WASTE PROBLEM OR OPPORTUNITY A research on the possibilities of sustainable waste management in BRWM
17th of December 2008
AUTORS DAAN GROOTEN FAROEN HABIEB LOBKE JANSEN
1555433 1191006 1554265
PATRICK KEVERLING BUISMAN ANOUK VELDHUIZEN
1510498 1516062
Waste Problem or Opportunity A research on the possibilities of sustainable waste management in BRWM
Authors Daan Grooten Faroen Habieb Lobke Jansen Patrick Keverling Buisman Anouk Veldhuizen
1555433 1191006 1554265 1510498 1516062
Minor People Planet Profit Requested by Breede River Winelands Municipality
University of applied sciences Utrecht
WaMaSa Foundation
Coach Debby Goedknegt Date 17th of December 2008 Place Ashton, South – Africa
2 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
Prologue We, the authors of this report, are a group of five students participating in the minor People, Planet, Profit from the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht. The most of us are studying different subjects on different universities in the Netherlands. These subjects are: Public administration; Facility management; Business engineering; City Planning. Since our arrival in South Africa, on the 18th of September 2008, we have been working on a research project concerning waste management in the Breede River Winelands Municipality. This report is written to support the Municipality in their goal to obtain a sustainable way of waste management. We worked on this project until the 11th of January 2009. We found it very interesting to work on this project and we would like to gratefully thank the following people: Breede River Winelands Municipality Mrs. C.O. Matthys for her warm welcome and her unstoppable support on various fields; Mr. D.J.C. Steyn for all his support in very usable information on the field of Waste Management; Mrs. I. Datson for all the small things which were essential. University of Applied Sciences Utrecht Mrs. D. Goedknegt for her coaching from a distance; Mr. L. Steijn for his expertise and feedback on the field of Waste Management; Mr. S. Nijhuis for his expertise and feedback on the field of designing projects; Mr. R. van Stigt for his expertise and feedback on the field of sustainable development; Mrs. E. van Keeken for her expertise and feedback on the field of research methods and techniques. WaMaSa Foundation Mr. F. W. van Aggelen for his expertise and feedback about the exact situation and project. The following people and organizations for providing us with lots of information Atlantic Plastic Mr. S. Cheetman Beaconvale Recyclers Mr. M. Erasmus Collect a Can Mr. R. Resandt Consol Glass Mr. K. Mitas Desco Mr. D. Bradford Mr. Paper Mr. C. van Sittart Nampak Mr. C. Higgins Petco Mrs. C. Scholtz Pelmanco Mr. J. Rabie Recycle centre Robertson Mr. K. van Wijk Sappi Mr. M.G. Snyders WastePlan Mr. B. Lourens
3 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
Management summary The Breede River Winelands Municipality (BRWM) is known for good wine and beautiful scenery. Especially in the summer time tourists love to spend their time within the pleasant atmosphere the municipality offers. To reserve its lovely environment the municipality has to take care about problems that are raised. Four out of the five landfills that are located within the BRWM are closed for the dumping of domestic waste. The Ashton-landfill is getting filled fast and reaches its dumping limits. The construction of a new landfill will take years. The minimizing of the waste stream that leads to the landfill is urgent. Accept from the compost facility the BRWM does not focus on the minimizing of the waste stream at all. The only people that recycle at the moment are the pickers which search for recyclables on the landfill under bad conditions. The pickers sell collected materials to brokers; however it is hard to make a living out of this. Brokers are the other group of people that recycle; they collect recyclable materials at shops, schools and churches. The brokers sell their recyclables to the recycling companies in Cape Town. The BRWM started with the construction of a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) to recover recyclables that otherwise are dumped on the landfill. This lead to the problem statement of this research: “To what extent does or can the MRF contribute to the improvement of People, Planet and Profit?� Interviews and observations at the recycling companies were of good input to create an overview about things that have to be taken into consideration when introducing a recycling system. The recycling companies are all willing to help the BRWM. A waste sample of 1000 kg was taken to determine the composition of the waste stream. It concluded that 47% of the stream consists out of recyclables. The quality of the sorted waste was in general poor because it was contaminated with dirt. To improve the quality and quantity of recyclables the waste should get separated at source before it is recovered at the MRF. The quality and quantity improvement can be made through the implementation of a two bag system for the high income areas and through buy-back centres for the low income areas. Due to a system of separation at source, the BRWM can work with the clean MRF. A clean MRF has great advantages. It was hard to determine exact figures about the financial situation, because the BRWM does not have a reliable insight in the specific costs made on the field of waste management as well as on other municipal departments. The implementation of Activity Based Costing (ABC) can improve the way of accounting. Based on the information that was available, the conclusion can be made that the department of environmental services created a surplus in the year of 2008-2009. Community benefits like job creation, landfill savings and cleaner environment rise with the implementation of the recycling system. The research pointed out that recyclables can be sold best to recycling companies in Cape Town. Annually a profit of about R1.460.242 can be made out of sold recyclables to cover (a part of) the raised costs. The effect of the MRF on the people within the BRWM shows in general a positive result. The pickers that are currently working on the landfill could be provided with jobs in the MRF. The brokers could cooperate with the BRWM in the collection process; if they would not do this there is a chance that they turn bankrupt. As an effect on the planet aspect, the minimizing of the waste stream will be about 40%. As a result airspace will be saved and the emission of CO2 will be reduced. Factors of influence on the future financial situation are the outsourcing of the MRF, cooperation with recycling companies and needed storage facility. Follow-up study should focus on the mapping of the concrete costs and benefits of the recycling system. This will support the municipality in their decisions about future policy. The construction of the MRF will be finished in April 2009. The BRWM could start minimizing the waste stream from that date. A lot has to be done before the municipality can do this in an effective way. It is of importance that BRWM starts with the actual preparation and implementation of the system.
4 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
Table of content Prologue
3
Management summary
4
Introduction Current situation Desired situation Problem statement Research design Structure
6 6 7 8 9 9
1
Stakeholders analysis 1.1 The producers of waste 1.2 The collectors of waste 1.3 The buyers of collected waste 1.4 Data about the buyers of recyclable waste 1.5 Conclusion
10 10 11 11 12 13
2
Waste sample BRWM 2.1 Determination of sample area 2.2 Taking a representative sample 2.3 The results
14 14 14 17
3
Quality and quantity improvements of recyclables 3.1 Different types of Material Recovery Facilities 3.2 Collection systems for separation at source 3.3 Conclusion
19 19 21 24
4
Financial consequences 4.1 Current financial situation 4.2 Future financial situation 4.3 Factors of influence for the future financial situation 4.4 Conclusion
25 25 26 29 30
5
Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 People 5.2 Planet 5.3 Profit 5.4 Final recommendations 5.5 Recommendations next group
31 31 32 32 33 33
List of sources
34
Annexures Annexure 1 Annexure 2 Annexure 3 Annexure 4
4 41 56 58
5 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
Introduction The Breede River Winelands Municipality (BRWM) lies in the heart of the popular tourist route 62. The BRWM offers tourists a calm and pleasant stay, where they can enjoy good wine and beautiful nature. However, the beautiful scenery the municipality offers is threatened. Behind the hills there are full landfills. Out of five, the Ashton-landfill is the only landfill that offers enough airspace for dumping domestic waste. The other four landfills are only open for dumping of green waste and builders rubble. Since the other landfills are closed for domestic waste, the Ashton-landfill is getting filled much faster than the municipality can handle. It will take years until a new landfill can be opened. For the municipality, minimizing the waste is getting more and more an important issue. At the moment, the so called, pickers are the only ones found on the landfill who take recyclables out of the domestic waste stream. They sell their products on the local markets. Besides the pickers, there are a few private companies in the area that recycle a small amount of mainly commercial waste. In the period of September 2008 till January 2009 a group of five students from the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht conducted a research on the possibilities of waste management in South Africa. The first group of students started their research in the beginning of 2007. This group described the relevant legislation concerning waste management, researched the demographic composition of the municipality, investigated which types of domestic waste are produced in the BRWM, and wrote articles for the awareness campaign. The second group, which started in February 2008, performed a stakeholders analysis and started with an awareness campaign plan. Monique Braun also worked on the awareness campaign in June 2008. These reports are available at the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht. The research was not complete yet because various factors still needed to be researched like, the completion of the stakeholders analysis, a more representative waste sample and the different waste collection systems.
Current situation The BRWM consists out of five towns, Robertson, Ashton, Montagu, Bonnievale, McGregor and the surrounding rural areas. In the past these towns were all separate municipalities, but on the 5th of December 2000 they were integrated into one municipality the Breede River Winelands Municipality. Before the different towns merged, they all made use of their own landfills. After becoming one municipality, the only landfill being used is the Ashton landfill. The Ashton landfill provides enough airspace until 2010. It will take years to construct a new landfill, which emphasizes the importance of minimizing the waste stream going to the Ashton landfill. In the Polokwane Declaration minimizing waste is a goal for the government of South Africa. They declared that the waste production should be reduced to 50% in 2012 and zero waste should be produced in 20221. In figure 1, page 7, a schematic overview of the current waste stream is given. In this overview the waste stream is displayed as it is now. 1
In the top of the figure, the producers of waste are shown. They pay a collection fee to the municipality. The producers of waste put their waste, on given dates, in a bag on the kerbside.
