinesses in lhe AuckIand Region, Wasle Nol Liniled, Oclolei 1998
Page 342 of 591

Secuiily seivices
Tenpoiaiy slaffing suppoil oi Ialoui pooI
Lducalion cenlie foi schooIs and IocaIs.
SnaII confeience cenlie and neeling ioons
Cafe
SuslainalIe lechnoIogy and iecycIing pioducls dispIay aiea.
Waiehousing space and slockpiIing aieas
Weighliidge and veiificalion seivices
Tiuck and equipnenl vashing aiea
Opeialing equipnenl (foikIifls, laIeis, shieddeis, Ioadeis, liucks and vehicIes).
LcoIogicaI iesloialion aiea
5.2 BusIncsscs That Cnu!d Cn-Lncatc at thc Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry
Park Hubs

The more materla|s are searated lnto dlscrete sub f|ous, the more mone there ls ln
the sstem. As the Resource Recoter Park succeeds ln lts mlsslon to attract and
nurture buslnesses that add ta|ue to dlscarded materla|s, the number and tarlet of
such buslnesses can, and ul||, grou." Uroan Orc Rcscurcc Rccctcrq Par| cuncr and picnccr
Dan Knapp, 8cr|c|cq Ca|ifcrnia

A fev exanpIes of lhe lypes of lusiness lhal nighl co-Iocale al oi neai lhe Resouice
Recoveiy Iaik huls foIIov:
Rc-usc 5tnrc and Yard
Lach Resouice Recoveiy Iaik hul and even sone of lhe lellei-Iocaled Connunily
RecycIing Depols viII have a Re-use Sloie. The sloie viII le Iinked lo a Iaige yaid foi
sloiage and saIe of used luiIding naleiiaIs. Il viII le a najoi alliaclion and focus of lhe
Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls and has lhe polenliaI lo le a soIid ievenue eainei. Ioi
exanpIe Chiislchuichs 'Supei Shed has a veekIy luinovei of ovei $2O,OOO.
Rccyc!cd CnmmndItIcs PrnccssIng BusIncsscs
MaleiiaI souiced fion on-sile diop-off lins and conneiciaI coIIeclions viII fIov lo lhe
Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls foi piocessing ly iecycIeis and end useis. Keilside
coIIeclion conliaclois nighl use one oi noie of lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls foi
piocessing naleiiaIs.
P!astIc Rc-manufacturcr
Once naleiiaIs slail lo le coIIecled and sloied, oppoilunilies aiise foi lusinesses lo sel
up using lhe iecoveied naleiiaIs lo nake nev pioducls, such as pipes, househoId ilens,
safely nalling elc.
E!cctrIca! RcpaIrcr
SeveiaI ie-use Sloies aiound Nev ZeaIand hiie lhe seivices of quaIified eIecliicians lo
iepaii and ceilify used eIecliicaI goods foi iesaIe. One oi lvo such lusinesses couId le
ciealed lhal vouId seivice aII of lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls. They nay aIso le
Iinked lo an appIiance disassenlIy cenlie.
Page 343 of 591

E!cctrnnIcs and App!Iancc DIsasscmb!cr
Due lo lhe nove lovaid Lxlended Iioducei ResponsiliIily (LIR) and aIso lhe cosl
savings lhal can le nade, appIiance and eIeclionics nanufacluieis aie leginning lo lake
iesponsiliIily foi lhe vhoIe Iife cycIe of lheii pioducls. Sone aie inpIenenling design
foi disassenlIy vheie pioducls aie nade lo le easiIy iecycIed. Iails aie coded and
nade lo le conpalilIe vilh iecycIing syslens so lhal lhey can eilhei le ieused in nev
pioducls oi iecycIed inlo nev naleiiaIs
21
. A fianchised syslen foi lhe disassenlIy of
pioducls al one oi noie of lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls vouId ensuie lhal goods
aie disassenlIed lo nanufacluieis specificalions and pails ieluined oi iecycIed as
iequiied.
RcpaIrcrs
The denand foi second hand appIiances and olhei used goods can suppoil snaII iepaii
lusinesses. The Iaige quanlilies of used fuiniluie and appIiances pul oul al lhe keil foi
lhe inoiganic coIIeclions denonsliale lhal lhe feedslock foi iepaii lusinesses viII le
ieadiIy avaiIalIe.
Crafts and Cnttagc IndustrIcs
Ciafls and collage indusliy opeialois viII cone lo lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls
and lhe Connunily RecycIing Depols lo coIIecl naleiiaIs. Sone nay aIso vanl lo Iease
space if il is avaiIalIe, lo le cIose lo feedslock and lo lake advanlage of lhe lusiness
faciIilies and ielaiI oppoilunilies.
BuI!dIng MatcrIa!s Yard
Consliuclion and DenoIilion vasle cuiienlIy accounls foi aiound 2O of lhe AuckIand
iegions vasle sliean.
22
CuiienlIy nosl of il ends up in IandfiII, yel appioxinaleIy 5O
lo 8O of lhis naleiiaI is ieusalIe oi iecycIalIe
23
. A luiIding naleiiaIs yaid shouId le a
piofilalIe lusiness as lheie is a conslanl and sleady denand foi used luiIding
naleiiaIs. DenoIilion conpanies and second-hand luiIding yaids viII lenefil fion
incieased naleiiaIs and liading oppoilunilies.
DccnnstructInn BusIncsscs
Deconsliuclion of oId luiIdings is a souice of jols and piofils foi lusinesses lhal
undeisland lhe inliicacies of piofessionaI disnanlIing - as opposed lo denoIilion. These
lusinesses couId le lased al lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls and feed naleiiaIs lo lhe
on-sile luiIding naleiiaIs yaid oi lo exisling used luiIding naleiiaIs liadeis in lhe
connunily.
Pa!!ct Rccyc!Ing and RcpaIrcr
Laige quanlilies of lioken and unvanled paIIels cuiienlIy go lo IandfiII. Space couId le
sel aside foi lusinesses lo coIIecl paIIels and iepaii foi iesaIe on-sile oi foi ienovaI ly

21 Milsulishi nakes a vashing nachine lhal can le fuIIy disassenlIed vilh onIy a scievdiivei. Iishei and IaykeI
opeiale a successfuI and piofilalIe oId appIiance disassenlIy pIanl al lheii Soulh AuckIand nanufacluiing pIanl.
22 Wasle Managenenl in lhe AuckIand Region, ARC 2OOO
23 A suivey of lhe conlenls of ovei 1OO lins of vasle fion consliuclion siles vilhin AuckIand caiiied oul ovei foui veeks
duiing ApiiI 1997, found lhal soiling consliuclion lin vasle oul has lhe polenliaI lo ieduce lhe quanlily of vasle going lo
IandfiII ly 5O lo 55 using cuiienl naleiiaI oulIels and iecoveiy lechnoIogy. This couId inciease lo 65 lo 8O oi even
highei if nev lechnoIogy lhal is avaiIalIe and leing deveIoped oveiseas is used.

Page 344 of 591

exisling lusinesses. Lilhei vay, lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls vouId ieceive a
disposaI fee foi accepling lhis naleiiaI.
GIb-bnard Rccyc!Ing
A lusiness couId le sel up lo coIIecl gil-loaid fion nanufacluieis, luiIdeis and
denoIished luiIdings and piocess il foi saIe lo nanufacluieis foi ienaking lack inlo
nev loaid. A successfuI lusiness
24
in Vancouvei diveils ovei 6O,OOO lonnes of gil-loaid
fion IandfiII each yeai and piovides a vaIualIe feedslock foi lhe gil-loaid indusliy, as
veII as ciealing nany nev jols.
PaInt Rccyc!cr
OId painl doesnl need lo le lhiovn avay. Il can le nixed, linled and iesoId. A snaII
lusiness iecenlIy sel up in Nev ZeaIand is pioducing quaIily iecycIed painls. A painl
diop-off poinl vilhin lhe hazaidous vasle aiea al each Resouice Recoveiy Iaik hul
viII piovide significanl anounls of iav naleiiaI foi pioducing a iange of iecycIed painl
pioducls.
Cnncrctc and Aggrcgatc Rccyc!cr
A Iaige aiea viII le iequiied lo piocess, sloie and naikel a vide iange of aggiegales
lhal can le pioduced fion iecycIed ineil naleiiaIs such as conciele, liicks, paving
slones elc. An offsile opeialoi nighl opeiale a ciushing opeialion on-sile if lheie is
sufficienl space oi aIleinaliveIy sel up a ieceiving aiea foi off-sile ciushing.
5crap Mcta! Dca!cr
Sciap nelaIs viII fIov lo lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls in significanl quanlilies.
They can piovide diop-off poinls foi sciap nelaIs vhich viII noie lhan IikeIy le
liansfeiied on a ieguIai lasis lo a IocaI sciap nelaI neichanls yaid foi fuilhei
piocessing. Theie viII aIso le IocaI saIes of snaII ilens foi hone piojecls and naleiiaI
foi ailisls lhal voik in nelaIs.
Tyrc Prnccssnr
Theie aie a nunlei of nev lechnoIogies leing deveIoped lo uliIise oId lyies. Rullei
fion oId lyies is leing used foi pIaygiound equipnenl, ioad suifaces, decoialive
pIanleis, indusliiaI nalling and, in lhe fuluie, nev lyies. These lusinesses couId
eslalIish lhenseIves on sile.
OrganIc Wastc and CnmpnstIng
Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls couId conlain diop-off faciIilies and a saIes aiea foi a
iange of conposl and soiI anendnenl pioducls, possilIy in conjunclion vilh an
exisling opeialoi. On sile in-vesseI conposling unils (such as lhe lype inslaIIed al
Wailakeie, oi lhe Iov lech lypes used al Kaikouia and Rakaia) couId le used lo piocess
kilchen vasle fion househoIds and ieslauianls.

24 Nev Wesl Cypsun of Vancouvei iilish CoIunlia have iecycIed noie lhan noie lhan 1.7 niIIion lonnes of gypsun
since 1986 in lheii lhiee pIanls. The Vancouvei pIanl iecycIes appioxinaleIy 6O,OOO lonnes pei annun aIone. IIaslei
loaid is lanned fion IandfiII in Vancouvei. Ioi noie info see:
hllp://vvv.nvgypsun.con/engIish/hone.hln
Page 345 of 591

Othcr 5crvIccs
Olhei seivices and aclivilies lhal couId co-Iocale al lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls
IncIude:
ExhIbItInn Arca
An exhililion aiea dispIaying vaiious conposling and voin-faining nelhods lo
educale conneiciaI opeialois and househoIdeis.
Hazardnus Wastc Drnp-Off
A veII-designed diop-off poinl al Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls and sone of lhe
Connunily Recoveiy Depols vhich aie open lo lhe pulIic, seven days a veek, viII
enalIe AuckIand counciIs lo capluie a fai giealei piopoilion of lhe loxic naleiiaIs
going inlo IandfiIIs and diains. The ARC Haz-noliIe seivice couId le inlegialed vilh
lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik foi naxinun efficiency, phasing oul once lhe Nelvoik
is fuIIy eslalIished.
CnmmcrcIa! Rcnta! 5paccs
Lighl indusliiaI siles couId le nade avaiIalIe foi iecycIeis and end useis such as
nanufacluieis vho iequiie a consislenl suppIy of a given naleiiaI such as gIass, linlei,
vood oi pIaslic. AddilionaIIy snaII lusiness inculaloi
25
spaces couId le nade
avaiIalIe foi expeiinenlaI and slail-up lusinesses on a Iov ienlaI, nonlh lo nonlh
lasis.

25
usiness inculalois aie lusiness assislance piogiannes laigeled lo slail-up and fIedgIing fiins. Coveinnenl lusiness
and lechnicaI assislance piogiannes couId aIso le lapped inlo.
Page 346 of 591

Cnnccpt fnr a Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Park, Haz!cmcrc Pcrth

5Itc Fcaturcs

Page 347 of 591

6 Estab!IshIng thc Nctwnrk
___________________________________________
6.1 P!annIng
The Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik viII need lo le concepluaIIy designed fion lhe oulsel
- in lhe sane vay lhal lianspoilalion nelvoiks aie pIanned. The design shouId luiId on
lhe iesouice iecoveiy faciIilies lhal aie aIieady in pIace incIuding lhose al exisling
Tiansfei Slalions, vhich can le consideialIy expanded in associalion vilh lhe sile
ovneis oi opeialois. These viII le Iiniled due lo space consliainls and lecause lhey aie
designed piinaiiIy as vasle disposaI siles.

Resouice Recoveiy Iaiks and Connunily RecycIing Depols vouId ideaIIy le puipose
luiIl lo siniIai designs and slandaids aIIoving foi lhe diffeienl aieas avaiIalIe, lhe facl
lhal sone faciIilies aIieady exisl, and lhe diveisily of lusinesses lhal viII eslalIish al oi
neai each sile.
6.2 5tagIng
ecause lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik is a najoi infiasliucluiaI piojecl il viII need lo
le eslalIished in slages.
5tagc 1:
The nosl inpoilanl slep foi IocaI aulhoiilies is selling up lhe coie fianevoik of lhe
seven nain Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls. This is IikeIy lo lake up lo five oi noie yeais.
The iniliaI slep foi slage one viII le lo upgiade and luiId on any suilalIe faciIilies
aIieady in exislence such as liansfei slalions and exisling iesouice iecoveiy and
iecycIing cenlies. Al lhe sane line Iand shouId le sel aside and pIanning connenced
foi lhe huls lhal donl cuiienlIy exisl.

Sone IocaI inilialives lhal couId inlegiale vilh lhe nelvoik aie aIieady undei vay:
The expansion of iecycIing faciIilies inlo a Resouice Recoveiy Cenlie al lhe
Wailakeie Cily Tiansfei Slalion
RedeveIopnenl of lhe Tiansfei Slalion on Waiheke IsIand inlo a Resouice Recoveiy
Cenlie ly AuckIand Cily CounciI
Invesligalion inlo a piIol Resouice Recoveiy Iaik on lhe islhnus ly AuckIand Cily
CounciI
Invesligalion inlo a Resouice Recoveiy Cenlie ly Rodney Disliicl CounciI
Invesligalion inlo a Resouice Recoveiy Iaik ly Manukau Cily
Vaiious endeavouis ly piivale secloi iecycIing opeialois and lhe second hand
goods indusliy.

Page 348 of 591

5tagc 2:
The second slage is selling up lhe Connunily RecycIing Depols lhal feed inlo lhe huls.
Wilh lhe iighl incenlives - fIoving fion a iegionaI slialegy, lhis slage couId le
undeilaken nainIy ly lhe piivale oi connunily seclois - possilIy in conlinalion vilh
IocaI aulhoiilies. Il couId le luiIl using exisling faciIilies, such as ielaiI sloies,
vaiehouses, indusliiaI siles elc. This slage couId legin as soon as one hul lecones
opeialionaI and couId le deveIoped ovei a peiiod of five lo 1O yeais.
6.3 5cttIng AsIdc Land
Land viII need lo le sel aside foi lhe nev faciIilies. The anounl iequiied viII vaiy lul
expeiience aiound Nev ZeaIand has shovn lhal iecycIing faciIilies aie scaIealIe and aie
financiaIIy vialIe al diffeienl sizes, depending on lhe Iand avaiIalIe.
6.4 Cnntrn! / OwncrshIp nf FacI!ItIcs
This iepoil sliongIy ieconnends nainlaining connunily (via counciIs) conlioI of lhe
vasle sliean - and of lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik. This does nol nean lhal counciIs
nusl necessaiiIy ovn oi opeiale lhe faciIilies lhenseIves. Connunily conlioI can sliII
le achieved vilh lhe pailicipalion of lhe vasle and iecycIing indusliies. ConlioI can le
achieved lhiough inpIenenling appiopiiale nanagenenl oplions foi lhe faciIilies.

Ioi each Resouice Recoveiy Iaik hul, a Managenenl Aulhoiily shouId le ciealed lo
consliucl and al Ieasl iniliaIIy opeiale lhe sile (in lhe sane vay lhal an aiipoil aulhoiily
opeiales). Day lo day nanagenenl can le caiiied oul ly lhe Managenenl Aulhoiily oi
conliacled oul lo lhe piivale lusiness oi connunily gioup.

The Managenenl Aulhoiily couId le a nol foi piofil Tiusl (siniIai lo Chiislchuich Cily
CounciIs Recoveied MaleiiaIs Ioundalion) sel up lo nanage lhe sile vilh lhe goaI of
naking il piofilalIe and pioviding an enviionnenlaI and sociaI dividend lo lhe
connunily.

AIleinaleIy lhe huls couId le luiIl ly counciIs and conliacled lo anolhei oiganisalion
(piivale conpany oi Tiusl) lo iun. The key lo ensuiing lhal lhe pulIics inleiesls aie
lesl seived (naxinun vasle ieduclion, iecycIing and jols) is nainlaining pulIic
conlioI of lhe iegions Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls.

The six oi seven huls couId opeiale independenlIy oi as a consoiliun. RegaidIess of
vho ovns lhen oi hov lhey aie nanaged, lhey viII need lo opeiale as pail of lhe
iegionaI nelvoik. This couId le achieved lhiough a fianchise aiiangenenl sel up al
iegionaI IeveI.
CnmmunIty Rccyc!Ing Dcpnts
The Connunily RecycIing Depols couId le eslalIished ly IocaI aulhoiilies, lul lhey
aIso offei lhe piivale and connunily seclois oppoilunily lo pailicipale in lhe Nelvoik.
Iiivale oi connunily lusinesses couId luiId and/oi nanage lhese faciIilies lo pie-
deleinined slandaids of design and opeialion. ecause lhey aie Iocaled in snaII
connunilies lhey aie ideaIIy suiled lo leing iun ly snaII IocaI lusinesses oi gioups
lhal knov lhe connunily and can piovide lhe connunily Iink lo lhe videi Nelvoik.

Page 349 of 591

7 FundIng thc Nctwnrk
_____________________________________
7.1 Thc EcnnnmIcs nf Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry
Oveiseas sludies and IocaI olseivalion shov lhal in lhe Iong-lein, lhe lolaI cosl of lhe
IandfiII soIulion viII conlinue lo escaIale. Mosl vasle pIanneis acknovIedge lhal
piopeiIy pIanned vasle ieduclion piogiannes conlined vilh Lxlended Iioducei
ResponsiliIily viII, ovei line, ieduce lhese cosls lo IocaI aulhoiilies and lheii
connunilies.

Rolin Muiiay, of lhe London SchooI of Lcononics, piojecled lhe cosls of vasle disposaI
oplions foi London
26
in 1998. The LandfiIIing Inlensive soIulion cosls slail al 15O
niIIion in lhe Iale 199Os and escaIale shaipIy lo 35O niIIion vilhin 2O yeais. y
conliasl, lhe 21sl Cenluiy RecycIing Inlensive oplion slails al 2OO niIIion in lhe Iale
199Os and faIIs lo 14O niIIion ly 2O15.

27

Recc|lng ls seen b man |oca| authorltles as an extra cost, an add-on to exlstlng
uaste sertlces. Houeter our ana|sls shous that, oter tlme, lntenslte recc|lng
rogrammes actua|| reduce the cost of uaste management, regard|ess of subsldles".
Rcoin Murraq, Crca|ing lca||n frcn las|c
Graph 10: PrcdIctcd Wastc Cnsts fnr Lnndnn

26
Re-Invenling Wasle. Tovaids a London Wasle Slialegy, Augusl 1998
27
Ciealing WeaIlh fion Wasle, Denos 1999
e n v I s I o n
Page 350 of 591

Kaikoura Landfill Options
0.00
2,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
6,000,000.00
8,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
12,000,000.00
14,000,000.00
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
8
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
8
2
0
2
0
Year
$
IWK Plan
Landfill/Transfer
EcnnnmIcs nf Ncw Zca!and Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Ccntrcs
The RecycIing Inlensive nodeI is aIso econonicaIIy efficienl in lhe snaIIei scaIe Nev
ZeaIand conlexl, as shovn leIov in Kaikouias exanpIe vheie a Resouice Recoveiy
Cenlie, suppoiled ly a Zeio Wasle poIicy, is achieving 7O vasle diveision fion
IandfiII.

WhiIsl lhe Kaikouia scaIe of opeialion nay seen iiieIevanl lo a Iaige iegion such as
AuckIand, il viII appIy lo Connunily RecycIing Depols vhich in sone cases viII acl as
nini Resouice Recoveiy Iaiks seiving IocaI connunilies.

The lop Iine in giaph 11 leIov iepiesenls lhe piojecled cosls of vasle disposaI in
Kaikouia piioi lo lhe nev joinl venluie conpany IWK (Innovalive Wasle Kaikouia)
laking ovei lhe nanagenenl of vasle vilhin lhe Kaikouia disliicl. The lollon Iine
iepiesenls lhe adjusled cosl piojeclions since IWK look ovei and inpIenenled a iange
of connunily lased vasle ieduclion inilialives.

Graph 11: KaIknura LandfI!! OptInns

7.2 What thc Nctwnrk wI!! Cnst
The puipose of lhis iepoil is nol lo go inlo delaiIed cosls of eslalIishing lhe Resouice
Recoveiy Nelvoik. Hovevei exliapoIaling figuies fion a concepl sludy foi a Resouice
Recoveiy Iaik foi AuckIand Cily (Lnvision NZ, May 2OO3), lhe cosl lo eslalIish lhe fiisl
slage of lhe Nelvoik (7 Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls) incIuding sile deveIopnenl,
luiIdings and pIanl and equipnenl vouId le aiound $16.5 niIIion. This eslinale does
nol incIude lhe cosl of Iand puichases oi inleiesl on loiiovings. The foIIoving lalIe
shovs cosl eslinales foi eslalIishnenl and opeialion of lhe fiisl slage of lhe Nelvoik,
aIong vilh eslinaled ievenue ovei six yeais.
Page 351 of 591

Tab!c 4: Prnjcctcd Rcvcnuc and Expcnscs (6 ycars) fnr Estab!Ishmcnt nf 5tagc Onc nf
thc Nctwnrk, (7 Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Park Hubs)

5ccnarIn nnc - bascd nn $5/tnnnc LandfI!! Lcvy
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6
INCOME
Trading 1,629,038 2,153,462 2,881,802 3,478,316 4,149,493 4,564,442
Landfill levy @ $5 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000
Total Income 6,879,038 7,403,462 8,131,802 8,728,316 9,399,493 9,814,442

EXPENSES
Operating 1,921,734 2,148,341 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806
Establishment Costs 10,980,500 6,350,480
REGIONAL COSTS 12,902,234 8,498,821 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806
Less Inorganic collection costs 3,000,500 3,000,500 3,290,000 3,290,000 3,645,000 3,645,000
Net Regional expenses 9,901,734 5,498,321 - 722,265 - 516,976 - 694,483 - 473,194
Net surplus(deficit) -3,022,696 1,905,141 8,854,067 9,245,292 10,093,976 10,287,636

5ccnarIn twn - bascd nn $10/tnnnc LandfI!! Lcvy
INCOME
Trading 1,629,038 2,153,462 2,881,802 3,478,316 4,149,493 4,564,442
landfill levy @ $10 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000
Total Income 12,129,038 12,653,462 13,381,802 13,978,316 14,649,493 15,064,442

EXPENSES
Operating 1,921,734 2,148,341 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806
REGIONAL COSTS 12,902,234 8,498,821 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806
Less Inorganic collection costs 3,000,500 3,000,500 3,290,000 3,290,000 3,645,000 3,645,000
Net surplus(deficit) 2,227,304 7,155,141 14,104,067 14,495,292 15,343,976 15,537,636

NOTE5:
1. Land Cosls aie nol incIuded
2. Cosls of luiIding addilionaI ienlaI spaces and joinl faciIilies aie nol incIuded
3. LandfiII Ievy is lased on 1,O5O,OOO lonnes pei annun
4. Assune savings fion ceasing inoiganic coIIeclions viII le ieaIIocaled lo heIp fund lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik

See Appendix 7 foi lhe lackgiound assunplions and caIcuIalions lo lhese lalIes
Page 352 of 591

7.3 Ways nf FundIng thc Nctwnrk
Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Park Hubs
Theie aie a nunlei of vays of funding lhe fiisl phase of lhe Resouice Recoveiy
Nelvoik. Again il is nol lhe inlenl of lhis iepoil lo go inlo lhese in any delaiI, lul
foIIoving aie sone nelhods lhal couId le consideied.
1) LandfI!! Lcvy
The fiisl nelhod of financing couId le lo inpose a IandfiII Ievy, as Chiislchuich Cily
has done, on aII soIid vasle going lo IandfiII acioss lhe iegion - lolh lusiness and
iesidenliaI. Apail fion iaising funds, lhe Ievy vouId aIso encouiage vasle ieduclion
ly incieasing lhe cosl of IandfiII disposaI conpaied lo iecycIing. Revenue fion a $5 pei
lonne Ievy on 1,O5O,OOO lonnes pei annun has leen facloied inlo lhe pievious Scenaiio 1
lalIe, and a $1O pei lonne Ievy has leen used foi Scenaiio 2. IdeaIIy a Ievy shouId le
appIied nalionaIIy lul as lheie cuiienlIy appeais lo le IillIe suppoil al Coveinnenl
28

IeveI foi a IandfiII Ievy, il viII need lo le appIied iegionaIIy.
Tab!c 5: PntcntIa! LandfI!! Lcvy Rcvcnuc
Levy Tonnage Annual Revenue
$ 5.00 1,050,000 $5,250,000.00
$ 7.50 1,050,000 $7,875,000.00
$ 10.00 1,050,000 $10,500,000.00
$ 12.50 1,050,000 $13,125,000.00
$ 15.00 1,050,000 $15,750,000.00
$ 20.00 1,050,000 $21,000,000.00

Graph 12: LandfI!! Taxcs (nr LcvIcs) In Eurnpc

AInosl aII LU counliies have a IandfiII lax. The giaph
29
alove shovs lhal lhese iange
fion aiound $NZ18 pei lonne lo as high as $NZ12O pei lonne on lop of lhe disposaI fee.

28
In spile of Lalouis pionise in lheii 1991 Manifeslo lo fund a Wasle Reduclion Woiking Iaily ly a nodesl IandfiII
Ievy lo le coIIecled ly lhe ovneis of aII IandfiIIs, and seiviced ly lhe Minisliy foi lhe Lnviionnenl.
29
Souice of giaph, Doninic Hogg, Lunonia Reseaich and ConsuIling, UK 2OO2
Page 353 of 591

2) Rca!!ncatInn nf InnrganIc Cn!!cctInn Funds
The najoi cilies of lhe AuckIand iegion spend ovei $3 niIIion annuaIIy on oiganic
coIIeclions. If lhe inoiganic coIIeclions veie disconlinued lhese funds vouId le
avaiIalIe foi eslalIishing lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik.

Disconlinualion of lhe inoiganic coIIeclions vouId need lo le nanaged caiefuIIy as il
couId cause a pulIic oulciy as peopIe have had lhe convenience of fiee pick-up foi
yeais, of aInosl anylhing lhey can lhiov oul. Il is possilIe lo do lhis vilhoul negalive
ieaclion vilh a good connunicalions piogianne. Ioiiiua Cily canceIIed ils annuaI
inoiganic coIIeclion and iepIaced il vilh 'Tiash IaIace, a Resouice Recoveiy Iaik,
opeialing yeai iound aIong vilh lvo fiee pick up seivices pei yeai foi iesidenls. Theie
has leen no pulIic oulciy oi lackIash. On lhe conliaiy, peopIe vaIue lhe exlia seivice
and Tiash IaIace is one of lhe nain alliaclions of lhe lovn. The fiee pick-ups aie
opeialed ly a connunily gioup vhich iuns Tiash IaIace.

If aII lhe AuckIand counciIs canceIIed lheii inoiganic coIIeclions and piovided an 'on
caII seivice lheie vouId le appioxinaleIy $3 niIIion avaiIalIe annuaIIy lo iun lhis
seivice and lo heIp fund lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik.

Tab!c 6: Cnsts nf InnrganIc Cn!!cctInns In thc Auck!and RcgInn
City/District Inorganic Collection and
Disposal Costs
Auckland City $800,000
North Shore City $ 516,500
Manukau City $1,000,000
Waitakere City $ 435,000
Franklin $33,000
Papakura $216,000
Total $3,000,500
3) CnuncI! FundIng
Anolhei oplion is foi each counciI lo sinpIy ludgel foi, and invesl in lhe cosl of
luiIding a Resouice Recoveiy Iaik in lheii aiea - as sone aie aIieady doing.
4) Pub!Ic PrIvatc PartncrshIps
Iiivale secloi vasle and iecycIing lusinesses have expiessed inleiesl in pailicipaling in
lhe deveIopnenl and opeialion of Resouice Recoveiy Iaiks. If counciIs sel lhe opeialing
piincipIes and pioceduies foi lhe Nelvoik, lheie is no ieason vhy lhe piivale secloi
shouId nol luiId and opeiale lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik Huls and/oi Connunily
RecycIing Depols, eilhei aIone oi in pailneiship vilh counciIs. The key is lhal lhey do
nol gel conlioI of lolh iesouice iecoveiy and IandfiII disposaI oplions oi a nonopoIy
vilhin lhe Nelvoik. Connunily lusinesses Iike lhe ones lhal opeiale a nunlei of
iesouice iecoveiy faciIilies aiound Nev ZeaIand, incIuding Waiheke, couId aIso opeiale
lhe faciIilies. A conlinalion of counciI, piivale lusinesses and connunily couId aIso le
feasilIe.
Page 354 of 591

5) Incnmc frnm 5a!cs
UnIike IandfiIIing and lhe annuaI inoiganic coIIeclions, vhich onIy incui cosl and
piovide no incone lo lhe connunily, iesouice iecoveiy faciIilies have a nunlei of
polenliaI souices of incone vhich viII heIp fund lheii eslalIishnenl.
CnmmunIty Rccyc!Ing Dcpnts
Once lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls aie IaigeIy in pIace, lhe nexl slage viII le
eslalIishing lhe Connunily RecycIing Depols of vhich lheie couId le up lo 6O. The
cosl of eslalIishing lhe Connunily RecycIing Depols has nol leen eslinaled al lhis
poinl, as lhey viII vaiy videIy in size and cosl lo eslalIish and opeiale. Il is possilIe,
lased on lhe exanpIes of connunily-lased RecycIing Cenlies aiound Nev ZeaIand
lhal lhese faciIilies couId le seIf funding.
Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry FacI!Ity Examp!cs
The foIIoving slalislics
30
have leen coIIecled fion iesouice iecoveiy faciIilies in Nev
ZeaIand and oveiseas aie piovided as exanpIes. Case sludies can le found in
Appendices 3 and 4.
Tab!c 7: Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry FacI!Ity Examp!cs
Location Population
serviced
Establishment Cost Annual
Income
Land area + Comments
Christchurch
Super Shed
330,000 $100,000 to refurbish
existing building + 3
drop-off points
$1.08
million
0.3 ha.
Reuse Store and Yard only. Land
owned by Council
Canberra
Revolve
200,000 A$600,000 A$ 1
million
1 ha. Reuse Store and Yard only.
Sited near Transfer Station
Canberra
Mitchell
Recycling Centre
150,000 A$1.5 million A$0.5
million
0.7 ha. Reuse Store and Yard only
Canberra
Resource
Recovery Estate
350,000 A$3.5 million to
install roading and
infrastructure.
Tenants will build to
own requirements
Stage 1 17 ha, Stage 2 - 28 ha.
Stage one under development
Berkeley,
California
Urban Ore Eco-
park

300,000 US$1.25 million US$1.6
million
1.2 ha
Reuse Store, Sales yard. Daily picking
off landfill. Small businesses sub-lease
on site
Halifax, UK
Sustainable
Growth Park

12.5 ha site. Currently being designed
and built by Urban Mines Ltd, a not-
for-profit company

Reclaim UK
Sheffield
$3,4
million
1 ha. Range of activities including local
kerbside contracts
Opotiki

10,000 $100,000 to retrofit
existing building
$120,000 2 ha. Land and building owned by
Council

30
Slalislics veie galheied in 2OO3 and can le found in 'ResouicefuI Connunilies- A Cuide lo Resouice Recoveiy Cenlies
in Nev ZeaIand.. Lnvision Nev ZeaIand, 2OO3
Page 355 of 591

8 Hnw Much Wastc WI!! thc
Nctwnrk DIvcrt?
___________________________
8.1 'MassIvc and RapId' Wastc RcductInn
To voik lovaids Zeio Wasle, lhe AuckIand iegion needs masslte and rald vasle
ieduclion oulcones ovei a shoil line fiane. The gains fion sIov incienenlaI
inpiovenenls have in lhe pasl leen quickIy svaIIoved up ly popuIalion giovlh and
lhe iise of consuneiisn. Like a veighl Ioss piogianne, vasle ieduclion needs lo gel
eaiIy, visilIe gains lo give lhe connunily encouiagenenl and confidence in oui aliIily
lo do sonelhing aloul lhe piolIen.

The Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik aIong vilh suppoiling poIicies viII piovide significanl
eaiIy gains, as veII as piovide lhe pIalfoin lo deveIop fuilhei vasle ieduclion
oulcones in lhe fuluie.
8.2 Wastc RcductInn EstImatcs
The nain souices of vasle dala foi lhis iepoil aie: The AuckIand Wasle AnaIysis 1997,
(vasle lonnages foi 2OO3/O4) piovided ly lhe AuckIand RegionaI CounciI, and
iesidenliaI vasle lonnages suppIied ly lhe counciIs.
Wastc DIvcrsInn EstImatcs
The Wasle AnaIysis 1997 iepoil slales lhal lonnages lo IandfiII in 1997 veie:
ResidenliaI 286,55O lonnes
usiness 4O4,O9O lonnes
Tnta! 690,640 tnnncs

ARC figuies shov lhal 1,O5O,OOO lonnes of vasle vas IandfiIIed in 2OO3/O4. Assuning
lhal lhe 2OO3/O4 piopoilions of iesidenliaI and lusiness veie appioxinaleIy lhe sane
as in 1997, lhe 2OO3/O4 lieakdovn vouId le as foIIovs:
ResidenliaI 435,65O lonnes
usiness 614,35O lonnes
Tnta! 1,050,000 tnnncs

The foIIoving lalIes piovide vasle diveision eslinales lhal couId occui once lhe
Nelvoik vas luiIl - lased on 1.O5 niIIion lonnes leing IandfiIIed annuaIIy acioss lhe
iegion
31
and using ARCs 1997 vasle conposilion dala
32
.

31 AuckIand RegionaI CounciI figuies shov lhal jusl ovei I niIIion lonnes of vasle veie disposed lo IandfiII in 2OO3/O4
32 Refuse Conposilion - AuckIand RegionaI LandfiIIs 1997 - 'Wasle Managenenl in lhe AuckIand Region, 2OOO
Page 356 of 591

Tab!c 8: RcsIdcntIa! Wastc Tnnnagcs
Category % 1997 2003/04 Collected
by Councils
Remaining
Residential
Paper 19.93 57,106 86,820 48,013 38,807
Plastics 8.74 25,056 38,093 21,066 17,027
Glass 3.64 10,428 15,854 8,768 7,086
Metals 8.70 24,927 37,897 20,958 16,939
Organic 40.88 117,152 178,110 98,498 79,612
Potentially
Hazardous.
1.15 3,286 4,996 2,763 2,233
C & D 11.40 32,661 49,655 27,460 22,195
Other 5.56 15,934 24,225 13,397 10,828
TOTAL 100 286,550 435,651 240,923 194,728

TalIe 8 alove shovs lhal appioxinaleIy 435,651 lonnes of iesidenliaI vasle is pioduced
in lhe AuckIand iegion. CounciIs coIIecl 217,273 lonnes via iesidenliaI vasle coIIeclions
pIus 23,65O lonnes via inoiganic coIIeclions - a lolaI of 24O,923 lonnes. Renoving lhis
quanlily fion lhe lolaI of 435,65O lonnes Ieaves 194,727 lonnes. Il is assuned foi lhis
iepoil lhal lhis is lhe anounl of iesidenliaI vasle coIIecled ly conneiciaI coIIeclois
and/oi seIf-hauIed lo liansfei slalions ly iesidenls. Il is aIso assuned lhal lhe
iesidenliaI vasle coIIecled ly counciIs viII have no iecycIalIe naleiiaI avaiIalIe, lul lhe
ienaining 194,727 lonnes viII conlain significanl quanlilies of iecycIalIe naleiiaI. TalIe
9 leIov piovides eslinales of lhe quanlilies of lhis naleiiaI lhal can le iecycIed.

Tab!c 9: PntcntIa! RcsIdcntIa! Wastc DIvcrsInn
Category Remaining
Residential
Waste
(Tonnes)
Estimated
Diversion %
(of each
category)
Diversion
Potential
(Tonnes)
Paper 38,807 15% 5,821
Plastics 17,027 10% 1,703
Glass 7,086 10% 709
Metals 16,939 15% 2,541
Organic 79,612 50% 39,806
Pot. Haz. 2,233 0 -
C & D 22,195 10% 2,220
Other 10,828 0 -
TOTAL 194,727 52,799

TalIe 1O shovs lhal lheie viII le appioxinaleIy 614,35O lonnes of lusiness vasle
avaiIalIe and il is assuned lhal aII of lhis naleiiaI viII conlain ieusalIe oi iecycIalIe
naleiiaI.
Page 357 of 591

Tab!c 10: PntcntIa! BusIncss Wastc DIvcrsInn
Category % Total 1997 Total 2003/04 Estimated %
Diversion by
category
Diversion
Potential
(Tonnes)
Paper 23.92 96,664 146,961 25% 36,740
Plastics 11.57 46,756 71,085 15% 10,663
Glass 1.81 7,300 11,098 15% 1,665
Metals 7.86 31,744 48,261 35% 16,891
Organic 16.94 68,437 104,047 25% 26,012
Pot. Haz. 1.69 6,810 10,353 0%
C & D 27.06 109,357 166,259 40% 66,503
Other 9.16 37,022 56,286 0%
TOTAL 100.00 404,090 614,350 ---- 158,474
Tab!c 11: Wastc AvaI!ab!c fnr DIvcrsInn
Residential 194,728
Business 614,350
Total available 809,078

TalIe 11, shovs lhe lolaI anounl of vasle lhal il is eslinaled viII conlain ieusalIe oi
iecycIalIe naleiiaI fion lhe quanlilies shovn in lalIes 9 and 1O.
Tab!c 12: Tnta! PntcntIa! Wastc DIvcrsInn
Residential (from Table 9) 52,799
Business (from Table 10) 158,474
Total 211,273
% diversion 26.1%

The lolaI polenliaI vasle diveision is 211,273 lonnes (lalIe 12). This equales lo 26.1 of
AuckIand iegions vasle sliean diveiled fion IandfiII inlo pioduclive use. Once lhis
laigel is ieached, nev laigels shouId le sel vilh lhe end goaI of Zeio Wasle.
Examp!cs nf Wastc DIvcrsInn frnm Othcr CItIcs
Anolhei vay of eslinaling AuckIands polenliaI vasle diveision is lo sinpIy Iook al
olhei cilies lhal have successfuIIy adopled aggiessive vasle ieduclion poIicies and luiIl
lhe appiopiiale infiasliucluie lo achieve il - such as Canleiia, San Iiancisco and
Chiislchuich.
Canbcrra
Canleiia adopled a 'No Wasle ly 2O1O poIicy in 1996 and is cuiienlIy achieving 7O
vasle diveision. See vvv.novasle.acl.gov.au
ChrIstchurch
Chiislchuich adopled a Zeio Wasle poIicy in 1998 and is cuiienlIy achieving 57
diveision. Il has done lhis lhiough a conlinalion of a IandfiII Ievy, inveslnenl in vasle
ieduclion infiasliucluie and lhe Iicensing of vasle conpanies and faciIilies. See
vvv.ccc.govl.nz/Wasle/WasleMininisalion
Page 358 of 591

5an FrancIscn
San Iiancisco has a laigel of Zeio Wasle vilh an inleiin laigel of 75 diveision. Il is
cuiienlIy achieving 63. The cily alliilules nuch of ils success lo aggiessive iecycIing
and ieuse of naleiiaIs al consliuclion and denoIilion siles and coie iesidenliaI and
conneiciaI piogians. See hllp://lenp.sfgov.oig/sfenviionnenl/aloulus/iecycIing

ased on lhe alove, if lhe AuckIand iegion vas lo invesl in lhe Resouice Recoveiy
Nelvoik and pul poIicies in pIace lo suppoil il, ve couId diveil conseivaliveIy 25 of
oui vasle sliean in five yeais line.

