Solid waste management in New Zealand

C.A. Boyle *

Civil and Resource Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Accepted 15 February 2000

Abstract

As part of an on-going programme to consider the current waste management and pollution prevention framework in NewZealand, the Ministry for the Environment, in collaboration with Auckland Regional Council and Zero Waste New Zealand,

requested the author to undertake a survey of organisations involved in the waste management industry. The objective of the surveywas to gain information about the pollution prevention and waste management issues organisations perceive they are facing as animportant input to a review of the current policy and regulatory framework for waste management and pollution prevention in

New Zealand. The issues raised by respondents included concerns regarding national policy, particularly the lack of waste man-agement policy and co-ordination; the lack of hazardous waste management; concerns regarding local policy, particularly withregard to consistency and waste minimisation, including lack of incentives and markets for recycled materials, the cost of recyclingand the lack of cleaner production e�orts. In comparison with UK and Pennsylvania programmes, the New Zealand waste man-

agement and pollution prevention programme was found to be vague, lacking in direction and funding and would not succeed inreducing waste production or e�ectively managing waste. Clear goals and timeframes need to be established, duties and responsi-bilities of national and local governments and industry clari®ed and funding needs to be allocated in order to produce an e�ective

waste management framework in New Zealand. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Waste management; New Zealand; National waste policy

1. Introduction

At this point in time the waste management industryin New Zealand is undergoing a great deal of change.Recent changes in legislation and increasing scrutiny ofsolid, liquid, emission and hazardous waste manage-ment and pollution prevention practices has resulted inincreasing pressure on regional and local governmentsand other waste management organisations to managewaste and prevent pollution more e�ectively. It isexpected that this will also increase pressure on businesses.The major legislation in New Zealand protecting the

environment is the Resource Management Act (RMA)(1991) which requires that any activity be managed sus-tainably. Activities a�ecting the environment arerequired to obtain a resource consent, unless they arealready permitted under the Act. The local governmentsare required to draft District Plans which set conditionsfor resource consents.The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) published

the Environment 2010 Strategy in 1995, aimed at pro-

viding a strategic overview of the way the NZ govern-ment with environmental issues [1]. It stated: ``Thevision for the New Zealand environment to 2010 is: aclean, healthy and unique environment, sustaining nat-ure and people's needs and aspirations.''Eleven principles were identi®ed to integrate environ-

ment, society and economy:

. Sustainably managing natural and physicalresources;

. Applying the Precautionary Principle;

. De®ning environmental bottom lines;

. Internalising external environmental costs;

. Specifying property rights to achieve sustainableoutcomes;

. Ensuring that ``least cost'' policy tools are adopted;

. Ensuring that social and environmental goals aremutually supportive;

. Following full cost pricing principles in pricingpublic utility infrastructure;

. Considering local, national and internationaldimensions of sustainable resource management indetermining publicly funded research priorities;

. De®ning the limits of resource use and substitution.

0956-053X/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0956-053X(00 )00023-4

Waste Management 20 (2000) 517±526

www.elsevier.nl/locate/wasman

* Tel.: +649-373-7599 ext. 8166; fax: +649-373-7462.

In support of the government's philosophy of eco-nomic priorities, the principles placed a strong emphasison economics as a guiding perspective on environmentaldecisions.However, eleven priority issues were also listed which

did not consider an economic perspective:

. Managing our land resources;

. Managing our water resources;

. Maintaining clear, clean breatheable air;

. Protecting indigenous habitats and biologicaldiversity;

. Managing pests, weeds and diseases;

. Sustainable ®sheries;

. Managing the environmental impacts of energyservices;

. Managing the environmental e�ects of transport;

. Managing waste, contaminated sites and hazar-dous substances;

. Reducing the risk of climate change;

. Restoring the ozone layer.

In order to achieve the stated vision, an Environ-mental Management Agenda was de®ned with the fol-lowing goals:

1. To integrate environmental, social and economicfactors into the mainstream of decision making in allsectors, at all levels.

2. To develop and maintain an e�ective, coherentbody of law and practice for achieving e�cientand sustainable management of the environment.

3. To develop a range of policy tools, to be usedwithin the framework of law, to achieve thedesired environmental outcomes that most bene®tsociety and the economy.

