National Waste Report 2018

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 126

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

Blue Environment prints on 100% recycled paper


Blue Environment Pty Ltd
ABN 78 118 663 997
Suite 209, 838 Collins St, Docklands Vic 3008
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.blueenvironment.com.au
Phone: +61 3 9081 0440 / +61 3 5426 3536
Contents
At a glance ................................................................................................................................... x

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Scope .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Data ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Layout of the report and the data ........................................................................................ 7

2. Waste generation ................................................................................................................ 8


2.1 Waste generation in 2016-17 ............................................................................................... 8
2.2 Trends in waste generation ................................................................................................ 10

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

4. Energy recovery ................................................................................................................. 19


4.1 Energy recovery in 2016-17................................................................................................ 19
4.2 Trends in energy recovery .................................................................................................. 20

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

6. Resource recovery and recycling rates ................................................................................ 26


6.1 Resource recovery and recycling rates, 2016-17 ............................................................... 26
6.2 Trends in resource recovery rates ...................................................................................... 27

7. Waste materials analysis .................................................................................................... 28


7.1 Masonry materials .............................................................................................................. 28
7.2 Ash ...................................................................................................................................... 30
7.3 Hazardous waste ................................................................................................................ 30
7.4 Paper and cardboard .......................................................................................................... 30
7.5 Metals ................................................................................................................................. 31
7.6 Plastics ................................................................................................................................ 31
7.7 Glass.................................................................................................................................... 32
7.8 Organics .............................................................................................................................. 32
7.9 Resource recovery and recycling rates by material category, 2016-17 ............................. 35

8. International comparisons ................................................................................................. 36


8.1 Overall waste generation and fate ..................................................................................... 36
8.2 Municipal waste generation and fate ................................................................................ 38

9. Role of states and territories .............................................................................................. 39


9.1 ACT perspective .................................................................................................................. 43
9.2 New South Wales perspective ............................................................................................ 44
9.3 Northern Territory perspective .......................................................................................... 45
9.4 Queensland perspective ..................................................................................................... 45
9.5 South Australian perspective ............................................................................................. 46

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page iii
9.6 Tasmanian perspective ....................................................................................................... 48
9.7 Victorian perspective.......................................................................................................... 48
9.8 Western Australian perspective ......................................................................................... 50

10. Local government waste management ............................................................................... 51


10.1 Local government services ................................................................................................. 51
10.2 Australian Local Government Association perspective ...................................................... 53

11. The waste and resource recovery sector ............................................................................. 55


11.1 Sector overview .................................................................................................................. 55
11.2 Waste collection services ................................................................................................... 55
11.3 Waste and resource recovery infrastructure ..................................................................... 56
11.4 Regional variations ............................................................................................................. 56
11.5 Australian Council of Recycling perspective ....................................................................... 58
11.6 Australian Organics Recycling Association perspective ..................................................... 59
11.7 National Waste and Recycling Industry Council perspective ............................................. 60
11.8 Waste Management Association of Australia perspective ................................................ 61

12. Product and packaging waste ............................................................................................. 62


12.1 Waste included in product stewardship programs ............................................................ 62
12.2 Container deposit schemes ................................................................................................ 63
12.3 Other products ................................................................................................................... 63

13. Litter and dumping ............................................................................................................ 65

14. Liquid waste ...................................................................................................................... 67


14.1 Liquid waste generation 2016-17 ....................................................................................... 67
14.2 Liquid waste collection and movement ............................................................................. 68
14.3 Liquid waste treatment ...................................................................................................... 69

15. Current and emerging challenges ....................................................................................... 71


15.1 Restrictions on the export of waste materials ................................................................... 71
15.2 Government policies and programs ................................................................................... 71
15.3 Changes to waste and its processing.................................................................................. 74
15.4 Growing environmental and community concerns ............................................................ 75
15.5 Boomerang Alliance perspective ........................................................................................ 77

16. Influences on waste generation and management .............................................................. 78


16.1 Population growth .............................................................................................................. 78
16.2 Economic growth ................................................................................................................ 79
16.3 Technological change ......................................................................................................... 79
16.4 Access to recycling markets................................................................................................ 80
16.5 Waste policy ....................................................................................................................... 80
16.6 Carbon policy ...................................................................................................................... 80
16.7 The future of waste generation and management ............................................................ 80

17. Method ............................................................................................................................. 81


17.1 Data sources ....................................................................................................................... 81
17.2 Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 82
17.3 Calculating energy recovery from landfills ......................................................................... 82
17.4 Significant data gaps and quality issues ............................................................................. 83

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 85

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page iv
Appendices
Appendix A Chart data ...................................................................................................................... 90
Appendix B Principles for waste data and reporting ...................................................................... 100
Appendix C Method changes since the National Waste Report 2016 ........................................... 109
Appendix D A history of national waste reporting ......................................................................... 111

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page v
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 ....................................... 24
Figure 25 Trends in the disposal of core waste by jurisdiction, Australia 2006-07 to
2016-17 .............................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 26 Resource recovery and recycling rates of core waste by jurisdiction, 2016-17 ................ 26
Figure 27 Resource recovery and recycling rates of core waste by source stream,
Australia 2016-17............................................................................................................... 27
Figure 28 Resource recovery rate trends of core waste by jurisdiction and stream,
Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17 ............................................................................................ 27
Figure 29 Generation and management method of core waste and ash material
categories, Australia 2016-17 ............................................................................................ 28
Figure 30 Trends in the generation and management methods of key material
categories, Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17 ......................................................................... 29
Figure 31 Generation of organic waste by type and stream, Australia 2016-17............................... 33
Figure 32 Generation of food waste by management method, Australia 2016-17 .......................... 34
Figure 33 Resource recovery and recycling rates for core waste by material category,
2016-17 .............................................................................................................................. 35
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) ................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 35 Comparison of MSW generation and recycling rates in selected countries ..................... 38
Figure 36 The waste hierarchy expresses a preferential order to managing waste, and is
embedded in state and territory policy frameworks ........................................................ 39
Figure 37 Local government waste services by region type .............................................................. 51
Figure 38 Waste collected by Australian local governments by service type, 2016-17 .................... 51
Figure 39 Australian households’ access to different type of kerbside service, 2016-17 ................. 52
Figure 40 State and territory audit data on the composition of kerbside recycling bins (%
by weight) .......................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 41 Overview of liquid waste generation and fate in Australia 2016-17 ................................. 68
Figure 42 Australian population by state and territory, 2006-07 to 2016-17 ................................... 78
Figure 43 Australian economic activity by state and territory (GSP), 2006-07 to 2016-17............... 79
Figure 44 Greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, 1989-90 to 2015-16 ........................................ 80
Figure 45 Potential future scope of national waste reporting ........................................................ 105

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page vi
Table 12 Contributions to the core data set from sources other than the states and
territories ........................................................................................................................... 81
Table 13 Main data problems and how they were dealt with ......................................................... 83
Table 14 A proposed core set of waste categories and types........................................................ 104
Table 15 Primary indicators of jurisdictional waste performance ................................................. 108
Table 16 Summary of method changes since the National Waste Report 2016 ........................... 110

Abbreviations and glossary


ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
ACOR Australian Council of Recycling
ACT Australian Capital Territory
ALGA Australian Local Government Association
AORA Australian Organics Recycling Association
APCO Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation
AWT alternative waste technologies
bagasse fibrous waste remaining when sugarcane stalks are crushed to extract juice
biosolids solid, semi-solid or slurry material produced by the treatment of urban sewage
BOD5 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
bottom ash ash produced by burning coal or other materials that remains in the furnace or
incinerator
CAGR compound average growth rate
capita person
C&D construction and demolition
C&I commercial and industrial
CDS container deposit scheme
commercial and waste produced by institutions and businesses; includes waste from schools,
industrial waste restaurants, offices, retail and wholesale businesses, and industries including
manufacturing
construction waste produced by building and demolition activities, including road and rail
and demolition construction and maintenance and excavation of land associated with
waste construction activities
core waste waste generally managed by the waste and resource recovery sector,
comprising solid non-hazardous waste and hazardous waste including liquids,
and generated in the municipal, construction and demolition, and commercial
and industrial sectors generally excluding primary production and including
biosolids
the Department Department of the Environment and Energy
disposal the deposit of solid waste in a landfill or incinerator, net of recovery of energy
EPA Environment(al) Protection Authority (name varies with jurisdiction)
e-waste electrical or electronic waste
energy the process of recovering energy that is embodied in solid waste (the amount of
recovery solid waste recovered is net of any residuals disposed)
FIAL Food Innovation Australia
FOGO food organics and garden organics
gross domestic the total market value of goods and services produced in Australia within a
product given period after deducting the cost of goods and services used up in the
process of production but before deducting allowances for the consumption of
fixed capital
GDP gross domestic product

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page vii
GO garden organics
gross state the total market value of goods and services produced in an Australian state or
product territory within a given period after deducting the cost of goods and services
used up in the process of production but before deducting allowances for the
consumption of fixed capital
GSP gross state product
hazardous waste that, by its characteristics, poses a threat or risk to public health, safety
waste (or or to the environment and comprising, in this report, waste that cannot be
‘hazwaste’) imported to or exported from Australia without a permit under the Hazardous
Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989, or waste that a jurisdiction
regulates as requiring particularly high levels of control
HCB hexachlorobenzene
HDPE high-density polyethylene
IT information technology
KAB Keep Australia Beautiful
kg kilograms
kt kilotonnes (thousands of tonnes)
LDPE low-density polyethylene
management the type of infrastructure that receives waste – landfill, compost facility,
method alternative waste treatment facility, etc.
MRF materials recovery facility
MSW municipal solid waste
municipal solid waste produced primarily by households and council operations
waste
Mt megatonnes (millions of tonnes)
NGER National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting
NSW New South Wales
NT Northern Territory
NWRIC National Waste and Recycling Industry Council
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
per capita per person
PET polyethylene terephthalate
PFAS per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances
PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
PP polypropylene
product a policy approach recognising that manufacturers, importers, governments and
stewardship consumers have a shared responsibility for the environmental impacts of a
product throughout its full life cycle
PS polystyrene
PS Act Product Stewardship Act 2011
PVC polyvinyl chloride
Qld Queensland
recycling activities in which solid wastes are collected, sorted, processed (including
through composting), and converted into raw materials to be used in the
production of new products (the amount of solid waste recycled is net of any
residuals disposed)
recycling rate the proportion of generated waste that is recycled
resource for data collation purposes, this is the sum of materials sent to recycling and
recovery energy recovery net of contaminants and residual wastes sent to disposal

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page viii
resource the proportion calculated by dividing resource recovery by waste generation
recovery rate (also referred to as the ‘recovery rate’)
reuse reallocation of products or materials to a new owner or purpose without
reprocessing or remanufacture, but potentially with some repair (e.g. resale of
second-hand cars or clothing re-sold via opportunity shops or the repair of
wooden transport pallets for resale)
SA South Australia
solid waste waste that can have an angle of repose of greater than 5 degrees above
horizontal, or does not become free-flowing at or below 60 degrees Celsius or
when it is transported, or is generally capable of being picked up by a spade or
shovel
t tonne(s)
Tas Tasmania
treatment (of the removal, reduction or immobilisation of hazardous characteristics to enable
hazardous the waste to be sent to its final fate or further treatment
wastes)
Vic Victoria
WA Western Australia
waste materials or products that are unwanted or have been discarded, rejected or
abandoned, including materials or products that are recycled, converted to
energy, or disposed
waste fate what happens to a waste i.e. recycling, energy recovery or disposal
waste for data collation purposes, this is the sum of resource recovery and disposal
generation
waste reuse reuse of a product or material that has entered a waste management facility
(e.g. the sale of goods from a landfill or transfer station ‘tip shop’)
WMAA Waste Management Association of Australia

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page ix
At a glance
In 2016-17 Australia generated an estimated 67 Headline numbers
million tonnes (Mt) of waste including 17.1 Mt of
masonry materials, 14.2 Mt of organics, 12.3 Mt of Millions of tonnes 2016-17 2014-15
ash, 6.3 Mt of hazardous waste (mainly contaminated
Waste generated 67 66
soil), 5.6 Mt of paper and cardboard and 5.5 Mt of
metals. This is equivalent to 2.7 tonnes (t) per capita. Waste recycled 37 36

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 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

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%).