Page 359 of 591

9 Emp!nymcnt Outcnmcs fnr thc
Nctwnrk
_____________
9.1 EstImatc nf Jnbs Crcatcd frnm thc Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Park
Hubs
IoIIoving aie five diffeienl exliapoIalions lo assessing lhe jol ciealion polenliaI of Slage
1 - lhe eslalIishnenl of seven Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls. These figuies donl incIude
eslinales of lhe nunlei of jols lhal viII le ciealed ly Slage 2 (eslalIishnenl of
Connunily RecycIing Depols) oi lhe nunlei of jols ciealed fion associaled lusiness
deveIopnenl.

a) Extrapn!atIng frnm thc 5upcr5hcd, ChrIstchurch Examp!c:
The SupeiShed is a ie-use/ielaiI opeialion onIy, deaIing in used fuiniluie, appIiances,
househoId liic a liac, ouldooi equipnenl elc.
Chiislchuich popuIalion = appiox 33O,OOO
SupeiShed enpIoys 27 fuII-line + 4 fuII/pail-line + 1O casuaI slaff
AuckIand iegionaI popuIalion = appiox 1.2 niIIion

ased on lhis popuIalion, one couId anlicipale:
98 fuII-line slaff
14.5 fuII/pail-line slaff
36 casuaI slaff

Theiefoie, aiound 15O fuII line equivaIenl jols couId le ciealed in ieuse opeialions
aIone in AuckIands Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik. Add on consliuclion and denoIilion
naleiiaIs handIing, gieenvasle, connodily iecycIing, educalion, and aII lhe olhei
aclivilies lhal vouId lake pIace on a Resouice Recoveiy Iaik and a conseivalive
eslinale vouId le 2OO fuII line equivaIenl jols. OlviousIy if AuckIands popuIalion
doulIes, lhen lhis nunlei couId doulIe as veII.

b) Auck!and - FacI!Ity by FacI!Ity EstImatInn
(ased on 7 Resouice Recoveiy Iaik iunning aII lhe key iesouice iecoveiy aclivilies)

Resouice Recoveiy Iaik Huls in:

AuckIand Cily (najoi faciIily) 5O fuII-line equivaIenl (ITL) jols
Noilh Shoie (Iaige faciIily) 3O ITL
Page 360 of 591

Wailakeie (Iaige faciIily) 3O ITL
Manukau (Iaige faciIily) 3O ITL
Waiheke (nediun faciIily) 2O ITL
Rodney (nediun faciIily) 12 ITL
Iapkuia/IiankIin (nediun faciIily) 12 ITL

Tnta! 184 fuII line equivaIenl jols
c) Extrapn!atIng frnm Ca!IfnrnIan Examp!c
Uilan Oie in eikIey, CaIifoinia (Re-use sloie and consliuclion and denoIilion
opeialion onIy)
IopuIalion = 3OO,OOO
LnpIoys 32 fuII line slaff

LxliapoIaling lhis lo AuckIands 1.2 niIIion popuIalion = 128 fuII line equivaIenl jols in
ie-use and consliuclion and denoIilion onIy
d) Extrapn!atIng frnm Canbcrra Examp!c
In Canleiia, lheie aie lvo ie-use opeialions handIing siniIai naleiiaIs lo lhe
SupeiShed in Chiislchuich.
RevoIve (seivicing 2OO,OOO popuIalion) = 2O fuII line slaff
MilcheII RecycIing Cenlie (seivicing 15O,OOO popuIalion) = 5 fuII line slaff

LxliapoIaling lhis lo lhe AuckIand silualion 86 fuII line equivaIenl jols couId le ciealed
in ie-use aIone. Canleiia has a Iaige nunlei of iesouice iecoveiy inilialives in addilion
lo lhese ieuse opeialions.
c) Extrapn!atIng frnm 5ma!! Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Ccntrcs arnund
Ncw Zca!and
33

Tab!c 13: Jnbs In Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry FacI!ItIcs
Population Staff Jobs/population
Kaitaia 10,000 9 1 per 1,111
Waiheke 8,000 17 1 per 470
Porirua 50,000 20 (aiming for) 1 per 2,500
Kaikoura 5,000 9 1 per 555
Nelson 40,000 15 1 per 2,666

Woiking exanpIes aiound Nev ZeaIand iange fion 1 jol pei 47O peopIe, lo 1 jol pei
2,666. Theiefoie exliapoIaling lhis acioss lhe AuckIand iegion gives lhe polenliaI foi
lelveen 45O jols al lhe Iov end and 2553 jols al lhe high end. Waiheke IsIand has
ciealed lhe nosl jols of lhe exanpIes shovn and is an indicalion of hov connunily
luy-in can nake a huge diffeience.

33
2OO3 figuies
Page 361 of 591

Cnnc!usInn
ased on lhe alove exanpIes, lhe eslinaled jol ciealion fion ie-use/ielaiI opeialions in
lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik huls is lelveen 86 - 184 fuII-line posilions acioss lhe
AuckIand iegion.

When lhe olhei aclivilies associaled vilh lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaiks huls aie facloied
in lhis nunlei couId le in lhe iegion of 2OO-3OO fuII line jols

Hovevei, expeiience fion snaII connunilies aiound Nev ZeaIand shovs lhal vheie
lheie is sliong connunily focus, lhe nunlei of jols couId le vaslIy giealei, ianging
fion 45O - 2,553 fuII-line equivaIenls.
9.2 EstImatc nf Jnbs Crcatcd frnm thc CnmmunIty Rccyc!Ing
Dcpnts
The second phase of lhe nelvoik is lhe eslalIishnenl of lhe Connunily RecycIing
Depols. These viII vaiy naikedIy in size lul if jusl lvo peopIe veie enpIoyed in each
of lhe pioposed 6O depols, an addilionaI 12O peopIe vouId le enpIoyed.
9.3 Dnwnstrcam Emp!nymcnt BcncfIts
The cIusleiing of siniIai lusinesses in and aiound a Resouice Recoveiy Iaik has
posilive fIov-on effecls foi enpIoynenl. Nol onIy viII jols le ciealed vilhin lhe
Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik ilseIf, lul lheie viII le addilionaI jol inpacls lhiough
dovnsliean piocessing of naleiiaIs, iepaiiing, ieseIIing and ienanufacluiing of
pioducls and vaiious seivices lo lhe indusliy.

Canleiia, vhich has deveIoped a significanl iesouice iecoveiy infiasliucluie (and
poIicies undei lhe vision of 'No Wasle ly 2O1O) has aiound 3OO peopIe enpIoyed in
iecycIing/iesouice iecoveiy
34
- vilh a popuIalion of 35O,OOO. In AuckIand leins lhis
vouId equale lo 1,O29 jols acioss lhe iegion.

AuckIand aIieady has a significanl iecycIing indusliy lhal can onIy le enhanced ly lhe
Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik. A 1998 suivey
35
of jusl 96 iecycIing lusinesses in
AuckIand found lhal lhese piivale lusinesses enpIoyed al Ieasl 1,736 peopIe.

A sludy piepaied foi lhe USA NalionaI RecycIing CoaIilion
36
shoved lhal lheie veie
56,OOO iecycIing lusinesses opeialing in lhe counliy enpIoying ovei 1.1 niIIion peopIe.
They geneiale an annuaI payioII of $US37 liIIion and gioss annuaI ievenues of $US236
liIIion. y conpaiison lhe lolaI annuaI ievenue of lhe US vasle indusliy is Iess lhan
$US5O liIIion. This cIeaiIy shovs lhal lhe iecycIing indusliy is a vaIue-added lusiness,
geneialing nuch highei ievenue lhan lhe vasle indusliy - vilh onIy a fiaclion of lhe
voIune of naleiiaI handIed

The Ohio Depailnenl of NaluiaI Resouices pioduced a iepoil
37
shoving lhe econonic
lenefil lo lhe slale fion iecycIing lo le $22.5 liIIion, accounling foi 4.3 of lhe jols in

34
Senioi IoIicy AnaIysl, ACT Coveinnenl, 1O/3/O5
35
Wasle Nol AuckIand, 1998
36
US RecycIing Lcononic Infoinalion Sludy, R.W. eck Inc 2OO2
37
RecycIing in Ohio - a $22.5 iIIion Success Sloiy, The Ohio Depailnenl of NaluiaI Resouices
Page 362 of 591

Ohio. The diiecl inpacls of iecycIing accounl foi 98,3OO jols, vilh indiiecl inpacls
ciealing a fuilhei 7O,4OO jols.
9.4 BusIncss IncubatInn
Resouice Recoveiy faciIilies can piovide oppoilunilies foi lusiness inculalion, aIlhough
snaII Connunily RecycIing Depols viII piovide fevei oppoilunilies lhan fuII scaIe
Resouice Recoveiy Iaiks. The key is lo piovide access lo naleiiaIs and voiking space,
and lusiness skiIIs nenlois and liaining. In Canleiia pIols of Iand aie nade avaiIalIe al
Iov ienl lo lusinesses uliIising iecoveied naleiiaIs. A nev 17 heclaie Resouice
Recoveiy Lslale is leing deveIoped lhal viII piovide addilionaI space foi lhese
lusinesses.
9.5 EmcrgIng Trcnds AffcctIng Emp!nymcnt
The deveIopnenl of a sophislicaled Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik in AuckIand viII
piovide lhe capacily lo calei foi a gioving inleinalionaI liend lovaids ie-nanufacluie.
This liend lovaids ie-nanufacluiing offeis significanl jol ciealion polenliaI and is
gioving lecause indusliiaI naleiiaIs efficiency has leen inpioving foi sone line.
Conpanies aie ieaIising lhal il is noie econonicaIIy efficienl lo coIIecl lheii oId goods -
vhelhei lhis is vooden lalIes, conpulei scieens, oi piinlei cailiidges, and use lhen
again foi nanufacluiing nev pioducls.

This ie-nanufacluiing concepl, vhich is knovn in enviionnenlaI ciicIes as Design foi
Lnviionnenl (DIL) is a nev discipIine lhal ensuies pioducls aie designed foi
ieinlegialion inlo lhe indusliiaI oi naluiaI enviionnenls al lhe end of lheii Iives. Iail of
DIL is lhe concepl of design foi disassenlIy vheie pioducls aie designed foi ease of
disnanlIing oi iecycIing. Ioi inslance, snaII eIeclionic equipnenl vhich have
faslenings and adhesives lhal Ioosen vhen niciovaved foi easy disassenlIy. Theie aie
nany exanpIes of lhis shifl laking pIace. Ricoh, 3M, Iishei & IaykeI and Xeiox aie aII
invesling in pioducl lake-lack syslens and iedesigning piocesses lo enalIe
disassenlIy, ieuse and ienanufacluiing. }apanese iesidenls aie nov alIe lo diop
olsoIele conpuleis off foi iecycIing al any one of 2O,OOO posl offices nalionvide oi have
poslaI caiiieis pick lhen up al hone - aII paid foi ly Advance DisposaI fees
38
of
lelveen $17 and $37 pei conpulei.

This liend lovaids ie-nanufacluiing has an inpoilanl, as yel uniecognised
oppoilunily foi Nev ZeaIand fiins. If conpanies can legin lo ie-nanufacluie exisling
Nev ZeaIand facloiies nay le alIe lo ienain in lusiness lhiough iecycIing lheii
ieluined goods, ialhei lhal leing undeicul ly cheapei, nass-naikel goods fion
oveiseas. In sone vays, lhe econonics of ie-nanufacluiing poinl lovaids lhe ie-
eneigence of lhe ailisan/ciaflsnan ioIe, pailicuIai in goods Iike fine fuiniluie.

This liend lovaids ie-nanufacluiing, and ils allendanl jol ciealion, is sliongIy ieIianl
on lhe deveIopnenl of sophislicaled 21
sl
Cenluiy iecycIing faciIilies as pioposed foi lhe

38 Resouice RecycIing }ouinaI iepoils lhal }apan Iosl has Iinked up vilh an indusliy gioup iepiesenling 21 najoi
conpulei pioduceis, incIuding AppIe, DeII, Sony and Toshila. The aIIiance iepiesenls aloul 95 of lhe }apanese
conpulei naikel. }apan Iosl viII soil lhe conpuleis ly liand and send lhen lo lhe appiopiiale iecycIing faciIily.
AppaienlIy, consuneis can expecl lo see a coIIeclion fee added lo lhe cosl of nev conpuleis of aiound US$37 - $46 pei
desklop unil and US$17 - $21 foi a Iaplop. The aclion foIIovs a nev fedeiaI Iav nandaling consunei conpulei iecycIing.
Wainei uIIelin Nevs #13 (ApiiI 14, 2OO3)

Page 363 of 591

AuckIand Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik, lhal viII piovide lhe coIIeclion and
consoIidalion poinls foi lusinesses lo uliIise.

As NeiI SeIdnan, Iiesidenl of lhe Inslilule foi SeIf ReIiance puls il, RecycIing is an
econonic deveIopnenl looI as veII as an enviionnenlaI looI.

A sludy ly lhe Inslilule foi LocaI SeIf ReIiance (Moiiis and SeIdnan 1993) found lhal
lheie aie noie lhan foui lines lhe nunlei of peopIe enpIoyed in iecycIing ieIaled
indusliies
39
lhan lhose enpIoyed in vasle disposaI (5,5OO and 1,1OO iespecliveIy).

39 RecycIing as Lcononic DeveIopnenl, Moiiis and SeIdnan 1993
Page 364 of 591

10 BcncfIts nf thc Nctwnrk tn
Auck!and
_______________
10.1 Thc BcncfIts fnr Auck!and
The advanlages lo AuckIand of eslalIishing and iunning a Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik
aie nany and vaiied, coveiing a vide iange of enviionnenlaI, econonic, and sociaI
faclois.
A!Ignmcnt wIth thc Ncw Zca!and Wastc 5tratcgy
The Nev ZeaIand Wasle Slialegy has sel lhe anlilious vision of, Tcuards Zcrc las|c
and a Sus|ainao|c Ncu Zca|and. To gel lheie, AuckIands TeiiiloiiaI LocaI Aulhoiilies
need lo sel lheii ovn anlilious goaIs (as nosl have done in adopling Zeio Wasle) and
pul iesouices and poIicies in pIace lo achieving lhen. A key laigel of lhe Nev ZeaIand
Wasle Slialegy is Nlnet flte ercent of the ou|atlon ul|| hate access to communlt
recc|lng facl|ltles b December 2005.
LcadcrshIp
The AuckIand Region Ieads Nev ZeaIand in nany vays - lul nol in vasle nanagenenl
oi suslainaliIily. In facl il couId le said lhal lhe AuckIand iegion is lhe nosl
unsuslainalIe in Nev ZeaIand. The Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik vouId pul AuckIand
in a posilion vheie il can lake a Ieadeiship ioIe and lecone a nodeI in an aiea in vhich
il is cuiienlIy Iagging lehind. Il vouId lecone a nodeI nol onIy foi Nev ZeaIand lul
inleinalionaIIy.
A Lcvc! P!ayIng FIc!d
Wasle nanagenenl iuIes and ieguIalions vaiy fion counciI lo counciI acioss lhe iegion,
pioviding IoophoIes and unceilainly foi lhe vasle indusliy and counciIs aIike. y
ciealing a iegionaI infiasliucluie, lacked up vilh iegionaI poIicy, eveiyone viII le
opeialing on a IeveI pIaying fieId.
Incrcascd EffIcIcncy
The Nelvoik, aIong vilh a iegionaI vasle slialegy, viII hainonise counciI effoils and
eIininale dupIicalion of aclivilies and seivices, naking lhe iegion as a vhoIe noie
efficienl vilhoul laking avay individuaI counciI conlioI.
5uppnrt fnr 5ma!!cr CnuncI!s
Taking lhe iegionaI appioach viII give snaIIei counciIs lhe suppoil lhey despeialeIy
need lo neel lheii vasle ieduclion laigels.
Page 365 of 591

CapacIty fnr Futurc Grnwth
If AuckIand is lo doulIe in size, as piedicled, il is ciilicaI lhal capacily is luiIl lo cope
vilh lhe exlia denands lhal viII le pul on cuiienl infiasliucluie. We need lo luiId
capacily foi iesouice iecoveiy nov, vhiIe ve have lhe oppoilunily, ialhei lhan vailing
unliI il is loo Iale.
CapacIty fnr RcgInna! InnnvatInn
The Nelvoik viII piovide a fianevoik fion vhich lo deveIop olhei iegionaI vasle
ieduclion inilialives addiessing piolIen vasle slieans. Sone of lhese - such as food
vasle coIIeclions, viII iequiie liiaIIing and giaduaI inpIenenlalion. This vouId le
exlieneIy difficuIl lo do in lhe cuiienl silualion of piedoninanlIy piivaleIy ovned
vasle faciIilies. Having a pulIicIy ovned Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik piovides
counciIs vilh lhe aliIily lo nake lhe nosl of slaff innovalion and expeilise lo find nev
vays lo deaI vilh piolIen vasle.
Rcduccd Wastc 'Expnrts'
AuckIand is aloul lo slail expoiling ils vasle lo lhe Hanplon Dovns LandfiII in lhe
Waikalo. This iaises lhe issue of incieased liuck novenenls, vehicIe enissions and
cosls.
EducatInn
The Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik viII pIay a najoi ioIe in shifling pulIic, lusiness and
IocaI aulhoiily focus avay fion 'vasling lo iesouice iecoveiy and lovaids
suslainaliIily. Lach Connunily RecycIing Depol and Resouice Recoveiy Iaik viII pIay
a najoi educalionaI ioIe sinpIy ly leing in exislence and pioviding peopIe vilh lhe
oppoilunily lo do lhe iighl lhing.
MaxImum Wastc RcductInn
The Nelvoik viII nake il possilIe lo ieduce vasle in a dianalic vay - vilh fai lellei
iesuIls lhan any nunlei of uncooidinaled educalion piogiannes, keilside coIIeclions,
oi faciIilies couId achieve on lheii ovn.
ExpnsIng thc Wastc 5trcam
The vasle sliean and lhe vaIualIe iesouices vilhin il aie cuiienlIy IaigeIy hidden fion
pulIic viev, fIoving iapidIy and secieliveIy lo IandfiII. When lhe fIov of lhe vasle
sliean is sIoved dovn and nade visilIe, via lhe Nelvoik, oppoilunilies viII aiise lo
devise nev uses foi lhese iesouices.
RcstnratInn nf CnmmunIty Cnntrn!
Wilhoul connunily conlioI of lhe vasle sliean lhe inleiesls of lhe connunily and lhe
enviionnenl viII nol le nel. The Nelvoik viII heIp give lhe connunily (via counciIs)
conlioI of lhe vasle sliean.
Rcduccd Rc!Iancc nn LandfI!!s
AuckIand is fiIIing up ils IandfiIIs and incieasingIy Iooking lo olhei iegions lo dispose of
ils vasle. The Nelvoik viII ieduce AuckIands ieIiance on IandfiIIs, conseive IandfiII
space and nininise lhe Iong-lein IialiIilies and cosls.
Page 366 of 591

Rcp!acc InnrganIc Cn!!cctInns
The Nelvoik viII conpIeleIy iepIace lhe need foi keilside inoiganic coIIeclions,
pioviding a supeiioi seivice lo iesidenls. Residenls viII le alIe lo diop off goods and
luy olheis discaids al Iov cosl 365 days a yeai, inslead of jusl one veek eveiy one oi
lvo yeais.
Rcduccd Wastc Cnsts tn thc CnmmunIty
The Nelvoik viII ieduce vasle disposaI cosls lo lhe connunily. LandfiII cosls aie sel lo
iise consideialIy in lhe fuluie and lhe cosl of iesouice iecoveiy inilialives viII lecone
conpelilive as line goes on.
Lnca! BusIncss CrcatInn
The Nelvoik viII capluie a Iaige piopoilion of lhe vasle sliean lhal is cuiienlIy
fIoving lo IandfiII, and nake iesouices avaiIalIe lo lusinesses lhal can eilhei iecycIe
lhen oi ienanufacluie lhen inlo nev goods and naleiiaIs. The iecycIing indusliy in
AuckIand is aIieady significanl, lul viII le ievilaIised and giealIy expanded lhiough
lhe aclivilies of lhe Nelvoik.
Jnb CrcatInn
The Nelvoik viII cieale significanl nunleis of nev jols acioss lhe AuckIand iegion,
nol onIy in lhe Nelvoik ilseIf, lul aIso in lhe lusinesses lhal deveIop as a iesuIl of lhe
incieased iav naleiiaI fIovs. Many of lhese jols viII le Iocaled aiound lhe Connunily
RecycIing Depols.
5ncIa! CapIta!
The Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik viII Iink diieclIy vilh iesidenls lhiough lhe snaII
Connunily RecycIing Depols Iocaled in eveiy connunily. These depols viII IikeIy le
iun ly IocaI nol foi piofils and lusinesses lhal viII inleiacl cIoseIy vilh lhe connunily.
Theie aie nany exanpIes aiound Nev ZeaIand lhal shov lhal lhese connunily
faciIilies heIp connunily luy-in and cohesion. They piovide lhe aII-inpoilanl IocaI
inleiface and viII le an inpoilanl vehicIe foi feedlack and pailicipalion. .
TnurIsm PrntcctInn
Nev ZeaIands louiisn indusliy is laIanced piecaiiousIy on inleinalionaI peiceplion of
Nev ZeaIand as leing 'cIean and gieen and '1OO Iuie. Incieasing judgenenl,
pailicuIaiIy fion Luiopean louiisls, on lhe Iack of iecycIing faciIilies in Nev ZeaIand
poses a lhieal lo lhe louiisn indusliy. LslalIishing iesouice iecoveiy faciIilies in eveiy
connunily is a piaclicaI vay of suppoiling AuckIands 'cIean ciedenliaIs and Resouice
Recoveiy Iaiks can le a louiisls alliaclion in lhenseIves.
Pub!Ic Apprnva! and Endnrscmcnt
Suiveys voiIdvide consislenlIy shov sliong pulIic suppoil and appiovaI foi counciI
iecycIing inilialives. Theie is gioving avaieness of lhe need lo adopl noie suslainalIe
IifeslyIes lul fev avenues foi lhe pulIic lo nake a diffeience. }udging fion IocaI and
oveiseas expeiience lheie is no doull lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik viII le
enlhusiaslicaIIy and vhoIeheailedIy suppoiled ly lhe pulIic.
Page 367 of 591

11 MakIng thc Nctwnrk Happcn
________________________________________________
11.1 RcgInna! CnnrdInatInn
In piepaiing lhis iepoil, lhe aulhois heId discussions vilh vasle nanageis lhioughoul
lhe iegion and found vide agieenenl lhal a iegionaI appioach is needed if ve aie lo
soIve AuckIands vasle piolIen.

y invesling in, and nainlaining sufficienl conlioI ovei lhe Resouice Recoveiy
Nelvoik, counciIs viII le alIe lo piovide lhe pulIic and indusliy vilh a cosl effeclive
aIleinalive lo cuiienl vasle disposaI oplions.

Theie is a dangei lhal lhe vasle indusliy viII diop piices lo conpele vilh lhe Resouice
Recoveiy Nelvoik. This couId undeinine lhe vialiIily of lhe Nelvoik, hovevei if
counciIs lake a iegionaI appioach and appIy lhe coiiecl nix of poIices and incenlives
lhey viII ensuie lhal vasle ieduclion has lhe edge ovei IandfiIIing.
ExIstIng Examp!cs nf RcgInna! CnnpcratInn
Theie aie aIieady a nunlei of exanpIes of iegionaI co-opeialion lelveen IocaI lodies.
RcgInna! Wastc OffIccrs Fnrum: This gioup is conpiised of counciI officeis fion
each IocaI aulhoiily in lhe AuckIand iegion fion Rodney in lhe Noilh lhiough lo
Iapakuia and IiankIin in lhe Soulh and incIudes iepiesenlalives fion lhe
AuckIand RegionaI CounciI. The gioup neels on a li-nonlhIy lasis lo shaie
infoinalion and ideas.
Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Grnup: Chaiied ly AuckIand Cily. This gioup, a sul gioup of
lhe RegionaI Wasle Officeis Ioiun, is Iooking specificaIIy al lhe polenliaI foi
Resouice Recoveiy Cenlies, and olhei iecycIing inilialives in lhe iegion.
OrganIc Wastc Grnup: Chaiied ly Manukau Cily, vilh iepiesenlalion fion Noilh
Shoie, Wailakeie and AuckIand Cily, lhis gioup (again a sul gioup of lhe Wasle
Officeis Ioiun) is expIoiing food vasle coIIeclion and piocessing inilialives.
Wailakeie Cily nainlains a piesence in a seni-advisoiy ioIe, aIlhough il aIieady has
lhe iegions fiisl food vasle conposling faciIily.
Mctrn Maynr's 5cctnr Grnup: This LocaI Coveinnenl Nev ZeaIand inilialive,
vhich incIudes Wailakeie, Noilh Shoie and AuckIand Cily, is expIoiing lhe suljecl
nallei of lhe inleiface lelveen lhe piivale/pulIic vasle seclois.
Thc Nnrthwcstcrn-Auck!and CnuncI!s: Wailakeie, Noilh Shoie and Rodney aie
voiking on a joinl appioach lo vasle issues, i.e. joinl vasle coIIeclion seivices and
vasle lyIav.
Page 368 of 591

11.2 A RcgInna! Wastc 5tratcgy Grnup
A iegionaI cooidinaling gioup is necessaiy lo piovide oveiviev foi lhe iegion and lhe
'nuscIe lo deaI on an equaI fooling vilh lhe piivale secloi.

A RegionaI Wasle Slialegy Cioup couId le nade up of lolh counciI slaff and poIilicaI
iepiesenlalion lo piovide lhe Ieveiage lo oveicone ioadlIocks. The cuiienl Wasle
Officeis Ioiun has skiIIs and ideas lul no nandale, povei oi iesouices lo do nuch
noie lhan neel and shaie ideas. The AuckIand RegionaI CounciI couId pIay a ioIe in
suppoiling lhe gioup.

In his papei, }on Roscoe suggesls foining a CounciI ConlioIIed Oiganisalion (CCO) lo
puisue lhe goaIs of lhe NalionaI Wasle Slialegy, his poinl leing lhal, |cca| Gctcrnncn|
cannc| casi|q ucr| in isc|a|icn, ci|ncr in ccn|rac|ing cu| uas|c scrticcs, cr in |nc in|rcduc|icn cf
anq s|ra|cgq cr 8q-|au cnangc. }on Roscoe suggesls lhal A s|ruc|urc |na| ucu|d cnsurc |nis
rcpcsi|icning is |na| cf a CCO (Ccunci| Ccn|rc||cd Organisa|icn).

Once lhe RegionaI Wasle Slialegy Cioup has leen eslalIished, il vouId le iesponsilIe
foi cooidinaling and assisling lhe deveIopnenl of lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik and
ciealing lhe RegionaI Slialegy lo diive lhe change. An inpoilanl slep in deveIoping lhe
slialegy vouId le lo undeilake a iegionaI vasle slock-lake lo nap vasle fIovs acioss
lhe iegion. Olhei lasks lhal couId le assigned lo lhe gioup couId le lo:

Manage lhe IandfiII Ievy
Suppoil and heIp cooidinale exisling inilialives acioss lhe iegion such as lhe Wasle
Lxchange
Define connon seivice iequiienenls acioss lhe iegion and deveIop conliacl
lenpIales
HIgh Lcvc! Maynra! Ca!! fnr Changc
The inpoilance of videi coopeialion is iIIuslialed ly lhe facl lhal in Oclolei 2OO2
Wailakeie Cily and Noilh Shoie Cily Mayois, ol Haivey and Ceoige Wood, iesoIved
lhal an agenda ilen le pIaced foi lhe Melio seclion of LocaI Coveinnenl Nev ZeaIand.

The ilen pioposed a voiking paily lo invesligale sone of lhe laiiieis lo achieving Zeio
Wasle, vilh lhe ain of assisling lhe Minisliy foi lhe Lnviionnenl and LocaI
Coveinnenl Nev ZeaIand in idenlifying lhe necessaiy sleps lo lieak dovn lhese
laiiieis.

They suggesled lhal in lhe fiisl inslance lhe voiking paily couId invesligale:

The econonic inpacls of lhe piivalisalion of lhe vasle indusliy, incIuding lhe
ovneiship of IandfiIIs. Ioi exanpIe, IocaI goveinnenl ovneiship of aII IandfiIIs
vouId avoid lhe conneiciaI oljeclives of high vasle pioduclion.
Lcononic insliunenls lo fund iecoveiy and iecycIing. Ioi exanpIe, a Ievy on lhe
packaging indusliy and iefundalIe deposil on leveiage conlaineis. In Canada
lheie is a $NZ3.77 Ievy on lhe saIe of aII lyies, vhich funds lhe cosl of iecycIing and
disposaI.
Slaluloiy lacking lo achieve Design foi lhe Lnviionnenl, vhich coveis lhose
eIenenls of pioducl design lhal ieduce vasle and olhei enviionnenlaI effecls.
Page 369 of 591

11.3 Dcvc!npIng a RcgInna! 5tratcgy
Il couId le lhe ioIe of lhe RegionaI Wasle Slialegy Cioup lo deleinine vhal a RegionaI
Wasle Slialegy vouId covei. Al ils highesl IeveI lhe slialegy vouId piovide a iegionaI
vision (in Iine vilh lhe NalionaI Wasle Slialegy), define lhe iegions iequiienenls, and
deveIop key poIicies lo inpIenenl lhe vision. These nighl incIude sone of lhe
foIIoving, poIicies, nany of vhich couId le inpIenenled lhiough lhe slialegic use of
lyIavs.
RcgInna! LandfI!! Lcvy
Inlioduce a iegionaI IandfiII Ievy lo fund iecycIing and iesouice iecoveiy inilialives. Al
LocaI Coveinnenl Nev ZeaIands (LCNZ) annuaI neeling Iasl }uIy, a conlined ienil
fion Wailakeie and Noilh Shoie pioposed an anendnenl lo lhe LocaI Coveinnenl Acl
1974 lo aIIov lhe inposilion of Ievies lhiough vasle Iicenses. The ienil had unaninous
suppoil al lhe LCNZ Melio Secloi neeling and najoiily suppoil al ils annuaI neeling.
The anendnenl is cuiienlIy in piocess.
Cnntracts
DeveIop connon conliacls foi IandfiIIs, liansfei slalions, inoiganic coIIeclions,
iecycIing faciIilies, conposling faciIilies and Iillei coIIeclion lhal cieale incenlives foi
iesouice iecoveiy and disincenlives foi IandfiIIing.
LIccnsc Wastc Cn!!cctnrs
Wasle coIIeclois need lo le Iicensed so lhal peifoinance slandaids can le enfoiced and
accuiale dala coIIecled on lhe quanlilies and lypes of vasle going lo IandfiII.

CounciIs aie olIiged lo piepaie Wasle Managenenl IIans lul nay nol have access lo
infoinalion on lhe anounl of naleiiaI going lhiough piivale faciIilies. This can iaise
seiious piolIens if lhe piivale opeialois go oul of lusiness foi vhalevei ieason Ieaving
lhe counciI lo handIe lhe incieased quanlilies of naleiiaI.

Seclion 542 of lhe LocaI Coveinnenl Acl coveis lhis ly giving poveis lo counciIs lo
pass lyIavs lo iequiie aII peisons (oi lusinesses) invoIved in lhe coIIeclion and
lianspoilalion of vasle, oi specified lypes of vasle, lo le Iicensed. Iuilheinoie, in
sulseclion (2)(l) il gives counciIs lhe specific poveis lo iequiie Iicense hoIdeis lo
piovide lhe counciI vilh a ieluin of |nc quan|i|ics and |qpcs cf uas|c cc||cc|cd undcr |nc
|iccnsc. In olhei voids, lhe counciI can iequiie aII vasle coIIeclois lo le Iicensed and
iequiie papeivoik noling lhe voIunes and lypes of naleiiaI noved.

Wailakeie Cily, Rodney Disliicl and Noilh Shoie Cily CounciIs aie cuiienlIy
inpIenenling a ly-Iav lhal viII iequiie vasle coIIeclois lo le Iicensed.

The RegionaI Wasle Slialegy Tean couId aIso considei lhe foIIoving slialegies:
Ensurc a!! wastc dIspnsa! fccs rcf!cct thc truc cnst nf wastIng
Iul an end lo cheap vasle disposaI ly giaduaIIy iaising IandfiII chaiges lo iefIecl lhe
liue cosl of vasle disposaI pIus lhe ongoing nainlenance and evenluaI ienedialion of
lhe sile. AII vasle disposaI poinls shouId iefIecl lhis cosl - fion househoId iesiduaI
vasle lags lo luIk conneiciaI disposaI.
Page 370 of 591

Intrnducc cxtcndcd npcratnr !IabI!Ity
Lnsuie opeialois of vasle (iesouice) disposaI siles accepl iesponsiliIily foi lhe
enviionnenlaI and hunan heaIlh safely of vasle disposaI faciIilies (IandfiIIs and
incineialois). This IialiIily vouId le exlended ovei a nuch Iongei peiiod lhan lhe
cuiienl appioxinaleIy 3O yeais foi IandfiII siles.
5ct dIffcrcntIa! prIcIng tn crcatc fInancIa! InccntIvcs that cncnuragc rcsnurcc
rccnvcry and dIscnuragc wastIng
This is Iinked lo eslalIishing lhe fuII cosl of vasling. Il is inpoilanl lo ensuie lhal al
eveiy oppoilunily lheie is a financiaI lenefil lo iecycIe - Iaige enough lo encouiage lhe
iighl lehavioui.
Intrnducc 'Pay as Ynu Thrnw'
Lnsuie lhal vheievei vasle is pioduced, lhe vasle geneialoi pays diieclIy foi lhal
vasling lehavioui. IncIuding vasle chaiges vilh lhe geneiaI iales canceIs any
oppoilunily foi iesidenls lo lenefil fion ieducing vasle. Iay as you lhiov (IAYT) is
one of lhe lesl vays lo educale lhe pulIic on lhe facl lhal lheie is a cosl lo vasling.
Ban rccyc!ab!c matcrIa!s frnm !andfI!!
an aII naleiiaIs lhal aie cuiienlIy iecycIalIe fion IandfiII. IoIIov lhis up vilh
piogiessive lans on naleiiaIs foi vhich naikels can le found oi ciealed. CounciIs have
veiy cIeai poveis vhen il cones lo deciding vhal can and vhal cannol le deposiled in
vasle faciIilies lhal lhey ovn oi opeiale. Mosl counciIs aIieady have lans of one soil oi
anolhei on hazaidous vasles oi dead aninaI caicasses and no one chaIIenges lhese.
The sane IegaI aulhoiily can le used foi olhei lypes of vasle and lyies and cai huIks
aie lvo of lhe nosl connon slailing poinls.

Seclion 542 of lhe LocaI Coveinnenl Acl gives counciIs lhe poveis lo nake lyIavs
ieIaled lo vasle and, in sulseclion (1)(a) specificaIIy incIudes lhe foIIoving: Prcnioi|ing
cr rcgu|a|ing |nc dcpcsi| cf uas|c cr cf uas|c cf anq spccificd |ind..

Theie is no olvious ieason vhy lhis povei cannol le used foi any olhei kinds of vasle,
especiaIIy if olhei faciIilies aie piovided foi lhese. Caiden vasle and consliuclion and
denoIilion vasle vouId le lhe nosl olvious Iaige conliilulois lo lhe vasle sliean lhal
couId le diveiled lhis vay.

The silualion nay nol le so cIeai foi faciIilies lhal aie opeialed ly piivale lusinesses, as
dislincl fion lhose lhal aie opeialed undei conliacl lo lhe counciI. Iiovided lhese
lusinesses aie neeling vhalevei condilions aie iequiied of lhen undei lhe vaiious
iesouice consenls lhal appIy lo lhe sile in queslion, lhe counciI nighl le peiceived as
leing veiy heavy handed lo diclale vhal naleiiaIs lhey shouId lake.

This can lake on veiy ieaI inpIicalions in sone sellings. If a counciI vanled lo eslalIish
a Resouice Recoveiy Iaik vilh an enphasis on consliuclion and denoIilion vasle il
nighl lan lhis naleiiaI fion ils liansfei slalion and diiecl lhe naleiiaI lo lhe nev paik
vilh lipping fees sel lo covei a significanl poilion of lhe cosls of iecoveiing naleiiaI
fion lhis vasle sliean.

Page 371 of 591

Dovn lhe ioad a lusiness nighl veII eslalIish a conpeling liansfei slalion lhal lakes aII
lhe denoIilion naleiiaI lo le dunped al a cIean-fiII sile oul of lovn. Theii lipping fees
aie IikeIy lo le Iovei and nuch of lhe naleiiaI viII go lheii vay. Theie is no olvious
povei lhal lhe counciI has lo conlioI lhis silualion, aIlhough lhey can Iicense lhe
opeialois and iequiie ieluins of lhe voIunes of naleiiaI leing handIed - and aIso
iequesl lellei cooidinalion foi lhe videi connunily inleiesl.

ans shouId le appIied piogiessiveIy - slailing innedialeIy vilh hazaidous naleiiaIs
incIuding aII TV and conpulei nonilois (vhich can have up lo 2kg of Iead). A lan on
TV and conpulei nonilois going lo IandfiII in CaIifoinia enalIed Resouice Recoveiy
Cenlies lo chaige lhe pulIic lo ieceive nonilois vhich nade il econonicaIIy vialIe lo
iecycIe lhen.

SiniIaiIy, Vancouvei inposed a IandfiII lan in lhe nid-199Os on gypsun loaid (see
Appendix 8, foi Cil-loaid case sludy). The lan ciealed an oppoilunily foi a IocaI
lusiness, Nev Wesl Cypsun RecycIing (vvv.nvgypsun.con) lo eslalIish a gil-loaid
iecycIing pIanl. Since 1986 lhis conpany has iecycIed 1.7 niIIion lonnes - in a cily aloul
lhe size of AuckIand. Ovnei Tony McCanIy poinls oul lhal vilhoul lhe lan he
vouIdnl le in lusiness.
Ensurc a!! wastc cnntracts cncnuragc rccyc!Ing and dIscnuragc wastIng.
Wasle conliacls need lo le ie-voided as Resouice Recoveiy conliacls lo encouiage
iecycIing and discouiage vasling. The ain is lo nake il noie piofilalIe lo ieduce vasle
lhan lo dispose il lo IandfiII. A good exanpIe is lhe CIeansliean concepl fion WaIes
vheie conliacls aie viillen as lolaI iesouice iecoveiy conliacls lased on lhiee cIean
slieans and one iesiduaI sliean. Seivice paynenls shouId le lhe noin foi iesouice
iecoveiy conliacls vilh incone fion connodilies spIil lelveen counciI and conliacloi.

Conliacls need lo le lioken up vheie lhey enalIe vasle conpanies lo gain conlioI ovei
lhe enliie vasle sliean. WhiIsl ils inpoilanl lo nake suie lhal lhe vasle indusliy is nol
veilicaIIy inlegialed il nay le leneficiaI in sone silualions foi iecycIeis oi connunily
gioups lo conlioI lolh lhe iesouice iecoveiy syslen and iesiduaI vasle nanagenenl. In
olhei voids veilicaI inlegialion is lad if vasling is lhe coie focus lul noie acceplalIe if
iesouice iecoveiy is lhe coie focus.
Rcducc thc capacIty nf rcsIdua! wastc bags and bIns
Reducing lhe capacily lo vasle - vhiIe al lhe sane line incieasing capacily lo iecycIe is
a poveifuI incenlive lo encouiaging lhe iighl lehavioui. olh Opoliki Disliicl CounciI
and AuckIand Cily CounciI have done lhis lo good effecl. Opoliki ieduced ils iesiduaI
vasle lag fion 75 Iilies lo 25 Iilies and al lhe sane line inlioduced keilside iecycIing
pIus lhiee iesouice iecoveiy cenlies - and is nov diveiling 85 of vasle fion IandfiII.
AuckIand Cily ieduced lhe size of ils vheeIie lin fion 24O Iilies lo 12O Iilies and
piovided exlia iecycIing lins - iesuIling in a 3O ieduclion in vasle.

Incieased disposaI capacily acls as a sink lo vhich naleiiaIs fIov. This piincipIe appIies
lo disposaI lo iesouice iecoveiy faciIilies in lhe sane vay lhal il does lo IandfiIIs.

Page 372 of 591

PrnvIdc kcrbsIdc cn!!cctInns tn a!! hnuschn!dcrs
Keilside coIIeclions nake iecycIing convenienl foi lhe househoIdei and uliIise lheii
'fiee Ialoui lo soil iesouices inlo sepaiale slieans. They aIso piovide a veiy inpoilanl
educalionaI ioIe, heIping househoIdeis nake lhe Iink lelveen luying lehavioui and
vasling. IeopIe lhal iecycIe al hone aie aIso noie IikeIy lo acliveIy suppoil CIeanei
Iioduclion and vasle nininisalion effoils al voik Keilside coIIeclions can le iun veiy
successfuIIy in aieas lhal aIso have Conlainei Deposil LegisIalion - as seen in Soulh
AusliaIia and iilish CoIunlia.
Dcvc!np mu!tIp!c strcam cn!!cctInns
Incieasing nunleis of lovns and cilies aie inpIenenling nuIlipIe sliean - oi CIean-
Sliean keilside coIIeclion syslens vheie househoIdeis do noie of lhe iniliaI soiling
lhan vilh a slandaid 'lIue lin syslen.

The sinpIesl foin is lhe 'lvo sliean oi 'vel and diy syslen. Rakaia is a good exanpIe
of lhis. Residenls aie given a gieen lag foi 'vel naleiiaIs incIuding oiganic vasles, vel
papei, lissues elc and a lIue lag foi lhe ienaining 'diy fiaclion of lhe vasle sliean.
The oiganic fiaclion is conposled in an innovalive, conveiled conciele nixei, and lhe
diy fiaclion is hand soiled on Saluiday noinings ly lhe IocaI connunily gioup lo
ienove iecycIalIes.