4. To achieve a comprehensive and reliable informa-tion base on the environment which will aidinformed and sound decisions on the protectionand sustainable management of New Zealand'snatural and physical resources.

5. To encourage environmentally responsible behaviourand informed participation in decision making bypromoting environmental education throughoutthe community.

6. To ensure that people have the opportunity fore�ective participation in decision making thata�ects the environment.

In 1996, an amendment to the Local Government Act(LGA) required that all local government prepare andimplement a Waste Management Plan, based on thewaste management hierarchy of reduce, reuse, recycle,recover and, ®nally, treatment and disposal. Littledirection on the required plans were provided and the

legislation and subsequent policy had no requirementsfor setting objectives or deadlines, coordination betweencouncils or for monitoring the outcomes. Despite thisamendment, the rate of waste production per capitaappears to be increasing, especially in the larger citiessuch as Auckland [2]. By 1998, a number of councilshad begun to draft their plans but the plans rangedfrom vague mentions of waste minimisation to clearlyde®ned goals and timeframes. In 1999, one council did noteven realise that they were required to produce a WasteManagement Plan. There is still a lack of nationalcoordination and direction for solid waste management.According to data collected in 1995 by the New Zeal-

and Ministry for the Environment [3], an average of 401kg of residential waste was land®lled per capita,approximately 20% lower than the OECD average. Anadditional 37.5 kg or 8.5% of solid waste was recycledand about 80% of New Zealand residents had access toa recycling programme. A further 1,760,000 tonnes ofindustrial waste were also land®lled. Incineration is notused for residential solid waste management in NewZealand but some industries, particularly the pulp andpaper industry, do use furnaces to recover energy fromtheir waste biomass. The extent of incinerated waste isunknown and there is no information on the quantity ofwaste being discarded into clean®lls.As part of their strategy, the Waste Management and

Pollution Prevention Branch of the MfE, in collabora-tion with Auckland Regional Council and Zero WasteNew Zealand, requested the author undertake a surveyof organisations involved in the waste management indus-try. The objective of the survey was to gain informationabout the pollution prevention and waste managementissues organisations perceive they are facing. The resultsof this survey provide some indication as to the extentto which the empowerment of local governments andthe devolution of power has been e�ective and problemswhich may be arising as a result of that devolution. Thispaper will present the results of the survey and discussthem with regard to e�ective management of wastes andpollution in New Zealand.

2. Methodology

2.1. Survey formulation

The purpose of the survey, as de®ned by MfE, was todetermine the major issues that were of concern to speci®cgroups with respect to waste management in New Zeal-and, identify why these were problems, determine possiblesolutions and also determine the waste management issuesfacing New Zealand as a whole. It was, therefore, deci-ded to avoid speci®c questions or multiple choiceanswers which could lead the respondent and a�ect theresponse. Four questions were, therefore, asked:

518 C.A. Boyle /Waste Management 20 (2000) 517±526

1. What are the key (ten or less) waste management orpollution prevention problems your operation faces?

2. Why are these problems?3. What do you think would be solutions to these

problems?4. What do you think are the key waste management

or pollution prevention problems facing NewZealand as a whole?

A total of 101 organisations, representing local gov-ernments, the waste management industry, generalindustry, consultants in waste management, Iwi (Maoritribes) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs),were targeted for the survey. Survey forms were sent tonon-government groups on May 29, 1998. Writtenresponses were requested by June 15, 1998 and a replyenvelope was included. Respondents were also given thechoice of replying by e-mail, facsimile or telephone.Telephone reminders were used to ensure that thosesurveyed received the survey and submitted responses.Responses were accepted until July 12, 1998. Localgovernments were interviewed by telephone from July 6to 17, 1998.

2.2. Analysis

Since the questions were left open ended, the respon-ses were separated into several main categories. Thesecategories were then further divided into more speci®cissues. This proved di�cult for some responses whichcould have been allocated to more than one category orwhich could have been interpreted in more than oneway. Responses which were ambiguous were discussedand, based on the overall tone of the responses from theindividual, allocated to a category.

2.2.1. Categories used for answersQuestion 1 (What are the key (ten or less) waste

management or pollution prevention problems youroperation faces?)Question 4 (What do you think are the key waste

management or pollution prevention problems facingNew Zealand as a whole?)