1 Includes materials recycled and used for energy recovery

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page xi
Figure 4 Resource recovery and recycling rates of core waste by jurisdiction, 2016-17

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page xii
Figure 6 shows waste generation and management by material category. Estimated recycling rates
by material are highest for metals (90%), then masonry materials (72%), paper and cardboard (60%),
glass (57%), organics (52%), ash (43%) and hazardous waste (27%). Only about 12% of waste plastics
are recycled.

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).

Waste flows in Australia in 2016-17 are illustrated in Figure 7.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page xiii
Figure 7 Waste flows in Australia, 2016-17 (core wastes only; arrow thickness is proportional to flow size)

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page xiv
1. Introduction
This report was prepared on commission to the Australian Government Department of the Environment
and Energy (the Department), which has committed to producing a national waste report every two years.
The report provides a summary of the status of waste in Australia in 2016-17, including data on waste
generation, source streams, materials and fates. Trend data is included back to 2006-07. The final report is
to be released together with:
• the National Waste Reporting Tool 2016-17, containing the data reported for 2016-17
• the National Waste Database, containing data for all available years and established to allow users to
undertake their own data analyses.

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

Asphalt, bricks, concrete, rubble (including non-hazardous foundry sands), plasterboard


Masonry materials
and cement sheeting
Metals Steel, aluminium, other non-ferrous metals
Organics Food, garden organics, timber, other organics, biosolids. Excludes:
• paper, cardboard, leather, textiles and rubber (included in separate categories)
• except where specified, hazardous organic wastes (these are included in the
‘hazardous’ category)
Paper and cardboard Liquid paperboard, newsprint and magazines, office paper
Plastics PET (1), HDPE (2), PVC (3), LDPE (4), PP (5), PS (6), Other (7)
Glass
Textiles, leather and Textiles; leather and rubber (excluding tyres)
rubber
Hazardous Acids; alkalis; inorganic chemicals; reactive chemicals; paints, resins, inks and organic
sludges; organic solvents; pesticides; oils; food-derived organic wastes (K100, K110 and
K200); other putrescible or organic waste (K140 and K190); organic chemicals;
contaminated soils; asbestos contaminated materials; other soil/sludges (including
contaminated biosolids); clinical and pharmaceutical; tyres; other miscellaneous;
unclassified hazardous wastes
Other Other unclassified materials

2 The report series Hazardous Waste in Australia considers hazardous waste in detail. A new version of this report will be released
in 2019.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 1
The period covered
The National Waste Report 2018 focuses on waste generated and managed during the financial year (July
to June) 2016-17. For the core data set, trend data is presented covering the period 2006-07 to 2016-17.
National data covering 2007-08, 2011-12 and 2012-13 was not collected – the data in the trends for those
years is interpolated. Some more recent information is presented where available, particularly in relation
to exports of waste-derived materials.

The geographic area covered


The report covers waste generated or managed in Australia, including imports and exports of waste and
waste-derived products. It covers the Australian states and territories: Australian Capital Territory (ACT);
New South Wales (NSW); Northern Territory (NT); Queensland (Qld); South Australia (SA); Tasmania (Tas);
Victoria (Vic); and Western Australia (WA).

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.

Waste management method and fate


This report considers what happens to waste in two ways:
1. waste management method, which refers to the infrastructure that receives waste – landfill, compost
facility, alternative waste treatment facility, etc.
2. waste fate, which is categorised into:
- disposal
- recycling
- energy recovery
- long-term storage4.

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.

Reuse and ‘waste reuse’ are discussed briefly in Section 3.

3 See Section 2 for further discussion.


4 Reporting of long-term (or short-term) storage is limited due to lack of data.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 2
Figure 8 provides a summary of the scope of reporting for this report.

Figure 8 Summary of the scope of the National Waste Report 2018

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

Waste material flow

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).

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 3
1.2 Data
Data sources
Much of the data included in this report was obtained from state and territory governments, which collect
it for their own monitoring and reporting. This mainly comprises tonnes of waste sent to landfill and
various forms of recycling. State and territory data is supplemented, and sometimes replaced, by national
industry data or other national estimates. These include industry data on plastics recycling, ash and
biosolids. Data sources are listed in the bibliography and in the National Waste Reporting Tool 2016-17.

Data collation methods


To derive a national picture on waste, a common set of assumptions and categories must be applied to
the collected data. This requires some manipulation of state and territory data, including recategorisation,
applying assumed compositional splits and adjusting for cross-border transport.

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.

Figure 9 Waste data flows and the National Waste Database

More information about data collation methods is given in Section 17.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 4
Data quality
Significant effort has been made to ensure that the data presented in this report is reliable. In general, the
quality and quantity of the data on waste tonnages, source streams and materials are improving. Various
adjustments to historical data, undertaken in consultation with the states and territories, have improved
the trend analysis. It is not possible to calculate margins of error because data arises from multiple
sources and is aggregated in different ways by different organisations. Overall, we believe the data
reliably supports the key messages presented here.

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.

Indicators of the underlying quality of the data reported here include:


• reporting via compulsory, rather than voluntary, programs
• measurement via a weighbridge, rather than via volumetric measures or truck counts
• for recycling, data collection via comprehensive industry survey rather than partial or ad-hoc surveys
• for hazardous waste, tracking systems that require reporting of waste movements.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 5
Table 2 Indicators of data quality in the core 2016-17 state and territory data in this report
HAZARDOUS
RECYCLING DATA LANDFILL DATA
WASTE DATA
Compulsory % tonnes Comprehensive Compulsory % tonnes
facility measured via recycling facility measured via Tracking
reporting? weighbridge survey? reporting? weighbridge system?

ACT Partly 1 Unknown   100% 


NSW (regulated area) 2 3 Unknown  
80% 
NSW (other)  Unknown  
NT  Unknown   80% 
Qld  Unknown   95% 4
SA  Unknown   99% 
Tas  26%   70% 
Vic  Unknown   97% 
WA (metro Perth) 5
 1 34%   49%

WA (regional)  Unknown   Unknown
Notes 1 Will become compulsory in the coming years.
2 The regulated area covers about 86% of the NSW population comprising Sydney, Illawarra and Hunter
regions, central and north coast local government areas and three other local government areas.
3 From August 2015, it was compulsory to report recycling data in the regulated area but the data was not
available for this report.
4 Qld has a tracking system but 2016-17 data was not available in time for inclusion in this report.
5 The metropolitan Perth area represents about 70% of the WA population.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 6
Historical data and trend data have been updated
This report incorporates data back to 2006-07. Some of the historical data has been updated from the
previously reported figures due to receipt of new or amended data, and changes to assumptions or
calculations. Major changes to the data include use of actual, rather than estimated, data for NSW
recycling in 2014-15, and correction to some historical hazardous waste data in the early years of the
trend data. Figures presented here may differ from those presented in the National Waste Report 2016.
The information presented here supersedes previously reported information.

1.3 Layout of the report and the data


This report is primarily a data presentation. The main focus is the financial year 2016-17 but some more
recent data is included where relevant, such as in Section 3.4 on exports of waste for recycling and the
impact of the Chinese restrictions. Data for 2016-17 is shown mainly in static bar charts, often with
absolute tonnages split in several ways (material category, management method, source stream or
jurisdiction). Trend data back to 2006-07 is presented mainly in area charts, showing both absolute
tonnages and, where applicable, tonnes per capita. The chart data is tabulated in Appendix A.

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.

Photo 1 Turning a compost windrow

Photo by Bill Grant

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 7
2. Waste generation
This section reports on the quantities of waste generated in Australia in 2016-17 and the trends since
2006-07.

2.1 Waste generation in 2016-17


Waste generation in 2016-17 is illustrated in Figure 105. On the left, the figure shows the waste by
material category, encompassing core waste and ash. In total, an estimated 67 Mt of this waste was
generated, including 17.1 Mt of masonry materials, 14.2 Mt of organics, 12.3 Mt of ash, 6.3 Mt of
hazardous waste (mainly contaminated soil), 5.6 Mt of paper and cardboard and 5.5 Mt of metals. This is
equivalent to 2.7 t per capita. Of the 67 Mt generated, 9% is classified as hazardous.

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.

Figure 10 Waste generation by material category and stream, Australia 2016-17


Core waste
Core waste

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.

5 Full data for all charts is given in Appendix A.


6 This is consistent with the international System of Environmental Economic Accounting.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 8
These are materials that fit the general definition of waste, for which reasonable 2016-17 data was
available, and that may be of interest to some readers. They are:
• mineral processing waste, comprising
- 26.4 Mt of ‘red mud’, an alkaline by-product of bauxite refining that was deposited at sites in
Australia (about 812 Mt of red mud has been deposited in Australia over the last 50 years)
- 2.4 Mt of coal-seam gas brine, a residue of the desalination of extraction waters that was
deposited in much higher volumes in ponds mainly in south-east Qld (about 9.5 Mt of brine
waste has been deposited in Australia over the last 10 years)
• agriculture and fisheries waste, comprising
- about 16.1 Mt of known agricultural organics (manures, bagasse and cotton gin trash, discussed
further in Section 7.8)7
- about 0.1 Mt of organic fisheries waste including bycatch, offal, shells
• mining waste, comprising about 1.8 Mt of various materials, mostly deposited in tailings dams at
many sites around Australia8
• electricity generation waste, amounting to some 12.3 Mt of ash that is recycled or deposited in
storages in NSW, Qld, Vic and WA – discussed further in Section 7.2 (about 350 Mt of ash has been
deposited into ‘ash dams’ in Australia since around 1975).

