This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
 |
|
 |
In this chapter of the study we discuss the factors and issues influencing Christchurch waste management. We discuss the different roles in waste management from an international to a local level (section 2.1), and we provide a model of waste policy, analysing the different influences of agencies and organisations on Christchurch's waste management (section 2.2). We also discuss the themes and trends in waste management, for example international reviews of waste management, the international waste hierarchy, and a trend towards better information and targets in waste management (section 2.3). We then the characteristics of Christchurch's environment which are important to this study, and describe how waste is managed in Christchurch (section 2.4). We close this chapter by discussing and defining some key terms used in this study (section 2.5).
The provision of waste management services involves many organisations with various responsibilities and influences. The organisations with significant involvement in waste management and their roles are described in this section and presented as a model in figure 2. The model shows that these organisations are influenced, exert their influence and fulfil their responsibilities on a variety of organisational levels. These include international, national and local levels, which are discussed below. While it should be noted that each of these levels have input in both directions (eg., CCC is influenced by national government but also lobbies it, waste generators are the subject of policy but can also influence it through public participation), the Christchurch context is our main focus here, so that influences on rather than of Christchurch waste management have been considered.
International organisations have few direct responsibilities for waste management in New Zealand. They can provide general support, coordination, policy, research and information and lobbying. Inter-governmental organisations with an interest in waste management include several United Nations organisations and programmes such as UNEP and ECOSOC. Roles and responsibilities of these and affiliated governmental and non-governmental organisations (such as IUCN, WWF and Oxfam) have typically included advocacy, persuasion, lobbying, policy development and analysis, networking, information dissemination, research, programme operation and education (Clark, 1991). New Zealand is also a member nation of APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) and SPREP (South Pacific Region Environment Programme) which address waste management issues and cooperation specifically within the South Pacific Region.
International organisations which have an interest in waste management policy with particular emphasis on policy implications for international financial markets include the World Bank, IMF (International Monetary Fund), WTO (World Trade Organisation), and G8. New Zealand is influenced by these organisations either directly (eg., through policy advice) or indirectly (eg., through the effects of economic policies or pressure). The OECD has had a strong influence in New Zealand, particularly through its evaluation function. This is further discussed in section 2.3.1.
Specialised organisations for practitioners in solid and hazardous waste (eg., ISWA, the International Solid Waste Association and ERRA, the European Recovery & Recycling Association) provide opportunities for networking, coordination, information dissemination, policy analysis and research, particularly through coordination of conferences and conference proceedings.
The development of waste management in New Zealand has been influenced by both international and internal organisations. Within the national structure, primary lines of responsibility are subject to the scrutiny of organisations not directly involved with waste management, but which have oversight or general policy-making responsibilities. These include Cabinet, Te Puni Kokiri, the Department of Conservation, and Treasury, which act as "checks and balances", providing advice on the effects of waste management policy on their areas of concern. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, shown in figure 2, holds a key role. It provides independent advice on the effects and effectiveness of policies and organisational systems relating to the environment (Environment Act 1986, s.16). This has included systematic review of local government activities, including a specific review of waste reduction initiatives. Some of these recommendations have been adopted, including the amendment of the Local Government Act 1974 to include a wider range of costs (eg., social and ecological) in the cost assessment of waste management programmes (PCE, 1993).
The Ministry for the Environment and the Department of Internal Affairs provide coordination functions for local government. The Minister for the Environment, supported by the Ministry, is primarily responsible for policy relating to the effects of waste management on the environment at national level. This includes monitoring the implementation of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA, s.24 (f)). The Department of Internal Affairs is responsible for the roles of local government agencies, for example advising Government on changes to the Local Government Act 1974.
Territorial local authorities (district and city councils) have primary responsibility for implementing waste management policy. They are influenced by both international (eg., ISWA) and national (eg., Government, industry and non-governmental) organisations. Territorial authorities are subject to the general influences (both international and national) and are direstly influenced through their relationship with central government. At a broader level than city and district councils are regional councils, who are responsible for the management of certain natural and physical resources in the region, and for policy relating to issues of regional importance. Direct involvement in waste management by regional councils includes writing regional policy statements, and considering resource consent applications for activities relating to waste management services.
District and city councils are responsible for waste collection and disposal services, and avoiding public nuisance and health effects from waste under the Local Government Act 1974 and the Health Act 1958. Under the general trend of privatisation of services, councils are increasingly contracting out waste management services, allowing competition to improve efficiency (section 3.3). Private companies also act independently in specialised sectors of waste management, providing high volume or special waste collection and treatment, for example the disposal of bio-hazardous waste.
Private sector organisations exert influences on waste management at both national and local levels. Non-governmental organisations are particularly involved in decision making through lobbying, consultation, and participation in the resource consent process. The privatisation and diversification of waste management service providers also allows consumer pressure from those using the services. These forms of influence give waste generators a role in the determination of waste management policy, however they are predominantly the subject of policy, rather than involved in decision making. The diverse range of organisations with either direct or indirect responsibilities for waste management services contribute to a dynamic policy process.