The lhiee sliean coIIeclion sepaiales lhe iecycIalIes fion lhe iesiduaIs. MacKenzie
Disliicl CounciI piovides iesidenls vilh a cIeai lag foi iecycIalIes, a gieen lag foi
conposlalIes (vhich aie piocessed lhiough an in-vesseI conposlei), and a lIack lag foi
iesiduaI vasle.

This syslen can le laken one slep fuilhei ly adding a luIky ilen coIIeclion lo cieale a
foui-sliean coIIeclion.
Gct nrganIc wastc nut nf thc systcm as a prInrIty
Renoving oiganics fion lhe vasle sliean viII dianalicaIIy ieduce lhe anounl of
naleiiaI going lo IandfiII, heIp pievenl nelhane gas and Ieachale pioduclion in IandfiIIs
- and ieluin nuch needed oiganic naleiiaI lo lhe Iand. Ils aIso inpoilanl fion an
econonic poinl of viev as il ieduces conlaninalion of lhe inoiganic fiaclion of lhe
vasle sliean, incieasing ieluins on connodilies.

One of lhe nain conceins aloul oiganic vasle diveision is lhe polenliaI inciease in
coIIeclion cosls. Il has leen shovn lhal vhen keilside coIIeclions foi aII vasled
iesouices aie inlegialed - oi oplinised, and lasic fealuies such as ieceplacIe size,
coIIeclion fiequency and coIIeclion vehicIe lype, have leen piopeiIy consideied, oveiaII
coIIeclion cosls, incIuding souice sepaialion of food vasle, can le siniIai lo liadilionaI
co-ningIed vasle coIIeclion. Ioi exanpIe food vasle vilh ils high luIk densily onIy
iequiies snaII ieceplacIes, naking il possilIe lo hand-pick (no speciaIized Iifling
equipnenl iequiied) and lo use snaII open liucks.

Once food vasle is ienoved fion lhe vasle sliean, coIIeclion scheduIes foi gieen
vasle, iecycIalIes and iesiduaI vasle can le shaipIy ieduced, diiving cosls foi vasle
coIIeclion dovn. Thousands of nunicipaIilies lhioughoul IlaIy and Luiope have laken
Page 373 of 591

lhese faclois inlo accounl and aie yieIding high iecycIing iales (up lo 7O-75) vilh no
incieases in oveiaII coIIeclion cosls.

Fnndwastc cn!!cctInns: An incieasing nunlei of lovns and cilies aiound Nev ZeaIand
aie eslalIishing food vasle coIIeclions. Sone Iike Rakaia aie ieIianl on a IocaI
connunily gioup and sone aie lolaIIy counciI - iun such as MacKenzie Disliicl
CounciIs 3 sliean keilside coIIeclion, vilh sone in-lelveen. Chiislchuich Cily has
conpIeled a piIol food vasle coIIeclion and AuckIand counciIs aie cuiienlIy
invesligaling a iegionaI food vasle coIIeclion piogianne. Laige cily-vide food vasle
coIIeclions aie aIieady iunning successfuIIy in a nunlei of cilies oveiseas - incIuding
Toionlo and San Iiancisco.

Grccn wastc dIvcrsInn: Theie aie nany diffeienl opinions on lhe lesl vays lo diveil
gieen vasle fion IandfiII. Sone lovns have gone foi ieguIai keilside coIIeclions vhiIe
olheis encouiage hone conposling as lhe piioiily. The pioxinily piincipIe vouId
ceilainIy suppoil lhe Iallei, hovevei in luiIl-up aieas keilside coIIeclion - oi
eslalIishnenl of a nelvoik of diop-off poinls nay le lhe lesl oplion. Whalevei syslen
is used, lheie nusl le sliong econonic and convenience incenlives foi lhe pulIic lo use
lhen.

OrganIcs PrnccssIng: LocaI piocessing of oiganics is lhe lesl oplion fion an econonic
and enviionnenlaI slandpoinl. Theie aie an incieasing nunlei of lechnoIogies leing
deveIoped lo deaI vilh oiganic vasle piocessing. The key consideialion nusl le lo
pioduce a quaIily pioducl fiee of conlaninalion lhal can le ieluined safeIy lo lhe Iand
lo heIp ils pioduclive capacily. Theie is no fuluie in invesling in lechnoIogy lhal
pioduces Iov vaIue pioducl unsuilalIe foi Iand appIicalion.

Conposling and voin faining lechniques aie inpioving aII lhe line and in-vesseI
syslens aie leing deveIoped al lolh lhe Iov lech (as in Kaikouia and Rakaia) and high
lech (eg lhe Hol Rol and VCU) ends of lhe scaIe. Choose lhe syslen lhal lesl suils lhe
needs of lhe connunily - and lhe skiIIs and inleiesl of IocaI opeialois.
Dcvc!np dccnnstructInn standards
Cieale guideIines and slandaids foi luiIding deconsliuclion lo ensuie naxinun
capluie of ieusalIe naleiiaIs. A good nodeI is Canleiias 'DeveIopnenl ConlioI Code
vhich diiecls engineeis, aichilecls, pIanneis and deveIopeis on hov lo ensuie lheii
denoIilion, iefuilishnenl and consliuclion piojecls conpIy vilh lesl piaclice and lhe
AusliaIian CapiloI Teiiiloiy (ACT) No Wasle poIicy. See vvv.novasle.acl.gov.au
RcquIrc dccnnstructInn p!ans
Make deconsliuclion pIans a pieiequisile foi ollaining a luiIding consenl - oi foi
leaiing dovn an exisling luiIding.
Changc znnIng and InccntIvcs fnr rcsnurcc rccnvcry facI!ItIcs
LocaI goveinnenls can invesligale using lheii zoning aulhoiily lo encouiage lhe
deveIopnenl of iecycIing lusiness zones vheie iecycIing lusinesses and iesouice
iecoveiy paiks can le siled. They can aIso cieale incenlives foi nev lusinesses lo
eslalIish iesouice iecoveiy opeialions in lhe connunily. In lhe expeiience of lhe
aulhois il oflen doesnl lake nuch lo assisl nev lusinesses in lhe iecycIing and
Page 374 of 591

iecoveied naleiiaIs aiena. Many conpIain lhal lheii liggesl inpedinenl is a Iack of
suppoil oi even undeislanding ly lheii IocaI counciI. Iasl liacking pIanning and
luiIding consenls oi ienl oi iales lieaks can nake aII lhe diffeience. To snaII
lusinesses, jusl leing asked hov lhey aie doing and laking an inleiesl oi shoving
appiecialion foi lheii conliilulion can le an enoinous noiaIe looslei.
Dcvc!np rcsnurcc rccnvcry facI!Ity standards
Cieale faciIily slandaids and Iicensing (as pei Chiislchuich Cily exanpIe) foi iesouice
iecoveiy faciIilies lo ensuie lhey opeiale lo lhe highesl slandaids.
Encnuragc rccyc!Ing p!ans fnr busIncsscs
LocaI goveinnenls can encouiage and suppoil IocaI lusinesses lo piovide sinpIe
iecycIing pIans and iepoils. A nunlei of counciIs aie aIieady pioviding vasle
ieduclion advice and suppoil lo IocaI lusinesses lhal is iesuIling in significanl changes
in lhe vay vasle is nanaged in lusinesses, iesuIling in voIune and cosl ieduclions. The
idea of pIanning foi vasle ieduclion ly lhe fiIIing oul of an annuaI iepoil couId iesuIl in
noie consislenl and Iong-lein neasuialIe changes.
11.4 LcgIs!atIvc Tnn!s fnr Bcttcr Managcmcnt nf thc Wastc
5trcam - thc ChrIstchurch Examp!c
Theie is vide agieenenl lhal vasle pioduceis shouId le accounlalIe foi lhe Iife cycIe of
lhe pioducls and packaging lhey pioduce, and lhis piincipIe of LIR (Lxlended
Iioducei ResponsiliIily) is one of lhe 6 guiding piincipIes of lhe Nev ZeaIand Wasle
Slialegy. Hovevei lheie seens lo le IillIe inleiesl al Coveinnenl IeveI lo liing in
nandaloiy LIR IegisIalion. As a iesuIl LocaI Aulhoiilies conlinue lo leai lhe fuII cosls
of vasle disposaI and sone aie laking aclion al lhe IocaI IeveI lo speed up change
incIuding lhe use of laigeled lyIavs.

CounciIs can use ly-Iavs lo effecliveIy nanage lhe vasle sliean, and change upsliean
lehavioui in lhe lesl inleiesl of lhe connunily. Chiislchuich Cily has successfuIIy
inlioduced ly-Iavs lhal cieale incenlives and disincenlives lhal pul lhe enphasis of
lheii vhoIe vasle syslen on iesouice iecoveiy, iecycIing and vasle ieduclion.

Tvo key conponenls of lhe Chiislchuich slialegy have leen lhe inlioduclion of a
IandfiII Ievy and lhe Iicensing of vasle opeialois.
Thc ChrIstchurch Wastc MInImIsatInn Lcvy
The Chiislchuich Cily vasle nininisalion Ievy (cuiienlIy of $12 pei lonne pIus an
addilionaI $2 pei lonne foi lhe usiness DeveIopnenl Iund) viII pioduce incone of
$2,838,OOO in lhe 2OO4/O5 yeai lo le appIied lo vaiious vasle ieduclion inilialives and
infiasliucluie.
Thc ChrIstchurch C!canfI!! Lcvy
Chiislchuich has aIso eslalIished a nev ly-Iav lo ieguIale cIeanfiIIs lhal inposes a Ievy
on sone of lhe naleiiaI going lo cIeanfiIIs. This Ievy appIies foi lhe fiisl line lo piivale
as veII as CounciI ovned faciIilies. The Chiislchuich CIeanfiII Levy viII liing in
addilionaI incone of $1,niIIion in lhe 2OO4/2OO5 yeai vhich nusl le appIied lo vasle
ieduclion inilialives.
Page 375 of 591


CounciIs povei lo chaige Ievies on piivale faciIilies vas chaIIenged on lhe lasis lhal
lhose paying lhe Ievy vouId ieceive no lenefil fion il. A IegaI opinion vas ollained
vhich suppoiled lhe CounciIs IegaI aulhoiily (ly seclion 544 of lhe LocaI Coveinnenl
Acl 1974) lo coIIecl a Ievy lecause il is pail of lhe cosls incuiied ly counciI in ieIalion lo
lhe inpIenenlalion of ils Wasle Managenenl IIan.
Impact nf thc C!canfI!! Lcvy by!aw
Chiislchuich Lavyei and foinei cily counciIIoi, Denis ORouike says lhal lhe effecls of
lhe ly-Iav have leen slunning.

Lfficienl opeialois have leen alIe lo ieposilion lhenseIves in lhe naikel lo
nininise lhe inpacl of lhe Ievy ly oplinising lheii vasle nininisalion.
The voisl peifoining cIeanfiII vas cIosed and soId - even lefoie lhe lyIav cane
inlo foice
The indusliy consuIled vilh lhe Recoveied MaleiiaIs Ioundalion aloul lhe lesl
vay lo design cIeanfiIIs
The nessage has gone oul lhal il is nuch cheapei foi luiIding and ioading
conliaclois lo soil (and vheie piaclicalIe lo ie-use) cIeanfiII lefoie lianspoil foi
disposaI
LIccnsIng nf npcratnrs
Chiislchuich Cily aIso decided lo Iicense opeialois as a piaclicaI vay lo coIIecl lhe Ievy
undei Seclion 146 (3) (a) of lhe 2OO2 Acl vhich piovides foi lhe Iicensing of peisons oi
piopeily. Opeialois can le iequiied lo coIIecl and accounl foi a Ievy as pail of lhe
condilions of lheii Iicence, naking lhe enfoicenenl of lhe lyIav on opeialois easy - as
non-conpIiance is giounds foi suspension of Iicence. Opeialois vho conlinue lo opeiale
vilhoul a Iicence can le suljecl lo injunclion and/oi pioseculion.

Denis ORouikes poinls oul lhal:

1) yIavs aie inpoilanl lo undeipin iecycIing inilialives, iaise funds foi vasle
ieduclion incenlives and iecoveiy faciIilies and assisl in lhe cuIluie change lovaids
vasle diveision, ialhei lhan IandfiII disposaI. And as faciIilies inpiove, lyIavs can le
used lo foinaIIy lan noie and noie iecoveialIe naleiiaI - vilh posilive spin-offs foi
jols and enviionnenl.

2) Caiiols, in lhe foin of incenlives, and faciIilies and piocesses foi diveision, aie
inpoilanl and nusl IaigeIy le pul in pIace fiisl. Slicks, in lhe foin of lyIavs and
piicing nechanisns, nusl foIIov cIoseIy

3) The NalionaI Wasle Slialegy piovides lhe oveiaII IegisIalive fianevoik and poIicy
diieclion. The LocaI Coveinnenl Acl aIso sels oul soIid vasle oulcones. The vay lo
effecliveIy inpIenenl lhis fianevoik is ly using lhe lyIav povei

Cnris|cnurcn is ncting s|rcng|q dcun |nis pa|n and |nc pacc is quic|cning. O|ncr
ccnnuni|ics arc a|sc ncting in scnc cf |ncsc uaqs. Unfcr|una|c|q, far |cc nanq arc nc| sccing
|nc cppcr|uni|ics unicn arc |ncrc. Denis ORouike

Page 376 of 591

11.5 Thc Rn!c nf thc PrIvatc 5cctnr
The piivale secloi can pIay a significanl ioIe in iegionaI vasle ieduclion. CounciIs need
lo pul iuIes and incenlives in pIace lo enalIe lhe piivale secloi lo piofil fion deIiveiing
vasle ieduclion and iesouice iecoveiy oulcones ialhei lhan jusl fiIIing up IandfiIIs vilh
sone loken iecycIing on lhe side.

One key nelhod of keeping lhe piivale secloi focused on lhe iighl oljeclives is lo
ensuie lhal il is nol veilicaIIy inlegialed. As lhe foIIoving diaving iIIusliales, piivale
secloi IandfiII ovneis shouId nol aIso le alIe lo ovn and conlioI lhe liansfei slalion (oi
Resouice Recoveiy Iaik) lhal suppIies il, lecause lhe opeialoi shouId le focused on
iesouice iecoveiy as lhe fiisl piioiily.

Il is nol lhe inlenlion of lhis iepoil lo speak foi lhe piivale vasle secloi, oi lo deleinine
hov lhey viII adjusl lo lhe nev condilions lhal viII aiise fion aclions ieconnended in
lhis iepoil.

In lhe nev iesouice efficiency paiadign, vasle viII sliII need lo le hauIed, aIleil on a
ieducing scaIe. Al lhe sane line a Iol noie iecycIalIes viII aIso need lo le hauIed as lhe
scaIes lip in favoui of iesouice iecoveiy - on laIance lhe oppoilunilies viII inciease foi
exisling vasle hauIeis lhal aie alIe lo adapl.

The piivale secloi can piofil fion heIping connunilies face lhe chaIIenges sel ly The
Nev ZeaIand Wasle Slialegy and ly voiking coIIaloialiveIy vilhin a RegionaI Wasle
Slialegy lo heIp LocaI Aulhoiilies lo achieve lheii goaIs.
Page 377 of 591

12 Rcpnrt Cnnc!usInns
_______________________________
12.1 Cnnc!usInns
The concIusions of lhis iepoil aie as foIIovs:
Thcrc Is a nccd fnr Intcgratcd Infrastructurc fnr rcducIng wastc
AuckIands vasle piolIen is, lo a Iaige degiee an infiasliucluiaI piolIen, no diffeienl
lo lhe lianspoil ciisis cuiienlIy leselling lhe iegion. The najoi diffeience is lhe visiliIily
facloi. Lveiy day ve aie sluck in snog and liaffic going novheie, ve aie ieninded lhal
sonelhing is viong and denand aclion. ul vilh vasle ve sinpIy lhiov il oul and ils
laken avay - oul of sighl, oul of nind.

If iullish sinpIy piIed up as il did in Nev Yoik in lhe 196Os ve vouId denand aclion,
lul ve donl see il and ve donl acl in a vay lhal even legins lo soIve lhe piolIen.

The pioposed Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik is a iegionaI syslen foi iecoveiing and ie-
uliIising iesouices. Il is an infiasliucluie piojecl lhal viII in lhe Iong lein cosl Iess lhan
lhe cuiienl syslen of vasling and one lhal viII liuIy pul AuckIand on lhe ioad lo
suslainaliIily.
Thcrc Is a nccd fnr rcgInna! cnnrdInatInn
Theie is a need foi iegionaI co-oidinalion lo achieve nalionaI and IocaI vasle
nininisalion oljeclives. This can le achieved lhiough lhe eslalIishnenl of a RegionaI
Wasle Slialegy Cioup.

To iaise lhe visiliIily of vasle issues, lhe RegionaI Wasle Slialegy Cioup shouId incIude
lop-IeveI IocaI lody poIilicians (possilIy lhe Chaiis of lhe appiopiiale CounciI Wasle
Connillees), as veII as Wasle Manageis fion lhe iespeclive CounciIs.

A key eIenenl of lhis RegionaI Wasle Slialegy Cioup is lhal il shouId le excIusiveIy a
LocaI Aulhoiily gioup seiving pulIic secloi needs ialhei lhan a videi gioup, vhich
vouId le open lo capluie oi infIuence fion seclionaI inleiesls. ConneiciaI inleiesls
and connunily gioups couId le acconnodaled as advisoiy lodies.
PntcntIa! Outcnmcs
A iegionaIIy cooidinaled vasle slialegy and iesouice iecoveiy infiasliucluie couId
ieduce lolaI vasle in lhe AuckIand Region ly ovei 25 vilhin five yeais. Il viII aIso
ieduce cosls, save iesouices and cieale peinanenl nev jols and lusinesses foi lhe
AuckIand iegion.

Page 378 of 591

AppcndIccs
______________

1. OwncrshIp nf Auck!and's Wastc DIspnsa! FacI!ItIcs

2. Thc BusIncss Casc Fnr DrIvc Thrnugh Rccyc!Ing Ccntrcs, Wcstcrn 5ydncy
Wastc Bnard

3. KaIknura Casc 5tudy

4. PnrIrua Casc study

5. Ha!Ifax, UK 5ustaInabI!Ity Grnwth Park

6. Backgrnund AssumptInns and WnrkIngs nn Hnw Much Wastc thc Nctwnrk
Wnu!d DIvcrt.

7. Backgrnund assumptInns and wnrkIngs fnr cnst and Incnmc prnjcctInns

8. Casc 5tudy: Thc BusIncss Casc fnr GIb-Bnard Rccnvcry
Page 379 of 591

APPENDlX 1. OWNERSHlP O| AUCKLANDS WASTE DlSPOSAL
|AClLlTlES
________

IoIIoving is a lalIe shoving lhe ovneiship of IandfiIIs, liansfei slalions and iecycIing
faciIilies acioss lhe iegion. IaciIilies nay le nanaged ly diffeienl enlilies lo lhose vho
ovn lhen.

Landfills Waste Transfer Stations and Recycling
Facilities
Rodney Redvale (WML)
Hakarau

Silverdale TS
Snells Beach TS (CO)
Wellsford TS (CO)
Helensville TS (CO)
Whangaparoa Recycle Depot (CO)
North Shore None Constellation Drive TS (ESL)
Devonport Transfer Station (CO)
Rosedale Road Depot (WML)
Albany Depot (O)
Waitakere

None Waitakere City Refuse and Recycling Station
(CO)
Auckland

Great Barrier Island (CO) Pikes Point (WML)
Patiki Road TS (ESL)
Waiheke TS (CO)
Manukau

Whitford (joint venture between
Council and WML)
Greenmount (ESL)
East Tamaki TS (joint venture between Council
and WML)
Papakura Takanini TS (WML)
Franklin

Pukekohe TS* (CO)
Waiuku TS (CO)
*Soon lo cIose, aflei vhich LSL viII luiId ils ovn faciIily

WML = Wasle Managenenl Lld
LSL= Lnviiovasle seivices Lld
O = Onyx
CO = CounciI Ovned
CounciI ovneiship does nol necessaiiIy nean lhal lhe lesl inleiesls of lhe connunily
and lhe enviionnenl aie leing nel - especiaIIy if nanagenenl conlioI is vilh lhe
piivale secloi. Ioi exanpIe lolh Devonpoil Tiansfei Slalion and Whilfoid LandfiII aie
ovned ly CounciIs lul nanagenenl conlioI is vilh lhe sile opeialois, and lolh piovide
onIy loken oppoilunilies foi iecycIing and vasle ieduclion.

Page 380 of 591

APPENDlX 2: THE BUSlNESS CASE |OR DRlVE THROUGH
RECYCLlNG CENTRES
_____________

A iepoil piepaied in }une 2OOOly Wiighl Coipoiale Slialegy foi lhe Weslein Sydney
Wasle oaid (since dislanded and nov Resouice Nev Soulh WaIes) piovided an
independenl ieviev and assessnenl of a piIol 'Diive Thiu RecycIing Cenlie (DTRC)
pIanned foi lhe Mooielank aiea in Sydney.

Weslein Sydney Wasle oaid had eslalIished a gap in exisling infiasliucluie and
syslens foi lhe oideiIy and efficienl lake-lack of sone cIasses of unvanled iesouices,
and lhe ieinlioduclion of lhose iesouices inlo lhe pioduclive econony.

The pioposed cenlie vouId seivice lhe doneslic and Iighl conneiciaI seclois and
piovide infiasliucluie lo ie-aggiegale pioducls and iesouices inlo conneiciaI Iols lhal
couId le piocessed, iepaiied, and/oi ie-engineeied ly indusliy. The cenlie vouId
capluie lhe connunily desiie foi giealei oppoilunilies foi iesouice iecoveiy and Iess
IandfiII disposaI, as veII as lhe need foi vialIe syslens lhal vouId faciIilale highei
IeveIs of indusliy invoIvenenl in pioducl slevaidship piogians.

The oaid had idenlified lhal a najoi inpedinenl lo lhe appiopiiale discaid of ceilain
spenl, unvanled oi suipIus ilens and naleiiaIs is lhe avaiIaliIily of lhe appiopiiale
faciIilies oi seivices.

The ieviev found lhal lhal lheie vas lolh econonic and financiaI vaIue in pioceeding
vilh lhe piIol DTRC. Lxceipls fion lhe ieviev foIIov:

In keeping vilh lhe diive lovaid lhe uppei pail of lhe vasle hieiaichy fion disposaI lo
avoidance, lhe oaid consideis lhal connunily avaieness and denand is appiopiialeIy
naluie foi lhe eslalIishnenl of iesouice iecoveiy faciIilies lhal lhal can acconnodale a
vide iange of posl-consunei discaid iesouices. Once ie-aggiegaled in diop-off
faciIilies, lhe oaid leIieves lhal lhe naikels foi ieuse and iesouice iecoveiy aie lellei
seived, and lheie is scope foi indusliy lo slep in and fuIfiI sone of ils exlended pioducl
iesponsiliIilies.

The oaid is inpIenenling slialegies foi lhe iecoveiy of oplinun vaIue fion lhe
gailage and keilside discaid oplions iespecliveIy. The DTRC is lhe lhiid Ieg in lhis
slialegy lo piovide lhe syslens and infiasliucluie lo iecovei oplinun iesiduaI iesouice
vaIue fion eveiy olhei ilen oi naleiiaI lhal lhe connunily nay need lo discaid
appiopiialeIy.

Diive Thiu RecycIing Cenlies aie inlended lo piovide cilizens vilh a convenienl and
effeclive oppoilunily lo secuie leneficiaI use of discaided pioducls and iesouices, and
al lhe sane line pioviding indusliy vilh ie-aggiegalion cenlies lhal viII seivice
nuIlipIe indusliy seclois vilh nininaI inveslnenl olIigalions.

This Reviev has confiined lhal a convenienlIy siled diop off faciIily vouId piovide an
inpoilanl addilion lo Weslein Sydneys vasle nininisalion infiasliucluie. The concepl
Page 381 of 591

is iighlIy lased on lhe idea lhal nany peopIe aie keen lo ensuie lhal unvanled, lul
polenliaIIy usefuI, naleiiaIs aie liealed as iesouices foi leneficiaI use, ialhei lhan
disposed of as vasle. The slialegy lo capluie pioducls lhal can le iepaiied and ieused,
and luIk naleiiaIs foi iepiocessing and iecycIing has neiil and appiopiialeIy fiIIs lhiee
inpoilanl gaps.

Discaided pioducls fion househoId and Iighl conneiciaI seclois can le efficienlIy
rcuscd lecause diop-off cenlies piovide a convenienl vay foi pioducls lo le
exchanged al-end-off-fiisl-Iife, especiaIIy if deveIoped as a nalionaI nelvoik of Iike
faciIilies.
Incieased rccyc!Ing is achieved lecause a slialegicaIIy posilioned DTRC is
convenienl foi diopping off conneiciaI and Iighl indusliiaI naleiiaIs, and luIk
iecycIalIe naleiiaIs fion lhe househoId secloi.
The DTRC piovides a lasis foi lusiness lo exeicise posl-consunei prnduct
stcwardshIp. Sone vasle nanagenenl pIanneis and Ieading indusliiaI
coipoialions aie keen lo expIoie hov pioducei iesponsiliIily nighl le exlended
vilhoul iesoil lo speciaI IegisIalion. A key exanpIe is nanagenenl of hazaidous
househoId vasle. Lxisling infiasliucluie, incIuding liansfei slalions, does nol nalch
lhe eslalIished need.

LInkcd Nctwnrk - This lusiness case iepoil anaIyses lhe posilion foi a piIol diop off
cenlie in lhe iegion coveied ly lhe loaid. This vouId le lhe fiisl such cenlie in
AusliaIia lhal specificaIIy laigels indusliy pailicipalion and suppoil, and is
undoulledIy an anlilious expeiinenl. The infIuence and vaIue of such cenlies viII
fuIIy naleiiaIise once a Iinked nelvoik of Iike cenlies has leen eslalIished againsl
najoi popuIalion cenlies.

Thc RcvIcw cnnc!udcs lhal lhe inpacl of a Iinked nel voik viII slen fion lhe lioad
scaIe connunily iecognilion of Iike-lianded cenlies foi iesouice and pioducl iecoveiy,
and lhe cIeai iecognilion lhal indusliy is seeking nalionaI soIulions lo iesouice iecoveiy
issues, nol IocaI oi iegionaI pail-soIulions.

Prnducts and Rcsnurccs - lhe DTRC is designed lo acconnodale ieceipl, ie-
aggiegalion and ie-piesenlalion lo naikels of aII unvanled posl consunei lhal can le
ieasonalIy kepl sepaiale fion lhe nixed vasle sliean. This incIudes oiganics,
consliuclion naleiiaIs and luiIding pioducls, liadilionaI iecycIalIes, fuiniluie,
fuinishings, faliics, househoId liic-a-liac, eIecliicaI and vhile goods, and househoId
hazaidous naleiiaIs such as chenicaIs, painls, lalleiies elc.

A piivale secloi slialegic aIIiance pailnei vouId le seIecled (possilIy ly LOI and/oi
lendei) lo lake iesponsiliIily and iisk associaled vilh aII aspecls of seivice and
opeialions. The pailneiship couId le sliucluied as an unincoipoialed joinl venluie and
shouId le opeialed on an aIIiance lasis. The lendei lasis couId incIude conpaliliIily
consideialions, opeialing expeiience, and lhe scope foi lhe successfuI pailnei lo
conliilule a dividend sliean lo lhe Coveinnenl, lo pailIy offsel capilaI inveslnenl in
lhe DTRC, as an opeialing fianchise fee. Thc RcvIcw bc!Icvcs lhal lhis pulIic
secloi/piivale secloi pailneiship appioach is IikeIy lo piovide lolh pailicipanls vilh
appiopiiale IeveIs of confidence lo enlei inlo significanl financiaI connilnenls.

Page 382 of 591

ln summar, no falaI fIavs have leen idenlified vilh lhe undeiIying assunplions and
ialionaIe foi lhe piIol DTRC. The piIol is consideied lo le a safe and voilhvhiIe
denonslialion vilh iespecl lo lhe piopei use of funds aIIocaled lo lhe Weslein Sydney
Wasle oaid. Thiough aslule conneiciaI ieIalionships lelveen lhe oaid and lhe
piivale secloi, a confoiling IeveI of suiely can le deveIoped foi aII pailies vilh iespecl
lo lhe nanagenenl of Iong-lein financiaI iisks. The concepl of a Iinked nelvoik of Iike-
lianded Diive Thiu RecycIing Cenlies is consideied lo le an inveslnenl lhal can Iead lo
significanl sociaI and enviionnenlaI lenefils foi lhis Slale.
Page 383 of 591

APPENDlX 3: KAlKOURA CASE STUDY
___________________________

Frnm 'GcttIng Thcrc! - Thc Rnad tn Zcrn Wastc'. EnvIsInn Ncw Zca!and, 2003
KaIknura Casc 5tudy

The Kaikouia IandfiII and Resouice Recoveiy Cenlie is a joinl venluie lelveen lhe IocaI
counciI, and a connunily gioup. When lhe conliacl foi vasle nanagenenl in Kaikouia
cane up foi ienevaI in 2OOO, lhe Kaikouia Waslelusleis Tiusl (51) and Kaikouia
Disliicl CounciI (49) foined a joinl venluie conpany, Innovalive Wasle Kaikouia Lld
lo iun IandfiII and iesouice iecoveiy cenlie.

IWK vas eslalIished vilh lhe nandale lo heIp lhe connunily voik lovaids ils 'Zeio
Wasle ly 2O15 goaI, lo cieale suslainalIe IocaI enpIoynenl and lo piolecl lhe
enviionnenl - vhich is ciilicaI lo Kaikouias econony vilh ils eco-louiisn focus.

Kcy drIvcrs
LandfiII space iunning oul
CounciIs Zeio Wasle poIicy
LnpIoynenl
LnviionnenlaI consideialions

AIlhough Kaikouia onIy has a popuIalion of 5,OOO il has ovei a niIIion visilois a yeai,
nosl of lhen diiving lhiough on lheii vay fion Iiclon lo Chiislchuich lo see lhe
doIphins and vhaIes.

The lovns naiiov ialing lase neans infiasliucluie is undei conslanl piessuie lo cope
vilh lhis infIux. Innovalion is essenliaI lo piovide suslainalIe soIulions vilhoul huge
capilaI inveslnenl.
Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Ccntrc
IWK iuns lhe IandfiII lehind lhe Resouice Recoveiy Cenlie, vhich neans il is lolaIIy
inlegialed inlo lhe Zeio Wasle poIicy - lheie aie no confIicls lelveen lhe inleiesls of
IandfiII and RRC. IWKs nission is lo nainlain lhe IandfiIIs Iife foi as Iong as possilIe
and il has devised a nunlei of innovalive vays lo do lhis.
LandfiII ceII sloiage foi lhose naleiiaIs lhal aie cuiienlIy unecononic lo iecycIe lul
couId have vaIue in lhe fuluie
CIass is ciushed and used as a fiIlei nediun foi Ieachale conlioI.
Aflei iecycIalIes aie ienoved, iesiduaI vasle is conpacled and laIed lo naxinise
space.
OId pails of lhe IandfiII aie leing nined lo exliacl iecycIalIe naleiiaI and cieale
noie space.

The RRC is lhe heail of IWKs opeialions and lhe connunilys Zeio Wasle poIicy. Il
piovides lhe coIIeclion and piocessing poinl foi a veekIy iesidenliaI keilside coIIeclion
of iecycIalIes and a lvice-veekIy lusiness coIIeclion. Theie is aIso a foilnighlIy
iecycIalIe pick up foi oulIying aieas coveiing nosl of lhe disliicl.
Page 384 of 591

Kaikoura Landfill Options
0.00
2,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
6,000,000.00
8,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
12,000,000.00
14,000,000.00
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
Year
$
IWK Plan
Landfill/Transfer
Emp!nymcnt
IWK enpIoys 9 fuIIline slaff and one pail-linei. This is in conliasl lo vhen lheie veie
no iesouice iecoveiy piogiannes in pIace and jusl 3 peopIe veie enpIoyed.

When IWK fiisl look ovei lhe sile lhe onIy faciIilies veie a galekeepeis shed and ianp.
These have leen luiIl up ovei line - vilh sone financiaI assislance fion Zeio Wasle
Nev ZeaIand. They nov consisl of a coveied diop-off and piocessing aiea foi
iecycIalIes, a 96 n
2
second hand shop, and an anenily lIock.

The connunily has leen hugeIy suppoilive - foi exanpIe a IocaI luiIdei donaled his
line lo consliucl lhe anenily lIock. Innovalion ly IWK slaff has aIso leen hugeIy
inpoilanl. Ioi exanpIe IWK has designed and luiIl ils ovn hoiizonlaI in-vesseI
conposlei al a cosl of aiound $1O,5OO pIus $22,5OO foi a diggei lo do lhe luining.
ConneiciaI in-vesseI conposling unils can cosl ovei $2OO,OOO.
FInancIa! InfnrmatInn
Kaikouia Disliicl pioduces 5,OOO lonnes of vasle annuaIIy and IWK is diveiling aiound
6O (ly voIune) of lhis fion IandfiII. Diveision of lhis vasle and disposaI of lhe
iesiduaI cosls lhe connunily $2OO,OOO: $125,OOO foi IWKs conliacl and $75,OOO fion
RRC gale fees.

The RRC chaiges $5/n
3
foi gieenvasle, $1O/n
3
foi iesiduaI vasle, $15/n
3
foi
conneiciaI vasle and $25/n
3
foi consliuclion vasle. Theie is no chaige foi iecycIalIes
apail fion a snaII chaige foi Iaige Ioads and lyies.

IWKs annuaI opeialing cosl is $256,95O and annuaI incone is $338,932. 17 of lhis
cones fion iecycIalIes, 44 fion gale fees, 8 fion WINZ sulsidies and 42 fion
counciI (iesidenls pay foi iecycIing lhiough iales).
Lnng-tcrm EcnnnmIc EffIcIcncy
Kaikouias Resouice Recoveiy Cenlie, conlined vilh CounciIs Zeio Wasle poIicy is
piojecled lo liing savings lo lhe connunily fion avoided vasle disposaI cosls and
exlended IandfiII Iife of noie lhan $9 niIIion ovei lhe 18 yeai peiiod fion 2OO2 lo 2O2O.

LandfiII cosls ly 2O2O
Resouice Recoveiy
Cenlie cosls, given 6O
vasle diveiled fion
Page 385 of 591

APPENDlX 4: PORlRUA CASE STUDY
_________________________

(Frnm 'Rcsnurccfu! CnmmunItIcs: A GuIdc tn Rcsnurcc Rccnvcry Ccntrcs In Ncw
Zca!and', EnvIsInn Ncw Zca!and, 2003)

KEY 5TATI5TIC5
IopuIalion seiviced: 5O,OOO
Slaff enpIoyed: 2 + up lo 15 pail-lineis
LslalIishnenl cosl: $32O,OOO
AnnuaI incone: $172,OOO (yi 1)
AnnuaI opeialing cosls: $17O,OOO
Land aiea: O.36 heclaie

RecycIing chaiges: niI
ResiduaI vasle chaiges: $6/cai-Ioad, $12-16/liaiIei-Ioad
ConneiciaI iesiduaI vasle chaiges - $42/lonne
Managenenl: CounciI ovned, connunily gioup opeialed
MILE5TONE5
1996 - Mana Connunily Lnleipiises (MCL) slails pioviding nenlaI heaIlh day
seivices lo lhe Ioiiiua connunily
1999 - AIison Levin, Managei of MCL appioaches CounciI lo see vhal
oppoilunilies lheie aie lo gel invoIved in iecycIing in Ioiiiua.
2OOO - Ioiiiua adopls a Zeio Wasle poIicy
Ioiiiua Cily CounciI (ICC) SoIid vasle Managenenl pIan viillen -
ieconnendalions nade lo invesligale lhe polenliaI of eslalIishing a RRC
MCL pioduces feasiliIily sludy foi selling up a iecycIing lusiness in Ioiiiua
HeIen Shafei (ICC Zeio Wasle Cooidinaloi) and AIison Levin invesligale
oplions and pul lhe concepl of a puipose-luiIl faciIily incoipoialing an
educalion cenlie lo CounciI
2OO1 - Concepl appioved
2OO1 - }unky Iunk opens
2OO2- Tiash IaIace opens
ORGANI5ATION PROFILE
Tiash IaIace vas eslalIished as a joinl effoil lelveen IocaI connunily gioup Mana
Connunily Lnleipiises (MCL) and Ioiiiua Cily CounciI (ICC). AIison Levin, lhe
DeveIopnenl Managei of MCL vas lhe inilialoi, appioaching CounciI aflei ieluining
fion a ChuichiII IeIIovship oveiseas vheie she sav fiisl hand hov iecycIing venluies
ciealed jols.

MCL vas eslalIished lo piovide iehaliIilalion vilh a voik skiIIs focus foi peopIe vilh
psychialiic and ieIaled disaliIilies. efoie lianching oul inlo iecycIing il opeialed fion
lvo siles, one focusing on Iighl indooi facloiy voik and one on gaiden nainlenance
and nuiseiy voik, vilh aiound 75 peopIe a day allending ils piogiannes. Aloul a
lhiid of MCLs cIienleIe had expiessed an inleiesl in noving lo paid enpIoynenl, lul
finding paid voik foi lhen vas difficuIl lecause of lhe high unenpIoynenl iale in
Ioiiiua (veII ovei lhe nalionaI aveiage). Lack of ieIevanl voik expeiience, Iack of
Page 386 of 591

undeislanding of nenlaI heaIlh issues ly sone enpIoyeis and lhe high suppoil needs
of sone peopIe veie aIso faclois.

RecycIing offeied a vay lo niligale lhese difficuIlies and aIso lo ensuie lhal conliacls
vilh oiganisalions such as Ioiiiua Cily CounciI veie picked up ly IocaI lusinesses.

MCL slailed ils iecycIing seivices ly ollaining a conliacl fion a nalionaI ielaiIei soiling
vasle fion 9 of ils sloies, lhen sel up a snaII faciIily, }unky Iunk, in Ioiiiua lovn
cenlie lo sloie and dispIay naleiiaIs iecoveied fion IocaI indusliy and lusinesses.
}unky Iunk is used ly leacheis, ailisls and ciaflspeopIe Iooking foi cheap ail naleiiaIs.
The opening of Tiash IaIace has cul palionage so lhis aclivily viII piolalIy cIose and
ieIocale al Tiash IaIace.
Pcnp!c
A oaid of Tiuslees oveisees lhe opeialion of Tiash IaIace. AIison Levin, lhe
DeveIopnenl Managei oveisees a fuII line supeivisoi and pail line supeivisoi. Iail-
line voikeis aie enpIoyed 4 days pei veek on a ioslei. An addilionaI 15 slaff aie
enpIoyed foi 3 nonlhs foi lhe inoiganic coIIeclion. One oi lvo voIunleeis aIso voik on
lhe sile 3 oi 4 days a veek. Theie is nevei any piolIen gelling voIunleeis. They aie
usuaIIy paid in goods lhey have seIecled foi lhenseIves.
RE5OURCE RECOVERY FACILITIE5
Tiash IaIace is ovned ly CounciI lul vas designed and luiIl in cIose coopeialion vilh
Mana Connunily Lnleipiises. MCL has a 3 yeai conliacl lo opeiale lhe faciIily and lhe
inoiganic coIIeclion seivices - vhich piovides a souice of saIealIe goods. 246 lonnes of
naleiiaIs veie iecoveied fion lhe inoiganic coIIeclion in 2OO2. MCL keeps aII incone
fion saIe of naleiiaIs.

RecenlIy MCL ian a 'fiee veekend, pulling goods oul in lhe couilyaid foi peopIe lo
lake avay. Aiound 5OO peopIe cane, heIping cieale avaieness of lhe faciIily - and
incieasing saIes.

RecycIalIe naleiiaIs (gIass, pIaslics and papei elc) aie accepled al Tiash IaIace lul
ienovaI is coveied ly a sepaiale conliacl - lhe sane one lhal coveis lhe opeialion of
iecycIing diop-off cenlies in lhe Cily. MCL does nol nake any incone fion iecycIalIes
oi incui cosls foi pioviding diop off faciIilies. CounciI is cuiienlIy consideiing
eslalIishing a Iaige iecycIing diop off cenlie in lhe vicinily of Tiash IaIace lo lake
advanlage of lhe syneigies. This vouId le an oppoilunily foi MCL lo voik in co-
opeialion vilh lhe connodily iecycIing conpany.

