WEB ISWA White Paper

8/8/2019 WEB ISWA White Paper

1/40

Waste and Climate ChangeISWA WHITE PAPER


2/40

Preface 3

Re-evaluating waste: ISWA key messages 4

ISWA Commitments 6

Introduction 7

Technologies 8

Material recovery 14

Organic recovery 16Energy recovery 18

Clean Development Mechanism 20

Policy and regulation 26

Greenhouse gas accounting 34

References 38

2

List of Contents


3/40

The climate change phenomenon, its causesand consequences, is now generally acceptedand recognised by the international scienti ccommunity, governments, the private sector, NGOsand the general population.

It requires a robust response. Solutions must befound that will mitigate emissions of greenhousegases and help to adapt to its unavoidableconsequences. The complexity of the issue requiresthe acceptance of a common responsibility fromboth the public and private sector.

As the only international association promotingsustainable development in the waste managementsector, ISWA is well placed to acknowledge our

own responsibility and to act accordingly.We are now very proud to present the Waste& Climate ISWA White Paper, setting forththe technologies and mechanisms which cantransform the waste sector into a net globalreducer of GHG emissions, and making thenecessary commitments to assist this change.

ISWAs aim is to facilitate global improvements inwaste management strategies. Our membershipstructure and secretariat offer an established

resource for the dissemination of knowledgeand experience. We will support new researchand education programmes and assessexperiences from different countries on policy,strategy and accounting, to provide a globalfoundation for progress.

Our commitments will see us working in closecooperation with other international institutesand organisations to promote far-reaching andfundamental reduction targets, which recognisethe untapped potential for waste related GHGemissions reductions.

I would like to extend our specialacknowledgement and thanks to the members

of the Task Force for having made possible thepublication of this White Paper, as well as allthose people who have participated in this processwith presentations, opinions and comments.

Atilio A. SavinoPresident, ISWA3rd December 2009

[email protected]

3Preface


4/40

4

Re-evaluating waste: ISWA key messages

1. The waste industry occupies a unique positionas a potential reducer of greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions. As industries and countriesworldwide struggle to address their carbonfootprint, waste sector activities represent anopportunity for carbon reduction which has yet to be fully exploited.

Between 1990 and 2003, total global GHGemissions from the waste sector declined 1419% for the 36 industrialised countries andEconomies in Transition (EIT) listed in annex 1of the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC). This reduction wasmainly due to increased land ll methane recovery.

In the EU region, municipal waste managementactivities alone could potentially account for 18% of the 2012 Kyoto GHG reduction target setfor the original 15 member states of the EU

At the city and local community level, thereare numerous examples of waste managementsolutions involving new technologies andintegrated systems, which have resulted in netgreenhouse gas reductions as well as other associated sustainable development bene ts.

2. The waste sector of fers a portfolio of proven,practical and cost effective technologies whichcan contribute to GHG mitigation. When adaptedand deployed according to local traditions andneeds, they can help secure signi cant globalGHG emission savings.

Solutions might include waste prevention, recyclingand reuse, biological treatment with land useof products, energy recovery, and engineeredland lling. Waste industry expertise lies inapplying decades of experience and advancedtechnology to establish integrated systems aroundlocal conditions, rather than attempting to transfer any single solution from one region to another.

Waste industry research and developmentprogrammes are crucial to the continueddevelopment of solutions which minimise impacton resources, the environment and our climate.

3. Waste prevention, minimisation, reuse andrecycling are on the increase across the globe,representing a growing potential for reducing GHG emissions by conserving raw materials andfossil fuels.

The potential GHG savings from wasteprevention, minimisation and recycling couldgreatly exceed the savings that can be achievedby even advanced treatment of the remainingpost-consumer waste.

Recycling is an integral part of wastemanagement systems and a fundamental wastemanagement tool. Recycling materials such aspaper, cardboard, metal and glass can help

to limit resource consumption and achieveenergy savings.

In 2007, 85 million tonnes of materials wererecycled from municipal solid waste in theUS (including recycling through composting)achieving a total national recycling rate of 33.4%.

4. Through aerobic and anaerobic biologicaltreatment technologies, organic wastes can berecovered and transformed into soil conditionersand fertilisers. These processes reduce GHGemissions by sequestering biogenic carbon insoils, improving soil physical properties, and

adding soil nutrients. The organic component of waste (e.g. paper,

cardboard, food waste or garden waste) rangesfrom 30-70% of total municipal waste production.If collected separately, it can offer a valuablecontribution to GHG emissions reduction and soilimprovement.

Organics recovery is particularly effective wheresoil and organic matter are being eroded dueto deforestation, cultivation practices, or as aconsequence of climate change.

Anaerobic technologies provide an added energy

bene t (see 5 below).5. Waste offers a signi cant source of renewable

energy. Incineration and other thermal processesfor waste-to-energy, land ll gas recovery andutilisation, and use of anaerobic digester biogascan play important roles in reducing fossil fuelconsumption and GHG emission.

Globally, more than 130 million tonnes of wasteare incinerated every year at over 600 waste-to-energy plants, producing over 1000 PJ of electricity per annum. This is equivalent to thetotal energy demand of approximately 10 millionEuropean consumers (100 GJ per annum).

1990 2007 2012-2020(projected)

Europeanmunicipalwaste sector annualnet GHGemissions

69 milliontonnes CO 2

32 milliontonnes CO 2

Net reducer


5/40

5 In 2008 in the US alone, land ll gas utilisation

projects offset 84.3 million tonnes of CO 2 eq.;comparable to the emissions from 15.5 millionpassenger vehicles.

6. The transfer of sustainable technology todeveloping countries is crucial to reducing GHGemissions. The Clean Development Mechanism(CDM), introduced under the Kyoto protocol,has provided an opportunity for the wastesector to make signi cant advances towardsthis goal. However, structural and administrativeimprovements to the CDM registration processare needed.

The waste sector is well represented amongst

the registered projects. As of October 2009,18% of the 1834 projects are waste related.

Waste projects currently registered as CDM areon track to deliver 209 million carbon creditsby the end of 2012. (One carbon creditcorresponds to an emission reduction of onetonne of CO 2 equivalent.)

So far, most solid waste management projectshave centred on land ll gas recovery. There issigni cant potential for additional CDM projectsfocusing on recycling systems, composting,incineration and anaerobic digestion.

The CDM exible mechanism canassist developing countries to achieveenvironmentally-sound waste managementpractices through technology transfer and addedrevenue from GHG emission credits.

7. Waste policies and regulations can be strong national drivers to reduce GHG emissions.

Progress in reducing GHG emissions in the EUbetween 1990 and 2007 was made throughpolicy and regulations based on the WasteHierarchy. The legislative framework includedspeci c targets and directives regardingpackaging waste and diversion of organic waste

from land ll. In the US, land ll methane emissions decreased

by 11% between 1990 and 2007 due toincreased land ll gas recovery resulting fromeconomic incentives, policies, and regulations.

In developing countries, it is important to focuson waste policies and regulations which arepractical and sustainable. Initiatives from onecountry cannot be exported to another withouttaking into account local waste composition andquantities, infrastructure, preferences, economicresources, and climate.

8. Accurate measurement and quanti cation

of GHG emissions is vital in order to set and monitor realistic reduction targets at alllevels. Current methodologies form a valuabledatabase for assessment of GHG emissionsfrom waste activities, however, improvementsare required to adequately represent the fulllifecycle of materials and energy.

IPCC national waste GHG inventorymethodologies estimate direct emissions,but do not include indirect emissions andenvironmental bene ts, especially those whichimpact other sectors.

Improved, harmonised and transparentapproaches for both the direct and indirectemissions associated with waste managementactivities must be developed to complementexisting methodologies.

More consistent and coordinated datacollection is needed to support the improvedmethodologies and reduce accountinguncertainties.


6/40

6

ISWA Commitments

1. Networking for capacity building, disseminatingknowledge and experience at country,institution or individual levels. ISWA willundertake cooperation with complementaryorganisations dealing with sustainable materialand energy management to support theseactivities.

2. Initiating and supporting research and educationon GHG related issues. ISWA will work inpartnership with established providers such asresearch institutes, universities, corporations

and administrations in countries with proveninfrastructures, to transfer tangible knowledgeand expertise to less developed regions.

3. Selecting cities to participate in case studies andtargeted action to mitigate GHG emissions throughwaste management systems, and disseminatingthe results of their experience to other comparable cities. ISWA will bring its membershipstructure, secretariat and staff together to facilitatethe success of this endeavour.

4. Assessing experience from different countriesand regions on policies, strategies andregulations. With solid data to draw upon, ISWAwill develop a sound basis for recommendationsthat would accomplish optimum waste relatedGHG emission reductions, both locally andglobally. This work might include formulation,implementation, enforcement and compliancetools as well as transparent and accurateaccounting methodologies.