Attitude General public attitude to wastemanagement

National policies Failure or inadequacy of nationalpolicies or activities

Local policies Failure or inadequacy of localpolicy or activity

General issues General pollution or e�ects on theenvironment

Air pollution Problems associated air emissionsor odour

Water pollution Pollution from sewage orindustrial wastewaters

Soil pollution Contaminated sites, illegaldumping

Waste minimisation Waste reduction, recycling andrecovery

Hazardous waste Hazardous waste disposal andhandling

Solid waste Volume of solid waste producedand its disposal

Liquid waste Treatment of sewage and liquidwastes

Land®lls Design, operation andmaintenance of land®lls

Question 2 (Why are these problems?)

Legislation Legislation or the lack oflegislation

National policies Policies or management of thecentral government

Local policies Local management, policies orby-laws

Economic factors Compliance costs, lack of marketfor recycled goods, etc.

Information Lack of or inadequate informationCurrent practice Current practice, outdated or

customary practicesSociety Societal concerns, opinions or

viewsEngineering Lack of technology or inadequate

technologyEnvironmental issues The e�ects of an activity

Question 3 (What do you think would be solutions tothese problems?)

Legislation Changes to or implementation oflegislation or standards

Guidelines Requirements for guidelinesMarket adjustments Subsidies, incentives or other

economic factorsCo-ordination Requirements for co-ordination

of e�ortManagement/policies Better management or policiesEducation Education of the public or

speci®c industrial groupsEngineering Improvements in technology,

research or information

3. Results

3.1. Response rate

Of the 101 organisations approached, 58 responded or57.4% (Fig. 1). All of the 20 local and 12 regionalauthorities approached participated, re¯ecting the

C.A. Boyle /Waste Management 20 (2000) 517±526 519

e�ective use of telephone surveys. A total of 26 non-government responses were received. Industry wasrepresented by a nine companies from a wide variety ofindustry types, ranging from a fast-food chain to an oilcompany to a shipping company. The ®ve consulting®rms which participated were primarily engineering andwaste management service providers while the six wastemanagement companies represented waste collectionand disposal operations. The two NGOs included aprofessional body and a group involved in sustainabilityand waste management issues. Four Iwi also providedresponses.In interpreting the results, it must be clari®ed that this

is not a statistical representation of organisations inNew Zealand, but the results do provide some indica-tion of the problems that the respondents are facing. Itis also possible that the responses represent only the viewsof the individual responding. It must be recognised,however, that, if an issue is raised then the individualhas found it to be a problem, and there is a concern thatneeds to be addressed.The issues that were raised were identi®ed by the

respondents independently, without prompting from thesurvey. The importance of an issue can only be judgedby the number of respondents who consider it to be aconcern to them. It must also be clari®ed that this surveyasked respondents what is wrong with the current sys-tem. It did not ask what was being done correctly orwhat was being managed in an acceptable manner.Other biases whichmay a�ect the results include the inter-

pretation of the questions from the perspective of the resp-ondent; the interpretation of the response by the surveyor;speci®c issues that may exist at the time of the survey; theposition of the respondent in the organisation; his or herability to e�ectively convey the organisation's viewpointand the timing of the survey. Overall, this is notmeant to bea robust statistically valid survey; at best it provides some

indication of the waste management and pollution issueswhich need to be addressed in New Zealand.

4. Response to question 1

4.1. What are the key (ten or less) waste managementor pollution prevention problems your operation faces?

From the breakdown of responses shown in Fig. 2, itcan be seen that the major issues arising overall wereassociated with hazardous waste (14.1%) national pol-icy (12.6%) and solid waste (11.7%). However, theissues listed most by non-government respondents were,in order, solid waste (16.5%), hazardous waste (11.3%)and liquid waste (10.4%). Air pollution was the leastmentioned issue, followed by soil pollution. Govern-ment respondents listed both national policy (15.5%)and hazardous waste (15.5%) as the major issues whilewaste minimisation (12.4%), solid waste (9.3%) andwater pollution (9.3%) were also important. Environ-mental issues was the issue raised the least (2.1%). Theresponses were su�ciently varied that it was di�cult tode®ne a single issue as a major concern. Moreover notall appeared to be a direct response to the question

4.2. Responses included

`Waste management is not just a local governmentproblem' Ð Territorial Authority`More central government initiatives are needed to

tackle issues' Ð Territorial Authority`Responsibility for hazardous waste management is

unclear' Ð Regional Council`Waste minimisation is hard to promote because it is

very cheap to land®ll. People are only interested in eco-nomic bene®ts' Ð Regional Council

Fig. 1. Organisations contacted and the percent response from each organisation type.