New Zealand's waste management policy framework includes international, national, regional and local scales of influence. Figure 2 showed the key participants in waste management and their roles, including policy provision. This section explains how that policy evolves, illustrated by figure 3. The policy process entails varying degrees of feed back and dialogue between all of these levels, and is illustrated by the direction of solid arrows shown in figure 3.
`Other policy influences' are broadly listed on the right hand side of the figure, and illustrate that the waste policy framework is a subset of a broader policy process. Waste management is one of a vast number of government responsibilities. Although specific government agencies directly address waste management issues, these are also influenced by other legislation and government departments. For example, the advice of Treasury has a strong influence on Cabinet decisions over resource allocation and therefore affects the ability of waste managers to address waste management issues. Policy and initiatives of other local government agencies affect opportunities to coordinate activities for mutual benefit. Lobby groups influence the development of waste policy either directly (eg., through participation in policy development) or indirectly (eg., through political pressure).
Figure 3 illustrates three key international influences in the waste policy process of importance to total cost assessment: research publications, agreements and reviews.
International research publications provide guidance for New Zealand waste managers in the form of policy analysis and technological innovation. For example, international agencies such as the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) provide a forum for discussing a wide range of international, national, regional and local waste management issues which can be accessed by an international audience through their publications. Similarly, national, regional or local research outside of New Zealand provides an invaluable source of information for Christchurch City Council. The current availability of total cost assessment research is extremely limited on an international scale but what is available will be useful as present `interest' translates into programmes of research and implementation.
The management of New Zealand's waste was reviewed in the OECD's 1996 Environmental Performance Reviews (OECD, 1996). The OECD review the environmental performance of member countries on a five year cycle, determining a baseline for assessing future environmental progress and examining environmental performance in three major areas:
1. Integrating environmental and economic decisions;
2. Implementing environmental policies;
3. Internal co-operation. (OECD, 1996)
Conclusions and recommendations in the report are largely normative and directed to national environmental management agencies. The findings, recommendations and themes of the OECD 1996 Environmental Performance Review are summarised in Appendix 4 and discussed in section 2.3.1.
Some of the many international agreements to which New Zealand is party relate to waste management, such as the Framework Convention on Climate Change. An agreement which more directly controls New Zealand's international waste trade and transport is the Basel Convention (section 3.6.1).
The waste management policy framework was overhauled as part of the post-1984 reform process. The essence of the reform process was the dramatic redefinition of the role of the State, largely under the influence of `New Right' philosophies embraced by successive governments. In particular this entailed a shift toward market-led resource management, greater efficiency and the development of new frameworks for social choice (Bührs and Bartlett, 1993, p.90). The reform process led to major changes in institutional arrangements. These changes modelled the public service on management principles which were derived from the private sector, with a view to achieving greater efficiency, flexibility and accountability. The resulting changes in approach to waste management are discussed in section 2.3. One of the fundamental structural changes for government departments was the replacement of the `head of department' (employed on an indefinite career service basis), with a `chief executive' (employed on a contractual basis with performance-based remuneration). The government departments and ministries enter into a contract with their ministers, who purchase their services, and require them to formulate corporate plans with quantifiable criteria for measuring `outputs' (Bührs & Bartlett, 1993, p.101). As a result of this process, departmental and ministerial services are provided in accordance with the priorities of their ministers, whose time horizons only extend to the next election. The potential result of this is a short term view of the policy process and the political cycle in New Zealand, of just three years, serves to exacerbate this (Bührs and Bartlett, 1993, p.104).
The rate and approach at which waste management issues are addressed is strongly affected by the relevant ministers' priorities and resource availability. For example, limited resources causes MfE to restrict itself to a few key focii in waste management (S. Baird pers. comm., 1998). This is significant for developing a system of total cost assessment, as this requires a long term commitment and ongoing development. This is further discussed in section 2.3 and is an important factor in consideration of national policies such as the National Environmental Indicators Programme.
As part of the institutional reform process, the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and Parliamentary Commission for the Environment (PCE) were established by the Environment Act 1986 (figure 3).
At central government level, the Ministry for the Environment is the main agency responsible for waste management policy. Under the Labour Government, a national waste policy was announced in 1990 which included a target of reducing the nation's solid waste to 20% below 1988 levels by the year 1993 (MfE, 1997a, p.3.37). This policy stimulated the development of extensive recycling programmes and national guidelines for monitoring and managing solid waste (Associate Minister for the Environment, 1990). The National Government issued a revised waste policy in 1992 which stipulates that:
(1) as far as practicable, waste generators should meet the costs of managing the waste they produce, and that;
(2) waste management programmes should encourage implementation of the internationally recognised hierarchy of waste management (MfE, 1992).