Connodily iecycIing is cuiienlIy pail of lhe sane conliacl as househoId iefuse
coIIeclion so MCL does nol infIuence lhis. To nake a liggei inpacl on lhe vasle sliean
lhey vouId need lo aiiange vilh lhe IandfiII opeialoi lo gel naleiiaIs oul al lhal poinl.
This is possilIe as lhe IandfiII is CounciI-ovned. The olhei oplion viII le lo have a
conpuIsoiy unIoading aiea lhal aII doneslic liaffic nusl pass lhiough.
5Itc InfnrmatInn
Tiash IaIace is Iocaled jusl inside lhe enliance lo lhe Ioiiiua IandfiII, pioviding
iecycIing oppoilunilies lo anyone going lo lhe liansfei slalion. The nain consideialion
Page 387 of 591

foi choosing lhe sile vas lhal lhe Iand vas aIieady ovned ly CounciI so funds veie nol
iequiied lo luy addilionaI Iand. Despile leing Iess lhan 5OO nelies fion lhe IandfiII lhe
RRC is a veiy alliaclive pIace lo visil as il offeis a panoianic viev dovn a lush-cIad
vaIIey lo Ioiiiua. In lhe fuluie palhs in an adjacenl ieseive viII Iink lhe RRC lo a scenic
vaIkvay. Il is expecled lhe RRC viII lecone a louiisl alliaclion and a neeling pIace foi
enviionnenlaI and connunily gioups.

The sile is appioxinaleIy 3,6OO n
2
vhich Iinils lhe aclivilies il can undeilake - lul
lheie is ioon foi expansion in lhe fuluie.

The luiIding ilseIf vas aichilecluiaIIy designed vilh lhe vision of il leconing a nodeI
foi enviionnenlaI educalion and iesouice iecoveiy. Lov inpacl and iecycIed naleiiaIs
veie used in ils consliuclion and eneigy efficiency and valei conseivalion fealuies
veie incIuded in lhe design. In lhe fuluie il viII have a conposling loiIel and viII diveil
giey valei inlo ieed ponds lhal aie leing luiIl lo deaI vilh sloinvalei iunoff using
peinacuIluie piincipIes.

The RRC consisls of lhiee dislincl aieas - unIoading, ielaiI and educalion. The
unIoading aiea is a fIexilIe space lhal can le deveIoped fuilhei. Depending hov use
palleins deveIop, and as ludgels aIIov, sone of il nay le cIosed in lo inciease shop
space. CuiienlIy lhe shop aiea is aiound 8O n
2
, lhe educalion aiea is 55 n
2
, offices and
lalhioon faciIilies 42 n
2
and soiling and sloiage aiound 175 n
2
.The diop off aiea is
onIy seni encIosed lul lheie is polenliaI lo deveIop oId sheds acioss lhe ioad vheie
goods couId le diopped off. DisnanlIing and iepaiiing is sliII leing deveIoped lul lhis
is expecled lo happen on sile in a coveied aiea.

Tiaffic fIovs seen lo le voiking veII, aIlhough sone voik needs lo le done on
deveIoping lellei signage and paiking lo ensuie peopIe slop off lefoie diiving up lo lhe
liansfei slalion.
OpcratInns
The sile is open lhe sane houis as lhe IandfiII - Monday lo Saluiday 7an -5pn, Sunday
and pulIic hoIidays 9an -5pn.

ReusalIe ilens aie diopped off ly lhe pulIic oi coIIecled fion piivale piopeilies in
Ioiiiua Cily.

A fiee pick up seivice foi Ioiiiua iesidenls (lvo pei yeai) has iecenlIy slailed lo iepIace
lhe inoiganic coIIeclion. Residenls phone in and look a pick up. The advanlages of lhis
aie lhal MCL nainlains conlioI ovei vhen and vheie lhey coIIecl, goods aie in lellei
condilion, lheie aie fevei heaIlh and safely issues and educalion is enhanced lecause
MCL gels an oppoilunily lo laIk lo iesidenls. The nexl slage viII le lo inlioduce an
incenlive foi peopIe lo liing lheii goods inlo Tiash IaIace - one idea leing lo piovide a
vouchei iedeenalIe foi goods.

CoIIeclions aie scheduIed lo coincide vilh olhei voik lhal MCL undeilakes vilh
exisling vehicIes. Ilens aie geneiaIIy soId on sile, lhough occasionaIIy Iaige ilens such
as pianos nay le picked up and deIiveied sliaighl lo a cuslonei - as Tiash IaIace keeps
a iecoid of cusloneis Iooking foi specific ilens. A conliacloi has leen coIIecling aII
vhilevaie and appIiances foi iecycIing and olhei deaIeis lake luIk eIecliicaI appIiances
Page 388 of 591

and conpulei equipnenl. Sciap nelaI is Iikevise coIIecled ly a deaIei and MCL
ieceives paynenl foi lhis.

Calegoiies of naleiiaIs accepled incIude: sciap nelaI, appIiances, liic-a-liac, vindovs
and doois, pIunling and Iighling fillings, fuiniluie, Iinen, looks, looIs, linlei, painl,
cai lalleiies, conpulei- eIeclionic equipnenl, loys, cIolhing, iags, sone conneiciaI
vasle - eg Iaige caidloaid coies. asicaIIy if il can le ieused oi iecycIed il viII le
accepled.
MarkctIng
Woid of noulh is lhe najoi foin of naikeling, lul MCL has aIso pioduced fIyeis lhal
aie handed oul al lhe IandfiII lickel lox and does sone nevspapei adveilising. They aie
aIso consideiing Caiage SaIe Days and Iooking al a speciaI offei coupon foi discounled
IandfiII enliy.

Media ieIeases and ads in IocaI papeis adveilise lhal iesidenls can diop off naleiiaIs foi
fiee oi can phone in foi a fiee coIIeclion.

Tiash IaIace aIieady has quile a fev visilois foi educalionaI puiposes and lhe
phiIosophy is lo conlinue invoIving as nany gioups as possilIe - incIuding
Iandscaping/peinacuIluie gioups, schooI chiIdien doing nuiaIs, ailisls conliiluling
voiks -and Ialei hoIding ail exhililions in lhe educalion cenlie and use of lhe faciIily as
an evenl cenlie.

A sliong focus is pul on cuslonei seivice and slock is noved aiound ieguIaiIy lo
naxinise inleiesl and nake suie ilens gel soId. SpeciaIs and fiee goods heIp nove
slock and laigaining is veIconed. Sliong ieIalionships deveIop vilh ieguIai cusloneis
vho end up leing liealed as fiiends.

Quile a fev second hand deaIeis cone lo Tiash IaIace lo luy goods foi iesaIe al
naikels and olhei oulIels.

A pIay aiea and sandpil is piovided lo keep chiIdien occupied vhiIe paienls shop and
pulIic loiIels aie piovided. MCL aie Iooking al deveIoping a cafe aiea lo enlice peopIe
lo cone up lo lhe RRC lo have a cup of coffee and Iingei - as lhey do in gaiden cenlies.

An LnviionnenlaI Cenlie is aIso leing eslalIished in lhe educalion space in pailneiship
vilh a Tiusl lhal has gained enviionnenl cenlie funding fion lhe Minisliy foi lhe
Lnviionnenl.

So fai pulIic feedlack on lhe faciIily 5 nonlhs aflei opening has leen oveivheIningIy
posilive. IeopIe Iove lhe luiIding, lhe vievs and lhe alnospheie and MCL have had
Iols of offeis of heIp fion peopIe vanling lo voik lheie.

MCL is cuiienlIy voiking vilh an ad agency lo deveIop a naikeling slialegy and
pioduce nev ads and signage. AIlhough lheie viII le an iniliaI cosl il is inpoilanl lhal
lhe naikeling is effeclive.
EquIpmcnt
3 vans and liaiIeis( shaied vilh olhei pails of lhe MCL oiganisalion)
Page 389 of 591

Tiuck - Ieased foi 3 days pei veek foi anolhei conliacl
2 hand lioIIeys
IaIIel Iiflei
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
The eslalIishnenl cosl of lhe faciIily vas in lhe vicinily of $37O,OOO - $32O,OOO foi lhe
luiIding and $5O,OOO foi asphaIling and ioading.

OpeialionaI cosls iun al aiound $133,OOO - $6O,OOO foi vages (IikeIy lo inciease), $3,OOO
foi lianspoil and $7O,OOO foi lhe inoiganic coIIeclion.

AnnuaI incone foi lhe fiisl yeai of opeialion vas aiound $172,OOO - $12O,OOO CounciI
conliacl, pIus saIes of $52,OOO ($1,OOO/veek). Cianls have aIso leen ieceived fion
gioups Iike Connunily LnpIoynenl Cioup and Zeio Wasle Nev ZeaIand - vhich
piovided lhe fiisl $2,OOO lo do lhe feasiliIily sludy.
5UMMARY OF KEY I55UE5
MaIn Prnb!cm Arcas
Iinding ciealive soIulions lo nove goods aflei lheyve aiiived on sile. ecause
Tiash IaIace accepls eveiylhing, incIuding appIiances, ils inpoilanl lo deveIop
ieIalionships vilh peopIe and olhei oiganisalions lhal can heIp nove lhe naleiiaI.
Alliacling peopIe on sile foi lhe fiisl line. Aflei lheyve leen once lheyie hooked
lul lhe chaIIenge is gelling lhen lheie in lhe fiisl pIace.
ConliacluaI issues. Iioning oul lhe anonaIies lelveen lhe IandfiII and Tiash IaIace
conliacls. Theie is cuiienlIy IillIe incenlive foi lhe IandfiII conliacloi lo puII
iecoveialIe naleiiaI oul of lhe vasle slean - oi lo aIIov Tiash IaIace lo do so. This
happens lul is lolaIIy ieIianl on goodviII lelveen lhe pailies. Theie need lo le
incenlives in eveiy conliacl lo ieduce vasle.
Kcy drIvcrs
Cosl of inoiganic coIIeclion vhich vas aiound $12O,OOO annuaIIy. MCL pioposed
lhal lhey couId opeiale lhe RRC and caiiy oul lhe inoiganic coIIeclion foi lhe sane
cosl.
CounciIs Zeio Wasle poIicy
CounciIs slialegic goaIs of econonic deveIopnenl and enpIoynenl
Unique oppoilunily foi CounciI lo pailnei vilh a veII eslalIished and slalIe
connunily oiganisalion - MCL
MaIn rcasnns fnr succcss
Connilled individuaIs - pailicuIaiIy AIison Levin and HeIen Schafei
Suppoilive counciI vho sav lhe lig picluie and invesled foi success
IncIusion of MCL in lhe design of lhe luiIding
IIexiliIily in luiIding design
Designing and siling lhe faciIily lo le a diavcaid foi visilois and louiisls
Page 390 of 591

MIstakcs tn !carn frnm
When using iecycIed luiIding naleiiaIs ils inpoilanl lo specify lo conliaclois lhe IeveI
of voik lhal nay le iequiied lo piepaie lhen foi use. This vas undeieslinaled.
Thc Futurc
Inlioduce lo CounciI lhe idea of conpuIsoiy diop-off, deveIoping lhe adjacenl sile
lo nake lhis feasilIe.
Co-Iocalion of associaled lusiness enleipiises isnl ieaIIy vialIe lecause of lhe size
of lhe sile. Iocused effoil viII le iequiied lo gel lhis going al a diffeienl sile, vhich
vouId invoIve a peison dedicaled lo do lhis.
The financiaI oulIook is veiy liighl and MCL leIieves lheie is polenliaI lo liipIe lhe
cuiienl incone if noie peopIe can le alliacled on sile
Ongoing deveIopnenl of lhe Lnviionnenl Cenlie as a IocaI and iegionaI assel in
nodeIIing suslainaliIily
What's nccdcd mnst frnm Gnvcrnmcnt and CnuncI!?
Moie IegisIalion lo pul piessuie on lusinesses lo ieuse and iecycIe - eg lake lack
packaging
Iunding lo deveIop Iaigei faciIilies and enpIoy noie slaff lo do a videi iange of
aclivilies

Cnntacts:
HeIen Schafei, Zeio Wasle Cooidinaloi, Ioiiiua Cily CounciI - hschafeipcc.govl.nz

AIison Levin, DeveIopnenl Managei, Mana Connunily Lnleipiises -
vvisexlia.co.nz

Page 391 of 591

APPENDlX 5: HALl|AX SUSTAlNABlLlTY GROWTH PARK, UK
____________________________________________
Frnm Urban MIncs wcbsItc www.urbanmIncs.nrg.uk
The SuslainalIe Ciovlh Iaik is a fIagship Uilan Mines piojecl pioviding
gioundlieaking iecycIing faciIilies, jol ciealion and ciealing veaIlh fion vasle.

A SuslainalIe Ciovlh Iaik (SCI) is a piesligious, nodein, cIean, indusliiaI paik vhich
liings logelhei slale-of-lhe-ail naleiiaIs, soiling faciIilies and lechnoIogies vilh
iepiocessois vho can use lhe iesuIlanl naleiiaI slieans and conveil lhen inlo nev
pioducls. The piesence on sile of a usiness Innovalion and Inculalion Cenlie vilh
Iinks lo lhe R & D faciIilies of Univeisilies and olhei oiganisalions viII ensuie lhal
innovalion in lhe fieId of iecycIing viII le given lhe oppoilunily lo giov and fIouiish.

An SCI viII suppoil lhe lhiee nain lenels of lhe Coveinnenls Wasle Slialegy i.e.
iegionaI seIf-sufficiency, deaIing vilh vasle cIose lo ils pIace of oiigin and pionoling
ie-use and iecycIing.

The SCI concepl is designed lo piovide an engine foi econonic deveIopnenl, uilan
ienevaI and jol ciealion aII vilhin an enviionnenlaIIy suslainalIe and financiaIIy seIf-
suppoiling fianevoik. Il is a nodeI vhich viII le appiopiiale in nany of lhe uilan
conuilalions of lhe UK.

Hnw thc 5GP wI!! Opcratc
An SCI conpiises lhiee zones on one singIe sile:
MaleiiaIs HandIing Zone
MaleiiaIs RecycIing IaciIilies
Iioducl Sloiage uiIdings
Conposling Aiea
Offices, Lducalion and WeIfaie Cenlie
Weighliidge and Office
Page 392 of 591

Connunily RecycIing IaciIily

Repiocessing Zone
Lighl indusliiaI unils foi SMLs lhal piovide faciIilies foi lhe nanufacluiing of nev
pioducls nade fion iecycIale.
BusIncss InnnvatInn and IncubatInn Ccntrc
A ieseaich and deveIopnenl zone designed lo acconnodale:
Offices and Woikshops
Inculalion and nev slail-up lusinesses
Meeling ioon and educalion faciIilies
usiness Suppoil Slaff
Managenenl and adninislialion

Page 393 of 591

APPENDlX 6: BACKGROUND ASSUMPTlONS AND WORKlNGS ON
HOW MUCH WASTE THE NETWORK WOULD DlVERT
______________________________________

LocaI aulhoiilies in lhe AuckIand iegion aie nol invoIved lo any Iaige degiee vilh
lusiness and conneiciaI vasle as lhese seclois conliacl diieclIy vilh piivale vasle
opeialois. Il foIIovs lhal lhe onIy dala avaiIalIe is heId ly IandfiII opeialois. This dala
is piovided lo lhe AuckIand RegionaI Aulhoiily on a confidenliaI lasis.

Lxpeiience gained fion designing iesouice iecoveiy faciIilies suggesl lhal a good
piopoilion of lhe naleiiaIs soId lhiough lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaiks and Connunily
RecycIing depols viII cone fion iesidenliaI souices - especiaIIy if lhe inoiganic
coIIeclions aie disconlinued. usinesses viII aIso liing significanl anounls of ieusalIe
naleiiaIs and pioducls lo lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaiks if lheie is a financiaI advanlage
lo do so. The 1997 NalionaI Wasle Dala Repoil is used lo caIcuIale peicenlages of
iesidenliaI and lusiness vasle and foi sul calegoiies (papei, pIaslic elc) vheie lhis dala
vas nol avaiIalIe.

Tnnnagcs currcnt!y cn!!cctcd vIa InnrganIc cn!!cctInns (nnt Inc!udIng rccyc!ab!c
cnmmndItIcs such as papcr, p!astIc, ctc.).

Local Authority Tonnes Population Kg/head
Rodney District Council 1,500* 77,001 29*
North Shore City Council 3,700 209,300 18
Waitakere City Council 5,000 180,000 28
Auckland City Council 4,600 415,300 11
Manukau City Council 8,250 317,500 26
Papakura District Council 1,100 43,000 26
Franklin District Council 1,000* 53,000 19
Total for region 23,650 1,295,101 18
Canberra (for comparison) 3,000 293,500 10
* Lslinaled

A 2OO3 iepoil piepaied foi AuckIand Cily CounciI
40
indicales lhal 5O of lhe naleiiaI
pul oul foi lhe inoiganic coIIeclion is iecycIalIe. Theiefoie il vouId le ieasonalIe lo
assune lhal 5O of lhe naleiiaI fion inoiganic coIIeclions shouId le avaiIalIe foi lhe
RegionaI Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik. This 5O is noie easiIy ollained if lheie is an on-
caII coIIeclion seivice lo coIIecl naleiiaI, incIuding vaIualIe ilens, lefoie lhey aie pul
oul on lhe keilside - as Ioiiiua Cily piovides.

Taking a veiy conseivalive eslinale, 8,OOO lonnes of used househoId naleiiaI couId le
piocessed lhiough lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik.

Rodney District Council 300 tonnes
North Shore City Council 1,000 tonnes
Waitakere city Council 1,200 tonnes

4O Conposilion of AuckIand Cily Inoiganic CoIIeclion. Iiepaied foi AIpha DeveIopnenls and AuckIand Cily ly Wasle
Nol ConsuIling. 2OO3
Page 394 of 591

Auckland City Council 3,000 tonnes,
Manukau City Council 2,000 tonnes
Papakura District Council 250 tonnes
Franklin District Council 250 tonnes.
Total 8,000 tonnes

This equales lo 6.2 kg/peison vhich is conseivalive vhen conpaied lo Chiislchuich
Cily CounciI vheie lhe SupeiShed and Relio Shed handIe appioxinaleIy 2,5OO lonnes
pei annun. Wilh a popuIalion of appioxinaleIy 337,OOO lhis iepiesenls 7kg pei peison.
The SupeiShed and Relio Shed have saIes of ovei $1,OOO,OOO pei yeai. Wilh a
popuIalion of appioxinaleIy 327,OOO lhis equales lo saIes of $3.OO pei peison.
Conpaiisons vilh olhei cenlies vilh Resouice Recoveiy IaciIilies shov:

Centre Population Sales Sales per head
Canberra 293,500 $2,100,000 $7.15
Porirua 50,000 $120,000 $2.40*
Nelson 43,296 $300,000 $6.93
*These pienises aie lo le expanded.

Lven using a conseivalive sun of $2.5O pei peison, lhe Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik has
a polenliaI incone of al Ieasl $3,237,5OO pei annun fion diveiling onIy 8,OOO lonnes of
soIid vasle. This does nol incIude lhe naleiiaI lhal viII cone fion lhe conneiciaI and
luiIding seclois vhich viII le najoi souices.

Page 395 of 591

APPENDlX 7. BACKGROUND ASSUMPTlONS AND WORKlNGS |OR COST
AND lNCOME PRO]ECTlONS
___________________
AUCKLAND RE5OURCE RECOVERY NETWORK CO5T5+A103
Using dala fion 2OO3 RRIaik Concepl Sludy foi AuckIand Cily as laseIine adjusled
+4 pei annun foi infIalion

ESTABLISHMENT COSTS
YEAR 1 YEAR 2
Auckland City Concept Study Costings
SITEWORKS 900,000 1,080,000
BUILDINGS 1,625,000 162,000
TOTAL ACC 2,525,000 1,242,000
North Shore CC @ 75% of ACC 1,893,750 931,500
Manukau CC @ 75% of ACC 1,750,500 862,500
Waitakere CC @ 50% of ACC 1,262,500 621,000
Waiheke Is @ 50% of ACC 1,167,000 575,000
Rodney DC @ 50% of ACC 1,167,000 575,000
Papakura DC @ 25% of ACC 631,250 310,500
Franklin DC @ 25% of ACC 583,500 287,500
10,980,500 5,405,000

Plus Year One Costs 10,980,500
Total Building Costs 16,385,500

Plant Costs
Auckland CC (100%) 216,000
NSCC (75%) 162,240
MCC (75%) 162,240
WCC (50%) 108,000
Waiheke Is (50%) 108,000
RDC (37.5%) 81,000
PDC (25%) 54,000
FDC (25%) 54,000
Total Plant costs 945,480
Total Establishment Costs 17,330,980

OPERATING INCOME/EXPENSES

TRADING INCOME- BASED ON POPULATION (using Auckland City Concept income figures as
baseline)
ACC @ 415000 518,250 685,000 917,000 1,106,800 1,320,275 1,452,302
NSCC @ 209000 261,000 345,042 461,666 557,231 664,777 731,254
MCC @ 317500 396,500 524,173 701,343 846,522 1,009,900 1,110,890
WCC @ 180000 224,750 297,120 397,546 479,838 572,447 629,691
Waiheke Is @ 10000 12,488 16,509 22,089 26,662 31,807 34,988
PDC @ 43000 53,700 70,991 94,986 114,649 136,776 150,453
RDC @ 77000 96,150 127,110 170,074 205,279 244,898 269,387
FDC @ 53000 66,200 87,516 117,097 141,336 168,614 185,475
TOTAL REGIONAL SALES 1,629,038 2,153,462 2,881,802 3,478,316 4,149,493 4,564,442

Note: Assume $1.25 income pppa (per person per annum) for year one increasing to $3.50 pppa in Year 6

EXPENSES - BASED ON POPULATION (using Auckland City Concept Study expenses as baseline)

ACC @ 415000 611,500 683,500 817,250 882,500 939,000 1,009,425
NSCC @ 209000 307,857 344,184 411,300 444,204 472,633 508,081
MCC @ 317500 467,678 522,863 624,822 674,808 717,995 771,845
WCC @ 180000 265,140 296,427 354,230 382,568 407,052 437,581
Waiheke Is @ 10000 14,730 16,468 19,679 21,254 22,614 24,310
Page 396 of 591

PDC @ 43000 63,339 70,813 84,622 91,391 97,240 104,533
RDC @ 77000 113,421 126,805 151,532 163,654 174,128 187,188
FDC @ 53000 78,069 87,281 104,301 112,645 119,854 128,843
TOTAL
REGIONAL EXPENSES 1,921,734 2,148,341 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806

Note: From year I to year 6 operational costs increase from 1.47 pppa to $2.43 pppa

REGIONAL INORGANIC COLLECTION COSTS (as supplied by Local Authorities)
ACC 800,000 800,000 880,000 880,000 950,000 950,000
NSCC estimated* 516,500 516,500 570,000 570,000 625,000 625,000
MCC - estimated* 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,250,000 1,250,000
WCC - estimated* 435,000 435,000 475,000 475,000 525,000 525,000
PDC 216000 216,000 225,000 225,000 250,000 250,000
RDC (no inorganic collections)
FDC 33000 33,000 40,000 40,000 45,000 45,000
REGIONAL INORGANIC
COLLECTION COSTS 3,000,500 3,000,500 3,290,000 3,290,000 3,645,000 3,645,000

LANDFILL LEVY
REVENUE
Levy @ $5 $7.5 $10 $12.5 $15 $20
1050000 5,250,000 7,875,000 10,500,000 13,125,000 15,750,000 21,000,000

SUMMARY OF INCOME AND EXPENSES
Scenario One based on $5/tonne Landfill Levy

INCOME
Trading 1,629,038 2,153,462 2,881,802 3,478,316 4,149,493 4,564,442
landfill levy @ $5 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000
Total Income 6,879,038 7,403,462 8,131,802 8,728,316 9,399,493 9,814,442

EXPENSES
Operating 1,921,734 2,148,341 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806
REGIONAL COSTS 12,902,234 8,498,821 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806
Less
Inorganic collection costs3,000,500 3,000,500 3,290,000 3,290,000 3,645,000 3,645,000
Net surplus(deficit) -3,022,696 1,905,141 8,854,067 9,245,292 10,093,976 10,287,636

Scenario Two based on $10/tonne Landfill Levy
INCOME
Trading 1,629,038 2,153,462 2,881,802 3,478,316 4,149,493 4,564,442
landfill levy @ $10 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000
Total Income 12,129,038 12,653,462 13,381,802 13,978,316 14,649,493 15,064,442

EXPENSES
Operating 1,921,734 2,148,341 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806
REGIONAL COSTS 12,902,234 8,498,821 2,567,735 2,773,024 2,950,517 3,171,806
Less
Inorganic collection costs3,000,500 3,000,500 3,290,000 3,290,000 3,645,000 3,645,000
Net surplus(deficit) 2,227,304 7,155,141 14,104,067 14,495,292 15,343,976 15,537,636

NOTLS:
1. Land Cosls aie nol incIuded
2. Cosls of luiIding addilionaI ienlaI spaces and joinl faciIilies aie nol incIuded
3. LandfiII Ievy is lased on 1,O5O,OOO lonnes pei annun
4. Assune savings fion ceasing inoiganic coIIeclions viII le ieaIIocaled lo heIp fund lhe
Resouice Recoveiy Nelvoik.
Page 397 of 591

APPENDlX 8: CASE STUDY : THE BUSlNESS CASE |OR GlB-BOARD
RECOVERY THROUGH THE RESOURCE RECOVERY NETWORK
_____________________________________________

Cil oaid is a good exanpIe of a iesouice lhal is cuiienlIy IandfiIIed lhal couId le
sepaialed al souice and accepled al siles lhioughoul lhe pioposed Resouice Recoveiy
Nelvoik.

Il is eslinaled lheie aie 5O,OOO lonnes of gil-loaid (pIaslei loaid) going lo IandfiII each
yeai in lhe AuckIand iegion. Cil-loaid can le ieadiIy ienanufacluied lack inlo gil-
loaid. Assuning a disposaI cosl of $65 a lonne, AuckIandeis aie paying $3.25 niIIion
annuaIIy lo dispose of a iecycIalIe pioducl. Add lo lhis lhe Ioss of IandfiII space lo lhe
connunily and lhe cosls of aflei caie and/oi ienedialion al say anolhei $5O and lhe
cosl lo lhe connunily cIinls lo ovei $7niIIion pei yeai - oi 13O niIIion ovei 2O yeais.

If a fixed pIanl such as lhe Nev Wesl Cypsun lype in Vancouvei, Canada vas luiIl il
vouId nake sense lo Iocale il as neai as possilIe lo lhe Winslones WaIIloaid pIanl, so
lhal lhe iecoveied vasle naleiiaI couId le easiIy on-soId lack lo lhe nanufacluiei. If
hovevei a noliIe pIanl vas sel up as used ly Cypsun RecycIing InleinalionaI of
Dennaik, naleiiaI vouId le accepled al IocaI vaiehouses and a noliIe iecycIing unil
vouId caII on a ieguIai
41
lasis lo piocess il inlo a saIealIe pioducl. The Resouice
Recoveiy Iaik huls vouId chaige a discounled disposaI fee foi accepling gil-loaid lhal
vouId offei an advanlage lo vasle hauIeis sone of vhich lhey couId pass on lo lheii
cusloneis as an incenlive lo sepaiale oul pIaslei loaid on sile. A piopoilion of lhe
disposaI fee vouId le passed on lo lhe iecycIei lo assisl vilh cosls of piocessing and
lianspoil lo lhe end usei.

If a disposaI fee of $5O pei lonne vas chaiged al lhe Resouice Recoveiy Iaik Huls foi
gil-loaid and assuning lhal 2O,OOO lonnes of naleiiaI couId le alliacled on lhe lasis of
lhe piice diffeienliaI vilh sliaighl disposaI lo IandfiII, lheie vouId le $1niIIion pei
annun avaiIalIe lo sulsidise sloiage and iecycIing. Hovevei if on lhe olhei hand as is
lhe case in Vancouvei, gil-loaid vas lanned fion IandfiII, il is ieasonalIe lo assune
lhal piaclicaIIy aII of lhe iecycIalIe naleiiaI in lhe iegion vouId lecone avaiIalIe.
Assuning 5O,OOO lonnes al $5O pei lonne vouId piovide $2, 5 niIIion pei annun lo
sulsidise ils iecycIing.

AddilionaI funds vouId cone fion saIe of pioducl lo end useis - in Nev ZeaIands
case lhis is nosl IikeIy lo le Winslones. Assuning lhal Winslones cuiienlIy inpoil
gypsun, lhe iav naleiiaI foi gil-loaid, al $1O pei lonne, and lhal lhey vouId pay lhe
sane foi quaIily iecycIed naleiiaI, lhis vouId equale lo $5OO,OOO annuaI incone.

Iunds fion a IandfiII Ievy couId aIso le consideied lo heIp fund gil-loaid iecycIing.

The successfuI diveision of gil-loaid fion IandfiIIs vouId heIp neel LocaI and CenliaI
CoveinnenlaI conceins ieIaling lo:
The Resouice Managenenl Acl consliainls on ciealing nev IandfiII siles
The incieasing cosl of ciealing nev IandfiIIs

41
Cypsun InleinalionaI RecycIing, vvv.gypsuniecycIing
Page 398 of 591

The poIIulion polenliaI fion IandfiIIs
The cosls of liucks on lhe ioad cailing gil-loaid lo IandfiII in leins of poIIulion and
pelioI
ased on lhe eslinaled 5O,OOO lonnes of gil-loaid, lhis vouId iequiie 3,333 liips ly
15 lonne liucks used lo cail lhe gil-loaid lo lip.
The exlia congeslion caused ly liucks unnecessaiiIy cailing 5O,OOO lonnes of gil-
loaid aiound lhe cily
The incieased accidenl iisk caused ly excess liuck novenenls - and lhe
coiiesponding deciease in accidenls caused ly cenliaIised Resouice Recoveiy Iaik
(vhich can le caIcuIaled in leins of accidenl cosl pei niIeage)

Page 399 of 591

Page 400 of 591


Waiien Snov 2OO5
Page 401 of 591
CONSULTATION JUNE JULY 2011

Page 402 of 591
CONSULTATION

ANALYSIS OF LOCAL BOARD FEEDBACK ON DRAFT WASTE MANAGEMENT
AND MINIMISATION PLAN ISSUES
WASTENOT - JULY 2011

LOCAL BOARD FEEDBACK ON ISSUES PAPERS

OTHER COUNCIL FEEDBACK ON ISSUES PAPERS

Page 403 of 591

ANALYSIS OF LOCAL BOARD FEEDBACK ON DRAFT WWMP ISSUES

PAGE 1

Analysis of Local Board
Feedback on Draft Waste
Management and
Minimisation Plan Issues

Prepared for
Auckland Council

July 2011
Page 404 of 591


WASTE NOT CONSULTING LTD

Contents
1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
2 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................ 1
3 RESULTS........................................................................................................................................ 1
3.1 QUESTION 1 WHEELIE BINS OR BAGS................................................................................................. 1
3.2 QUESTION 2 UNIFORMITY OF SERVICES ACROSS REGION.................................................................. 2
3.3 QUESTION 3 COLLECTION METHOD FOR RECYCLABLES ................................................................... 3
3.4 QUESTION 4 FUNDING OF REFUSE SERVICES...................................................................................... 3
3.5 QUESTION 5 FUNDING OF RECYCLING SERVICES............................................................................... 4
3.6 QUESTION 6(A) KERBSIDE ORGANIC COLLECTION............................................................................ 4
3.7 QUESTION 6 (B) FUNDING OF KERBSIDE ORGANIC COLLECTION....................................................... 5
3.8 QUESTION 7 KERBSIDE INORGANIC COLLECTION.............................................................................. 5
3.9 QUESTION 8(A) PUBLIC PLACE RECYCLING BINS............................................................................... 6
3.10 QUESTION 8(B) DECISIONS AND FUNDING OF PUBLIC PLACE RECYCLING BINS................................ 6
3.11 QUESTION 9 FURTHER INVESTIGATION INTO GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED AREAS......................... 7
3.12 QUESTION 10 (A) FUNDING OF SERVICES IN GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED AREAS........................... 7
3.13 QUESTION 10(B) LEVEL OF FUNDING SUPPORT FOR GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED AREAS .............. 8
3.14 QUESTION 11 PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP SCHEMES............................................................................. 8
APPENDIX 1 SURVEY FORM....................................................................................................................... 9
Contact Details
Waste Not Consulting Ltd
Bruce Middleton
Director
PO Box 78 372
Grey Lynn, Auckland 1245
Tel: +64 9 360 5188
Email: bruce@wastenot.co.nz

This report is the copyright of Waste Not Consulting Ltd. All or any part of it may only be used, copied or
reproduced for the purpose for which it was originally intended, except where the prior permission to do otherwise
has been sought from and granted by Waste Not Consulting.
Page 405 of 591


PAGE 1
1 Introduction
This report presents the results of feedback provided by Auckland Council Local Boards in response to a
questionnaire about issues and options being considered as part of the councils waste management planning
process.
The issues and options were set out in a series of issues papers provided by the council to the Local Boards in
conjunction with a series of workshops held in early 2011. The issues papers provided the Local Boards with
background information and analysis of possible future options for waste management in the region. After the
workshops were completed, the questionnaire was given to the Local Boards to provide feedback on the
exercise. The feedback will be taken into consideration by the councils Solid Waste Business Unit as it
oversees the preparation of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.
A copy of the questionnaire is contained in Appendix 1.
2 Methodology
Responses from each of the Local Boards were copied from the original documents into a spreadsheet for
analysis. The original documents were provided in a range of formats: some responded on the questionnaire
form provided, others provided responses within minutes of Local Board meetings, while others used their own
document formats. In most instances, there was no issue with relating the response to the relevant question;
however, a small number of respondents did not use the questionnaire form and did not directly address some
of the questions.
A number of the questions were not in a multiple-choice or yes/no format. However, in all cases the Local
Boards responses were such that they were able to be coded to provide a quantitative analysis.
Quantitative results are presented below with a short summary of the rationale and comments provided by the
Local Boards in respect of their responses.
3 Results
Responses were received from 21 of the 21 Local Boards. Results are provided, by question, with a short
summary of key issues or rationale noted by respondents under each question.
3.1 Question 1 Wheelie bins or bags
Should wheelie bins or bags be used for kerbside refuse collections?
Q. 1 Responses %
Wheelie bins 7 35%
Bags 8 40%
Other 5 25%
Total 20 100%
Not answered 1
(Response rate = 95% of 21 Local Boards)
Page 406 of 591


PAGE 2
There was no clear preference by Local Boards with regards to the issue of wheelie bins versus bags, given
there was a difference of only one between the two options and that a significant number of Local Boards
opted for the Other option in their response. Where Other was selected, this was typically qualified
with a comment that supported a combination of both bags and wheelie bins. The comments of the five
Local Boards that chose the Other option are given below:
Wheelie bins for urban areas - Rubbish bags for rural. The Board has a mixed view on the
issue and felt that one size does not fit all they would like to test the issue with the community,
particularly in the rural areas
That a combination of wheelie bins and bags be used for kerbside refuse collections. Reason:
In order to minimise waste, provide options for small users and take into account the needs of
rural townships and the elderly noting that in some areas of Rodney there are no kerbs or
roadside areas outside properties
Rubbish bags for refuse with the option to have user pay wheelie bins
The Waiheke community currently has a choice of bins or bags. Note: One Board member
wishes to return to bags only.
Other within the whole region a choice of wheelie bins or bags of various sizes. The current
wheelie bin system works well in residential areas of Maungakiekie-Tamaki, with the inclusion
of an option for a 80 ltr red-lidded rubbish bin, which may be preferable for older people or
those with difficult, steep sections.
For the eight Local Boards that preferred bags, the reasons put forward were waste minimisation, lower
capital cost, ease of applying a user-charges system, and flexibility. Reasons for preferring wheelie bins
included reduced dog-strike, tidiness, and the option of restricting size.
Negatives noted for bags were health and safety, dog, and rodent strike. Negatives for wheelie bins were
difficulty in handling for older/infirm residents, lack of flexibility in rural situations, harder to store, and
difficult to apply user-pays charges.
3.2 Question 2 Uniformity of services across region
Should the same service be provided across the region or should bags be used for rural and high density
multi-storey areas and wheelie bins for the rest?
Q. 2 Responses %
Same service 5 26%
Different services 12 63%
Other 2 11%
Total 19 100%
Not answered 2
The majority of respondents felt that there should be broad consistency of service provision across the
region, but that there needed to be some flexibility for unique situations including apartments and rural
areas. A number of Local Boards indicated that it was the Local Boards role to be involved in these
decisions. One board suggested that Local Boards should determine the type of containment and service
provision in their area.
The Local Board indicating Other suggested that more exploration of the question was required by
officers. None of the Local Boards preferring the Same service gave reasons for their preference.
Page 407 of 591


PAGE 3
3.3 Question 3 Collection method for recyclables
How should recyclables be collected?
Q. 3 Responses %
Commingled 14 70%
Two-stream 5 25%
Other 1 5%
Total 20 100%
Not answered 2
The clear preference among respondents was for a commingled system for recyclables. Two stream
systems were preferred by approximately 25% of respondents. One Local Board advocated for a kerbside
sort system for recycling.
The most common reasons given in support of commingled recycling were that the current system in place
works well, that it is convenient for users, that it increases recycling, and that is would be more cost
effective than a two stream system. Supporters of the two stream system mentioned that it works well in
current areas (Waitakere, North Shore). A clear preference among those supporting a two stream system
was for paper, not glass, to be collected separately.
The total number in the Responses column is greater than the number of Local Boards as one board
responded that it could work with either option (i.e. either commingled or two-stream).
3.4 Question 4 Funding of refuse services
Should refuse services be paid for through rates or polluter-pays?
Q. 4 Responses %
Rates 4 20%
Polluter-pays 13 65%
Other 3 15%
Total 20 100%
Not answered 1
Polluter-pays was the clear preference amongst respondents, with this option selected by 65% of
respondents as against 20% for rates-funded. The most common reasons cited in support of polluter-pays
were that it would assist in waste minimisation, and it was the fairest system, although one board expressed
concern about the impact on large families. Supporters of rates-funded collections felt it was the most
efficient and fair way of funding the service and that it would discourage illegal dumping.
Those indicating support for other options put forward hybrid charging systems. The concept of an 80L
wheelie bin funded by rates as a baseline service with larger bins incurring a charge was noted by a couple
of respondents.
One Local Board stated that the Board: Considers that the term polluter-pays is a misnomer and
offensive and that the term user-pays should be used because this is a service that is being provided.
Page 408 of 591


PAGE 4
3.5 Question 5 Funding of recycling services
Should recycling services be paid for through rates, user-pays, part-user-pays, or by another mechanism
(e.g. surpluses from other waste services, waste levy etc?)
Q. 5 Responses %
Rates 14 67%
User-pays 0 0%
Part user-pays 1 5%
Other mechanisms 6 29%
Total 21 100%
Not answered 1
A sizable majority of Local Boards supported rates funding for recycling services. The reasons cited were
that it would encourage waste minimisation and that it is an efficient way of charging for the service.
One Local Board supported a part user-pays service with surpluses from other services used to offset costs.
The Local Boards supporting other mechanisms did not show a clear preference overall for the type of
alternative funding mechanism, with levy funding and surpluses from other services both noted. The
Waitakere model was mentioned by one Local Board as the model that should be applied.
The total number in the Responses column is greater than the number of Local Boards as one board
favoured rates or other mechanisms.
3.6 Question 6(a) Kerbside organic collection
Should a kerbside organic collection be provided by the council?
Q. 6(a) Responses %
Yes 11 55%
No 4 20%
Maybe 4 20%
Other 1 5%
Total 20 100%
Not answered 1
A kerbside organics collection was supported by 55% of respondents. While this was not a strong majority
support, it was the most favoured option. A number of Local Boards indicated conditional support for
such a service. These respondents generally felt that more research/information and/or trials were required.
Concern was also expressed by one Local Board on the impact on private sector service providers.
Those supporting the service cited the quantity of organic waste in the residual waste and concerns with
organic waste being left on properties. A number of respondents, while supporting a service, also wanted
to see home composting and/or worm farms supported.
Those not in favour of such a service felt it should be up to the resident to arrange a private service or that
home composting should be promoted.
Page 409 of 591


PAGE 5
It is noted that there appeared some confusion in the responses over whether a garden waste service, a food
waste service, or a combined service was being proposed. A number of respondents cited the figure of
40% food waste in the residual as the reason for introducing a service while others appeared to consider
that the question referred to a garden waste service (e.g. those suggesting people should use private sector
providers).
3.7 Question 6 (b) Funding of kerbside organic collection
If yes [to Q6(a)], should it be funded by rates, user-pays, part-user-pays or by another mechanism (e.g.
surpluses from other waste services, waste levy etc)?
Q. 6(b) Responses %
Rates 7 39%
User-pays 3 17%
Part user-pays 4 22%
Other mechanism 4 22%
Total 18 100%
Not answered 3
A rates-funded service was the most favoured option but this was selected by less than 40% of the Local
Boards that answered this question. A similar number thought the service should be user-pays or part user-
pays funded, while a number felt that other funding mechanisms (such as levy funding) should be
employed.
Comments on this question were generally not detailed, with many respondents not providing a rationale.
Those who felt the service should be rates-funded suggested this was the simplest and most fair method,
while those who favoured user-pays in whole or part suggested that, as not all households would use the
service, then not all households should have to pay. Promotion of home composting was also a reason
given for favouring user-pays/part user-pays.
3.8 Question 7 Kerbside inorganic collection
Should kerbside inorganic collections be replaced with an alternative booking system or be
discontinued?
Q. 7 Responses %
Booking system 12 57%
Discontinued 1 5%
Other 8 38%
Total 21 100%
Not answered 1
A booking system was favoured by a majority of respondents. Reasons given for this is that the service
has worked well where it has been introduced and that it removed the piles of rubbish from the streets,
stopped dumping, stopped scavenging, and that the user should pay.
A sizable minority of Local Boards, however, expressed the view (not canvassed in the survey) that the
current service should be retained. Reasons for this were that low income households would not pay for a
Page 410 of 591


PAGE 6
booking service and would resort to illegal dumping, and that the current system is a cheap, efficient, and
equitable service.
A couple of Local Boards suggested some form of voucher system where households are allowed to
take one free load per year to a transfer station or resource recovery centre (or possibly an on-property
pickup).
A couple of Local Boards expressed support for local resource recovery centres.
The responses total more than the 21 Local Boards because one Board expressed favour for both a partial
user-pays booking system and localised transfer/recycling centres.
3.9 Question 8(a) Public place recycling bins
Should public place recycling bins be further promoted and installed in town centres and tourist areas?
Q. 8(a) Responses %
Yes 21 100%
No 0 0%
Other 0 0%
Total 21 100%
Not Answered 0
Local Boards were unanimous in the view that public place recycling bins should be further promoted and
installed in town centres and tourist areas.
There were very few comments on this question. However, one Local Board noted that seasonal tourist
traffic puts pressure on public waste services, and that they believe there is a growing expectation that
recycling opportunities should be available and convenient to all.
3.10 Question 8(b) Decisions and funding of public place recycling bins
If so, who should make the decisions on location and how should they be funded?
Q. 8(b) Responses
Local board 18
Other 2
Rates/centrally funded 9
Other 5
Not answered 1
Answers to this question were not prompted, however most responses fell into a couple of clear categories
and so responses above are coded from the unprompted responses. A clear majority of respondents felt
that it was the Local Boards role to make decisions on location. A number of Local Boards also
mentioned that such decisions should be taken in consultation with the local business associations in
respect of town centre areas.
Page 411 of 591


PAGE 7
Of those expressing a view on the source of funding, most suggested that recycling bins should be
rates/centrally-funded. Alternative funding suggestions included waste levies and commercial
sponsorship. Some suggested that there should be a base level of allocation (perhaps based on population)
with Local Boards responsible for finding funding for any additional bins.
3.11 Question 9 Further investigation into geographically isolated areas
Given the geographic isolation of the Hauraki Gulf Islands (and some rural areas on the mainland) should
further work be done to see what sort of role the Local Boards might play in shaping the way waste is
managed, to reflect their unique situation?
Q. 9 Responses %
Yes 18 100%
No 0 0%
Other 0 0%
Total 18 100%
Not answered 3
All Local Boards responding to this question felt that further work should be done on the potential role of
Local Boards. Comments noted that local communities should have a role in shaping how their waste is
managed, that there is an issue with visitor numbers on the Islands which create issues other communities
dont face, and that local communities may have unique and innovative ways to tackle the issues.
One Local Board that did not respond to the question provided a comment that they felt it was an issue for
the Gulf Island Local Boards and therefore not appropriate for others to comment on.
3.12 Question 10 (a) Funding of services in geographically isolated areas
Should Hauraki Gulf Islands and rural areas pay the actual cost of their waste and recycling services or
should the region contribute?
NB: Responses in the table below are coded as follows: Yes means Gulf Island and rural areas
should pay their own way; No means they should not and the region should contribute.
Q. 10(a) Responses %
Yes 7 33%
No 14 67%
Other 0 0%
Total 21 100%
Not Answered 0
The majority of Local Boards felt that the Gulf Islands and rural areas should not pay the full costs of their
waste and recycling services. The reasons given were that they faced high visitor numbers, that the small
rating base meant they would struggle to afford it, and that the islands and other areas are resources for all
of Auckland to enjoy and so everyone should contribute to the costs of ensuring environmental quality is
maintained.
Page 412 of 591


PAGE 8
Those who felt that areas should pay their own way commented that people who live on the islands have
made a conscious decision to live or stay there and should expect to pay their own way. They noted that
island living has its benefits but can also pose its own problems and that these should be addressed from
within the local community.
3.13 Question 10(b) Level of funding support for geographically isolated areas
If YES, to what level?
Q. 10(b) Responses %
No subsidy 2 15%
Part subsidy 7 54%
Not enough info 4 31%
Total 13 100%
Not answered 8
Although only seven Local Boards had answered Yes to Question 10(a), 13 responded to Question
10(b). Of the respondents that answered the question, over half thought that there should be at least a
partial subsidy for waste and recycling services in geographically isolated areas. A third of respondents
felt that there was not enough information available to address the question.
Of the Local Boards that felt there should be some level of part subsidy, a Uniform Annual Charge and a
subsidy to top up the charges to the same level as other communities were included amongst the
suggestions.
3.14 Question 11 Product Stewardship schemes
Should Council advocate to central government to introduce mandatory Product Stewardship schemes for
certain waste streams?
Q. 11 Responses %
Yes 21 100%
No 0 0%
Other 0 0%
Total 21 100%
Not answered 0 100%
There was unanimous support for Auckland Council advocating for Product Stewardship schemes.
Specific waste streams mentioned included commercial waste, construction and demolition waste,
packaging, tyres, and E-Waste. Container Deposit Legislation was specifically mentioned by one Local
Board.
There were general comments around the need to actively advocate for Product Stewardship to return the
responsibility to those who design, manufacture, and distribute the products.
Page 413 of 591


PAGE 9
Appendix 1 Survey Form
APPENDIX A

Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
Pre-statutory consultation phase
June-July 2011

PLEASE NOTE:
TO BE FILLED IN BY THE COMMITTEE SECRETARY AND CHAIR OF EACH BOARD
TO REFLECT THE COLLECTIVE BOARD VIEW.
i.e. one response per Local Board.