5. Participating actively in global events and

negotiations regarding Waste and ClimateChange before 2012 and beyond. ISWAwill work in close cooperation with other international institutes and organisationsto promote a more global and ambitiouscommitment to GHG reduction targets, focusingon realising the potential for waste relatedGHG emissions reductions.

The International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) is committed to global GHG emission

reduction through a number of targeted actions:

The waste industry puts forward an integrated solutions approach: the choice of a particular technology is a functionof a number of variables such as costs, waste quantity and characteristics, regulations, and policy considerations.


7/40

7Climate change is a major international concernfor modern society. Since the pre-industrial era,atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide(CO2 ) have increased by 35% and methane (CH 4 )concentrations have more than doubled. There isscienti c consensus that the observed increase inglobal average temperatures since the mid 20thcentury is due to the increase in concentrationsof such greenhouse gases (GHG) produced by human activity, primarily the combustion of fossilfuels such as coal, oil and natural gas.

Climate change has already had a measurableimpact on many natural and human systems. Theeffects are projected to increase in severity as theglobal average temperature rises. Although theevidence indicates that the time for global actionis limited, it is generally believed that there isstill time to avoid the most damaging impactsof climate change, if the global community takesstrong action now.

No single policy initiative or technology willachieve the GHG emission reductions required toachieve climate stabilisation. Rather, it will requirea portfolio of mitigation solutions. The wastesector must be part of this portfolio, as it candeliver signi cant GHG savings.

The global direct GHG emissions resulting fromwaste management activities are around 1.3Gt CO

2

eq. or approximately 3 5% of total anthropogenicemissions in 2005 (IPCC 2007). However, thereis now credible evidence that, taking into account associated avoided emissions, the waste sector cancompletely change this picture.

On regional and city scales, the waste sector hasthe opportunity to change from a net emitter intoa net reducer of GHG emissions. Through carefulselection and use of existing waste managementsystems and technologies, many regions andcities can work to achieve an internationallysigni cant reduction of GHG emissions.

Over the past several decades, there havebeen signi cant advances in the practices andtechnologies employed to collect, treat, recycleand recover waste. This progress has beenaimed at improving public health conditions inlocal communities and cities and minimisingthe environmental impacts associated withmanaging waste.

As a result there are now a wide range of mature and environmentally effective wastemanagement technologies in use which can alsoprovide positive mitigation of GHG emissions.The selection of appropriate waste management

options must be based on local conditions.

The choice is most frequently in the hands of local decision makers; however, considerationof the GHG impact of the available options isincreasingly forming part of the selection process.Cities and local communities are including wastemanagement solutions in their climate actionplans. Its crucial that policy makers at nationaland international levels recognise these initiativesand promote the waste sectors mitigationpotential, encouraging local solutions which helpto address this global problem.

As waste management practices have evolvedand awareness of the scarcity of natural resourceshas grown, there has been a paradigm shift froma waste management to a resource managementphilosophy. Through material and energy recovery,waste is increasingly considered as a resource tobe exploited. These activities have an importantpotential for GHG emissions reduction. As shownin the gure opposite, waste can become anintegrated part of the overall material ow throughthe economy.

In the following White Paper we will addressissues which are vital to the success of GHGmitigation through better waste management. Thefollowing sections deal with technology, materialrecovery, organic recovery, energy recovery,the clean development mechanism, policy andregulation, and GHG accounting methodologies.Issues such as human health, environmentalprotection other than GHG emissions, and costare not examined here; the point is that bene tsrelated to these subjects are maintained evenwhen waste management systems are focused oneffective GHG reduction strategies.

Climate change should be viewed as anopportunity and not a risk for the wastemanagement industry. The challenge of a new low-carbon economy is an effective innovation driver for waste management activities. While there

are already many proven technologies availablewhich can make a signi cant contribution, thecurrent push towards GHG reduction solutions canonly result in more ef cient waste managementsystems. By combining new and existing technicalsolutions, backed by industry experience,ISWA and the waste industry can de ne a newframework for targets and objectives advancingfuture waste management policy and practice.

Introduction


8/40

8

Highlights The waste sector has the experience and

technology to globally and locally reducefossil carbon emissions; by saving fossilfuel through ef cient material and energyrecovery from current waste ows, and bysaving energy in daily operations.

The key to successful development is thedesign of waste management systemsadapted to local needs and traditions, rather than the selection and transfer of a singleprocess or technology from one country or region to another.

There are three key components to a uni edwaste management strategy which would enablethe waste sector to become a global net GHGemissions saver:

1. Establish integrated waste managementsystems, with an emphasis on waste reductionand recycling to reduce the drain on materialand energy resources,

2. Introduce waste technologies with lower energyconsumption and reuse of processed residuals,

3. Recover energy from waste processing andcaptured land ll gas, for use as electricity or inheating and cooling systems, thereby replacingthe use of fossil fuels for energy production.

This section will brie y present some of theprocesses and technologies currently availableto us for accomplishing this task. Conceptualapproaches and integrated technology systemsare also mentioned, as they are importantin deciding on site speci c and relevantcombinations of waste management systems.

Waste prevention, or waste avoidance, or zerowaste, is the subject of new legislative initiatives,for example in the Netherlands and Scotland.It is also an area of current research, includingnatural, technical and social sciences as well ashumanities publications in scienti c literature.And it is a highly political issue, with manystakeholders contributing to a lively debate inthe media.

There are many issues under discussion. Atwhat point does the energy required to recover a material become too much to justify its reuseor recycling? To what extent do public healthand services to citizens limit waste prevention?Waste prevention is an issue of high priority inwaste management and it is likely that a number of new approaches will develop worldwide over the coming decades. The subject will thereforebe examined in greater detail when the effectsof the legislation have been fully observedand researched.

Processes and technologiesThe choice of waste process and technology willdepend on local conditions and resources, as wellas the composition of wastes from households,trade and industry.

Technologies


9/40

9The potential for GHG emission reduction will varyaccordingly. For instance, although developingcountries produce waste containing a lower organic content per capita, the percentage of organic material is higher; this would impact ontechnology selection.

For all the processes and technologies brie ydescribed in the following, WM&R (2009 a, b)provide much more detail on processes andtechnologies as well as speci c numbers onemissions of GHG.

Collection and Transportation

Waste collection necessarily involves the use of vehicles and consumption of fuel. There are widevariations in both fuel types and consumptionlevels; hence the amount of fuel used for eachcollected tonne of waste can vary according to thecollection system used.

GHG emission sources

CO2 from fossil fuel and electricity consumption

Actions to reduce or avoid GHG emissions:

Rationalisation of collection operations andimprovement of fuel ef ciency

Use of alternative fuels such as biodiesel,bioethanol or biogas

Development of alternative means of transportsuch as rail or water

Minimising transport distances

Implementation of driver training programmes.

RecyclingThere are a wide range of technologies availablefor solid waste recycling, based on the relevant

materials; metals, paper, plastic, glass or wood.Recycling saves GHG emissions by reducingthe amount of waste which must be disposedof and by providing a substitute for the use of raw materials in product manufacturing. Manyindustries use recycled materials to avoid theGHG emissions associated with extraction,transportation to the production site, and energyuse involved in producing new products fromvirgin materials.

Material separation for recycling may take placeat source (e.g. in households) or after collectionin centralised facilities designed according to

material recovery priorities.

In both cases, the quality of both the product andthe volume of recovery are important factors to beconsidered in estimating GHG reduction.

Any assessment of a recycling operation mustaccount for material loss in the process (technicalsubstitution), the market acceptance of therecycled product (market substitution) andthe energy required to recycle compared withmanufacture of new products from raw materials.

GHG emission sources:

CO2 from fossil fuel consumption for transportand recycling activities and electricityconsumption.

Action to reduce or avoid GHG emissions: Increasing the material recovery rate.

Composting and anaerobic digestion(biological treatment)Compost can be spread on farmland as a soilamendment (see section on page 16 on OrganicRecovery). The composting process can take placein windrows or in closed vessels, under a roof or in the open air. Studies which have evaluated GHGemissions from composting activities have shown

that emissions are affected by the technology andoperational practices employed, as well as by thewaste types received. In addition to emissionsrelated to electricity consumption, both methaneand/or nitrous oxide have been detected invarying levels.


10/40

10

Composting systems have proved useful inboth developing and industrialised nations.In developing countries, where technologicalinvestment in waste management is low, and thewaste has a high organic content (sometimesexceeding 50%) and with a high moisture content,composting is frequently a more practical solutionthan advanced technologies such as incineration.However, where biological waste is separated indeveloped countries, composting may have aneven more prominent role; in the Netherlands97% of source separated bio-waste is treated incomposting facilities (WWS 2009).