MfE have issued some guidelines to support waste management policies, including: Waste Analysis Protocol with Landfill Guidelines (1992); the Waste Minimisation Network; Hazardous Waste Management Handbook (1994); Cleaner Production Guidelines (MfE 1997a p.3.39); Landfill Full Costing Guideline (1996) and National Waste Data Report (1997). The Landfill Full Costing Guideline (1996) provides guidance for landfill managers on how to identify all of the financial costs associated with landfill from planning to aftercare, but other than this MfE provide no specific guidance to support the development of total cost assessment.
MfE issued the Government's Environment 2010 Strategy in September 1995, which outlines a vision, principles, goals, risks, actions and priorities for environmental management to the year 2010. With respect to total cost assessment of waste, the key actions for waste managers (outlined in the strategy) are summarised in box 1.
Box 1: Key actions for waste managers (Environment 2010 Strategy; MfE, 1995)
In response to recommendations of the OECD environmental performance reviews (section 2.3), MfE published the State of New Zealand's Environment Report (SER) in November 1997. The SER includes 11 pages which specifically address waste management issues, outlining:
The SER does not attempt to provide strategic direction for future waste management, simply noting:
effective waste management, with its emphasis on reduce, reuse, recycling is an increasingly important environmental management issue in New Zealand (MfE, 1997).
In response to recommendations of the OECD report, MfE are currently developing a national system of environmental indicators. MfE released some proposed indicators for public comment in the Environmental Performance Indicators. Proposals for Air, Fresh Water and Land in 1997. Indicators for waste managers are expected to be published in the year 2000. CCC may be able to co-ordinate the development of total cost assessment with the release of the waste management indicators if it is indeed only two years away.
The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) has provided some analysis and guidance with respect to the management of solid and hazardous waste since its inception. In 1993, the PCE published A Review of Local Authority Solid Waste Reduction Initiatives (PCE, 1993) which evaluated the performance of four local authorities. The report discussed issues related to the accurate costing of waste management services and recommended that the Minister for the Environment should "provide guidance on [the] inclusion of non-monetary costs and benefits in reporting procedures".
In addition, this report provided a list of costs which should be considered (by councillors and staff of District Councils) in the evaluation of waste management costs (box 2.).
Box 2: Costs to be included in the evaluation of waste management costs (from PCE, 1993, p.58).
a) full capitalised landfill asset value (including land value through current government valuation or opportunity cost calculation);
b) estimated asset value for landfill space (for example, value per cubic meter of capacity);
c) estimated replacement landfill disposal costs, when approaching end of existing landfill life (five to seven years away as a minimum);
d) landfill `aftercare' costs;
e) explicit documentation (and estimation of dollar cost where possible) of environmental and social costs and benefits; and
f) all waste management services (collection, recycling, composting, landfill management).
The PCE released a report in May 1998 which assesses the progress, effectiveness and priorities of the Government's Hazardous Waste Programme, and proposes an auditing process to measure progress and effectiveness of the programme. The report addresses methods for assessing and managing the effects and risks of hazardous waste, and therefore goes a small way toward developing a system of total cost assessment.
Waste management activities and their associated effects are subject to requirements under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The administration of land use consents is the responsibility of district and city councils and consents for discharge to air and water are the responsibility of regional councils (except where matters are considered at a national level as outlined below).
Some waste management activities will require resource consent(s) as outlined in section 87 of the RMA. Section 88 (4) (b) requires any consent applicant to assess any actual or potential effects that the activity will have on the environment. Matters that should be included and should be considered in an assessment of environmental effects are set out in the Fourth Schedule.
With respect to matters to be considered at a national level, where an activity is classified as a restricted coastal activity (in the relevant District or City Plan), any decision to grant or decline a resource consent application is made by the Minister of Conservation (s.119). Section 140 empowers the Minister for the Environment to `call-in' an application where she or he considers a proposal to be of national significance. Section 24 of the RMA empowers the appropriate Minister with discretion to issue a national policy statement on "matters of national significance that are relevant to achieving the purpose of" the Act. This provides a policy tool for national coordination of waste management activities, falling under the authority of the Minister for the Environment. There is currently no National Policy Statement to guide waste managers.
Section 73 of the RMA requires Regional Councils to develop a Regional Policy Statement, which the City Plan developed by the City Council must be in accordance with. These policy documents provide guidelines for the development of the Christchurch City Council Waste Management Plan for Solid and Hazardous Waste 1998. Under section 32 the Council must assess the costs and benefits of waste management before adopting any objective, policy, rule or other method necessary in achieving the purpose of the Act.
The Treaty of Waitangi 1840 (hereafter referred to as `the Treaty') is an agreement between two peoples living together in one country; made between the Crown (as a representative of the Queen) and Maori in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Waste management issues are fundamental to Maori people, as tangata whenua and kaitiaki, with responsibility to protect the mauri of resources and places (MfE, 1997, p.9). The requirement to carry out waste management in accordance with the Treaty agreement is reinforced in the Environment 2010 Strategy and the Resource Management Act 1991 (s.8). Tangata whenua issues for total cost assessment in waste management are discussed in section 3.2.