Other additional materials fitting the definition of waste may


be absent from this data. Also missing is an unknown quantity Waste stockpiles
of waste that is illegally disposed of, for example by dumping Waste stockpiling is a significant concern
or burning, and not subsequently collected by government and has resulted in several recent major
agencies (discussed in Section 13) and waste missed due to fires. Substantial stockpiling of C&D waste
data issues (see Section 17.4). and glass is understood to occur. A recent
Department of the Environment and
Energy study (REC & AWE 2016) on
stockpiling of hazardous and controlled
Photo 2 Baled plastics at a materials recovery facility
waste identified stockpiles of arsenic
waste (speiss), asbestos, contaminated
biosolids, dieldrin-impregnated timber,
end-of-life tyres, hexachlorobenzene
(HCB), mercury waste,
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS),
aluminium spent pot liner, aluminium
dross recycling salt cake and other waste.
Reporting on stockpiles is limited by lack
of data. Ideally, this report would account
for additions to and removals from
stockpiles in the reporting year. Possible
solutions to allow for more complete
reporting are proposed in Appendix B.
Photo by Christine Wardle
Unrecorded waste in stockpiles leads to
underestimates of waste generation.
Recorded waste in stockpiles (e.g. at a
glass recycling plant) leads to
overestimates of recycling.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 9
2.2 Trends in waste generation
Figure 11 (overleaf) shows the trend in the generation of core
Question: The National Waste Report
waste plus ash between 2006-07 and 2016-17 by source
2016 said core waste per capita had grown
stream. The charts on the left are total tonnes and those on by 11% since 2006-07. This report says it
the right are tonnes per capita. Over the eleven-year data has declined by 5%. What’s changed?
period, waste generation has increased by 3.9 Mt (6%) or by
Answer: Historical waste quantities were
5.9 Mt (12%) when ash is excluded. By stream, MSW grew by
further investigated and updated.
0.9 Mt (7%), C&I waste including ash by -0.5 Mt (-1%), C&I Quantities of hazardous waste early in the
waste excluding ash by 1.6 Mt (8%) and C&D waste by 3.5 Mt data timeframe, in particular, were found
(20%). Full data is given in Appendix A. deficient. The estimated quantity of core
waste in 2006-07 increased by about 6 Mt,
Presented on a per capita basis, waste has declined on most so the change since then is reduced.
measures. In total, and across most streams, whilst we are
producing more waste overall, we are producing less waste per person.

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

11-year change -10% -5% -10% -17% -8% 2%

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).

Photo 3 Vehicle bumper bars baled for recycling

Photo by Christine Wardle

9 Ash is excluded because generation numbers are not accurately tallied by state and territory.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 10
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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 11
Figure 12 Trends in the generation of core waste by jurisdiction, Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 12
3. Recycling
This section reports on the quantities of waste materials processed for recycling in Australia in 2016-17
and the trends since 2006-07. It discusses whether the markets for waste materials for recycling were on-
shore or overseas. Information on the recycling of particular waste materials is given in Section 7.

3.1 What the data covers


Figure 13 illustrates material flows at a generic recycling facility, showing the primary measurement point
(R2) for the data presented in this section. The states and territories aim to collect data at this
measurement point from significant recycling facilities. They aim to ensure all materials are counted, and
are counted only once10. The data may include unsold stockpiles of processed product, and exclude
stockpiles of unprocessed material11 (noting that some states impose limits on stockpiling).

Figure 13 A generic recycling process, illustrating what is included in the data presented in this section

3.2 Recycling in 2016-17


The quantities of core wastes recycled in Australia in
The economic implications of increased recycling
2016-17 are illustrated in Figure 1412. About 31.7 Mt of
materials were processed for recycling. The three Modelling by the Centre for International
largest fractions, making up a combined three-quarters Economics (2017) suggests that a 5% increase in
of the total, were masonry materials (12.3 Mt), the recycling rate could add $1 billion to
organics (7.3 Mt) and metals (5.0 Mt). C&D materials Australia’s gross domestic product.
represented the largest source stream (43%) followed
by C&I materials (37%) and MSW (20%).

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 13
Figure 14 Recycling of core waste by material category, jurisdiction and stream, Australia 2016-17

C&I
C&I

C&D
C&D

MSW

3.3 Trends in recycling Waste reuse

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 15
Figure 16 Trends in the recycling of core waste by jurisdiction, Australia 2006-07 to 2016-1713

13 NSW recycling data for 2015-16 and 2016-17 is an estimate only, extrapolated from 2014-15 data.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 16
3.4 Exports of waste materials for recycling
Data on export tonnages and types are collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This section
reports on 94 export codes identified as comprising or containing waste materials sent for recycling14.

Exports by material category, 2016-17


Figure 17 compares Australia’s exports of waste materials for recycling with the estimated quantities of
materials collected for recycling. Exports are small compared with the overall throughput of Australia’s
recycling industry. Almost all recycling of masonry materials, organics, glass and hazardous waste occurs
on-shore. For metals, paper and cardboard and plastics, however, exports are significant. In 2016-17,
about 43% of recycled metal, 70% of recycled plastic and 43% of recycled paper and cardboard was
exported for processing overseas.

Figure 17 Comparison of core waste recycling and exports of waste materials for recycling from Australia
to all destinations by material category, 2016-17

Export trends and the Chinese waste import restrictions


Figure 18 displays exports of waste materials for recycling from Australia to all destinations by financial
year (July to June) and type during the 12 years to 2017-18. (Data for 2017-18 is included in this section
because it was an important year for waste exports, due to the Chinese restrictions that began to be
implemented during that financial year. See the discussion in Section 15.1.)

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 17
(2.3%) to reach 4.3 Mt. There were increases in exports of scrap metals (14%) and plastics (2%) but paper
and cardboard exports fell by 9%.

Figure 18 Exports of waste materials for recycling by type from Australia to all destinations, 2006-07 to
2017-18

The ‘other’ component is mainly tyres, textiles, glass and organics

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 ‘other’ component is mainly tyres, textiles, glass and organics

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 18
4. Energy recovery
This section reports on the quantities of core waste materials15 used for their energy value in Australia in
2016-17. The main ways waste is used for energy are:
• Collection of methane generated from the anaerobic decay of organic waste in large landfills. This is
commonly used to generate electricity for sale into the grid.
• Production of ‘processed-engineered fuels’, typically from C&D and C&I waste, comprising timber,
plastics and/or textiles16. These can be exported or used in cement kilns and other industrial
furnaces, substituting for natural gas or coal.
• Use of high calorific value hazardous waste, such as oil-based paints and solvent, to fuel cement
kilns17 and export of some end-of-life tyres for use as a fuel18.
• Anaerobic digestion of limited quantities of food waste.

4.1 Energy recovery in 2016-17


Figure 20 shows energy recovery from core waste by management method, material, stream and
jurisdiction. About 1.97 million tonnes of waste was used for energy recovery, 90% through landfill gas
collection. This methane was generated mainly from food, garden and paper and cardboard waste from
the MSW and C&I waste streams. Landfill gas energy recovery occurs in all states and territories, roughly
in proportion to population size.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 19
4.2 Trends in energy recovery
Figure 21 shows trends in energy recovery from waste. A marked fall is apparent over the past two years,
attributable to declining reported energy recovery from landfill gas in NSW, SA, Tas and Vic. Factors that
could be contributing to these declines include:
• reduced quantities of organics sent to landfill
• lower rainfall reducing degradation rates
• a switch in operator focus from energy generation to flaring19
• a data problem due to reduced local government reporting
• reduced landfill operator interest in collecting landfill gas.

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

Photo by Tom Worthington

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 20
Figure 21 Trends in energy recovery from core waste by jurisdiction, Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 21
5. Disposal
This section reports on the quantities of waste materials disposed of in Australia in 2016-17. Disposal
means allocation to a fate in which no use is made of the waste. Some 99.9% of core waste disposed of in
Australia is in landfill. Most of the remainder is thermal destruction of medical and other waste.

5.1 What the data covers


In this report, not all waste taken to landfill is considered ‘disposal’. Waste to landfill that is used for
generating electricity is counted under ‘energy recovery’ and material sold from the landfill or used on-
site is counted under ‘recycling’. This is illustrated in Figure 22, which shows material flows at a generic
landfill facility. Waste to landfill is equal to L1 minus L2; waste to disposal is equal to L1 minus L2 minus L3.

Figure 22 A generic landfill process, illustrating the data presented in this section

5.2 Waste disposal in 2016-17


Figure 23 (overleaf) shows the disposal of core waste by material category, stream and jurisdiction. Nearly
20 Mt of waste was disposed of, representing 37% of the 54 Mt of core waste generated. The biggest
waste material components are organics, masonry materials and hazardous waste (mainly soils
contaminated with hydrocarbons, heavy metals or asbestos). Organics are particularly problematic in
landfills as they give rise to leachate, gas and odour and pest animal populations. Disposal from the C&I
waste stream is slightly larger than from C&D waste stream, which is slightly larger than the MSW stream.
Disposal by state and territory is roughly proportional to population.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 22
Figure 23 Disposal of core waste by material category, stream and jurisdiction, Australia 2016-17

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

5.3 Trends in waste disposal


Figure 24 shows trends in the disposal of core waste and ash by source stream over the 11-year data set.
Waste to disposal has declined by about 13% including ash and 4% excluding ash. Quantities of core C&I
and C&D waste have remained fairly stable but MSW has declined by about 11% over the 11 years. When
ash is included, C&I rates have fallen by 19%. On a per capita basis, disposal quantities have declined
across all streams. This is due to stable or falling waste generation rates and increased recycling.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 23
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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 24
Figure 25 Trends in the disposal of core waste by jurisdiction, Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 25
6. Resource recovery and recycling rates
This section assesses and compares resource recovery and recycling rates. It looks at these measures
firstly for the eight states and territories, then for the three main waste streams. For clarity:
• the resource recovery rate is the proportion of generated waste that is processed for recycling or
used for energy recovery
• the recycling rate is the proportion of generated waste that is processed for recycling.

6.1 Resource recovery and recycling rates, 2016-17


The headline national resource recovery rate in 2016-17 was 58%. The headline recycling rate was 55%.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 26
Figure 27 Resource recovery and recycling rates of core waste by source stream, Australia 2016-17

6.2 Trends in resource recovery rates


Figure 28 shows the trends in resource recovery rates by jurisdiction and by source stream over the 11
years from 2006-06 to 2016-17. In general, and across Australia altogether, the trend is to increased
recovery rates. However, in recent years the recovery rates for Qld, NSW and Vic appear to have fallen
slightly, noting that NSW recycling data for 2015-16 and 2016-17 is estimated. The falls are partly due to
declining landfill gas recovery. The ACT recovery rate plummeted in 2016-17 due to the large quantities of
demolition waste disposed of under its ‘Mr Fluffy’ asbestos program (see Section 5.3). Examined by source
(on the right of Figure 28), recovery rate trends are increasing for all three streams.

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 27
7. Waste materials analysis
This section reports on the status and trends of particular waste material categories, focusing mainly on
the core waste. The status and trends in generation and management of key waste categories are
examined in turn. The section closes with a comparison of resource recovery and recycling rates.