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a biological treatmentwhere organic (usually food) waste is digested bynaturally occurring bacteria in a closed bioreactor,in the absence of oxygen. The process producesbiogas (methane and carbon dioxide) which iscaptured to produce electric energy and heat andused to enhance digester processing.

The by-product, a digestate or residual organicwaste, can be used in the agricultural industry,often after composting.

AD requires better pre-sorting and accepts fewer types of organic waste than composting. Theprocess can extract between 50 70% of theenergy contained in organic matter and the biogasmay be used for electricity production with anef ciency rate of 35% of the energy content of the biogas. The emissions, including leaks, frombiogas combustion such as methane and nitrousoxide must be taken into account when evaluatingsystem ef ciencies and GHG emissions.


CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and electricityconsumption

CH4 and N 2O emissions from processes.


Increase compost production and use lowemitting treatment technologies

Improve process ef ciency and convert methanefrom AD to energy while minimising fugitiveemissions.

IncinerationIncineration of waste refers to the controlledcombustion of solid waste in modern furnacesequipped with up to date pollution controls. Itis an effective method of converting waste intoenergy while reducing volumes of residual wasteto be sent for disposal. Where it is technicallyand economically feasible, incineration processescan provide very high energy ef ciencies andassociated GHG emission reductions from wastemanagement, by using the power generatedfor electricity and heat and thereby reducingconsumption of fossil fuels.

The GHG emissions involved in the processinclude the consumption of electricity (blowers,electrostatic precipitators, etc.) and fuels(start-up-fuels, transport, etc.), the emissions of CO2 originating from fossil carbon in the receivedwaste, ancillary fossil fuels, and the recovery of heat and electricity, which must all be takeninto account.


CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and electricityconsumption;

CO2 from waste combustion (fossil C);


Substitution of energy produced from fossilfuels by thermal energy and electricity fromwaste combustion.

Recovery of metals from bottom ashesfor recycling.

Technologies


11/40

11Land lling

Land lling refers to disposal sites where wasteis placed in lined sections and degraded whileproducing CO 2 and methane; a potent greenhousegas. Land ll methane emissions are the largestsource of global GHG emissions from waste sector activities. Many countries require all operatingland lls accepting organic waste to be equippedwith active gas and leachate collection andtreatment systems. Land ll processes can bestimulated and controlled in order to simulate abiogas reactor, signi cantly shortening the periodover which gas and leachates are produced.

The main output from a modern land ll system iselectricity production from combustion of biogas,with an average ef ciency of 35% of the energycontent of the biogas. Compared to anaerobicdigestion in vessels or conversion of waste toenergy in incinerators, the energy recovery ratesfrom land ll processes are relatively low. Flaringof land ll gas can reduce the GHG emissions butdoes not offer energy recovery.

When calculating GHG emissions, electricityand fuel consumption for running the land ll(compaction, soil movement, extraction andcombustion of the gas, leachate treatment,fugitive gaseous emissions, etc.) must be takeninto account.


CH4 from anaerobic decomposition of organicwaste

CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and electricityconsumption

N2O from leachate treatment.


Installation of active land ll gas collection andtreatment systems

Use of land ll gas as a fuel to produceelectricity or thermal energy

Engineered land ll capping to control fugitiveemissions.

Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)MBT is a mix of mechanical operations andbiological processes aimed at one or more of the following:

Diverting and stabilising biodegradable

materials before land lling Recovering recyclables e.g. metals

Producing high-calori c fuels for energyrecovery by thermal processing.

Lower technology versions of MBT plants maybe suitable in low-income areas, or used moregenerally in combination with the upgrading of land ll operations.


CO2 from fossil fuel combustion andelectricity consumption

CH4 and N 2O from biological treatment of organic waste

CO2 from combustion (e.g. RDF) of fossilwaste components

CH4 releases from land lling of organicwaste residuals.


Increased diversion of biodegradables fromland lling.

Production of RDF that substitutes fossil fuel


12/40

Technologies

12

Other processes and technologies

Other advanced processes and technologiessuch as autoclaving or pyrolysis and gasi cationare currently used by the waste managementsector. However, their commercial applicationsand therefore their potential for reducing GHGemissions have yet to be proven.

Conceptual frameworksIn de ning the challenge of waste management inrelation to sustainable development, a conceptualframework which takes into account resources,environmental effects and socio-economic issuesis essential to decision-making for both legislatorsand industry.

Such a system has been de ned and is now inuse in a number of countries including Europeand the United States. The waste hierarchy is avaluable conceptual and political prioritisationtool which can assist in developing wastemanagement strategies aimed at limiting resourceconsumption and protecting the environment.

1. Waste reductionWaste reduction and waste avoidance or prevention is at the top of this hierarchy, as ithas a direct impact at the rst lifecycle stage.Avoiding unnecessary waste, by designing outexcessive packaging or reducing food waste,can decrease the demand for raw materialscreated by the manufacture of new products. Inturn, this reduces emissions of carbon dioxidefrom fossil fuels, preserves carbon stocksin trees and it reduces transportation andits associated fuel consumption and vehiclepollution. The effect is cumulative throughoutthe material cycle, saving substantial GHGemissions which would otherwise have been

produced right through to the ultimate disposalof the material.

Waste prevention is therefore a crucial aspect of waste management in terms of greenhouse gasreduction and deserves more attention than ithas so far received.

2. Re-useRe-use of products delays the return of carbonin the materials to the environment for aslong as possible, reducing demand for newraw materials and the associated energyconsumption and transportation emissions.

3. Recycling Recycling also reduces the demand for rawmaterials and keeps valuable resourcesfrom disposal, reducing contributing to GHGemissions. Although recycling does requireenergy input in order to re-manufactureproducts, it remains an appropriate wastemanagement tool; the energy required toremanufacture remains below that needed for making new products from raw materials.

4. IncinerationFurther down the hierarchy, incinerationconverts energy stored within the materialsto useful energy, thus substituting fossil fuelrequirements and saving on carbon dioxideemissions.

5. Land llIn European waste hierarchy, land lling andmass burning without energy recovery areconsidered nal options. Programmes are inplace in 27 European countries to graduallydivert organic matter from land lls to other waste management options; a similar trendcan be observed in Japan.

The waste hierarchy has proven a usefulconceptual tool to create and organise initialwaste management scenarios before they aresubjected to more detailed analysis for decisionmakers at any level of administration or business.Proper GHG accounting will be an importantinstrument in making these assessments andsupporting such decision making.


13/40

13GHG emissions and waste

management systemsAssessment of GHG emission reduction potentialmust be approached on a system scale, not onlyat the process and technology levels. Politicaland technological infrastructure as well as thevolume and composition of the waste produced,must be taken into account when proposingrealistic targets for GHG emissions reductions.For planning and decision making purposes it ispossible to model a number of alternative systemscenarios and establish a ranking based onpotential GHG emission savings.

Christensen et al in WM&R (2009) examined

some 40 generic waste management scenariosusing various recycling schemes and up-to-datetreatment technologies of the residuals after recycling. These showed that rational wastemanagement scenarios can lead to substantialsavings of CO 2-eq emissions per tonne of municipal waste.

Scenarios where residual waste is land lledshowed savings (fossil CO 2 not emitted) in therange of 0 400kg CO 2-eq tonne-1 municipalwaste. Scenarios with incineration of residualwaste showed savings in the range 200 700kgCO2-eq per tonne of municipal waste. And

scenarios where residual waste went to an MBTfacility showed savings in the range 250 700kgCO2-eq per tonne of municipal waste.

These estimations are sensitive to assumptionsmade regarding waste composition; crediting theenergy produced in the waste management system;alternative use of wood not harvested due to paper recycling and the amount of biogenic carbon stillbound 100 years after it had been land lled. Thesefactors control the overall GHG savings results andmay affect each one by as much as 200kg CO 2-eqper tonne of municipal waste.

Recommendations The potential for waste related GHG emission

reduction should be exploited globally in order to ensure that waste management becomes anet GHG emission reducer.

Cities, regions and countries shouldsystematically assess present emissions fromwaste management and develop schemes tobecome net GHG emissions reducers.

The waste industry should improve thetransfer of knowledge, skills and technologyfrom developed to developing countries.

The waste sector should continue makinguse of proven technology and experience aswell as facilitating research and developmentprogrammes to seek even more climatefriendly solutions.

ISWA commitments The above recommendations de ne major

tasks to be completed in order to realisethe waste sectors potential for reducedGHG emissions worldwide. ISWA commits toassisting in the implementation of these tasksthrough education and training, including aninternational information exchange on wasteand climate, based on shared knowledge andexperience between established and newmember countries.

Monitoring progress and using the informationthus collated means continuously learningfrom experience. This is likely to become thecornerstone for the success of this endeavour.ISWA working groups and dedicated taskforcescan be instrumental in achieving theobjectives of such a programme.