Local Board:
____________________________________________________________

The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requires Auckland Council to review and adopt a Waste
Management and Minimisation Plan by 1 July 2012. The Solid Waste Business Unit is
currently seeking feedback in the pre statutory consultation phase from key stakeholders on
some specific issues that will inform the content of the draft ACWMMP. This report and
feedback is part of that engagement process with the Local Boards.

ISSUE 1: KERBSIDE REFUSE AND RECYCLING SERVICES

Question 1: Should wheelie bins or bags be used for kerbside refuse collections? (Please tick
one)

Wheelie Bins for refuse
Rubbish bags for refuse

Why do you recommend this option? Any other comments?

Page 414 of 591


PAGE 10
Question 2: Should the same service be provided across the region or should bags be used for
rural and high density multi-storey areas and wheelie bins for the rest?

Question 3: How should recyclables be collected? (Please tick one)

A commingled system, where all materials are collected in a wheelie bin and sorted at
a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).

A hybrid two-stream system, where all materials, apart from paper and cardboard or
glass, are collected in a wheelie bin, with the paper and cardboard or glass put out
separately.

Other


ISSUE 2: FUNDING OF KERBSIDE REFUSE & RECYCLING COLLECTIONS

Question 4: Should refuse services be paid for through rates or polluter-pays? (Please tick one)

Rubbish services paid through rates
Rubbish services paid through polluter-pays

Page 415 of 591


PAGE 11

Question 5: Should recycling services be paid for through rates, user-pays, part-user-pays, or by
another mechanism (e.g. surpluses from other waste services, waste levy etc?) (Please tick one)

Recycling services paid through rates
Recycling services paid through user-pays
Recycling services paid through part-user-pays
Recycling services paid through other mechanisms (e.g. surpluses from other waste
services, waste levy etc)


Question 6 (a): Should a kerbside organic collection be provided by the council? (Please tick one)

Yes
No

Why do you recommend this option? Any comments?
.

Question 6 (b): If yes, should it be funded by rates, user-pays, part-user-pays or by another
mechanism (e.g. surpluses from other waste services, waste levy etc)? (Please tick one)

Organic collection paid through rates
Organic collection paid through user-pays
Organic collection paid through part-user-pays
Organic collection paid through other mechanisms (e.g. surpluses from other waste
services, waste levy etc)


Page 416 of 591


PAGE 12
ISSUE 3: INORGANIC COLLECTIONS

Question 7: Should kerbside inorganic collections be replaced with an alternative booking
system or be discontinued? (Please tick one)

Replaced with an alternative booking system
Discontinued


ISSUE 4: PUBLIC PLACE RECYCLING

Question 8(a) : Should public place recycling bins be further promoted and installed in town
centres and tourist areas? (Please tick one)

Yes
No

Question 8(b): If so, who should make the decisions on location and how should they be funded?
The Local Board should decide on location and the service should be rates-funded. The Board felt
that levels of service/clearance of bins would need to be carefully monitored to prevent the bins
becoming a nuisance

ISSUE 5: GEOGRAPHICALLY REMOTE AREAS

Question 9: Given the geographic isolation of the Hauraki Gulf Islands (and some rural areas on
the mainland) should further work be done to see what sort of role the Local Boards might play in
shaping the way waste is managed, to reflect their unique situation? (Please tick one)

Yes
No

Page 417 of 591


PAGE 13
Question 10 (a): Should Hauraki Gulf Islands and rural areas pay the actual cost of their waste and
recycling services or should the region contribute? (Please tick one)

Yes
No

Question 10 (b): If YES, to what level?

ISSUE 6: ADVOCACY
Some of the issues papers discuss Product Stewardship as a mechanism for reducing certain waste
streams. Product Stewardship is a concept promoted in the Waste Minimisation Act (2008) and refers to
placing responsibility for disposal/recycling of end of life products on the parties involved in the design,
supply, manufacture, distribution, retail and consumption of those products.

Question 11 : Should Council advocate to central government to introduce mandatory Product
Stewardship schemes for certain waste streams?

Yes
No

Any comments?

Page 418 of 591
Page 419 of 591
Page 420 of 591
Page 421 of 591
Page 422 of 591
Page 423 of 591
Page 424 of 591
Page 425 of 591
Page 426 of 591
Page 427 of 591
Page 428 of 591
Page 429 of 591
Page 430 of 591
Page 431 of 591
Page 432 of 591
Page 433 of 591
Page 434 of 591
Page 435 of 591
Page 436 of 591
Page 437 of 591
Page 438 of 591
Page 439 of 591
Page 440 of 591
Page 441 of 591
Page 442 of 591
Page 443 of 591
Page 444 of 591
Page 445 of 591
Page 446 of 591
Page 447 of 591
Page 448 of 591
Page 449 of 591
Page 450 of 591
Page 451 of 591
Page 452 of 591
Page 453 of 591
Page 454 of 591
Page 455 of 591
Page 456 of 591
Page 457 of 591
Page 458 of 591
Page 459 of 591
Page 460 of 591
Page 461 of 591
Page 462 of 591
Page 463 of 591
Page 464 of 591
Page 465 of 591
Page 466 of 591
Page 467 of 591
Page 468 of 591
Page 469 of 591
Page 470 of 591
Page 471 of 591
Page 472 of 591
Page 473 of 591
Page 474 of 591
Page 475 of 591
Page 476 of 591
Page 477 of 591
Page 478 of 591
Page 479 of 591
Page 480 of 591
Page 481 of 591
Page 482 of 591
Page 483 of 591
Page 484 of 591
Page 485 of 591
Page 486 of 591
Page 487 of 591
Page 488 of 591
Page 489 of 591
Page 490 of 591
Page 491 of 591
Page 492 of 591
Page 493 of 591
Page 494 of 591
Page 495 of 591
Page 496 of 591
Page 497 of 591
Page 498 of 591
Page 499 of 591
Page 500 of 591
Page 501 of 591
Page 502 of 591
Page 503 of 591
Page 504 of 591
CONSULTATION

SUMMARY OF PRE-CONSULTATION SESSIONS WITH WASTE OPERATORS
(NON-STATUTORY) JUNE JULY 2011

Page 505 of 591

Page 1 of 9
SUMMARY OF WASTE PRE-CONSULTATION SESSIONS WITH
WASTE OPERATORS

June - July 2011

1. Background

The 15 March 2011 resolution by the Regional Development and Operations Committee
directed Council officers to carry out non-statutory pre-consultation engagement with the
waste industry and to seek their views and inputs prior to drafting the Waste Management
and Minimisation Plan.

RDO/2011/4
MOVED by Councillor W Walker, seconded Deputy Mayor Hulse:
b) That Option 3 proposed in the Auckland Waste Assessment be adopted as the
preferred strategic direction for waste management and minimisation.
c) That Auckland Council develops a timeframe that will allow time for robust
analysis, including working with the waste industry and a sound decision making
framework to deliver on the opportunities in Option 3 in the Auckland Waste
Assessment.
d) That Auckland Council and Council-controlled organisations set a long term
aspirational goal of working towards Zero Waste and sets short to medium term
targets.

This report summarises the Waste Operator Sessions that were held with a broad cross-
section of waste industry operators during June and July 2011.

2. Who was invited

A long list of waste industry operators was drawn up by using:
Yellow Pages
Waste industry organisations/membership lists
Current Council contracts
Staff contacts and industry knowledge
Direct approaches to Council by waste industry businesses

A total of approximately 200 firms were contacted to elicit an initial response and to
register an interest in participating in the waste industry discussions.

Using the response received, firms were invited to attend in groups of 5 to 10 at a time, to
allow for in-depth feedback and discussions. These were typically grouped according to
market sector: eg. green waste, construction and demolition waste, recyclers etc.

Page 506 of 591

Page 2 of 9
3. Who attended

In total, eight different sessions were held. These were attended by a total of 59 firms,
represented by 88 individuals. The firms that attended were:

Sector/Session Focus No. Name of Firm Persons
Attending
Date of
Session

1. Western Aggregate & Soil 2
2. Winstones Aggregates 1
3. Glenn Henderson Ltd 2
4. Tes-Amm NZ Ltd 2

1. Construction and
Demolition and Special
Waste
5. J & J Laughton Shredding 2

1 July
2011
10.00am

6. Bag it Garden Bags & Bins 2
7. Eco Stock Supplies 2
8. Gabco Garden Bags & Bins 2
9. Recreational Services 2
10. Clippa Bags 1
11. Asplundh Tree Expert (NZ) 1
12. Treescape 1
13. Auckland Garden Bag Co 2
14. Living Earth 2
15. Green Fingers 1
16. Envirofert 1

2. Organics
17. Smart Environmental 1

1 July
2011
1.00pm

18. Onyx Group Ltd 1
19. Owens-Illinois (NZ) Ltd 1
20. Pallet Supplies Co Ltd 3
21. Visy Recycling (NZ) Ltd 1
22. Penrose Paper Mills 1

3. Recyclers
23. Transpacific Allbrite 2

1 July
2011
4.00pm

24. All the Rubbish Removers 1
25. Blue Bins Ltd 1
26. Mr Binz (Norwest Waste) 1
27. Pink Bin Co 2
28. Remondis (Metropolitan W) 2
29. Alpha Refuse 1

4. Waste Collectors
30. EnviroWaste Corporate 1

6 July
2011
10.00am

31. Rubbish Direct 2
32. Bargain Bins Ltd 1
33. TPI Waste Care Ltd 3
34. AG Dryden Ltd 2
35. Envirofert 1
36. Northland Waste 1
37.
Steptoe & Son Rubbish Rvml
1
38. Kalista Ltd 2
39. EnviroWaste 2

5. Waste Collectors
40. Smart Environmental 1

6 July
2011
1.00pm

Page 507 of 591

Page 3 of 9
Sector/Session Focus No. Name of Firm Persons
Attending
Date of
Session

41. Franklin Rubbish Removals 1
42. Just Bins Ltd 1
43. Gt Barrier Cartage 2
44. Junk-2-Go 1

6. Waste Collectors
46. Fullcircle Recycling 1

8 July
2011
10.00am

47. Paper Reclaim Ltd 3
48. Waste Energy Burners Ltd 1
49. Recall New Zealand 3
50. Chiland Development Ltd 1
51 Timber Recycling Co 1
53. Fullcircle Recycling 1

7. Waste Collectors
54. Packaging Council of NZ 1

8 July
2011
1.00pm

55. JJ Richards Ltd 1
56. Civic Contractors 2
57. Wheelie bins Ltd 1
58. Living Earth 1

8. Mixed (additional session
for those unable to attend
any of the other meetings)
59. (Small green collector) 1

21 July
2011
10.00am
TOTALS 59 88

Council staff attending included the Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services,
Manager Solid Waste Business Unit, WMMP Project Manager, Project Advisor, WMMP
Content Manager, and other supporting staff.

Council staff attending all meetings included Jon Roscoe (Manager Solid Waste Business
Unit, Parul Sood (WMMP Content Manager), Gwilym van Hoffen (Project Manager), and
Dorothy Wilson (Project Advisor). In addition, John Dragicevich (Manager Infrastructure
and Environmental Services) attended several sessions. A number of other Council staff
also attended some of the sessions.

A probity officer was present at all meetings (an independent service provided for Council)
to ensure that the handling of topics and Council processes were as fair as possible to all
concerned.

4. What Council said

The attached powerpoint presentation was presented to each group. The final few slides
were tailored according to the audience at the session: viz. green waste, construction and
demolition, recyclers etc. Copies of the powerpoint slides were handed out to each firm
attending each session, together with a printout copy of the Questions & Answers booklet
that is provided on the Council website.

Following a powerpoint presentation, Council staff provided input to the open discussion
sessions. A whiteboard was used to record the feedback and key comments generated.
The main themes emerging from the feedback and comments are discussed below.
Page 508 of 591

Page 4 of 9
5. What the Waste Operators said

Following the Councils presentation, there was an open feedback period of 45 to 60
minutes during which the waste operators were encouraged to share their views on the
strategic direction in which council is heading (Option 3), and their own observations on
the current state-of-play and issues arising within the waste industry.

Note: At each meeting it was made clear that the formal consultative phase (scheduled for
end Oct mid Dec 2011) was the appropriate time for the waste industry to put forward
detailed views. These summary notes are not therefore intended to be a full and detailed
transcript of each session: they are merely intended to give a flavour of the kinds of issues
that were raised and discussed.

Main Themes of the Feedback
There were a number of common themes emerging during the feedback sessions. Some
of the recurring themes included (whiteboard comments quoted in italics):

5.1 Cost of recycling is currently uneconomic when compared with the
alternative (landfilling)
Much greater recycling could be achieved, particularly at source, if the
cost of waste disposal at landfill was higher. This comment was made at
the construction and demolition session, as well as at the general
recyclers sessions. It was also touched on in the green waste session.

cost of landfilling needs to go up to achieve more recycling up to a
limit
use the levy to reduce waste (ie: as a pricing tool)
ban some items from landfills, or raise the cost of waste disposal at the
landfill

The competition between the two major players was seen by some as
keeping the cost of landfill at an artificially low level-thus making recycling
uneconomic.

5.2 More rigorous product stewardship is needed
Other than the Packaging Council, there was a fairly unanimous view that
a greater emphasis on product stewardship is needed to disincentivise
the creation of landfill waste in the first place. The Packaging Council
view did however accept that extended producer responsibility was
required - but not on packaging products.

$10 levy is ineffective. Levy should go up (ie: to encourage better
product stewardship)
voluntary product stewardship is not working
container deposit legislation should be considered
Tyres: registration/tyretrack not working leading to illegal dumping

5.3 Commingled collection might lead to less beneficial recycling
outcomes
There were a number of views presented by operators to the effect that
commingled glass/paper collection leads to less beneficial reuse of the
paper and glass. The counter argument to that view was put that
commingled collections, (generally with large recycling bins) resulted in
approximately 30% more recyclables being collected with only minimal
increase in contamination-in other words a cost-benefit tradeoff to
ratepayers.

Page 509 of 591

Page 5 of 9
important to maintain the integrity of products being collected for
recycling

The question was raised that if collecting some recyclables were
considered to be economically worthwhile, should the service be a least
partly funded by the recycling industries that benefit, rather than being
subsidised by ratepayers?

who should pay for separate collections?

5.4 Education is very important to change behaviour

It was generally agreed that education was very important for any
change, although if a change to disposer pays was made, regulation was
also seen as necessary.

more education is needed (referring to Great Barrier)

5.5 We need to be sure that we are looking far and wide (including
overseas) for best practice examples

Christchurch was often referred to as being an example of
leading/emerging practice, with a much higher disposal charge and a 3
bin including green/food waste collection) prior to the earthquakes.

An innovative partnership between the private and public sector was also
mentioned in Kapiti Coast.

overseas learning is that the any changes need to work commercially
Putaruru food waste trial is working well
look to Australia for best practice
New South Wales model is an example that isnt working well
Whakatane and Gisborne have some interesting/innovative aspects

5.6 Council should walk-the-talk

Several participants commented that procurement policies of Council
should support the diversion of materials from landfill and influence the
market. Some examples cited were:
how Council specifies and uses recycled components in roading
material
how Council specifies and awards building demolition contracts: more
effort could be made to recover valuable building components not
award tenders simply based on lowest price (disposal to landfill.)

valuable components of demolition should be identified (work with
Council tender process

5.7 Better regulation and monitoring are needed

Some concern was expressed that if landfill prices increased that
cleanfills would be used to dispose of contaminated material. The
possibility of cleanfills being licensed and monitored was raised.

Cleanfills need to be monitored

Several participants commented that they would appreciate closer
enforcement on those who followed the rules, which would create a level
Page 510 of 591

Page 6 of 9
playing field eg. tyre recycling operators who are licensed, pay the
appropriate fees are disadvantaged by those who dont.

Tyre registration and tracking schemes arent working leading to illegal
dumping
Concrete; a lot is not being recycled. Needs regulating
Resource consents need to improve process for cleanfills

5.8 Illegal dumping could be made worse under a disposer-pays system

It was mentioned that there was anecdotal evidence that illegal dumping
was already a problem in some areas, and there was a fear that it could
be made worse under a disposer-pays system. Discussion reinforced the
view that both education and intensive enforcement would be necessary
if there were such a change.

There was generally agreement that a lot of recyclable material was put
out on the kerbside in the inorganic collections, but most went to landfill.

There was concern, however, that if a part user pays pick up service
were instigated, that there would be increased illegal dumping.

Illegal dumping results from user-pays
Affordability concerns/user-pays leads to illegal dumping
enforcement
Enforcement is necessary

5.9 Some green waste collectors could be put out of business

There was a general concern by the green waste operators that a
possible council-contracted organic (food/green) waste collection service
could have a serious negative effect on existing private sector green
waste collectors.

Council kerbside collection (of garden waste) would damage private
operators

This issue was acknowledged by Council. Possible mitigation measures
suggested could include having a small organic bin, ie: not big enough to
handle the green waste (branches etc) from larger gardens which is the
current main market for the green waste collectors. A council-contracted
collection service could be further restricted to the collection of food
waste only in the domestic sector, which is not currently collected by
private operators. There was some general support for council to provide
a domestic foodwaste collection.

impact on small green collectors - small bin (mainly food)

There was some surprise that organics still made up about 50% of refuse
that goes to landfill from domestic collections. Another suggestion was
simply to ban organic waste to landfill.

Food waste is an obvious target

5.10 Transfer stations and transport inefficiencies

There were a number of comments that the current setup of Refuse
Transfer Station (RTS) ownership does not allow for efficient transport by
Page 511 of 591

Page 7 of 9
all waste collectors, due to exclusivity arrangements (despite some
mutual collaborative arrangements between the two major landfill/RTS
owners).

It was also noted on several occasions that the current transfer stations
are not well configured for recycling/sorting on site, due to space
constraints. Some RTSs are operating at capacity, whilst others are
underutilised and operate at about 50% or less of their capacity. There
were some favourable comments about increasing local resource
recovery centres with community based activities.

transfer stations need to be set up for recycling
resource recovery parks should be considered
Christchurch has good recycling at RTS
problem will not go away until RTSs are set up for recycling

5.11 Manufacturing and commercial waste needs to be targeted

There were a number of comments relating to the need to bring
manufacturers and commercial waste generators more in line with waste
minimisation measures.

Raising the price of landfill disposal was seen as being one means to
achieve this.

5.12 The Waste Levy should be used to send stronger price signals (to
encourage more waste diversion from landfill)
There was general feedback that the Waste Levy should be increased to
send the right pricing signals to businesses and the public:

put up the levy?
use levy to reduce waste
Current levy does not make behaviour change strongest mechanism
increase
Ban some items from landfill, or raise the cost of landfill (levy)

5.13 Other issues raised

Other issues raised and discussed included:

Potential for waste-to-energy schemes (landfill gas and
incinerators)
Inorganic collections current kerbside method does not maximise
waste reduction
Government led change (such as raising the amount of the waste
levy or strengthening Product Stewardship) was acknowledged as
having very long timeframes. May need quicker action.
Some resistance to Council alone controlling landfill prices-seen as
restricting the ability of some in the waste industry to negotiate.
OSH issues around continuing to use bags
Potential for container deposit legislation (CDL) schemes and other
ways to incentivise producers/consumers to take responsibility for
disposal costs.
Inorganic collections and kerbside scavenging issues
Would local boards be determining some waste services?
Licensing of operators could be considered
Concern over affordability of disposer-pays system in lower socio
economic areas
Page 512 of 591

Page 8 of 9
If more green waste is turned into compost, then a market needs to
be determined.
Transporting cardboard from Great Barrier to Auckland is not
realistic
What happens when the current tenders end?
Drop off points could be considered in rural areas (for inorganic)
There was some discussion about the possible benefit of having a
level playing field by standardising landfill disposal prices - which
would give the smaller operators an equal opportunity to compete in
the market.

5.14 Appreciation of the discussion sessions

There was a generally positive response to the sessions, and to Councils
endeavours to implement the changes required by the laws whilst
considering the likely impacts on waste businesses. This was particularly
evident among recycling and collection businesses, and to a lesser extent
among the green waste businesses.

There was, however, concern from businesses that currently export their
waste from Auckland to landfills outside the region.

There was also some concern that if gate prices at the landfills or RTS
were to be controlled/set at a uniform rate, that it would restrict options for
some of the collectors to negotiate. However, several others were in
favour of having a uniform landfill price for all, as it would create a level
playing field and reduce incentives to undercut on disposal.
Page 513 of 591

Page 9 of 9

6. Follow up: Since the sessions

Since the sessions, Council officers have followed up or are planning to followup on
several issues mentioned during the sessions:

6.1 Illegal Dumping
A roadside investigation/study is currently underway to assess the anecdotal
claims of serious roadside dumping in some areas. Eg. Waitakere ranges

6.2 Innovative practices
It was mentioned that innovative approaches to waste minimisation are being
done by some local authorities: these included Kapiti Coast, Whakatane,
Gisborne and Putaruru. Followup contact is being made with these local
authorities.

Additional work has also been planned, or is underway/completed, to support the Waste
Assessment in the areas of Waste-to-Energy, transport inefficiencies around collection
and transfer of waste, updated waste volumes, and economic impacts of disposer-pays on
householders.

Page 514 of 591
CONSULTATION

INTEGRATED REPORT: PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH AND ENGAGEMENT
MOBIUS RESEARCH & STRATEGY LTD JULY 2011

Page 515 of 591

Auckland Council
Waste Management and Minimisation Plan and Solid Waste
Bylaw Review

Integrated Report: Public Opinion Research and Engagement
(Results and findings from the Representative Online Survey,
Peoples Panel Online Survey, Focus Groups and In-Depth Interviews)

Prepared by
Mobius Research and Strategy Limited
June 2011

Page 516 of 591

1

Table of Contents
1 Introduction 2
1.1 Background and objectives 2
1.2 About the Peoples Panel 2
2 Overall methodology 3
2.1 Representative online survey 3
2.2 Weighting of results 3
2.3 Peoples Panel online survey 3
2.4 Qualititative focus groups and in-depth interviews 4
3 Summary of key findings 6
4 Findings 10
4.1 Household waste disposal current behaviours 10
4.1.1 Kerbside recycling collections 10
4.1.2 Awareness of what can be put into kerbside recycling collections 11
4.1.3 Inorganic collections 12
4.1.4 Garden waste 13
4.1.5 Organic waste 15
4.2 Attitudes towards collection approaches 17
4.2.1 Wheelie bins vs. bags 17
4.2.2 Organic collections 21
4.2.3 Frequency of organic collection 25
4.3 Attitudes towards funding of household waste collections 26
4.3.1 Funding of waste collections 26
4.4 Attitudes towards other waste-related issues 31
4.4.1 Illegal dumping 31
4.4.2 Abandoned shopping trolleys 33
4.4.3 Junk mail 35
4.4.4 Litter 36
4.4.5 Small deposit on recyclable containers 38
4.4.6 Illegal dumping of tyres 40
4.4.7 Additional comments 41
5 Conclusions and consideration points 43
Appendices 44
Page 517 of 591

2
1 Introduction
1.1 Background and objectives
Auckland Council has inherited the waste management plans from the seven former territorial local authorities in the
region. Different practices and systems are operating in different parts of the city, at present there are different
contractor arrangements offering some roles and responsibilities, differing methods of charging households and
businesses and various methods of sorting, recycling and re-using waste materials. The inherited plans are operative
until Auckland Council adopts a new waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP).

Auckland Council is required by law to have a single waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP) and a solid
waste bylaw finalised and adopted by July 2012. The new WMMP must conform to the objectives and requirements
laid down in the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and have regard for the New Zealand Waste Strategy 2010.

In March 2010, three options for the approach council should take with its work on development of the WMMP were
presented, with the third option being the preferred option: to continue with the present approach and also establish
new systems to collect and recycle garden and food wastes, which make up 40-50% of the household waste stream.
Option three has two important implications. Firstly, it allows the council to assume operational control or influence
over the refuse transfer station network. Secondly, this means that the collection and disposal of commercial and
industrial waste will come under council control.

There are three stages in the implementation process of the WMMP. Stakeholder and public participation will be
encouraged through stages two and three:

Stage 1: Operational strategy and overarching approach
Stage 2: Pre-Statutory communications and consultation phase
Stage 3: Statutory communications and consultation phase.

This report presents the results of consultation with the public carried out as part of Stage 2 and combines the results
of the three components of the work a representative online survey, an online survey with Peoples Panel members
and the findings from the qualitative work (focus groups and in-depth interviews).

1.2 About the Peoples Panel
The Peoples Panel aims to provide a representative sample of the Auckland resident population who are encouraged
to get involved with a range of council issues, giving feedback by regularly completing online surveys and getting
involved with focus groups and other activities as needed.

The panel ideally supplements other research, consultation and engagement activities and is used to provide public
perceptions to help inform decision-making processes. Panellists are recruited to be typical members of the public
that is, they include members of the public who come from a range of backgrounds and a range of levels of
involvement with the council.

At the time of surveying, there were approximately 5,500 people registered with the panel, with representation from
residents of each local board area, and by age group and ethnicity. However, the Peoples Panel is not yet
representative of Auckland and further recruitment is under way to improve participation levels from particular areas,
age groups and ethnicities.

For more information about the Peoples Panel visit: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/peoplespanel

Page 518 of 591

3

2 Overall methodology
In order to understand the views and attitudes of residents across the wider Auckland region and to understand the
views of specific groups, a mixed method approach was utilised comprising an online survey, focus groups and in-
depth interviews. An online survey was sent to randomly selected general residents across the Auckland region (i.e.
Mobius panel), and to all members of Auckland Councils Peoples Panel. The same survey was sent to these two
separate panels so that we could ascertain if there were any differences in views. Overall, there were no statistically
significant differences.

2.1 Representative online survey

A total of N=5357 general Auckland residents completed the online survey (note however that sample sizes vary by
question as not all respondents answered every question). The standard margin of error at thte 95% confidence
interval on a sample size of N=5357 is +/-1.3%. This means that we can be 95% confident that a survey result from our
sample will be within 1.3% of the actual perception of Auckland residents. The survey was live between 20 May 2011
and 2 June 2011, and one reminder was sent to boost the response rate. The average time taken to complete the
survey was 15 minutes. In order to ensure that the sample was representative of the wider Auckland region
population, the results were weighted against Department of Statistics population data for the region.

For a full breakdown of respondent demographics, please see Appendix III.

2.1.2 Weighting of results

The sample was weighted on Gender, Age and Ethnicity. A Rim Weighting Methodology was selected, as the sample
size was large and/or regional demographic factors were fairly consistent with the actual sample. Demographics
factors that were blanks or refused were given 0 values. Due to low numbers and to keep the data stable, Ethnicity
was weighted at Statistics NZ Level 1, and the Age categories for 18-19 year olds and 20-29 year olds were combined.

2.2 Peoples Panel online survey
The survey was sent out to 5562 Peoples Panel members and had 1914 responses, giving a margin of error of
+/- 1.81%. The survey was live between 20 May 2011 and 2 June 2011, and one reminder was sent to boost the
response rate. The average time taken to complete the survey was 15 minutes.

It should be noted that participation in Peoples Panel surveys are voluntary. As such, the demographic and
geographic distribution of panellists responding to this survey does not reflect the general population of Auckland.
For this reason, results should not be considered strictly representative. We do, however, emphasise the value of the
feedback presented in this report from a larger scale consultation and engagement perspective.

For a full breakdown of respondent demographics, please see Appendix IV.

Please note that results may not sum to 100% due to rounding in tables presented in this report.

Page 519 of 591

4
2.3 Qualitative focus groups and in-depth interviews

The qualitative component of this project comprised four focus groups and six in-depth interviews with selected
stakeholders as follows:

Qualitative sample structure

Approach Selected stakeholders
Focus Groups
Group 1 Tenants (in flats and apartments), including some in Housing New Zealand
accommodation
Group 2 People who undertake limited recycling behaviours or dont recycle as often as
they could mixed ethnicity
Group 3 Low socio-economic (based on household income), mixed ethnicity, limited
recycled behaviours/dont recycle as much or as often as they could
Group 4 New migrants (mixed Asian ethnicity)
In-Depth Interviews
Six interviews People with different physical disabilities and from different age groups

Sample structure and rationale

The project team specifically wanted to understand the issues related to household waste management among
stakeholders who:

Live in small properties where storage of bins may be a concern or issue (Group 1)
Do not recycle as often as they could do in order to understand the barriers to increased recycling behaviours
(and particularly in the context of new waste collection services possibly being introduced e.g. an organic
collection which would involve additional sorting of waste by householders) (Group 2), and
Are of a specific ethnicity (Council suggested that there has been some evidence that certain ethnicities are less
likely to recycle) (Groups 3 and 4).

As such, it is important to note that this report reflects the views of these selected stakeholder groups only. This is
because this piece of work aims to gather an in-depth understanding of stakeholder behaviours and views, and the
reasons that govern such behaviours and views. This qualitative method investigates the why and how, not just what,
where and when. It was not the intention of this qualitative research to be representative, but rather to increase
Councils understanding of the views of selected stakeholders. Results should be considered in this context.

Participant selection

The Auckland Councils Peoples Panel were given the opportunity to complete an online survey as part of the wider
consultation project (the same online survey was also sent to members of Mobius Panel i.e. the representative online
survey). Auckland Council were also interested in giving members of the Peoples Panel the opportunity to take part
in the focus group component of the wider project and added several additional questions to the online survey to
ascertain whether Peoples Panel participants would be interested in taking part and whether they met the criteria
outlined above.

In excess of 700 Peoples Panel participants expressed an interested in taking part although not all met the criteria
specified. A list of those who did (against each specific criteria) were supplied to Mobius Research. It was intended
that the groups would also be topped up from Mobius own recruitment sources where necessary. Across the four
focus groups, participants included a mix of those from the Peoples Panel and from Mobius own recruitment
sources.

There were nine participants in three of the focus groups and eight in another (overall, there was a total of 35
stakeholders).

Page 520 of 591

5
In-depth interview participants were recruited directly by Mobius and included a mix of people with different physical
disabilities. Across the six in-depth interviews, a range of people of different ages and with different disabilities were
interviewed. All focus groups and in-depth interviews were conducted by Mobius Research.

Timing and location

Each focus group was two hours in duration. In-depth interviews were one hour in duration. Focus groups were held
at Mobius central Auckland premises, and interviews were held at the homes of participants.

Groups and interviews were conducted between Wednesday, 1 June and Sunday, 12 June 2011.

Focus group participants lived in a range of different areas of Auckland and therefore experienced a range of
different waste management practices which included:

Bins in some areas and bags in others (including Council regulation bags e.g. in the former Waitakere area and
non-regulation bags (e.g. in the former Manukau area)

Different types of recycling bins large wheelie bins and smaller square recycling bins

Different inorganic collections rates funded, user-pays and no inorganic collection (e.g. in the former Rodney
area), and

Different methods for recycling paper e.g. in wheelie bins vs. a separate collection.

Where relevant, the views of stakeholders based on these different waste management practices are identified in this
report. Overall, however, there was a high degree of commonality across the different stakeholder groups in terms of
their attitudes and preferences regarding waste collection processes and waste issues in general.

Page 521 of 591

6
3 Summary of key findings

Household waste disposal current behaviour

Household waste disposal - current behaviour

Representative
survey
%
Peoples Panel
%
Regularly use Councils kerbside recycling service 93 94
Aware or extremely aware of what can be put into their kerbside recycling
service
80 88
Have used Councils inorganic collection service in the last 18 months 61 61
Have a garden bin or bag (or both) that they pay to have collected by a private
contractor
27 35
Have that garden bin or bag collected on a monthly basis

61 70
Compost over half of their organic food waste 31 46
Do not compost 36 33

Qualitative focus groups and in-depth interviews

The majority of stakeholders put out their council kerbside general waste on a weekly basis with smaller
households (one or two people) and/or elderly people sometimes only putting out a bin or bag fortnightly. There
was a relatively high number who said they sometimes put excess waste into a neighbours bin.

Most stakeholders also use their council recycling bin regularly and there appears to be a reasonably high level
of awareness regarding what can be put into it. The main area of confusion is around different types of plastic
and which can and cant be recycled. This suggests that there may be an opportunity to provide more specific
information (or to review the information already provided) in order to reduce/mitigate this main area of
confusion.

There appears to be some uncertainty in terms of what actually happens to recyclables and this suggests that
there may also be an opportunity to provide stakeholders with more information about recycling processes in
order to:

o Reinforce the value of their current recycling behaviours
o Address attitudinal barriers by raising awareness of the value of recycling among those that currently
dont do it enough (note that some people simply say that they cant be bothered).

Attitudes towards collection approaches

Attitudes towards collection approaches

Representative
survey
%
Peoples Panel
%
Would prefer to have a wheelie bin for their general household waste 71 70
Would prefer a bag(s) 13 17
Interested or very interested in an organic collection for both their food and
garden waste
53 57
Would not be interested in an organic collection for both their food and garden
waste
25 28
If an organic collection was introduced, preference for a weekly collection 41 39
If an organic collection was introduced, preference for a fortnightly collection 27 23
Do not want an organic collection 15 21

Page 522 of 591

7
The main reasons for preferring bins are that they are considered more secure than bag (less likely to rip), they
are more convenient to transport, they are more tidy to store, they are safer (no danger of sharp items causing
damage/injury), they limit the amount of waste each household can dispose of, they are more convenient (in that
you dont need to remember to purchase/obtain them as you would with bags)
Reasons for preferring bags were that they are easier to transport (e.g. if you have a long or steep driveway), they
are better for households with small amount of waste (who wouldnt fill an entire bin) and they allow more
flexibility (at times when households have more waste)
Reasons for being interested in a separate organic collection were because of environmental concerns and/or an
interest in cost savings (i.e. no longer having to pay for a separate garden bin or bag)
Reasons for not being interested in a separate organic collection were because of existing composting behaviour,
cost concerns (having to pay for another collection service), the perceived hassle of having to sort organic waste
and concerns over hygiene and the likelihood that the bin would attract vermin, flys etc.



Most stakeholders had used Councils inorganic collection over the last few years although the new migrant
group were less likely to have done so because of not having accumulated much inorganic waste, because they
had disposed of this waste in another way (given it away for someone to use) or had repaired or reconditioned it
where relevant.

Three stakeholders in the former Waitakere area were of the opinion that the new user-pays system for inorganic
waste had increased the amount of inorganic waste on private properties in the area and the amount of illegal
dumping.

Bins vs. bags

More stakeholders preferred bins instead of bags for their general household waste. The few stakeholders who
preferred bags were currently all (with the exception of one) under a bag system at present, however most
stakeholders with bags said that they would prefer bins.

Reasons for preferring bins were to do with a perception that bins are cleaner (less likely to rip or be broken into
by animals), bins are easier/more convenient to transport than bags, bins are safer (if items break inside them e.g.
glass), bins are more convenient and tidier to store (bags look messy), bins limit the amount of waste each
household can dispose of and bins are more convenient than bags because bags have to be purchased each week
(and people can forget).

For the few stakeholders who preferred bags, this preference was to do with bins having limited capacity (for
those with more waste), not needing a large bin (for those with less waste) and simply being used to using bags.

Organic collection

There was some level of interest in organic collections among stakeholders and particularly among those who
currently pay for a separate garden bin collection. Stakeholders were generally in favour of any effort that
encourages recycling and is environmentally friendly. A key issue here however, is that most stakeholders did not
believe they have enough organic waste for this to be worthwhile.