The Local Government Act 1974 and subsequent Amendment Acts assign responsibilities for waste management to Local Councils and are backed up by the Health Act 1956 (PCE, 1993, p.5). A significant product of the reform process was the reform of Local Government (Local Government Amendment Act No.2 1989) which entailed reducing the 625 existing units of local government to 13 regional councils, 74 local districts and 7 special purpose boards (Bührs & Bartlett, 1993: p.120). In this way, the number of agencies responsible for waste management were reduced, making, in theory at least, it possible to apply resources to better coordinated policy strategies and service delivery (Bührs & Bartlett, 1993).
CCC released a waste management plan in 1994 (CCC, 1994) and a summary update in 1996 (CCC, 1996). A subsequent amendment to the Local Government Act (No.4) in 1996 established a new approach to waste management planning, in response to which CCC released the Draft Waste Management Plan for Solid and Hazardous Waste for public comment at the beginning of May 1998. In this amendment, the council's waste management responsibilities under the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA) were changed to include a requirement to "have regard to environmental and economic costs and benefits for the district" (s.538 (b)).
As the amendment affects all territorial authorities, it is likely that other councils will choose their own approach to fulfilling this requirement. There are advantages and disadvantages to coordinating the assessment of "environmental and economic costs" on a national level (section 3.7). This could include national assessment and reporting guidelines or quality requirements. The ability of a national body to insist on a certain procedure of cost assessment can be derived from another part of the LGA, in which councils are required to use "accepted accounting procedures", and adhere to "non-financial reporting" procedures (s. 223 D (4)).
Principle Four of the Draft Plan, which requires the assessment and reporting of the real (total) cost of waste management, is the product of a complex policy process. The process is shaped by international, national, regional and local influences and trends in waste management.
At an international level, there has been a dramatic increase in the public's awareness of waste management issues. The OECD environmental performance reviews represent an extension of this awareness, and identify shortcomings which are echoed in national trends in waste policy (1996, p.184).
A summary of recommendations from the review are provided in Appendix 4. The key recommendations with respect to total cost assessment are that central government should increase assistance to regional and local authorities (particularly with regard to the assessment of environmental effects) and that `disposal charges' should be introduced which take into account the `present real and future landfill costs'.
The reviews have had a considerable influence on the government's approach to waste management, evidenced by MfE publications which address the OECD's recommendations eg., National Waste Data Report (1997b), Landfill Full Costing Guideline (1996).
However, the Minister for the Environment has established that waste management is not a high priority on MfE's agenda and that within waste management, hazardous waste and life cycle assessment are priorities (S. Baird, pers. comm. 1998). Providing guidance to local councils on how to go about assessing total cost is a low priority on MfE's agenda.
New Zealand's approach to resource management is generally `consistent' with the principle of subsidiarity. This principle suggests that "decisions should be made as close to the effected populations as possible" and is encapsulated by the common maxim "think globally and act locally" (OECD, 1996, p.175).
New Zealand has demonstrated a commitment to the international waste hierarchy, although this commitment is "not always presented in a way that makes the policy intention sufficiently clear" (OECD, 1996, p.82). The international waste hierarchy is frequently referred to as the `5 Rs' (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover, Residue Disposal). In its most comprehensive form the hierarchy is a list of the six most effective ways to control waste in descending order of their environmental benefits (MfE, 1997a), as listed in box 3.
Box 3: The international waste hierarchy (MfE, 1997).
1. Reduce activities which generate waste; or otherwise
2. Reuse products rather than discarding them; or otherwise
3. Recycle waste materials to make new products; or otherwise
4. Recover useful materials or energy; or otherwise
5. Treat waste in order to reduce its impact; or otherwise
6. Dispose of the waste safely on land set aside for that purpose.
There is an international trend toward the increased integration of waste management policy. This recognition reflects a realisation that social, biophysical and economic issues associated with waste management are complex and inter-related. A comprehensive discussion of international trends toward the integration of waste management is provided in Bührs and Bartlett (1993, p.141-143). The Queensland, Australia, experience provides a typical example of this trend, as outlined in box 4.
Box 4: Waste management strategies in the Queensland Environment (Boase, 1997).
Separate pieces of legislation, for the protection of individual segments of the Queensland environment, were replaced by the Environmental Protection Act, 1994. This legislation was fully integrated and focuses on the control and licensing of activities with a potential to cause environmental harm, rather than to license particular emissions. This change has facilitated a more holistic approach to environmental management at such sites, and includes waste management facilities...