14/40

Material Kg recyclablesper 1000 kg MSWKg recovered

per 1000 kg MSWKg CO2-eq. saved

per 1000 kg MaterialKg CO2-eq. savedper 1000 kg MSW

Paper 200 140 2,500-600 350-85

Aluminium 10 6 10,000 60

Steel 25 15 2,000 30

Glass 50 30 500 15

Plastic 80 50 1,000-0 50-0

Total 365 241 505-190

Material recovery

14

Highlights Recycling of materials such as paper,

cardboard, metals, glass and plastic isa major waste management activity if corporations or local authorities wish tolimit resource consumption and accomplishenergy savings.

The potential GHG savings from wasteprevention, minimisation and recyclingcould greatly exceed the savings that canbe achieved by even advanced treatmentof the remaining post-consumer waste.

Recycling is an integral part of waste

management systems and a fundamentalwaste management tool. Recyclingmaterials such as paper, cardboard,metal, glass can help to limit resourceconsumption and achieve energy savings.

Recycling is an indispensable waste managementactivity. Companies, local authorities and thewaste industry can achieve substantial energysavings and conserve natural resources at thesame time by recycling paper, cardboard, metals,

glass and plastic. Recycling can offer substantialGHG emissions savings; it is placed high in thewaste hierarchies used in many parts of theworld and forms an integral part of most wastemanagement schemes.

As demonstrated in several articles in WM&R(2009 a&b) the potential for saving GHGemissions is particularly high when recoveringmaterials from the waste stream in modernsocieties. Table 4.1 offers some insight into thepotential, using as a basis 1 tonne of municipalsolid waste or MSW (post consumer wastetypically from urban areas and including some

light trade waste).

The typical materials in MSW which can berecycled are listed in column one. These appear in most countries where waste is municipallycollected, even though the volumes of thedifferent materials will vary. In column two, thetotal weight of recyclables per tonne of MSW andthe relative distribution between the differentmaterials are listed. All numbers should beconsidered approximate and they appear here toenable a practical estimate for the GHG emissionssavings achievable through materials recyclingprogrammes in typical industrialised nations.

While the amounts in column two are in factpresent in MSW, in practical terms they are notfully available to recycling programmes. Neither household participation nor centralised sortingsystems operate at 100%. Households maychoose not to participate, or neglect instructionsfor sorting their waste. Ef ciencies could be lowin producing clean nal materials from mechanicalsorting systems, particularly if the waste to besorted is mixed and may be soiled or otherwisecontaminated; any of these factors can affect therecovery rate.

The gures in column three are typical of anorthern European city community, but they couldvary signi cantly depending on the reliability of

information supplied and motivation campaignsimplemented by the collection agency.

Provided materials are delivered clean to recyclingbusinesses, the GHG emissions savings per unitweight of the material are listed in column four.For paper, the range is wide and the high endnumber is based on the assumption that paper recycling avoids the use of virgin wood for paper production. This wood could in turn be used as abio-fuel for energy production and thus substitutefossil fuel. For plastic there is also a wide range,since signi cant GHG emissions savings onlybecome practical if high quality plastic grades

(well sorted and clean) are recycled.

Table 4.1 Recyclables as present in typical Northern European MSW, and approximate CO 2- eq saved when recycling thelisted materials as opposed to use of virgin raw materials for production of the same amount of recycled material. Energy saving is by substituting energy from coal red power plants.


15/40

15GHG emissions savings due to recycling materialscontained in MSW are shown in column ve.These gures are reached by multiplying theactual recovered amounts of material (columnthree) with the GHG emissions savings per unitweight of the recovered material (column four)to give us GHG emissions saved due to materialsrecycling for one tonne of MSW.

The main cause of such substantial savings is theassumption that energy not spent due to recyclingcomes from coal red power plants. If electricityis produced from renewable energy, the GHGsavings will be signi cantly lower. The high endof the savings range relies on wood saved dueto recycling of paper being used as a bio-fuel for energy production, thus substituting fossil fuel.

The gures in table 4.1 can also be translatedinto savings per capita, per annum. If for exampleone assumes a waste generation rate of 800kgMSW per capita, per annum the range of GHGemission savings becomes 440-150 kg CO 2 eq per capita, per annum. Hence, an ef cient materialwaste recycling programme could make a valuablecontribution to achieving such targets, andcitizens could see a clear contribution they couldmake towards climate change mitigation.

It should be taken into consideration that other waste management activities can contributefurther savings above what can be accomplishedby recycling MSW. Recycling of bulky waste fromhouseholds and industrial tailings, as well assubstitution of fossil-derived energy for energyrecovered from waste residuals may provideconsiderable extra savings both per tonne and per capita. Improved waste management might makeit possible for many cities to reach a one tonneless per capita and per annum CO 2 target, makingimportant progress towards the waste sectors goalof becoming a net reducer of GHG emissions.

Recommendations Waste minimisation, reuse, and recycling

represent a growing potential for reduced GHGemissions through the conservation of rawmaterials and the associated consumption of fossil fuels. Recycling should be enhanced inall waste management programmes.

In MSW paper is of particular interest interms of GHG emission savings, because theproduction of paper from recycled pulp isless energy consuming and because woodnot used for virgin pulp can be conserved or used as renewable biomass energy, savingfossil fuel emissions. Paper recycling shouldbe maximised in order to fully realize GHGemissions savings potential from wastemanagement.

Recycling of metals and to some extent glassalways leads to signi cant savings of GHGemissions and should be facilitated in allwaste management programmes.

ISWA Commitments ISWA commits to fostering recycling

programmes in member countries through

education, training and transfer of technologyand management systems. Organisationof conferences and workshops, andestablishment of professional networks onan ad hoc basis will be important tools inachieving this goal.


16/40

Organic recovery

16

Highlights Biological treatment, in particular composting,

is a relatively simple, durable and inexpensivealternative for stabilising and reducingbiodegradable waste.

The use of biologically treated biodegradablewaste as a soil amendment can contribute toavoided GHG emissions, by about 60 kg CO 2 eq. per tonne of biodegradable waste.

A potential for reduced pesticide use andimproved soil characteristics, e.g. in terms of water holding capacity and easier workability.

Approximately 30 70% of municipal solid waste(MSW) is comprised of organic waste such as foodwaste, bio-waste and garden waste. Given a cleaninput of biomass, either through source separationor treatment such as anaerobic digestion or composting, organic waste can be processedinto a soil amendment for use in agriculture,green spaces and land reclamation. Food industrywastes and clean wastewater sludge can beadded to the organic fraction of municipal wastesand used for organic recovery. As covered in the

Technology section, biological treatment such asanaerobic digestion and composting are processeswhich precede the application to land for soilamendment and some fertilisation.

The use of biologically treated products (oftencompost) as soil amendment can contribute toGHG emissions reductions by:

Binding carbon in the soil (sequestration)

Reducing production or importation of mineralfertilisers

Substituting peat in the production of growthmedia.

The GHG bene ts of organic recovery depend onthe composition of the treated waste, the regionsclimate, the cultivation and the soil type. A recentstudy delivered the following results (Prognos, 2008):

Sequestration: saving of 52 kg CO2

per tonne of collected and composted biodegradable waste

Peat and fertiliser displacement: saving of 8kg CO2 per tonne of collected and compostedbiodegradable waste

Total: 60 kg CO 2 equivalent avoided per tonneof waste composted

After an extensive literature review andlifecycle assessment modelling, Boldrin et al.(2009) estimated that the GHG contribution of composting varies between signi cant savings(900 kg CO 2-equivalents tonne -1 wet waste

(ww)) and a net load (300 kg CO 2-equivalentstonne -1 ww), depending on the type of technologyemployed, the type of waste, the substitutedmaterial and the level of technology optimisation.


17/40

17 Indirect upstream emissions 0.2 to 20 kg

CO2-eq t -1 ww(1 to 60 kg CO 2-eq t -1 ww for in-vesselcomposting)

Direct emissions: 3 to 242 kg CO 2-eq t -1 ww

Sequestration: -79 to -2 kg CO 2-eq t -1 ww

Peat substitution: -838 to -44 kg CO 2-eq t -1 ww

Fertilisers substitution: -82 to -4 kg CO 2-eq t -1 ww

It should be noted that organic recovery by soilapplication carries other bene ts likely to haveimplications for GHG emissions and the mitigationof climate change. Potentially, it could preventplant diseases and reduce the use of pesticides,which would avoid the GHG emissions associatedwith their production as well as offering wider environmental bene ts. Soil amendment can leadto improved soil fertility and workability, whichcould lead to reduced fuel consumption.

Recommendations The waste sector should improve its

knowledge of soil characteristics andthe potential for carbon sequestrationfrom application of biologically treatedbiodegradable wastes.