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

7.1 Masonry materials


In 2016-17 about 17.1 Mt, or 703 kg per capita, of waste masonry materials were generated. This category
includes heavy waste types such as concrete, bricks and rubble. Masonry materials are recovered from
most large demolition projects but less so from smaller projects. These often generate mixed loads of
demolition waste that are sent directly to landfill.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 28
Figure 30 Trends in the generation and management methods of key material categories, Australia
2006-07 to 2016-17

Photo 5 Demolition rubble awaiting crushing and recycling

Photo by Christine Wardle

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 29
7.2 Ash
Ash is a large waste stream, generated mostly by coal fired power stations, and mostly managed on the
generating site outside the main waste management system. Australia generated some 12.3 Mt, or 504 kg
per capita, in 2016-17. About 7.0 Mt was disposed on-site (normally backfilling the coal mine void at the
power station) and around 5.3 Mt (43%) was recycled into products such as concrete, where the ash can
substitute a portion of the cement content. Opportunities exist to recycle more ash, provided
contamination issues are appropriately 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).

7.3 Hazardous waste


Hazardous waste comprised 6.3 Mt, or 259 kg per capita, of waste, 27% of which was recycled, 59%
landfilled and 13% sent to a treatment facility22. The bulk of this category comprised contaminated soils,
asbestos and tyres23. Treatment options are available to remove the hazards from some contaminated
soils enabling reuse or recycling. Waste tyres have potential value as fuel or as an input to production
processes, and there remains a significant opportunity to increase their recovery in Australia.

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.

7.4 Paper and cardboard


About 5.6 Mt of paper and cardboard waste was generated in 2016-17, or 229 kg per capita. About 60%
was recycled and 40% was sent to landfill.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 30
Photo 6 Cardboard ready for baling and recycling

Photo by Christine Wardle

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.

The plastics recycling rate remained relatively stable.

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 31
recently by low commodity values and a relatively strong Australian dollar. Despite the China restrictions,
strong global markets remain for plastic waste that is well sorted by type and free of contamination.
Australia’s plastics recycling rates could be improved with greater on-shore investment in plastics sorting
and cleaning equipment to enable either on-shore or off-shore recycling.

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.

Photo 7 Crushed glass for use as a sand substitute in road base

Photo by Christine Wardle

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 32
Figure 31 shows 30 Mt of organic waste Biosolids and contamination
generation in 2016-17. Core organic
materials from the MSW, C&I and C&D The National Waste Report 2016 categorised all biosolids as
hazardous on the basis of their potential to contain
sectors made up about 46% (14 Mt or 581 kg
hazardous contaminants and lack of data to demonstrate
per capita) and non-core organics from otherwise. Recent national biosolids data (PSD 2017) includes
agriculture and fisheries made up the a breakdown by jurisdiction and contaminant grade, and in
remainder. About 6.7 Mt of organic waste this report these have been adopted to better identify
was deposited in landfill. ‘contaminated biosolids’ as a small proportion of all biosolids.
However, the guidelines applied to characterise
The most significant waste tonnages were contamination levels cover a limited range of contaminants,
livestock manure (33%), bagasse (20%), food including various heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides and
organics (14%), garden organics (12%), PCBs. These represent a small portion of contaminant lists
timber (7%), other organics (6%), biosolids used for characterising hazardous wastes more generally, and
(5%), and food-derived hazardous waste exclude a range of chemical risks that are likely to apply to
(2%). biosolids. For example, Gallen et al. (2016) measured PFOS
contamination levels at 16 Australian wastewater treatment
The trend in generation of organic waste is plants and found four with contamination levels exceeding
shown in Figure 30 for core waste only, for European limits for their current uses (Australia has not yet
set a biosolids-specific limit for PFOS). The proportion of
which trend data is available. Organic waste
biosolids reported here as contaminated is therefore likely to
generation remained fairly stable over the be an underestimate. This issue will be addressed further in
11-year period while Australia’s population the forthcoming Hazardous Waste in Australia 2019 report.
increased. Overall there was a reduction per
capita of about 14%. The recycling rate increased from 39% to 52% (5.4 to 7.3 Mt).

Figure 31 Generation of organic waste by type and stream, Australia 2016-17


Cotton gin trash & fisheries organics

Available bagasse

C&I
(agriculture
& fisheries)
Feedlot manures

Food-derived haz waste


Biosolids
Other non-haz organics C&I (core)
Timber
C&D
Garden organics

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 33
that can be used in compost and soil conditioner products. Significant opportunities remain to improve
the recovery of organics via composting or anerobic digestion facilities.

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.

Including hazardous food waste, a


total of 5.0 Mt of food waste was
generated in 2016-17 with 76%
going to landfill, about 18% recycled
and 1% going to energy from waste
facilities. Excluding the hazardous
categories, 4.3 Mt of food waste From the War on Waste TV series, used with permission from Lune Media.
was generated with 87% going to
landfill, only 11% being recycled and around 1% going to energy from waste facilities. More local
governments around Australia are beginning to collect food and garden waste in their organics kerbside
bin collections, which should see an increase in food waste recovery in future years (see Section 10.1).

Figure 32 Generation of food waste by management method, Australia 2016-17

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 34
The National Food Waste Strategy
Food waste is acknowledged by all of Australia’s governments as being important due to its impacts on the
environment, economy and society.
In November 2017, the Australian Government launched a National Food Waste Strategy at the National Food
Waste Summit in Melbourne. The strategy provides a framework to support collective action towards halving
Australia’s food waste by 2030, and aligns with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 on food
loss and waste.
Implementation of the strategy is supported by an initial $1.37 million investment over 24 months. $1 million of
these funds has been provided by the Australian Government and the states and territories to Food Innovation
Australia (FIAL). In 2019, FIAL will deliver an implementation plan that sets out the short and medium to long-
term actions to support reductions in food waste, and a monitoring and evaluation framework to measure our
progress towards achieving the 50% reduction target. By 2019, FIAL will have established an industry voluntary
commitment program to engage business in food waste reduction activities.
The remaining $370,000 from the Department of the Environment and Energy’s National Environmental Science
Program is funding research into a National Food Waste Baseline and return on investment study for business,
government and the not-for-profit sector.
As the first report of its kind in Australia, the National Food Waste Baseline will quantify the amount of food
waste generated across the supply and consumption chain, by sectors and food waste fates. The Australian
Government’s intent is for the report’s findings to encourage Australians to avoid generation of food waste,
reduce food waste to landfill, and encourage investment in the highest value treatment for all food waste fates,
within the principles of the waste hierarchy with a circular economy approach.
The report will establish a baseline for food waste in 2016-17. The final report is expected to be published on the
Department of the Environment and Energy’s website in late 2018.

7.9 Resource recovery and recycling rates by material category, 2016-17


Figure 33 shows resource recovery and recycling rates for selected waste categories, remembering that
‘resource recovery’ includes materials used for generating energy. Material categories that are wholly or
partly biologically sourced (organics, paper and cardboard, textiles, leather and rubber excluding tyres) all
generate landfill methane that is partly captured, so their recovery rate exceeds their recycling rate. A
small amount of plastic goes to energy recovery facilities. The materials with the highest recovery rates
are, in order, metals, masonry, paper and cardboard, organics, glass, ash and plastics.

Figure 33 Resource recovery and recycling rates for core waste by material category, 2016-17

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 35
8. International comparisons
This section compares Australia’s rates of waste generation, recycling and fate with various countries. It
does this for most core waste and also MSW only. The countries compared were selected based on their
data being available, recent and readily comparable with Australia.

8.1 Overall waste generation and fate


Figure 34 compares Australia’s rates of waste generation, disposal, recycling and resource recovery with
selected OECD nations. To ensure a consistent comparison, the Australian data excludes hazardous waste,
ash and energy recovery from landfill gas.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 36
Table 5 Descriptions of the waste sources included in the data compared in Figure 29
Country Description of waste sources included

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.)

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 37
8.2 Municipal waste generation and fate
This subsection compares 2016-17 MSW generation and fate in Australia with selected countries. The data
presented for all jurisdictions apart from Australia is sourced from Eunomia (2017), which attempts to
report a consistent definition of MSW generation and recycling rate for a selection of developed countries
for the 2016 reporting period25. It defines the recycling rate as the percentage of materials recycled,
composted and digested divided by the MSW generated.

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).

Figure 35 Comparison of MSW generation and recycling rates in selected countries

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 38
9. Role of states and territories
State and territory governments have Figure 36 The waste hierarchy expresses a preferential
primary responsibility for managing order to managing waste, and is embedded in state
waste through legislation, policy, and territory policy frameworks
regulation, strategy and planning, as
well as permitting and licensing of
waste transport, storage, treatment
and disposal operations. The policy
frameworks in each state and territory
differ, but there are common themes
and some coordination through the
Australian Government or direct
discussions and sharing by states and
territories. Common themes include
ensuring waste is safely managed and
that the waste hierarchy is
implemented (see Figure 36).

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?

State and territory perspectives


States and territories were invited to contribute to this report. Their responses are set out following Table
6, providing perspectives on:
• data trends and the drivers of them
• major wins or initiatives, especially those other jurisdictions might be interested to follow
• policy developments
• current challenges and opportunities
• significant events.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 39
Table 6 Summary of state and territory waste policy settings

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 40
Landfill levy (2018-19) Strategy document (including targets) Other (please see table notes for key)

Qld General waste: MSW, $70/t Waste—Everyone’s responsibility: Queensland


C&I, C&D (proposed) Waste Avoidance and Resource Productivity Strategy Container deposit scheme Introduced 1 Nov 2018
(2014–2024) (under review at the time of writing)
Regulated waste: By 2024:
• Category 1 $150/t • reduce waste per capita by 5% (to 1.8 tonnes per Landfill bans
• Category 2 $100/t capita per year)
• increase state average MSW recycling rate to Ban includes
Landfill levy proposed to be
50% (from 33% in 2012-13) Single-use shopping bag ban compostable and
introduced 4 March 2019
• increase C&I recycling rate to 55% (from 42%) biodegradable bags
• increase C&D recycling rate to 80% (from 61%) Hazardous waste tracking
• reduce waste to landfill by 15%
Drop-off availability
• improve management of problem wastes
Household chemical collections subject to arrangements
(specific targets to be developed).
by individual councils
SA Metro Adelaide: South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2015-2020
• Solid waste $100/t By 2020: Container deposit scheme Introduced 1977
• Shredder floc $62/t • 35% reduction in landfill disposal from 2002-03
Non-metro Adelaide: level Ban on a range of
• 5% reduction in waste generation per capita hazardous, problematic
• Solid waste $50/t Landfill bans
(from 2015 baseline) and recyclable materials,
• Shredder floc $31/t
• landfill diversion targets in the metro area are: including most e-waste
No levy for packaged asbestos waste - 70% for MSW Single-use shopping bag ban Introduced May 2009
- 80% for C&I
- 90% for C&D Hazardous waste tracking
• maximise diversion in non-metro area. Statewide household
Household chemical collections
chemical drop-off
Tas Voluntary levy adopted by regional The Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management Container deposit scheme Under consideration
waste groups at levels of $0 to Strategy (2009) (under review at the time of writing) Landfill bans -
$7.50/t Single-use shopping bag ban Introduced Nov 2013
No numerical targets are included in the strategy Framework in place but
Hazardous waste tracking
not operational
Selected regional
Household chemical collections
programs

