National Waste Report 2018
National Waste Report 2018
National Waste Report 2018
19 NOVEMBER 2018
PREPARED FOR
Department of the Environment and Energy
PREPARED IN ASSOCIAT ION WITH
Report title National Waste Report 2018
Client Department of the Environment and Energy
Status Final
Authors Joe Pickin, Paul Randell, Jenny Trinh, Bill Grant
Data analysts Luke Richmond, Joe Pickin
Reviewers Christine Wardle, Luke Richmond
Project number P863
Report date 19 November 2018
Contract date 20 September 2017
Information current to 1 July 2018
Copyright Department of the Environment and Energy; Blue Environment Pty Ltd
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared for Department of the Environment and Energy in accordance with the terms and conditions
of appointment dated 20 September 2017, and is based on the assumptions and exclusions set out in our scope of work.
Information in this document is current as of 1 July 2018. While all professional care has been undertaken in preparing this
report, Blue Environment Pty Ltd cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report
by any third party.
The mention of any company, product or process in this report does not constitute or imply endorsement by Blue
Environment Pty Ltd.
© Department of the Environment and Energy; Blue Environment Pty Ltd
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Scope .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Data ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Layout of the report and the data ........................................................................................ 7
3. Recycling ........................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 What the data covers ......................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Recycling in 2016-17 ........................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Trends in recycling .............................................................................................................. 14
3.4 Exports of waste materials for recycling ............................................................................ 17
5. Disposal ............................................................................................................................. 22
5.1 What the data covers ......................................................................................................... 22
5.2 Waste disposal in 2016-17 ................................................................................................. 22
5.3 Trends in waste disposal .................................................................................................... 23
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 85
Figures
Figure 1 Waste generation by material category and stream, Australia 2016-17 (core
waste + ash) ......................................................................................................................... x
Figure 2 Trend in the generation of core waste plus ash by stream in total (left) and
per capita (right), Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17 ................................................................ xi
Figure 3 Trend in the recycling (left) and disposal (right) of core waste plus ash by
stream, Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17 ................................................................................ xi
Figure 4 Resource recovery and recycling rates of core waste by jurisdiction, 2016-17 ................ xii
Figure 5 Exports of waste materials for recycling by type from Australia to all
destinations, 2006-07 to 2017-18 ..................................................................................... xii
Figure 6 Generation and management method of core waste and ash material
categories, Australia 2016-17 ........................................................................................... xiii
Figure 7 Waste flows in Australia, 2016-17 (core wastes only; arrow thickness is
proportional to flow size) ................................................................................................. xiv
Figure 8 Summary of the scope of the National Waste Report 2018................................................ 3
Figure 9 Waste data flows and the National Waste Database .......................................................... 4
Figure 10 Waste generation by material category and stream, Australia 2016-17 ............................ 8
Figure 11 Trends in the generation of core waste (plus ash where shown) by stream in
total (left) and per capita (right), Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17 ....................................... 11
Figure 12 Trends in the generation of core waste by jurisdiction, Australia 2006-07 to
2016-17 .............................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 13 A generic recycling process, illustrating what is included in the data presented
in this section ..................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 14 Recycling of core waste by material category, jurisdiction and stream,
Australia 2016-17............................................................................................................... 14
Figure 15 Trends in the recycling of core waste (plus ash where shown) by stream in
total (left) and per capita (right), Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17 ....................................... 15
Figure 16 Trends in the recycling of core waste by jurisdiction, Australia 2006-07 to
2016-17 .............................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 17 Comparison of core waste recycling and exports of waste materials for
recycling from Australia to all destinations by material category, 2016-17...................... 17
Figure 18 Exports of waste materials for recycling by type from Australia to all
destinations, 2006-07 to 2017-18 ..................................................................................... 18
Figure 19 Exports of waste materials for recycling by type from Australia to China,
2006-07 to 2017-18 ........................................................................................................... 18
Figure 20 Energy recovery from core waste by management method, material category,
stream and jurisdiction, Australia 2016-17 ....................................................................... 19
Figure 21 Trends in energy recovery from core waste by jurisdiction, Australia 2006-07
to 2016-17 ......................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 22 A generic landfill process, illustrating the data presented in this section......................... 22
Figure 23 Disposal of core waste by material category, stream and jurisdiction, Australia
2016-17 .............................................................................................................................. 23
Tables
Table 1 Categories and types in the core waste data set................................................................. 1
Table 2 Indicators of data quality in the core 2016-17 state and territory data in this
report ................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3 Changes in the quantity of waste generated per capita, Australia 2006-07 to
2016-17 .............................................................................................................................. 10
Table 4 Core waste to landfill by jurisdiction, Australia 2016-17 (kt) and change since
2006-07 .............................................................................................................................. 23
Table 5 Descriptions of the waste sources included in the data compared in Figure 29 .............. 37
Table 6 Summary of state and territory waste policy settings ...................................................... 40
Table 7 Estimated proportions of households receiving kerbside services by
jurisdiction, 2016-17 .......................................................................................................... 52
Table 8 Number of local governments with a kerbside organics bin collection service,
July 2018 ............................................................................................................................ 53
Table 9 Common waste management infrastructure types and functions ................................... 57
Table 10 National product stewardship schemes, 2016-17 ............................................................. 62
Table 11 2016-17 return rate by material type ................................................................................ 63
Acknowledgements
We thank the states and territories for sharing their data and perspectives for this report.
We also thank the various associations, community groups and businesses for their contributions
and data, namely:
• Agsafe
• Australian Battery Recycling Initiative
• Australian Council of Recycling
• Australian Local Government Association
• Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (Mobile Muster)
• Australian Organics Recycling Association
• Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation
• Australian Renewable Energy Agency
• Boomerang Alliance
• FluoroCycle
• Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (Melbourne)
• National Waste and Recycling Industry Council
• Paintback
• Waste Management Association of Australia.
There was about 54 Mt of ‘core waste’ – that Waste to energy 2.0 2.4
managed within the waste and resource recovery Waste disposal 27 27
sector (2.2 t per capita). This comprised 13.8 Mt (560
kg per capita) of municipal solid waste (MSW) from Resource recovery rates
households and local government activities, 20.4 Mt Core waste plus ash 58% 58%
from the commercial and industrial (C&I) sector and
20.4 Mt from the construction and demolition (C&D) Core waste only 62% 62%
sector.
Figure 1 Waste generation by material category and stream, Australia 2016-17 (core waste + ash)
Core waste
Over the 11-year period for which data is available, waste generation increased by 3.9 Mt (6%).
Assessed on a per capita basis, waste declined by 10% over this timeframe (see Figure 2 overleaf).
MSW generation fell by 10% per capita and C&I waste by 8% per capita, while C&D waste grew by
2% per capita.
The quantities of waste recycled continue to increase (see Figure 3). Recycling of C&D waste grew by
3.4 Mt or 34% (13% per capita) over the 11 years, the most of any of the streams. MSW recycling
increased by 1.5 Mt or 31% (11% per capita). C&I waste recycling including ash expanded by 2.7 Mt
or 19% (1% per capita). Conversely, there is a trend to less waste disposal.
Figure 3 Trend in the recycling (left) and disposal (right) of core waste plus ash by stream,
Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17
In 2016-17, 21.7 Mt of waste was deposited in landfill, comprising 40% of the 54 Mt of core waste
generated.
In 2016-17, SA had the highest resource recovery1 and recycling rates, followed by Vic, NSW, WA,
ACT, Tas, Qld and NT (noting that the NSW figures are an estimate only). Across Australia, the
resource recovery rate was 62% and the recycling rate was 58%. The trends in recovery and recycling
rates are upwards (in 2006-07, the Australian resource recovery rate was 55% and the recycling rate
was 52%).
Exports of waste materials for recycling grew during 2017-18 despite the restrictions imposed by the
Chinese government.
Figure 5 Exports of waste materials for recycling by type from Australia to all destinations, 2006-
07 to 2017-18
Figure 6 Generation and management method of core waste and ash material categories,
Australia 2016-17
Compared with a selection of other developed economies, Australia generates more waste than the
average and the proportion it recycles is a little less than the average.
The value of activities in the waste and resource recovery sector in 2014-15 were about $15.5 billion,
comprising $12.6 billion from service provision and $2.9 billion from sale of recovered materials (CIE
2017).
1.1 Scope
Waste included
The report covers waste generated or managed in Australia. Different parts of the report cover different
types of waste. Most of the report focuses on core waste – materials generally managed by the waste and
resource recovery sector, comprising solid non-hazardous materials and hazardous waste2 including
liquids. Core waste material categories and types are listed in Table 1. Many of the trend charts shown in
the report also include ash from power generation, which is a large stream that could be recycled to a
greater extent. Some data on waste from mining, minerals processing, agriculture and fishing is included
in parts of the report, but is not comprehensive. A separate section addresses liquid waste. The report
excludes data on forestry residues, pre-consumer waste that is recycled as part of a production process
and uncontaminated soil (clean fill).
Table 1 Categories and types in the core waste data set
Waste categories Waste types included in this category
2 The report series Hazardous Waste in Australia considers hazardous waste in detail. A new version of this report will be released
in 2019.
Waste sources
In the core data set, waste sources are considered in three generating source streams: municipal solid
waste (MSW) from households and council operations; commercial and industrial (C&I) waste; and
construction and demolition (C&D) waste. For the first time, we have included an expanded scope of
reporting for the C&I waste stream to provide a limited report of waste generation from Australia’s
mining, minerals processing, agriculture and fisheries sectors3.
A separate section quantifies and considers waste collected by local governments. These wastes are not
additional to the core data set, but form part of it.
The term ‘resource recovery’ is used to encompass both recycling and energy recovery.
Most waste managed at a landfill is considered to have the fate ‘disposal’. However, many large landfills
capture methane-rich landfill gas and extract its energy value, typically through combustion to generate
electricity that is sold to the grid. This portion is back-calculated in the National Waste Reporting Tool
2016-17 by applying formulas from the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) system, and
allocated to the fate ‘energy recovery’.
Large amounts of hazardous waste are managed in facilities that treat the waste to reduce its hazard. The
fate of this waste includes disposal (to sewer and landfill) and some recycling. The quantities with these
different fates are not known and not included in this report.
What?
What wastes to report
Core waste
Masonry materials Waste generation
Metals
Masonry Materials
Who? Glass Fates
Data from which generators Paper Metals
& cardboard Pathways
Waste streams Plastics
Glass Recycled
Organics
MSW Paper
Textiles, leather, rubber Energy from
Short-term storage waste
(excl. tyres)
Household Plastics
Other
Stockpiling Resource
Local Mixed material waste
recovery
government
Hazardous Short-term storage
C&I For example: acids, alkalis,
inorganic chemicals, reactive
C&I core waste chemicals, paints, hazardous
organics, contaminated soils,
Electricity asbestos
Treatment Disposal
generation
as required
Non-core waste
Mining
(waste often managed on-site)
Minerals processing Ash (from electricity generation)
Red mud (from bauxite refining)
Agriculture and Brines (coal seam gas waste)
fisheries
Manure, bagasse, bycatch etc.
(ag & fisheries)
Liquid waste
(non-hazardous) Long-term storage
C&D
Sewage
Trade waste
Waste products
Where data is readily available
Units
Quantitative data is presented by weight, either in kilograms (kg), tonnes (t), thousands of tonnes
(kilotonnes or kt) or millions of tonnes (megatonnes or Mt).
To facilitate these manipulations, two Microsoft Excel workbooks were established that transform state
and territory data into a coherent national database using a set of manipulation steps endorsed by the
states and territories. These are the National Waste Reporting Tool 2016-17 and the Australian Hazardous
Waste Data Compilation 2016-17. The National Waste Reporting Tool 2016-17 is to be published online
together with the final version of this report. The outputs of this tool and previous versions of it are
combined into a National Waste Database, going back to 2006-07. It is planned that this database will also
be made available online, allowing users to undertake their own analyses via Microsoft Power BI. An
illustration of the data inputs to and outputs from the tool is given in Figure 9.
Data quality issues can arise in a number of ways. Many of these can be attributed to the difficulty and
cost in collecting the data and the fact that state and territory data systems have evolved largely
independently. The issues include the following:
1. Some data may be based on incomplete surveys or estimates converted through volumetric
measures or truck counts (see below).
2. Data encompassing the full scope of geography, waste categories, source streams and management
types is not always available. In these cases, a best estimate is made, often using data from other
states and territories.
3. Data is sometimes categorised in different ways by states and territories, requiring assumptions for
conversion to a common measure. Calculations performed to establish a common dataset are
included in the National Waste Reporting Tool 2016-17.
4. State and territory data systems focus on material managed in their jurisdiction and are often weak in
identifying material imported from other jurisdictions. This creates risks of double-counting and
incorrect estimates of recovery rates.
5. The composition of waste to landfill is estimated from periodic audits at a few landfills. These
snapshots will not be perfectly representative. In particular, they may miss waste types that are
deposited infrequently or seasonally.
6. Waste streams are not fully separate. Municipal collections often include some businesses, and
commercial collections often include some high-rise residential buildings. Recycling operators cannot
always report the sources of all their materials. Consequently, source stream data is not perfectly
accurate.
In recognition of the quality limitations, data is generally presented to only two or three significant figures.
Specific data quality issues are addressed in Section 17 and throughout the document.
Table 2 (overleaf) shows the characteristics of the data from each state and territory against these
indicators.
Several significant data gaps and quality issues, and how they were addressed in the report, are described
in the ‘Method’ chapter in Section 17.4.
Data in this report may differ from state and territory data
The methods used by the Australian Government for categorising and analysing data are not always the
same as those used by individual states and territories. Consequently, figures presented here may differ
from corresponding figures presented in state and territory reports. Some methodological approaches
likely to cause differences are described below.
• Some waste is generated in one state but transferred to another. For example, in recent years, large
amounts of waste have been transported from NSW to Qld for landfilling. States and territories
typically report only waste that is recovered or disposed within their boundaries but in this report,
where data is available, transfers are reassigned to the jurisdiction where the waste was generated.
• This report covers waste that is sometimes excluded from state and territory reports, such as
biosolids from sewage treatment plants, ash from power stations and other types of hazardous waste
(including hazardous liquid waste).
• This report uses national instead of state and territory data for some waste and some jurisdictions,
including plastics and biosolids.
• The states and territories do not distinguish between ‘management method’ and ‘fate’ of waste, and
do not count any waste to landfill as being used for energy recovery.
The data presentations are generated using Microsoft Power BI and are subject to that program’s
limitations. Chart labels are given by calendar year but refer to financial year. Hence ‘2015’ means ‘2014-
15’ and so on. It is planned that the data set will be made available online via the Department’s website so
that users can do their own analyses.
Data is generally presented to only two or three significant figures. In some cases, the figures presented
may appear inconsistent or incorrectly added because of this rounding.