There were two key barriers with respect to organic collections the likely smell and cleanliness of the bin and
logistical/practical issues. With respect to smell and cleanliness, stakeholders disliked the idea of emptying
organic waste directly into a bin (i.e. and not putting it into a bag first).

The logistical/practical issues were what to do with the organic waste before it is taken down or out to the
organic bin. A key finding here was that stakeholders need to be offered simple solutions that facilitate the
likelihood that they will undertake desired waste separation and recycling behaviours

Page 523 of 591

8
Few stakeholders composted but many expressed an interest in doing so. Stakeholders who rejected composting
considered it to be a hassle or that it would attract vermin.

Attitudes towards funding of household waste collections

Attitudes towards funding of household waste collections

Representative
survey
%
Peoples Panel
%
Think there should be a uniform charge for general household waste 57 54
Think there should be a user-pays charge for general household waste 30 41
Think there should be a uniform charge for recycling collections 71 80
Think there should be a user-pays charge for recycling collections 15 13
Think there should be a uniform charge for organic collections 48 52
Think there should be a user-pays charge for organic collections 33 35
Think there should be a uniform charge for inorganic collections 48 51
Think there should be a user-pays charge for inorganic collections 36 38

The main reasons for preferring a uniform charge across all types of collections were because a uniform charge is
seen as easier to administer, a user-pays system may encourage people to look for alternative ways to dispose of
their waste and waste is seen as community responsibility
The main reasons for preferring user-pays across all types of collections were that user-pays would encourage
waste minimisaiton and it is a fairer system (i.e. you only pay for what you put out)


More stakeholders preferred the concept of a uniform charge rather than user-pays and more so in the context
of recycling. Stakeholders were generally split on how inorganic collections should be funded with those that
use them more in favour of a uniform charge and those that dont more in favour of user-pays.

A key issue with respect to user-pays was how monies would be collected stakeholders envisaged that paying
for a user-pays collection (in the case of a bin) would be very messy and complicated and an additional hassle for
them. This raises some key issues regarding how a hassle-free user-pays approach should be communicated if
relevant.

A key reason for preferring a uniform charge was to do with a perception that it is simply easier. Other reasons
for preferring a uniform change were to do with household waste being a community issue and that there needs
to be a collective responsibility taken in disposing of it, and that user-pays may unfairly penalise large and/or
lower SES households and lead to an increase in illegal dumping (or use of neigbours bins).

Reasons for preferring user-pays were to do with encouraging recycling habits (i.e. in the context that general
waste is user-pays and recycling collections have a uniform charge).

Page 524 of 591

9

Attitudes towards other waste-related issues

Attitudes towards other waste-related issues

Representative
survey
%
Peoples Panel
%
Think that an $400 instant fine for illegal dumping is fair 51 45
Think that the fine for illegal dumping should be higher than $400 33 46
Think that Council needs to be doing more to stop illegal dumping 47 43
Do not know what Council is doing to stop illegal dumping 40 49
Think that Council should force supermarkets to make sure that trolleys do not
leave the premises
47 39
Do not mind junk mail and will look to see what is there 45 31
Do not like junk mail at all 47 29
Agree or strongly agree that there is a litter problem in their local area 37 32
Disagree or strongly disagree that there is a litter problem in their local area 31 39
Agree or strongly agree with the concept of a small deposit being added to the
cost of all recyclable containers to encourage greater reuse and recycling
44 35
Agree or strongly agreed that a $5 charge should be added to the price of tyres to
cover the cost of free, convenient disposal
57 65

The main view expressed with respect to illegal dumping is that it is not being adequately policed


Waste-related topics
Most stakeholders agreed that illegal dumping is a problem and that a fine of $400 was either enough or not
enough (depending on what is being dumped). A key issue here was that there is not enough
enforcement/policing of illegal dumping.
Views on junk mail were mixed some people disliked it while others didnt mind it. There was overwhelming
agreement however that if there is a junk mail sticker on a letter-box that it should be adhered to.
Attitudes towards litter varied overall although most agreed that there was a problem in general around
Auckland and particularly on streets where businesses operated (retail shops) and also in parks. Specific mention
was made of cigarette butts being a problem in many areas.
Most stakeholders agreed that abandoned trolleys should be the responsibility of supermarkets but preferred an
electronic system (as with Countdown CBD) rather than a deposit system.
Most stakeholders were in favour of charge/deposit being added to all recyclable containers and to tyres.
Page 525 of 591

10
4 Findings
4.1 Household waste disposal current behaviours
All online survey participants (representative online survey and Peoples Panel online survey) were asked about their
current waste disposal behaviours.

Current behaviours summary of key findings (Representative Online Survey)

93% of general residents use Councils kerbside recycling service on a regular basis
80% are aware or extremely aware of what can be put into their recycling collection service
61% of general residents have used Councils inorganic collection service in the last 18 months
27% of general residents have a garden bin, bag or both that is collected by an independent organisation
Of those who dont have a garden bin/bag (71%) 39% said that they compost their garden waste

Current behaviours summary of key findings (Peoples Panel Online Survey)

94% of panellists use Councils kerbside recycling service on a regular basis
88% are aware or extremely aware of what can be put into their recycling collection service
61% of panellists have used Councils inorganic collection service in the last 18 months
35% of panellists have a garden bin, bag or both that is collected by an independent organisation
Of those who dont have a garden bin/bag (65%) 59% said that they compost their garden waste

4.1.1 Kerbside recycling collections
Ninety three percent of general residents and 94% of panellists reguarly use Councils kerbside recycling service.

Do you regularly use Councils kerbside recycling service?

Representative
survey
N=5357
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
Yes 93 94
No 5 3
No kerbside recycling service in the area 3 3
Base: General Residents and Peoples Panellists responding to WMMP Survey


Current waste management behaviour general household waste
All stakeholders in both the focus groups and in-depth interviews used Councils kerbside general household waste
collection service on a regular basis. Stakeholders living alone or couples (and elderly people in particular) were more
likely to only fill half or less than half of their bin each week (or to fill only one or half of one bag) and so did not put
out a bin or bag every week while stakeholders living in households with more people tended to fill this bin entirely
each week (or to put out up to two bags). Stakeholders living in flatting situations (sometimes with up to five other
people) were more likely to talk about not having enough capacity in their bins (note that there were no flatters who
lived in areas where only bags were available).

Many stakeholders noted that the amount of waste their household generates can vary (more waste at Christmas or
at times when they have a lot of visitors), and most stakeholders admitted to using neighbours bins when necessary.
Some indicated that their neighbours were aware of this (and that there was some sort of loose street or apartment
complex agreement in this respect) while others simply used their neighbours bins when they needed to (on the night
before or the morning of a collection i.e. when the neighbours bins were already out on the kerbside).

A small number of stakeholders (living in the former Rodney area) paid for their own general household waste
collection.

Page 526 of 591

11
Current waste management behaviour recycling
Most stakeholders also used their kerbside recycling collection service on a regular basis (where they had one) and
most spoke of recycling aluminum cans, plastic containers and glass bottles. Paper recycling behaviour varied
depending on the area each person lived in with some able to put paper into their large council recycling bin, and
others having a separate paper recycling collection service.

Some stakeholders said that they did not recycle as often as they could (or at all in some cases). This was because:

They did not have a recycling service where they lived (two types of stakeholders either those living in rural
areas or living in certain apartment complexes in the CBD e.g. the apartments at the old railway station do not
appear to have a separate recycling service with all waste going into the same bins)

They were unsure about what could go into their recycling bin again this appeared to be stakeholders living in
some apartment complexes (one women living in the St Lukes area for example said that they were not allowed
to put aluminum cans into their recycling bin), or

They simply couldnt be bothered sometimes.

Those who admitted that sometimes they simply couldnt be bothered were more likely to be younger men, living in
flatting situations. Note also that some younger women in the focus groups mentioned difficulties they have in
getting their other male flatmates to recycle.

One person, living in the former Rodney area and who pays directly for his waste collections admitted to never
recycling. The reason he gave was that he did not believe that items placed in recycling bins were actually recycled
rather, he maintained that all recycled waste goes directly to landfill. Several other participants disagreed with him
and appeared to have some very general level awareness of different types of sorting operations involving conveyor
belts and companies who purchase recycled materials. However, when this issue was raised, a number of participants
began to ask questions regarding what actually does happen.

Overall, there appeared to be some confusion over what does happen to recyclables (with many acknowledging that
they werent entirely sure). This suggests that there may be an opportunity to provide the wider population with
more information about recycling processes, which will in turn reinforce current positive recycling behaviours - but
may also assist in addressing certain attitudinal barriers (including perceptions of recycling going to landfill and a
general lack of interest/slack behaviour).

4.1.2 Awareness of what can be put into kerbside recycling collections
Eighty percent of general residents are aware or extremely aware of what can be put into their kerbside recycling
collection. Peoples Panel participants were more likely to be aware or extremely aware (88%).

How aware are you of what can be put into your recycling collection service?
Representative
survey
N=5357
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%

1 Not at all aware 2 0
2 2 2
3 15 9
4 40 38
5 Extremely aware 40 50
Not applicable 1 1

Page 527 of 591

12

Awareness of what can and cant be recycled
Overall, most stakeholders were fairly confident that they know what can go into their recycling bins. The main area
of confusion was to do with different types of plastic and determining which can and cant be recycled.

Stakeholders in the new migrants group said that it can sometimes be confusing for people new to Auckland to know
what can and cant be recycled and they suggested that there be more targeted education in this respect.

As already mentioned, one women in an apartment complex in St Lukes was under the impression that she was not
allowed to recycle aluminum cans.

4.1.3 Inorganic collections
Just under two-thirds of general residents (61%) and panellists (61%) have used Councils inorganic collection service
in the last 18 months.

Have you used Councils inorganic collection service in the last 18 months?

Representative
survey
N=5303
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%

Yes 61 61
No 25 20
No inorganic collection in the area 10 17
Unsure 4 2


Most focus group and in-depth interview participants had also used Councils inorganic collection service in the last 18
months. Some did not have an inorganic collection in the area in which they live. Of these people (a small number
overall), most used a trailer or other means to take any inorganic waste to the tip or the dump although one person
would break up any inorganic waste over a period of time and dispose of it with his general household waste
collection. Others (and in particular new migrants) said that they did not have any inorganic waste to dispose of.
Their explanation here was that:
They had not been in New Zealand long enough to accumulate any inorganic waste
They disposed of their inorganic waste in another way e.g. giving it away, or
They sought to repair/recondition items that otherwise might become inorganic waste.

The new migrant group spoke particularly about wanting to avoid or reduce wastage (e.g. make use of items, not
throw them away).
Three people across the focus groups lived in the former Waitakere City Council area and no longer have a rates-
funded inorganic collection. All three said that since the change to the funding of inorganic collections they have
noticed:
More inorganic waste being stored on peoples properties
More inorganic waste being dumped around the area.

None had made use of the new user pays inorganic collection service yet.
Note also that most stakeholders were supportive of those people who drive around during inorganic collection times
searching for items. However, when it was explained that this practice can sometimes mean that some items are
Page 528 of 591

13
unable to be re-used/on sold etc. (i.e. because they destroy items in order to obtain scrap metal or key components)
they was a general acceptance of the rationale for this behaviour to be discouraged. One women living in the former
Waitakere City Council area said that these people are now door knocking and asking if there are any inorganic items
householders wish to dispose of.

4.1.4 Garden waste
Twenty seven percent of general residents and 35% of panellists have a garden bin, bag or both that they pay to have
collected by a private contractor. Sixty one percent of general residents and 70% of panellists say that the bin or bag
is collected on a monthly basis.

Do you currently have a garden waste bin or bag?

Representative
survey
N=5309
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
Yes garden bin 16 23
Yes garden bag 9 10
Yes bin and bag 2 2
No 71 65
Unsure 2 0

How frequently is your garden waste collected?

Representative
survey
N=1478
%
Peoples Panel
N=667
%
Weekly 7 3
Fortnightly 10 5
Monthly 61 70
Once a year 2 1
Other 13 16
Unsure 6 4
Base: General residents and Peoples Panellists responding to WMMP Survey who have a garden bin or bag
e
The annual cost of garden waste collections varied, however 37% of general residents and 45% of panellists paid $90
or more per year.

How much does your garden waste collection cost you each year?

Representative
survey
N=1466
%
Peoples Panel
N=667
%
Under $10 4 2
Between $10 and $29 8 4
$90 or more per year 37 45
I am not sure 22 16
Base: General residents and Peoples Panellists responding to the WMMP Survey who have a garden bin or bag

Page 529 of 591

14

Garden waste
Few focus group and no in-depth interview stakeholders paid for separate garden waste collections. Those that had
no separate collection were either:

Putting their garden waste in with their general household waste (bin or bag)
Leaving it around the garden
Living in apartments, or
Doing no gardening.

Of those that have no garden bin or bag (71% of general residents and 65% of panellists) 39% of general residents
and 59% of panellists say that they compost their garden waste.

What do you currently do with your garden waste (if no garden bag or bin)?
You may select more than one answer here.*

Representative
survey
N=3839
%
Peoples Panel
N=1247
%
I don't have any garden waste/I don't have a garden 14 9
I have a gardener/gardening company that disposes of it for me 9 6
I put it in my normal rubbish bin or bag 14 17
I leave it in the garden/I don't do any gardening 16 13
I compost my garden waste 39 59
Other 9 7
Base: General residents and Peoples Panellists who do not have a garden bin or bag
*Please note that this question was a multiple response question for both surveys so percentages dont add to 100%

4.1.5 Organic waste
Thirty one percent of general residents and 46% of panellists said that they compost over half of their organic (food
and garden waste) at home. Thirty six percent of general residents and 33% of panellists said that they do not
compost any organic waste.

How much, if any, of your organic waste (food and garden waste) do you
compost at home?

Representative
survey
N=5264
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
I have no organic waste at home 7 4
None of it 36 33
Less than 50% 21 17
More than 50%, but not all of it 17 23
All of it 14 23
I am not sure 4 1
Base: General residents and Peoples Panelists responding to WMMP survey


Composting
Few stakeholders composted. However, when composting was discussed, a number expressed interest in doing so in
the future. Stakeholders living in apartments said that it was not possible for them to compost in their current
situation but many said they would be interested in doing so when their living circumstances changed. Several
others (with gardens) said that composting is of interest but that they either hadnt got around to it yet or didnt know
enough about it. Stakeholders who rejected the notion of composting were most concerned about rats and other
vermin who may be attracted to it.
Page 530 of 591

15
Forty three percent of general residents and 46% of panellists have a kitchen waste disposal unit. Of those that have
them, kitchen waste disposal units are regularly used by 67% of general residents and 58% of panellists.

Do you have a kitchen waste disposal unit or insinkerator?

Representative
survey
N=5178
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
Yes 43 46
No 57 54
Base: General Residents and Peoples Panellists responding to WMMP survey

Do you regularly use your kitchen waste disposal unit or insinkerator to dispose
of your food waste?

Representative
survey
N=2240
%
Peoples Panel
N=874
%
Yes 67 58
No 31 41
I am not sure 1 0
Base: General Residents and Peoples Panellists who have a kitchen waste disposal unit


Few focus group and in-depth interview participants had waste disposal units. Of those that had them, not all used
them regularly or for all organic waste. Reasons for not using their waste disposal (or not using it often) varied.
Reasons included:

Not having much organic waste
Problems with the unit getting blocked, too much noise, smell-related issues
No wanting to use too much water.

None specifically raised any concerns about the impact of waste disposal units on the environment, although this was
mentioned by some people who did not have waste disposal units.

Page 531 of 591

16
4.2 Attitudes towards collection approaches

Introduction
All online survey participants (representative online survey and Peoples Panel online survey) were informed that
Council is in the process of developing a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan and that Council was interested in
their views about what a new waste management and minimisation approach should be like. All participants were
asked a series of questions about ther preferences for the collection of household waste for the future.

Attitudes towards collection approaches summary of key findings (Representative Online Survey)

71% of general residents prefer a wheelie bin for general household waste, 13% prefer bags
Bins preferred because: cleaner and more secure, easier to handle, easier to store, limits the amount of
household waste
Bags preferred because: convenient for those with little or lots of waste, easier to transport if living a
distance from the collection point, user pays, limits amount of household waste
53% of general residents would be interested in a separate organic collection for food and garden waste
41% of general residents would prefer a weekly organic collection if it were to be introduced, 27%
fortnightly and 15% did not want any separate organic collection

Attitudes towards collection approaches summary of key findings (Peoples Panel Online Survey)

70% of panellists prefer a wheelie bin for general household waste, 17% prefer bags
Bins preferred because: cleaner and more secure, easier to handle, easier to store, limits the amount of
household waste
Bags preferred because: convenient for those with little or lots of waste, easier to transport if living a
distance from the collection point, user pays, limits amount of household waste
57% of panellists would be interested in a separate organic collection for food and garden waste
39% of panellists would prefer a weekly organic collection if it were to be introduced, 23% fortnightly and
21% did not want any separate organic collection

4.2.1 Wheelie bins vs. bags
All online survey participants (representative online survey and Peoples Panel online survey) were asked whether
they would prefer a wheelie bin or bag for their general household rubbish. They were advised to disregard any cost
implications in their answer as both methods could be funded either through rates of by user-pays.

Just under three quarters of general residents (71%) and panellists (70%) would prefer a wheelie bin. Fewer (13% and
17% respectively) said that they would prefer a bag.

Would you prefer to use a wheelie bin or bag(s) for your general household
rubbish/waste? (Not recycling)
Representative
Sample
N=5218
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
A wheelie bin 71 70
Bag(s) 13 17
I don't mind either a bin or bag(s) 14 10
I am not sure 2 2
Base: General residents and Peoples Panellists responding to the WMMP Survey

There were six key themes evident among those who said they would prefer a bin:

Bins are considered to be cleaner and more secure than bags
Bags can rip and contents can spill out once the bags are out on the road
Page 532 of 591

17
Animals can rip bags and again the contents can spill out over the road
Bins smell less than bags there is a perception that once the lid is closed, the rubbish is less likely to smell than if
left in a bag

Bins are more convenient to transport than bags
It is easier to wheel a bin than to carry a bag (even if the bin weighs more than each bag)
One bin means you only have to make one trip out to the kerbside as opposed to more than one trip with bags

Bins are more tidy to store
One bin outside of a house is preferable to more than one bag
Bags are also considered to look messier

Bins are safer than bags
There is no danger of sharp items causing damage either to the household or to the people collecting the rubbish

Bins limit the amount of rubbish each household can dispose of
Bags can encourage increased waste because people can simply purchase as many as they need to

Bins are more convenient
You dont need to remember to purchase them (i.e. households can run out of bags)

In many cases, participants mentioned a combination of the above when asked why they prefer bins. Some people
also regarded bins as more environmentally-friendly (given that most rubbish bags are plastic).

Prefer bins - selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)

Rubbish contained securely from elements and animals. Tidier on property than bags. Ease of use for
putting rubbish out. Also a wheelie bin gives you a defined volume of rubbish per week, it's limited so
as a household we have to think about how and what we throw out in order to keep to that limit. We
are more conscious of packaging and how we dispose of household waste. As a consequence we
recycle more than what we probably would if we could pull out another bag.
Sick of picking up rubbish from dogs ripping bags open n we are rural n hate smelly bags in the car to
take up to gate.
I have a wheelie bin currently for general waste and feel it is cleaner, contains smell and prevents
animals from getting into the rubbish and making a mess. Easier to move to the kerbside, rather than
a heavy bag.
I am in a rural area and the bags [compulsory in our area] are either ripped apart before putting on
the curb, or soon after. The bins provide more protection against smells. I only put a bag out every 3
weeks or so].
A wheelie bin is a lot cleaner, better than bags, which are attacked by dogs, a large wheelie bin is
better than 5 or 6 bags lying around the street. A wheelie bin is easier to get garbage up to street level
if you live down a driveway.
Wheelie bin is good because it is much more convenient and will keep the surroundings more cleaner.
Plastic bags can be easily torn by cats which makes more litter on the roads on the rubbish collection
days, wheelie bin will prevent this.
Wheelie bins are tidy, easy to move about, stop dogs and other animals from getting into the garbage
and keep the streets cleaner.

Prefer bins - selection of comments (Peoples Panel Online Survey)

I prefer bins because the rubbish is contained and stored outside. When it is collected it stays in the
bin and keeps the streets clean. Dogs can easily get into bags or they break and leave a mess.
Bin holds decent amount. Does not collapse, does not matter if it gets wet, is not attacked by animals,
can be sanitised, is easy to move to kerb, does not require special holders, transporters.
Tidier and less damage from birds and dogs when bag left out overnight.
With a wheelie bin there is a restriction on the amount of waste that each household can put out,
Page 533 of 591

18
unlike the bag system, which means some households put out large numbers of bags each week. This
is important to minimise landfill.
Being a rural property the flimsy plastic bags used for rubbish collection are left on the corner of our
property - sometimes up to 5 days prior to the nominated collection day. Needless to say rodents and
bids rip open the bags. The guys on the rubbish truck do try to pick up most of the rubbish that spills
out but can't chase the wind blown rubbish or clean up thoroughly. Bins for each property would be
far better.
I find the wheelie bin is really reliable and doesn't leak or smell. It's also easier to wheel it up our drive
than having to carry a heavy bag. Also it is reusable - we don't have to use a new bag every time our
waste gets collected.
Wheelie bins are solid therefore dont blow away; Dont have to worry about buying the right bags for
rubbish collection - have more flexibility in budget about what bags to get; Hassle factor a lot less with
Wheelie bins.

The reasons for preferring bags varied for participants in both the representative and the Peoples Panel survey. In
some cases preferences for bags were based on individual house circumstances (long or steep driveways easier for
bags etc.). Others mentioned the fact that bags are more convenient for times when they have extra waste to dispose
of. Those more likely to prefer bags were those currently using bags.

Easier to handle and transport
Easier to carry a bag when there was a long or steep driveway
Bags can be taken in the car when the collection point was a distance from the house

Better for households with small amounts of waste
Not have enough waste to fill a bin each week

Allows more flexibility
Can vary the number of bags used depending on amount of rubbish to be disposed of each week.

Prefer bags - selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)

I live out West and the bags seem to carry more than what you can put in the bins.
Wheelie bins go missing, require regular cleaning, need to be stored.
Hygiene. It would be impossible for me to dispose household rubbish directly to wheelie bin. If I were
to use wheelie bin I would have to buy rubbish bags.
Some weeks have 2 shopping bags full, some weeks have 5 shopping bags full so feel a wheelie bin
would be too big - also gate is too narrow for the current recycling bins - assuming new rubbish bin
would be same size.
I'd have to clean out a bin, unless put bags inside a bin? Not lazy - aged and have bad legs.
We dont make that much rubbish and to fill a bin before emptying it, it would stink.
I prefer the bag because if the wheelie bin is full, I can just use another bag to put my rubbish in.
Too far to take wheelie bin to gate, easier to take one bag at a time over the week.

Prefer bags - selection of comments (Peoples Panel Online Survey)

We have a long, steep drive. A bin would not be practical as it wouldn't fit in my small car. We only
put out a rubbish bag about once every two months.
I live in a "private road" and collection vehicles do not come down our street .It is already a hassle to
get our recycling bin to kerbside but the frequency required is reasonable so the use of bags for
rubbish are more convenient to transport to the kerbside pick up position.
As a pensioner on a steep section I am unable to handle a wheelie bin.
Because we do not have a large amount of waste and a wheelie bin would take to long to fill causing
unwanted smell etc.
Bags are good, sometimes I need one other times two so I can vary the quantity. Dont need cleaning
like a wheelie bin either.
Bins are too small, and choosing a size doesnt work out when your amount varies from 2 to 6 bags
Page 534 of 591

19
depending on the amount of trash made.
Cleaner, less bulky, encourages less waste because of smaller size.


Stakeholders were also asked whether they would prefer to have a wheelie bin or bag(s) for their general household
waste. They were asked to select a preferred method here without taking into account any potential cost implications
(i.e. they were asked to disregard the fact that bags are currently user pays and bins are currently rates funded).

Overall preferences for bins vs. bags
More focus groups and in-depth interview participants preferred the concept of bins.

Fewer said that they would prefer bags (and these were all stakeholders in areas already using bags). Only one person
in an area with a bin system said that they would prefer a bag and most stakeholders in areas with bags said they
would prefer bins.

Some stakeholders also regarded bins as more environmentally friendly because they are reusable (bags are plastic
and are not reusable).

Preferences for bags
A minority of focus group and interview participants preferred bags. The main reason given for preferring bags was
that they had very little waste and did not require something the size of a wheelie bin. Other reasons were to do
with:

Bins having limited capacity and bags giving people the opportunity to increase that capacity
A perception that the bags themselves are recyclable, and
A perception that bins would get dirty easily and would have to be cleaned regularly, or
Simply being used to using bags.

One person also noted that different types of homes might require different types of systems and that there should
be some degree of choice.

Feedback from people living in apartments or in houses with small or no garden areas:
None of the stakeholders living in apartments or houses without gardens felt that having bins would be detrimental to
them. Most of the stakeholders living in apartments or small flats (with small land size) were already using bins and
said they have not experienced any problems in that respect.

There was comment made that some apartment complexes (including Housing New Zealand accommodation) do not
require as many bins as they currently have. The stakeholders taking part in the focus groups who lived in Housing
New Zealand accommodation were older in general, lived alone and did not generate much waste. Some were not
putting their general household rubbish bins out every week because of this yet all people living in the same
complexes as them had two bins each (one for general household waste and one for recycling).

Feedback from people with physical disabilities:
Six interviews were conducted with people with disabilities two preferred bags and four preferred bins. The two that
preferred bags (for their general household waste) were not generating much waste and did not have a problem
putting out their weekly waste (i.e. their bags were light and they had good enough mobility). All six also lived with
other people (partners in most cases and flatmates in another) and were able to receive assistance with their wheelie
bins or bags general household waste where they had them, and with recycling bins.

Reasons for preferring bins over bags, or vice versa were very much in line with the reasons provided by stakeholders
without disabilities. We acknowledge here that the participants taking part in the interviews were in living situations
where they were able to receive assistance with their waste collections. It is our recommendation that this area may
require further input from appropriate organisations and other disability sector stakeholder groups.
Page 535 of 591

20

4.2.2 Organic collections
Over half of general residents (53%) and panellists (57%) said that they would be interested or extremely interested in
an organic collection for both their food and garden waste at a subsidised cost. One quarter of general residents
(25%) and 28% of panellists said they would not be interested in a separate organic collection.

At present your general household rubbish (the rubbish you put in bags or in
your normal, non-recycling wheelie bin) goes to landfill. How interested would
you be in having a separate collection for your organic waste (this includes food
and garden waste that you may currently put into your normal wheelie bin or
bag) at a subsidized cost? This waste would not go to landfill but would either
be composted or put to some other beneficial use.
This would mean you would be putting out less general household waste into
your normal wheelie bin or bags (which would reduce the cost of that
collection).
Please use a scale from 1-5, where 1 is not at all interested in having a separate
collection for your organic waste and 5 is extremely interested.
Representative
Survey
N=5151
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
1 Not at all interested 16 19
2 9 9
3 17 12
4 21 16
5 Extremely interested 32 41
Dont know/Not applicable 5 3

Reasons given for being interested in a separate organic collection at a subsidised cost:

Environmental concerns
A general interest in waste minimisation and environmentally-friendly behaviours
A wish to see organic material composted when unable/reluctant to compost themselves

Cost savings
The opportunity to save costs overall/no longer have to pay for a garden bin

Some people who currently compost were interested in this as an overflow option.

Interested in a separate organic collection selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)

More environmentally-friendly
Good to recycle all organic matter - keeps things simpler and more efficient.
I think any scheme especially a subsidised one that does not use landfill, and of benefit plus cost
effective must be good.
Composting is very important even though I don't currently compost. Anything to reduce landfill
areas is of critical importance.
I am a great believer in turning green waste into compost to feed the land and do not like seeing vast
areas of landfill filled with useful waste.
I live alone and composting "on site" is not achievable. I currently have a Bokashi, but it does not deal
to everything. I believe that composting is the best way to deal with organic waste.
Save costs/general cost-related
Garden bins are very expensive and people tend to throw their garden waste in with their normal
rubbish.
I already pay a company to do this but if you can provide the service less costly then I would use it.
I love the idea of this, but, sounds expensive. I wouldnt pay more than 5-10 bucks a month.
Private companies are pushing their prices up so any subsidised offer would be great.
General
I do like the idea of being eco friendly. However, won't food waste decompose in landfill anyway? Also
Page 536 of 591

21
there is potential for a lot of bad smells which makes me cautious but I'm still interested.
This is a fantastic idea for people in upstairs units or without gardens.
I think that this would be advantageous to the environment, however I know of many people who
already get confused as to what weeks they can put out their plastics and what weeks they can't. In
this sense, I feel that it may create added confusion and may result in more rubbish appearing on the
roadsides.

Interested in a separate organic collection selection of comments (Peoples Panel Online Survey)

More environmentally-friendly
I am very keen to be more environmentally friendly. Landfills should be a last resort.
Makes sense. We have been meaning to start composting at home for about a year, but just haven't
gotten around to it. Yet... Providing a service like this for people that don't want to - or don't know
how to - compost themselves sounds great.
More sustainable to have a collective organic waste management process - esp if it is composted and
re used.
Less rubbish going into landfills, so less landfill sites required in the long term.
I feel terrible that we don't do a better job of composting ourselves however do not want the
hassle/smell etc of composting at home as we have no real use for the compost anyway.
I have no need for compost, and I want a more environmentally friendly option rather than putting my
green waste in with landfill waste.
Save costs/general cost-related
Less going into landfill and more being composted. The compost can be sold as well, bring dumping
costs down.
Apart from the major reason being environmental benefit, this could potentially save money,
depending on the plan proposed.
I would assume the rates can be reduce as it should be a money making venture to sell the compost.
I dont like the idea of landfill. Reducing the cost of waste disposal would be welcome.
Our compost bin isn't quite big enough for all the garden waste, so in spring time when there is a lot
of grass clippings or autumn when there are a lot of leaves it would be good to have the option of
garden waste. Also some weeds I don't want in the compost bin. I would only use it a couple of times a
year, but it is very expensive to take garden waste to the tip.
I routinely store my garden waste and periodically dispose of it in a hired mini-skip. I estimate I spend
$150-200 per year doing this. I know it costs the skip-man almost nothing to dispose of garden waste
so I think there are opportunities here for the council to generate economies of scale that save me and
my neighbours considerable money.
Don't have a good solution for garden waste currently. Small garden so not worth a private paid
service. Will reduce temptation to put garden waste in bags.
General
Would be great to follow the Christchurch model where this waste is composted and sold back to the
public as compost.
I think this is a great idea because it will encourage people to sort their rubbish into compostable/non.
We compost a lot but it would be nice to know we have the option.

Reasons given for not being interested in a separate organic collection (25% of general residents and 28% of
panellists)

Already dispose of organic waste
Already compost or dispose of organic waste in another way (e.g. feed to hens) so no need for a separate
collection

Cost
Unwillingness to pay for another waste disposal method
Feeling that people should be encouraged to compost themselves. Unwilling to subsidise those who do not

Page 537 of 591

22

Too much hassle
Too time consuming/ too much hassle to sort out organic waste for separate disposal

Unhygienic
Concern that such a collection would be unhygienic and attract vermin

No interest in a separate organic collection selection of comments (contd) (Representative Online
Survey)

Already composting
Compost our waste - this is both economical and good for the environment.
Because I compost all my organic waste myself I would never use the service. General household
waste seems to be more of a problem in our area.
We are responsible gardeners and recycle organic waste back into growing our food.
Unwilling to pay additional cost
Just more additional costs for an extra pick up and most households would not comply. For this to
work there is a requirement for a high level of compliance. Kiwis no longer comply.
Dont have money to spare.
Im not interested in a separate collection for food & garden waste IF it would cost me a cent! Even if
it was subsidised. I would only separate it/be interested if it was all free thanks.
I do not think we should be charged extra for this service and would only support it if there were no
extra cost. I am paying more than enough for taxes, rates and water.
Very hesitant because of the use of the phrase "subsidised cost". We cannot cope with anymore cost
increases.
Additional hassle
It's just not something I can be bothered doing.
It's easier to put all the organic waste down the garbage disposal. Separating all the organic waste
would be messy and would mean you'd need an extra bin in your house especially for this.
It just means more hassle of sorting rubbish, but it would be better for the environment.
Hygiene
How hygenic would it be? How often would it be collected? Once a week and we'd be inundated with
maggots and it would smell and attract vermin. I don't see how it would be a workable option.
Attract pests especially in warmer weather.
it would stink by the time it is collected once a week.

No interest in a separate organic collection selection of comments (contd) (Peoples Panel Online
Survey)

Already composting
My organic waste is much too valuable to give away. All such waste is composted and recycled on the
property to produce excellent vegetables and fruit.
Because I use the Bokashi system for kitchen waste and a larger compost heap for garden rubbish this
question does not pertain to my systems.
I do my own compost at home and in this current difficult time I cannot afford to have it collected at
any costs what so ever.
Unwilling to pay additional cost
I already pay way too much for my rates at it is - not interested in further costs for a service that I
wouldn't use anyway.
I wouldn't be for paying for another service and I would dislike having to drag two bins down to the
kerb.
I do not need this service as I have a compost bin. I do not agree with subsidising other peoples
compostable waste.
It's not worth any extra cost to have yet another collection type. Any efforts in this area should be
Page 538 of 591

23
spent on getting people to use organic waste in their own gardens to minimise overall waste that
need to be collected.
Additional hassle
Too much hassle to remove organic waste. Hard to keep unpleasant odours away.
That is just too complicated and time consuming to sort...due to being a very active mother,
sportsperson and fulltime student I dont have time to sort. I just place all rubbish regardless of what
it is in to the rubbish and my recyclables into recycling.
That would mean I would have to put three wheelie bins out each week. Too much hassle plus
definitely not enough room on the kerbside for all these bins.
Already too lazy to filter waste under current system. Household not taking present recycling
seriously.
Hygiene
I have heard of this idea before and am concerned as to vermin and general health and hygiene of
home and streets.
The smell will attract dogs and flies... plus the stench from this bin is not healthy for all concerns.


There was some level of interest in organic collections among focus group and interview participants and particularly
among those who are already paying for a separate garden waste collection service and who saw this as a possible
cost savings opportunity. There was also agreement among most that this offers an opportunity for more
environmentally friendly behaviour for households (and that anything that is good for the environment is worthwhile
considering). Those that were not interested were those that already compost or considered having to separate out
organic waste to be a significant hassle.

Note also that most stakeholders did not feel that they would have enough organic waste to warrant a separate bin
and collection. Most stakeholders said that they try to limit the amount of food wastage they have (there was a
general reluctance to acknowledge wasteful behaviour in this respect). Stakeholders were very skeptical when told
that approximately 50% of waste going into their normal bin or bag is organic (but less skeptical when told this figure
includes greenwaste) (note that this figure was provided by members of the waste management team who attended
the focus groups). There were some general issues raised with regard to the cost of this additional collection (most
were reluctant to have to pay more) and became confused when considering cost in the context that this may
reduce the cost of their overall waste collections. In short, participants were interested in actually seeing the dollar
implications before committing to a decision here.

There were two key barriers raised by stakeholders with respect to organic collections:

The likely smell and cleanliness of the bin (mainly raised by women in the groups), and

Logistical/practical issues.

Cleanliness issues
The most significant issue raised about organic collections was the likely smell that an organic bin would create and
issues to do with general hygiene. There was a perception that even a well-sealed bin would smell (particularly in
summer) and attract undesirable attention (from cockroaches and rats).

Most were concerned about having to put their organic waste directly into a bin (without it being secured in bags
first). There was a perception that the bin would smell very bad because of this and would need to be cleaned on a
very regular basis. The main issue here was that this type of bin was seen as very different to compost, which might
be at the back of the garden an organic waste bin on the other hand was seen as something that would sit very close
to the house (near the front door, near open windows in the summer etc.).

There was some interest in being able to use appropriate bags to dispose of their organic waste (i.e. being able to put
bags into the organic bin).

Page 539 of 591

24
Logistical issues
There were also some logistical issues raised. Not all stakeholders take their household waste out to their council bins
on a daily basis this was particularly the case for people living in apartments who do not go down to their bins
every day. In this respect they raised concerns over having to have another bin/bag inside their apartment for organic
waste only (the main issue was to do with lack of storage space).

A key finding here is that people need to be offered simple solutions that facilitate the likelihood that they will
undertake desired waste separation and recycling behaviours for example, an inside bin system that makes these
behaviours easy to perform.

4.2.3 Frequency of organic collection
If an organic collection was introduced, 41% of general residents and 39% of panellists would prefer a weekly
collection. Twenty seven percent of general residents and 23% of panellists said they would prefer a fortnightly
collection. Fifteen percent and 21% respectively said that they did not want a separate organic collection.

If an organic waste collection was introduced how often would you want
this organic waste to be collected?

Representative
Survey
N=5123
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
Weekly 41 39
Fortnightly 27 23
Monthly 12 11
Other 4 6
I do not want a separate inorganic collection 15 21
Page 540 of 591

25
4.3 Attitudes towards funding of household waste collections
All online survey participants were asked to give their views on how different types of waste collections general
household, inorganic, recycling and organic should be funded.

4.3.1 Funding of waste collections
Funding of waste collections summary of key findings (Representative Online Survey)

57% of general residents think there should be a uniform charge for general household waste and 30%
think it should be user-pays
71% think there should be a uniform charge for recycling collections and 15% think it should be user-pays
48% think there should be a uniform charge for organic collections and 33% think it should be user-pays
48% think there should be a uniform charge for inorganic collections and 36% think it should be user-pays

Funding of waste collections summary of key findings (Peoples Panel Online Survey)

54% think there should be a uniform charge for general household waste and 41% think it should be user-
pays
80% think there should be a uniform charge for recycling collections and 13% think it should be user-pays
52% think there should be a uniform charge for organic collections and 35% think it should be user-pays
51% think there should be a uniform charge for inorganic collections and 38% think it should be user-pays

How do you think household rubbish/waste
collections should be funded?

Representative Survey
N=5000
%

Rates funded
(uniform charge)
User pays Another
way
Unsure
General household rubbish (not recycling) 57 30 10 3
Recycling collections (glass, plastic, tins etc) 71 15 10 3
Organic collections (food and garden waste) - if
introduced
48 33 15 4
Inorganic collections (e.g. furniture, whiteware, TVs) 48 36 13 3

How do you think household rubbish/waste
collections should be funded?

Peoples Panel
N=1914
%

Rates funded
(uniform charge)
User pays Another
way
Unsure
General household rubbish (not recycling) 54 41 2 3
Recycling collections (glass, plastic, tins etc) 80 13 4 2
Organic collections (food and garden waste) - if
introduced
52 35 6 7
Inorganic collections (e.g. furniture, whiteware, TVs) 51 38 5 6

Small percentages of people suggested other ways of funding waste collections. Examples included:

Free pases to refuse stations
Each household having a certain amount of free collections and then all other collections charged
More recovery centres for inorganic waste where items can be left, removed or swapped for something else
Charges to manufacturers e.g. because of excess packaging that needs to be disposed of.

Page 541 of 591

26
There were three themes in terms of preferring a uniform charge across all types of collections:

Uniform charge is simpler and cheaper to administer
Including the cost in the rates is easier for the individual and for the Council

A user-pays system will encourage people to look for alternative ways to dispose of their household waste
Will encourage illegal dumping
People will use other peoples bins to dispose of their rubbish

Waste is a community responsibility
Charges should be shared evenly across residents, regardless of the amount of waste generated.

Preference for waste collections to be funded by a uniform charge selection of comments
(Representative Survey Online Survey)

Perceived difficulties of charging/hassles with payment
Otherwise it would be too hard to track and charge, people are dishonest and would use other peoples
properties to dump their stuff.
It would be much easier to pay in rates not each week during the grocery shopping etc.
How would you measure the waste collected or just charge for each bin regardless of its capacity? An
annual fee included in the rates accounts far simpler for accounting by Council.
Discourage dumping and other inappropriate behaviours
I believe everybody should pay the same. Whatever you do there will always be people that don't like
paying for this and rather drop it off at the side of the road (we live in the country and we get quite a
few people doing this).
If it is left to User Pays situation, this will create more problems with rubbish being dumped
everywhere by those people trying to get around the system whereby creating more problems.
I think if you had to pay for recycling on a user pay basis and you were already paying for general
waste it will make some people not keen to recycle.
Collective responsibility/fairer overall
Keep it simple. It is in everybodys interest to have their community's rubbish disposed of, it's not just
an individual household's responsibility/interest. Also peoples lives are not static. Through out the
course of someone's life the average person's living arrangements will change probably several times
so at some point their will be more people (generating more rubbish) than at other times - a simple
uniform charge would average out for most people.
Every household should contribute to waste collection because everyone creates rubbish. It's up to the
householders to either reduce rubbish or get reimbursed from other household members for rubbish. I
always pick up rubbish wherever I find it and dispose of it correctly, often it is cans and takeaway food
containers, these people have to live somewhere and should have to pay for their garbage disposal
just like everyone else, so a household charge would cover all inappropriate rubbish disposal as well.