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 41
Landfill levy (2018-19) Strategy document (including targets) Other (please see table notes for key)

Vic Metro and regional: Statewide Waste and Resource Recovery


• MSW $64.30/t Infrastructure Plan (2016-2046) Container deposit scheme
• C&I and C&D $64.30/t
No numerical targets included in the plan ‘Category A’ prescribed
Rural:
industrial waste, paint,
• MSW $32.22/t
industrial transformers,
• C&I and C&D $56.36/t Landfill bans grease trap waste, oil
filters, whole tyres and
Prescribed industrial (hazardous) large containers. E-waste
waste: ban from 1 July 2019.
• Category B $250/t Single-use shopping bag ban To be introduced in 2019
• Category C $70/t
• Asbestos $30/t Hazardous waste tracking

Household chemical collections Statewide program

WA Putrescible $70/t Western Australian Waste Strategy: Creating the


Right Environment (2012) Container deposit scheme To be introduced in 2020
Inert $105/m3 $70/t
approx.
Landfill diversion targets by 2020: Landfill bans
• 65% for MSW in the metro region Single-use shopping bag ban Introduced July 2018
• 50% for MSW in regional centres
• 70% for C&I across the state Hazardous waste tracking
• 75% for C&D across the state. Eight metropolitan and
five regional, permanent
Household chemical collections
household chemical
drop-off points

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 42
9.1 ACT perspective
A sustainable future is one of the ACT Government’s strategic themes, as
outlined in our plan to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. Our
goal is to limit the risks posed by climate change, while ensuring Canberra
remains one of the most liveable cities in the world.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 43
9.2 New South Wales perspective
Focusing on reducing waste and supporting industry
NSW is focused on supporting a high performing and responsive
waste industry, backed with an $802 million investment under
Waste Less Recycle More (WLRM) to support a range of initiatives in
waste management. WLRM is the largest waste and recycling
funding program in Australia and is funded through the NSW waste
levy. It began in 2012 with funding allocated to actions and programs
to reduce waste, increase recycling, invest in infrastructure, reduce
litter and tackle illegal dumping.

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.

New reforms are tackling litter


On 1 December 2017, the NSW Government introduced the largest litter reduction initiative in NSW,
the Container Deposit Scheme, Return and Earn. The scheme allows people to receive a 10-cent
refund when they deliver an eligible beverage container to a return point. As at October 2018, there
are 680 return points across NSW with more than 750 million drink containers redeemed. There has
been a 33 per cent reduction in Return and Earn eligible drink containers in the litter stream since
November 2017 – the month before the scheme was introduced. Over the next 20 years, Return and
Earn is expected to result in 1.6 billion fewer beverage containers littered, almost 11 billion fewer
beverage containers ending up in landfill and 12.6 billion more beverage containers being recycled.

Improving the resilience of NSW recycling


In 2018 China began enforcing its National Sword policy, restricting the types of recyclable material it
will accept, and its decision is presenting global challenges that are impacting recycling in NSW. In
response, on 20 March 2018, the Minister for the Environment announced a one-off package of up
to $47 million to support local government and industry respond to China’s policy. The package
funds a range of initiatives to ensure kerbside recycling continues and to promote industry
innovation. The NSW EPA is also leading an inter-governmental Taskforce to find a longer-term
response to China’s policy, in partnership with industry and councils. The Taskforce is working
towards innovating and improving recycling and recycling markets in NSW by:
• examining the use of recycled products in Government procurement
• developing a circular economy policy for NSW
• identifying opportunities to increase NSW’s recycling capacity
• examining the need and options for longer term funding solutions.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 44
9.3 Northern Territory perspective
The NT EPA continues to implement the ‘Waste Management Strategy for the
Northern Territory 2015-2022’. The Strategy provides a basis for understanding
and improving the management of waste across the Territory, including
reducing the generation of waste, increasing rates of resource recovery and
minimising environmental impacts caused by waste.

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.

9.4 Queensland perspective


Across 2016-17, Queensland generated 9.8 million tonnes of headline wastes
(municipal solid waste, commercial and industrial waste and construction and
demolition waste). This was a 7.1% increase on the amount generated in
2015-16. By comparison, Queensland’s population grew by 1.3% over the
same period.

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 45
comprehensive waste strategy, underpinned by a waste disposal levy. Under the scheme, people will
receive a 10 cent refund for each eligible drink container they return to a container refund point.
Alternatively, they may donate their 10 cent refund to a charity or community group.

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.

9.5 South Australian perspective


The SA waste management and resource recovery industry faces challenges
as a result of the restrictions associated with China National Sword and
associated increasing operating costs and distance to markets for recycled
material.

Major developments and initiatives in SA include:


• China’s National Sword Policy Response Package Initiative
- infrastructure grants, loan fund, regional transport subsidy, market
development grants, state-wide education campaign
• State Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan
• disaster waste management planning – a Disaster Waste Management Capability Plan and
Guidelines were completed and incorporated under the State Emergency Management Plan

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 46
• energy from waste discussion paper and summary of submissions released
• promoting the transition to a more circular economy in South Australia
• mass balance reporting with some companies volunteering their data in trials.

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 has the primary objectives to promote:


• waste management practices that, as far as possible, eliminate waste or its disposal to landfill
• innovation and business activity in the waste management, resource recovery and green
industry sectors, recognising that these areas present a valuable opportunity to contribute to
the state's economic growth.

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.

Significant waste management challenges exist in SA including:


• economies of scale, contamination and use of composite materials as packaging present
challenges to remanufacturing locally and material exported for recovery
• waste promoted as ‘product’ and ensuring environmental risks are reliably tested to determine
consistency of character and contaminant levels to support the use of only genuine recovered
products, with materials that pose risks of harm being safely disposed as waste
• potentially reusable, low-risk ‘fill materials’ ending up at landfill due to uncertainty regarding
testing and treatment and time-cost pressures
• clean up and management of illegal dumping on both public and private land continues to result
in a significant cost to the EPA, local government and the SA community
• increasing amount of waste generation.

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 47
• prioritise waste avoidance and minimisation through product design (i.e. design products so
waste is minimised, made to last and materials are more easily recoverable), efficient use and
production, reuse and repair.

9.6 Tasmanian perspective


The Tasmanian Government has recently acted on some of Tasmania’s most
pressing waste issues by providing grants for controlled waste and tyre
processing facilities, as well as supporting the rollout of a number of national
stewardship schemes. In November 2017 the Government made changes to
the regulation of waste tyre stockpiling. Storage of more than 100 tonnes of
waste tyres is now regulated by EPA Tasmania as a “Level 2” activity under
the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.

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.

9.7 Victorian perspective


In 2016-17, the volume of waste generated and recovered in Victoria
remained relatively stable. Victoria’s waste and resource recovery system
managed 12.87 million tonnes of material – 1.1% more than the previous
year. Approximately 4.25 million tonnes of waste were sent to landfill
and 8.62 million tonnes (67%) of material were recovered for recycling.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 48
The capacity of Victoria’s resource recovery sector continues to grow, leading to greater recovery of
valuable resources. For example, households recovered 17.6% more organic material in 2016-17
than the previous year. This is the result of expanded household organics collection and processing
infrastructure and a growing market for recycled organic products, supported by the Victorian
Organics Resource Recovery Strategy.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 49
In response to community concerns about increasing levels of plastic pollution and litter, the
Victorian Government has also committed to banning single use lightweight plastic bags by the end
of 2019.

9.8 Western Australian perspective


Western Australia’s waste and recycling performance
Since 2011 there has been sustained improvement in the proportion of waste diverted from landfill
and a declining trend in waste disposed of to landfill in Western Australia. These trends reflect
increases to the waste levy over this period.

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.

State Government’s commitment to better waste and recycling outcomes


The Western Australian government continues to demonstrate its commitment to reducing waste
and increasing recycling. On 1 July 2018, it introduced a ban on lightweight plastic bags and has
committed to the introduction of a container deposit scheme expected to commence in 2020.

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.

Western Australia’s new Waste Strategy


The Waste Authority, on behalf of the State Government, is reviewing the State’s waste strategy to
make Western Australia a low waste society in which human health and the environment are
protected. The new strategy will include revised objectives and targets, with improved data
collection and management to support monitoring and evaluation.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 50
10. Local government waste management
This section addresses the critical role played by local governments in providing waste services to
their communities. The data was mostly obtained from state government collations of council data.
The section closes with a perspective from the Australian Local Government Association.

10.1 Local government services


Local government waste services include kerbside collections, public place waste management and
provision of recycling and disposal infrastructure. The services provided vary by local government
and region type, as illustrated in Figure 37. Most of the data in this section is on kerbside services.

Figure 37 Local government waste services by region type

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.

Figure 38 Waste collected by Australian local governments by service type26, 2016-17

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.

26 AWT stands for ‘alternative waste technology’. See Table 9.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 51
Figure 39 shows the proportions of Australian households provided with different types of kerbside
service in 2016-17. About 95% had a kerbside garbage bin service, 91% had a recycling bin and 42%
had an organics bin27. Those without a kerbside service usually have access to drop-off services.

Figure 39 Australian households’ access to different type of kerbside service, 2016-17

Table 7 shows the estimated kerbside service coverage by state and territory.

Table 7 Estimated proportions of households receiving kerbside services by jurisdiction, 2016-17


ACT NSW NT Qld SA Tas Vic WA
- garbage bin 100% 91% 73% 96% 100% 93% 96% 97%
sent to landfill 100% 66% 73% 92% 100% 93% 96% 69%
sent to alternative waste technology (AWT) - 25% - 4% - - - 28%
-recycling bin 100% 89% 60% 86% 98% 93% 95% 92%
-organics bin 5% 60% - 10% 92% 15% 56% 14%

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.

An estimate of the average composition of a typical kerbside


recycling bin is shown in Figure 40. Paper and cardboard make up
the largest proportion by weight, but this proportion has declined
in recent years as newspaper circulation has fallen.

Contamination rates in recycling bins typically range between 4-


12% by weight, depending on the effort put into education and
enforcement and the socio-economic characteristics of the area.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 52
Disposal rates from material recovery facilities are sometimes much higher than this due to the
presence of bagged recyclables and glass fines, often attributable to breakage during bin collection
and drop-off. Non-recyclable plastics are another major contaminant in recycling bins on a volume
basis.

Kerbside organics services


Table 8 shows the numbers of local governments that provide kerbside organics services. Services
vary – they may be universal or optional and may provide for collection of garden organics (GO) only
or include both food organics and garden organics (FOGO). About 22% of Australian local
governments offer a kerbside GO bin service and a further 16% provide some form of kerbside FOGO
collection service. Several are trialling or planning to implement a FOGO service.