Technical terms and abbreviations are explained in the glossary on pages vii to ix.
There was about 54 Mt of core waste (2.2 t per capita), comprising 13.8 Mt (560 kg per capita) MSW from
households and local government activities, 20.4 Mt from the C&I sector and 20.4 Mt from the C&D
sector.
The core waste data set excludes many C&I wastes that are managed on-site or are generated upstream in
the production system, such as primary production wastes. The Department seeks to expand the scope of
national waste reporting beyond the core waste traditionally included in state, territory and national
waste reporting6. Some additional material categories are included in the bar on the right of Figure 10.
7 This is not a complete set of agricultural waste, but is rather known quantities of potential interest to organic waste processors.
8This is 2016-17 waste ‘transfers’ data reported to the National Pollutant Inventory. The data set has good coverage of the mining
sector, the waste generators and the fate of waste reported, but these tonnages will not represent all waste generated by the
mining sector that is disposed on-site.
The proportional changes over the data period are tabulated below.
Table 3 Changes in the quantity of waste generated per capita, Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17
Total incl. ash Total excl. ash MSW C&I incl. ash C&I excl. ash C&D
Figure 12 (p.12) shows the generation trend by jurisdiction, this time focusing only on core waste9. There
were increases in all jurisdictions except the NT and WA. The falls in both these jurisdictions may be
attributable to data difficulties (see discussion in Section 17.4).
9 Ash is excluded because generation numbers are not accurately tallied by state and territory.
Figure 13 A generic recycling process, illustrating what is included in the data presented in this section
10This is not always easy. Materials may accumulate or be part-processed at one location before being moved to another, which
could be in another state or territory. Reporters may sometimes provide tonnages of materials received, so that small quantities
of residuals to landfill could be counted twice.
11There are currently problems with stockpiles, including unprocessed C&D waste in WA (several sites) and Vic (one large site
near Geelong). The materials in those stockpiles are absent from the data presented in this report.
12 Full data for all charts is given in Appendix A.
C&I
C&I
C&D
C&D
MSW
Figure 15 (overleaf) shows the trends in The waste management hierarchy recognises reuse of products
recycling by source stream in total and, on and materials as the highest order solution for waste, apart
the right, per capita. A long-term trend is from avoiding its generation. National waste reporting
distinguishes between:
apparent of increased recycling in each
stream. • Reuse: defined as reallocation of products or materials to a
new owner or purpose without reprocessing or
Over the 11-year timeframe, recycling of remanufacture, but potentially with some repair (e.g. resale
C&D waste grew by 3.4 Mt or 34% (13% of second-hand cars or clothing re-sold via opportunity
per capita), the most of any of the streams. shops or the repair of wooden transport pallets for resale).
Demolition waste recycling is a success • Waste reuse: reuse of a product or material that has
story in most jurisdictions, providing an entered a waste management facility (e.g. the sale of goods
alternative source of materials for road from a landfill or transfer station tip shop).
base and construction aggregates. MSW Reporting of all material and product reuse is impractical and is
recycling increased by 1.5 Mt or 31% (11% beyond the scope of this report. Waste reuse is within the scope
per capita). This can be attributed to of this report where data is available. States and territories were
improved access to recycling services, asked for data on tip shop numbers and throughput but most
including organics bins. C&I recycling were unable to respond as the data is not collected. Qld
including ash grew by 2.7 Mt or 19% (1% reported 18,673 tonnes of waste reuse in 2016-17.
per capita). Excluding ash, C&I grew by 1.7 While waste reuse tonnages are relatively low, the number of
Mt or 17% (-1% per capita). full-time equivalent jobs per thousand tonnes of material sold
per year is much higher for waste reuse than for recycling.
Figure 16 (p.16) shows trends in the Similarly, the dollar value of the materials sold is much higher.
quantities of core waste to recycling by
jurisdiction. Overall, a strong growth trend is apparent, with recycling increasing by 26% over the 11-year
timeframe. The increase was greatest in Vic (2.7 Mt). Proportionally, the largest increases have been in
Tas and WA, both of which increased recycling by about 50%. NSW recycling data for 2015-16 and 2016-
17 is an estimate only, extrapolated from 2014-15 data.
13 NSW recycling data for 2015-16 and 2016-17 is an estimate only, extrapolated from 2014-15 data.
Figure 17 Comparison of core waste recycling and exports of waste materials for recycling from Australia
to all destinations by material category, 2016-17
The chart shows a long-term increasing trend in export of waste materials for recycling, except for a
decline between 2013-14 and 2015-16 associated mainly with scrap metals. No effect of the Chinese
restrictions is visible in this chart. Rather, in 2017-18 exports of waste materials for recycling grew by 97 kt
14The list includes some materials that may be used overseas for energy recovery, for example waste tyres. It excludes 41
hazardous waste codes that are believed to be exported primarily for treatment rather than recycling. The excluded hazardous
waste represents about 3% of waste export tonnages. More information about this waste will be included in the forthcoming
Hazardous Waste in Australia 2019.
Figure 18 Exports of waste materials for recycling by type from Australia to all destinations, 2006-07 to
2017-18
Figure 19 shows exports of waste materials for recycling from Australia to China over the same time
period. On this chart the impact of the China restrictions in 2017-18 is readily apparent – exports of scrap
metals fell by 23%; plastics by 78%; and paper and cardboard by 39%. Overall, between 2016-17 and
2017-18 exports of waste materials for recycling to China decreased from 1.25 million tonnes (Mt) to 0.75
Mt, a decline of 40%.
Exports to China peaked in 2008-09. Most of the subsequent decline has been due to falling exports of
scrap metal.
Figure 19 Exports of waste materials for recycling by type from Australia to China, 2006-07 to 2017-18
The two trend charts suggest that exports of waste materials for recycling were strongly affected by the
Chinese restrictions but the displaced materials mostly found new export destinations. More detailed
analysis of the data shows this occurred for both paper and plastics, the material types most affected by
the Chinese restrictions. In both cases, exports increased to other destinations, mainly Indonesia,
Vietnam, India, Malaysia and Thailand. Despite its restrictions and reduced Australian imports, in 2017-18
China remained Australia’s biggest destination for exports of waste materials for recycling.
Figure 20 Energy recovery from core waste by management method, material category, stream and
jurisdiction, Australia 2016-17
C&I
C&D
Landfill
MSW
Energy from
waste facility
15Excludes agriculture and forestry biomass used for generating energy, such as sugarcane bagasse and timber mill sawdust. Also
excludes energy recovery from wastewater.
16 Some of these materials may be overlooked in the data set as they can be derived from recycling residues.
17 Not included in the charts in this section because of inadequate coding in state and territory hazardous waste data.
18 Included with recycling data because the proportion used for energy recovery is unknown.
There is considerable interest within government and industry in expanding energy recovery from waste –
see the discussion on waste technologies in Section 15.3.
Photo 4 Computers and lead acid batteries collected for reprocessing at a resource recovery centre in
Canberra
19At landfills that are small or far from the grid, landfill methane is sometimes collected and flared. When this occurs, it is usually
because it was required by the regulator to reduce odour or to generate credits under the Emissions Reduction Fund.
Figure 22 A generic landfill process, illustrating the data presented in this section
C&I
C&D
MSW
Supplementing the disposal data, Table 4 shows, for each state and territory, total waste to landfill (L1
minus L2 in Figure 22). A total of 21.7 Mt of core waste was deposited in landfill, comprising 40% of the 54
Mt generated.
Table 4 Core waste to landfill by jurisdiction, Australia 2016-17 (kt) and change since 2006-07
ACT NT NSW Qld SA Tas Vic WA Austr.
kt kt kt kt kt kt kt kt Mt
MSW 104 123 2,137 1,809 392 174 1,571 1,085 7.39
C&I waste 190 49 2,995 2,004 123 240 1,125 901 7.63
C&D waste 180 132 1,969 2,312 151 39 1,549 374 6.71
Total 474 305 7,101 6,124 666 453 4,245 2,360 21.73
% change since 2006-07 125% -37% 14% 21% -14% -8% -20% -40% -3%
Note: figures may not add exactly to the totals due to rounding
In Figure 25, disposal trends are shown by jurisdiction including only core waste (ash data by jurisdiction is
not accurately known). Despite strong population growth, total disposal quantities have fallen slightly due
to declining per capita rates of waste to landfill. The individual jurisdiction charts suggest varying results.
ACT disposal quantities increased strongly over the last two years of the data set due to a program of
forced demolition of about 1,000 houses contaminated with ‘Mr Fluffy’ asbestos insulation. The strong fall
in WA waste disposal is associated with the C&D waste data issue discussed in Section 17.4. In most other
jurisdictions the trend is fairly stable.
These headline values include ash, but in the remainder of this section resource recovery and recycling
rates exclude ash because the quantities are not accurately known for each state and territory. All the
reported resource recovery and recycling rates also exclude hazardous waste sent for treatment, as this
cannot be accurately allocated to recycling, energy recovery or disposal.
Figure 26 shows the estimated resource recovery and recycling rates for each state and territory. The
rankings on both measures are identical. SA is the highest ranked jurisdiction, with a resource recovery
rate of 82% and a recycling rate of 78%. Next, in order, are Vic, NSW20, WA, ACT21, Tas, Qld and NT. Across
Australia, the resource recovery rate was 62% and the recycling rate was 58%.
Figure 26 Resource recovery and recycling rates of core waste by jurisdiction, 2016-17
Figure 27 (overleaf) shows resource recovery and recycling rates by source stream. Recovery from the
C&D waste stream is highest, followed by C&I waste and lastly MSW. Less than half of MSW is recycled.
20 NSW recycling data for 2016-17 is an estimate only, extrapolated from 2014-15 data.
21Resource recovery and recycling rates in ACT were substantially lowered by the disposal of large quantities of asbestos
contaminated waste from its ‘Mr Fluffy’ demolition program.
Australia’s resource recovery rate (excluding ash) rose from about 55% in 2006-07 to 62% in 2016-17. The
2016-17 value is unchanged from 2014-15 and slightly lower than 2015-16 but, given data uncertainties,
these values are best considered unchanged.
Figure 28 Resource recovery rate trends of core waste by jurisdiction and stream, Australia 2006-07 to
2016-17
Figure 29 shows the generation and management methods of the core waste categories and ash
generated in Australia in 2016-17. The largest categories were masonry materials, organics, ash and
hazardous waste. Figure 30 (overleaf) shows the trends in generation and management for the most
important categories.
In the following sections, key materials are discussed in turn. The discussion on the organics category is
more detailed and covers a broader scope of wastes, so is examined last.
Figure 29 Generation and management method of core waste and ash material categories, Australia
2016-17
Figure 30 (overleaf) shows the trend in masonry waste generation and management methods from 2006-
07 to 2016-17. Waste generation increased by about 18% (15 to 17 Mt) while the recycling rate increased
strongly from 61% to 72% (8.9 to 12.3 Mt).
There are good markets for recycled concrete aggregate for use as road base, aggregates and hardstand
areas. The cement content in recycled concrete aggregate means that the aggregate ‘packs down’ well
and forms a harder and more stable hardstand than pure virgin aggregate. There are also good markets
for recycled bricks including for reuse in construction (when renovating older buildings to match the
existing bricks) and when crushed into aggregate. Asbestos contamination risks need to be recognised and
managed.
Figure 30 shows the trend in ash waste generation and management method from 2006-07 to 2016-17.
Ash generation fell 14% over the period, reflecting the decline in coal-fired power generation in Australia,
which fell from 187 to 162 terawatt hours per year over the same period (DoEE 2018). Australia’s ash
recycling rate increased significantly from 30% to 43% (4.3 to 5.3 Mt).
Figure 30 shows the trend in hazardous waste generation and The cost of asbestos waste
management method from 2006-07 to 2016-17. The generation of The CIE (2017) estimated that in 2015
hazardous waste increased by about 26% (5.0 to 6.3 Mt), while asbestos waste reduced quality of life
the recycling rate decreased from 34% to 27%. More than half the in Australia by the equivalent of
increase in the quantity of hazardous waste was due to greater 5,394 disability-adjusted life years
quantities of material (mostly soil) contaminated with asbestos. and reduced productivity by $42.5m.
Figure 30 shows the trend in generation and management method of paper and cardboard. Generation
was stable with an increase of around 1% over the period which equates to a per capita decrease of about
15%. This decline is partly caused by the digitisation of information. For example, industry analysis
suggests that newspaper circulation has declined by about 10% per year over the last decade
(IndustryEdge 2018).
The recycling rate decreased from 66% to 60% (3.7 to 3.4 Mt) with landfilling rates increasing from 34% to
40%.
22Due to the complex and highly varied treatment processes that occur in hazardous waste treatment facilities, the fate
proportions are not readily calculable.
23Tyres are reported within hazardous waste because they pose a fire hazard and are a ‘controlled waste’ under the National
Environment Protection (Movement of Controlled Waste between States and Territories) Measure.
7.5 Metals
In 2016-17 about 5.5 Mt, or 226 kg per capita, of metal waste was generated. The recycling rate of 90%
was higher than any other material category. Metal recycling is well-established in every state and
territory but has suffered from unstable global prices, putting financial pressure on the scrap metals
industry, which depends on export markets. At the time of writing prices are recovering. Some toxic
metals, such as cadmium and cobalt, and rare and precious metals, such as gold and palladium, are still
being landfilled in composite material products such as electronic waste. The tonnages are low but the
potential environmental impacts and value of the lost resources are high.
Figure 30 shows the trend in metals waste generation and management method from 2006-07 to 2016-
17. Waste generation increased by about 38% (4.0 to 5.5 Mt) and the recycling rate increased from 86% to
90% (3.5 Mt to 5.0 Mt).
7.6 Plastics
About 2.5 Mt or 103 kg per capita of plastic waste was generated in 2016-17. Just 12% was recycled with
87% sent to landfill and 1% sent to an energy from waste facility.
Figure 30 shows the trend in generation and management method of plastics from 2006-07 to 2016-17.
Generation was stable over the period which, with a growing population, equates to a per capita decrease
of 16%. ‘Light-weighting’ of packaging is a likely cause.
With recycling rates at just 12%, plastics may be ‘low hanging fruit’ for improving overall resource
recovery rates. Where the value of plastics is too low for recycling, either in Australia or off-shore,
processing into refuse-derived fuels offers an alternative. Like metals, plastics recycling has been affected
7.7 Glass
About 1.1 Mt or 44 kg per capita of glass waste was generated in 2016-17, with 57% being recycled.
Figure 30 shows the trend in generation and management method of glass from 2006-07 to 2016-17.
Glass packaging is losing market share to plastic, resulting in a strong decline in glass waste. The quantity
generated fell by about 14% or 180,000 tonnes between 2006-07 and 2016-17. Recycling rates have
remained between 54% and 61%.