2
The municipality collects the waste that is produced. The collectors bring the waste to the Ashton landfill site.
3
The Ashton landfill site deals with a shortage of airspace. All the domestic and commercial waste produced is dumped in Ashton. Next to domestic waste also abattoir waste is dumped on the landfill site. Unfortunately, this landfill is not constructed to handle the disposal of the abattoir waste. At the moment the abattoir waste is dumped in trenches in the ground and covered with lime2.
1 2
Source: See Annexure:
http://www.environment.gov.za/ProjProg/WasteMgmt/Polokwane_declare.htm 1, chapter 1, page 5, ‘Abattoir waste’
6 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
4
On the Ashton landfill site work pickers. They collect recyclables and reusable waste out of the waste that is dumped. Pickers sell these items to brokers. The conditions these people work in are very poor. The pickers do not have any protective clothing and because they sometimes work next to the abattoir waste trenches, there is a chance they get a disease. They work in a non human friendly environment and are exposed to physical threats3.
5
The brokers earn money by buying and selling recyclable waste. On the landfill they buy waste that is collected by the pickers. Some of the waste the brokers sell, they collect directly from the producers like supermarkets, factories and farms and other collectors like churches and schools4.
Figure 1 The municipality focuses on a more efficient way of recycling. In order to minimize the waste stream, to create jobs and to earn money, the construction of a Material Recovery Facility, a facility in which the different types of recyclable materials can be recovered, has started. This facility will probably be finished in April 2009. To optimize this facility, a research on the commercial opportunities of the waste is needed.
Desired situation The current situation, as described above, is not advanced enough compared to the problems the municipality faces. As explained, the Ashton landfill site will be full in less than two years. In a desired situation less waste is dumped on the landfill site and new jobs are created. In this situation a recycling system includes a working Material Recovery Facility (MRF). With a recycling system a more sustainable way of waste management is possible. This situation is schematically described in figure 2, page 8. 1
The households and businesses produce waste and separate their waste in recyclables and non recyclables. Due to the fact that the recyclable and non recyclable waste does not get mixed up and contaminated with water and organic waste, the quality and quantity of recyclables is much higher. The people are aware of the problem and know how to recycle. This way the amount of waste will reduce.
2
The collectors collect the waste. The waste is collected separately. The collectors bring the recyclable waste to a MRF and the non recyclables are dumped on the landfill.
3 4
See Annexure: See Annexure:
1, chapter 6, page 11 ‘Minutes pickers’ 1, chapter 5, page 10 ‘Minutes Robertson Recycling Centre’
7 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
3
In the current system the pickers work for themselves at the landfill. In the desired situation there are no more people working on the landfill in bad conditions. A solution should be found for people who lose their income.
4
In the MRF all the useable recyclables are taken out of the waste. Not all the collected recyclables are of a proper quality standard, which means that not everything can be used. By taking the recyclables out, less waste is dumped on the landfill site. There is a market for recyclable materials. On this market there are two different parties; the brokers and the actual recyclers of collected waste. Waste that is recovered will be sold on this market.
5
The amount of waste dumped on the Ashton landfill will decrease. The airspace of the landfill will last longer. A new landfill is still needed because it is not possible to recycle 100% of the waste yet.
6
Brokers could be important in the desired situation. They are potential buyers of the recyclable goods from the MRF. The municipality receives money from these brokers which can be used for the MRF or other municipal projects. The brokers usually sell their recyclables to a recycle company.
7
The recycle companies are also able to collect the recyclable waste at once. In that case a broker becomes redundant.
Figure 2
Problem statement “To what extent does or can the Material Recovery Facility contribute to the improvement of People, Planet and Profit and what are the consequences?” Term Definition People: the community of BRWM. Planet: minimizing the waste stream to the Ashton landfill. Profit: the highest value achievable for the recyclable goods.
8 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
Research design A short version of the research design is explained in the following table. A more detailed version can be found th in the plan of action of October 20 2008. Research question Which stakeholders are currently involved in the waste collection process? What is the weight and composition of the different waste streams found in the domestic and business waste per week? How is it possible to gain as much recyclable waste out of the domestic waste? What are the financial consequences of a recycle system?
Scope Stakeholders (collectors, buyers and producers) which have to deal with the MRF. A representative waste sample out of the domestic and commercial waste stream in the high, low and commercial areas. How is the composition and quality of the waste stream? The possible waste collection systems for high, low and commercial areas that improve the quality and quantity of waste. The current and future financial situation and factors of influence of a recycling system.
Methods and techniques In-depth interviews with stakeholders in Cape Town and surrounding areas. Conducting a literature research in order to find the right method for the waste sample and the sample size. After this field research was done by sorting the waste. Literature research has been done. The results from the interviews have been input for this research question. Literature research has been done with the financial department of the BRWM. Information of the previous research questions has been used here.
Structure To understand the content of this advisory report, it is important to recognize the intention of the different chapters. In this paragraph will be clarified how this advisory report should be read. After this introduction, chapter 1 describes which stakeholders are involved in waste management and the MRF. It shows which people have to deal with the consequences of the new MRF. Also the market for recyclables is made more transparent. In order to know the amount of recyclables the BRWM is able to sell on the market and of which quality, a waste sample has been taken out of the domestic and commercial waste. The way this sample was taken, the quality terms of the waste the market demands, the actual quality of the waste and the quantity of the waste are shown in chapter 2. In order to get the most profit out of the waste the quality and quantity of the waste has to be maximized. In chapter 3 the possible quality and quantity improvements of waste are defined. The financial and non financial consequences of a recycling system are given in chapter 4. The financial and non financial consequences rely on the information of the other chapters. It gives an indication which benefits and costs will change financially and what improvements it makes socially by introducing the new recycling system. These chapters result in conclusions and recommendations where the main question will be answered and an advice will be given to the BRWM.
9 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
1
Stakeholders analysis
In order to create an overview of the stakeholders that have an interest in the waste management of the BRWM and in the MRF, a stakeholder analysis has to be made. A part of this analysis has already been done by the previous research group; this can be read in their final report5. The stakeholders can be classified into three main groups: Producers of waste; Collectors of waste; Buyers of collected waste. In these three main groups there are different types of stakeholders. In this chapter these stakeholders will be described.
1.1
Producers of waste
The producers of waste in the BRWM can be split into three groups; the households, the businesses and the factories. 1.1.1 The households In the BRWM live 80.121 people who are divided over 21.856 households6. These households can be divided into two areas, low income and high income. In general, the households in high income areas produce more recyclable materials than households in low income areas. In the next chapter will be discussed what kind of waste the households produce. 1.1.2 The businesses There are approximately 400 businesses in the BRWM7. Businesses consist for example out of supermarkets, shops, hotels and guesthouses, restaurants and bars. In the next chapter will be discussed what kind of waste they produce. 1.1.3 The factories Factories established in the BRWM are: Canning/packing factories Produce mainly cans containing fruit. If, for any reason, cans cannot be sold, they are dumped on the landfill.
5
Abattoirs Abattoir waste is a difficult subject for the municipality. At the moment this waste is dumped on the landfill. This is not the right solution because of hygienic issues. It is a possibility to transport the abattoir waste to Cape Town where it can be burned or used as a resource for producing food for 8 pets. At the moment it is too expensive for the abattoirs to transport their waste that far .
Wineries The wineries produce a lot of domestic and green waste. This waste does not get collected by the municipality. Most of the farmers burn their waste or bring it to the landfill. Green waste is used for composting.