Table 8 Number of local governments with a kerbside organics bin collection service, July 2018
Number of local governments… % of local governments…

with GO with FOGO trialling or with GO with FOGO


Jurisdiction planning FOGO
ACT 1 0 0 100% 0%
NSW 46 33 4 36% 26%
NT 0 0 0 0% 0%
Qld 10 1 0 13% 1%
SA 17 28 0 24% 40%
Tas 2 3 0 7% 10%
Vic 36 19 3 46% 24%
WA 9 4 1 7% 3%
Australia 118 88 8 22% 16%

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.

10.2 Australian Local Government Association perspective


The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) was asked to contribute to this report,
responding to four questions or prompts:
1. How would you describe the state of waste management in Australia in 2018?
2. What are the most significant challenges facing Australian waste management providers in
2018?
3. What are the greatest opportunities facing Australian waste management providers in 2018?
4. Where do you believe Australian waste management should aim to be in 10 years’ time?

ALGA’s response is set out on the following page.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 53
Status of waste management
The Australian local government sector has long been at the
coal-face of waste management, through kerbside collection
services, processing, community education and landfill management.

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.

Key areas for focus in the local government sector are:


• decreasing quantities of waste going to landfill or stockpiled, such as through driving demand
for recycled products
• supporting improved infrastructure capacities and capabilities at materials processing facilities
• keeping residents informed and encouraged to continue or improve good waste management
practices.

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.

Waste management in 10 years


Waste management in 2028 should be a flourishing and economically viable industry, which
contributes economically via more local jobs and increased demand for products made from
recycled materials; environmentally through reduced quantities of waste going to landfill, and more
waste re-entering the product-lifecycle following a circular economy model, and socially through
acknowledging the good efforts and practices by Australian householders and local government
service providers.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 54
11. The waste and resource recovery sector
This section gives a brief overview of the waste and resource recovery sector – its size, players,
services and the main types of infrastructure. The section also includes perspectives from four of the
main waste and resource recovery industry associations: the Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR),
the Australian Organics Recycling Association (AORA), the National Waste and Recycling Industry
Council (NWRIC) and the Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA). These associations
reflect on the current state of waste management in Australia, the most significant challenges and
opportunities facing the sector, and where Australian waste management should aim to be in 10
years’ time.

11.1 Sector overview


The Australian waste and resource recovery sector managed about 55 Mt of waste in 2016-17,
including about 32 Mt through recycling and most of the rest through landfill. Based on a major
report for the Department, the value of the sector’s activities in 2014-15 was about $15.5 billion,
comprising $12.6 billion from service provision and $2.9 billion from sale of recovered materials (CIE
2017). The value added by waste-related activities was $6.9 billion, accounting for 0.43% of
Australian gross domestic product (GDP). The sector directly employed almost 50,000 people (full
time equivalent terms), accounting for about 0.5% of total employment. About 20% of waste related
activity was undertaken by local government.

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).

11.2 Waste collection services


Municipal waste and recycling collection services are typically provided by local government through
either in-house teams or, more commonly, a service contractor engaged through a competitive
tender. Increasingly, for economies of scale, groups of local governments are tendering together and
for longer (e.g. seven years or more). Services usually include a weekly garbage service and
fortnightly recycling service, and often a regular or on-call organics service. Some councils extend
their services to smaller businesses and institutions. Periodic or on-call ‘hard waste’ collection
services are provided by many metropolitan councils to allow residents to dispose of bulky and non-
putrescible items such as furniture, appliances, bikes and so on.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 55
Large corporate waste generators often establish a relationship with a major waste and resource
recovery company for national or regional services. Most other businesses engage service providers
on short-term contracts or informal arrangements. In many instances, C&I recycling rates are lower
than they could be because the cost of additional bins and collections is seen as prohibitive.
Lessons from the China crisis
Hazardous wastes are typically managed by
contractors having regulatory approval for the The 2018 Chinese restrictions on import of wastes
collection, transport and management of the (see Section 15.1) drew attention to difficulties
particular types of waste. The five large states facing recyclers of domestic waste. Recyclers often
operate tracking systems in which each bear all the risk if commodity prices fall, and may
have limited options for stockpiling materials while
consignment of hazardous waste must be
new markets are sought. Rate caps can constrain
reported to the state, and can only be taken to local governments from renegotiating contracts.
facilities licensed to receive them. Governments are working on new model contracts.

11.3 Waste and resource recovery infrastructure


Table 9 (overleaf) describes the main types of waste and resource recovery infrastructure and those
who operate them.

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.

11.4 Regional variations


In metropolitan and larger urban centres, most waste infrastructure, including landfills, is privately
owned. Businesses are usually serviced by private operators in a competitive environment. Local
governments are responsible for collecting MSW and often run transfer stations, but usually have
little involvement with C&I and C&D waste.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 56
Table 9 Common waste management infrastructure types and functions
Facility type Activity and function performed Operators

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 57
11.5 Australian Council of Recycling perspective
The year 2018 has been a pivotal one for the Australian
recycling and resource recovery sector - literally.

As China has introduced new policies that significantly impact


on the export of waste materials for recycling from Australia, the sector has needed to quickly pivot
from one group of settings to another. From export-ready to self-reliant. From collection-oriented to
production-oriented. From quantity to quality.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 58
11.6 Australian Organics Recycling Association perspective
Status of waste management
The recycling of organics continues to steadily progress nationally with
consistent efforts across the states in the drive to collect and divert
higher levels of food waste from landfill in addition to their successful
garden organics recycling. The implementation of municipal food and garden collection programs is
increasing along with associated building and upgrading of commercial processing facilities.

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.

Waste management in 10 years


A transformation in the level of waste diversion to organics recycling will have taken place across the
country, including the wide acceptance of compostable food service plastics, commercial source
separation and strong municipal programs. Processors will have developed a market network of
downstream processing, bringing urban and agricultural wastes together to maximise the quality and
quantity of compost for soils. Compost use, soil health and soil carbon sequestration programs will
become the norm in future farming.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 59
11.7 National Waste and Recycling Industry Council perspective
Status of waste management
Australia is a global leader in economic and social progress.
However this performance is not mirrored in waste and recycling.
For example, many countries with lower wealth per capita achieve higher recycling rates – such as
South Korea, Taiwan or Japan. Australia can stimulate employment and create social amenity via
improved waste management and better recycling. The National Waste and Recycling Industry
Council believes we could become a global leader.

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.

Waste management in 10 years


Waste and recycling data, regulation enforcement and licencing
• Where practical, all waste tonnes generated should be tracked source to sink. All tracked tonnes
should go to licensed facilities. This will ensure fair, safe and sustainable outcomes for the
whole industry.
• The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) should collect high quality waste data on a national
scale.
• All waste and recycling facilities in Australia should be licenced, irrespective of size. All waste
transporters should be registered.
Infrastructure planning
• Every state and territory should have a ‘Statewide Waste and Recycling Infrastructure’ plan
including dedicated and protected sites for landfills, energy recovery sites, composting sites and
all forms of recycling. This plan should also provide for natural disaster waste.
Landfill levies
• Waste and recycling levies across Australia should be harmonised to prevent unnecessary
interstate waste transfers. Levy avoidance should be minimal and rare.
• Levies should be invested in a manner which maximises their economic, social and
environmental return. We believe the best way to do this is via a ‘recycling bank’ - similar to the
Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This independent body will have dedicated outcomes to
achieve from levy revenue in all jurisdictions.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 60
11.8 Waste Management Association of Australia perspective
Status of waste management
In 2018 Australian industry continues to work hard to
provide environmentally responsible and effective waste
and resource management systems and services around almost all of Australia. Since 2016, with
shows such as the ABC’s War on Waste, there has been an increased public interest on what we as
an industry do, which is only a good thing. China’s enforcement of its National Sword policy in late
2017 has resulted in further public awareness, increased government attention, and greater focus on
the need to develop markets in Australia for the materials that industry successfully diverts.

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.

Waste management in 10 years


The waste and resource industry will be viewed by all (community, industry, government) as an
essential service that is integral to the lives of all Australians. A level playing field will provide
commercial certainty, allowing the development of markets and infrastructure that meet community
needs. Discussions about the industry will focus on the value we create. Our policy settings will
compete with Europe to be the most effective in creating a circular economy, reducing carbon
emissions and decreasing waste. Manufacturers, fast-moving consumer goods producers and all
other sectors will compete to be the best in this field. Nirvana!

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 61
12. Product and packaging waste
This section presents information about product and packaging wastes. The quantities reported are
a subset of those in the previous sections on waste generation, recycling and disposal, etc. The
section opens with information from the various product stewardship programs, then presents data
from container deposit systems, and closes with data on some other product waste.

12.1 Waste included in product stewardship programs


Product stewardship is an approach to managing the impacts of products and materials in which
those involved in producing and selling products share responsibility for reducing their impact,
throughout their lifecycle, on the environment, human health and safety. Typically, this involves
industry working to ensure their product wastes are properly managed, often through financial
support and achieving collection targets. The Product Stewardship Act 2011 (PS Act) provides a basis
for establishing product stewardship programs, which may be voluntary, co-regulatory (industry
action underpinned by Australian Government regulation) or mandatory. No mandatory schemes
have yet been established. Some product stewardship programs pre-date the PS Act.

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).

Table 10 National product stewardship schemes, 2016-17


Tonnes of Est.
Start
Products covered Product stewardship scheme Scheme type product capture
year
collected rate 1

Fluorescent lights Fluorocycle 2010 906 -


Voluntary under
Mobile phones and the PS Act
Mobile Muster 1998 79 69%
accessories
National TV and Computer Co-regulatory
TVs and computers 2011 51,430 44%
Recycling Scheme under the PS Act
Agricultural and
ChemClear 2003 79 -
veterinary chemicals
Agricultural & vet.
drumMUSTER 1998 2,295 48%
chemical containers Industry
initiated and run
Packaging 2 Australian Packaging Covenant 3 1999 3,714,000 67%
Paint Paintback 2016 2,000 -
Tyres Tyre Stewardship Scheme 2014 ~45,000 4 -
Used oil Product Stewardship for Oil 2000 Gov’t initiated 257,800 -
1 The estimated capture rate is the tonnes collected divided by the total eligible for collection under the scheme
2 2015-16 data (2016-17 data unavailable)
3 Underpinned by the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011
4 This is the estimated quantity recycled. The scheme is not directly responsible for this amount.

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 62
organisation in the recent commitment to ensure all packaging is recyclable or compostable by 2025.
In 2015-16, around two-thirds of the packaging material consumed in Australia was recovered.

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.

12.2 Container deposit schemes


During 2016-17, CDS were operational in NT and SA28 (see Section 15.2 for more detail). Between
them, they collected 659 million containers. Table 11 presents data on the performance of the two
schemes by material type, showing the proportion of the containers sold that were recovered under
the scheme.

Table 11 2016-17 return rate by material type


Type of container NT SA
Aluminium containers 52% 89%
Glass containers 57% 85%
HDPE containers 28% 54%
LPB containers 39% 67%
PET containers 33% 66%
Steel containers 1% -
Overall 48% 80%

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.