520 C.A. Boyle /Waste Management 20 (2000) 517±526

`We dump too much stu� in the dump that could berecycled' Ð Industry`Waste packaging' Ð Industry`Lack of incentive to reduce or reuse waste' Ð Con-

sultant`Historically, land®lls have been de®cient in pollution

prevention measures' Ð Waste Management Industry`No apparent national coordination' Ð Waste Man-

agement Industry`Lack of legitimacy given to iwi concerns compared

with empirical science and the `men in suits' Ð Iwi`True costing of land®ll disposal' Ð NGO

5. Response to question 2

5.1. Why are these problems?

Overall, over 35% of the reasons given could be cate-gorised as local or national policy, as seen in Fig. 3. Thirty-three percent of local government responses concernedlocal or national policy and 34% of non-governmentresponses concerned local policy. Engineering was alsoa major category as were economic factors and theenvironmental e�ects of the identi®ed problem. Legis-lation and society concerns did not feature as much.

Fig. 2. Issues identi®ed by the respondents, showing the percent of respondents identifying each issue.

Fig. 3. Causes of the problems facing the respondents.

C.A. Boyle /Waste Management 20 (2000) 517±526 521

5.2. Responses included

`Council is forced to accept waste that private ®rmswould not' Ð Territorial Authority`Lack of funding at agency level' Ð Regional Council`Waste reduction and pollution prevention will not

become common practice if it relies on people's good-will and desire to do the right thing' Ð Consultant`Cost prevents more environmentally sound

disposal' Ð Industry`Lack of investment in recycling in New Zealand' Ð

Industry`Runo� problems from adjacent farms into springs,

lakes Ð cattle etc. grazing, drinking at edges' Ð Iwi`The focus of local government is determined by the

national government overview. Current national policygives no incentive for local government to changedirection' Ð NGO`Compliance costs are ever increasing, whereas actual

environmental e�ects are ignored' Ð Waste Manage-ment Industry

6. Response to question 3

6.1. What do you think would be solutions to theseproblems?

The solution to the problems, according to themajority of government and non-government respondents,require changes in management and policy (26.5%),although changes in legislation (17.1%), economic factors(14.1%) and co-ordination of e�ort (13.4%) are alsoimportant (Fig. 4). Of less importance but still men-tioned were engineering solutions (10.3%), a need forguidelines (9.8%) and education (8.5%).

6.2. Responses included

`Focus shift to legitimate real issues of the region' ÐRegional Council`We need to develop an understanding of what

hazardous wastes are being generated where, trackwhere these wastes go and monitor their disposal' ÐRegional Council`Solution within strategic planning process' Ð Terri-

torial Authority`Council should settle on a policy and not constantly

review policy' Ð Industry`Clear government legislation that allows the full cost

of waste to be seen' Ð Consultant`Segregation (of waste) at the point of disposal' Ð

Industry`Controls on introduction of foreign species' Ð Iwi`Establishment of a pricing structure which re¯ects

true cost. Thus giving a level playing ®eld to all methodsof disposal' Ð NGO`Appropriate maintenance of land®ll systems' Ð

Waste Management Industry`Central government legislation applied across all

local governments ensuring practices and enforcementare consistent' Ð Waste Management Industry

7. Response to question 4

7.1. What do you think are the key waste managementor pollution prevention problems facing New Zealand asa whole?

As seen in Fig. 5, about 22% of the responses werecategorised as national policy, the major category for allrespondent groups, but particularly for territorial

Fig. 4. General solutions to the identi®ed problems.

522 C.A. Boyle /Waste Management 20 (2000) 517±526

authorities. Waste minimisation was an issue in 14% ofresponses, a concern for all respondent groups. Hazardouswaste was identi®ed by almost 13% of all respondents andwhile this was important for all groups, regional councilslisted it most followed by non-government groups.Local policy was also identi®ed as an important issue,particularly for territorial authorities. Environmentalissues, air pollution and soil pollution were categorieswith the fewest responses.