Preference for waste collections to be funded by a uniform charge selection of comments (Peoples
Panel Online Survey)

Perceived difficulties of charging/hassles with payment
It just makes it simpler for everyone, one charge to include all of the above.
While a user pays would probably be cheaper for my household as we don't have a lot of waste, I
prefer a rates funded charge as it is much simpler.
Discourage dumping and other inappropriate behaviours
I think that a user pays system could lead to people avoiding the charge by dumping or using another
persons facility.
User pays will result in all rubbish going to the cheapest option, not taking the responsible option.
It would provide simplification in my own life - which is already crazy busy. Plus it would mean we
don't get pockets of the community getting creative in their rubbish disposal because they don't want
to fork out their money to have it collected properly.
Page 542 of 591

27
Collective responsibility/fairer overall
I chose uniform charge because recycling & reducing pollution needs to be encouraged and it is a
community issue -if it is user pays then many people may not participate fully.
Though I put out little rubbish of any sort in comparison with some other families, I see myself as part
of a community and am prepared to share expenses to support larger families who may not be able to
afford a user pays system.

There were two main themes in terms of preferring user-pays across all types of collections:

Encourages waste minimisation
User pays for general household waste will encourage more recycling behaviours (if recycling collections have a
uniform charge)
User pays will make people think more carefully about the waste they are disposing of.

Fairer system
Unwillingness to by some panellists subsidise households who put out larger quantities of waste.

Preference for waste collections to be funded by user pays selection of comments (Representative
Online Survey)

Fair share. Having 'user pay' system in place would make people more accountable for rubbish they
produce and dispose.
User pays for general household rubbish would mean an incentive to reduce non-recyclables/rubbish
going to landfill.
Fairer system
Why must I pay for the removal of other peoples rubbish when mine will be a lot less than the
average!
Some households, like my own barely leave one full bag of rubbish, and one bin of recycling each
week. Others however have multiple bags and bins, and should have to pay more than we do.
Its not fair for small families to pay the same fees as those with large families that will have lots of
general household rubbish. Organic rubbish although I want a wheelie bin for this not sure how you'd
charge it, but should be user pays.
People should pay for only what they use. We use all our organic waste back into our garden so
wouldn't use the collection.
Make it farer to ratepayers re family, business, rest home, and retirement home contribution. Some
have little waste some have a lot of waste.

Preference for waste collections to be funded by user pays selection of comments (Peoples Panel
Online Survey)

User pays promotes having less rubbish. It makes people think about what they throw out.
Hit them where they feel it, in their pocket. Far too long council has tolerated poor recycling attempts
by households.
If you pay for your rubbish to be collected and don't pay (a uniform charge doesn't feel like paying) it
encourages people to recycle more and put out less rubbish.
Fairer system
I'm fed up with paying for services that I don't need and/or don't use and/or aren't available where I
live.
User pays is fair to everyone.
As a single occupant of my dwelling I use the waste collection services less often than others. Why
therefore should I pay the same amount as those that use it more often. I put rubbish out about every
two to three weeks, yet I am being charged the same as someone putting out rubbish every week. I
don't put organic into the rubbish. I either compost or put into a green bin that I pay for.
A household of say five creates more waste than one person alone so why shouldn't they pay. A lot of
Page 543 of 591

28
elderly people alone could not afford the same a large households.
I feel that home occupiers should contribute to the rubbish collections as well as homeowners or
ratepayers, there being many, many tenanted properties from which occupiers do not pay.

Seventy percent of general residents and 80% of panellists support the idea of recycling collections being funded by
rates (a uniform charge).

Funding of recyclable waste collection selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)

Recycling and organic collections are "public good". Rubbish and inorganic collections should be user
pays, to encourage efficiency.
General household rubbish is part of life, so paying by rates is fair. Everyone does not use Inorganic, so
user pays is fair. Recycling is a necessary regular service, rates funded is fair.
For regular collections of waste I believe that it would be helpful to highlight there is a direct cost to
the service. Also small users of the service are effectively subsidising larger users (We as a family of 5
are possibly highish users, so will pay more). Recycling is partially a ""public Good"" service, which
should be encouraged. A more stringent policing of the recycling bins should be undertaken and costs
sheeted home to people not sorting effectively.
General household and recycling should be rates funded as it is always going to be produced due to
companies using far too much packaging on their products as well as general items so this should be
covered by rates as it will always be ongoing. Inorganic and organic should be user pays as inorganic
items can be taken to the tip yourself rather than making a mess on the streets or some items even
recycled if you bothered to take the time due to having to pay for it, people just dump it since it
doesn't cost them anything as they are lazy, as for organic if people had to start paying to get rid of it
they would compost more or even visit places where you can dump organic for composting at a
cheaper rate than roadside collections would cost.
I think that all general collections should be funded by Council but inorganic should be a cost due to
the fact that people will think about what they throw out - we are becoming a wasteful city.
General rubbish user pays by purchasing bags, that way they pay as they use. Recycling rates funded
as council gets a return from recyclables and can offset that against charges.
I answered user pays for inorganic collections as these are infrequent and not everyone takes
advantage of them. It's fairer to pay if you have something you need to dispose of.

Funding of recyclable waste collection selection of comments (Peoples Panel Online Survey)

User pays for rubbish will assist in encouraging reduction in rubbish. Recycling should be encouraged
so uniform charge is appropriate.
Recycling should be included in rates and rubbish should be user pays so as to encourage people to
recycle, as the more they recycle the less they have to pay extra for the user pays rubbish collection.
Organic waste should be user pays also because if it is rates funded there is no incentive left for people
to do their own composting.
Recycling has wider community benefit and should be encouraged through being rates funding. With
other waste having a user pays system encourages waste minimisation which is eco-friendly.


More focus group and in-depth interview participants said that they would prefer a uniform charge for their general
household waste and in particular for their recycling collection.

Views on the funding of inorganic collections were mixed with those who currently use them generally in favour of a
uniform charge and those that dont generally in favour of user-pays. These views were not reflected in overall
attitudes towards the funding of general household and recycling collections however. In other words, there was no
distinct difference between people that have a little amount of general household waste versus those that have a lot.

Page 544 of 591

29
When considering funding of waste collections, a key sticking point for focus group and interview participants was to
do with how a user-pays system could effectively be implemented if bins are the preferred method for household
waste collections. Many stakeholders raised issues around the difficulties in charging households accurately and
concerns over whether this would become a major hassle. Questions raised by stakeholders included:

How often are you going to charge me and conversely how often am I going to have to physically arrange
payment?
How are you going to ensure that you are accurately charging me?
How are you going to deal with the issue of people putting rubbish in other peoples bins will I be charged for
their waste as well if this occurs?
What will be the cost of administering this additional paperwork, invoices, people to process payments etc.
What happens if I accidently miss a payment will you leave my rubbish in the bin?

The feedback here clearly highlights the need to address the issue of perceived payment hassle if a user-pays system
is to be introduced and accepted by residents for any type of waste collection.

Other reasons for preferring a uniform charge
In general those who were in favour of a uniform charge (for general and recycling waste) felt that:

Disposing of household waste is a community issue the view here was that there needs to be collective
responsibility taken in terms of dealing with it. Note that unlike in the case of inorganic collections, most
stakeholders here did not mind the fact that even though they may put out less waste than their neighbours, they
would pay the same amount for it

A uniform charge would mean that larger households (and also lower SES households) would not be penalised by
having to purchase additional bags. Several stakeholders mentioned the fact that lower SES households may
struggle under a user-pays system and that this may lead to increased undesirable behaviours such as illegal
dumping or inappropriate use of other peoples bins.

Stakeholders who rent were more likely to prefer a uniform charge because of a view that their rent would not
decrease if a user-pays system was introduced.

Reasons for preferring user-pays
User-pays, which was preferred by a smaller number of focus group and interview participants was mainly preferred
because it would encourage recycling behaviours. This was only considered to be relevant, however, if recycling
collections continued to have a uniform charge.

Focus group and in-depth interview participants were of the view that if recycling becomes user-pays as well as
general household waste then there will be no incentive to recycle.

Page 545 of 591

30
4.4 Attitudes towards other waste-related issues
All participants were asked their views on other waste related issues, such as illegal dumping, junk mail and litter, and
to comment on some of Councils ideas for addressing these problems. These related issues were included in the
survey so that feedback and results can inform and provide insight to the waste and by-law business units.

Attitudes towards other waste-related issues summary of key findings (Representative Online Survey)

51% of general residents think a $400 instant fine for illegal dumping is fair 33% think it should be higher
47% think Council should do more to stop illegal dumping, 40% are not sure
47% think Council should force supermarkets to ensure their trolleys were not removed from their
premises, 39% do not think Council should do this
29% dont like junk mail, 15% dont mind it but usually throw it away without reading it and 53% like
getting it or usually check through it
37% agree that there is a litter problem in their area, 31% disagree

Attitudes towards other waste-related issues summary of key findings (Peoples Panel Online Survey)

45% think a $400 instant fine for illegal dumping is fair 46% think it should be higher
43% think Council should do more to stop illegal dumping, 49% are not sure
43% think Council should force supermarkets to ensure their trolleys were not removed from their
premises, 41% do not think Council should do this
47% dont like junk mail, 13% dont mind it but usually throw it away without reading it and 34% like
getting it or usually check through it
32% agree that there is a litter problem in their area, 39% disagree

4.4.1 Illegal dumping
Just over half of general residents (51%) and just under half of panellists (45%) felt that an instant fine of $400 is fair
for someone caught illegally dumping. Thirty three percent of general residents and 46% of panellists think that the
fine should be higher.

Forty seven percent of general residents (and 43% of panellists) thought that Council needs to be doing more to stop
illegal dumping. Forty percent of general residents and 49% of panellists dont know whether enough is being done
(and/or perhaps what the Council is doing regarding this issue).

Central government legislation provides for Council to impose an instant fine
of up to $400 for illegal dumping. Illegal dumping is when someone disposes
of rubbish on public land without permission. This can include dumping
rubbish in the bush, in parks, in streams and at beaches.
What are your views on the fine of $400 for illegal dumping?

Representative
Survey
N=4920
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
A fine of $400 is too much for someone caught illegally dumping 10 4
A $400 fine is fair for someone caught illegally dumping 51 45
A $400 fine is not enough for someone caught illegally dumping 33 46
I am not sure 7 5

Page 546 of 591

31

Do you think enough is being done by Council to stop illegal dumping?

Representative
Survey
N=4920
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
Yes - enough is being done to stop illegal dumping 13 7
No - more needs to be done to stop illegal dumping 47 43
I am not sure 40 49

The main view expressed regarding Councils responsibility on illegal dumping (alongside the views in the table above)
was that illegal dumping is not being adequately policed. Note also that the majority of participants acknowledged
that it does occur and that it is a problem. Others views were around the fact that there are wider socio-economic
issues impacting on illegal dumping that need to be dealt with, and that the amount of the fine should depend on the
extent and nature of the illegal dumping (i.e. what is being dumped, how often, how much).

Illegal dumping selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)

Fines for illegal dumping are not adequately enforced/general policing issues
Illegal dumping does not get reported enough! why? Because good citizens are reluctant to call due to
the fact that council staff release the callers details many times. There should be an 0800 number to
call with the details and if proved successfully by the council then the offender can be fined. Fines
should be progressive for repeat offenders.
People just wont pay hefty fines so anymore and they just wouldn't pay. More needs to be done
because there is lots of rubbish in our public areas, there also needs to be more rubbish bins around
like at our beaches and parks. I have never heard of anyone being fined for dumping rubbish, there
needs to be a campaign about being responsible for our environment and more people policing it
maybe the parking wardens can do that at least policing the rubbish dumpers would help our
environment so it looks nicer.
I take my dog for a walk down Dunkirk reserve and always see household items dumped down there
and along with bottles and rubbish, I think more needs to be done (how about people policing the
dump sites) i.e. parks and reserves.
Little operators dumping garden and trees in reserves needs to be stopped. More should be done to
catch culprits.
Our country roadsides and hidden bush gullies near roadsides are a disgrace - $400 is not enough to
punish those offenders. The problem just seems to grow and grow, not enough is being done to stop
offenders and rubbish that has been dumped seems to sit and fester for too long.
My mother-in-law has property in Avondale, which is always being dumped upon, and its damn
ridiculous, because they have been doing it for years, and you cant fine someone if you cant catch
them.
Wider socio-economic issues
People dumping rubbish often are already economically deprived - a fine may not be best solution,
would prefer to council working with these families to decrease waste and may provide opportunity of
other social services - identify overcrowding, health issues etc. However lazy dumpers - less sympathy.
The illegal dumping could be done by people who can't afford rubbish bags because of lower incomes
and having to stretch the budget anymore is so difficult, but there are also those who just can't be
bothered or are too lazy and just dispose of their rubbish anywhere they like. Too hard to police. I
don't really know what the council does in regards to this issue at the moment.
General
There needs to be a substantial charge for dumping rubbish. I think $400 is adequate. Obviously not
enough is being done about dumping rubbish because of all the rubbish I see at parks, beaches and in
the native bush that has been dumped.
I believe councils have programs as effective as local policy/law will allow them to be. I would support
a $400 fine, I would not support dedicated council staff to pursue dumpers. If proof of identity can be
found then prosecute or fine but don't expend council funds unnecessarily.
Page 547 of 591

32
I think the punishment of illegally dumping should be giving the job of cleaning up their own mess, or
hours of cleaning up rubbish in their community.

Illegal dumping selection of comments (Peoples Panel Online Survey)

Fines for illegal dumping are not adequately enforced/general policing issues
Never seen anybody policing this issue.
I have myself witnessed people dumping rubbish while out walking in our area. Also after the forestry
has been felled, there are a number of dumped car bodies etc. I don't think the fringe areas are well
policed if at all and that is where people drive to dump rubbish.
A higher fine would deter illegal dumping, and council need extra staff specifically to monitor
illegal dumping.
Because when identification is sent through confirming an illegal dumper, NOTHING is done.
Not enough are being caught, e.g. councils could use cameras.
I see rubbish dumped and I have laid a complaint with details of the dumper and council has not
followed this up. In my opinion dumping is done by cheap/nasty businesses and tradesmen rather
than residents i.e. tyre people, building industry, those jobs which have lots of waste.
I've never heard or seen of a case of prosecution, perhaps the media need to highlight the issues more.
Wider socio-economic issues
No because if you cant afford to pay the dump fee of course it is going to end up in our ranges or
other quiet spot.
I think someone that is dumping may be hard up, and would most likely not pay a fine anyway.
A complex issue. There is too much rubbish on our streets and in our waterways. People need to be
penalised when they dump rubbish. Often the dumping of rubbish is related to people not
understanding the recycling system so they have too much for their general rubbish wheelie bin. Leads
to fly tipping or also open burning of rubbish in backyards. Education, reward and consistent
enforcement programme is needed.
I am no expert on illegal dumping. The only way to address it is to know why this is occurring in the
first place - then address that problem.
If the illegal dumper is a corporate entity the fine should be much higher - reflecting the cost of
appropriate disposal plus a penalty.
General
I would like illegal dumpers to be punished, but I know it's almost impossible to catch them in the act.
Better to provide public facilities which can be used instead.
From some of the items I have seen dumped it would cost the council a lot more than $400 dollars to
clean up, the fine should be more like $1000. This can then fund the council to do more to stop illegal
dumping, visits to common areas, surveillance cameras, marketing etc.
$400 is pathetic for someone who blatantly decides to dump rubbish. $2000 will instantly make
someone think twice.

Qualitative focus group and in-depth interviews

There were a number of unprompted mentions of illegal dumping before the topic was introduced in the focus
groups. Illegal dumping was raised in the context of the inorganic discussion and the funding discussion in that, user-
pays is likely to lead to increased illegal dumping behaviour.

Most focus group and in-depth interview participants were of the opinion that illegal dumping is a problem
(particularly in certain parts of Auckland) and many gave examples of where they had seen evidence of this (in bush, in
parks, on beaches, under bridges etc.). Many also raised concerns over illegal dumping being carried out by
businesses.

Focus group and in-depth interview participants were mixed in their views regarding fines for illegal dumping. The
main attitude towards fines was that the fine needs to be variable depending on the extent and nature of the
dumping and that $400 is unlikely to be enough for some types of dumping which may have a particularly
detrimental impact on the natural environment. Some stakeholders in the focus groups felt that the fine could and
should run into the thousands for certain types of dumping (particularly in the case of businesses).
Page 548 of 591

33

Another key view here however, was that fines are a waste of time unless illegal dumping is effectively policed. There
was some skepticism about whether increased fines would actually have any impact on the extent of illegal dumping
because people would simply go out of their way not to be caught (and that catching people illegally dumping is very
difficult anyway).

Some stakeholders here also felt that there may be socio-economic reasons for illegal dumping behaviours i.e. that
they cannot afford to purchase the required bags (and that cheap rolls of black bags can be purchased for very little
cost and then simply dumped somewhere).

The predominant view was that a fine of $400 is either enough or not enough but that the key issue is enforcement.

4.4.2 Abandoned supermarket trolleys
A larger percentage of general residents (47%) thought that Council should force supermakets to make sure that
trolleys dont leave their premises 39% did not think that they should. Panellists were divided over how Council
should address the problem of abandoned shopping trolleys. Forty-three percent thought Council should force
supermarkets to ensure trolleys were not taken from their premises by charging customers a deposit for their use or
by other methods, while 41% thought Council should not force supermarkets to take such measures.

Do you think Council should force supermarkets to make sure that the trolleys
dont leave their premises by charging customers a deposit to use them or by
any other method?

Representative
Survey
N=4884
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
Yes 47 43
No 39 41
I am not sure 14 16


The majority of focus group and in-depth interview participants were of the opinion that it is the supermarkets
responsibility to prevent trolleys from leaving their premises and most were comfortable with the concept of paying a
deposit for a trolley that they would receive back when they returned it. Some people felt, however, that a deposit of
$1 or $2 would not deter people from taking trolleys away anyway.

A number of stakeholders pointed out that some supermarkets (such as Countdown in the CBD) have an electronic
system that prevents trolleys from being wheeled outside of the property boundary and all agreed that this would
be a preferable system than charging a deposit.

Page 549 of 591

34
4.4.3 Junk mail
Panellists were more negative about junk mail, with 47% saying that they do not like it compared to 29% of general
residents. Forty five percent of general residents said that they did not mind it and usually check to see what is there
(31% of panellists). Almost all general residents (91%) and panellists (96%) agreed however that a no junk mail
sticker on a letterbox should be adhered to.

Which of the following best describes your attitudes towards junk mail?

Representative
Survey
N=4863
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
I do not like junk mail and I have a 'no junk mail' (or similar) sticker on my
letterbox
14 28
I do not like junk mail but I do not have a 'no junk mail' sticker on my letterbox 15 19
I don't mind junk mail but usually throw it away without reading it 15 13
I don't mind junk mail and usually check to see what's there 45 31
I like getting junk mail 8 4
Other 3 5

Do you think that if someone has a no junk mail sticker on their letterbox, that
this should be adhered to by people delivering junk mail/brochures, etc.?

Representative
Survey
N=4858
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
Yes 91 96
No 4 2
I am not sure 5 2

Views on junk mail were mixed some stakeholders disliked it while others didnt mind it. There was overwhelming
agreement among stakeholders however, that if there is a junk mail sticker on a letter box that it should be adhered
to.
Page 550 of 591

35
4.4.4 Litter
Attitudes varied regarding the extent to which litter is a problem in general residents and panellists local areas.
Thirty seven percent of general residents and 32% of panellists agreed or strongly agreed that there is a litter problem
in their local areas, while 31% of general residents and 39% of panellists disagreed.

Satisfaction with Councils efforts to discourage and prevent littering was also mixed.

How much do you agree or disagree that there is a problem with litter on the
streets/roads in the area where you live?
Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree (that there is a
problem with litter in your local area) and 5 is strongly agree
Representative
Survey
N=4847
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
1 Strongly disagree 9 9
2 22 30
3 31 26
4 19 18
5 Strongly agree 18 16
I do not know 1 1

How satisfied are you that Auckland Council is doing enough to
discourage/prevent littering in your area?
Please use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is extremely dissatisfied with what is
being done and 5 is extremely satisfied.
Representative
Survey
N=4848
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
1 Extremely dissatisfied 8 9
2 16 21
3 36 29
4 21 22
5 Extremely satisfied 7 6
I do not know 12 13

Litter selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)

Satisfied Council is doing enough to discourage litter
The council do a good job keeping our local party tidy and litter free. Some residents don't care about
keeping their property tidy. It would be good to have incentives to get people to beautify their streets
and take pride in their propeties. Have some sort of tidy campaigns.
I am not aware of any littering problem in my area.
In my area the streets are clean, everyone does their part to keep their yard clean which is a good
thing. Living next to clean and tidy neighbours who have a clean living standards helps alot to keep a
neibourhood clean.
I am fortunate to live in an area that is well kept by the council, regular street sweepers etc. I believe
the council should start in the worse looking areas and clean them up to give the residents a sense of
value and pride in their neighbourhoods. They should feel that the council values them just as much as
citizens of Auckland as any other resident.
Not satisfied Council is doing enough to discourage litter
There's not much litter on the streets where I live although I don't think the council has been really
strick about this.
Not enough rubbish bins and no bins to put paper recycling in.
All over the AKL CBD - uncluding around my apartment building - the streets and gutters are littered
with cigarette butts and other human detritus.
I very rarely see council workers in my area tidying the streets.
We have all the college kids parking in our street and they leave their lunch rubbish, bottles,
Page 551 of 591

36
mcdonalds from their cars. The school doesn't do anything and nor does our council!!!!

Litter selection of comments (Peoples Panel Online Survey)

Satisfied Council is doing enough to discourage litter
The council is great at always clearing & cleaning the litter off the streets of Auckland but people need
to change there attitude and be responsible for letting go of the rubbish from there hand.
I see people on motor bikes picking up rubbish quite often. The public rubbish bins are emptied daily
and it's only in very busy summer months that the park bins overflow.
I think the council is really doing a great job, the verges are trimmed and the roads are swept on a
fairly regular basis. We are very lucky.
There does not appear to be a widespread problem. Some litter will always happen but it does not
appear to accumulate. I see works cleaning the streets footpaths etc and emptying the street bins
regularly. I don't see a problem. The only exception is around antisocial venues such as brothels and
drinking dens. Here there is often not only a litter problem, in terms of quantity, but the litter is
offensive and dangerous. Bus stops can sometimes be an issue, but I think that is more a matter of the
speed which it can accumulate at
I live in Parnell, our street does not suffer from litter. The council do a good job of clearing any debris,
including leaves as we have a lot of trees along the street
Not satisfied Council is doing enough to discourage litter
We live near a council car park, which is always filthy with litter. No help when calling ACC. If you were
half as good with litter as you were with the tow trucks - now THAT would be something!
Auckland Council used to send people down the main streets to clean rubbish - now there is one man
on a motorbike who does bugger all. Very lazy and leaves half the rubbish behind.
The council don't do anything about it has their hands are tied. If someone is littering the streets then
they should be charged and prosecuted.
I wasn't aware that the council did ANYTHING to discourage littering. There is not exactly a plethora
of be a tidy kiwi signs or provision of rubbish bins is there
Council are to busy dishing out tickets to be bothered with the cleanliness of Auckland basically it is a
dirty city and council need to concentrate on cleaning it up it is not a city to be proud of like sydney for
example the harbour is beautiful and clean

Qualititive focus groups and in-depth interviews

Attitudes towards litter varied although most stakeholders agreed that there was a problem in general around
Auckland and particularly on streets where businesses operated (retail shops) and also in parks. Specific mention was
made of cigarette butts being a problem in many areas.

Page 552 of 591

37
4.4.5 Small deposit on recyclable containers
Just under half of general residents (44%) and 35% of panellists agreed with the concept of a small deposit being
added to the cost of all recyclable containers to encourage greater reuse and recycling. One third (34%) of general
residents and 35% of panellist disagreed or strongly disagreed with this concept.

How much do you agree or disagree that a small deposit of 10c to 20c should be
added to the cost of all recyclable containers (drink cans, plastic bottles, glass
bottles, etc.)? This would be refunded when you returned the containers to a
depot to encourage greater re-use and recycling.
Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree (that a small deposit
should be charged) and 5 is strongly agree

Representative
Survey
N=4816
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
2 11 12
3 17 13
4 14 13
I do not know 6 4

If a small deposit was put on the cost of all recyclable containers (drink cans,
plastic bottles, glass bottles, etc.), how likely would you be to return them to
get your deposit refunded or give them to someone else to get the refund?
Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all likely and 5 is extremely
likely
Representative
Survey
N= 4794
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
1 Not at all likely 14 17
2 9 11
3 15 11
4 17 14
5 Extremely likely 39 43
I do not know 5 4

Those general residents and panellists who agreed with the idea of a refundable deposit on recyclable containers
thought it would encourage recycling and help reduce litter Some saw it as a good source of pocket money or
supplementary income. Others pointed to the success of similar schemes in the past or overseas.

General residents and panellists who disagreed with the idea gave a variety of reasons. They thought a small refund of
10c 20c wouldnt be enough to encourage people to return the containers to a depot, that having individuals
returning items to a depot was an inefficient means of recycling, that the scheme would be costly to administer and
that a deposit on all recyclable containers would further increase the cost of living .

Small refundable deposit for recyclable containers selection of comments (Representative Online
Survey)

Agree with idea of refundable deposit
Would discourage people to just put them out in the normal rubbish.
It worked in the 70's with glass bottles. Worth a go.
I like this idea and I think it would work. (especially to teach young children to recycle).
If there was a financial incentive for recycling, people would do so, Works well in Germany where the
depots are in the supermarkets.
Page 553 of 591

38
This give people an incentive to collect the recyclables and return them instead of just putting them in
the general rubbish. Also enables kids and community groups to earn extra money.
This could provide revenue for people needing a little more income. however this cost should not be
added to essential grocieries like milk.
I like to think that it would become something kids would like to do to earn pocket money etc but
worry that some people would resort to other methods to attain goods for refunding. Hard one.
Disagree with idea of refundable deposit
We wouldnt need all this recycling if we went back to paperbags and glass containers and having a
milk bottle run again....plastic is the problem.
Lived in country that did that ...most people still put into recycling bin and then people raided thru
trash to pick it up to collect the deposit.
Money should not come into play.
I always use the recycling bin. It's so simple. The new proposition sounds too difficult.
Charging people extra to recycle will not get them into the habit of recycling. Those that do recycle
should not be penalized by a rise in cost.
I dont believe most users would go out of their way to a depot.
All cans and bottles I purchase go through into my recycling bin, I don't have time to take them back
to a depot to get my money back.

Small refundable deposit for recyclable containers selection of comments (Peoples Panel Online
Survey)

Agree with idea of refundable deposit
This would be a great incentive for people to recycle their own containers, and to collect other
containers for recycling too (and may help reduce littering, particularly at events). In particular, it may
reduce peoples' tendency to throw away recyclable containers they have purchased while away from
home (e.g. during lunch at work).
Not only can this become pocket money or an adjunct to income it creates an awareness of the
problem. In our area, it is cans and bottles thrown out of passing cars.
This makes sense to me. We used to get refunds on glass returns when I was younger. It seemed to
work very well.
Yes!!!! Have seen it work wonderfully overseas. Why not here?
Disagree with idea of refundable deposit
Cost does not justify the inconvenience of having to save up your bottles and take them to the depot. I
would just put them in my recycling bin instead.
10-20 cents wouldnt encourage people to take them to be recycled.
A waste of time, this would be an extraordinarily inefficient and wasteful way to recycle.
It would be a hassle to return different items to different areas. I would rather pay for a recycling
service.
With all the plastic and glass bottles that everyone uses the cost would definitely be way too high.
The rise in cost of living is a major problem for many.
Better to 'police' what goes into the bins in the first place. Think of all the extra petrol and emissions
for all the extra car trips to return containers and get the refunds.


Attitudes towards deposits on recyclable containers were mixed but more focus group and in-depth interview
participants were in favour of this than not in the context that it might encourage recycling. Few said that they would
bother storing bottles themselves at home (for later returning or even collection by another group e.g. scouts, schools
etc.). None said that they would refuse to pay an additional 10c or 20c but several did not think that this would
work to encourage more recycling behaviour. These tended to be older stakeholders (50+) who said that they could
recall similar systems in New Zealand in the past and were of the opinion that they didnt work.

Page 554 of 591

39
Most stakeholders however, could see the opportunity for children, groups and even homeless people to collect
bottles, cans, plastic containers that may have been dropped into bins in parks and on streets which would
ultimately lead to an overall increase in the extent to which these items are recycled.

4.4.6 Illegal dumping of tyres
Fifty seven percent of general residents and 65% of panellists agreed or strongly agreed that a $5 charge should be
added to the price of tyres to cover the cost of free, convenient disposal, in order to encourage recycling and
discourage illegal dumping. Twenty two percent of general residents and 19% of panellists disagreed or strongly
disagreed.

Given that you currently pay for the disposal of tyres to landfill, how much do
you agree or disagree that a small charge of $5 should be added to the cost of
tyres, which would enable tyres to be recycled? This would mean that you
could dispose of your tyre at a depot or to the place you bought it from for free
and it would be recycled.
Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree (that a small deposit
should be charged) and 5 is strongly agree.

Representative
Survey
N=4783
%
Peoples Panel
N=1914
%
2 7 6
3 14 9
4 21 15
I do not know 7 5
This is not applicable to me 0 3

Stakeholders were generally in favour of a deposit of $5 being added to tyres if it encouraged recycling behaviours.
None were very sure regarding what happens to tyres at present most noted that when they replace their tyres they
simply leave them at the business replacing them. Most said that they did not know what happens to tyres after that.
This may also present a communications opportunity particularly if people become more aware of the fact that tyres
generally go into landfill. A few people noted that they have seen tyres dumped in their areas.

Page 555 of 591

40
4.4.7 Additional comments

At the conclusion of the survey, all participants were asked if they had any other comments either on the topics
already covered or on waste management in general. The comments often further discussed points they had already
made. We have included below a selection of comments giving views not already expressed in the report.

Additional comments selection of comments (Representative Online Survey)
Being better at managing waste is important; and there is much awareness around now; but could be
more done to encourage recycling etc.
We recently bought a tyre and there was a $10 fee for disposal of the old one.
The collection points for other items of of non recyclable should be promoted more often and perhaps
have a 'FREE' day at the transfer station once every 6 months?
I understand that anything to do with rubbish disposal, be it household, general or whatever can be
extremely hard to monitor and kids just don't seem to be taught about littering and its effects like we
were. Also, please remember the householders bills are rising all the time so please don't make it too
much dearer to exist!!
I think organic bins is an excellent idea. I think that west auckland should get bins and that would
reduce waste scattered on the ground from dogs/cats/ people getting into the bags and, it would
make life easier.
I believe there is an economic tyre recycling operation going noww and would be happy to see a
means of ensuring tyres were made available to this and any other such operations. I don't know if
there is ana dequte market for all the old tyres here.
If Council continues with the Increase in Rates and then starts putting costs on items used to removal
of rubbish etc, then they will find those that will buck the system and dump. As nice as it would be to
think that we can live in clean streets there are too many people that would prefer to dump and some
even dump on others sections or land. Many believe the Rates we pay are enough to cover what we
have now. It just needs improvement and more awareness to the public.
Could the Councill look into giving tax/rates rebates to people who are trying to help reduce rubbish
or waste at their own homes? Also, could you look into "new products" that "disintergrates"
household waste. This might be the ultimate way of really reducing rubbish associated costs for the
Councill and helping the environmentt at the same time!??
Just that we need wheelie bins on the North Shore!
Does the contents of the current recycle bins actually get recycled or as previously reported is it just
crushed and dumped with other household rubbish. There seems to be no proof either way. Perhaps
this should be explained through the monthly council magazine/newsletter.

Additional comments selection of comments (Peoples Panel Online Survey)
Most people are ignorant of the environmental impact of waste disposal. Council have a role to advise
and educate before they collect.
More should be done to raise awareness of recycling , targets to recycle waste should be set and
school children should be included in any awareness training and prises given for the best schools who
adopt their own recycling programme.
Get on and do it; the biggest problem with all the past and current councils is not the lack of ideas, but
getting the ideas done .. just do it.
One comment, is that it's confusing that " big " recycling bins are for rural areas that get fortnightly
collections, and " little " bins are for urban or community areas where there are weekly collections.
Some folks don't realize that the bins should stay with the house / dwelling when they move, so big
bins end up in the urban areas and our contractor refuses to collect them as he contracts to collect
small bins !!!
I think I have made my feeling quite clear. What we need is Leadership, not just more mindless rules
that are top-heavy in administration. If you must legislate, then give it real teeth and show us that it
works. All the time. You will do far more by getting people on side with it than constantly kicking
people in the rear when they transgress, Making littering a Socially Unacceptable Act will almost
Page 556 of 591

41
eliminate it. Just like drink-driving - the public at large pay only lip service because there is no real
stigma to being caught. The same with rubbish. The old saying - "You can sell anything at all, if you
package it correctly" is as true here as anywhere else. It would still surprise me if anyone actually
reads these comments .
I think the garbage men do a horrid job really well and deserve to be well paid and respected for it.
Imagine what the city would look like without them. I have this overseas and it is not nice!
I think the amount of packing is a disgrace. You can't buy anything anymore without heaps of packing.
I am not sure why they don't tax packing at source; i.e. tax the manufacture of it so that products with
lot's of packaging would cost more.
I know that it sounds perhaps arrogant but education against littering and disposal has worked for me
and most of my friends. That plus general provision of easy means of getting rid of litter and general
waste plus the development of general ideas of recycling. Unfortunately the growth in volume and
variety or stuff that you cannot re use ( packaging mainly) has complicated even good intentions. Re
use and recycling has not kept up with this. I am not sure where management starts - perhaps it
starts with the manufacturer and distributor. It may have to end with some highly modern system for
destruction with something else as a useful by-product.
Reduce, Recycle, Reuse. Households can achieve zero waste. Promote less packaging, and penalize
excessive packaging. Come down hard on littering and dumping. People need to realize it is a privilege
to live in this amazing city.

Page 557 of 591

42
4 Conclusions and consideration points
More general residents (71%) and panellists (70%) would prefer a wheelie bin for the disposal of their general
household waste, than would prefer bags (13% and 17% respectively). Those preferring bags were more likely to be
living in areas with bag systems at present however, many other residents in areas with bags said that they would
prefer to switch to a bin system. Just over half of general residents (53%) and panellists (57%) expressed an interest in
the concept of an organic collection for their food and garden waste. Those that did not raised a number of key
concerns in particular regarding additional cost and hassle, and concerns over hygiene.
A uniform charge was the preferred funding method for more general residents and panellists for general household
waste (57% and 54% respectively) and recycling (71% and 80% respectively). A uniform charge was preferred by more
general residents and panellists for recycling collections because of a view that a user-pays systems for recycling
would not encourage waste minimisation in households. Just under half of general residents (48%) were in support of
a uniform charge for inorganic and organic collections (if introduced), while just over half of panellists were in support
of a uniform charge for inorganic (51%) and organic (52%) collections (if introduced). A key barrier to accepting the
concept of user-pays for general household waste was to do with the perceived difficulties in administering payment
for this.
Fifty one percent of general residents and 45% of panellists support imposing the maximum fine of $400 for illegal
dumping. Forty seven percent of general residents and 39% of panellists believe that Council should force
supermarkets to make sure that trolleys do not leave their premises. Forty four percent of general residents and 35%
of panellists agree that a small deposit should be added to the cost of recyclable containers. Fifty seven percent of
general residents and 65% of panellists agree that a $5 charge be added to the price of tyres.
Attitudes varied in terms of the extent to which litter is a problem and whether Council is doing enough to
prevent/discourage littering.

Consideration points
With regards to organic collections (if they are being considered and/or introduced), attention needs to be given
to ways in which this additional separation of waste can be made easy for households. The separation of organic
waste will initially take place in the house (not outside at the bin) and this process needs to be as simple as
possible (e.g. a simple bin solution that makes this behavior easy to perform).
Also with regards to organic collections a key issue raised was to do with the smell of the bin (and emptying
waste directly into it). It may be worthwhile exploring the availability and cost implications of bags (or some sort
of device) that can be used to collect organic waste (and in turn put into an organic bin).
Any user-pays approach (for the different waste collection activities) should be considered in the context of how
payment processes can be communicated to the wider population. This was a key area of concern in terms of the
perceived additional hassle involved in making payments (as well as how it would be charged) and one of the
major barriers in terms of a willingness to consider a user-pays system.
Consider ways in which the recyclability of different types of plastic might be better communicated. This was a
key area of confusion for many stakeholders in the qualitative work and is likely to mean that either (1) they are
not recycling certain plastics that could be recycled, or (2) they are recycling plastics that should not be.
Consider opportunities for providing waste-related information as part of a pack for new migrants moving into
Auckland what can and cant be recycled, what the different bins/bags are for, the purpose and benefits of
recycling and what happens to waste that households do recycle. It is recommended that consideration be given
to these packs being made available in a variety of languages. This was also raised during the qualitative work.
Consider communicating more information to the wider population about what actually happens to the waste
they recycle. There is some confusion over this in the qualitative work, and more clarity around next steps for
recyclables may (1) serve to reinforce positive recycling behaviours, and (2) raise awareness of recycling and the
benefits of doing so among those who dont (or perhaps dont recycle as often or as much as they could).
Page 558 of 591

43
Appendix I Questionnaire Online surey

The questionnaire below provides an overview of all the questions asked in the WMMP survey. The representative
online survey and the Peoples Panel online survey were the same, other than the last section in the Peoples Panel
survey which asked questions to assist with focus group recruitment.

Waste Management and Minimisation Public Consultation

FINAL Survey May 2011

Introduction

This is a survey about your views on household waste management (in other words, your household rubbish, which
includes organic waste (e.g. food, garden waste), recyclables (plastic, glass, tins, etc.) and inorganic waste (bulky
items like furniture, appliances, TVs etc.). This survey also includes some questions about other waste related topics
such as litter and junk mail.

The first few questions are about what you currently do with your household waste.

Q.1 Do you regularly use Councils kerbside recycling collection service?

Yes
No
We do not have a Council recycling collection service in the area where I live

Q.2 How aware are you about which items can be put out in your recycling collection service?

Please use a scale from 1 5, where 1 is you are not at all aware and 5 is you are extremely aware. Includes
N/A option.

Q.3 Have you used the Councils inorganic collection service in the last 18 months?

Yes
No
We do not have a Council inorganic collection in the area where I live
Not sure/Cant remember?

Q.4 Do you currently have a garden waste bin or bag this would be a bin or bag that you pay a private
company to collect?

Yes I have a garden bin Continue
Yes I have a garden bag Continue
Yes I have both a bin and bag(s) Continue
No Skip to Q.5
I am not sure Skip to Q.5

Q.4a How frequently is your garden waste collected?
Page 559 of 591

44

Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly
Once a year
Other please tell us how often?
I am not sure

Q.4b How much does your garden waste collection cost you each year?

Under $10
Between $10 and $29
Between $30 and $49
Between $50 and $69
Between $70 and $89
$90 or more per year
I am not sure
Skip to Q.6

Q.5 What do you currently do with your garden waste (e.g. lawn and other clippings, leaves, weeds etc.). You
may select more than one answer here.

I dont have any garden waste/dont have a garden etc.
I have a gardener/gardening company who disposes of it for me
I put it in my normal rubbish bin or bag
I leave it in the garden/I dont do any gardening
CONTINUE
I compost my garden waste Continue
Or, something else please tell us what? Continue

Q.6 How much, if any, of your organic waste (food and garden waste) do you compost at home?

I have no organic waste at home
None of it
Less than 50%
More than 50%, but not all of it
All of it
I am not sure

Q.6a Do you have a kitchen waste disposal unit or insinkerator?

Yes Continue
No Skip to Q.7

Q.6b Do you regularly use your kitchen waste disposal unit or insinkerator to dispose of your food waste?

Yes
No
I am not sure

At present, each of the previous local council areas (Auckland City, North Shore, Manukau, Waitakere, Papakura,
Rodney and Franklin) have different approaches for the collection of household waste/rubbish.

The new Auckland Council is in the process of developing a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WWMP),
which aims to standardise household waste management collection across the new Auckland Council area. In this next
set of questions, we are interested in your views about what a new waste management and minimisation approach
should be like.

Page 560 of 591

45
At present some areas have wheelie bins for general household waste and some have bags and in some areas
households are charged through their rates and in others, they purchase bags themselves (i.e. it is user-pays). We are
interested in whether you would prefer to use a wheelie bin or bag. However, please disregard any cost implications
at this stage because both bags and wheelie bins could be funded/charged in the same way either through rates or
as user-pays. At this stage we just want to know whether you prefer wheelie bins or bags for rubbish.

Q.7 Would you prefer to use a wheelie bin or bag(s) for your general household rubbish/waste (note that we
are not talking about recycling here just general household waste that isnt recyclable)?

A wheelie bin
Bag(s)
I dont mind either a bin or bag(s)
I am not sure

Q.8 Please tell us the reason for your answer.

Text box for open-ended response

Q.9 At present, your general household rubbish (the rubbish you put in bags or in your normal, non-recycling
wheelie bin) goes to landfill.