Further research and shared good practice arerequired to improve predictability and reduceuncertainties regarding GHG mitigation fromsoil application of biologically treated waste.

ISWA commitments ISWA commits to enhancing good

communication between science and practicein the eld of biological waste treatment

and the bene ts for soils, and plants grownon soils, that have been amended withbiologically treated waste products.


18/40

Energy recovery

18

Highlights Existing technologies for energy recovery

from waste are mature, cost-effective, andenvironmentally acceptable.

Thermal processes, land ll gas utilisation, anduse of digester biogas provide important localrenewable energy bene ts to offset fossil fuels.

Recycling, reuse, and waste minimisation provideimportant indirect energy bene ts which reducethe use of virgin materials, increase energyef ciency, and avoid fossil fuel use.

Waste is a signi cant renewable energy resourcewhose energy value can be exploited throughthermal processes such as incineration andindustrial co-combustion, utilisation of land ll gasand use of anaerobic digester biogas. In 2006post-consumer waste provided more than 1400 PJworldwide, which would be suf cient to supplytotal energy to some 14 million average Europeanconsumers (100 GJ per annum).

Waste enjoys an economic advantage over many biomass resources because it is regularlycollected at public expense, via an establishedinfrastructure, by an industry experienced withtransporting, handling, and processing diversesolid waste streams. Modern waste-to-energyand land ll gas recovery technologies aremature, protective of human health and theenvironment and have been successfully appliedin many countries.

Commercial scale land ll gas recovery andutilisation directly reduce the largest single sourceof GHG emissions from waste, approximately 50%of the 2004 05 waste sector emissions under IPCC national inventory reporting (Bogner et al.

2007). Many sites now use horizontal collectorsinstalled concurrently with land lling so that gasextraction can begin before sites reach nal grade.

In 2005, total energy consumption worldwidewas 500,000 Petajoules, and only 10% wasderived from renewable resources (EIA 2006). Newpolicies, measures and economic incentives, if established now, could substantially increase therole of waste sources in the global energy mix tooffset more fossil fuel use. Indeed, gures suggestthat by 2030 global waste derived energy couldsupply the average energy consumption for 130million European consumers (EU27) (web ref, 1).

The heating value of mixed municipal wasteranges from 6 to 14 MJ kg -1 (Khan and Abu-Ghararath, 1991; EIPPC Bureau, 2006; Bogner etal., 2007). Thermal processes are most effectiveat the upper end of this range where high valuesapproach low-grade coals (lignite). Using aconservative value of 900 Mt yr -1 for total globalpost-consumer/municipal waste generation in 2002and assuming an average heating value of 9 GJ t -1 for mixed waste (Dornburg and Faaij, 2006) andconverting to energy equivalents, global waste in2002 contained about 8,000 PJ of available energy,which could increase to 13,000 PJ in 2030 usingwaste projections in Monni et al. (2006).

Figure 1. Global energy (Petajoules. PJ) from waste 1990-2006 (IEA, 2009). Biogas includes land ll gas and anaerobic

digester biogas. Based on national data reported to IEA fromOECD and non-OECD countries. Note: incomplete data fromnon-OECD countries; thus these are minimum values.

Waste-to-energy and industrialco-combustion

Globally, more than 130 million tonnes of wasteare incinerated every year at over 600 waste-to-energy plants (Themelis, 2003; IEA, 2009),which is equivalent to over 1000PJ of electricityper annum (assuming 9 GJ t -1 ). The total energycontent of waste is most ef ciently exploitedusing thermal processes. During combustion,

energy is directly derived from both biomass(paper products, wood, natural textiles andfood) and from fossil carbon sources (plastics,or synthetic textiles).

In some cases recovered paper and other wastematerials are reformulated into a refuse-derived fuel(RDF) which can be co-combusted with other fuels.In countries which have a long, successful history of waste incineration for district heating and electricalgeneration, direct waste-to-energy processes canmake a considerable contribution to the nationalenergy mix. In Denmark, waste incineration provides4.2% of total current energy consumption, including

MSW incinerator inVienna, Austria: anurban work of art

01985 1990

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

14001600

1995 2000 2005 2010

Total

Biogas

Municipalwaste

Industrial waste


19/40

194.5% electrical production and 20% of the heat for district heating (web ref, 1).

While thermal processes with advanced emissioncontrols are proven technology, they are morecostly than controlled land ll with gas recovery.However, as energy prices rise, waste-to-energymay become more economically viable. Becauseland lls produce methane for decades, thermalprocesses, composting and other strategiesthat reduce land lled waste are complementarymitigation measures to land ll gas recovery in theshort- to medium-term.

Biogas from waste: land ll gas and anaerobic digester biogas

Land ll and digester gas contain approximatelyequal amounts of methane and carbon dioxide,with a heating value of 1622 MJ Nm -3,depending directly on the methane content. Bothtechnologies are used worldwide for processheating and on-site electrical generation. Land llgas may also be upgraded to a substitute naturalgas or compressed natural gas (CNG) by removalof carbon dioxide and trace components; this ismore economically attractive when natural gasprices are high and stable.

In 2008 land ll gas utilisation projects in the USalone offset 84.3 Mt CO 2 eq, which is equivalentto the emissions from 15.5 million passenger vehicles (web ref. 2). Therefore, although morerecent global data compilations are not available,it is likely that the current global total exceeds200 Mt CO2-eq yr -1, including a number of CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM) projects indeveloping countries. As of July, 2009, the CDMExecutive Board had issued 6.4 MtCO 2-eq of Certi ed Emission Reductions (CER) for land ll gasCDM projects (web ref. 3). For further informationsee CDM page 20.

Trends and the Role of Recycling & WasteMinimisationThanks to land ll gas recovery andcomplementary measures including increasedrecycling, decreased land lling and the use of alternative waste management technologies,land ll CH4 emissions from developed countrieshave been largely stabilised. However, land llCH4 emissions from developing countries areincreasing, as more controlled (anaerobic) land-

lling practices are implemented. These emissions

could be reduced by accelerating the introductionof engineered gas recovery and by encouragingalternative waste management strategies.

In addition to the direct use of energy from waste,recycling, re-use and waste minimisation representan important and increasing potential for indirect reduction of GHG emissions through theconservation of raw materials, improved energyef ciency, and fossil fuel avoidance.

Incentives: increasing the use of waste as arenewable energy resourceWaste-to-energy should continue to be includedamong government and private sector incentivesand targets as a cost-effective way to increasethe role of renewables within the mix of localenergy systems. Many countries have implemented

nancial incentives such as feed in tariffs,renewable energy certi cates, tax credits or subsidies to encourage electricity generation fromrenewable sources. In addition, green energymandates, regulations, carbon taxes and other instruments can increase the use of waste andland ll gas/biogas for both electricity generationand direct fuel use in commercial and industrialapplications as well as district heating and cooling.

Recommendations The use of technologies to recover energy

and materials from waste should be further exploited, including direct use (incineration;land ll gas recovery and utilisation and use of digester gas) and indirect avoidance of fossilfuels and virgin materials (recycling, re-use,waste minimisation).

Additional policies and measures should beencouraged to increase the role of waste

sources in the global energy mix, includingrenewable energy mandates, taxes, andeconomic incentives.

ISWA commitments ISWA supports public and private incentives and

mandates to increase the use of energy-to-waste.

ISWA commits to promoting waste as arenewable energy source to governmentauthorities, agencies and other stakeholdersthrough facilitation, outreach and educationand training activities.


20/40

Clean Development Mechanism

20

Highlights The Clean Development Mechanism has been

successfully implemented with over 1800registered projects and many more in thepipeline. The waste sector is well representedamongst the registered projects, accounting for 18% of the registered projects. These registeredprojects are expected to deliver 209 millionemission reduction credits by the end of 2012.

The revenues from the sale of emissionscredits can contribute to the advancementof environmentally sound waste managementpractices.

Although signi cant progress has been madeon the CDM since its inception, improvementsin the approval process could lead to a muchgreater number and a better geographicaldistribution of implemented emissionreduction projects.

There is unrealised CDM potential within thewaste sector, in terms of technology solutionsas well as host country coverage.

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is

one of the project-based exible mechanismsestablished under the Kyoto Protocol to attractinvestment in GHG reduction projects that thatwould not otherwise be funded in the near-term. CDM enables countries (or entities withincountries) that have agreed to GHG emissionreductions under the Protocol to invest inemission reduction projects in developingcountries and to use the associated emissionreduction credits towards achieving their owntargets as a supplement to their domestic GHGreduction actions.

A signi cant percentage of the waste generated

in developing countries ends up in uncontrolledland lls or illegal dumpsites. This situationpresents obvious environmental and healthconcerns. By implementing proven wastemanagement technologies, developing countriescan improve the public health and environment,while also achieving reduced GHG emissions.Unfortunately, despite the major bene ts thatcan be realised from improvements in thewaste management infrastructure in developingcountries, nancial and institutional barriers ofteninhibit their implementation.