7.2. Responses included

`Lack of national incentives to minimise waste' ÐTerritorial Authority`Lack of government legislation controlling quantities

of waste produced' Ð Regional Council`Any waste management problems in one district

a�ect other districts Ð need integration' Ð TerritorialAuthority`Lack of a market for recyclable products' Ð Con-

sultant`Lack of facilities in NZ for the management of

hazardous wastes' Ð Consultant`There are ideas, but due to low cost of raw material

NZ is facing an uphill challenge' Ð Industry`Pollution of water ways' Ð Iwi`Maintaining an international perception as one of the

world's few ``clean green'' nations' Ð NGO`A greater emphasis on sound scienti®c technical

aspects and a lower emphasis on emotional unsub-stantiated views' Ð Waste Management Industry`Tough legislation needs to be backed up with answers

and solutions for safe disposal. (of hazardous waste)' ÐWaste Management Industry

7.3. Summary of results

Overall, the issues a�ecting respondents that werestated the most were related to hazardous waste,national policy, solid waste and waste minimisationalthough water pollution was a major issue for regionalcouncils. Many of the issues a�ecting New Zealandwere the same as those a�ecting the respondents. How-ever, those issues were much more focused on nationalpolicy and waste minimisation and stressed the need fornational integration of programmes as well as nationalcollaboration and direction of policies.The causes of these problems related mainly to concerns

with local policy, followed by national policy, environ-mental issues and engineering. A lack of resources,including both funding and personnel, and planning/management were identi®ed as major reasons, mainly bygovernment respondents. This includes the problem oflow population density, which provides insu�cientincome from municipal rates to pay for waste manage-ment, which was mentioned by several respondents.Overall, resources appear to be an issue for at least 50%of the regional councils and 25% of the territorialauthorities and are likely to be a component of othercauses as well. Planning/management was an issue for33% of the territorial authorities and also contributes toother causes. Inconsistent policies both within councils andamong councils were also identi®ed by respondents,including the ad hoc nature of land®ll sites, managementof contaminated sites and the current system in general.The major cause involving national policy was inap-

propriate focus, identifying that current policy was nottargeting the correct issues. A number of policy focusneeds were identi®ed including the following:

Fig. 5. Issues facing New Zealand showing the percent of respondents identifying the issue.

C.A. Boyle /Waste Management 20 (2000) 517±526 523

. Waste management (not only municipal solidwaste);

. Pollution prevention;

. Source reduction, waste minimisation, recycling;

. E�ective standards and guidelines;

. Consequences of increasing land®ll fees Ð wastesgo to cheaper land®lls;

. Leadership on hazardous waste management;

. Site by site liability and

. Long term holistic perspective of waste manage-ment.

The lack of incentives for e�ective waste managementwas also mentioned by a number of respondents. Thesepointed out that there was no incentive to recycle,minimise or produce less waste and no governmentinitiatives to support such strategies. The economics forsmall communities nationally also were a problem sincemany smaller communities felt they could not a�orde�ective waste minimisation or recycling e�orts.National integration was also identi®ed by respon-

dents, mainly by territorial authorities. The responsesstated that:

. there was a lack of nationally driven solutions;

. there was no national integration of waste man-agement and pollution prevention;

. problems manifested at a local level but could onlybe resolved on a national level;

. it is di�cult to reduce waste on a local level;

. a national mechanism is needed to resolve issuessuch as packaging.

The main solution identi®ed overall was that of bettermanagement, locally, nationally and generally. Bothspeci®c management mechanisms were identi®ed such assegregation of wastes at source or pesticide sprayingonly when there is no wind as well as general mechan-isms such as advancement in practices, attacking pro-blems head on and greater competency in regionalcouncils. Many of the solutions o�ered may be e�ectivebut will require resources to implement. A number ofresponses also indicated the need to change legislationalthough changes in management may provide e�ectivesolutions. A variety of guidelines were also suggested,ranging from national guidance on land®lls, wastemanagement, contaminated sites, licensing of wastecollection contractors, more e�ective control of emis-sions, controls on foreign species and performancebonds on contractors to limit environmental liability.Incentives, both economic and otherwise, were also

suggested by respondents as a solution. Such incentivescould include tax relief for research on cleaner technol-ogy, loans for improved technology and tax credits forreduced pollution or waste. Since all of these activitieswould decrease the externalities of waste management

thus relieving the government of some costs, the overallcost would be minor. In addition, education was identi-®ed as needed for both the general public and speci®csta� or operators. Certainly, most waste managementprogrammes are not e�ective unless the public is edu-cated about the programme and kept informed about itsoperation and its success.