Source: See Annexure: 7 Source: 8 See Annexure: 6
Giacobbi, A., Gvozdenovic, E,. Smeets, N. (2008) Final Report 1, chapter 16, page 29 ‘Minutes Waste Plan’ Giacobbi, A,. Gvozdenovic, E,. Smeets, N (2008) Final Report 1, chapter 1, page 5 ‘Abattoir waste’
10 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
1.2
Collectors of waste
The collectors of waste in the Breede River Wine Municipality can be divided in three groups; the municipality, the brokers and the pickers. 1.2.1 Collection by the municipality At this moment the municipality collects the domestic waste from the households, businesses and factories. Collection of the domestic waste takes place once a week and is done by garbage trucks. After the waste is collected it is dumped onto the landfill. 1.2.2 Collection by the brokers The brokers are the ones who collect recyclable waste such as: paper, plastic, metal and glass from the businesses. The brokers can sell this waste to the different kinds of recycling companies. The brokers have arrangements with businesses, schools and churches to collect the recyclable waste. The profit that the businesses make, with the collection of their waste by private entrepreneurs instead of the municipality, is that 9 they pay less for their waste disposal . 1.2.3 Collection by pickers The pickers work six days a week on the landfill to make a living by collecting waste. These people are very poor and collect anything that has value to them. In total the municipality gave 51 people admission tickets for collection on the Ashton landfill. This amount varies by the availability of other work, like fruit picking. A part of these people already have an income due to a governmental subsidy but are trying to make some extra money. The pickers sell the collected waste to brokers or use items for themselves. There are two brokers which are buying the recyclable waste from the pickers. This leads to the fact that the pickers on the landfill operate in two groups. The waste they collect for the brokers varies, but is most of the time tins. In general the pickers make the most money by collecting tins. There is a small storage facility where the pickers can store their collected papers and plastics, but items like these are sold very rarely. The pickers are not able to bale the collected waste by themselves, because they do not have the right machinery. At this moment they are working under very unhygienic and unsafe conditions. On the landfill they collect straight out of the bags which the garbage trucks bring in. The pickers are working without any gloves or proper boots, therefore they are afraid to get poisoned10. In the same area they operate, the abattoir waste gets dumped. If an organized way of collecting and separating the waste is implemented, this situation will change for the pickers.
1.3
Buyers of collected waste
Considering the buyers of waste, there are two different groups of buyers; the brokers and the recycling companies. 1.3.1 The brokers of recyclable waste Most of the time the broker collects his recyclable waste from businesses; however some brokers also collect waste from the pickers, schools, households and farms. The brokers have arrangements with businesses to collect their recyclable waste. To do this in an efficient way, some of the brokers place bins and containers in which the businesses can dump their recyclables. By doing this the different kind of waste streams are separated at source11. Most of the recycle companies, to whom the brokers sell, are located in Cape Town. In order to sell the recyclables to them, the brokers have to bale the collected materials. The transport costs of not baled materials are much higher than the transport costs of baled materials. Some of the brokers lease a baling machine of the recycling companies. If so, the recycler demands the broker to bale a certain amount of recyclables monthly.
9
See Annexure:
10 11
See Annexure: See Annexure:
1,chapter 4, page 8 ‘Minutes Mr. Paper’ 1, chapter 5, page 10 ‘Minutes Robertson Recycling Center’ 1, chapter 6, page 11 ‘Minutes Pickers’ 1, chapter 4, page 8 ‘Minutes Mr. Paper’
11 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
In this system there is a profit for both, the broker and the businesses. The profit that the broker makes out of the recyclables he collects, is the money earned on this market. The profit that the businesses make is that they get rid of their waste in a cheaper way. With this they gain more working space and don not have to wait for 12 the municipality to pick up their waste . 1.3.2 The recycling companies Recycling companies that are recycling waste in the Western Cape (Cape Town), make new products with the collected recyclable waste as resource. The recycling companies are often specialized in the recycling of one type of waste. The recyclers buy the waste from a collector or broker. The prices of recyclable waste are different per type of waste. Recycling companies only collect on large scale. Compared to brokers, recyclers give a better price for recyclable waste. This is because of the fact that the waste gets delivered directly to the recycle companies without any links (brokers) in between. Recycling companies demand higher quality standards for the recyclable waste they buy than a broker. When a collector wants to deliver to a recycler, the waste has to be baled. Special baling machines are used for 13 this. Recycling companies rent them to collectors when they have a contract . A baling machine presses the loose waste together into cubes of approximately a cubic meter. By doing this, the density of the collected waste gets higher and transport will be easier. If a collector wants to sell waste, the recyclers often demand a minimum volume in tons of baled waste. The minimum volume that is necessary for collection depends per recycler. This means that collectors need storing capacity if they want to deliver to a recycler. Besides these terms, the quality of the collected waste has to be sufficient. This means that the loss factor cannot be too high. The loss factor is the amount of waste that cannot be used in the recycling process. This includes waste that for example is to wet, to dirty or waste from another type than mentioned. If the loss factor is higher than 10 to 20% the recycler has to put a lot of effort and money in the re-separation of the bales. In order to prevent a high loss factor most of the recyclers are prepared to train the people that are going to work in the MRF for free. The recyclers have a lot of knowhow about the recycling process and are because of that reason the designated people to give training14.
1.4
Data about the buyers of recyclable waste
In the beginning of this chapter, stakeholders analysis, is mentioned which different stakeholders are involved by waste minimization. In Annexure 1, chapter 17, page 32, the following information about the buyers of the waste can be found. The table gives a clear overview of all the necessary information. Company
12
See Annexure:
13
See Annexure: See Annexure:
14
Broker or recycle company
Type of waste
Minimal volume
Information about the transport?
Contact
1,chapter 4, page 8 ‘Minutes Mr. Paper’ 1, chapter 5, page 10 ‘Minutes Robertson Recycling Center’ 1, chapter 7, page 13 ‘Minutes Nampak Paper Recycling’ 1, chapters 7-15, pages 13-27, ‘Minutes recycling companies’
12 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
1.5
Conclusion
In this chapter the main focus has been on the different kinds of stakeholders within the MRF project of the BRWM. There are three main groups; the producers of waste, the collectors of waste and the buyers of recyclable waste. These groups can be divided in subgroups. In order to make a clear overview of the stakeholders, different kinds of interviews have been taken to receive the needed information. These stakeholders are added in Annexure 1, chapter 17, page 32. The brokers only pick up recyclable waste from the businesses before the collection of the municipality. The BRWM collect the non recyclables which go to the landfill. The brokers are middlemen, and sell their recyclables to the larger recycle companies in Cape Town. The recycling companies, located in Cape Town, are the best buyers of recyclable waste because they have better terms. They are able to provide baling machines and training for staff. The transport which the recycling companies provide is free of costs when a full load, differs per waste stream, can be delivered. For each type of waste is a company who is able to transport and recycle it.
13 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
2
Waste sample BRWM
In order to get a view on what kind of waste is produced in the BRWM, a sample has to be taken from the collected waste. This sample will help to make estimation on how much tons of every type of waste is going to be recycled in the future and if any quality improvements are necessary.
2.1
Determination of sample area
The sample will be taken in the areas where the municipality collects the waste. This means that the more rural areas, like the farms, wineries and factories are not taken into consideration. The waste sample has to give a representative view on the waste that is produced in the community. The sample will focus on the commercial and domestic waste produced in the five towns of the BRWM. The main reason why this area is chosen is because these waste streams lead to the Ashton landfill site. Concerning domestic waste in the BRWM, the quality and quantity of waste produced is liable to the level of income earned. Looking at the income factor the BRWM can be divided into two categories, low and high income areas. People who live in high income areas have a different lifestyle and buying pattern in comparison to people who live in low income areas. The different areas are defined in the report of the first group of students in September 200715. The commercial area is determined by Mr. D.J.C. Steyn. The sample is taken in all of the five towns of BRWM. In McGregor there is hardly any low income, so for that reason the low income area of McGregor is not taken into consideration.
2.2
Taking a representative sample
In order to take a representative sample four factors have to be taken into account: The amount of times and on which dates the waste samples are taken; The size of the waste sample; The method being used; The sorting. 2.2.1 The amount of times and on which dates the waste samples are taken The production of both domestic and commercial waste is liable to seasonal fluctuations. A waste sample has to be taken a few times a year to get the most reliable impression. It is impossible for the project team to comply to this part since the presence of the project team in BRWM is only four months. For this reason the project team recommends the municipality to take three more samples in 2009 on regular dates. This means samples should not be taken during events or holidays. The month the project team chose is October, because it is the beginning of the tourism season and not yet a holiday period for South Africans. The samples are taken on the following dates: Date in 2008 October 6th October 7th October 10th October 21st October 22nd rd October 23 th October 28 October 30th October 31st
15
Source:
Town BRWM Montagu Montagu Montagu Ashton Ashton Bonnievale Robertson Robertson McGregor
Area High Low Commercial High/ Commercial Low High/Low/Commercial High/Commercial Low High/Commercial
Dolle ten, M., Hoeven van der, E., Kolk van der, D. (2007) Final Report: ‘Minimizing the waste’, ( page 13,15,17,19,21)
14 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
2.2.2 Size of the sample When a waste sample is taken, it is generally accepted that the total size of the sample should be 750 kg to get a representative sample.16 The project team has chosen to use the following formula to estimate the size of the sample.
The following values have been used to calculate the size of the waste sample for each area. The chosen confidence level is 95%, so Z = 1,96. The chosen standard deviation is unknown and therefore 50% is chosen, so P= 50. This gives the maximum size of the sample. The chosen confidence interval is 5 %, so C= 5 This gives the following calculation: N= ((1,962) ∙ 502 ) = 384 kg 52 This means a sample of 384 kg should be collected from each area. Far more people live in the low income areas than in the high income area, but the two samples have the same size. The reason for this is that the maximum size for the sample is reached. It does not matter if a bigger sample size is taken because the outcome will still be the same. After weighing the bags at a few households an indication is made of the amount of addresses that have to be collected. Area Low High Commercial
Average weight per address 6,4 6,0 20,2
Amount of addresses needed 60 63 19
The addresses are divided over the five towns in the Breede River Winelands. The division of addresses has been made on the basis of the population. The address list can be found in Annexure 2, chapter 1, page 42.