This recycling rate is reasonably good given the relatively low commodity value of glass per tonne
compared to plastic or cardboard, and the difficulty of recovery from mixed waste loads. Waste sorting
tends to break glass into small pieces that contaminate paper and cardboard recycling and are not easily
recoverable, although larger recycling plants now have technologies to deal with these small fractions.
Alternative markets for recycled glass, such as in road base, remain under-developed and under-utilised in
Australia and there is a significant opportunity for expansion.
7.8 Organics
In most of this report, including Figure 29 and Figure 30, the material category ‘organics’ refers to the core
waste types of food, garden organics and timber. It excludes paper, cardboard, textiles, rubber and
leather, and hazardous organics, which are discussed in separate core material categories.
In this section, however, organics are considered more broadly, covering the core organic wastes and also:
• organic wastes reported within the hazardous waste material category – mostly biosolids, grease trap
sludge and waste from abattoirs and tanneries
• ‘non-core’ organic wastes from the agriculture and fisheries sectors, including manure, sugarcane
bagasse, cotton gin trash and fisheries wastes.
Available bagasse
C&I
(agriculture
& fisheries)
Feedlot manures
MSW
Food organics
Almost all organics can be recycled via the composting process which generates products that improve
soil productivity and health. Most compost is absorbed into the ‘urban amenity’ market, but agricultural
markets are of increasing importance. Reducing and managing both gross and chemical contamination is
the key issue to enabling higher rates of organics composting. Some organics, such as food waste, are
suited to anerobic digestion processes, which generate electricity and produce a useful ‘digestate’ product
Food waste
In this sub-section, based on the data available, food waste comprises:
1. the core food waste discarded from households and businesses
2. food-derived waste in the core ‘hazardous waste’ category – that is, grease trap sludge and wastes
from abattoirs and tanneries.
This definition excludes food wastes generated on-farm, such as those in Photo 8, and in many upstream
food processing operations. Data on these wastes are not readily available.
Photo 8 Farm waste like these bananas are not included in this data
Figure 32 shows the generation and
management methods of food
waste. The bar on the left shows all
recorded food waste data (1 and 2
above); the bar on the right shows
only core non-hazardous food
waste.
Figure 33 Resource recovery and recycling rates for core waste by material category, 2016-17
Figure 34 Comparison of annual waste generation and fate per capita, Australia and selected OECD
countries (excluding hazardous waste, ash and landfill gas energy recovery)
Figures are indicative only. Data is compiled for different years (2014 to 2016-17) and sources due to limitations on
data availability. Data sources: 1 This project; 2 Danish EPA (2017); 3 2016 data from Statistics Norway (2018); 4
2014 data from Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (2018) Official statistics tables; 5 Based on 2015
data from US EPA (2017 & 2018).
Table 5 describes the wastes included in each of the totals shown. Consistency has been sought across
these definitions but there is no international standard on how to report data, and some differences
remain.
Australia Total solid waste includes MSW, C&I and C&D waste. Excludes ash from coal fired power
generation, hazardous waste and energy recovery from landfill gas recovery (not applied by
other countries).
Denmark Includes waste from households, service sector, industry, building and construction, power, gas,
and district heating supply, agriculture, hunting and forestry and other waste from C&I activities.
Excludes soil, imports and exports.
Norway Includes non-hazardous waste from construction, households, manufacturing, service industries
and other or unspecified sources. Includes wet organic waste, park and gardening waste, wood
waste, paper and cardboard, glass, e-waste, concrete and bricks, cinders, dust bottom ash and
fly ash, plastics, rubber, textiles, discarded vehicles, mixed waste and other. Excludes polluted
soil, sludges, hazardous waste or radioactive waste.
United Includes non-hazardous waste from MSW, C&I and C&D sources. Includes metallic waste, glass,
Kingdom paper & cardboard, rubber, plastics, wood, textiles, discarded equipment (e-waste), discarded
vehicles, batteries & accumulators, animal & mixed food waste, vegetal waste, animal faeces,
urine & manure, household & similar wastes, mixed & undifferentiated materials, sorting
residues and C&D mineral waste. Excludes acid, alkaline or saline waste, chemical waste,
combustion waste, common sludges, dredging spoils, health care & biological waste, industrial
effluent sludges, mineral waste from waste treatment, stabilised waste, other mineral waste,
sludges & liquid waste from waste treatment, soils, spent solvents, used oils, waste containing
PCB.
United States Includes household, commercial, business and institutional and C&D waste.
The rate at which the subject wastes were generated was between 1.7 and 2.0 t per capita per year for
Australia, Denmark, Norway and the UK but the US was notably higher at 2.5 t per capita.
Disposal rates varied widely. Denmark disposed less than 100 kg per capita. Norway and the UK were
similar, disposing around 400 kg per capita. Australia was significantly higher, disposing around 800 kg per
capita and the US disposed by far the most, at around 1,300 kg per capita.
Corresponding to the varying disposal rates, energy recovery rates are very different. Norway and
Denmark recovered energy from 700 and 500 kg of waste per capita respectively, reflecting their reliance
on thermal energy from waste. The US recovered energy from around 100 kg of waste per capita.
Australia was much lower, recovering energy from just 8 kg of waste per capita. There are currently no
large-scale energy from waste facilities dedicated to core wastes in Australia.
Recycling rates across the selected jurisdictions were between 1.1 and 1.3 t per capita. Norway was
notably lower at 0.8 t per capita. The UK had the highest recycling rate of the five countries at 74% 24
closely followed by Denmark at 68%. Australia’s recycling rate of 62% was the next highest followed by
the US at a much lower 45%. Norway had the lowest recycling rate of 41%, which may be linked to its high
rates of energy recovery.
Recovery rates (recycling and energy recovery combined) were by far the highest in Denmark at 94%.
Norway and the UK followed at 78% and 75% respectively. Australia’s recovery rate for this scope of waste
types was 63%. The US resource recovery rate was significantly lower at 49%.
24The UK figure is for ‘recycling and other recovery’ and includes reprocessing of organic materials (e.g. composting, anaerobic
digestion, etc.)
Australia’s 2016-17 MSW data was adjusted to be as consistent as possible with the Eunomia definitions.
This included removing all masonry materials from the MSW stream.
Figure 35 compares the adjusted per capita MSW generation in Australia with other nations as published
in Eunomia (2017).
The average MSW waste generation across the reported countries was around 500 kg per capita.
Australia’s adjusted MSW waste generation was about 540 kg per capita or 9% higher than the average.
The average MSW recycling rate was about 50%. Australia’s adjusted MSW recycling rate was about 45%.
Australia’s MSW generation and recycling rates are not far from the average of the countries compared.
25To obtain a consistent definition, Eunomia (2017) excluded C&D waste, C&I waste, incinerator bottom ash, contamination
rejects within dry recycling and biowaste, wood waste that is incinerated rather than recycled.
Table 6 (overleaf) summarises selected elements of state and territory policy frameworks, considering:
• Landfill levies – most jurisdictions require landfills to pay some amount to the state for each tonne of
waste deposited in landfill. The additional fee pushes up the cost of landfill, increasing the
attractiveness of recycling. Often some of the collected funds are used to fund recycling
infrastructure, programs or governance organisations. The table specifies levy rates operational at
the time of writing.
• Strategy document – most jurisdictions have a strategy that guides government organisations and
industries in improving waste management over the strategy period. In many cases, strategies set
targets for resource recovery or other waste performance indicators. Table 6 specifies the strategy
document and any targets within it.
• The table lists the status in each jurisdiction of various important or topical waste-related programs
- does the jurisdiction require a deposit to be paid on drink containers to discourage littering?
- has the jurisdiction implemented bans on disposing of any wastes in landfill (apart from liquid
and hazardous waste)?
- has the jurisdiction implemented a ban on single-use plastic bags?
- does the jurisdiction operate a tracking system that requires producers, transporters and
receivers of hazardous waste to inform the environmental regulator of each movement of
hazardous waste?
- does the jurisdiction provide a system for householders to dispose of waste chemicals locally?
Landfill levy (2018-19) Strategy document (including targets) Other (please see table notes for key)
ACT MSW $96.05/t ACT Waste Management Strategy: Towards a Container deposit scheme Introduced June 2018
sustainable Canberra 2011-2025.
C&I $155.05/t Landfill bans TVs & computers
Waste generation grows less than population.
Mixed C&I with >50% $211.55/t Expand reuse of goods. Waste sector is carbon Single-use shopping bag ban Introduced Nov 2011
recyclable material neutral by 2020. Double energy generated from
(The dollar figures are prices rather waste and recover waste resources for carbon
Hazardous waste tracking
than levy amounts, as ACT owns the sequestration.
landfill and sets fees) Recovery rate increases to over:
Free drop-off at two
• 85% by 2020 Household chemical collections
facilities
• 90% by 2025.
NSW Metro area: NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery
Strategy 2014-21. Container deposit scheme Introduced Dec 2017
• Waste $141.20/t
• Virgin excavated $127.08/t By 2021–22:
natural material • reduce waste generation per capita Landfill bans
• Shredder floc $70.60/t • increase recycling rates for:
Regional area: - MSW from 52% (in 2010–11) to 70%
- C&I waste from 57% to 70% Single-use shopping bag ban
• Waste $81.30/t
- C&D waste from 75% to 80%
• Virgin excavated $73.17/t
natural material • increase landfill waste diversion from 63% (in
Hazardous waste tracking
• Shredder floc $40.65/t 2010-11) to 75%
• establish or upgrade 86 drop-off facilities or
Coal washery rejects $14.80/t CleanOut events and
services for household problem wastes
Household chemical collections Community Recycling
• continue to reduce litter items.
Centres
NT No landfill levy Waste Management Strategy for the Northern Container deposit scheme Introduced Jan 2012
Territory 2015-2022 Landfill bans
Single-use shopping bag ban Introduced Sept 2011
No specific targets are included in the strategy. Hazardous waste tracking
Household chemical collections
Waste management is an important part of building a sustainable city. The ACT is one of the leading
jurisdictions in Australia, with over 70% of our waste being used and recycled. However the recovery
rate has plateaued over the last few years (excluding the loose fill asbestos insulation waste from Mr
Fluffy houses).
Key waste management initiatives delivered in 2017-18 in the ACT are outlined below.
• The ACT Waste Feasibility Study submitted its findings to the Government in 2017. The
recommendations include a Roadmap, which is designed to divert over 170,000 tonnes of waste
from landfill and increase the ACT’s resource recovery rate to 87% by 2025.
• The pilot of a green waste collection service commenced in April 2017, and the program is being
progressively rolled out across the ACT. All suburbs will have access to the service by July 2019.
• The ACT Container Deposit Scheme commenced on 30 June 2018, encouraging the community
to recycle while reducing litter and the number of containers going to landfill. Like other
schemes operating around the country, people can return eligible beverage containers and
receive a 10 cent refund.
• ACT NoWaste began administering the new Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act
2016 (the Act), which commenced on 1 July 2017. The objects of the Act are to manage waste
according to a hierarchy that minimises waste reduction and maximises reuse; promotes best
practice waste management; supports innovation and investment; and promotes responsibility
for waste reduction.
Some challenges were also encountered with the Chinese Government’s tightening of conditions for
the importation of recyclable waste products coming into effect mid-way through 2017-18. This
impacted the Australian recycling sector. For the ACT, the major impact was reflected in reduced
domestic prices for recyclable mixed paper and mixed plastics, which is a relatively small percentage
of ACT waste that is recycled. The ACT Government was actively engaged in the national waste
policy response through its representation at the Meeting of Environment Ministers.
In 2018-19 the ACT will continue to deliver its wide-ranging waste management agenda including:
• the Territory wide roll-out of green bins for garden organics
• the roll out of the container deposit scheme to reduce public litter and increase recycling
• developing options for a food and garden organics recycling solution and a food waste
avoidance campaign, in line with the recommendations of the waste feasibility study
• continuing the licensing of ACT waste facilities and registration of waste transporters, in line
with the Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act
• commencing the development of a robust information technology (IT) infrastructure to
underpin the new waste regulatory framework
• issuing an updated Development Control Code for Best Practice Waste Management, and
undertaking industry education and compliance
• developing a waste-to-energy policy for the ACT
• contributing to the national waste policy agenda.
The NSW EPA has been developing, and transitioning to, a rigorous method of measuring recycling
performance and waste generation. This new method will ensure the highest reliability and validity
of NSW recycling performance and form a national benchmark for accurate waste and recycling
data. NSW is committed to sharing its data quality and calculation framework, and to leading a
national discussion around improving the quality of measuring recycling performance and waste
generation. The EPA has leveraged its waste regulatory framework to prepare quality reliable
recycling and waste generation data by:
• mandating data collection and the use of weighbridges for waste recovery facilities in New
South Wales
• incentivising resource recovery and recycling by effectively applying the waste levy
• regulating strict stockpile limits on resource recovery facilities to ensure waste is managed
appropriately and efficiently.
Improving data collection, monitoring and analysis has been a focus in the
Territory during 2017-18, with general improvement in timeliness and accuracy
of reporting from licensed operators. The variations seen in the NT waste data
is likely partly due to inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the data is collected and
reported by licensees, and lack of timely reporting. Extreme weather events in
the form of cyclones and flooding have also likely affected waste trends in the NT in the past few
years. Tropical cyclones Lam and Nathan impacted the Arnhem land coast in February and March
2015 respectively, while Cyclone Marcus affected Darwin and surrounds during March 2018.
Flooding (and the evacuation of the town) has occurred in Nauiyu (Daly River) in December 2015 and
January 2018. Tracking and reporting of waste during emergency situations is challenging and the NT
continues to refine its approach to emergency waste management. Improved reporting systems for
waste disposed to landfill following emergency events will be a priority for 2018-19.
The development of an electronic waste tracking system, suitable for use by both industry and
regulators, remains a priority. It is anticipated that significant progress will be made during 2018-19
on implementation of this system, and it will significantly improve the quality of data collected by
providing a consistent approach.
Facilitating partnerships between industry and regional councils to improve access to waste
management schemes (such as the container deposit and various product stewardship schemes) is
also a current focus. Collaboration with regional councils is continuing, with the aim to improve
waste segregation and management. Engaging with local community, local government and industry
stakeholders through the NT Environment Grants program provides exciting opportunities to identify
innovative approaches to waste management, especially in more remote communities.
Queensland increased its recycling effort for household and business wastes
by almost 320,000 tonnes, resulting in close to 4.4 million tonnes of materials
diverted away from landfill.
As its population grows and consumption increases, effective, fit-for-purpose waste avoidance and
resource recovery pathways and solutions need to continue to be developed.