8. Discussion

In 1998, the MfE undertook a stocktake of the goalsof the Environment 2020 Strategy [4]. In general, theMfE found that there was `limited consistent nationalenvironmental data and few quality standards ...(to)measure the health of the environment.' In discussingwaste management, the MfE found that:

Comprehensive waste data is scarce and reliabilitycan often not be determined. Because of the widerange of factors that in¯uence concepts and pro-duction of waste it will always be di�cult to makejudgements about progress in terms of quantitativereductions. On the basis of limited data, thereappears to have been poor progress on wastereduction. Data collected by the National WasteData Report shows limited progress made onGovernment's `generator pays' policy for producersof waste. High standards have yet to be achievedfor waste disposal in land®lls.

Although some progress had been made on producingenvironmental indicators, in general, the Stocktakeindicated that there had been a lack of progress inactually achieving e�ective waste management and pol-lution prevention.The Stocktake states that the environmental perfor-

mance indicators programme, a strategy to safeguardNew Zealand's indigenous habitats and biologicaldiversity, and a programme to improve performance ofthe Resource Management Act have been undertakenwithin the past 12 months. Changes to the RMA arebeing reviewed due to a recent change in government.Over the past three years, the MfE has been primarilyfocused on the environmental performance indicatorsprogramme and drafting of hazardous waste legislationwhich is still not complete.The focus of the government over the past three years,

therefore, appeared to be on the gathering of datarather than on e�ective management. The surveyappears to re¯ect this, as, overall, the concerns of thosepolled lie with the lack of e�ective management prac-tices, either in general or in relation to speci®c issuessuch as hazardous waste and contaminated sites. More-over, amendments to the LGA have displaced responsi-bility for setting a solid waste and pollution prevention

524 C.A. Boyle /Waste Management 20 (2000) 517±526

management strategy from the national government tothe local governments, without initiating any compre-hensive mechanism which would ensure that there wasconsistency and cooperation in local strategies. Noresponsibilities have been placed on industry beyond therequirement to seek a resource consent for any e�ect onthe environment. Resource consents are governed underthe RMA and the granting of consents is under the jur-isdiction of the local government.In contrast, the UK government has established a

central role for the national Government, along with theEnvironmental Agency, industry and local authorities[5]. A White Paper `This Common Inheritance' set atarget of 50% recycling of recyclable waste by 2000 [6].A strategy for waste management in England and Waleswas set out in 1995 in another White Paper entitled'Making Waste Work' [7]. The strategy set the followingtargets: to reduce the proportion of controlled wastegoing to land®ll from 70 to 60% by 2005; to recovervalue from 40% of municipal waste by 2005; and torecycle or compost 25% of household waste by the year2000. By 1995, 38% of companies in at least one countyeither had initiated or were planning to initiate wasteminimisation initiatives [6].The UK government is actively attempting to shift the

focus up the waste management hierarchy althoughwaste management practices are weighted towards thebottom of the hierarchy [5]. The land®ll tax was onemechanism employed in 1996, with the tax being used tofund environmental bodies which could then reduce theimpact of land®lls. Although by 1997, few environ-mental bodies had been initiated, it was expected thatthe tax could assist in increasing waste minimisationinitiatives with the funding reducing environmentalimpacts. However, in comparing the UK government'sapproach with that of Pennsylvania, under the MinicipalWaste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act of1988, Morris et al. [8] stated that:

The American legislation is comprehensive in itspromotion of sustainable waste management. TheAct expresses its purpose, imposes duties, grantspowers and, most notably, establishes the fundingfor carrying out its objects. The UK legislation is incomparison, unfocused, piecemeal and disparate.The government has become bogged down by con-sultation papers.