16
Source:
Afval Overleg Orgaan (2003) Sorteer Analyses: ‘Een handreiking voor gemeenten’, page 13
15 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
2.2.3 The method The following method was used to take the sample: 1. Get information about the waste streams that should be separated by interviewing stakeholders. 2. Determine on which days the waste is collected per town and specific area. This information is provided by Mr. D.J.C. Steyn. 3. Produce a list of addresses, in which the three types of areas are mentioned. The addresses should be 17 chosen widely spread through the areas in order to be representative . 4. Arrange a dry storage space, a calibrated scale to perform measurements of weight, as many bins as there are waste streams and plastic covering on the floor. 5. Arrange a team of approximately five persons who will be separating the waste by hand and gloves. 6. Keep the bags of waste from the three different types of areas separated. 7. Weigh the bins, two or three, and determine an average weight. 8. Weigh the bags, while still closed, on the scale for total amount of waste collected per area. 9. Cover the floor with plastic and empty two to three bags of waste per time. 10. Teams commence sorting into the pre-defined waste streams. The waste is handpicked. The waste must be put in a bin with the right kind of waste (example: white paper). 11. The waste that is not useable stays on the ground and will be put in a bin with non-recyclable waste. 12. When all the waste has been separated, all the bins should be weighed. 13. Once all the data is collected, the total amount of each different waste stream is calculated. The total amount of all the waste streams is then compared with the start amount. 2.2.4 The sorting There are quality terms for each waste stream. The waste streams; paper, cans / tins, plastic and glass have their own different types. All the potential recycle companies have their own quality standards. This is important for the collection of waste by these recycle companies. If the collectors want to deliver to the recycling companies the waste must apply to these quality standards. The quality standards can differ from each kind of waste stream18. There are two reasons why recycle companies use these standards: Because of the fact that wet waste contains fluids or other dirt has a contribution to the net weight. By this the recycle company has to pay more to their supplier when the waste gets to be weight. Waste that has been contaminated with dirt is not useable for recycling because of the fact that the costs and effort to get the waste clean are to high. When looking at the grades specifications the project team focuses on the different kinds of types of waste in each main waste stream19. There are for example six types of paper. The category in what each type is placed depends of the grade of the paper. This is important for the recycle company because for the different grades there are different prices and specifications. The higher the grade, the higher quality the product consists of and with this the higher the price a supplier can get for his waste. The following waste stream will be sorted. The reason why these components will be sorted is because a market exists for these components. Paper (WP) White paper, (CM) Common Mix, (CB) Cardboard, (NP) Newspaper, (M) Magazines. Plastics (HDPE) High definition plastic, (LDPE) Low definition Plastic, (PET) Polyethylene, (PS) Polystyrene Glass: All types of glass except window glass Metal: All kinds of metal E-waste (EW) Electronical Waste Green waste (GW) garden refuse Furthermore there is also a sorting bin for the non-recyclable waste. Specifications of the recyclable components are mentioned in Annexure 1, chapter 18, page 37. 17
See Annexure: See Annexure: 19 See Annexure: 18
2, chapter 1, page 42 ‘Address list for collection of waste sample’ 1, chapter 18, page 37 ‘Quality terms of recyclable materials’, table ‘ Quality terms’ 1, chapter 18, page 37 ‘Quality terms of recyclable materials’, table ‘Grade specifications’
16 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
2.3
Results
The following figure shows the results of the waste sample done in the BRWM. The abbreviations of the different waste streams are mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Figure 3
2.3.1 Composition of the waste Figure 3 shows that the biggest part of the composition consists out of non-recyclable waste. The nonrecyclable waste is significantly higher in the low income area in comparison to the other areas. Green waste is higher in the commercial and high income area. This green waste is not going to be sold to recyclers but will be dumped on the Ashton landfill site. This means that the percentages of the non-recyclables are at the moment almost the same in the different areas. Figure 4 shows the composition of the waste that is recyclable. 2.3.2 Recyclables 20 The average percentage of recyclables in the BRWM is 47,29%. This is, compared to other municipalities , a high percentage. This means that the waste stream going to the Ashton landfill site could be reduced. The highest percentage of recyclables was found in the commercial areas.
20
See Annexure:
4, chapter 1 , page 59 ‘Household Survey’, by ‘Waste Plan’, Bertie Lourens
17 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
Figure 4
2.3.3 Green waste In the domestic and commercial waste a reasonably large percentage of green waste was found. In the future, green waste should be going to the compost site. Therefore green waste should be separated too. When the compost site receives more green waste, more compost can be produced and sold by the BRWM. Another effect is that the waste stream that leads to the Ashton landfill site will decrease. 2.3.4 Commercial waste The waste sample of commercial waste is representative because the waste was taken from several companies in different sectors. Unfortunately not all the waste was present because a broker, Mr. K. van Wijk of Robertson Recycling Centre, goes to the companies and collects the recyclable waste before the BRWM is able to collect it21. The percentage of recyclable waste could therefore be higher than figure 4 shows. 2.3.5 The quality A separation system has to be in place in order for the waste to be of a higher quality. The waste sample contained a lot of contaminated waste which was not useable for recycling because it did not comply with the quality terms22. Next a short description will be given of the condition the waste was in. Paper was most of the time dirty and moisturized. Plastics also did not comply most of the time with the given quality terms although the PET and HDPE did. Glass was in a good condition and consisted mainly out of bottles. Metal was most of the time rusty and contaminated with fluids. When the recyclables are separated in an earlier stage, the quality of the recyclables will be higher.
21 22
See Annexure: See Annexure:
1, chapter 5, page 10 ‘Minutes Robertson Recycling Centre’ 1, chapter 18, page 37 ‘Quality terms of recyclable materials’
18 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
3
Quality and quantity improvements of recyclables
In chapter 2 ‘waste sample’ is concluded that approximately 47% of the current waste stream that leads to the landfill consists of recyclables. A large part of this percentage is wet and dirty because recyclables get mixed up with non-recyclables. This is because all the domestic waste is collected in one bag as described in the introduction. Waste collected this way negatively influences the quality and the quantity of recyclables. This chapter focuses on the possibilities of systems that could improve the quality and quantity of recyclables.
3.1
Different types of Material Recovery Facilities
In order to separate recyclables there are two different Material Recovery Facilities (MRF). A difference is made between the, so called, clean and dirty MRF. 3.1.1 Dirty Material Recovery Facility In a dirty MRF the waste bags come in straight after collection. In these bags non-recyclables and recyclables are all mixed up. In the MRF this waste is separated into the types of recyclables. Separation can be done semiautomatic or manually. The separated recyclables are pre-stored into different containers before they get compressed into dense bales. These bales are stored; once a full load is collected, the bales can be sold to the recycle companies. A dirty MRF will extract 4 - 20% out of the total waste stream that is coming in, the rejected waste goes to the landfill. Figure 523 gives a schematic overview of the input and outputs of a dirty MRF24. As shown in figure 5, a dirty MRF produces material diverted for biological treatment and the production of low grade restoration material. The facility needed for this process is a building on its own, and needs financing. This is not available in the BRWM.
Figure 5
23 24
Source: See Annexure:
http://www.mbt.landfill-site.com/Dirty_MRF/dirty_mrf.html 1, chapter 16, page 29 ‘Minutes Waste Plan’ by Bertie Lourens
Steve Last
19 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
3.1.2 Clean Material Recovery Facility The main difference between a dirty and a clean MRF is the waste that comes in. The separating between recyclables and non-recyclables is done at source, so dry recyclable waste comes in a clean MRF. Technically the clean MRF works the same as the dirty MRF. Due to the input of cleaner waste 80 - 97% of recyclables is recovered; the rejected waste goes to the landfill. In figure 625 the input and output of a clean MRF is shown.