The Contaminated Land Act, 1991 covers the identification and management of contaminated land, including former waste disposal sites and other areas often associated with inappropriate waste disposal practices. It is also proposed to integrate this legislation with the Environmental Protection Act in due course. Financial assurances have been required of recently licensed private facilities, including coverage for a thirty year post closure care and maintenance period, to ensure adequate funds are available to address any environmental contingencies during the life of the facility.
A market-based approach to waste management includes the use of economic instruments, such as generator pays charging and the privatisation of waste management services. The trend toward increasing the use of economic instruments for waste management is echoed in the OECD environmental performance review which suggests that these could be used `on a wider scale in New Zealand' (1996, p. 179). The OECD further note that `ensuring that prices reflect the full environmental costs is essential if resource users are to factor in the full social costs of their resource use and consumption decisions'. New Zealand's strong interest in the use of economic instruments is emphasised in the Environment 2010 Strategy (MfE, 1997). This strategy outlines the Governments desire to implement a system of generator pays charging (which includes external costs) and the privatisation of waste management services wherever possible (discussed in sections 3.4 and 3.3, respectively).
The lack of coordinated, reliable or comprehensive information for waste management is a barrier to effective management (OECD, 1996; MfE, 1997b). This equates to the need for clear definitions for waste types and a comprehensive and coordinated system of monitoring both the causes and effects of waste generation. The OECD (1996) emphasise the need to tailor environmental monitoring and reporting systems to the implementation needs of the RMA and ensure they are nationally consistent.
The abandonment of waste management targets by the National Government in 1992 (section 2.2) represents a redirection of approach from `target setting' to emphasis on `the importance of waste management programmes'. This has been criticised by the OECD which emphasises the "need to develop concrete targets for environmental policies, with good monitoring of progress achieved as well as detailed examination of costs involved" (OECD, 1996). Christchurch City Council have included both approaches within the Draft Plan (Appendix 5).
The OECD note that the "provision of environmental data to the public... is also an essential element of a democratic debate on ways to management the environment" (OECD, 1996: p.179). This sentiment is echoed in a New Zealand context (reflected in the Local Government Act No.4 (1996)- see section 2.2.7), where emphasis is given to providing for greater public consultation, set procedures and accountability, and transparency of funding options in waste management.
There is increasing recognition of Maori issues in Waste Management. Claims to the Waitangi Tribunal have addressed the impacts of waste, and some iwi and hapu resource management plans include statements regarding the effects of waste on water bodies and other Taonga, and policies to address their protection (MfE, 1998). Further discussion of Maori issues in a local context is provided in section 3.2.
These themes in waste management influence the approach that needs to be taken to develop a system of total cost assessment, which must further be understood in a local (Christchurch City) context.
Christchurch is the largest settlement in the South Island, with a growing population of over 300 000 people. It is a city with active industry and commerce, and a particular reputation for large, well maintained gardens that has gained Christchurch status as the "Garden City" of New Zealand. The Christchurch environment has certain characteristics that create issues for waste management, and its waste stream and management programmes reflect these issues. It is therefore appropriate to place waste management in Christchurch into this context.
The City of Christchurch lies near the seaward edge of the extensively farmed Canterbury Plains, a gravel outwash plain made up of material eroded from the central range, the Southern Alps (Thornton, 1985 p.194). These sediments now form the flat, low-lying land upon which Christchurch is built, and the aquifers from which the municipal water supply is drawn. A number of small rivers and streams pass through the City and its suburbs, and the water table is close to the ground surface in most areas.
In the colder months, low-lying Christchurch is prone to temperature inversions, in which a static layer of cold air is trapped close to the ground (MfE 1997a p.6.10). Christchurch's prevailing winds are from the north-west, north-east and south-west (MfE 1997a figure 6.2). The "Nor'wester" is a föhn wind, a hot, dry wind caused by air flow over the central range. The southerly wind is colder and wetter, bringing storms in the winter months. Usually, a balance of wet and dry weather make Christchurch a good climate for growing plants, however the region can be subject to drought conditions in years when westerly winds dominate.
As a population centre, Christchurch is growing more rapidly than most other New Zealand cities (The Press, 1998a). The population of Christchurch is spread radially over a large area, with an average density of 6.8 people per hectare (Street 1997, p.1). Residential areas are characterised by generous areas of open space and garden plantings, and planning arrangements are designed to maintain this (eg., see CCC City Plan, section 2.2.2) Industry and commerce has also expanded out of the central city to establish in scattered areas.
The characteristics of the natural and social environment of Christchurch raise several issues for waste management in the City. These issues must be taken into account when designing a management policy.
Waste management in Christchurch needs to respond to issues raised by the natural and social environment. Of particular interest are the issues related to the composition of the waste stream, the dispersed nature of the waste sources, the distance of Christchurch from major markets for recycled goods and manufacturing areas, and limits imposed by certain elements of the natural environment.