12.3 Other products


Electronic waste
Electronic waste29 (or e-waste) is an increasingly significant issue as digitisation penetrates more and
more aspects of society. Some e-waste contains heavy metals and other toxic substances while other
wastes have resource value, particularly in metals recovery. Blue Environment modelled the
generation of e-waste by combining consumption data with lifespan distribution parameters
established by the United Nations University. The model suggests that in 2016-17 about 485 kt of e-
waste was generated in Australia, an increase of about 3.8% on the previous year. TVs and

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 63
computers (discussed above) represented about a quarter of the total. About half the e-waste was
recycled, mostly through metals recycling operations of white goods and similar. Smaller e-waste
items were mostly landfilled.

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.

Photo 9 Mattresses awaiting recycling

Photo by Christine Wardle

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 64
13. Litter and dumping
Litter and dumping are problems in many areas of Australia. In addition to damaging urban
infrastructure and the environment, litter and dumped waste impose sizable clean-up costs on local
government, parks and waterway managers and private land-owners. The fact that illegal disposal
can be a cheap option is the main reason why waste management needs to be, and is, highly
regulated.

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).

Initiatives to combat litter and dumping


Litter and dumping are tackled at the state and local government level. All states and territories have
anti-littering and dumping laws and penalties and most have teams dedicated to education and
enforcement. Local governments, too, have by-laws against littering and dumping and staff tasked
with pursuing offenders and promoting litter and dumping reduction initiatives. In NSW, regional
illegal dumping squads specialise in combating and preventing illegal dumping.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 65
KAB data suggests that container deposit schemes in SA, NT and NSW have reduced littering of drink
containers. NSW reports a 33% drop in drink containers eligible for deposits under its ‘Return and
Earn’ container deposit scheme before and after the scheme was introduced (Minister for the
Environment 2018). The impending establishment of CDS in other states and territories will extend
that benefit.

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.

Photo 10 Criminal dumping of asbestos waste in a Victorian forest

Photo by Paul Randell

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 66
14. Liquid waste
This section provides an overview of liquid waste generation, management, treatment and fate in
Australia in 2016-17. It reports on both non-hazardous liquid waste (sewage and trade waste) and
hazardous liquid waste, which are included in earlier sections of this report. Liquid waste is included
here following a recommendation from a previous assessment of liquid waste in Australia (Hyder
Consulting 2011b). This section aims to illustrate and discuss the key waste flows between the waste
management industry and the wastewater industry.

The following definitions have been adopted for this report:


• Sewerage system: the network of pipes used to deliver both sewage and trade waste to sewage
treatment plants.
• Sewage: human excreta or domestic waterborne waste, whether untreated or partially treated.
• Household liquid waste (hazardous and non-hazardous): liquid waste disposed of into
household bins or household chemical collection programs.
• Hazardous liquid waste: liquid waste that falls under the National Environment Protection
(Movement of Controlled Wastes Between States and Territories) Measure. This covers most
liquids not disposed directly to the sewerage system from commercial and industrial premises.
• Trade waste: non-sewage discharges to sewer from industrial and commercial premises.
Excludes hazardous liquid waste but includes non-sewage discharges from hazardous waste
treatment facilities.

Data sources and method


The Bureau of Meteorology publishes an annual ‘urban national performance report’ (BoM 2017)
and supporting dataset, providing a detailed account of non-hazardous liquid waste generation and
management in Australia by financial year. The report covers sewage, trade waste, treated effluent
discharges and treated effluent recycled, and is compiled from 84 service providers including bulk
water authorities, water utilities, and councils servicing most of the Australian population (more
than 20 million). Another report prepared on commission to the Australia and New Zealand Biosolids
Partnership (PSD 2017) provides data on biosolids generation.

To estimate quantities of effluent disposal, the following formula was applied:


Disposal (treated effluent outfall) (ML) = Total sewage collected (ML) - Total effluent
recycled (ML) - Total biosolids generation (ML equivalent).

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.

14.1 Liquid waste generation 2016-17


Household liquid waste generation
Sewage is the main liquid waste from households. In 2016-17, about 1,900 gigalitres (GL) of sewage
was discharged to sewer, mostly from households.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 67
Figure 41 Overview of liquid waste generation and fate in Australia 2016-17

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.

Commercial and industrial liquid waste generation


Businesses and institutions all generate sewage, which contributes to the overall 1,900 GL quantity
generated.

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.

14.2 Liquid waste collection and movement


Liquid waste is collected and moved through:
• the sewerage pipe network
• commercial liquid waste transport vehicles
• private transport to central collection sites (i.e. domestic liquid waste).

Sewerage pipe network


In most of Australia, sewage and trade wastes are collected through the sewerage system and
stormwater is managed through separate collection and discharge system. In the late 19th and early

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 68
20th century some combined stormwater and sewerage systems were built in Australia but these
are gradually being replaced with separated systems. The sewerage system typically delivers the
sewage to a sewerage treatment plant for treatment to enable recycling or discharge to the
environment.

Commercial liquid waste transport


Hazardous liquid waste and some non-hazardous liquid waste is transported from industrial and
commercial premises by private waste management companies. Non-hazardous liquid waste is
usually transported to a recycling facility or to a permitted sewerage system inlet.

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.

14.3 Liquid waste treatment


The two principal places of liquid waste treatment are:
• sewage treatment plants
• liquid waste treatment facilities (hazardous and non-hazardous).

Sewage treatment plants


BoM (2017) reports that in Australia in 2016-17 there were 673 sewage treatment plants operating
to treat sewage and trade waste. Not all plants provide the same levels of treatment. The levels of
sewage treatment are generally defined as primary, secondary, tertiary and/or advanced treatment.

The UN (2009) defines these treatment levels as follows:


• Primary treatment: Treatment of wastewater by a physical and/or chemical process involving
settlement of suspended solids, or other process in which the 5-day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5) of the incoming wastewater is reduced by at least 20% before discharge and the
total suspended solids of the incoming wastewater are reduced by at least 50%.
• Secondary treatment: Post-primary treatment of wastewater by a process generally involving
biological or other treatment with a secondary settlement or other process, resulting in a BOD5
removal of at least 70% and a chemical oxygen demand removal of at least 75%.
• Tertiary treatment of public wastewater: Treatment (additional to secondary treatment) of
nitrogen and/or phosphorous and/or any other pollutant affecting the quality or a specific use
of water (microbiological pollution, colour etc.). For organic pollution, the treatment efficiencies
that define a tertiary treatment are the following: removal of at least 95% for BOD and 85% for
chemical oxygen demand, and at least one of the following:
- nitrogen removal of at least 70%
- phosphorus removal of at least 80%
- microbiological removal achieving a faecal coliform density less than 1,000 in 100 ml.

Based on the BoM (2017) supporting database, 36% of Australian wastewater was treated to
secondary levels and 64% to tertiary levels.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 69
The waste sent to sewage treatment plants has one of three fates:
1. Biosolids are formed from the treatment of tank bottom sludge from the sewage treatment
plant process. PSD (2017) estimates that in 2016-17 Australia:
- generated 1.6 GL (or around 1.6 Mt) of ‘wet biosolids’ which assumes a solids content of
about 20%
- recycled 83% of biosolids in direct land application in agriculture or in producing compost
products
- stockpiled, used in land rehabilitation, sent to landfill or discharged to the ocean 17% of
biosolids.
The extent of dewatering and/or drying of biosolids varies from facility to facility. This in turn
affects the amount of liquid in biosolids. Biosolids represent perhaps the most significant flow
from the liquid waste stream into the solid waste management system.
2. Treated effluent outfall, involving disposal of treated effluent to the ocean or a local water
body. In 2016-17, about 1,700 GL of treated effluent was disposed to water bodies.
3. Recycled effluent, involving recycling of sewage that is treated to a suitable standard for the
intended use, for example in irrigation. In 2016-17, BoM (2017) estimates that 280 GL of treated
effluent was recycled.

Hazardous liquid waste treatment facilities


Large hazardous liquid waste treatment facilities are located in all states except ACT, NT and Tas,
which export the bulk of hazardous liquid waste generated within their jurisdiction to other states
for treatment. In 2016-17, about 1.8 GL (or 1.8 Mt) of liquid waste was sent to hazardous liquid
waste treatment facilities.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 70
15. Current and emerging challenges
Waste management is always changing in response to community demand, government policy,
technological development and market circumstances. This section reviews some of the challenges
faced by the waste sector. Firstly, it addresses the major recent issues arising from China's
restrictions on the export of recycled commodities. It then considers some government policy and
program issues of increasing significance, followed by challenges relating to waste and its
processing. Several environmental concerns of growing community importance are then examined.

The section closes with a contribution from the Boomerang Alliance, representing environmental
groups with a particular concern about waste.

15.1 Restrictions on the export of waste materials


China’s 2017 and 2018 announcements restricting imports of particular types and grades of waste
materials for recycling has been a major development for the waste and resource recovery sector.
Many processors of domestic recyclables had come to rely on exporting low-grade mixed materials
to China and other countries with lower labour and environmental compliance costs. China decided
that the environmental costs of importing these materials from Australia, USA, Europe and other
countries were too high, and established policies restricting the allowable levels of contaminants in
waste material loads to 0.5%. Its restrictions had global consequences, rapidly leading to reduced
prices for sorted waste commodities and causing market blockages, stockpiling and some instability
in the provision of recycling collection and processing services.

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.

15.2 Government policies and programs


National harmonisation of waste policy
Waste has traditionally been managed locally, and most waste policy and regulation is developed by
states and territories. Increasingly, however, waste is moving across borders and national industries
are facing waste management issues in multiple jurisdictions. With support from the states and
territories, the Australian Government is spearheading efforts to harmonise policy and regulation to

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 71
ensure rational and efficient management. An updated National Waste Policy is to be released with
this publication. Consistent national data and reporting is part of this effort. Harmonisation in the
hazardous waste area is particularly important, since many of the markets for processing these
materials are national.

The circular economy


A concept gaining currency in waste policy is the circular economy30, which envisages keeping
products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times. This contrasts
with the ‘take, make and dispose’ economic model, which relies on plentiful, cheap and easily
accessible materials and energy. Several states and territories are developing waste policy within a
circular economy framework.

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).

An increasing emphasis of infrastructure planning is the adequacy of resource recovery


infrastructure and the need to protect suitable sites from conflicting neighbourhood development.
This particularly relates to the future management of organics, C&D waste, hazardous waste and
potential energy from waste facilities.

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.

Container deposit schemes


A current area of rapid policy development is CDS. A CDS has been in place in SA since 1977 but until
recently all other states and territories, supported by the packaging and beverage industries,
preferred to focus on local government collection systems. CDS were established in NT in 2013, NSW
in 2017, ACT in mid-2018 and Qld in November 2018, and is scheduled to start in WA in 2020. Tas is

30 See https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy.
31 See https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-policy/product-stewardship.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 72
also considering introducing a CDS. Litter surveys and anecdotal reports suggest CDS reduces litter
and improves recycling in regional and remote communities.

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.