Figure 6
3.1.3 Comparing the two facilities Beneath the strengths and weaknesses of a dirty and a clean MRF are described. Strengths and Weaknesses of Dirty MRF26 Strengths Extracts additional recyclables from residual waste stream Generally lower capital costs compared to clean MRF (per ton equivalent)
Can be used as part of an integrated system to gain energy and materials value out of the residual waste stream
25 26
Source: Source:
Weaknesses Low quality of recyclables output can render material of low value. Unless there is a high level of separation in the plant, there is likely to be a major component of the waste entering the plant going to a disposal facility (landfill or energy from waste). Where materials are divided for example into biodegradable and combustible material streams, the facility is reliant on the availability of other waste management operations. Potential dust / odour problems and health issues for staff on picking belts
http://www.mbt.landfill-site.com/MRF/mrf.html http://www.mbt.landfill-site.com/Dirty_MRF/dirty_mrf.html
Steve Last Steve Last
20 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
Strengths and Weaknesses of Clean MRF27 Strengths High processing efficiency Potential for revenues from sale of materials Recycles generally of relatively high quality Can significantly contribute to meeting high recycling targets Proven under world-wide conditions
Weaknesses Relies on householders to participate Potential fire risk from storage of materials on site Exposed to market fluctuations Security of input materials required
Can attract material from both bring & kerbside collection systems, including some commercial / industrial Can provide work opportunities for disadvantaged sectors of the community, works with about 18-85 staff members instead of 24 Land requirement is less than while using a Dirty MRF 0.8-2 Hectares instead of 2-4
Potential dust emissions and health issues for workers Reliance on efficiency of mechanical equipment
Relies on the quality of the waste that is being collected from the households (poor quality is not recyclable)
When the strengths and weaknesses of the clean and the dirty MRF are compared, it shows that working with a dirty MRF is cheaper but less effective on several fields. The quality of recyclables is not as high as in a clean MRF and the majority of the waste stream still ends up at the Ashton landfill site. A clean MRF on the other hand, produces relatively high quality recyclables, extracts more waste out of the waste stream and provides more working opportunities (18-85 staff members instead of 24). One of the biggest disadvantages a clean MRF has to deal with is that it relies on household participation, this because the separation of recyclables has to be done at source. Because of the fact the BRWM has shown their preference for the introduction of a clean MRF in their system of waste management, a solution has to been found for the participation of households. The introduction of a separation at source system has the goal to optimize the level of recyclables that are separated out of the waste stream.
3.2
Collection systems for separation at source
There are various collection systems for separation at source. The following paragraph will discuss these systems. 3.2.1 Comparing low and high income areas When introducing a system for separation at source there are some aspects that have to be taken care of. Research has been done to point out if there is a difference in the level of household participation between high income areas and low income areas. For this research28 recyclable waste has been collected for a period of eight months in a low and a high income area. In the low income area waste was collected at 60.000 homes and in the high income area waste was collected at 11.000 homes. Clear bags were given to the people who were instructed to put all their recyclables in these bags. This system is called the two bag system.
27 28
Source: See Annexure:
http://www.mbt.landfill-site.com/MRF/mrf.html 4, chapter 1, page 59 ‘Household survey’, by ‘Waste Plan’,
Steve Last Bertie Lourens
21 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
In the following table the data of this research are shown29. Area Delft/Philipi (low income) Period 8 months Number of homes 60.000 Total kilo’s collected 123234 Total kilo’s recycled 25341 Percentage of waste recovered out 20.56% of the collected recyclables Amount of recyclable waste 0.257 kilo per household per produced month Amount of recyclables recovered 0.0528 kilo per household per month
Atlantic suburbs (high income) 8 months 10.000 971279 865932 89.15% 11.037 kilo per household per month 9.840 kilo per household per month
This table shows that the people in low income areas produce far less recyclable waste per household than in high income areas, or do not cooperate with the two bag system. Besides that, it shows that the quality of recyclables is lower too. Out of the recyclables waste that is collected 20.56% is recovered instead of 89.15%. This while using the same system. There can be concluded that if used the two bag system low income areas separate far less recyclable waste than high income areas. To improve the quality of collected recyclables different systems can be used in low and in high income areas. 3.2.2 Separation system for high income areas As partially described in paragraph 3.2.1, a suitable system of separation at source is the two bag system, this system will be explained below. The two bag system is a collection system for separation at source. Besides the black bags the householders use to put their waste in, another clear bag is given to them in which the householders are asked to put in their recyclable waste. At the date of collection the clear bag is put next to the black bag at the side of the road. The bags are collected; the clear bags are transported to the MRF and the black bags directly get dumped on the landfill. A variation on the two bag system is the three bag system. In this system there is not only a clear bag for recyclables, a black bag for non-recyclables but also a green bag for garden waste. These bags can be taken to the compost site which is already in place in Robertson. This way more waste is taken out of the waste stream to the Ashton landfill site. A collection system like this, a two bag system, is a requirement for the input in a clean MRF, but it fully depends on household participation. Research30 has proved that householders in high income areas are willing to put effort in the separation of recyclables, mainly because they wish to contribute to a better environment. A way to introduce this system is by handing householders envelopes. The envelope contains a recycled clear bag for all recyclables, a letter of introduction and a manual about what to separate. For more details about an awareness campaign, the report of Monique Braun31 should be consulted. A threat to this system could be that the clear bags, full of recyclables, get stolen by pickers. If this happens it is a possibility to introduce them into the collection of the clear bags. The people who steal the bags have to get a legal job. An example is to provide them with tricycles to collect the waste32, or give them a jersey and a badge so they can collect the waste and bring it to the nearest transfer station. If they do this work illegal they can be fined. In order to do this, cooperation with law enforcement is needed. Social control among the pickers will prevent others from stealing. Waste Plan introduced this way and pays the pickers approximately R300-500 a person.
29
See annexure: See Annexure: 31 Source: 32 See annexure: 30
4, chapter 1, page 59 ‘Household survey’, by ‘Waste Plan’, Bertie Lourens 4, chapter 1, page 59 ‘Household survey’, by ‘Waste Plan’, Bertie Lourens Braun, M (2008, October) Report Waste Management Awareness Campaign 3, chapter 2,page 73, Article ‘City News’
22 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
3.2.3 Separation system for low income areas As shown in paragraph 3.2.1, a recycling system for a low income area cannot always be the same as a recycling system used in a high income area. For low income areas other solutions should be found. What is known is 33 that the inhabitants of a low income area often sell their own recyclables or use them over . Therefore it is necessary that the inhabitants get something in return for separating their waste. A solution is a Multi Recycling buy-back centre or also called buy-back centre. A buy-back centre is a facility where individuals or groups bring recyclables in return for a certain kind of payment. The aim of the centres is to make recycling accessible for communities and to create jobs for informal collectors. Buy-back centres are best located near a commercial of industrial area where a good amount of recyclables is present in the waste stream. Next to being close to a commercial or industrial area, buy-back centres work well if they are accessible to lower income communities. Informal collectors can collect the waste and bring it to the buy-back centre in exchange for money or food coupons. When a buy-back centre operates effective and efficient about 15-30 permanent jobs are created, with more than 100 collectors benefiting directly by selling their waste to the centre34. In the BRWM probably fewer jobs can be created because of the low population in this area. An organization which is familiar with the implementation of buy-back centres in South Africa is Buyisa-e-Bag. This organization receives direct funds from the South African Department of environmental Affairs and Tourism for recycling35. Buyisa-e-Bag supports entrepreneurs with the development of a buy-back centre. When the buy-back centre is running efficiently, Buyisa-e-Bag will support the centres for three years with financial and business skills training36. It is important that an initiative like a buy-back centre is driven by the municipality. People are less willing to cooperate if the project is driven by a company because they will think that an outsider tries to make easy money37. An awareness campaign is also needed to make the people aware of the problem. If the municipality will not do this the effect of a buy-back centre will be less. A guideline for an awareness campaign is given by Monique Braun in her report Waste Management Awareness Campaign BRWM, October 2008. 3.2.4 Separation system for commercial areas As concluded in chapter 2 ‘waste sample’, the waste commercial areas produce contains more recyclables than the waste the households produce. If the municipality could collect these recyclables at source, it could be of great input for the MRF. The ‘two container system’ could be introduced as a solution for the separation of the recyclables at source. In this system one container is meant for recyclables and the other for non-recyclables. This system however, relies on participation of the companies too. To persuade the companies to separate recyclables at source they could be rewarded. A possibility to do this is the introduction of a tax benefit. If the companies do not have to pay for the collection of the containers full of recyclables, they are probably willing to separate their waste. A disadvantage of the introduction of this system could be that a broker, like Mr. K. van Wijk and the people that are working for him, could lose their jobs. In chapter 4, extra attention is paid to this negative effect the system could have on the work of the brokers. 3.2.5 Separation system for public areas To make separation at source possible for everyone, a public separation at source system could be implemented. This system consists out of drop off points such as containers for glass, paper, plastic and refuse bins. The degree in which these containers could be placed differs. It depends on the level of separation which the BRWM will accomplish. These containers should be placed in the city centre. This way it is accessible for everyone and more separated waste can be collected. This system is an addition to the separation systems for high, low and commercial areas.