The large area of gardens in Christchurch affects the composition of the waste stream, adding large amounts of organic waste. Excluding paper, 36% of the waste stream is organic (Street, 1997, p.3). Figure 4 shows the average composition of the waste stream entering the CCC Refuse Stations.
The dispersed nature of waste sources in Christchurch means that delivery of waste to disposal or treatment locations is a more significant waste management cost than for many other locations. Not only do vehicles have to travel longer distances between sources and facilities, but the scattered nature of waste producers makes monitoring and regulation of the waste stream more difficult.
The natural environment of Christchurch imposes certain limits on waste management practices in the City. Of particular significance is the sensitivity of the ground water and the air quality to waste management. The aquifers from which the municipal water supply is drawn are susceptible to leachate infiltration from improperly sealed landfills. The very flat nature of the land around Christchurch and the closeness of the water table to the surface in certain areas requires that the siting and design of a landfill is a careful process. The tendency of the air to form a thermal inversion layer reduces the ability of the City to dispose of its solid waste through incineration, as the static air traps air emissions, preventing dispersion, and causing high social costs through health and amenity effects.
Figure 4: Christchurch waste composition
This graph shows the composition of the waste stream that enters the three Christchurch Refuse Stations, as measured in August 1996 (from Street, 1997, p.3).
Issues relating to relative isolation must also be considered. For example, the Christchurch market is not large enough to support facilities for the recycling of all recyclable materials, or the treatment of all potentially hazardous wastes, making transport costs a considerable part of any calculation. Additionally, most products consumed in Christchurch are imported from other parts of New Zealand or from other countries. Regional control of production methods is therefore ineffective and creates competitive disadvantage (section 3.4).
The Christchurch City Council (CCC) hold primary responsibility for waste management in Christchurch (section 2.1.3). It is therefore the role of CCC to design a waste management process and policy that fulfils the needs of the city and the governing policy, while taking into account the particular nature of the Christchurch environment. In doing this, public and private programmes have been established to provide both competitive and complimentary waste management systems. Section 3.3 focuses on issues relating to privatisation of waste management services.
A diagrammatic representation of the Christchurch waste management process is presented in figure 5. The model classifies waste management programmes by the stage in the waste management hierarchy to which they correspond. Waste enters the city waste stream at the left of the model from sources both within the city and from elsewhere through importation. Currently, some waste is imported officially from the neighbouring Waimakariri and Banks Peninsular District Councils. Some unofficial importation also occurs when residents from neighbouring districts dump waste at a CCC refuse station, due to the station being the nearest such facility to their home (E. Park pers. comm., 1998). Once the waste enters the CCC waste stream, it is transported by private, commercial or council means to an appropriate facility. A key response of CCC to the dispersed nature of the waste sources and sensitivity of the ground water in Christchurch is the use of refuse stations. Most solid waste entering the Christchurch City waste stream must pass through one of the city's three refuse stations, which are positioned around the city so that the maximum travel distance between waste source and transfer station is 7 km (Street, 1993, p.1). At these stations, waste is gathered, then transferred to the single city landfill at Burwood. The centralisation of the landfill programme was a decision made for cost and efficiency reasons (E. Park pers. comm., 1998). However it also simplifies disposal management, and reduces the chances of accidental environmental damage.
Refuse stations also provide reuse and recycle facilities, and in response to the large amount of garden waste Christchurch produces, green waste is collected at all refuse stations, and composted at a facility next to Metro Place Refuse Station. The compost produced is sold under the "Envy" brand, creating a source of revenue for the composting programme. The programme does not quite run at a profit using conventional accounting practices, however the diversion of waste from landfilling is considered to be a benefit that outweighs the cost of supporting the programme (ibid.). Dumping charges make the refuse stations self-financing (Street, 1993, p.5). Only the transfer of waste to disposal sites and associated activities are included under the refuse station programme title. Although they occur at the refuse station, the compost collection, recycling and reuse facilities are treated as separate programmes in our model of the Christchurch waste management process (figure 5), due to their differences in purpose relative to the waste management hierarchy (section 4.4.1).
As part of CCC's responsibilities for waste management, all rate paying properties have access to a kerbside mixed refuse bag collection at least once a week. Only official CCC bags are collected by the council and their contractors. Properties outside the central business district are issued with 52 bags per year, and additional bags must be purchased for a small fee. From May 1998, residential properties other than high-rise apartments have access to kerbside recycling of newspaper, cardboard, steel and aluminium cans, glass, and some plastics [1].
Waste generators have access to private waste management programmes in addition to the services provided by CCC. "Wheelie-bins", large capacity mixed waste bins collected on a regular basis by arrangement, have become a common facility, especially for commercial waste generators. For large volume waste generators, skips are available on a regular or occasional basis. Private collection of green waste is available, and is used by some garden maintenance businesses. As shown in figure 5, most waste intended for the landfill must still pass through the refuse stations, regardless of the method of collection. Exceptions to this are special wastes that require specific management such as treatment, and large commercial loads, if there is an agreement with CCC.