The CDM can be applied to solid wastemanagement activities and can help to overcomesome of the development barriers. The revenuesfrom the sale of emissions credits can contributeto the advancement of environmentally soundwaste management practices.

The waste sector is now well representedamongst the registered CDM projects. As of October 2009, 18% of the 1834 registered CDMprojects are waste sector projects. These includesolid waste project activities, (land ll gasrecovery, composting, and incineration) as wellas methane avoidance technologies (composting,anaerobic and aerobic treatment) for waste water,agricultural and forestry waste. 138 of the 407registered waste projects are municipal solidwaste projects (herein after referred to as solidwaste projects)

The currently registered waste projects areexpected to deliver 209 million emissioncredits by the end of 2012. (One carbon creditcorresponds to an emission reduction of onetonne of CO 2 equivalent.) (CD4CDM CDM Pipeline

November 2009)

The United Nations has set up a governingbody to oversee the CDM (the CDM ExecutiveBoard (CDM EB)). This body has establishedthe procedure for project approvals andissuing credits. In order to submit a project for registration, a project design document (PDD)must be prepared in accordance with a referencebaseline and monitoring methodology that hasbeen approved by the CDM EB.

To date, the CDM EB has approved 17methodologies which apply to waste sector activities, (6 large-scale, 3 consolidated and8 small-scale methodologies). (UNFCCC CDMSection: http//cdm.unfccc.int/index.html).

Technology diversi cationNearly 90% of the registered solid waste projectsare related to land ll gas aring and recovery.Thanks to strong emission reduction potential,particularly with regard to the potent GHGmethane, coupled with relatively low abatementcosts, these projects have attracted attentionfrom a broad range of project developers incomparison with other technologies.

By contrast, only a limited number of large scaleprojects have been registered involving advancedMSW treatment technologies such as large scale


21/40

21composting, gasi cation, anaerobic digestion or refuse derived fuel (RDF) processing and thermaltreatment without incineration. Some of thereasons for this are:

As most of these projects concern newinstallations, they require signi cant planningand stakeholder approval;

Advanced technologies are necessarilymore complex and require higher capitaland operating costs than land lling andsmall-scale composting;

There is a lack of management capable of handling these technologies within thesecommunities;

The selected technology must be adapted tothe local waste characteristics;

It is essential to have established markets for by-products (compost, recovered materialand energy).

In addition, all of these causes are compoundedby uncertainty on the future of carbon nancebeyond the rst compliance period of the KyotoProtocol (the end of 2012).

Geographical distributionIn common with other industrial sectors, CDMprojects in the waste management sector are sofar unevenly distributed and have generally not yetbene ted the Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

Solid waste CDM projects in the pipeline aredistributed mostly between Asia/Paci c and LatinAmerica; respectively 44% and 42% of the total(October 2009). In Asia, the highest number of projects is in China with India following in secondposition. In Latin America, Brazil and Mexicorepresent the majority share. Other regions arepoorly represented. For example, Africa and theMiddle East account for just 7% and 5% of thetotal number of projects, respectively.

This subject of geographic distribution of CDM isreceiving much attention from the CDM EB anda number of international stakeholders. Effortsmust continue to achieve a better distributionof projects and to improve access to CDM withinthese host countries.

Concerns with the approval process

Although signi cant progress has been made onthe CDM since its inception, there is still roomfor improvement in the current system. A number of issues have been raised with regard to theCDM approval process and delays in obtainingregistration or credits.

Some of the key barriers limiting ef ciency andcausing delays in the CDM approval process are:

Lack of available Designated OperationalEntities (DOEs) resource for the validations andveri cations, due to the signi cant number of projects being initiated;

Constantly evolving rules and guidance, givingrise to diverging interpretations of methodologyrequirements amongst the project participants,the DOEs and the CDM EB

The application time for evolving methodologiesand guidance is not always compatible withthe timeline for advancing through the differentapproval steps;

Increasing CDM EB scrutiny of projectsfollowing their submission for registration or credit issuance. The CDM EB has requested asigni cant number of reviews of projects which

have been validated or veri ed; Limited access for the Project Participants to

communicate directly with the CDM EB ondecisions, requests for review, or clari cations.It is necessary to wait for of cial commentsfrom the CDM EB and often their exact concernsare unclear from the provided text of reviewsor decisions.

The CDM EB has been working on a number of initiatives intended to improve process ef ciencywhile maintaining its integrity. The review of possible improvements is in progress andshould be presented in the COP15 meeting inCopenhagen in December 2009.


22/40

22

In order to progress in alignment with the CDMEBs initiatives towards technology diversi cation,broader geographical distribution and streamliningof the approval process, ISWA proposes thefollowing measures:

1. The post-2012 compliance period should begreater than the current period of 5 years toallow greater certainty for nancial investmentsin the emission reduction projects.

An increased compliance period ( > 10 years) wouldprovide clarity for project developers and wouldallow for the development of CDM projects basedon more capital intensive, advanced technologies.This would lead to a diversi cation of the waste

sectors project portfolio.2. New CDM methodologies should be developed

to cover a broader range of waste project types.

Although there are a number of approved wastemethodologies available today, they do notaddress the full range of possible GHG emissionreduction or avoidance bene ts that wastemanagement activities can bring. Currently,there are no approved methodologies coveringmaterials recovery activities, which could offer signi cant resource savings and subsequentGHG reduction.

For example, recycling avoids the emissionscaused by the use of virgin materials, andcomposting offers a substitute for chemicalfertilisers and peat-based soil conditioners aswell as binding carbon in soil. Efforts shouldbe made to develop sound methodologies toquantify the associated avoided emissions usingan integrated value chain (upstream/downstream)approach rather than a purely geographical(site-based) approach.

It is essential that new methodologies addressingmaterial recovery take into account the informalrecycling activities operating in many developingcountries. As far as possible, existing structuresshould be integrated into the project activityin a sensible way which leads to improvedenvironmental, social and sanitary conditions.

3. The establishment of standardised baselineand additionality benchmarks by host countriescould facilitate the development of wastesector projects.

In most of the countries that are candidates for CDM projects, and especially in LDCs, currentwaste management practices are often well belowwhat is proposed under the waste-related project

activity. In addition, the environmental regulationsrequiring these waste technologies are absent or are not fully enforced.

In these cases, and for certain project types,the CDM EB should consider a top downor standardised approach to determiningadditionality. This would simplify the process,which can be very complex, mainly due to thefact that not all of the necessary informationis available in the early stages of the projectdevelopment.

If each host country de nes the current statusof their national waste management practiceand regulations, this benchmark could serve as

a baseline scenario for project developers. Anyproject activity implementing practices superior to that standard in terms of emissions reductionsand sustainable development would be eligiblefor CDM consideration from an environmentaladditionality standpoint. This system of nationallyestablished and reviewable benchmarks wouldenable a reform of procedures without reducingthe credibility or effectiveness of the mechanism.

4. Modi cation of some items of the rulesassociated with the Programmatic CDM couldlead to increased development of waste relatedprojects, especially in LDCs.

In June 2007, the CDM EB launched theProgrammatic CDM which allows project developersto register an unlimited number of project activitiesunder a single Programme of Activities (PoA). ThePoA is a coordinated action by a private or publicentity to implement a policy or measure leading toGHG emission reductions, which would not haveoccurred without the programme. The PoA canbe applied to an unlimited number of emissionreduction project activities that are dispersed over a geographic area.

One of the objectives of the programmatic CDM

was to attract developing countries that arecurrently under-represented in the existing projectpipeline. In many of these countries the mitigationpotential will come from small scale technologiesand projects. By grouping smaller activitiesunder a PoA, the transaction costs required for the design, validation, registration, monitoringand veri cation associated with the classic CDMproject can be distributed and reduced.

The PoA can be applied to waste projects. Apolicy or initiative to improve waste managementpractices could be established on a national,regional or local level. The PoA could include

Clean Development Mechanism


23/40

23activities such as land ll gas recovery, compostingfacilities or small scale anaerobic digesters.

Although there is much support for this concept,as many stakeholders have pointed out, in itscurrent form, it is not easy to implement. Todate (October 2009), only two PoA have beenregistered. Two waste-related PoA, dealing withcomposting projects in Uganda, are currently inthe validation stage.

The CDM EB has been working towardsclari cation and additional guidance on PoAs.Despite these efforts, some clauses are stillextremely onerous, especially the clause assigninga heavy liability to Designated Operational Entities

(DOEs) for errors associated with the improper inclusion of programme activities into a PoA.