In 2018, the Queensland Government introduced reforms to combat plastic litter and improve
recycling rates in Queensland, with the introduction of a container refund scheme, a ban on the
supply of lightweight single-use plastic shopping bags and announcing the development of a new
The scheme will help tackle the problem of beverage container litter, which is largely associated with
consumption in open air settings such as parks and beaches. At the same time, the scheme will
improve Queensland’s recycling performance, particularly in 44 local government areas that will
enjoy recycling for the first time. Importantly, the scheme will enable our regional communities and
businesses to share in the economic benefits the scheme will deliver.
The lightweight single-use plastic shopping bag ban will also significantly reduce the amount of
plastic litter in the environment. To complement the ban, Queensland is working with retailers to
adopt a voluntary phase-out of thicker single-use ‘boutique’-style plastic shopping bags. 900 million
of these bags are supplied annually by retailers across Australia.
Plastic pollution is a growing problem and one that Queensland is confronting. In 2018, work
continued on a plastic pollution reduction plan. Working with representatives from academia,
science and research centres, environmental groups, industry sectors and local government, the
reduction plan will identify and coordinate a strategic approach to reducing plastic pollution.
The centrepiece of the new waste strategy is the waste disposal levy. An avoidable charge, the waste
disposal levy will be instrumental in changing waste management behaviour and practices in
Queensland. It will reduce the incentive to dispose of waste to landfill, make material that is
currently disposed of more attractive to be diverted as a vital feedstock for the state’s biofutures
industries and create new industries that manufacture products using recycled content.
The waste disposal levy will provide a much-needed source of funding for programs to support
Queenslanders, local government, business and industry in reducing the amount of waste they
generate and increase recycling, and for the development of new markets and products. The levy
will also provide a disincentive to the practice of long-distance transport of waste for disposal in
Queensland.
The Queensland Government will continue to introduce a range of initiatives for emerging priorities
such as food and organic waste. Already a number of pilot projects are taking innovative approaches
to divert these wastes away from landfill.
The SA Government has taken other actions towards improving certainty, innovation and growth in
the waste and resource recovery sector and the broader green economy including:
• funding initiatives for local government waste and resource recovery infrastructure, waste
education, new solutions for problematic wastes and to help recycle waste into more valuable
commodities, accelerating new business opportunities and job creation in the resource recovery
sector
• $0 levy for packaged asbestos waste to promote its safe and lawful disposal
• a levy for shredder floc currently at metropolitan Adelaide $62/tonne and non-metropolitan
Adelaide $31/tonne.
Green Industries SA’s role as an investor and catalyst for positive change through policy advocacy,
has been central to discussions on how the affected sectors can adapt through longer-term
structural adjustments to a more sustainable circular economy business model with increased local
remanufacturing.
The Environment Protection (Waste Reform) Amendment Act 2016 provides the necessary
underpinning for the EPA to be able to better tackle illegal dumping and achieve a suite of waste
reforms.
The greatest opportunities in waste management exist in diverting more material from waste
currently destined for landfill, and new technology that can make marginal recycling viable.
The future should involve less waste generated per person, increased diversion of resources from
landfill and a continued emphasis on recirculating material in the economy. Facilitating this requires:
• better harmonisation of waste practices and policies in place across all states and territories
• extended producer responsibility in place for a broad range of problematic wastes involving
reliable long term, industry funded strategies
In July 2018, partly in response to the Chinese import restrictions, the Minister for Environment
convened a Waste and Resource Recovery Round Table. Participants discussed broad waste
management priorities for Tasmania, including reducing packaging waste, working with industry
leaders to boost consumer awareness and education, increasing recycling capacity, boosting demand
through market development, and bringing focus to particular priority waste streams (organics,
hazardous waste, industrial waste, and construction and demolition waste).
At the Round Table the Government committed to work with local government, industry and the
community to develop a new waste strategy for Tasmania - the Waste Action Plan. Targeted
consultation on the new strategy will occur in the latter part of 2018 and into early 2019 with public
consultation to follow.
In 2017 the Tasmanian Government provided funding for an investigation into a model framework
for a state-based Container Refund Scheme. The consultant’s report on a potential CRS model was
released in July 2018 and will be considered as part of the development of the Waste Action Plan. An
internal EPA review of Tasmania’s lightweight plastic shopping bag ban was carried out in 2017,
which will also help to help to inform parts of the new waste strategy.
The Tasmanian Government is also rolling out a series of 2018 election commitments on littering,
dumping and recycling. This includes:
• moving towards making Tasmania the cleanest and least-littered state by 2023
• developing a strategic collaborative program between land managers, councils and community
corrections to clean up littering and dumping hotspots
• increasing penalties for littering and dumping
• improving litter and dumping reporting through the development of an app
• working with local government to improve resource recovery outcomes
• increasing funding to Keep Australia Beautiful – Tasmania.
Like other Australian jurisdictions, Victoria’s waste and resource recovery system has experienced
significant challenges from recent disruptions in global recycling markets. In particular, our recycling
system has faced major financial and operational challenges due to the sharp fall in commodity
prices for mixed paper, plastic and cardboard.
To address these challenges, the Victorian Government released the Recycling Industry Strategic
Plan. The actions included in the plan will support industry, minimise costs for households, and
improve the resilience of Victoria's recycling sector. The plan commits to developing a circular
economy policy by 2020, which will build on Victoria's existing waste and resource recovery
strategies, with a focus on waste minimisation and sustainable production and consumption.
The implementation of this plan is supported by a $37 million package that includes:
• boosting the Resource Recovery Infrastructure Fund, which leverages private investment in
recycling infrastructure, to over $21 million
• delivering an education campaign to improve Victorians’ understanding of household recycling
• expanding the existing market development program to identify new uses for priority waste
materials
• leveraging government procurement to drive demand for recycled materials
• funding for the circular economy policy.
The plan includes a $13 million support package to help councils and industry in the short term,
following China's recycling import restrictions.
Underpinning these investments, the Waste and Resource Recovery Planning Framework ensures
Victoria has the right infrastructure to maximise recycling and safely manage residual waste. The
Statewide Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan, seven regional implementation plans
and supporting strategies for organics, education and market development provide a long-term
roadmap of waste and resource recovery infrastructure needs in Victoria.
The Victorian Government is committed to reducing the risk of fire at waste and resource recovery
facilities in response to several recycling facility fires in 2016 and 2017. The new Waste Management
Policy (Combustible Recyclable and Waste Materials) enables EPA to continuously monitor and
regulate these sites to minimise the risk of fire. In August 2017, the government established the
Resource Recovery Facilities Audit Taskforce to actively work with resource recovery facilities
through inspections to improve their compliance with this policy. In response to this Taskforce’s
findings, the government released its Action Plan: Managing fire risk at resource recovery facilities.
The Victorian Government has banned electronic waste (or ‘e-waste’) from landfill and specified how
e-waste must be managed. The new rules take effect on 1 July 2019. To support the rules, the
government is rolling out an e-waste collection network that will provide the Victorian community
with access to safe e-waste disposal points. This will be complemented by an education and
communication campaign to increase community and industry awareness of e-waste and what to do
with it.
The construction and demolition (C&D) waste sector has been particularly responsive to these
increases. The sector recently reported surpassing the Western Australian Waste Strategy C&D
diversion target of 75% by 2020. This reported performance is impacted by growing stockpiles of
processed and unprocessed C&D materials due to weak demand for recycled products.
The growing stockpiles of unprocessed C&D waste have had a distorting effect on Western
Australia’s waste generation and recycling statistics.
The Government is encouraging the use of recycled C&D products in civil projects such as road
construction and is working with Main Roads to trial the use of 25,000 tonnes in major road projects.
The municipal sector has fallen well below the State’s Waste Strategy diversion targets.
Improvements to source separation and the adoption of organic recovery systems – including food
organics and garden organics (FOGO) - are on the increase and will be key to increasing the amount
of municipal waste diverted from landfill.
The State Government has committed over $9.5 million in funding through the Better Bins program
to encourage local governments to implement source separated collection systems based on three
bins. Encouragingly, local governments that have adopted the Better Bins preferred FOGO model
are achieving amongst the highest waste diversion rates in the State.
A Waste Taskforce was established with representatives from industry, local government, State and
local government, and the community. The Taskforce was established to provide advice to the
Minister for Environment on how to support and develop a sustainable and productive recycling
sector in Western Australia.
In 2016-17, local governments collected a total of around 9.7 Mt of residual waste from kerbside bin
services. This quantity is broken down by service type in Figure 38. More than half of the bin
contents collected by local governments was sent to landfill.
The Australian Standard mobile bin colour is a dark-green or black body with a red lid for garbage, a
yellow lid for recycling and a lime green lid for organic waste (AS4123.7-2006). Standardised bins
help to ensure they are correctly used as people move between suburbs and states. Many local
governments still use bin colours that are inconsistent with the standard.
Table 7 shows the estimated kerbside service coverage by state and territory.
In all states and territories except NT, more than 90% of households have a kerbside garbage service.
For recycling, all ACT households have a kerbside service, SA has the second highest coverage at
about 98%, followed by Vic at 95%, Tas at 93%, WA at 92%, NSW at 89% and NT at 60%. SA local
governments provide an organics service to 92% of households, easily the highest proportion of any
state or territory. Organics services are also popular in NSW and Vic but less so in other states and
territories.
Figure 40 State and territory audit data on the
composition of kerbside recycling bins (% by weight)
Kerbside recycling services
The types of materials accepted in kerbside recycling bins typically
include glass packaging, metals (i.e. aluminium and steel cans),
mixed paper and cardboard and plastic containers. However,
there is some variation depending on the processing capacity at
the receiving materials recovery facility.
27Collated mainly from local government data. Likely to slightly overestimate because a small proportion of businesses are
included that also receive a local government service.
Table 8 Number of local governments with a kerbside organics bin collection service, July 2018
Number of local governments… % of local governments…
Provision of organics services is highest in Victoria, with 70% of local governments. As Table 7 shows,
however, this reaches only about 56% of households because services are sometimes taken up by
only a fraction of households. SA has the second highest number of councils providing organics
services (64%, comprising metropolitan councils) followed by NSW (60%). The ACT program is at the
pilot stage in selected suburbs and is expected to be rolled out to the whole of ACT by mid-2019.
Uptake of FOGO is highest in SA, followed by NSW and Victoria. It should be noted that the
performance of FOGO systems can differ greatly. Well promoted and carefully designed systems can
capture about 70% of food waste, but in some local government areas participation rates are less
than 4% of the population. The trend towards kerbside FOGO systems is expected to continue as in
most cases it is cheaper to compost food waste than send it to landfill.
Waste management is currently in a state of review and revision. Recent decisions impacting the
export of waste materials for recycling to overseas processors have triggered a chain of discussions
and re-negotiations between service providers and councils across the nation. But the impacts to
date being felt at local levels are varied. Some areas continue to be unaffected (for now) but can see
changes are on the way or needed, while others are already seeing impacts on their services and
costs.
Our challenges
2018 has brought forth a range of new challenges for the local government sector, including
balancing the rising costs of collection and processing services with meeting the expectations of
communities and rate payers – all while continuing to encourage good waste management practices
already occurring in most Australian households.
Industry must also take greater responsibility for their end of life waste. Product design and
packaging must ensure that products can be recycled, reused or composted. ALGA welcomes the
Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO)’s commitment to achieve this by 2025.
Our opportunities
Many councils around the nation already have highly successful education campaigns, apps,
websites, etc., as well as teams of very experienced people in the community who are ready and
willing to contribute information and ideas to improve waste management in the coming years.
There are opportunities in learning from our local successes and sharing with others in other parts of
the nation to scale-up successful initiatives, programs, platforms and management tools. This also
means opportunities to improve our two-way communications – to not only share information with
others about waste management services, advice, facilities, etc., but also about collecting ideas from
local communities to feed into regional, state or national-scale approaches.
After a long-term trend towards consolidation, a number of large businesses, including some
transnationals, have come to dominate the market. Consolidation has brought efficiencies and
higher levels of expertise, and reduced the risk of commercial failure. The large operators include
Cleanaway, JJ Richards, Remondis, Suez and Veolia. Most of the large companies run collection
operations for both commercial and domestic waste and often also own landfills and other waste
infrastructure. Visy remains a major operator in recycling and paper and cardboard reprocessing.
Cleanaway, with its recent purchase of Toxfree, is Australia’s largest operator in hazardous waste
management. Many smaller operators specialise in particular markets, such as composting or skip
bin operation, or work in particular jurisdictions or regions. In metropolitan areas, collection
businesses with small and medium-sized fleets provide competitive options for commercial and
industrial waste sources.
Materials collected and sorted for recycling are often sold to operators who use both recycled and
virgin materials, such as Alcoa (aluminium), Australian Paper or Sims Metals. Large quantities of
metals, paper and cardboard and plastics are also exported (see Section 3.4).
Local and regional government organisations that manage municipal kerbside collection contracts
have an important role in establishing waste infrastructure. They offer large-scale and long-term
contracts that often effectively underwrite the security of the waste infrastructure investment. This
can apply to landfills, compost facilities, alternative waste technologies (AWTs) and other
infrastructure.
Landfills remain the ‘option of last resort’ for most waste. The engineering and environmental
management standards of landfills have improved markedly over the last few decades, driven by
regulations and licence conditions. Most states and territories require similar standards of
performance. However, landfills in some rural areas continue to operate at a low standard.
In regional and remote areas, the financial viability of waste management and resource recovery
operations is typically more marginal. Here, local government has a larger role, and covers costs
through rates, service fees and gate fees at facilities. In most regional areas, local governments own
and operate or contract out the operation of landfills, transfer stations and recycling centres. Local
governments in these areas often provide waste and recycling services to many businesses. Waste
management costs per capita and per tonne are typically higher in regional and remote areas. Larger
landfill levies in some metropolitan areas can reduce the cost differential.
Transfer stations/ Transfer stations allow small vehicles to drop off • Local government and their
resource recovery waste. Usually include a resource recovery centre contractors
centres that providing material-specific bins or areas for • Private businesses
particular recyclables. Garbage is consolidated
for transfer to landfill, improving safety by
keeping small vehicles from operating landfill
faces and improving transport efficiency.
Container deposit Enable people to deliver and redeem eligible • SA, NT, NSW, Qld
system drop packaging. May be manually operated or governments
points automated ‘reverse vending machines’ that give • Local governments
credit for each item deposited.
• Industry groups
Materials Sort comingled recyclables and other materials, • Private businesses contracted
recovery facilities mostly from domestic recycling bins, into to local government
(MRFs) marketable grades of materials. • Local government (few)
Composting Use a controlled, aerobic and naturally self- • Private businesses contracted
facilities heating biological process to convert garden to local government or
organics, food and other organic materials into providing farm and garden
soil conditioners, mulches and fertiliser products. product supplies
• Local government
Alternative waste An umbrella term for sophisticated technologies • Private businesses contracted
treatment that accept residual waste as an alternative to to local government
facilities (AWTs) landfill. Most commonly applied to mechanical-
biological treatments that process waste to
extract recyclables and create a ‘derived organic-
rich fraction’ for land stabilisation, composting or
energy recovery.