How interested would you be in having a separate collection for your organic waste (this includes food and
garden waste that you may currently put into your normal wheelie bin or bag) at a subsidised cost? This
waste would not go to landfill but would be either composted or put to some other beneficial use. This
would mean you would be putting out less general household waste into your normal wheelie bin or bags
(which would reduce the cost of that collection).

Please use a scale from 1-5, where 1 is not at all interested in having a separate collection for your organic
waste and 5 is extremely interested. Includes a dont know/not applicable option.



Q.11 If an organic waste collection was introduced, how often would you want this organic waste to be collected?

Weekly
Fortnightly
Monthly
Other please tell us how often?

I do not want a separate organic waste collection

Having a uniform charge included in the annual rates bill means that everyone pays the same amount via their rates
regardless of how much rubbish they put out for collection. User pays means that you pay for only the rubbish/waste
that you are disposing of.

Q.12 How do you think household rubbish/waste collections should be funded (including general household waste
and recyclables)?

Rates Funded
(uniform charge)
User Pays I am not sure Another way
please tell us how
General household
rubbish (not
recyclables)

Inorganic
Page 561 of 591

46
collections (e.g.
furniture,
whiteware, TVs)
Recycling
collections (glass,
plastic, tins etc.)

Organic collections
(food and garden
waste) if
introduced

Q.13 Please tell us the reason for your answers.


Q.14 Do you have any other comments or suggestions about household waste collections including what they
should include and how they should be funded?


In the next set of questions we are interested in your views on a number of other waste and litter related issues
(e.g. litter and junk mail).

Q.15 Central government legislation provides for Council to impose an instant fine of up to $400 for illegal
dumping. Illegal dumping is when someone disposes of rubbish on public land without permission. This can
include dumping rubbish in the bush, in parks, in streams and at beaches.

What are your views on the fine of $400 for illegal dumping?

A $400 fine is too much for someone caught illegally dumping
A $400 fine is fair for someone caught illegally dumping
A $400 fine is not enough for someone caught illegally dumping
I am not sure

Q.16 Do you think that enough is being done by Council to stop illegal dumping?

Yes enough is being done to stop illegal dumping
No more needs to be done to stop illegal dumping
I am not sure

Q.16a Please tell us the reason for your answers.


Q.17 In some areas there is a problem with abandoned shopping trolleys. This is where someone takes a shopping
trolley home from the supermarket and leaves it somewhere (e.g. in a park, on a street etc.). These end up
being an environmental and cost issue for Council as they pollute streams and other waterways, and in some
instances can damage parked cars.

Do you think Council should force supermarkets to make sure that the trolleys dont leave their premises by
charging customers a deposit to use them or by any other method?

Yes
No
I am not sure

Page 562 of 591

47


Q.19 Which of the following best describes your attitude towards junk mail?

I do not like junk mail and I have a no junk mail (or similar) sticker on my
letterbox

I do not like junk mail but I do not have a no junk mail sticker on my
letterbox

I dont mind junk mail but usually throw it away without reading it
I dont mind junk mail and usually check to see whats there
I like getting junk mail
Or, something else please tell us what?

Q.20 Do you think that if someone has a no junk mail sticker on their letterbox, that this should be adhered to by
people delivering junk mail/brochures etc.?

Yes
No
I am not sure

Q.21 How much do you agree or disagree that there is a problem with litter on the streets/roads in the area
where you live?

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree (that there is a problem with litter in your local
area) and 5 is strongly agree. Include dont know option.

Q.22 How satisfied are you that Auckland Council is doing enough to discourage/prevent littering in your area?

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is extremely dissatisfied with what is being done and 5 is extremely
satisfied. Includes dont know option.

Q.22a Please tell us the reason for your answers.


Q.23 How much do you agree or disagree that a small deposit of 10c to20c should be added to the cost of all
recyclable containers (drink cans, plastic bottles, glass bottles etc.)? This would be refunded when you
returned the containers to a depot to encourage greater re-use and recycling.

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree (that a small deposit should be charged) and 5 is
strongly agree. Includes dont know option.



Q.25 If a small deposit was put on the cost of all recyclable containers (drink cans, plastic bottles, glass bottles
etc.), how likely would you be to return them to get your deposit refunded or give them to someone else to
get the refund?

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all likely and 5 is extremely likely. Include dont know option.

Page 563 of 591

48
Q.26 Illegal dumping of tyres is a significant environmental and cost issue for Council. Dumped tyres pollute
waterways, can provide perfect breeding grounds for unwanted disease carrying mosquitoes, rats and other
vermin, as well as creating a constant fire threat that needs to be eliminated as quickly as possible.

Given that you currently pay for the disposal of tyres to landfill, how much do you agree or disagree that a
small charge of $5 should be added to the cost of tyres, which would enable tyres to be recycled? This would
mean that you could dispose of your tyre at a depot or to the place you bought it from for free and it would
be recycled.

Please use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree (that a small despite should be charged) and 5 is
there is strongly agree. Includes dont know option and N/A.

Q.27 Do you have any other comments you would like to make about any of the topics in this survey or any
comments to do with waste management in general?


Finally, just a few questions about you. These are just to ensure that we speak to a wide range of people in this
survey.

Q.28 Are you:

Female 1 Male 2
Id rather not say

Q.29 Which age group do you fall into?

18-19 years 1 40-49 years 4
20-29 years 2 50-64 years 5
30-39 years 3 65 years or over 6
Id rather not say

Q.30 Which of the following best describes your ethnicity?

NZ European 1 Fijian 9 Middle Eastern 16
Other European 2 Other Pacific Peoples 10 Latin American 17
Maori 3 Chinese 11 African 18
Samoan 4 Indian 12 Other please tell us
what that is

19
Cook Islands Maori 5 Korean 13 Id rather not say 20
Tongan 6 South East Asian

14
Niuean 7 Other Asian 15
Tokelauan 8

Q.31 Which of the following best describes your income level?

Less than $20,000 per year 1 Between $60,000 and $79,999 6
Between $20,000 and $29,999 2 Between $80,000 and $99,999 7
Between $30,000 and $39,999 3 Between $100,000 and $250,000 8
Between $40,000 and $49,999 4 More than $250,000 per year 9
Between $50,000 and $59,999 5 Id rather not say 10

Page 564 of 591

49
Q.32 Which of the following best describes you?

Paid employee 1 Not in the labour force 6
Employer 2 Other employed 7
Self-employed without employees 3 Other not employed 8
Unpaid family worker 4 Student 9
Unemployed and actively seeking work 5 Other please specify 10
Id rather not say 11

Q.33 Which of the following best describes the type of household you live in?

One person living alone 1 One parent family 5
Couple only with no children living at
home
2 Non family household e.g. flatting 6
Two parent family with one or two
children living at home
3 Extended family arrangement 7
Two parent family with three or more
children living at home
4 Other please specify 8
Id rather not say 9

Q.34 And which of the following suburbs do you live in?
Add Other please specify
Add Id rather not say

Drop down box of suburbs
"Placenames NZ" layer from council GIS:
sde:sqlserver:ACALGISDBP01.arc.govt\gisdata.OWNER.PlaceNamesNZ
Sourced from LINZ

Thanks for taking the time to complete this survey your feedback is appreciated.

Focus Group Recruitment Questions

Auckland Council will be conducting a series of focus group discussions in order to get a more in-depth understanding
of some of the topics in this survey. Focus groups are relaxed, informal discussions with 8-9 participants in each
group and a facilitator.

Each group would be held in early June, and would be approximately 2 hours in duration, starting at 6.00pm. You
would be compensated for your time.

We are looking for a mix of different people, so if you think you might be interested in taking part please complete the
following questions.

Would you be interested in taking part in a focus group?
Yes
No

Which of the following best describes your living accommodation?

An apartment - in an apartment building
Housing New Zealand accommodation
A flat (not an apartment) sharing with other flatmates
A house with garden
Or something else please tell us what?

Page 565 of 591

50

Which of the following best describes your recycling behaviour?

I always use my recycling bin and recycle as much as I can
I use my recycling bin for some things but there is more I could be recycling
I sometimes use my recycling bin not always
I rarely or never use my recycling bin
Or something else please tell us what?

Your name

Contact phone number

Email

Thank you you may be contacted in the next few weeks about attending one of our focus groups.
Page 566 of 591

51
Appendix II Focus Group Discussion Schedule/In-Depth Interview Guide

Auckland Council
Waste Management and Minimisation Public Consultation

Discussion Guide June 2011

This discussion guide is indicative only of the flow of conversation, not a word for word description of the moderators
questions.
1 Introduction 5 minutes
Nature and purpose of research
No right or wrong answers
Confidentiality
MRS membership
Any questions
Round of introductions

2 Household waste behaviour and attitudes general waste and recycling
First of all, Id be interested in understanding a bit about your current household rubbish environment i.e. whats
available to you in your area for disposing of your household rubbish. Thinking about your general household rubbish
(not recycling), do the houses in your area use bins or bags?

PROBE

Bins vs. bags
For bags how many bags do you put out in an average week? (CHECK: how much does each bag cost you?)
What about those of you with bins do you fill them up every week? (CHECK: how much general household
rubbish would you be putting out?)
How do you feel about using bags/a bin?
If it was up to you, what would you choose to use and why? (NOTE: lets imagine that the cost would be the
same for both Im really just trying to understand what youd actually prefer here)
What do you see as the advantages of bins vs. bags and vice versa? (CHECK: what are the downsides?) EXPLORE
perceptions of bags among those using bins and vice versa, different ethnicity, new migrants, living
accommodation, different recycling levels, socio-economic background etc.
EXPLORE any issues related to size of property (outside area) re: storage of bins etc., physical barriers that impact
on using either (CHECK: what would you do if your area switched to using bins/bags would it be a problem for
you/would you manage OK?)
If no what would be the main issues for you and what would you do?

What about recycling what is your current household recycling environment? EXPLORE yes I recycle (frequently,
sometimes, no I dont

PROBE

How often is your recycling collected?
What are your perceptions/attitudes in regards to recycling? (EXPLORE: those that are from different ethnicity,
new migrants, living accommodation, different recycling levels, socio-economic background etc.)
What can Council do to encourage more recycling?
Are there other ways that we can reduce and reuse our waste?
What type of bin does your area use for recycling?
Do you recycle regularly or not all the time? (CHECK: its Ok if you dont, we just want to understand what
people do and dont do)
What type of items do you put in your recycling bin? (CHECK: how do you know what type of glass, plastic etc. is
OK to put in the bin and what isnt?)
Page 567 of 591

52
Are you confident that you know what can and cant be recycled so what do you do if youre not sure?
Would you say you recycle everything you can or sometimes not?
What do you think are the main reasons why you sometimes dont use your recycling bin? (CHECK: dont know
what I can put in it, it is difficult for me to use/heavy, I forget, I cant be bothered etc.)

3 Other household waste/disposal methods

Does your area have an inorganic collection?

PROBE

Do you ever put items out when there is an inorganic collection? (CHECK: what types of things do you put out?)
For those areas where inorganic collections are no longer paid for by rates what do you do now? (CHECK:
dispose of inorganic waste in another way, pay Council for a collection, leave it out and hope someone takes it
away, store it somewhere else on your property etc.)
If there were NO inorganic collections, what would you do with your inorganic rubbish? (CHECK: do you know
what options are available for you/what you can do with it what are the barriers to using these e.g. cost of
disposal/cost of trailer, no transport, physical difficulties etc.?)
How do you think inorganic collections should be paid for do you think people who use these collections should
be charged when they put inorganics out OR do you think there should be a charge through rates for everyone,
whether they use their inorganic collection or not?
Whats your personal preference? (CHECK: if you had to make a decision tonight, what would you do?)
What are your perceptions/attitudes in regards to inorganic collections? (EXPLORE: those that are from different
ethnicity, new migrants, living accommodation, different recycling levels, socio-economic background etc.)

Do you have a garden bin or bag that you pay a private company to collect?

PROBE

How often does it get collected and how much do you pay each time?
Have you ever had a garden bin or bag why not anymore?
Why dont you have a garden bin or bag i.e. no garden, dont do any gardening etc.
If you do have a garden, what do you currently do with your garden waste? (CHECK: do nothing, put it in out
with my normal rubbish etc.)

What other ways in your household do you have to dispose of rubbish?

PROBE

Does your kitchen have a waste disposal/insinkerator?
Do you use it regularly why or why not?
Do you ever compost how often, what do you compost?
Have you ever considered composting why or why not? (CHECK: what are the main reasons why you wouldnt
compost i.e. not interested, smells/unpleasant, attracts unwanted visitors, cant be bothered, forget to do, dont
have enough space t do it, dont know how etc.

Just thinking about the organic waste that your household may have and by organic I am talking about food waste
and also garden waste how interested would you be if Auckland Council provided you with a separate bin (or bag)
for this?

PROBE

Do you think you would separate out your food waste if a separate bin was available?
If not why not CHECK: no space for a separate bin, wouldnt bother/too much hassle, dispose of food waste in
another way (waste disposal/compost), perceptions of smell etc. (i.e. if put in a bin rather than e.g. put in rubbish
bags in a bin)
Page 568 of 591

53
Would you use it for garden waste why or why not?
What would be the advantages for you do you think, in having a separate bin for organic waste what would be
the downside?
If interested how often should it be collected?
Would you be prepared to pay for having a separate bin it could either be user pays (which means you pay only
for what you use) or it could be charged through your rates?
What if the cost was subsidised by Council?

4 Funding of household waste collections
Just thinking about your current household rubbish environment at present, some of you are buying bags and some
of you are being charged for this via your rates. Now that there is only one Council for the entire region, rubbish
collections need to be standardised so everyone is under the same system. What would you personally prefer to
happen and dont worry whether you said youd prefer bins or bags earlier, because both bins and bags can either
be user pays or can be charged through your rates.

By user pays, I mean that you pay only for the rubbish you are disposing of. If waste collections were charged through
rates, that would mean that everyone would pay the same regardless of the amount of waste their household has.
PROBE
What do you see as the advantages of either approach?
What would be the downsides?
What concerns or questions do you have about either?
How would either user pays or paying through your rates work in terms of your household?
What about for recycling collections do you think these should be user pays or should you be charged through
your rates?
What would be the pros and cons of each? (CHECK: if either one or the other system was introduced what
would it mean for your household how might it change what you currently do with your household rubbish and
recycling?
(EXPLORE: those that are from different ethnicity, new migrants, living accommodation, different recycling levels,
socio-economic background etc.)

How often do you think household waste should be collected IF we have a weekly organic collection and a fortnightly
recycling collection?

PROBE

How often would be often enough (get participants to think about what would be in this residual waste)

5 Other waste and litter related questions

There are just a few other areas Id like to talk about now to do with waste. First of all, what are your views on illegal
dumping?

PROBE

Do you know what illegal dumping is? (CHECK: what are your perceptions of how much of an issue illegal
dumping is what do you base this on?
EXPLAIN illegal dumping and give examples if necessary
Government legislation allows Auckland Council to impose an instant fine of up to $400 for illegal dumping what
are you views on this?
Is this enough, too much, not enough why do you say that?
Do you think that more should/could be done about illegal dumping?
What more (if applicable) should Auckland Council do about illegal dumping beyond fines, do you think there
are other opportunities here?

Do you notice abandoned shopping trolleys in the area where you live or perhaps in areas you visit or travel
through?
Page 569 of 591

54

PROBE

Whos responsibility do you think it is to prevent people taking shopping trolleys away from supermarkets and
leaving them places?
EXPLORE attitudes towards a deposit being charged for each trolley that customers get back once the trolley is
returned (i.e. a dollar?)
Have you ever shopped anywhere (overseas) where youve experienced this?
Is this fair enough? (CHECK: how would you feel if this were to happen?)
What other solutions might there be to the issue of abandoned trolleys?

How many of you have a no junk mail sticker on your letter-box?

PROBE

Did you put it there or was it already there when you moved in?
Whats your view on junk mail? (CHECK: what do you do with it read it, throw it away where, do you recycle it
etc.)
Do you think no junk mail stickers should be respected by people delivering junk mail?
Is there a problem with loose junk mail in your area i.e. does it create a litter problem that you notice?

Is litter a problem in your area?

Do you notice litter in and around the area where you live?
What do you notice what do you see in terms of litter around the area? (CHECK: ask for examples do you see
litter lying around, overflowing bins, people actually littering etc.)?
When we talk about litter what are we really talking about? (CHECK: what are the types of litter you notice
around the area?)
Are some types of litter worse than others which and why?
How much of a problem do you think litter is in the area? (CHECK: whats your perception of the extent of litter in
your area compared to other parts of Auckland?)
Who litters? (CHECK: do you have a view on who creates the litter in the area?)
Do you ever litter/people you know? (its OK, Im not going to point the finger at anyone) just interested in
whether you ever have or do and what you do, what, when?
How does it make you feel when you see litter around the area?
What do you think needs to be done to prevent littering? (CHECK: fines/enforcement, something else?

EXPLORE ALSO:
Agreement or otherwise that a deposit should be charged on recyclable containers (10c, 20c on drink cans,
plastic bottles, glass bottles EXPLORE pros, cons, likely behaviour and barriers
Agreement or otherwise that a deposit should be charged on tyres EXPLAIN key issues here and EXPLORE pros,
cons, likely behaviour and barriers

WRAP UP AND ANY OTHER COMMENTS

THANK AND CLOSE

Page 570 of 591

55
Appendix III Respondent profile Representative Online Survey
The table below provides a demographic breakdown of Mobius panel members who responded to the WMMP
survey, along with the variance when weighted to Department of Statistics data for the Auckland Region (refer to
Appendix IV). Sample sizes vary by demographic question as not all respondents answered all demographic
questions. The maximum sample size for any one question on the survey was N=5357.

Mobius Panel
Number of
responses
(N=5357)
Mobius Panel
Percentages (%)
(n=5357)
Variance between
Departmet of Statistics
Data
Gender
Female 1306 73% 21%
Male 3447 27% -21%
Prefer not to say -
Age
18-19 years 885 13% -12%
20-29 years 1317 20% -3%
30-39 years 1537 23% 1%
40-49 years 1940 29% 13%
50-64 years 940 14% 0%
65 years or over 83 - -
Prefer not to say 83 - -
Ethnicity*
NZ European 3305 69% 12%
Other European 420 9% 1%
Maori 403 8% -3%
Samoan 222 5% -2%
Cook Islands Maori 69 1% -1%
Tongan 57 1% -2%
Niuean 23 0% -1%
Tokelauan 1 0% 0%
Fijian 41 1% 0%
Other Pacific Peoples 16 0% 0%
Chinese 96 2% -6%
Indian 154 3% -3%
Korean 9 0% 0%
Southeast Asian 48 1% -1%
Other Asian 63 1% -2%
Middle Eastern 13 0% -1%
Latin American 13 0% 0%
African 52 1% 1%
Id rather not say 137
*Please note as this question was multiple response percentages dont add to 100%
Local Board
Albert-Eden 300 7% 0%
Devonport-Takapuna 159 3% -1%
Franklin 230 5% 1%
Great Barrier 3 0% 0%
Henderson-Massey 345 8% 0%
Hibiscus and Bays 367 8% 2%
Howick 375 8% 2%
Kaipatiki 122 3% -3%
Mangere-Otahuhu 189 4% -2%
Manurewa 233 5% 0%
Page 571 of 591

56
Maungakiekie-Tamaki 264 6% 0%
Orakei 163 4% -2%
Otara-Papatoetoe 144 3% 0%
Papakura 138 3% -1%
Puketapapa 180 4% 0%
Rodney 335 7% -1%
Upper Harbour 196 4% 1%
Waiheke 30 1% 0%
Waitakere Ranges 235 5% 2%
Waitemata 308 7% 2%
Whau 240 5% 0%
From: Which of the following suburbs do you live in?

Page 572 of 591

57
Appendix IV Respondent profile Peoples Panel Online Survey
The table below provides a demographic breakdown of Peoples Panellists who responded to the WMMP survey:

Peoples Panel
Number of
responses
(n=1914)
Peoples Panel
Percentages (%)
(n=1914)
Statistics NZ
Percentages (%)
2006 census data
Gender
Female 1,060 55 51
Male 843 44 49
Prefer not to say 11 1 -
Age
18-19 years 15 1
20-29 years 135 7 14
30-39 years 332 17 16
40-49 years 432 23 15
50-64 years 623 33 6
65 years or over 352 18 10
Prefer not to say 25 1
Ethnicity*
European 1623 85 57
Mori 76 4 11
Pacific Peoples 49 3 14
Asian 85 4 19
Middle Eastern/Latin American/African 14 1 1
Other Ethnicity 116 6 8
Prefer not to say 33 2
*Please note as this question was multiple response percentages dont add to 100%
Local Board
Albert-Eden 219 11 7
Devonport-Takapuna 76 4 4
Franklin 85 4 4
Great Barrier 2 0.1 0.1
Henderson-Massey 101 5 8
Hibiscus and Bays 145 8 6
Howick 111 6 9
Kaipatiki 126 7 6
Mangere-Otahuhu 37 2 5
Manurewa 37 2 6
Maungakiekie-Tamaki 84 4 5
Orakei 164 9 6
Otara-Papatoetoe 23 1 6
Papakura 42 2 3
Puketapapa 57 3 4
Rodney 132 7 4
Upper Harbour 45 2 3
Waiheke 22 1 1
Waitakere Ranges 87 5 3
Waitemata 214 11 5
Whau 101 5 5
Other 2 0.1
Id rather not say 2 0.1
From: Which of the following suburbs do you live in?

Page 573 of 591
CONSULTATION

MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH REVIEW OF THE WASTE ASSESSMENT
APRIL MAY 2011
Page 574 of 591

Auckland Regional Public Health Service
Cornwall Complex, Floor 2, Building 15
Greenlane Clinical Centre, Auckland
Private Bag 92 605, Symonds Street,
Auckland 1150, New Zealand
Telephone: 09 623 4600
Facsimile: 09 623 4633
Website: www.arphs.govt.nz

1
st
April 2011

Parul Sood
Strategic Projects Senior Advisor
Infrastructure and Environmental Services
Auckland Council
Private Bag 92300
Auckland 1142

Re: Review of Auckland Council Waste Assessment

Dear Ms. Sood

1. Thank you for consulting the Medical Officer of Health on Auckland Councils Waste
Assessment, as part of the process by which Auckland Council will implement the
requirements of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

2. The documentation you supplied has been reviewed by a number of technical staff within
Auckland Regional Public Health Service (ARPHS) who have provided me with comment.
As the Medical Officer of Health, with the portfolio responsibility for solid waste issues, I am
pleased to be able to respond to your consultation.

3. Councils waste assessment appears to have been thoroughly researched. It is well
written, has a logical layout, contains an impressive amount of information and is easy to
comprehend. I am also happy to see that Council has acknowledged the ability of the
appropriate Minister to give a ministerial direction if Council does not make satisfactory
progress in achieving the goals of its new Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
(WMMP), or in meeting Health Act requirements.

4. I welcome seeing ensure public health and safety on page 2 of the Overview Section is
presented as one of the drivers of the assessment. I look forward to seeing a continuing
emphasis on public health in Councils solid waste plans and activities.

Page 575 of 591
5. Sanitary collection and disposal of solid waste is essential for reasons of:
Human disease control (e.g. pathogenic wastes, and reducing attraction to and
harbourage of human disease vectors including rats {and their fleas} and
mosquitoes).
Control of nuisance from dust, odour, and pest species (e.g. wasps, flies,
cockroaches).
Public safety - in the sense of uncluttered thoroughfares.
Direct health risks from hazardous wastes - like asbestos.

6. The remainder of this letter broadly follows the layout of Councils waste assessment.

Chapter 2: Legislative and Strategic Context

7. I note the comments made about the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading)
Amendment Act 2008 and its potential impacts for greenhouse gases emanating from
landfill. ARPHS is aware that the issue of incineration was considered back in the 1990s,
with a proposal to use the old Meremere power station. This proposal did not proceed for a
variety of reasons. ARPHS believes that any waste assessment, that is used to inform a
waste minimisation plan with a long term time horizon, should give consideration to the
issue of waste incineration. Given the current state of incineration technology, emission
control issues and foreseeable costs (capital, operational and ETS liabilities) it may never
be a viable option, however the option does need to periodically be reviewed and
considered as a possible alternative to landfill, especially since waste to energy schemes
are attracting new attention as a means of dealing with intractable wastes.

8. The final costs to the region of its waste production will be a combination of:
Volume able to be diverted / recycled.
Monetary value able to be extracted from the materials diverted / recycled.
Final volume to landfill.
Costs associated with such landfill, e.g. greenhouse gas liabilities, cost of controlling
leachate, transport of waste, etc.

From the public health perspective there are risks and costs with whichever approach is
taken. It is only when all practical options have been explored that a rigorous assessment
against a range of parameters (including protecting public health) can be undertaken to
inform the final waste minimisation plan.

Page 576 of 591
Chapter 3 The Waste Problem

9. ARPHS supports the principles of reduction and recycling as a way of minimising the
legacy effect of landfill.

10. If Council is to meet its obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 it needs to
reduce the proportion of waste being landfilled. The waste assessment covers both the
composition of the waste stream and also outlines some of the potential uses for diverted
materials. Separating and diverting waste is, to a certain extent, a pointless exercise
unless there is strong demand for diverted and recycled materials. ARPHS believes that
further work should be undertaken in the assessment to better understand issues such as:
What market there is for recycled / reclaimed or new products resulting from waste?
For example is there a market for 80,000 tonnes
1
of compost?
What can Auckland Council do to support markets in recycled or reclaimed
products? For example could Councils procurement policies be used to stimulate
demand for products made from recycled materials? For example, could Councils
underground utility infrastructure be manufactured from recycled plastics?

11. ARPHS also believes that a whole of life and systems perspective needs to be taken to the
issue of waste minimisation. At one level it is desirable to have a polluter pays approach
and to charge both industry and the private citizen the full cost of waste disposal as a way
of creating an incentive to minimise the amount of material that goes to landfill. This
approach also brings with it the risk of increased fly tipping and dumping. Such illegal
dumping imposes a direct cost on Council to collect and investigate it; such cost may be
relatively easy to estimate. Such illegal dumping may also bring with it risks to human
health from either disease or hazardous materials such as asbestos. These risks are more
difficult to quantify, arent faced directly by Council, but do impose costs on the wider
community.

12. In ARPHS experience there are a number of issues with current practices from the public
health perspective.
Recycling - processing facilities. Many facilities have, in the past, tended to be set
up in temporary accommodation. This has meant that they are often not purpose-
designed and have design failings that increase the risk of nuisance conditions
developing.
Haz-mobile ARPHS welcomes the current haz-mobile service provision. It is,
however, an intermittent service and it may be that making the service more readily
available would decrease the amount of hazardous material unlawfully disposed of
elsewhere.

Page 577 of 591
13. ARPHS notes that the waste assessment makes no reference to polystyrene. Polystyrene
is used as a packing material to protect other goods. It is a high volume waste for its
weight and depending on how Council chooses to charge for waste disposal there is a risk
that it wont be disposed of appropriately.

14. Should waste owners decide to burn polystyrene it produces polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons that are carcinogenic. It also produces flaming sticky drops that can stick to
many surfaces and may present a risk of personal injury or fire spread. ARPHS believes
that polystyrene is recyclable and should be given specific consideration within the waste
assessment.

Chapter 4 Existing Services and Facilities

15. ARPHS supports the proposed region-wide waste operator licensing scheme. This will
provide better and more reliable information from which to make policy choices.

16. ARPHS supports the proposal to have tighter Resource Management planning controls for
cleanfill sites. Contaminants in soils erroneously dumped at cleanfills can have adverse
implications for potable water - via aquifers - and for natural watercourses. The
contamination of water in aquifers and natural watercourses brings with it a potential risk to
human health.

17. ARPHS believes the waste assessment needs to give more scrutiny to the issue of
construction and demolition recycling. Much demolished older property contains hazardous
materials such as asbestos. There is also a risk from properties used as P-labs and
possibly detrimental materials such as mouldy materials from leaky buildings. The impact
on workers involved in these issues is the responsibility of the Department of Labour. The
impact on the public from depot emissions and the transportation of unenclosed loads from
the community needs further thought.

18. ARPHS supports the elimination of organic material from landfills, as it will help reduce
greenhouse gas methane emissions. Should Council bring in a scheme to separate
organic material, there are a range of nuisance principles that will need careful
consideration. ARPHS would welcome being consulted at an early stage around issues
such as: container design, frequency of emptying, plans to keep containers clean and
resistant to domestic pets, wild animals, vermin and pest insects.

19. ARPHS believes that it may be unwise to rely upon the principle that reducing the volume
of council collected residential waste will result in cost savings at the landfill. Commercial
operations build pricing structures based on a number of issues such as capital invested,

1
Estimate taken from page 176 of thWaste Assessment Report
Page 578 of 591
finance costs, operational overheads and profit. With what is largely a duopoly around
waste disposal there is a risk that there will be an increased cost of disposal per unit to
compensate for reduced volume. Councils own partial ownership of a landfill may not
provide sufficient competitive pressure to restrain price per unit volume increases.

20. ARPHS notes the reference to incorporating sewage biosolids into compost products.
Before any such incorporation can occur, a reliable and effective method of removing trade
waste residues, particularly heavy metals, needs to be in place to ensure that any such
compost products do not present a danger to human health or the environment.

21. The commentary around management of closed landfills is noted. ARPHS believes that
most closed landfills would benefit from better management and monitoring. ARPHS has
been consulted in the past in situations where material from landfill has been dug up in
gardens or during construction work. Anything that Council can do to encourage better
record keeping around landfills would be supported.

22. ARPHS notes the comments around transport inefficiencies and the potential for their
reduction to bring health gains in the areas of air quality and public safety, with some
associated economic gains through reduced congestion. ARPHS believes further work
would be worthwhile to quantify the extent of the gains for public health from increasing
transport efficiencies and to better understand the increased risks (if any) from greater use
of local transfer stations and the potential double handling of waste. From the public
health perspective it will be important to ensure that any waste being transported across the
region is enclosed so that there is no risk to the public from insecure loads, dusty loads,
mouldy demolition materials, hazardous materials, spillage or catastrophic accident.

23. ARPHS notes the comments around Hampden Downs and the possibility that rail could be
used to transport waste. ARPHS hopes that this issue will be further explored as part of the
development of the waste minimisation plan.

Chapter 5 Future Demands

24. The popularity of inorganic collections confirms that many residents wish to dispose of their
rubbish responsibly, but baulk at the cost of a trip to a transfer station. ARPHS believes
that pre-existing inorganic collections can be seen as a public good issue as they remove
much of the incentive to dump waste for those unable or unwilling, to pay tip fees. Although
scavenging causes untidiness, it also provides the opportunity for a substantial proportion
of such waste to be reclaimed and recycled. A collection on demand service could reduce
untidiness issues associated with current inorganic collections, but unless facilities and
procedures at transfer stations are geared up for reclaiming and recycling material being
dumped they will do little to reduce the amount of material going to landfill.
Page 579 of 591

25. The comments on projected diverted materials mirror ARPHS own views about the need
for an identified end use and market for material diverted from the waste stream. As noted
previously ARPHS believes that Council and its Council Controlled Organisations
procurement polices need to consider what role Council can have in stimulating or creating
a market for recycled or reused material. This may need to extend to seed investments to
stimulate demand and innovation.

Chapter 6 Future Planning Framework

26. Council has identified priority waste streams as:
Organic waste.
Construction and demolition waste.
Recyclables and packaging.
Hazardous waste.
Inorganic / special wastes.
Illegal dumping and litter.

ARPHS supports this list, but from the public health perspective the order should be:
Hazardous.
Organic.
Construction and demolition.
Illegal dumping and litter.
Recyclables and packaging.
Inorganic/special wastes.

27. ARPHS supports the proposal to move towards the collection of hazardous waste at drop-
off facilities in transfer stations, provided that there are sufficient transfer stations to provide
good regional coverage. The ability to drop off hazardous wastes at transfer stations
should be more attractive than the Haz-mobile facility - due to the greater convenience and
extended opening hours that transfer stations will provide. From the public health
perspective ARPHS believes that it is important that the domestic hazardous waste service
remains free as this is likely to maximise the proportion of hazardous waste that is
removed from community circulation and is a public good issue.

28. ARPHS notes the bag vs. bin discussion for Council refuse collection. The clear public
health preference is for bins due to the much better:
Isolation of refuse from interference by domestic and wild animals.
Control of odour and dust.
Isolation of refuse from insect pest species e.g. flies and wasps.

Page 580 of 591
ARPHS accepts that the use of bins can lead to increased waste volumes, but believes that
this can be mitigated through careful selection of bin size and the charging mechanism for
additional waste quantities.

29. ARPHS does not support any moves to a fortnightly collection of refuse that includes
putrescibles, due to the extent to which such waste deteriorate over time and the
consequential increased health risk.

30. ARPHS is disappointed at the level of explicit discussion around any possible zero waste
approach contained in the waste assessment. The waste assessment notes that all of the
previous councils waste minimisation plans had taken note of moving towards zero
waste but there is little discussion in the document as to the possible benefits and
challenges from attempting to advance zero waste objectives. Becoming a zero waste
region may be an aspirational goal, but ARPHS believes that zero waste objectives should
have a key place in the regions waste minimisation and management plan. For some
components of the waste stream a zero waste approach is likely to have the potential for
considerable impact.

Chapter 7 Options Assessment

31. As the only option that is within sight of compliance with legislative goals, ARPHS supports
Direct Strategic Option 3, provided that there is no consequent detrimental effect on public
health. It would be a perverse outcome if, for example, increased production and use of
compost led to increased risk to manufacturing staff, people in the vicinity and end users
due to the risk of its contamination with legionella bacteria.

32. It is unclear from the comments on Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) as to what
future role such programmes will have in Councils WMMP. The last paragraph of the
section on CBSM programmes suggests that national coordination is desirable and that
Council should not undertake any activity in this area in its own right. ARPHS does not
agree with this sentiment. Council is sufficiently large to develop and run appropriate
CBSM tied to its own WMMP. Any such CBSM has a similar role to a health promotion
programme addressing a particular health issue. It will not be the whole solution, but can
play an important part in addressing an issue. For Councils WMMP any CBSM will support
Councils objectives, but can only succeed if Council is able to find realistic and sustainable
markets for diverted waste materials.

33. ARPHS notes the discussion around regulatory approaches. Any regulatory approach will
need both an effective enforcement mechanism and the political will to support effective
enforcement.

Page 581 of 591
34. A regulatory approach also needs public support. Bylaws banning green waste from refuse
bins are likely to be unpopular and potentially unenforceable. They may only be viable and
publicly supported if a free green waste collection is also provided. Any bylaw that is
unpopular is likely to result in an increase in fly-tipping, concealment and dumping in skips
and street bins - to get around any restrictions. In deciding what regulatory approach to
take Council needs to ensure that regulation will be successful in addressing problems and
not just displace activity elsewhere.

35. In addition to regulation, Council should also consider what policy levers it has available to
it to incentivise the desired behaviours around waste management for the community,
business and the waste management industry.

36. ARPHS does not support the use of the term waste value chain as used in the discussion
of options. The term waste value chain implies that there is value throughout the waste
stream. This is correct for elements of the chain, but is not the case throughout the vertical
chain from production to eventual reuse or landfill. ARPHS believes that the term waste
stream is a more neutral and readily understood descriptor.

Chapter 8 Preferred Options to Meet Waste Minimisation Targets

37. From the public health perspective any decisions around waste should be governed by the
overriding principle that control of refuse is essentially a public health measure to address
human disease and nuisance risks around vector control, odour, dust, hazardous wastes
and vermin. ARPHS believes that the current key objectives in figure 8.1.1 should be
amended to ensure that the reduction of harm from waste becomes an overarching super
objective that shapes and informs decision making for all other aspects of Councils waste
management activities.

Chapter 9 Statement of Proposal

38. ARPHS questions the appropriateness of the timeframes in the statements of proposal.
While there may be merit in aligning the review of the strategy to the same timeframe as
the long term council plan, ARPHS believes that the 10 year planning horizon is too short
and should be extended to 20 or 30 years. While the longer timeframe suggested is too
long for any meaningful financial modelling, it would align better with other timeframes for
long term planning - such as the spatial plan or regional land transport strategy.

Page 582 of 591
Other Issues

39. The waste assessment contains little in the way of discussion around the role of local
boards. The only time local boards are mentioned is in connection with possible licensing
and tenders for services. The Draft Annual Plan document - in its section outlining the
differing roles of the governing body and local boards on environmental management,
protection and enhancement - describes local boards as having the following decision-
making and oversight responsibilities:
Input into regional education programmes to improveminimise waste, and
tailoring regional programmes to local circumstances.
local waste management plans and projects within regional parameters.
Variations to region-wide service levels for the local area such as refuse and
recycling services.

40. ARPHS believes that the waste assessment needs to give further consideration of the role
of the local boards and their role in the final WMMP.

41. In a similar manner the waste assessment is silent on the role of council controlled
organisations (CCOs) in supporting the final WMMP. How the CCOs are allowed to
operate has the potential to either support or hinder Councils WMMP through their roles as
generators of waste and potential customers for recycled products. This issue should be
further considered as part of the waste assessment, the final WMMP and in the statements
of intent that Council will use to control the CCOs.

42. The former Auckland councils operated a regional Waste Officers Forum. Should such a
body be contemplated to involve stakeholders with an interest in waste management
issues, ARPHS would like to be included in such an initiative.

Page 583 of 591
Conclusion

43. As noted previously, Councils waste assessment appears to have been thoroughly
researched. It is well written, has a logical layout, contains an impressive amount of
information and is easy to comprehend. I hope my comments will add to the utility of the
waste assessment and be helpful in formulating a waste management and minimisation
plan that will enable Council to deliver on the objectives that the Act requires of it and at the
same time will ensure that public health is protected.

Yours sincerely

Dr Simon Baker
Medical Officer of Health

Page 584 of 591
Page 585 of 591
Page 586 of 591
Page 587 of 591
Page 588 of 591

Cornwall Complex, Floor 2, Building 15
Greenlane Clinical Centre, Auckland
Private Bag 92 605, Symonds Street,
Auckland 1150, New Zealand
Telephone: 09 623 4600
Facsimile: 09 623 4633
Website: www.arphs.govt.nz

2
nd
May 2011

Parul Sood
Strategic Projects Senior Advisor
Infrastructure and Environmental Services
Auckland Council
Private Bag 92300
Auckland 1142

Re: Review of Auckland Council Waste Assessment

Dear Ms. Sood

Thank you for considering the Medical officer of Health comments on Auckland Councils Waste
Assessment.

This is further to our meeting on 15
th
April 2011 and letter dated 29
th
April 2011 regarding your
request to make comments on some of the points raised in our feedback.

Chapter 3, Point 11

ARPHHS believes this is a political decision for the Auckland Council to make. Whether or not
past experience of illegal dumping in two of the amalgamated former councils matches future
trends remains to be seen. We simply flag the possibility that compliance with a new regime
may not match prior expectations.

Chapter 3, Point 12

ARPHS has already agreed that hazardous waste disposal at transfer stations is preferable to
the Hazmobile service. Our main point is that free removal of hazardous materials from the
community is a public good issue to be commended.

Page 589 of 591
Chapter 3, Point 13

Auckland Council does control the collection and disposal of polystyrene waste originating from
residential properties. We see the recycling of that percentage of the polystyrene waste stream
as setting a useful precedent for handling of the commercial quantities arising via private
collection. Establishment of a polystyrene recycling facility would be a good initiative for
Auckland Council to consider.

Chapter 3, Point 19

ARPHS does not disagree about the position of central government as described.

Chapter 3, Point 24,

We remain of the opinion that patronage of inorganic collections repeatedly shows that there is
a demand for effective removal of unwanted, bulky materials from the community. That
amalgamating councils chose to conduct such collections for many years, endorses this view.
We appreciate that kerbside collection has been shown to have demerits but these could easily
be overridden by a free or reasonably-priced on demand collection service, as discussed.

Composting and Legionella risks

In principle, ARPHS favours in-vessel composting due to several reasons that includes:
speed of process,
control of odour and dust,
the ability to inject compressed air to maintain aerobic conditions,
the ability to inject steam as a tertiary sterilisation technique,
accurate temperature monitoring to ensure that pasteurisation temperature and time
combinations have been achieved,
the more efficient use of land, and
less planning concerns that enable sitting of plant closer to locations where raw
materials are generated and therefore reduction in road haulage costs and emissions.

Regarding the risks of Legionella from different feedstock sources, we suggest that is not the
important issue. Provided that the composting process is properly controlled to ensure effective
pasteurisation, the nature of source material is academic. A combination of greenwaste and
foodwaste has potentially greater downstream nutritional value for plants than greenwaste
alone.

Page 590 of 591
Health and safety aspects of collection

ARPHS has a previously-stated, clear position (point 28 of our submission) that bin collection is
preferable to bag collection on public health grounds. Comment upon the health and safety
aspects of different collection methods needs to be sourced from the Department of Labour, as
the only regulatory agency for workplace safety issues.

Yours sincerely

Dr Simon Baker
Medical Officer of Health

Page 591 of 591

Appendix F - Supporting Reports and Data Update

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix F - Supporting Reports and Data Update

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like