33
See Annexure: Source: 35 Source: 36 Source: 37 See Annexure: 34
1, chapter 16, page 29, ‘Minutes Waste Plan’ http://www.buyisaebag.co.za/projects_buyback.aspx http://www.buyisaebag.co.za/aboutus.aspx http://www.buyisaebag.co.za/projects_buyback.aspx 1, chapter 16, page 29, ‘Minutes Waste Plan’
23 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
3.3
Conclusion
The BRWM has shown their preference for the introduction of a clean MRF, this because the municipality wants to separate as much waste as possible. For the MRF to work more efficient and effective, a system of separation should be implemented in the BRWM. It is probably not possible to use one system for both high and low income areas. Therefore different systems are needed. In high income areas the two bag system can be introduced, in which the recyclables are separated from the non-recyclables. People in these areas are most of the time willing to contribute to recycling. When approached and instructed by media, an informative letter and a clear bag will probably be enough to introduce the system. A three bag system, with an additional green bag for garden waste, can be introduced to bring this waste to a compost site. A solution for the low income areas is a buy-back centre. The waste can be collected by a number of informal collectors and brought to the buy-back centre. The collectors receive money or food coupons in return for the recyclable waste they deliver. A buy-back centre also creates formal jobs. Both systems have as an effect that the quantity and quality of recyclable waste increases. The increase is caused by the early separation of recyclables so it does not get contaminated with fluids or dirt. For the commercial areas a two container system could be the solution for separating at source. An addition to the two separation system is a drop off point system in the city centre with different containers for the collection of, for example, glass. The MRF will receive more waste and can sell more recyclables to recycling companies. To implement these systems, household participation is crucial. To make them aware of separating waste, an awareness campaign should be done. Guidelines have been given in the report of Monique Braun mentioned in paragraph 3.2.3.
24 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
4
Financial consequences
In this chapter the financial situation of the introduction of the recycling system is described. The new recycling system includes: A MRF; The two or three bag system; Buy-back centre. These systems are explained in chapter 4. In the first paragraph of this chapter the current financial situation is described. In the second paragraph the future financial situation is explained. In the third paragraph factors of influence are mentioned. After this a conclusion can be drawn about the financial consequences of the recycling system.
4.1
Current financial situation
In the current situation there is no recycling system in place, except for the compost site. 38 In the balance the financial data of the current waste disposal system are given. Actual balance budget 2007-2008 of Environmental Services Cost
Rand
Benefits
Salaries
4.984.214,74
Repairs
856.068,39
Collection fees
12.152,67
Sold Compost
Capital costs Contribution to funds
828.349,03
General cost: Fuel and oils Machinery rent Composting activities Rehabilitation Security utilities Waste bins Black bags Depreciation Other costs
1.030.306,36 21.003,95 72.641,37 289.070,50 97.593,10 11.106,80 263.267,01 1.143.686,62 351.630,65
Subtotal Surplus
9.961.091,19 1.825.497,01
Total
38
Source:
Dumping at landfill site
Dumping at compost site Subsidy IOT PA West Cape
11.786.588,20
Other benefits
Rand 507.841,77 9.937.312,47 79.512,84 1.068,53 1.250.012,14 10.840,45
Subtotal
11.786.588,20
Total
11.786.588,20
BreeRivier/Wyneland, (2008), ‘Summary Report of 2008/06 in revised budget item’
25 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
The balance points out that: R1.825.497,01 is made as a surplus. During the financial year extra general costs are made, due the fact of the inaccurate system of accounting the BRWM uses at the moment these costs could not be taken into consideration. Because of this reason the surplus that is made will be lower in reality than described in the balance; The highest benefits are made by the collection fees; More than 50% of the total costs consist out of salaries; It is doubtful that the compost site is making a profit with an income of R79.512,84 by sold compost and R72.641,37 on compost activities expenses. This can be concluded because no salaries are included in the expenses.
4.2
Future financial situation
The introduction of a recycling system in BRWM will change the current financial situation. The MRF, the two bag system and a buyback centre are additional costs to the current situation. The balance below describes in what way the introduction of these parts of the recycling system will influence the current balance. In this figure colours are used to show the effect of the introduction on the current costs. This had to be done, because it is impossible to work with figures. The BRWM does not have a reliable insight in the specific costs made on the field of waste management as well as on other municipal departments. Balance of the future situation Cost
Effect
Benefits
Effect
Salaries
Fees for dumping at landfill
Repairs
Collection fees
Capital costs
Sold Compost
Contribution to funds
Dumping at compost site
General cost: Fuel and oils Machinery rent
Subsidy IOT PA West Cape
Composting activities Rehabilisation Security utilities Waste bins Black bags Depreciation Other costs MRF Two Bag system Three Bag system
Grant West Cape Province Municipal infratsructure Grant (MIG) Grant for landfill Other grants Benefits out of recyclables Sold paper Sold plastics Sold tins Sold glass Community benefits Job creation Landfill savings Cleaner environment
Buy-back centre Total
Total
26 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
In order to take well based decisions about future policy a complete financial overview is needed. Based on the inaccurate way of accounting within the BRWM, this is hard to determine at the moment. Activity Based Costing (ABC) is a way of accounting in which all the expenses per activity and benefits are justified. If the BRWM uses ABC, they would have a more significant and realistic view on their financial situation. This will contribute to decision making about future policy. A solution for this problem can be found in the exchange program between the BRWM and the Rheden municipality, ABC could be part of this exchange program. The balance still describes: All current costs will increase, except for the rehabilitation of the landfill because the landfill will last longer when the waste stream is minimized due to the recycling system; New costs are added to the balance. These costs, for the MRF, two or three bag system and a buyback centre, are essential for the introduction and operation of the recycling system; The fees for dumping on the landfill site will decrease, because recyclables are separated at source and therefore less waste is dumped; The subsidy IOT PA West Cape will decrease because jobs are created and more people will earn more than R1.000 a month. These people will be able to support themselves financially and will not need extra help; The other financial benefits will increase. The fees for collecting the waste will be raised. The separation of green waste has a positive effect on the amount of compost that can be sold.; The BRWM received several grants from the provincial government. These can be used to cover the capital costs of the recycling system; The money received from selling the recyclables can be used to cover the raised general costs. An estimation of the amount of money that can be earned by selling recyclables is worked out below; Community benefits rise with the introduction of the recycling system. These benefits cannot be expressed in financial figures, but have to be taken into consideration. A description of these benefits is given below too. Financial benefits of sold recyclables As described in chapter 2 ‘stakeholders analysis’ the recovered recyclables can be sold on the market of recyclables. In order to make estimation on the amount of money that can be earned by selling the recyclables; information about the total amount of waste produced in the BRWM, the composition of the waste stream and the prices per ton had to be gathered. Based on the weigh reports39 Mr. D.J.C. Steyn provided, the conclusion can be drawn that the amount of domestic and business waste that is produced weekly within the BRWM is in total 99 tons during the month October 2008. In chapter 3 ‘waste sample’ the composition of the waste streams is determined. In interviews with people from the recycle companies estimations are made about the prices per ton recyclables. Interviews with stakeholders made clear that the best prices for recyclables are given by the biggest recycling companies in Cape Town. It is important to mention that these prices are not fixed; especially the prices of the paper market fluctuate. Agreements about the prices for the sold recyclables have to be made with the recycle companies. Based on this information calculations are made of the financial benefits and shown in the balance on page 28.
39
See Annexure:
2, chapter 3, page 55 ‘Weighbridge forms’
27 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
Weekly produced
Percentage Type of waste40 per type
Tons per type
Participation & recovery factor: 0.54
Price per ton
Financial benefits
99 tons
WP CM CB NP M Glass HDPE LDPE PS PET Metal GW
2,14% 4,41% 2,40% 2,69% 0,59% 9,96% 3,45% 3,60% 1,11% 3,32% 5,36% 8,13%
2,114348904 4,369611826 2,372328253 2,666591556 0,588048618 9,858908129 3,416708666 3,564392153 1,102157651 3,287162015 5,30837225 8,04569739
1,141748408 2,359590386 1,281057257 1,43995944 0,317546254 5,32381039 1,84502268 1,924771763 0,595165132 1,775067488 2,866521015 4,344676591
R2.500 R1.300 R800 R100 R800 R280 R2.250 R2.500 R1.500 R2.300 R1.700 R100
R2.854,37 R3.067,47 R1.024,85 R144,00 R254,04 R1.490,68 R4.151,30 R4.811,93 R892,75 R4.082,66 R4.873,09 R434,46
EW
0,13%
0,124110955
0,067019916
Unknown
-
Total financial benefits Per week
R28081,57
Annually
R1460242
The balance shows that annually R1.460.242 can be earned by selling recyclables. This estimation is based on a 60%41 household participation and a 90% recovery of recyclables in the MRF, which is mentioned in chapter 3 ‘quality and quantity improvements’. It is doubtful if the financial benefit made out of the recyclables is as high as described. This doubt is based on the fact that the percentages per type of waste are an average of the low, high and commercial areas. In the calculation the three groups of the waste sample have an equal share. In reality however, the size of the three groups is not equal. This influences the average, because less recyclables are found in the low income areas while these areas produces more than one third of the total waste stream. Also the participation rate of the low income areas is probably not as high as in the other areas. So in reality the total financial benefits made are less than calculated. Unfortunately for this research it was impossible to determine the differences in waste produced per area. On the other hand, the total amount of waste produced weekly is higher than mentioned above. The waste sample only focused on the three areas. Besides the domestic and business waste there are other producers of waste which are mentioned in chapter 2 ‘stakeholders analysis’ like, factories, wineries and farms. These groups together produce an additional 20%42 of the total waste stream which influences the total amount of recyclables in a positive way. The conclusion can be drawn that it is hard to determine the exact amount of the financial benefits. The balance could only be used as an indication.