Construction and C&D waste is commonly processed to recover • Private businesses
demolition waste masonry aggregates, metals and soil. Some
processing facility facilities also extract timber, garden organics and
plastics.
Chemical/ Accept a range of hazardous waste and treat it to • Private businesses
physical reduce hazard.
treatment
facilities
Landfills Manage mixed residual waste. Usually • Private businesses (mainly
engineered with a mixed clay and plastic lining, urban areas)
leachate collection and treatment, and (at larger • Local government (mainly
sites) gas collection and combustion. Waste is regional areas)
compacted and covered daily. Landfills may be
‘inert’ (mainly demolition wastes), ‘putrescible’
(including household waste) or hazardous. Public
access usually restricted to a resource recovery
centre near the gate. Seen as the ‘last resort’
waste management option, but required into the
long-term for asbestos, contaminated soils,
waste processing residuals, disaster waste, etc.
While the material previously going to China was a small proportion (around 30%) of a smaller sector
(kerbside recycling), the Chinese prohibitions have given all recycling industry stakeholders reason to
recalibrate our thinking and our activities. Indeed, we should not blame China - we should emulate
China for taking policy decisions that aim to enhance domestic recycling capability.
ACOR modelling shows that 50% of the material recently exported to China could be retained in
Australia with appropriate one-off investment, including from the more than $1 billion collected in
waste disposal levies by various governments. An injection of around $150 million in better material
recovery facilities, enhanced reprocessing facilities, community education and other measures
would go a long way to developing a self-reliant, rebooted recycling system in Australia. That
includes generating some 500 more jobs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent
of 50,000 cars off the road.
Social research undertaken by ACOR shows the community expects political leadership when it
comes to recycling. Over 85% of Australians support a national plan with aspects such as recycled
content purchasing and producer requirements for the packaging supply chain. Ministers for the
environment have in part responded and now we have before us the opportunity to develop a new
National Plan for Recycling and the Circular Economy - the first such framework for nearly 10 years
and a timely opportunity to take Australia's recycling performance higher than the middle of the
international pack.
It's especially needed to enhance our comparatively immature approach to producer responsibility
schemes where the unmitigated risks and unclaimed opportunities are growing. As one example, in a
sector lacking a policy framework, battery consumption is growing by 300% per year and those
batteries represent both an environmental and health and safety risk, but our recovery rate is
around 3% as opposed to rates over 70% in Europe.
And while we navigate and respond to the immediate challenges, the Australian recycling industry –
generating some 50,000 jobs and over $15 billion of value per year – also moves to the strategic
horizon. Mega-trends like digitisation, robotification, urban densification and resource depletion are
now emerging in the industry's service, product, investment and technology choices. From
automated collection and processing to enhanced customer data provision to consumer activism
around "end-of-life provenance" – these are but some of the key adjustments.
It is vital that there is a planned, coordinated and evidence-based approach to both the present and
the future – if we truly want an Australian recycling system that delivers its optimal potential.
Our challenges
The most significant challenge for the organics recycling industry are the significant costs of
compliance to environmental regulation for processing facilities, financial guarantees and the
continued development of markets for the recycled products. The market outcome of the
combination of these factors, deters investment by small and medium enterprise in the sector,
leaving only large operators as viable businesses.
Many agricultural wastes are over-classified in regulatory schemes and require capital intensive
processing solutions even in remote rural environments where alternative protocols for using
unprocessed manures are less stringent and less bio-secure. These regulatory realities deter
processing into reusable products.
The collection of quality national data on the tonnages and volumes of the industry’s contribution to
a successful recycling rate is another challenge. This is being successfully and cooperatively taken up
by state agencies across the country. While municipal data is well documented, the larger market is
not, and regulated or licensed processing is only part of whole picture of recycled organics in
Australia.
Our opportunities
The recent inclusion of ‘compost’ within definitions for Australian Carbon Credit Units, and first
projects underway, will assist the push to use compost as a part of wider soil health and
conservation efforts, which lead to building soil carbon and a long-term sequestration value. In this
way there is an opportunity to sequester more carbon than we emit as a nation and to improve the
water efficiency and productivity of our soils. AORA is working closely with Soils for Life in bringing
this wider vision to agricultural Australia.
Our challenges
We see four major challenges facing the waste and recycling sector in 2018. They are - resolving the
recycling crisis created by the Chinese National Sword program, effective enforcement of regulations
including data collection, medium to long term infrastructure planning and harmonisation and
effective investment of landfill levies. These challenges are also opportunities – as below.
Our opportunities
• Improve enforcement of existing regulations via improved data collection, tracking and policing
– this can be funded by landfill levies in some states.
• Put in place high quality infrastructure planning across Australia for waste and recycling assets –
this should be done on 10 and 30 year timescales in every state and territory.
• Harmonise levies and levy enforcement, improve the mechanism of levy investment – the
establishment of a national ‘recycling bank’ could help achieve this.
Our challenges
Australia lacks a ‘level playing field’ within which industry can operate. We need government at all
levels to work with industry to implement the elements of successful waste and resource recovery
policy. This does not necessarily mean that state landfill levies should be set at the same rate, for
example, but rather that all states will have levies and other fundamental policy levers – strategic
infrastructure planning, diversion targets, green public procurement, recycling content targets, levy
reinvestment, proximity principle, market development, etc. Recently we have seen some state
governments take their own action in response to China’s National Sword and attempt to drive
change in waste management and the industry. But the reality is that waste does not recognise state
borders. In the absence of national policy levers, we will continue to simply go in circles. Further,
waste management needs to be recognised as an essential industry to the community. That
recognition will stimulate policy and legislation that protects and grows this important industry.
Our opportunities
Australia needs to actively work towards implementing policies that create a level playing field and
nurture a ‘circular economy’ in Australia. What is a circular economy? Quite simply, it means acting
in accordance with the waste management hierarchy (reduce, reuse, recycle) and keeping materials
at their highest and best level of use for as long as possible. Recovering energy is a higher order
outcome than burying material in landfill, but it is certainly not a replacement for recycling. Australia
needs a sustainable recycling system decoupled from the global commodity market; a circular
economy that will deliver jobs and investment. And whilst Australia is special, it is not unique. There
is much we can learn from overseas experience in transitioning to a circular economy, and an
obvious option is to follow the path of Europe.
Table 10 summarises Australian product stewardship schemes in 2016-17 and shows the tonnes of
relevant product collected, as reported by the scheme organisation. In most cases the collected
materials are recycled; in others they are sent for safe treatment and disposal. In some cases, many
of the tonnes collected are not directly associated with the product stewardship scheme (e.g. tyres).
The largest product stewardship program is the Australian Packaging Covenant. Its operator, APCO,
works to improve the sustainability of the packaging industry and will be the key delivery
The second largest program is the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme, which collected 286 ML
(about 258 kt) of used oil in 2016-17. The program was established by the Product Stewardship (Oil)
Act 2000, and applies an 8.5 cent levy on each litre of new oil, which is used to fund oil recycling. The
collected oils include re-refined base oil (for use as lubricant or a hydraulic or transformer oil), other
re-refined base oils and high-grade industrial burning oils (filtered, de-watered and de-mineralised).
The National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme is another large scheme, collecting over 50
kt of TVs, computers, printers and computer e-waste products in 2016-17, an increase of about 11%
on the previous year. Around 96% of the collected materials were recycled, mostly overseas. The
scheme has annual targets for the proportion of eligible products that must be collected. The targets
peak at 80% in 2026-27.
The NT system, which was established in 2012, collected 72 million eligible containers, representing
48% of those sold. The SA recovery rate was much higher, totalling 587 million containers
representing 80% of sales. The SA system is much more mature, having operated since 1977. In both
systems, the return rates for aluminium and glass containers were the highest. Collected materials
were shredded, crushed, pressed and bailed for domestic sale or export.
28 ACT, NSW and Qld have subsequently established CDS and a WA scheme is planned.
29 Comprising anything operated by a plug or a battery
Handheld batteries
Handheld batteries contain hazardous substances and also valuable metals that can be recovered. In
2012-13, an estimated 14.3 kt of handheld batteries were landfilled and about 403 tonnes were
recovered in Australia. This 2.7% recovery rate is little changed since then. Overseas, many countries
recycle much higher proportions of their waste batteries.
Expanded polystyrene
Expanded polystyrene is costly to transport and dispose due to its low density and bulky nature. In
2016-17, Australia consumed about 47 kt (about 2.4 million m3) of expanded polystyrene (APC
undated) and recovered about 29% (Envisage Works & SRU 2018).
Mattresses
Mattresses are a problem waste in landfills as they do not compact well. An estimated 1.6 to 1.8
million mattresses are disposed each year with more than half estimated to be landfilled (SSCEC
2018). Most components of mattresses can be recycled, including fabric, foam, husk, steel springs
and timber. In the ACT almost 75% of waste mattresses are recycled.
Littering reduces urban amenity and pollutes land and waterways. An estimated 95% of Victorian
beachside litter is from urban areas and carried to the sea by stormwater (VLAA 2013). Litter makes
areas look dirty, encouraging more litter and dumping, and making people feel less safe and less
happy. Litter can block drains resulting in localised flooding and infrastructure damage. Once in the
environment, some forms of litter such as plastics, metals and glass will persist for decades and
accumulate in the environment. There is currently concern about the impacts of the accumulation of
plastics in the environment, and particularly their impact on aquatic and marine environments (see
Section 15.4).
Annual litter surveys conducted by Keep Australia Beautiful (KAB) suggest a decline in the number of
littered items, particularly cigarette butts and paper. This may reflect a decline in smoking and print
media, as well as effective litter prevention and community engagement. The KAB (2017) litter
survey of over 980 sites found the most common types of litter were cigarette packaging and butts,
takeaway food packaging, drink containers, and other paper and plastic items.
Dumping – the intentional illegal disposal of waste loads – is a more serious waste crime than
littering. In urban areas, dumping is often on vacant or pubic land and waterways at the edge of the
city. There have also been examples of organised criminal activity in depositing waste in disused
warehouses and similar, and incidents of fires at such dumps. Sometimes, poorly managed
‘recycling’ operations have effectively dumped waste on leased land, leaving a clean-up legacy for
the landowner or the state.
States and territories were asked for data on the costs of cleaning up dumped waste. Qld reported
cleaning up 8.5 kt at a cost of $18m. Vic reported 609 clean ups of 27.4 kt of dumped waste in 2016-
17 at a cost of $12.5 million. No other jurisdictions were able to provide data. If costs elsewhere
were similar per capita, Australia spent about $70 million cleaning up dumped waste in 2016-17
(excluding street sweeping).
A number of non-government and industry organisations, such as Clean Up Australia and Keep
Australia Beautiful, work to reduce litter through education, provision of bins and clean-up events.
Most states and territories have ‘Adopt-a-Roadside’ and ‘Adopt-a-Spot’ programs under which
community groups including service organisations such as Rotary, Lions and Apex, as well as schools,
sports clubs and other groups, adopt an area and keep it clean of litter.
Another method for reducing litter is to avoid using materials prone to becoming litter, such as
plastic bags, plastic straws, balloons, microbeads and loose-fill polystyrene packing. Governments
and communities across Australia are working to limit, restrict or ban many types of single-use
plastics.
Figure 41 (overleaf) provides an overview of liquid waste generation and fate in Australia in 2016-17.
Liquid waste generation, management, treatment and fate are each discussed in the sections below.
Households also generate hazardous waste liquid when disposing of household chemicals through
programs run in all states and territories except NT (see Table 6). Waste commonly collected in these
programs includes oils, paints, pesticides and flammable liquids.
Liquids are also disposed of by households as part of food waste. Data is not available on the
volumes of liquid food waste disposed via the sink in Australia, but this would form part of the
overall sewage waste data included in Figure 41 above. The liquid content of ‘solid’ wasted food is
included in the solid waste reporting earlier in this report. The liquid content varies, but most food
waste is putrescible and generates liquid as it decomposes. When food waste is sent to landfill, this
will ultimately contribute to landfill leachate.
Some service industries and most manufacturing industries also dispose of trade waste to the
sewerage system. Trade wastes are usually controlled by individual licence-type agreements
between a company and the local water authority. Typically, the agreement sets out contaminant
types and a maximum contaminant loading that can be discharged per unit volume of discharge
from the premises, and often also sets a volume limit. Some of the service industry (such as
hospitals, laboratories and vehicle repairers) and many manufacturers also generate hazardous
liquid waste.
In NSW, Qld, Vic, WA and SA, hazardous waste transport within the jurisdiction’s borders is subject
to a tracking system that keeps government informed on the movement of the wastes. This requires
that transporters, generators and receivers verify the quantity and type of waste moved and report
it to the regulator. Where hazardous waste is transported across state borders, the National
Environment Protection (Movement of Controlled Wastes Between States and Territories) Measure
establishes a different national system for reporting and control. Where hazardous liquid waste is
imported or exported overseas for reuse, recycling, treatment or disposal, the waste movement
must be reported under Australia’s commitment to the Basel Convention.
Based on the BoM (2017) supporting database, 36% of Australian wastewater was treated to
secondary levels and 64% to tertiary levels.
Unlike the sewerage network and treatment system, these treatment facilities are privately owned
and operated and there is great variation in the services they provide. Some specialise in treating
one type of commonly occurring liquid waste that is readily reused or recycled (e.g. waste oils and
lubricants). Other large facilities are able to receive an extensive and complex range of liquid, solid
and ‘sludge state’ wastes and accept the bulk of Australian hazardous liquid waste.
Put simply, hazardous liquid waste facilities manage this range of liquid waste by:
• treatment of the particular hazard characteristics to enable recycling, energy recovery or
disposal to sewer or landfill, and/or
• chemically immobilising the hazardous component of the liquid waste (often by the addition of
a binding agent such as lime) to solidify the waste and enable disposal to a hazardous solid
waste landfill.
After biosolids, hazardous waste treatment facilities are the main interface between solid and liquid
waste management systems. They generate solid waste when:
• hazardous liquid waste is solidified
• ‘sludge state’ waste is treated to remove liquids.
Due to the complex and highly varied treatment processes in hazardous liquid waste treatment
facilities, the fate of the 1.8 Mt of waste sent to these facilities cannot be numerically described.
The section closes with a contribution from the Boomerang Alliance, representing environmental
groups with a particular concern about waste.
Various state governments responded with assistance funding to local governments and recyclers, as
well as programs supporting innovation, market development and processing infrastructure to clean
and increase the value of recyclables. There has been an increased recognition of the benefits of on-
shore recycling, tying in with the notion of the circular economy (discussed below).