Treatment and disposal on-site is an option used by many waste generators, especially burning or composting of organic waste. Regular or large volume private treatment or disposal of waste requires a resource consent from the CCC for zoning issues and from Canterbury Regional Council for discharge issues. Establishing a private landfill in Christchurch would require a change to the City Plan in addition to several resource consents, as there is only one zone in which a landfill is permitted. This process, and the economic infeasibility of building and operating a modern landfill, has so far prevented such a programme from being established.
CCC has set up several policies designed to deal with the generation of waste, the geographic isolation of Christchurch from markets for recycled goods, and the sensitivity of the air quality over Christchurch. The policies include provisions in the City Plan, the Hazardous Waste Advisory Service (HWAS), the Recovered Materials Foundation (RMF), and Cleaner Production initiatives.
The tendency of the air over Christchurch to form temperature inversions places greater limitations on waste disposal to air, such as incineration, than in other cities. The Resource Management Act 1991 is used to regulate air emissions, and provisions in regional and city policies suggest limits for air emissions. Presently, there is no large-scale incineration programme for general waste, due to the cost and the regulatory conditions involved.
The HWAS provides advice to producers of potentially hazardous waste on how to treat their waste to a standard acceptable to landfill. This includes medical waste, which is presently incinerated by a private firm, Medical Waste Group Ltd. Potentially hazardous waste is only landfilled once it has been treated. Most treatment is carried out by private firms (MfE, 1998). The RMF is a joint operation between CCC, Canterbury Development Corporation, Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce, Canterbury Manufacturers Association, Sustainable Cities Trust, Clean Washington Centre (USA), and the New Zealand recycling industry. The foundation attempts to "assist the community of Christchurch with the identification, recovery and utilisation of post-consumer (and post-industrial) materials from the waste stream" (CCC, 1998, p.36), thus creating new markets in New Zealand. To this end, the RMF is involved in information gathering and dissemination, enterprise establishment and funding, and policy development and advocacy (ibid). The Cleaner Production initiatives include Target Zero, a group of Christchurch businesses coordinated by CCC, that are attempting to apply cleaner production and industrial ecosystem techniques to improve both environmental performance and profitability. Using these initiatives, CCC hopes to change the attitudes of Christchurch waste producers, and provide alternatives to waste disposal. Further programmes planned for the future continue this trend.
The Draft Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan 1998 prepared by CCC is currently in the public participation phase. A summary of the Draft Plan is included in Appendix 5. The stated goal of the plan is the regionalisation of waste disposal, and the reduction of solid waste going to landfill by 100% before 2020. There is a proposal to make the next landfill a regional programme, with other districts and city councils transporting their waste via refuse stations to a single site for disposal. Potential sites for that landfill are presently being identified. The elimination of landfilling is to be achieved through integrated waste management by implementing the waste management hierarchy, with education, coordination and economic instruments as primary strategies. Total cost assessment is an approach that can be used to unite these instruments because it shows how they impact on total cost. If the goals of the plan are achieved, the total cost will reflect this, and Christchurch's environment (social, biophysical and economic) will have to bear less costs than it does currently.
A brief glossary of terms is provided at the start of this document. This section explains the rationale for the terms used throughout this report and the way they are defined.
Waste is perceived. Waste is in fact "a potentially valuable resource in the wrong place" (Ahmad, 1981) which disappears when perceptions alter: as Mark Prain of the Recovered Materials Foundation put it, "When is rubbish not rubbish? When people regard it as a resource." (Crean, 1998).
The National Waste Data Report (MfE, 1997b) points out that New Zealand has no legal definition for waste, but it has variously been described as "unavoidable materials for which there is currently no near future economic demand and for which treatment and/or disposal may be required" (OECD, 1996). It has also been described as "objects which the owner does not want, need or use any longer, which require treatment and/or disposal" (UNEP, cited in MfE, 1997, p.9). The Christchurch City Council defines waste as "any discarded, rejected and unwanted surplus or abandoned matter". This study considers only solid waste (construction/ demolition, garden, kitchen, organic, putrescible and municipal solid waste: (CCC, 1998, p.22-23) and hazardous waste (ie. waste requiring special treatment or handling before disposal because it is potentially harmful) excluding radioactive waste. It excludes waste in the form of non-hazardous liquids, bulk hazardous liquids, sludge and suspended solids, spray and gas (MfE, 1997). The study deals with the management of waste after entering the waste stream, ie. after its generation. This includes management of waste up to its conversion to a useful commodity (eg., if reused, recycled or composted) or disposal, and also includes any post-disposal management or effects (eg., leachate from closed landfill sites). The cost of waste related practices pre-generation (eg., cleaner production) are excluded.
