Impact of biowaste collection on municipal solid waste management in Czechia. Michal Struk Masaryk University

Transcription

1 Impact of biowaste collection on municipal solid waste management in Czechia Michal Struk Masaryk University

2 Biowaste in general Biowaste biodegradable municipal waste Up to 50% of the municipal waste in EU Even more in developing countries (Bidlingmaier 2004) Separate biowaste collection can reduce this below 30% (Dahlén et al. 2007) Widely discussed issue in recent years Strong stress towards reduction and separation

3 What to do with biowaste Best not to produce Typically anaerobic digestion or composting Composting less expensive, suitable for green waste (individual at source + centralized industrial) AD more expensive, but can be used for energy conversion, etc., suitable for food leftovers No single optimal solution, case dependent

4 Biowaste in Czechia Historically biowaste was not a problem Strong agricultural tradition, biowaste was not perceived as a waste, but as a resource Industrial biodegradable waste is not a problem, today are producers clearly identified and strongly incentivized Municipal biodegradable waste is an issue law sets municipality as the producer and it has to cover the costs Shifting roles of gardens to ornamental purposes People do not utilize biowaste, resulting in excessive biowaste

5 Biowaste changes in Czechia People started to demand biowaste collection in recent years But municipalities often reluctant (changing current system, expensive) Questions of how to collect it + how to treat it? So far, main focus on green waste Food leftovers still to take care of In 2015 legislation requirements for each municipality to provide separate biowaste collection (many adopted earlier) Central bins, kerbside collection, civic amenity sites, home composters Biowaste mostly treated in composting plants (more suitable than AD)

6 Research purpose and data Main question was the impact of the introduction of separate biowaste collection on the municipal waste management of the municipalities What was the effect on biowaste amount? What was the effect on residual waste amount? What was the effect on waste expenditures? Data from (some data not available) Only municipalities that begun with biowaste included

7 Development of green municipal waste in Czechia Green municipal waste Tons Gradual increase since 2007, especially since 2014 Per capita amount increased from 10 kg in 2002 to 50 kg in 2015

8 Interannual change in collected biowaste with the biowaste collection Interannual change in collected biowaste per capita (kg) Collected biowaste per capita (kg) Individual municipalities (n = 43) Reported increase in collected biowaste (green municipal waste): 1/3 of municipalities less than 20 kg per capita 1/3 of municipalities kg per capita 1/4 of municipalities 50+ kg per capita

9 Difference between collected biowaste per capita before and after the biowaste collection Collected biowaste per capita (kg) Before biowaste collection With biowaste collection % 4360% 5343% 5901% 7709% 2170% 425% 268% 856% 163% 335% 1233% 297% 7% 303% 71% 238% 439% 41% 75% 2% 62% 9% Change in collected biowaste amount in individual municipalities (n = 23) Half of the municipalities reported % increase

10 Interannual difference in residual waste generation Collected residual waste per capita (kg) Before biowaste collection With biowaste collection 52,5% 38,5% 33,3% 29,6% 22,8% 22,2% 20,1% 14,1% 9,3% 8,2% 7,7% 7,4% 7,3% 7,1% 7,1% 6,8% 6,0% 5,5% 4,3% 3,7% 3,0% 2,5% 1,8% 0,9% 0,4% 1,3% 1,9% 4,8% 6,6% 10,5% Change in collected residual waste amount (n = 59) Half of the municipalities report up to 10% decrease of the residual waste Some even 30 50% decrease of the residual waste (but other factors can be present) Average share of biowaste in residual waste + biowaste was 3.5% before and 17.2% after the introduction of separate collection (with several over 30%)

11 Change in the reported residual municipal waste after the introduction of biowaste collection Change in residual waste per capita (kg) With biowaste collection Interannual change in collected residual waste amount after introduction of biowaste collection (n = 59) Half of the municipalities reported up to 25 kg per capita decrease Several municipalities had more than 50 kg per capita decrease

12 Change in municipal solid waste expenditure after the introduction of biowaste collection Relative expenditure change 350% 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 50% 100% Interannual change in municipal solid waste expenditure (%) Individual municipalities (n = 69) Half of the municipalities reported only ±10% change in waste expenditures Almost half reported a decrease in total waste expenditures

13 Comments Presented results cover only initial year of biowaste collection Usually at least 2 3 years until full potential, people need to adjust Several municipalities reported additional % increase in collected biowaste in the second year Strong effects in municipalities with no previous biowaste collection Positive effect also on residual waste amount Sometimes possible to reduce frequency of waste collection Usually little effect on expenditures in the first year Fixed contracts, pilot projects, savings are expected in later years

14 Conclusions After initial reluctance municipalities find separate collection of biowaste positive Generally decrease of residual waste with little effect on costs But experiences of individual municipalities vary greatly No single solution fits all Unique characteristics of municipalities need to be taken into account, waste collection needs to reflect the specifics Proper information campaigns are crucial Issues of utilizing produced compost remains

15 Thank you for your attention