The export data presented in Section 3.4 shows the quantity and value of waste-derived exports in
2017-18 was higher than the previous year, with exports to Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Malaysia and
Thailand increasing as those to China declined. This suggests that the Australian market, broadly, has
overcome the problems caused by the Chinese restrictions. However, many companies have been
forced to absorb financial losses and remain financially stricken, and many local governments and
ratepayers have faced higher costs.
The Chinese restrictions have been closely watched by other major importers of waste materials,
and this year Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam have each announced tighter controls over imports of
waste materials. It is likely that export markets for waste materials for recycling will become more
constrained globally, and Australia will need to increase on-shore recycling of the major export
commodities of metals, paper and cardboard and plastics.
Infrastructure planning
Australian states and territories have been developing and renewing waste strategies for decades
but there has been a more recent shift in focus towards plans and strategies aiming to ensure
adequate infrastructure is provided. SA and Vic released comprehensive infrastructure strategies in
2018, and waste and resource recovery groups in Victoria have produced regionally-specific
strategies. NSW consulted on a draft infrastructure strategy in late 2017. In other states,
infrastructure plans are less current, e.g. NT 2015 and Tas 2009. The Australian Government has
undertaken work assessing infrastructure for the management of hazardous waste.
There are infrastructure incentive funding programs in NSW, NT, SA and Vic, and Qld has announced
its intention to provide significant incentives funded by the introduction of the landfill levy (Helen
Lewis Research 2018).
In some areas, the closure of small landfills is reducing options for disposing of asbestos.
Product stewardship
Product stewardship is one area where national leadership is required. Product stewardship
agreements31 can reduce waste and improve its management through shared responsibility,
including with manufacturers. Sometimes a levy on initial purchases is used to fund the changes
needed. The performance of current product stewardship arrangements is summarised in Section
12.1. The Australian Government is considering a number of other products for stewardship
arrangements, namely: plastic microbeads and products containing them; batteries; photovoltaic
systems; electrical and electronic products; and plastic oil containers.
30 See https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy.
31 See https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-policy/product-stewardship.
Environmental groups have long advocated for CDS and see its proliferation as a victory that will
reduce litter, improve recovery and raise awareness about the costs and value of recycling.
Increasingly, organic collection and processing systems are being modified to also accept food waste.
These combined food organics and garden organics services can result in significant reductions in
domestic waste to landfill and production of more nutrient-rich products, so long as participation
rates are good and contamination is kept low. This requires effective community education and is
helped when kitchen bins and compostable bags are provided. Environmental regulators also often
require a higher standard of processing technology because of greater odour risks. NSW and Victoria
require most licensed facilities accepting food waste to use in-vessel or covered aerated composting
technologies.
Local government uptake of FOGO is discussed further in Section 10.1. Another method for
recovering food waste is AWTs, which are discussed under ‘waste technologies’ below.
32See http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/. Emissions from solid waste were 15.3 Mt carbon dioxide equivalent in 1990 and
8.7 Mt in 2016. Emissions from all sources were 533 Mt in 2014.
Waste technologies
In comparison with many countries, particularly in western Europe, Australia continues to rely on
relatively basic waste technologies. Some 95% of our residual wastes are sent to landfill, most
composting occurs in open windrow systems and most hazardous waste is treated using relatively
simple processes. There are ongoing efforts to boost the sophistication of waste technologies in
Australia, but these are inevitably weighed against cost increases.
Some processing of residual wastes is occurring in AWTs in Sydney and Perth where landfill capacity
is more constrained. Facilities such as the Global Renewables UR-3R plant accept mixed municipal
waste and are able to recover recyclables and process the residuals into an organic soil conditioner.
In general, such facilities are financially competitive with landfill only where there is a shortage of
local landfill capacity or a large levy applies on disposal of waste to landfill.
Another technological approach that is increasingly discussed, particularly in urban areas facing
landfill constraints, is energy from waste. Apart from use of landfill gas, energy from waste is not
well developed in Australia33. Technologies include:
• traditional mass-burn incineration, which is common in Europe and Japan
• pyrolysis and gasification, in which waste is heated in low or no oxygen environments to
produce a synthetic gas that is subsequently burned for energy production
• anaerobic digestion of organic waste in tanks or ponds to generate methane that is
subsequently burned for energy production
• processing materials into ‘refuse derived fuels’ for use in cement kilns and other industrial
furnaces, either in Australia or overseas.
At the time of writing, several proposals are at various stages of development for large-scale
incineration facilities to receive municipal wastes, including two each in Vic and WA. NSW recently
declined another large-scale proposal. The energy harvested would be a mix of biological materials
(food, garden, timber, paper and natural textiles) and fossil sources (plastics and synthetic textiles).
Based on typical household waste composition in Australia, about half the energy collected would be
from biological sources and half from fossil sources. Incineration of this waste would result in
greenhouse gas emissions at about half the rate of bituminous coal per unit power generated. The
calorific value of municipal waste, before drying, would be about 40% of coal.
33 Although there is extensive energy generation from agricultural and forestry biomass such as sugar cane bagasse.
Common sources of combustion include cigarette butts (the most common cause of bin fires),
adding smouldering waste to a pile, spontaneous combustion of composting organics and arson. A
more recent – and worrying – ignition source is lithium ion batteries, which can combust when
fractured, for example by landfill compaction machinery. In some rural areas, deliberate burning of
accumulated waste remains a working practice.
The effects of waste fires can include direct risk to people and property, creation of noxious fumes,
toxic run-off into the environment, disruption to the waste management system, and costs in
fighting the fire and replacing damaged property.
Data on waste fires is not well collated. Melbourne’s Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services
Board provided a list of 62 significant fires attributable to waste in 2016-17. When smaller bin fires
are included, the numbers are much higher. Fattal et al. (2016) reported annual totals of 5,652
waste-related fires in NSW and 1,003 in SA.
Restricting waste stockpiling is one of the main methods of managing risk of major fires.
Significant stockpiles of tyres, plastics, paper, demolition rubble and timber have been abandoned or
inadequately managed in recent years.
The states have responded in various ways. NSW has introduced strict conditions on waste
management facilities on the size and management of stockpiles, and Vic recently released its Waste
Management Policy (Combustible Recyclable and Waste Material). However, some resource
recovery industries such as timber mulching, C&D masonry crushing, and composting facilities argue
that they need to stockpile materials to meet large supply contracts or manage seasonal variation in
supply and demand.
Plastic litter
Community concern about plastic litter has been galvanised by news about the ‘Great Pacific
Garbage Patch’, photos of dead birds with stomachs full of plastic (see below) and the startling claim
that by 2050 there is likely to be more plastic in the ocean than fish (WEF et al. 2016). There is also
concern about tiny plastic microparticles entering food chains, derived from tyres, road markings,
paint, clothing fibres, cosmetics and the degradation of larger items.
High-profile media coverage and political lobbying for bans on single use plastic bags and drinking
straws have seen Qld, Vic and WA follow ACT, SA, NT and Tas in introducing legislation to ban single
use bags, and major retailers nationally phase out single use bags. Some major food chains are also
phasing out single use plastic straws. Australian governments are also working with cosmetic
companies to phase out their use of microbeads.
Research suggests that 10 rivers, mostly in Asia, may be the source of 88% to 95% of the global load
of plastic introduced to the ocean (Schmidt et al. 2017).
Our challenges
What do we do next? Revert to landfill and waste to energy, eating up resources - or embrace
genuine sustainability that will benefit future generations? The most useful route is for example to
have all packaging reused, composted or recycled by 2025; food waste to decline; and a broad-based
attack on single use plastics.
Our opportunities
Adjusting to the new market circumstances and working with government to respond to the
community's demand for expansive and enduring recycling and thus create economic growth and
obtain a renewed social licence to operate.
The section concludes with a discussion on how waste generation and management might change
into the future.
Figure 43 shows gross state product (GSP) for each state and territory in each year for the period of
the report. Overall, the combined GSP grew by 29%, an average of 2.6% per year. The fastest
growing state was WA, which grew by an average of 3.9% per year, and the slowest was Tas, which
grew by 1.5% per year.
Much of our economic growth can be attributed to population growth but, for all states and
territories, the economy grew faster than population over the 11-year period. In other words, the
average amount of economic activity per capita increased.
Figure 43 Australian economic activity by state and territory (GSP), 2006-07 to 2016-17
In industrial systems, waste is often an indicator of inefficiency. Waste can be reduced by machinery
and system upgrades, just-in-time purchasing, smart packaging systems, light-weighting and
inventory controls.
Technological change also affects waste management. In MRFs, in particular, robotic and optical
sorting equipment is improving recovery.
Examination of the waste generation trends in Figure 11 suggests waste quantities are likely to
continue increasing slowly despite slight falls in the tonnes of waste generated per capita. Domestic
waste, however, may level off in absolute terms. This is a measurement by weight – as packaging
gets lighter, weight could decline while volume increases. Large projects and programs could
increase waste, as has been seen in the asbestos demolition programs in ACT. Large quantities of
PFAS contaminated soils could find their way into landfills over the coming decades.
The long-term trend in waste management is towards increasing levels of recycling and, driven by
public demand and government policy, there is little reason to imagine this will change. Of course,
for some materials the cost of recycling is high and the benefits are low. However, there are plenty
of wastes for which resource recovery can be significantly increased to the benefit of the
community, including food waste, skip bin materials and e-waste. The high cost of energy is likely to
drive the development of energy from waste facilities, particularly in areas with limited landfill
airspace. As well as potential mass-burn operations, there may be a market for facilities using niche,
high-calorific waste streams such as timber, textiles and hard-to-recycle plastics.
Appendix B provides a set of proposed principles for use in the development of a potential future
national standard for waste data and reporting. Much of the content in Appendix B proposes
principles that aim to resolve issues that are noted in this section.
States and territories were asked for additional data to support other sections of this report,
including data on local government waste management, product waste and litter and dumping.
Further input to the core data set was obtained from a range of sources as shown in Table 12.
Table 12 Contributions to the core data set from sources other than the states and territories
Data Source and comments
Hazardous waste State and territory data previously provided to the Australian
Government for use in the annual report to the Basel
Convention
Average composition of C&I recycling Encycle Consulting & SRU Consulting (2013)
Plastics recycling Envisage Works and SRU (2018)
Factors for back-calculating waste National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement)
associated with energy recovery from Determination 2008 as amended
landfill gas
Methane recovered from landfills for Australian Government Department of the Environment and
energy generation by state and territory Energy
Population & economic data ABS (2017, 2018)
Specific assumptions for hazardous waste are given in the National Waste Reporting Tool 2016-17 in
the worksheet ‘Other national data’. They include that:
• The proportions of each hazardous waste type sent to disposal, recycling, energy recovery,
treatment or storage in each state or territory are equal to either:
- the proportion of that waste type sent to that fate in 2016-17 where known and calculable
or
- the weighted average of that waste type sent to that fate in 2014-15 as recorded in NSW,
Qld, Vic and WA waste tracking systems (considered the best estimate).
• Some hazardous waste recorded in tracking systems is double-counted because it is sent to
more than one facility before reaching its final fate. This proportion needs to be subtracted
from the total to derive waste generation. The proportion to be subtracted is estimated by
reference to the proportions sent to short-term storage in Qld and Vic in 2016-17. This amounts
to 12% of hazardous waste arisings recorded in tracking systems.
• Hazardous wastes, including biosolids, are assumed to be sourced from the C&I stream except
N120 contaminated soils and N220 asbestos, of which 72% and 54% respectively are assumed
to be sourced from C&D waste. This is based on data from SA and Vic, which run tracking
systems that cover these wastes and record waste fate.