The NZ waste management legislation is outlined intwo acts (the RMA and the LGA) as well as in variouspolicy papers, most notably the Environment 2010Strategy. There are no goals set, duties are focusedsolely on local authorities with little regard to nationalstandards or consistency, industry is not required totake any responsibility for waste minimisation, fundingis not allocated and the national government plays little

part in achieving e�ective waste management. In theStrategy, there is no mention of sustainable waste man-agement or waste minimisation. Over the past threeyears, the NZ government has focused on introducingmechanisms to obtain further data rather than on settingup programmes to target areas of concern. Moreover,although the national government has shifted theresponsibility of waste management and pollution pre-vention to local government, funding to ful®ll thatresponsibility has not followed.The results of this survey and the National Waste

Data Report [3] con®rm this comparison. While 80% ofNZ's population has access to some recycling [3], almostall of the population of the UK has access [9]. Only8.5% of waste was recycled in New Zealand in 1995 [3],compared to 17% in 1992 in the US [10]. In general, thenational government has abandoned waste managementand pollution prevention to the local authorities whichare struggling to provide direction and undertake wasteminimisation with little support or funding.

9. Conclusions

The current NZ legislation and policy is not providingsu�cient direction and focus in the ®eld of waste man-agement and pollution prevention. In comparison to pro-grammes in the UK and Pennsylvania, the New Zealandwaste management and pollution prevention programmeis vague, lacking in direction and funding and will notsucceed in reducing waste production or e�ectively mana-ging waste. The central government must take responsi-bility for providing overall direction and ensuring that thereare consistent programmes in place across New Zealand.The following conclusions were drawn from the

responses to the survey:

. Hazardous waste issues need to be addressed imme-diately and at a national level in order to provide acoherent structure for management practices;

. Lack of co-ordination in waste management at anational level is leading to inconsistent wastemanagement standards;

. Current government policy is not enabling co-ordination of waste minimisation e�orts through-out the country;

. Current legislation is not e�ective in managingwastes or controlling pollution;

. Local authorities often have di�culties in balan-cing environmental standards and the need toattract industry;

. Contaminated site legislation is needed to de®nethe roles and responsibilities of local and centralgovernment and to initiate action;

. Recycling initiatives are uneconomic due tounstable commodity markets.

C.A. Boyle /Waste Management 20 (2000) 517±526 525

Suggestions for improvements to national wastemanagement and pollution prevention include: moree�ective management and policy at a national and locallevel, including establishing of clear goals and time-frames, clari®cation of duties and responsibilities ofnational and local governments and industry and allo-cation of funding; changes in legislation to managehazardous wastes, promote waste minimisation, initiatecontaminated site management and clean up and setclear standards for air, water and soil discharges;incentive programmes to encourage waste minimisation,cleaner production and recycling and a co-ordinated,collaborative e�ort nationally and locally to e�ectivelymanage waste in New Zealand.

Acknowledgements

This survey was funded by the Ministry for theEnvironment, Auckland Regional Council and ZeroWaste New Zealand. The author would also like tothank all those who participated in this study.

References

[1] Ministry for the Environment. Environment 2010 Strategy.

Wellington, NZ: Ministry for the Environment, 1995.

[2] Auckland City Council. Draft Waste Management Plan. Auck-

land, NZ: Auckland City Council, 1999.

[3] Ministry for the Environment. National Waste Data Report.

Wellington, NZ: Ministry for the Environment, 1997.

[4] Ministry for the Environment. Wellington, NZ: Environment

2020 Strategy Stocktake, Ministry for the Environment, 1999.

[5] Read AD, Phillips PS, Murphy A. Environmental bodies and

land®ll tax funds: An assessment of land®ll operators in two

English counties. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1997a;

20:153±82.

[6] Read AD, Phillips PS, Murphy A. English county Councils and

their agenda for waste minimisation. Resources, Conservation

and Recycling 1997b;20:277±94.

[7] Hutchings D.ManagingWastes. UK: Environment Agency, 1999.

[8] Morris JR, Phillips PS, Read AD. The UK Land®ll Tax: an

analysis of its contribution to sustainable waste management.

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1998;20:259±70.

[9] Read AD. Waste Management Policy Implementation±±

thoughts, data and anecdotal evidence from English local autho-

rities. www.king.ac.uk/geog/sta�/adam.htm, 1999.

[10] Steuteville R, Goldstein N. The state of garbage in America.

Biocycle 1997;34(5):42±50.

526 C.A. Boyle /Waste Management 20 (2000) 517±526