The PoA rules should be modi ed to reduce therisk to project developers and DOEs. Further amendments that would help to simplify thePoA and facilitate its application to large andsmall-scale waste management projects shouldbe encouraged.

The PoA concept has the potential to advancewaste sector projects and increase theimplementation of CDM projects in LDCs. Withfurther improvements, the process could operate

on a larger scale, while still maintaining theintegrity of the CDM.

5. The project approval process should bestreamlined in order to reduce project delays,costs and approval risks.

To overcome these concerns and make thecritical approval steps more uid, ISWA supportsa post-2012 framework that takes the followingsuggestions on board:

The number of accredited DOEs must beincreased to adequately cover existing andfuture projects.

The frequency of methodology revisions couldbe reduced and / or the applicability period of the pre-existing methodology extended.

The CDM EB must place greater reliance onthe DOEs during the validation and veri cationof projects. This can be accomplished withincreased audits of approved DOEs by the CDMEB Audit Body. Conducting complete projectreviews at the CDM EB and Secretariat levelis not sustainable if the project ow is to beoptimised.

The number of requests for review couldcertainly be reduced through better upfrontdialogue between the CDM EB, the projectdevelopers, and the DOEs. The ef ciency of theapproval process could be further improved byincreased access for project developers to theCDM EB on project issues and evolution of the rules.

As is the case in most regulatory systems, anappeals process should be made available for project developers to challenge decisions takenby the CDM EB.

ISWA supports the structural and administrativemodi cations recently recommended by the CDM

EB and Secretariat to improve ef ciency andproject ow.

Joint Implementation (JI)The second project-based exible mechanismis the Joint Implementation (JI) process. The

JI allows countries (or entities in countries)that have also agreed to emission reductionunder the Kyoto Protocol to invest in projectsin another country with emission reductioncommitments.

The potential for emissions savings through JIprojects should not be underestimated, althoughit has so far had a much lower pro le in terms of public exposure, number of projects developedand number of emissions reduction units issued.

Many countries have been slow to establishthe procedures necessary to participate in themechanism. However, despite the slow take-upto date, JI could have a critical role to play indriving emission reduction activities in the wastesector in countries with emission caps under theUnited Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC).

ISWA welcomes further improvement and reformof this mechanism in the post-2012 internationalclimate change framework.

As of November 2009, amongst the 73 registered JI projects, 19 are solid waste related. Most arebased in Eastern Europe (Czech Republic: 8,Poland: 5, Hungary: 3; Ukraine: 1). The remainingtwo are located in New Zealand. These projectsare either land ll aring or land ll power projects.


24/40


25/40

25CDM project case study Composting in Dhaka City

Bangladesh is the host country of the rst largescale composting project registered by the CDMExecutive Board.

The project includes the design, constructionand operation of a composting plant for organicwaste from Dhaka City. The rst of threeplanned facilities, with an input capacity of 700tonnes per day, has now been commissioned.Two other sites will be brought on-line in 2009and the two projects will be operational in thesecond quarter of 2010.

In addition to producing compost that can be used

to improve soil conditions, the project will assist in preventing methane emissions by diverting organic waste from an uncontrolled land ll.

The project will contribute to a number of other sustainable development bene ts suchas improved sanitary conditions, job creation,technology transfer, and foreign capital in owto cover the required investment.

The project has been developed by WWRBio Fertilizer Bangladesh Ltd. (a joint venturebetween Waste Concern and World WideRecycling b.v)

Key gures:

Waste input: 700 tonnes per day Production of compost: 50,000 tonnes

per annum

Greenhouse Gas Emission reductions: 89,000tonnes CO 2eq per annum

Job creation: 800 employees

Project cost: 12 million Euros

CDM project case study Land ll Gas to Energy in Bogot ColombiaThe Dona Juana Land ll gas-to-energy project in the District Capital of Bogot, Colombia is aregistered CDM project.

The project is based at one of the worldslargest land lls accepting 6,000 tonnes of waste per day, generated by the 8.5 millioninhabitants of Bogot.

This innovative project includes the capture,treatment, and utilisation of land ll gas. Themethane contained in the captured land ll gaswill be used as a fuel in reciprocating enginesto produce electricity and also as a fuel in up to70 neighbouring brick kilns, replacing the fossilfuels currently used.

The destruction of the land ll methane viacombustion in the aring units, engines andkilns will result in emission reductions totalling close to 6 million tCO 2eq over the rst 7 year crediting period.

The project is being developed on behalf of the City of Bogot by a joint venture company entitled Biogas Doa Juana S.A. ESP (50% GRS

Valtech (operated by Proactiva Colombia), 50% Gas Natural). Biogas Doa Juana S.A. ESPwas the successful bidder for the CDM project launched by the City of Bogot. CDM technicalassistance was provided by Veolia Propret.


26/40


27/40

27Table 2 provides an overview. By 2020, a totalof around 1.2 billion tonnes over 40% willbe regulated by binding EU requirement targetsfor recycling and recovery. On a per capita basisthis means that total waste production (includingMSW, commercial, construction, manufacturingand mining waste) is about 6 tonnes per annum,of which 2 tonnes per annum will be targeted for recycling and recovery. The remaining waste is tobe managed according to the recycling, recoveryand land lling regulations of the individualmember countries.

Year of introductionof legislation

Waste type

Waste amount

regulated inmillion tonnesper year

1994Recycling andrecovery of packagingwaste

82

1999Maximumbiodegradablemunicipal waste sentto land lls

100-120

2001

Reuse, recyclingand recovery of Waste Electronic andElectrical Equipment

9

2002Reuse, recycling andrecovery of End of Life Vehicles

7-9

2006 Recycling of Batteries 1.2

2008Recycling of construction anddemolition waste

900

2008

Recycling of glass,metals, plasticsand paper waste

from housholds notincluded in other regulation

20-30

Totalregulationamount

1120-1150

Total wastegeneration inthe EU

2800

Table 2 Projection of total and regulated waste ows inthe EU by 2020 (Eurostat, 2009, ETC/SCP, 2009, Prognoset al., 2008)

Lessons learned

Waste policies and targets introduced by the EUand its member states are contributing to thediversion of waste from land lls, improving theuse of resources and reducing the environmentalimpacts of waste management, including GHGemission reductions.

Biodegradable waste

Biodegradable waste is regulated in the EU bytwo Directives; the Packaging Directive from 1994and the Land ll Directive from 1999.

In 1994 the EU introduced an overall recyclingtarget for packaging waste of 25% by 2001. In2004 this target was increased to a minimum of 60% by 2008. The amount of packaging wastesent to land ll by the old 15 EU Member Statesdecreased from 28 million tonnes in 1997 to21 million tonnes in 2006, while the amountrecovered increased from 27 million to 43 milliontonnes. Even though the overall generation of packaging waste has increased, less of this wastehas gone to land lls.

The Land ll Directive from 1999 prescribesthat Member States must comply with modern

standards not later than 2009, which meansthat new land lls must have liners and gascapture. Further, the Member States must reducethe amount of biodegradable municipal wasteland lled in 1995 to maximum 75% in 2006, 50%in 2009 and 35% in 2016 (EU, 1999).

The European Environment Agency (EEA, 2009)has conducted studies for ve countries andone region, representing both old and new EUmember states as well countries with and withouta tradition for waste management planningand legislation. The study came to four mainconclusions:

The Land ll Directive has been effective inadvancing the closure of out of date land llsand increasing the use of alternative wastemanagement options such as recycling andincineration with energy recovery.

The Land ll Directives success is based ontwo core factors, 1) a nal target for 2016 and2) intermediate targets for 2006 and 2009.Its exibility has been an important asset,affording Member States the space to try outalternative policies and adjust measures tomatch national and regional realities.


28/40

28

The greatest impact has been in locationswhere the process of shifting away from land llwas not already under way, for example inEstonia, Italy and Hungary. Less impact wasseen in Germany and the Flemish Region, whereimplementation of diversion policies startedbefore the Directives adoption.

There is no evidence that the Land ll Directivehas lessened municipal waste generation.

GHG emission reduction from municipal waste

EU policies and regulations on waste have,together with national initiatives, resulted in a

reduction of municipal waste sent to land lls.Figure 1 shows that 62% of the municipal wastewas land lled in 1995, while 41% was land lled in2007 (Eurostat, 2009).

Figure 1. Development of treatment of municipal waste inthe EU 1995 to 2007 (Eurostat, 2009)

Figure 2. GHG emissions from municipal waste in the EU from 1990 to 2007 (EEA, 2008 and ETC/SCP, 2009a).The maximum methane recovery rate from land lls is assumed to be 50% in a 100 year LCA perspective.