Table 13 Main data problems and how they were dealt with
Type of issue Details Adjustments and rationale
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015) 3236.0 – Household and Family Projections, Australia, 2011 to 2036, available
from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3236.02011%20to%202036?OpenDocument
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017) Australian National Accounts: State Accounts, 2016-17, publication 5220.0,
November, available from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/5220.02016-17?OpenDocument
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018) Australian Demographic Statistics, publication 3101.0, March, available from:
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3101.0
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017) Regional Population Growth, Australia, publication 3218.0 (2016, 2016-17), July,
available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3218.02016-17?OpenDocument
ACT Government (2011) ACT Waste Management Strategy: Towards a Sustainable Canberra 2011-2025, Canberra,
available from: https://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/576916/ACT-Waste-Strategy-
Policy_access.pdf
ACT Government (2017) ACT Waste Feasibility Study, available from: https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/recycling-and-
waste/about/feasibility-study
ACT Government (2017) Plastic Bag Ban, ACT Government Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development
Directorate – Environment, available from: https://www.environment.act.gov.au/waste/plastic-bag-ban
ACT Government (2018) Container Deposit Scheme, available from: https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/recycling-and-
waste/drop-off/recycling/container-deposit-scheme
ACT Government (2018) Fees and Charges, ACT Government Transport Canberra and City Services, available from:
https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/about-us/fees_and_charges
ACT Government (2018) Hazardous Waste, available from: https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/recycling-and-waste/drop-
off/hazardous-waste
ACT Government (2018) Plastic Bag Ban, available from: https://www.environment.act.gov.au/waste/plastic-bag-ban
ACT Government (2018) Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act 2016, available from:
https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2016-51
ACT Government (n.d.) Have Your Say on City Services for Better Suburbs in Canberra, available from: https://s3.ap-
southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.act-
yoursay.files/6215/3240/8410/Better_Suburbs_Forum_Member_Pack.pdf
ACT NOWaste (2014) Domestic Kerbside Waste Audit,
https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/1131840/2014-ACTNoWaste-domestic-waste-audit-report-
FINAL-v2.pdf
ALFA (Australian Lot Feeders’ Association 2018) Quarterly Survey – Jan – May 2018 Media Release: Cattle on Feed Bounce
Back, available from: http://www.feedlots.com.au/industry/quarterly-survey
Alice Springs Town Council (2016) Request for Expressions of Interest Domestic Kerbside Waste and Recycling Collection and
Processing Service for the Community of Alice Springs
Ash Development Association of Australia (2017) Annual Membership Survey Results 2016, prepared by HBM Group Pty
Ltd, Wollongong, available from: www.adaa.asn.au/resource-utilisation/ccp-utilisation
Australian Government (2017) National Food Waste Strategy : Halving Australia’s Food Waste by 2030, November,
available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4683826b-5d9f-4e65-9344-
a900060915b1/files/national-food-waste-strategy.pdf
Australian Packaging Covenant (n.d.) Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Working
Group, available from: https://www.packagingcovenant.org.au/opportunities/working-groups-terms-of-reference
BoM (Bureau of Meteorology 2017) Urban National Performance Report, available from:
http://www.bom.gov.au/water/npr/
CIE (Centre for International Economics 2017) Headline Economic Value for Waste and Materials Efficiency in Australia,
prepared for the Department of the Environment and Energy, October, available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/waste-resource-recovery/national-waste-policy/publications/headline-
economic-values-waste-final-report-2017
City of Darwin (2017) Annual Report 2016/17, available from: https://www.darwin.nt.gov.au/council/about-
council/publications-and-forms/2016-2017-annual-report
City of Darwin (2018) Municipal Plan 2018/19, available from:
https://www.darwin.nt.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/draft_2018-
19_city_of_darwin_municipal_plan_version_8.pdf
Data table for Figure 1 Waste generation by material category and stream, Australia 2016-17 (core waste + ash)
Million tonnes
Material category Mt Stream Mt
Masonry materials 17.1 MSW 13.8
Metals 5.5 C&D 20.4
Organics 14.2 C&I core 20.4
Paper & cardboard 5.6 C&I (electricity generation) 12.3
Plastics 2.5 Total 66.8
Glass 1.1
Textiles, leather & rubber (excl. tyres) 0.8
Hazardous 6.3
Other 1.4
Total core wastes 54.5
Ash 12.3
Data table for Figure 2 Trend in the generation of core waste plus ash by stream in total (left) and per capita (right),
Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17
Million tonnes
Core + ash 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
C&D 16.9 18.5 18.4 18.4 17.9 19.4 20.1 20.4 1.9%
C&I 33.1 33.3 34.0 33.9 33.3 32.9 32.3 32.7 -0.1%
MSW 12.9 13.3 13.5 13.5 13.8 14.0 13.5 13.8 0.7%
Total 62.9 65.1 65.9 65.8 65.1 66.3 66.0 66.8 0.6%
per capita
2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
Core waste + ash 3.05 3.03 3.02 2.97 2.79 2.80 2.75 2.74 -1.1%
Data for Figure 3 Trend in the recycling (left) and disposal (right) of core waste plus ash by stream, Australia 2006-07 to
2016-17
Million tonnes
Recycling 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
C&D 10.1 11.1 11.3 12.1 11.5 12.4 13.5 13.6 3.0%
C&I 14.4 13.6 15.3 17.7 18.4 17.4 16.9 17.2 1.8%
MSW 4.8 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.3 2.7%
Total 29.4 30.0 32.1 35.5 36.2 36.3 36.7 37.0 2.3%
Million tonnes
Disposal 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
C&D 6.6 7.3 7.0 6.2 6.2 6.7 6.4 6.7 0.0%
C&I 17.3 18.2 17.2 14.7 13.2 13.7 13.9 14.1 -2.0%
MSW 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.6 6.2 6.3 5.9 6.2 -1.2%
Total 30.9 32.5 31.3 27.4 25.7 26.7 26.2 27.0 -1.4%
Data table for Figure 4 Resource recovery and recycling rates of core waste by jurisdiction, 2016-17
Jurisdiction Energy recovery rate Recycling rate Total recovery rate
ACT 4% 49% 53%
NSW 4% 59% 63%
NT 4% 11% 15%
Qld 3% 44% 47%
SA 4% 78% 82%
Tas 4% 49% 53%
Vic 4% 68% 72%
WA 4% 53% 57%
Australia 4% 58% 62%
Data table for Figure 6Figure 6 Generation and management method of core waste and ash material categories,
Australia 2016-17
Kilotonnes
Material category Recycling Other disposal Landfill Treatment Energy from waste facility
Masonry materials 12,266 4,871
Organics 7,299 6,710 162
Ash 5,314 6,983
Metals 4,982 538
Hazardous 1,729 24 3,731 822
Paper & cardboard 3,361 2,230 0
Plastics 306 2,182 28
Other 1,072 319 0
Textiles, leather & rubber (excl. tyres) 88 679 9
Glass 612 467
Total 37,030 7,006 21,726 822 200
Data table for Figure 10 Waste generation by material category and stream, Australia 2016-17
Million tonnes
Material category Mt Stream Mt
Masonry materials 17.1 MSW 13.8
Metals 5.5 C&D 20.4
Organics 14.2 C&I core 20.4
Paper & cardboard 5.6 C&I (electricity generation) 12.3
Plastics 2.5 C&I (agriculture & fisheries) 16.2
Glass 1.1 C&I (mining) 1.8
Textiles, leather & rubber (excl. tyres) 0.8 C&I (mineral processing) 28.8
Hazardous 6.3 Total 113.6
Other 1.4
Total core wastes 54.5
Ash 12.3
Data table for Figure 11 Trends in the generation of core waste (plus ash where shown) by stream in total (left) and
per capita (right), Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17
Million tonnes
Core + ash 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
C&D 16.9 18.5 18.4 18.4 17.9 19.4 20.1 20.4 1.9%
C&I 33.1 33.3 34.0 33.9 33.3 32.9 32.3 32.7 -0.1%
MSW 12.9 13.3 13.5 13.5 13.8 14.0 13.5 13.8 0.7%
Total 62.9 65.1 65.9 65.8 65.1 66.3 66.0 66.8 0.6%
Million tonnes
Core 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
C&D 16.9 18.5 18.4 18.4 17.9 19.4 20.1 20.4 1.9%
C&I 18.8 19.2 20.1 20.3 21.0 20.7 20.1 20.4 0.8%
MSW 12.9 13.3 13.5 13.5 13.8 14.0 13.5 13.8 0.7%
Total 48.6 51.0 52.0 52.2 52.7 54.1 53.8 54.5 1.2%
Tonnes per capita
2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
Core waste + ash 3.05 3.03 3.02 2.97 2.79 2.80 2.75 2.74 -1.1%
Core waste 2.35 2.37 2.38 2.35 2.26 2.28 2.24 2.23 -0.5%
MSW 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.56 0.56 1.0%
C&I core + ash 1.61 1.55 1.55 1.53 1.43 1.39 1.35 1.34 -1.8%
C&I core 0.91 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.87 0.84 0.84 -0.9%
C&D 0.82 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.77 0.82 0.84 0.84 0.2%
Data table for Figure 14 Recycling of core waste by material category, jurisdiction and stream, Australia 2016-17
Kilotonnes
Material category Kilotonnes Stream Kilotonnes Jurisdiction Kilotonnes
Masonry materials 12,266 MSW 6,319 ACT 465
Metals 4,982 C&D 13,556 NSW 10,603
Organics 7,299 C&I core 11,841 NT 39
Paper & cardboard 3,361 Total 31,715 Qld 4,932
Plastics 306 SA 3,154
Glass 612 Tas 458
Textiles, leather & rubber (excl. tyres) 88 Vic 9,310
Hazardous 1,729 WA 2,754
Other 1,072 Total 31,715
Total 31,715
Data table for Figure 15 Trends in the recycling of core waste (plus ash where shown) by stream in total (left) and per
capita (right), Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17
Million tonnes
Core + ash 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
C&D 10.1 11.1 11.3 12.1 11.5 12.4 13.5 13.6 3.0%
C&I 14.4 13.6 15.3 17.7 18.4 17.4 16.9 17.2 1.8%
MSW 4.8 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.3 2.7%
Total 29.4 30.0 32.1 35.5 36.2 36.3 36.7 37.0 2.3%
Million tonnes
Core 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
C&D 10.1 11.1 11.3 12.1 11.5 12.4 13.5 13.6 3.0%
C&I 10.1 10.1 11.2 11.7 12.2 12.1 11.9 11.8 1.6%
MSW 4.8 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.3 2.7%
Total 25.1 26.5 27.9 29.6 30.0 30.9 31.7 31.7 2.4%
Tonnes per capita
2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
Core waste + ash 1.42 1.40 1.47 1.60 1.55 1.53 1.53 1.52 0.6%
Core waste 1.22 1.23 1.28 1.33 1.29 1.31 1.32 1.30 0.7%
MSW 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 1.0%
C&I core + ash 0.70 0.63 0.70 0.80 0.79 0.74 0.71 0.70 0.1%
C&I core 0.49 0.47 0.51 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.49 0.49 -0.1%
C&D 0.49 0.52 0.51 0.54 0.49 0.53 0.56 0.56 1.3%
Data table for Figure 16 Trends in the recycling of core waste by jurisdiction, Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17
Kilotonnes
Jurisdiction 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
ACT 492 516 520 643 616 487 593 465 -0.6%
NSW 9,291 10,583 10,731 10,814 10,743 10,860 10,741 10,603 1.3%
NT 45 47 44 45 65 92 86 39 -1.3%
Qld 4,162 4,087 3,685 4,238 4,437 4,635 4,535 4,932 1.7%
SA 2,308 2,507 2,534 2,993 2,942 3,008 3,203 3,154 3.2%
Tas 290 296 358 380 402 396 521 458 4.7%
Vic 6,655 6,578 7,848 7,990 7,865 8,440 9,137 9,310 3.4%
WA 1,846 1,870 2,223 2,481 2,972 2,976 2,854 2,754 4.1%
Total 25,089 26,483 27,943 29,584 30,043 30,892 31,671 31,715 2.4%
Data table for Figure 18 Exports of waste materials for recycling by type from Australia to all destinations, 2006-07 to
2017-18
Kilotonnes
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 CAGR
Metals 1,575 2,011 1,981 1,852 1,874 2,432 2,401 2,695 2,466 1,965 2,141 2,447 4.1%
Plastics 100 129 249 207 233 290 259 268 256 226 215 220 7.4%
Paper, card 1,105 1,332 1,265 1,497 1,384 1,466 1,567 1,497 1,497 1,535 1,453 1,324 1.7%
Other 84 197 137 111 255 306 296 309 326 327 400 315 12.7%
Total 2,864 3,669 3,632 3,666 3,746 4,494 4,523 4,768 4,545 4,053 4,209 4,306 3.8%
Data table for Figure 19 Exports of waste materials for recycling by type from Australia to China, 2006-07 to 2017-18
Kilotonnes
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 CAGR
Metals 255 471 846 580 459 558 432 236 232 174 203 156 -4.4%
Plastics 94 113 190 137 141 155 138 108 130 144 125 27 -10.7%
Paper, card 648 910 916 1,173 1,060 1,108 1,188 1,067 938 996 920 562 -1.3%
Other 2 18 1 1 2 11 3 2 2 2 3 3 2.2%
Total 999 1,512 1,953 1,891 1,663 1,833 1,760 1,414 1,301 1,316 1,251 748 -2.6%
Data table for Figure 20 Energy recovery from core waste by management method, material category, stream and
jurisdiction, Australia 2016-17
Kilotonnes
Management Kt Material category/type Kt Steam Kt Jurisdiction Kt
Energy from waste facility 200 Organics 1,473 MSW 1,225 ACT 35
Landfill 1,773 Paper & cardboard 354 C&D 46 NSW 665
1,973 Plastics 28 C&I core 703 NT 13
Textiles, leather & rubber (excl. tyres) 119 Total 1,973 Qld 311
Other 0 SA 149
Total Total 1,973 Tas 36
Vic 580
WA 184
Total 1,973
Data table for Figure 21 Trends in energy recovery from core waste by jurisdiction, Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17
Kilotonnes
Jurisdiction 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
ACT 44 36 34 34 39 37 34 35 -2.5%
NSW 550 550 542 613 559 819 806 665 1.9%
NT 17 26 27 17 17 14 14 13 -2.3%
Qld 403 362 379 348 410 355 369 311 -2.6%
SA 156 160 159 155 159 147 147 149 -0.4%
Tas 42 64 45 46 47 54 44 36 -1.4%
Vic 403 421 425 522 895 712 659 580 3.7%
WA 207 234 167 163 202 231 146 184 -1.2%
Total 1,822 1,852 1,778 1,898 2,327 2,368 2,219 1,973 0.8%
Data table for Figure 24 Trends in the disposal of core waste (plus ash where shown) by stream in total (left) and per
capita (right), Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17
Million tonnes
Core + ash 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
C&D 6.63 7.26 7.03 6.15 6.22 6.70 6.43 6.66 0.0%
C&I 17.31 18.25 17.19 14.68 13.21 13.72 13.86 14.09 -2.0%
MSW 7.01 7.01 7.04 6.61 6.25 6.29 5.88 6.21 -1.2%
Total 30.95 32.52 31.26 27.45 25.68 26.71 26.17 26.96 -1.4%
Million tonnes
Core 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
C&D 6.63 7.26 7.03 6.15 6.22 6.70 6.43 6.66 0.0%
C&I 7.23 7.62 7.46 7.03 7.04 6.84 6.71 7.11 -0.2%
MSW 7.01 7.01 7.04 6.61 6.25 6.29 5.88 6.21 -1.2%
Total 20.88 21.89 21.53 19.80 19.51 19.83 19.03 19.98 -0.4%
Tonnes per capita
2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
Core waste + ash 1.50 1.51 1.43 1.24 1.10 1.13 1.09 1.11 -3.0%
Core waste 1.01 1.02 0.99 0.89 0.84 0.84 0.79 0.82 -2.1%
MSW 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.25 -2.8%
C&I core + ash 0.84 0.85 0.79 0.66 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.58 -3.7%
C&I core 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.29 -1.8%
C&D 0.32 0.34 0.32 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.27 -1.6%
Data table for Figure 25 Trends in the disposal of core waste by jurisdiction, Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17
Kilotonnes
Jurisdiction 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017
ACT 166 163 154 213 184 185 245 439 10.2%
NSW 5,674 7,000 5,716 5,657 6,214 5,602 6,035 6,489 1.4%
NT 463 299 303 306 482 364 385 291 -4.5%
Qld 4,866 5,189 4,984 4,384 5,260 5,421 5,297 5,875 1.9%
SA 619 615 577 567 713 547 634 615 -0.1%
Tas 450 376 389 447 399 424 429 416 -0.8%
Vic 4,887 4,403 4,461 4,525 3,592 3,876 3,417 3,672 -2.8%
WA 3,734 3,845 4,951 3,698 2,664 3,414 2,585 2,179 -5.2%
Total 20,860 21,890 21,535 19,797 19,508 19,833 19,028 19,976 -0.4%
Data table for Figure 26 Resource recovery and recycling rates of core waste by jurisdiction, 2016-17
Jurisdiction Energy recovery rate Recycling rate Total recovery rate
ACT 4% 49% 53%
NSW 4% 59% 62%
NT 4% 11% 15%
Qld 3% 44% 47%
SA 4% 78% 82%
Tas 4% 49% 53%
Vic 4% 68% 72%
WA 4% 53% 57%
Australia 4% 58% 62%
Data table for Figure 27 Resource recovery and recycling rates of core waste by source stream, Australia 2016-17
Jurisdiction Energy recovery rate Recycling rate Total recovery rate
C&D 0% 67% 67%
C&I 3% 58% 61%
MSW 9% 46% 55%
Stream 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
C&D 60% 60% 62% 66% 65% 65% 68% 67% 1.1%
C&I 58% 57% 59% 61% 63% 63% 63% 62% 0.7%
MSW 46% 47% 48% 51% 55% 55% 57% 55% 1.8%