Like `waste' the concept of cost is perceptual in nature. There are a variety of values, of which economic value is just one (Brown, 1984). Negative values can be termed costs and positive values benefits. Costs and benefits can be assigned within a range of disciplines or perspectives (eg., financial, aesthetic, or spiritual costs and benefits). However, the predominant recognition of the `cost' concept in policy and decision making is economic value and, as noted by Turner (1995), "full social costs of waste disposal have traditionally been disguised or underestimated", whereas the `full price' should include all relevant costs including control costs or costs of effects on the community and the natural environment. This occurs mainly because the most common expression of cost is through market transactions, but many of the costs of the types just described are not accounted for by the market.
Within environmental and resource economics, unaccounted for problems are termed `externalities' and a way of addressing them is making sure their costs are accounted for within the market system. The task of this report is to find ways to systematically account for all costs and benefits (those accounted for and those currently `external') which occur in the process of waste management, that is, to devise a system for assessing total cost. Total cost is a net cost, that is it includes both costs and benefits. The term `total cost' (taken from the study's terms of reference) corresponds directly to the term `real cost' in the Draft Waste Management Plan for Solid and Hazardous Waste 1998. The term total cost assessment is used to refer to the framework for assessing cost developed within this document, as distinct from any of the existing costing methods or approaches outlined in appendix 2. Because both costs and benefits are considered in this study, and because the usual connotation of the term `cost' is financial, the term effect is used within this study to refer to both costs and benefits of any type.
Waste management is of benefit to society because it prevents uncontrolled litter, discharge, and so on. This view, however, calculates benefits on the basis of costs avoided. In practice this is infeasible because there are infinite possibilities of costs that could be incurred without waste management. Therefore our basis for comparison is not `what would happen if there were no waste management', but `what would happen if there were no waste?'. In this context, all waste management activities are costs - for instance, because there is waste, we must pay for education and administration to encourage its minimisation. Benefits are positively valued results which would not have occurred if there were no waste - for instance generation of employment in waste management and recycling and reuse industries.
Given the interconnectedness of the issues and impacts associated with waste management, working definitions are required to differentiate between social, economic and biophysical costs. These three categories are used because, while there is considerable variety in their use, they are less likely to be misinterpreted than others, as discussed further below. They are also consistent with national documents which will influence total cost assessment, such as the Environment 2010 Strategy (MfE, 1997a), The State of New Zealand's Environment 1997 (MfE, 1997a) and Environmental Performance Indicators: Proposals for Air, Freshwater, and Land (MfE, 1997c). It is recognised that costs and benefits will not fit neatly into specific categories, but it is necessary to establish some boundaries to avoid overestimating or omitting costs, particularly where one aspect of waste management may have several different effects.
Firstly, we will use the term biophysical to include all effects on living things (excluding those on people), the physical environment (including physical processes), and any interactions between them. This is a liberal definition of `biophysical' which includes ecological processes and the intrinsic value of ecosystems. This particular term is used because it encompasses both physical and biological aspects of the environment as well as processes, but avoids the potentially wide-ranging connotations of `environmental'. It is used rather than `ecological' because ecology is an approach to environmental science that places particular emphasis on the interactions between elements of ecosystems. Using "ecological" would incorrectly indicate that total cost assessment also has this particular emphasis, whereas interactions are included in the definition given for biophysical, and are considered to be another characteristic of the environment, with no requirement for heavier weighting. "Biophysical" places equal emphasis on living and non-living elements in the environment, as compared with "ecological", which in common usage places emphasis on biotic elements in the ecosystems.
Hirschfeld et al. (1992) define social impacts as those which affect society regardless of whether there are effects on what we have termed the biophysical environment. They include traffic congestion, visible air pollution, noise, aesthetic degradation and limited land utility and would also include effects on spiritual and heritage values. Additionally, there may be secondary effects, such as deteriorated health, which flow on from biophysical impacts. Both primary and secondary effects are included.
Finally, economic includes two main types of costs (or benefits). Financial effects are those accounted for in economic or market systems and accruing to waste management service providers. Financial costs are generally already included in current accounting systems. However, while all financial costs are expressed in economic or market terms, some may not currently be included in the waste management service providers' accounting systems, such as future costs (landfill site remediation and new landfill sites, risks). Other effects which are financial in nature but do not accrue to the waste management operators will be referred to as socio-economic (eg., the positive effect or benefit of increased employment, decreased land values near a refuse site, the cost of private transport to transfer stations).
Christchurch waste management is situated in a dynamic policy process, to which a diverse range of organisations and agencies with either direct or indirect responsibilities contribute. The process is shaped by a wide range of international, national, regional, and local influences, which add to the complexity of the system. A variety of themes and trends in waste management influence the approach that needs to be taken to develop a system of total cost assessment. Total cost assessment need to be understood in the wider context of all the influences, and particular regard to the local Christchurch context.
[1] From kerbside re:cycling flyer, published by CCC, RMF, Onyx and Eco Action.
|
|
|