40
See Annexure: See Annexure: 42 Source: 41
1, chapter 18, page 37 ‘Quality terms of recyclable materials’ 1, chapter 7, page 13 ‘Minutes Nampak Paper Recycling’ Information provided by Mr. D.J.C. Steyn
28 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
Community benefits As described three different kinds of community benefits arise with the introduction of the recycling system. Below these benefits are worked out in detail: Job creation The introduction of a recycling system in the BRWM will conduct to the creation of jobs for at least 35 people. The pickers that are currently working for themselves in an unorganized way on the landfill can get the opportunity to work in the MRF. This will improve their quality of work and their financial situation. While working in the MRF these people will monthly get a fixed salary, this will give them the certainty so that they can improve their living standards. As a result they could bring their children to school, which will give them better perspectives for the future.
4.3
Landfill savings The minimizing of the waste stream has a positive effect on the landfill saving. The landfill in Ashton is about 90% full and is running out of airspace. If the waste stream that leads to the landfill is minimized the lifetime of the landfill will be expanded. Because of this the BRWM saves on the budget for aftercare, on the budget for the construction of a new landfill and less ground water will be polluted.
Cleaner environment The environment gets positively influenced by the introduction of the recycling system. If materials are 2 recycled, the limited amount of earths resources will last longer. Recycling reduces the amount of C0 2 produced; this will contribute to the global goal for the reduction of C0 . Recycling also contributes to the goal found in the Polokwane Declaration of 200143, to reduce the waste production with 50% in 2012 and 100% (‘zero waste’) in 2022. When the waste stream is minimized and less space is needed for a landfill, more space in the municipality can be used for other purposes. The natural beauty of the BRWM will suffer less from the waste produced. If households participate in recycling they become more aware of taking care of the environment. This will lead to a more responsible way of handling nature.
Factors of influence for the future financial situation
In this paragraph three factors are described that can influence the future financial situation. These factors have to be taken into consideration when the BRWM decides to implement the recycling system. Outsourcing the MRF People of the recycling market mentioned in the interviews that outsourcing of the MRF is a considerable option. Outsourcing the MRF also fits in the vision of the BRWM. Outsourcing has certain advantages; the income of the private person, which operates the MRF, relies on the profit made. Therefore an entrepreneurial way of thinking is of importance. An entrepreneur should always be in search for specialisation and innovation of the recycling system. This leads to a more effective and efficient way of operating the MRF. In a contract between the entrepreneur and the BRWM could be determined that the entrepreneur has to comply with certain agreements. For example these could contain that the pickers currently working on the landfill will be provided with jobs in the MRF. In order for entrepreneurs to provide the municipality with a business proposal, a public tender could be put up. Unfortunately it is hard to make a decision for the BRWM about the outsourcing of the MRF at the moment, because of the lack of comprehension in the future financial situation. Cooperation with recycling companies Interviews with people from the recycling companies pointed out that cooperation with them in the process to recycling is of importance. As a sponsor they could positively contribute to the project. For example they could contribute by educating the people that are going to work in the MRF; they could rent machinery for low prices; or organize an informative presentation for the municipal management. The recycling companies have a lot of knowledge and experience on the field of recycling and know how to set up a recycling project.
43
Source:
http://www.environment.gov.za/ProjProg/WasteMgmt/Polokwane_declare.htm
29 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
Storage facility As described in chapter 2 ‘stakeholders analysis’ a minimum of weight is required in order to sell the recovered recyclables to recycling companies in Cape Town. The distance to Cape Town is about 180 kilometres. If a certain amount of tons is collected, the recycling companies are often willing to take care about the transport costs. In Annexure 1 ‘stakeholders analyse’ the minimum volume required for transport per stakeholder is shown. In order to collect the minimum volume, storage facility is needed; the table below describes the amount of cubic meters necessary. Waste stream Paper Glass Plastic Metal Total
Monthly collected per waste stream in tons 28,34 23,07 26,61 12,42 90,44
M3 of storage facility 57 48 54 15 174
The calculations in Annexure 3, chapter 1, page 58, ‘Calculation storage space’, show a total of 174 m3 is needed for storage. The amount of m3 is only for the storage for the recyclables, so there is no working space included. During observations at the recycle companies, the conclusion was drawn, that it is important that there is enough working space. The forklifts that drive around at the storage facility are in need of enough space, if there is a lack of space this will slow down the working process and could finally lead to accidents and unsafe working conditions. Probably not all the waste will be transported every month, so additional space is needed. Besides that, it is important to mention that the storage facility has to be covered because the quality of the recyclables can suffer from bad weather conditions.
4.4
Conclusion
According to this chapter the following conclusions can be drawn. In the current situation a surplus of R1.800.000 is made, however this surplus is in reality lower because of unaccounted extra costs. The salaries are the highest expenses and the collection is the main source of income in the current situation. In order to show the balance of the future situation ABC is needed. Based on the current way of accounting within the BRWM it is impossible to create an overview of the future financial situation. As a solution for the problem ABC could be introduced in the exchange program between the BRWM and the Rheden municipality. The following conclusions can still be drawn. The costs will rise because of the implementation of the recycling system. On the other side of the balance benefits will rise out of sold recyclables. Also the community will benefit from the new system in the form of job creation, landfill savings and a cleaner environment. Other factors of influence on the future financial situation are the outsourcing of the MRF, cooperation with recycling companies and storage facility.
30 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
5
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the conclusions of the different parts of the research, final conclusions and recommendations will be made. In this chapter these will be worked out, focusing on the aspects of People, Planet and Profit as described in the problem statement.
5.1
People
In this paragraph will be concluded what the possible consequences can be for the community in the BRWM. 5.1.1 Pickers The pickers will no longer be able to work on the landfill, because there are no more recyclables in the black bags. The pickers who lose their only income must be given the opportunity to work in the MRF. In that way they are provided with a stabile income and the thereby belonging rights. This means that workers will be provided with working clothes, an eating area, toilets and other facilities. As a result they can improve their living standards by, for example, bringing their children to school and this will give them better perspectives for the future. When there is not much work on the farms and factories there are about 50 pickers on the landfill. According to Mr. D.J.C. Steyn the future MRF only gives employment to a maximum of 35 people. If the future employees work in shifts maybe a total of 50 can be reached. The pickers can also be involved into the collection of the clear bags. One of the downsides of the MRF is that the people who have a governmental subsidy are prohibited to work in the MRF. 5.1.2 Brokers If the municipality collects all the recyclables, the brokers collect less and probably will go bankrupt. This means that also the employees of the brokers will get unemployed. The problem is that brokers only collect the recyclables and not the non recyclables. If the municipality decides to cooperate with the brokers in collecting the commercial waste, a few arrangements should be made. One of them is that they also collect the non recyclables and bring them to the landfill. One of the downsides is that the MRF will make less money. The amount of money made through the collection of commercial waste can then be subtracted from the total benefit. If the municipality decides to outsource or joint venture the MRF, a possibility is to approach one of the brokers to run the MRF. One of the advantages is that they have a lot of knowledge about the different types of waste and running a business. The brokers also have a lot of connections and know where to get the best price for the recyclables. 5.1.3 Households and businesses The consequences for the households and businesses are mainly that they have to adapt to separating their waste into recyclables and non recyclables. For the high and low income areas this probably, cannot be done in the same way. As previous projects have proved, households in high income areas will adapt easier than low income areas. For high income a letter and instruction is probably enough to convince them to separate their waste. Low income areas need an incentive to separate their waste. This can be done by implementing buyback centres. These buy-back centres provide new jobs and will take care that the people will separate their waste. The businesses can be obliged to separate their waste through legislation. If the businesses do not separate they will get fined by the municipality.
31 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
5.2
Planet
If the MRF and the collection system works in an effective and efficient way, the waste stream of the households and businesses to the Ashton landfill will reduce by approximately 47%. This is an optimistic expectation. The chance that the BRWM will get 100 % of the households to participate in both low and high income areas is unlikely. Although not the full 47% reduction will be reached, a significant percentage will be, on the condition that a clean MRF is used. The amount of waste that is going to be reduced will be known at the moment that the MRF and the collection system are working on the long term. Minimizing the waste stream will contribute to the Polokwane Declaration of 2001. Another important part is that the BRWM is acting more responsible with nature’s resources. Less landfill means more land that can be used for other purposes. Less CO2 will be emitted and the groundwater will be less polluted. Reducing the amount of CO2 emitted contributes to the global goal of CO2 reduction. The people living in the BRWM have to participate in separating the recyclables at source. This will make them more environmentally aware.