Data table for Figure 29 Generation and management method of core waste and ash material categories, Australia
2016-17
Kilotonnes
Energy from
Material category Recycling Other disposal Landfill Treatment waste facility
Masonry materials 12,266 4,871
Organics 7,299 6,710 162
Ash 5,314 6,983
Metals 4,982 538
Hazardous 1,729 24 3,731 822
Paper & cardboard 3,361 2,230 0
Plastics 306 2,182 28
Other 1,072 319 0
Textiles, leather & rubber (excl. tyres) 88 679 9
Glass 612 467
Total 37,030 7,006 21,726 822 200
Data for Figure 30 Trends in the generation and management methods of key material categories, Australia 2006-07 to
2016-17
Kilotonnes
Masonry material
Management 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
Recycling 8,935 9,687 10,151 10,626 10,278 11,228 12,271 12,266 3.2%
Other disposal
Landfill 5,614 6,180 5,869 5,018 4,470 5,016 4,950 4,871 -1.4%
Treatment
Energy from waste facility
Total 14,549 15,867 16,020 15,645 14,749 16,244 17,221 17,137 1.7%
Kilotonnes
Organics
Management 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
Recycling 5,374 5,479 5,978 6,620 7,224 7,440 7,294 7,299 3.1%
Other disposal
Landfill 8,363 8,698 8,334 7,988 7,569 7,477 6,626 6,710 -2.2%
Treatment
Energy from waste facility 188 221 221 221 230 214 273 162 -1.5%
Total 13,926 14,398 14,533 14,829 15,023 15,130 14,194 14,171 0.2%
Kilotonnes
Ash
Management 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
Recycling 4,277 3,528 4,155 5,930 6,143 5,365 5,056 5,314 2.2%
Other disposal 10,074 10,627 9,724 7,651 6,173 6,874 7,144 6,983 -3.6%
Landfill
Treatment
Energy from waste facility
Total 14,351 14,154 13,879 13,581 12,316 12,240 12,200 12,297 -1.5%
Data for Figure 31 Generation of organic waste by type and stream, Australia 2016-17
Kilotonnes
Material category Tonnes Stream Tonnes
Food organics 4,242 MSW 6,593
Garden organics 3,521 C&D 846
Timber 2,222 C&I core 6,396
Other organics 1,719 C&I (Agriculture & fisheries) 16,180
Biosolids (non-contaminated) 1,420 Total 30,015
Food-derived hazardous wastes 682
Other hazardous organic wastes 6
Biosolids (contaminated) 24
Manure 9,849
Bagasse (available) 6,033
Cotton Gin Trash 184
Fisheries organics 114
Total 30,015
Data for Figure 33 Resource recovery and recycling rates for core waste by material category, 2016-17
Material category Energy recovery rate Recycling rate Recovery rate
Ash 0% 43% 43%
Glass 0% 57% 57%
Masonry materials 0% 72% 72%
Metals 0% 90% 90%
Organics 10% 52% 62%
Paper & cardboard 6% 60% 66%
Plastics 1% 12% 13%
Data for Figure 34 Comparison of annual waste generation and fate per capita, Australia and selected OECD countries
(excluding hazardous waste, ash and landfill gas energy recovery)
Kg per capita
Country Disposal Recycling Energy recovery Generation
Australia 738 1,230 8.16 1,976
Denmark 74 1,253 479 1,806
Norway 401 755 700 1,856
United Kingdom 414 1,227 26 1,667
United States 1,283 1,138 105 2,525
Data for Figure 35 Comparison of MSW generation and recycling rates in selected countries
Kg per capita
Country MSW recycling per capita MSW unknown management per capita
Australia 248 295
Austria 295 253
Belgium 193 198
Germany 284 222
Italy 238 241
Netherlands 223 259
Singapore 219 426
Slovenia 188 223
South Korea 184 158
Switzerland 357 362
Wales 209 192
Data for Figure 42 Australian population by state and territory, 2006-07 to 2016-17
Thousands (‘000)
Juris. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
ACT 338 344 351 358 365 372 380 387 393 400 406 1.8%
NSW 6,786 6,884 7,002 7,102 7,180 7,262 7,358 7,462 7,573 7,681 7,798 1.4%
NT 211 217 223 228 230 233 239 243 243 244 245 1.5%
Qld 4,056 4,160 4,276 4,367 4,437 4,519 4,611 4,689 4,753 4,813 4,884 1.9%
SA 1,561 1,578 1,598 1,619 1,632 1,647 1,663 1,678 1,694 1,707 1,717 1.0%
Tas 492 496 502 506 510 512 512 513 514 516 519 0.5%
Vic 5,104 5,200 5,313 5,419 5,496 5,593 5,712 5,838 5,966 6,098 6,244 2.0%
WA 2,077 2,135 2,209 2,264 2,319 2,386 2,463 2,508 2,533 2,551 2,568 2.1%
Data for Figure 43 Australian economic activity by state and territory (GSP), 2006-07 to 2016-17
Millions of dollars
Juris. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
ACT 27 29 30 30 31 33 33 34 35 36 38 3.2%
NSW 439 451 456 465 477 489 498 508 522 542 558 2.4%
NT 18 18 20 19 20 21 23 24 24 24 25 3.4%
Qld 243 255 258 262 264 278 286 292 296 303 309 2.4%
SA 86 90 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 102 1.7%
Tas 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 29 1.5%
Vic 314 325 330 336 345 352 355 363 373 386 399 2.4%
WA 158 166 172 180 188 206 218 231 237 240 233 3.9%
The benefits of national uniformity in this area are widely recognised, but change can be expensive –
the concepts, definitions and methods used by a state or territory may be embedded in licences or
regulations, as well as long-standing protocols and trend reporting. Harmonisation therefore
requires time and a willingness to incur short-term costs for long-term national benefit.
The Department of the Environment and Energy has expressed a readiness to progress
harmonisation by helping to establish national standards for waste data and reporting. In the area of
hazardous waste, it developed and maintains the Australian hazardous waste data and reporting
standard35 as a reference for states and territories undertaking regulatory and other reviews.
For broader waste reporting, there has been significant investment in producing a standardised
national tool and dataset with standard reporting parameters. But there is no clear national
standard, in a single document, for states and territories to apply in their waste and recycling data
requirements, collection, collation and reporting.
This Appendix is intended to provide a set of possible principles as a starting point for discussions
over a future national standard for data and reporting in relation to non-hazardous waste. The
proposed principles build upon:
• the National Waste Classification System, which was developed in the 1990s but not widely
implemented
• the Hyder Consulting (2011a) ‘method report’ and its subsequent refinements in national waste
reporting
• the Australian hazardous waste data and reporting standard
• a decade of practice in liaising with jurisdictions and industry and merging their data to a
common platform.
It is not suggested that the content included here encompasses the full scope of what the envisaged
standard should contain. For example, a broader set of definitions would be needed.
35See https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/8b5088bd-fd7b-493f-bdc1-f1512cbc2bc4/files/aus-
hazwaste-data-reporting-standard-2017-revision.pdf
Term Definition
Making use of a waste material. For data reporting purposes, the quantity of
Resource recovery waste to resource recovery is the sum of the quantities to recycling and energy
recovery.
Reallocation of products or materials to a new owner or purpose without
Reuse reprocessing or remanufacture, but potentially with some repair (e.g. repair of
pallets for resale).
Reuse of a product or material that has entered a waste management facility (e.g.
Waste reuse
the sale of goods from a landfill or transfer station tip shop).
The removal, reduction or immobilisation of hazardous characteristics to enable
Treatment
the waste to be sent to its final fate or further treatment.
The process of producing waste. For data reporting purposes, waste generation is
Waste generation the sum of the quantities of wastes taken to waste management facilities or
added to on-site stockpiles.
The redirection of waste from a disposal facility to a recycling or energy recovery
Waste diversion
facility.
Waste management Businesses that undertake collection, storage and/or management of wastes,
industry excluding the wastewater treatment industry.
The conversion of natural resources into primary products, usually for use as raw
Primary production
materials by other industries.
Mixed material waste Waste comprised of more than one category of waste material.
6. In support of jurisdictional waste reporting, the core waste categories and types should inform
requirements for waste facility data recording and reporting, and waste audits.
36 Waste ancillary to primary production, such as mining staff waste or discarded tyres, should be included.
Asphalt
Bricks
Masonry materials Concrete
Rubble (incl. non-haz. foundry sands)
Plasterboard & cement sheeting
Steel
Metals Aluminium
Non-ferrous metals (ex. aluminium)
Food organics
Garden organics
Organics Timber
Other organics
Materials
Biosolids (non-contaminated)
Cardboard
Liquid paperboard
Paper & cardboard
Newsprint & magazines
Office paper
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
High density polyethylene (HDPE)
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
Plastics Low density polyethylene (LDPE)
Polypropylene (PP)
Polystyrene (PS)
Other plastics
Glass Glass
Textiles, leather and Textiles
rubber (excl. tyres) Leather & rubber (excl. tyres)
E-waste
Residuals from metals recycling facilities (shredder floc)
Residuals from materials recovery facilities
Mixed material waste Residuals from mechanical biological treatment facilities
Residuals from pulp mills
Disaster waste
Quarantine waste
Waste listed in Schedule A of the National Environment Protection
(Movement of Controlled Waste Between States and Territories)
Hazardous waste
Measure, including liquid hazardous wastes, reported in accordance
with the Australian hazardous waste data and reporting standard
Other Other unclassified materials
7. The average composition of mixed material waste should be estimated and published. This
would enable conversion of the associated tonnes to material categories and types (i.e. the first
seven categories in the list), allowing material-specific recovery rates to be estimated.
8. The core waste management methods are:
- recycling
- energy recovery
- landfills
- other disposal
- treatment
kg per The quantity of core waste to core waste management types in the
Waste generation
capita given year (excluding waste removed from short-term storage)
per person in a
divided by population. Absolute tonnages and population numbers
given financial year
used should also be specified.
% Option 1: The quantity of core waste to the fate ‘recycling’ in the
given year divided by waste generated1 in that year.2
Recycling rate in a
given financial year Option 2: The quantity of core waste to the fate ‘recycling’ in the
given year that were generated1 in that year, divided by waste
generated1 in that year.2
Recovery rate in a % As above, but including both ‘recycling’ and ‘energy recovery’ fates in
given financial year the numerator.
1 Waste removed from short-term storage to other facilities would be excluded from this amount.
2 These two options differ in how they deal with waste sent to short-term storage in one year and
recycled in a subsequent year (e.g. unprocessed C&D waste stockpiled by a recycler who goes
bankrupt).
Under Option 1, this waste would be included in the denominator in the first year and the numerator in
the subsequent year. This approach would depress the recycling and recovery rate calculations in the
first year and boost them in the subsequent year. Theoretically the recycling and recovery rates in the
subsequent year could exceed 100%.
Under Option 2, this waste would be included in the denominator in the first year but would not be
included in the numerator in the subsequent year. Instead, a separate indicator, ‘drawdown of waste
stockpiles’, could be reported to maintain a correct mass balance.
Selection of the best option needs to be discussed and agreed by the states and territories.
27. If recovery rates are to be calculated for a short-lived material type or product (e.g. packaging
waste), the quantity of that material or product consumed can be used as the denominator
instead of the quantity of the waste generated.
Table 16 Summary of method changes since the National Waste Report 2016
Change Explanation and comment
The scope is expanded to include: local government Intended to add depth. Requested by several
waste management; product and packaging waste; stakeholders. The available data was limited in some
tip shop sales; litter and dumped waste; liquid cases e.g. tip shops.
waste; wastes from mining, mineral processing and
agriculture; the Australian waste sector; waste fires;
and disaster waste.
Restructure of reporting framework to include Follows overseas precedent and responded to
separate sections on waste generation, recycling, stakeholder comment. Allows more nuanced
energy recovery and disposal. (In the previous discussion on these important concepts. Allows
version these were reported together in sections on different wastes to be included depending on the
each jurisdiction.) level of information available.
Inclusion of more data on the fate of recyclables, Responded to stakeholder comment and public
including exports. interest associated with the ‘recycling crisis’.
Additional contributions from the Australian Local Intended to add depth.
Government Association, National Waste and
Recycling Industry Council and the Boomerang
Alliance.
More detail on uncertainties. Requested by various stakeholders.
Improved data collation and warehousing by Requested by various stakeholders. Will allow users
transforming the eight years of national data to a to generate their own charts and analyses.
flat database, to be publicly accessible via the
Department website using Microsoft Power BI.
Some stakeholders thought the NWR 2016 packed
Improved visualisations using Power BI functionality
too much information into charts. Infographics were
and ‘Sankey’ infographics.
widely requested.
During the 2000s, the Department commissioned several snapshots of national waste quantities
titled Waste and Recycling in Australia. Data quality and comprehensiveness improved over time,
but the differences between these reports meant that trends could not be readily compiled. There
were concerns from the states and territories about the transparency of the data transformations
used to create a common national platform.
Following the release of the 2009 National Waste Policy, the Department started work on
developing a national waste data system. The first National Waste Report was released in 2010 using
2006-07 data and the second in 2013 using 2010-11 data. In between these two reports, the
Department commissioned a ‘method report’ to describe what data would be collected and how it
would be transformed. This was applied in the National Waste Report 2013, which was released with
a calculation workbook so states and territories could see how their data had been transformed.
Subsequently, a procedural document describing the whole process and a revised method was
developed (REC and BE 2015). This was agreed to by all the states and territories in mid-2015.
Accompanying the document was a Microsoft Excel tool established to implement the agreed
method, into which states and territories would enter their data and in which it would be
transformed to standardised output tables and charts.
On completion of the agreed method, process and tool, the available historical data was revisited
and transformed to be consistent with the agreed approach, producing, in four separate tools, a
historical record back to 2006-07. It was initially intended that the Department would develop a
national waste data system for storing and querying the national data record over time, but this did
not receive budgetary approval.
The NWR 2016, released last year, covered two data years (2013-14 and 2014-15) and presented
trends back to 2006-0737. The national waste profiles for the six annual versions of the tool were
compiled to show trends.
For this report, data was collected for 2015-16 and 2016-17, again using the Excel tool. Rather than
producing a master Excel workbook for showing trends, the data for all eight years in the set was
compiled into a single flat database for analysis and presentation using Microsoft PowerBI. It is
understood the Department will publish the database online with automated access via PowerBI so
that users can do their own analyses.
It is understood that the Department will continue to prepare the NWR every two years.
37 Waste quantities for 2007-08, 2011-12 and 2012-13 were interpolated as data was not collected in those years.