Policy and regulation

150

100

50

0 0

-50

-100

-15019911990

150

100

50

-50

-100

-150

Year

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Direct - RecyclingDirect - IncinerationDirect - LandfillingDirect - TransportIndirect - RecyclingIndirect - IncinerationIndirect - LandfillingNet GHG emissions

300

Others

250

200

150

100

50

01995 2007

Composting

Recycling

Incineration

M i l l i o n

T o n n e s

Landfilled

Diverting municipal waste from land ll,reinforced by improved treatment technologyand ef ciencies, has resulted in a substantialreduction of GHG emissions.

Figure 2 shows direct and indirect GHG emissionsassociated with municipal waste managementfrom 1990 to 2007. Growing waste quantitiescause an increase in the direct GHG emissions;these are related to land lling, incineration andrecycling as well as transport of municipal waste.The indirect emissions indicate the emissionsavoided though resource recovery from the waste(material or energy), which replaces the use of virgin materials.

The observed overall net reduction (the redline in the gure) is mainly due to increasedrecycling and incineration. Collection and useof energy from land lls is also indicated, butcontributes little to the overall savings. The directburdens from land lling have been reduced byless than 10%, but the bene ts from recyclinghave almost doubled. Therefore, the overallshift from land lling to recycling (differences inimplementation according to material) representssigni cant savings of GHG emissions.


29/40

29CO2-eq net annual emissions from municipalwaste management in the EU between 1990and 2007 have reduced from 69 million tonnesin 1990 to 32 million tonnes of CO 2-eq, i.e. areduction of over 50%. It is estimated that thenet reduction will be 60 million tonnes per annum by 2012 (ETC/SCP, 2009a). This meansthat municipal waste in the EU will still be a netemitter of GHG in 2012 with a total emission of about 9 million tonnes CO 2-eq or about 17 kgCO2-eq per capita per annum.

According to the Kyoto protocol, the EU (whichincluded 15 Member States before 2004) mustreduce GHG emissions by 8% in 2012 comparedto 1990 (8% of 4233 million tonnes CO 2-eq).These 15 Member States represent a reductionof 62 million tonnes CO 2-eq between 1990 and2012 due to better municipal waste management.In other words, better management of municipalwaste in Europe will thus correspond potentiallyto about 18% (62/340) of the reduction needed(ETC/SCP, 2009a).

The full effect of existing EU waste policies andregulations will be realised by 2020, includingboth municipal and other types of waste, and afurther reduction of GHG emissions in the order of 200 million tonnes CO 2-eq by 2020 (Prognos,2008). Given the EU commitment to reduce annual

CO2-eq emissions by 20% (780 million tonnes) by2020 compared to 2005, this means that better total waste management by the EU during thisperiod could contribute about 25% (200/780) of the reductions required to meet the over-all 2020target (Prognos, 2008).

Focusing only on municipal waste in the EU, it isestimated that this type of waste will be a netreducer of GHG emissions from around 2015(ETC/SCP, 2009a).

A North American exampleOver the past few years, the political climateconcerning the need to limit GHG emissionshas seen a radical turnaround in North America.Opinion polls demonstrate that a clear majorityof the citizens support actions to reduce GHGemissions and most believe this could beaccomplished without disruptive costs. State,provincial and local governments as well asprivate industry in both the US and Canadarecognise the importance of taking action now torespond to climate change.

In the US, seven states have formed regionalpartnerships with neighbouring Canadian

provinces to reduce GHG emissions.

Eleven states have set goals to reduce GHGemissions by as much as 80% below 1990levels by 2050.

Over 20 states have set standards requiringelectric utilities to generate electricity fromrenewable energy sources.

Over 800 Mayors have signed a ClimateProtection Agreement that commits their citiesto meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets.

Over 1000 US companies participate in GHGreduction and renewable power procurementprogrammes, established by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) and the Departmentof Energy.

Climate registries and exchanges have beenestablished to provide trading and veri cationsystems for greenhouse gas credits for corporations, local authorities and other entities.

Case study Through management of organic wastes(food, garden and park waste and wastewater sludge) the municipality of Aalborg inDenmark (230,000 inhabitants) has reducedits GHG emissions from + 200 kg CO 2-eq/ capita per annum in 1970 to -170 kg CO 2-eq/capita per annum in 2005. For 2020 theprojected emission for organic wastes is-340 kg CO 2-eq/capita per annum.

If the emission reductions due to materialrecycling and use of saved wood as a biofuelare added, the annual reduction of GHGemissions from waste related activities willreach 1315 kg CO 2-eq/capita per annumin 2020.

Waste related activity Annual GHGemission by 2020

Organic waste management - 340 kg CO 2-eq / capita

Material recycling - 525 kg CO 2-eq/ capita

Wood saved due to recy-cling and substituting fossilfuel

- 450 kg CO 2-eq/ capita

Total annual saving in 2020 - 1315 kg CO2-eq/ capita


30/40

1230

In May, the U.S. House of Representativespassed the American Clean Energy and SecurityAct. This bill contains a cap and tradeprogramme to reduce carbon emissions.Emissions from major US sources would becapped at 17% below 2005 levels by 2020and at 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. Thebill would also establish a renewable portfoliostandard that would require electric utilitiesto meet 20% of their electricity demandthrough renewable energy sources and energyef ciency by 2020.

Energy derived from land ll gas would qualify asa source under the renewable portfolio standard,but would not be included under the carbonemissions cap. Some land ll methane destructionprojects would be tradable emission offsets.

The renewable portfolio standard also includeswaste-to-energy as an eligible renewable sourceand these facilities would not be regulated under the cap, thanks to a provision in the bill whichspeci cally excludes operations which derive 95%or more of their energy from municipal solid waste.

These developments will have signi cantimplications for solid waste managementprograms across North America and will createnew opportunities for improved solid wastemanagement practices to become part of thesolution, through waste reduction, energy-ef cientrecycling, sustainable composting and recovery of renewable energy from solid waste.

Policy and regulation

New Federal policy initiatives in the US

In addition to these substantial efforts byprivate industries and state, provincial and localadministrations, the level of activity by theFederal government has increased dramaticallyin the US following the inauguration of the newUS President in 2009, supported by a Democraticmajority in both Houses of Congress.

In a very short period of time the newadministration and reconstituted Congress haveissued some very far reaching and signi cantlegislative proposals to redirect US policyregarding climate change and energy. The pace of regulatory activity in this area is unprecedented.

In February, the U.S. President signed into lawthe American Recovery and Reinvestment Actof 2009, a $789 billion stimulus bill, whichextended tax credits for electricity producedfrom renewable sources including land ll gasand waste-to-energy and allocated several billiondollars for energy ef ciency and conservationgrants for activities such as recycling.

In October, the US EPA issued a nal regulationrequiring mandatory reporting of GHG emissionsfrom sources including land lls and waste-to-energy facilities. The rule requires facilities that

emit over 25,000 tonnes CO 2-eq per annumto monitor their emissions and submit annualreports to the EPA from 2010. Approximately85-90% of total national US GHG emissions,from approximately 13,000 facilities, will becovered by this rule.


31/40

1331Strategies for GHG emission reduction

through improved solid waste management There are a number of opportunities for reductionof GHG emissions: through recovery andutilisation of land ll methane as a renewable fuel;recovery of energy from solid waste and wastereduction and through recycling and composting,see U.S. EPA (2006) and Skinner (2007 and 2009).All across North America solid waste managers areworking to apply advanced waste managementpractices to offset global warming trends.

Recovery and Use of Land ll Gas as aRenewable Fuel Currently, there are over 425 operationalland ll gas-to-energy projects in the US whichcreate 1,180 megawatts (MW) of electricity andproduce 235 million metric standard cubic feetper day (MMSCFD) of renewable fuel. However,there are many more land lls in North Americathat have the potential to capture and utiliseland ll gas.

The EPA has identi ed 570 candidate land llsthat have the potential for land ll gas-to-energyprojects, representing 1,370 MW of energy or 695 MMSCFD of fuel. Thus, the capture andutilisation of LFG could achieve very signi cantnational reductions in GHG emissions.

Waste-to-Energy and Conversion Technologies Currently, there are 89 waste-to-energy facilitiesin the United States that dispose of 90,000 tonsof solid waste a day, and produce 2,700 MWof electricity (enough electricity to supply 2.3million homes) IWSA (2007). Waste-to-energyhas a long history of being a reliable energysource in North America; existing facilities areexpanding capacities and several new facilitiesare being planned. There is signi cant interestin conversion technologies such as hydrolysis,anaerobic digestion, gasi cation and plasma arcwhich can convert solid wastes into industrialbiochemicals and fuels, although most of thesetechnologies have not yet progressed beyondthe pilot stage.

Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting Waste reduction avoids GHG emissionsassociated with the production and useof a product and with subsequent wastemanagement. Although it is very dif cult tomeasure, the US EPA has estimated that 55million tonnes of municipal solid wast

Documents

WEB ISWA White Paper