5.3
Profit
In this paragraph will be concluded which financial consequences there are after implementing a new recycling system. 5.3.1 Activity Based Costing (ABC) It is very hard to determine the financial profit for the municipality. The reason is that the municipality does not use ABC. Due to the lack of ABC the running costs of the recycling system are impossible to estimate. Because of this reason the municipality should introduce ABC. Through the exchange programme with the Dutch municipality of Rheden the BRWM can make a move to this way of accounting. 5.3.2 Recyclables The profit that is going to be made on selling recyclables is hard to determine. Prices are fluctuating almost daily and also the rate of household participation is an insecure factor. Although there are some uncertain factors there can be concluded that a considerable amount of money can be made through selling recyclables. The municipality should cooperate with recycling companies to minimize the uncertainty of the price fluctuations. The recycling companies can also provide the municipality with training personnel. This could save the municipality time and money, because well trained personnel works more effective and efficient. 5.3.3 Outsourcing Outsourcing of the recycling system is an option. Outsourcing will save the municipality a lot of work on the long term. The entrepreneurial way of thinking of a private person will optimize the system. The municipality will have to make arrangements about the employment of people. In order for entrepreneurs to provide the municipality with a business proposal, a public tender could be put up. Unfortunately it is hard to make a decision for the BRWM about the outsourcing of the MRF at the moment, because of the lack of comprehension in the future financial situation. Another important fact is that the municipality will be able to concentrate on other parts of waste management, such as enforcement of waste legislation.
32 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
5.4
Final recommendations
In this paragraph the general recommendations will be mentioned. Based on a few reasons the following recommendations can be made. Clean MRF More recyclables and less waste going to the Ashton landfill site; More jobs will be created in comparison with a dirty MRF. Implementation of separation at source Waste will not be contaminated and more waste will be suitable for recyclables; People will get more aware of the environment. Cooperation with recycling companies Agreements on the prices for recyclables can be made; The recycling companies are wiling to train the personnel which will improve efficiency. Activity Based Costing (ABC) Better insight on the financial costs; Future investments can be justified. Outsourcing Saves the municipality work; Will optimize the MRF because of entrepreneurial mind state of the new owner.
5.5
Recommendations next group
For this research it was hard to determine financial figures about the financial situation of a recycling system. Follow-up study should focus on the mapping of the concrete costs and benefits of the recycling system. This will support the municipality in the decisions about future policy. Also the implementation of an awareness campaign should be started. Without awareness of the people the recycling system is of no use. The people have to be educated how to separate their waste and the importance of it. Another important issue is to determine how much waste is produced at the factories and rural areas. The recyclables produced in those areas could be important input for the MRF.
33 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
List of sources Internet sources http://www.buyisaebag.com http://www.dwaf.gov.za/documents.asp http://wwwdesco.co.za http://www.consol.com http://www.collectacan.co.za http://www.nampak.com http://www.paperpickup.co.za http://www.petco.co.za http://www.plasfed.co.za http://www.sappi.com
(Visited at 28 October 2008) (Visited at 3 October 2008) (Visited at 10 October 2008) (Visited at 10 October 2008) (Visited at 13 October 2008) (Visited at 9 October 2008) (Visited at 10 October 2008) (Visited at 10 October 2008) (Visited at 10 October 2008) (Visited at 13 October 2008)
http://www.wastekeysheet.net
(Visited at 24 September 2008)
http://educatie-en-school.infonu.nl/diversen/1090-de-opbouw-van-een-verslag.html (Visited at 3 October 2008)
Afval overleg orgaan. (2003) Sorteeranalyses, een handreiking voor gemeenten (page 13) PDF downloaded from: http://www.senternovem.nl/uitvoeringafvalbeheer/publicaties/monitoring/aoo_200315_sort eeranalyses_handreiking_voor_gemeenten.asp (Visited at 9 October 2008)
Breeland Municipaliteit http://www.breeland.gov.za
(Visited at multiple times 2008)
Buyisa-e-bag, Projects Buy-back Centre http://www.buyisaebag.co.za/Projects-buyback.aspx (Visited at 12 October 2008)
Buyisa-e-bag, About Buyisa http://www.buyisaebag.co.za/aboutus.aspx (Visited at 12 October 2008)
City of Philadelphia (1989) Glossary of recycling definitions PDF downloaded from: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/24/23690.pdf
(Visited at 9 October 2008)
34 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
Department of environmental affairs and tourism of South Africa (2007) Working with waste, a guideline on recycling of solid waste PDF downloaded from: http://www.environment.gov.za/nwmsi/Recycling/Guidelines/Recycling/Rec_cover. pdf (Visited at 9 October 2008) Dirty MRF, by Steve Last http://www.mbt.landfill-site.com/Dirty.MRF/dirty_mrf.html (Visited at 10 October 2008)
Intermediate Technology Consultants (2000) Domestic waste analysis in the city of Lilongwe PDF downloaded from: http://www.itcltd.com/wastedisposal/1.1.3.h.Waste%20analysis%20Mal awi.pdf (Visited at 15 October 2008)
MRF, by Steve Last http://www.mbt.landfill-site.com/MRF/mrf.html (Visited at 10 October 2008)
Troxler, S. (2007) Waste analysis, improving agricultural productivity and environmental quality PDF downloaded from: http://www.ncagr.com/agronomi/pdffiles/wflyer.pdf (Visited at 10 October 2008) Literature Aggelen, F.W. van (2008), ‘The establishment of the WaMaSa Foundation’. In: ‘Letter Stichting WaMaSa’ Breerivier / Wynland (2008), ‘Summary Report of 2008/06. In: ‘Revised Budget item’ Breerivier / Wynland (2008), ‘Infrastructure Development Finance letter’ Enviromark, The (2008), ‘Plastics – Material of choice’. In: ‘It’s all about plastics’. (page 3-21) Europees Parlement en Raad, (2002), ‘Vaststelling van gezondheidsvoorschrifte inzake niet voor menselijke consumptie bestemde dierlijke bijproducten’. In: ‘Verordening nr. 1774/2002’ Higgins, C., Sean, M (2008, August), ‘Supply Manual’. (page 3-23) MMB Consulting Engineers Incorporated (2006, August), ‘Status quo report’. In: ‘Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan’. (page 1-24) MMB Consulting Engineers Incorporated (2006, September), ‘Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan’. (page 1-43) Plastic Federation of South Africa, (2008, July), ‘The PETCO Universe’. In: ‘The official Newsletter for the Plastic Federation of South Africa’. (page 4-5) Public Weigh Report (2008, October) Stats SA Household Survey (2007/2008), ‘Generic Data Capture Sheet’ West Cape Province, (2004), ’Red meat regulation’. In ‘Part VIII handling of condemned material, art 119’. Woolley, D (2008, October), ‘Proposal for a co-operative agreement’.
35 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM
Books
Hogeweg, R. (20043) Een goed rapport. Thieme Meulenhoff BV 1
Kodde, G., Noever ten, W. (2006 ) Een goed advies. Thieme Meulenhoff BV 1
Roorda, N. (2006 ) Basisboek duurzame ontwikkeling. Noordhoff Uitgevers BV
Specialists University of Applied Sciences Utrecht Mrs. D. Goedknegt Mrs. E. van Keeken Mr. S. Nijhuis Mr. R. van Stigt Mr. L. Steijn
Coach Specialist in Research methods and techniques. Specialist in Digital coach Specialist in Sustainable development Specialist in Environmental science waste management
Breede River Winelands Municipality Mr. D.J.C. Steyn Mrs. C.O. Matthys Mrs. Z.A. Tshona
Manager of Environmental Services Manager of Executive support services Manager of Environmental services
WaMaSa foundation Mr. F.W. van Aggelen
WaMaSa foundation; Co-founder
(west) (east)
Others Mr. D. Bradford Mr. S. Cheetman Mr. M. Erasmus Mr. C. Higgins Mr. B. Lourens Mr. K. Mitas Mr. J. Rabie Mr. R. Resandt Mr. C. van Sittert Mr. M. Snyder Mr. K. van Wijk
Desco E-waste; Owner Atlantic plastic; Manager Beaconvale Recylers; Owner Nampak Paper Recycling; Manager WastePlan; Managing member Consol Glass; Glass recycling manager (south region) Pelmanco; Manager Collect-A-Can; Manager Mr. Paper; Owner Sappi Waste Paper; Regional Manager Western Cape Robertson Recycling Centre; Owner
Reports of previous students Dolle ten, M., Hoeven van der, E., Kolk van der, D. (2007) Final report: minimizing the waste Giacobbi, A., Gvozdenovic, E., Smeets, N. (2008) Final report Braun, M. (2008) Report Waste Management Awareness Campaign BRWM
36 WASTE MANAGEMENT
th
17 OF DECEMBER
BRWM