Food and garden organics recovery


Across Australia, food and garden organics make up about half of kerbside garbage and a quarter of
commercial garbage. Food and garden organics in landfills generate the greenhouse gas methane,
produce liquid leachate that can pollute groundwater, create odour, sustain pest animals and create
unstable landforms. About 43% of Australian local governments have introduced kerbside organics
services that, combined with smaller volume garbage bins, have seen the proportion of garden
organics in garbage fall markedly. Mostly, these materials are composted and used as soil
conditioners in urban markets.

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.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions


Carbon policy has been a major issue for the solid waste sector for over a decade, primarily due to
emission of methane from the anaerobic decay of organic waste in landfills. The industry is strongly
engaged with the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund, which incentivises activities
that reduce landfill emissions, including burning landfill gas, processing organic waste through
alternative technologies or diverting organic material for composting. Between 1990 and 2016,
emissions from solid waste declined by 43%. The 2016 data puts emissions from solid waste disposal
at about 8.7 Mt of carbon dioxide equivalent, or 1.6% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions32. A
2018 decision by the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee means that landfill gas collection
operations will be unable to receive credits under the Emissions Reduction Fund after their standard
seven-year contracts expire. The impact on gas recovery rates is yet to be seen. Landfills will still be
able to earn saleable ‘large-scale generation certificates’ for producing renewable power.

Removal of PFAS contaminated soils


Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a recently recognised hazardous material that was
present in firefighting foams until recent years. Health impacts on humans have not been definitely
proven (DoH 2018) but PFAS can bioaccumulate and adverse effects have been demonstrated in
animals. Very large volumes of soil are known to be contaminated with PFAS, particularly where
firefighting foams are widely used, such as defence sites, airports and fire training facilities.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 73
Governments are investigating appropriate responses and management solutions. This issue will be
further explored in the forthcoming Hazardous Waste in Australia 2019 report.

15.3 Changes to waste and its processing


Compositional changes
Changes in consumer behaviour and the ways goods are delivered are changing waste streams. A
reduction in consumption of printed media and the size of print media publications has reduced
volumes of paper in domestic waste. The replacement of many rigid packaging formats with soft
plastics has seen a decline in the proportion of glass, rigid plastic and paperboard and an increase in
the volume of low density and low-value or harder-to-recycle soft plastics in waste and recycling
streams. The implications of these changes are reduced quantities and value of comingled
recyclables per capita and a growing need for effective recycling of soft plastics.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 74
A key challenge for energy from waste proponents is overcoming concerns about emissions and the
risk that recycling would be undermined. The case for energy from waste is stronger where it is
demonstrated to be an option of last resort above landfill, but below higher options on the waste
hierarchy (see Figure 36) of avoidance and reduction, reuse and recycling.

15.4 Growing environmental and community concerns


Waste fires
Waste fires can arise across all stages of the waste management chain including waste collection,
transport, transfer stations, recycling and disposal at landfill (Fattal et al. 2016). Flammable waste
materials include tyres, plastics, timber, garden waste, oils, solvents and paper. Several recent fires
in waste stockpiles have required days of firefighting effort and required local evacuations.
Extinguishing landfill fires can require extensive digging out of material. Where this does not happen,
landfill fires have been known to smoulder for months or years.

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.

Stockpiles and their management


Waste stockpiling has come to prominence due to fires and fire risks in stockpiled materials and
abandoned waste dumps that required state intervention to clean up. The problems are often
associated with recycling operations that run into trouble. The Chinese restrictions on the import of
recycled commodities, for example, led to some large stockpiles of flammable materials while
businesses worked to find new markets. In some cases, large quantities of waste have been
stockpiled by operators who lack the capacity or investment needed to process or sell the materials.
In still other cases, stockpiles are created by criminal activity.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 75
Food wastage
Food production and distribution is financially and environmentally expensive, using fertilisers,
water, agricultural chemicals and energy, and if it is landfilled, food waste generates the potent
greenhouse gas methane. The economic cost of food wastage in Australia is estimated at more than
$20 billion per year (SARDI 2015). The National Food Waste Strategy (Australian Government 2017)
targets a halving of Australia’s food waste by 2030. More detail is provided in Section 7.8.

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).

Photo 11 A dead bird and the plastic that was inside it

From The Ocean Cleaner (theoceancleaner.org.au). Used with permission.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 76
15.5 Boomerang Alliance perspective
The Boomerang Alliance brings together almost 50
environmental, community and other groups who are
passionate about stemming waste and litter. They were invited to contribute to this report,
responding to the same questions and prompts as ALGA and the four waste industry associations:
1. How would you describe the state of waste management in Australia in 2018?
2. What are the most significant challenges facing Australian waste management providers in
2018?
3. What are the greatest opportunities facing Australian waste management providers in 2018?
4. Where do you believe Australian waste management should aim to be in 10 years’ time?

The Boomerang Alliance response is set out below.

Status of waste management


We are at the crossroads. In retrospect we stagnated with most waste management until China
correctly told us it was too contaminated for genuine recycling - we should have been pushing much
harder towards the circular economy and comprehensive product stewardship.

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.

Waste management in 10 years


In ten years' time we should be well into the new recycling paradigm, having bypassed fuzzy
commitments and aspirations. Our economy and society should be comprehensively achieving
'recycled', 'reused' or 'composted' for a whole range of materials. The calls for landfill and mixed
waste to energy should be distant memories. In 10 years’ time we should have a Circular Economy
Plan well underway with ambitious mandatory waste reduction targets set for identified problematic
wastes. Such plans require strategic interventions throughout a product lifecycle to avoid and
minimise resource use or manage discarded materials as secondary resources.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 77
16. Influences on waste generation and management
This section discusses six factors that influence Australia’s waste generation and management as
presented in this report:
• population growth
• economic growth
• technological change
• access to recycling markets
• waste policy
• carbon policy.

The section concludes with a discussion on how waste generation and management might change
into the future.

16.1 Population growth


Waste generation is linked to population size. Other things being equal, more population means
more waste. Figure 42 shows Australia’s population by state and territory in each of the 11 years for
which national waste data is presented in this report. Overall, population grew by 18% from 20.6 to
24.4 million, an average of 1.7% per year. The fastest growing state was WA, which grew by an
average of 2.1% per year, and the slowest was Tas, which grew by 0.5% per year. The three biggest
states—NSW, Vic and Qld—represent more than three-quarters of Australia’s population.

Figure 42 Australian population by state and territory, 2006-07 to 2016-17

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 78
16.2 Economic growth
Economic growth is also linked with waste generation. Greater wealth results in more waste from
renewal of material goods, infrastructure development and increased emphasis on convenience and
time-saving. When the value we put on our time grows faster than the price of material goods, the
production of waste is promoted.

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

16.3 Technological change


Technological change is affecting waste types and quantities. The shift from paper to digital
communications is greatly reducing paper wastage. High strength but light weight packaging is also
decreasing the weight of our recycling bins. And while the quantity of e-waste items is growing
strongly, the weight of these wastes is rising more slowly34 because items are getting lighter.

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.

34 Estimated at 3.8% per year at present – see Section 12.3

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 79
16.4 Access to recycling markets
Recycling is often not viable in towns and settlements that are a long way from the major population
centres where most recovered materials are processed and sold. States and territories tend to have
lower recycling rates when they have large remote populations or lack ready access to the major
markets.

16.5 Waste policy


Waste management is strongly influenced by government regulation and policy, mostly at the state
and territory level. Waste generation is also affected by policy, albeit to a lesser extent. State and
territory waste policy is discussed in Section 9.

16.6 Carbon policy


When organic waste decays in the Figure 44 Greenhouse gas emissions from landfills,
anaerobic environment of a landfill, the 1989-90 to 2015-16
greenhouse gas methane is formed.
Methane emissions can be reduced by
capturing the gas for energy recovery or
flaring. Between 2006-07 and 2015-16,
methane emissions from landfills fell by
20%, continuing a declining trend since
1990 (see Figure 44). The decline is
nearly all due to increased landfill gas
capture, and can be attributed to carbon
policy initiatives, mostly at the national
level. Source: Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information
System (http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/)

16.7 The future of waste generation and management


Given these influences and current trends, how can we expect waste quantities and their
management to change into the future?

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 80
17. Method
This section summarises the method, main assumptions and main data problems and adjustments
used for collating the data presented in this report.

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.

17.1 Data sources


Within the National Waste Reporting Tool 2016-17, states and territories were asked to provide the
following data to contribute to the core data set:
• tonnes of landfill waste, disaggregated by source stream where known
• imports and exports of landfill waste where known and significant
• the composition of waste to landfill in percentage terms, where local audits have been
undertaken and are considered representative
• tonnes of waste sent for recycling, disaggregated by material type and source stream where
known
• tonnes of waste to energy, disaggregated by material type and source stream where known.

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)

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 81
17.2 Assumptions
Assumptions were needed to fill data gaps so that a complete national picture could be developed.
These are described in the National Waste Reporting Tool 2016-17, which was endorsed by the
states and territories, and is released with this report. The methods for gap-filling often included
assuming that proportions or rates in a jurisdiction, time period, area or waste stream were similar
to those in another, or had particular values. Specific significant assumptions for non-hazardous
waste included that:
• the proportional change in waste generation per capita in each waste stream (MSW, C&I and
C&D) between 2014-15 and 2016-17 in NSW was the same as the rest of Australia combined
• the proportional split of recyclables by material and stream in NSW in 2016-17 were the same
as in 2014-15
• the composition of each waste stream (MSW, C&I and C&D) to landfill in the ACT, NSW, SA and
Vic is as determined by each jurisdiction through their own landfill audits
• the composition of each waste stream in NT, Qld, Tas and WA is based on national average
figures calculated by assuming (a) the organic fraction and proportions are equal to those set
out in the NGER (Measurement) Determination 5.11, and (b) the inert proportions are equal to
the population-weighted average calculated from ACT, NSW, SA and Vic
• the mass of waste associated with energy recovery from landfill gas can be reasonably
estimated using NGER default values applied to non-hazardous wastes, as described below.

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.

17.3 Calculating energy recovery from landfills


When organic waste decays in the anaerobic environment of a landfill, the greenhouse gas methane
is formed. Many large landfills capture methane-rich landfill gas and extract or sell its energy value,
commonly through combustion to generate electricity that is sold to the grid. In the Australian
Government method used in this report, this is considered a form of energy recovery. The national
waste data set reporting tool applies formulas from the NGER system to back-calculate the quantity
of waste associated with captured landfill gas and includes these under ‘energy recovery’. For

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 82
convenience, the method assumes instantaneous decay of waste in the landfill. The methodological
steps are set out below.
1. obtain data on methane collected from landfills and used for its energy value (mostly
aggregated data from the Department’s NGER system, plus data from smaller jurisdictions
where the Department is constrained by commercial confidentiality)
2. convert to tonnes of recovered carbon
3. calculate the amount of carbon that actually degrades in landfill per tonne of material drawing
on NGER default values
4. calculate carbon that actually degrades per tonne of waste for each jurisdiction
5. calculate the tonnes of recovered carbon attributable to each waste type by jurisdiction
6. calculate the tonnes of recovered waste types by jurisdiction, drawing on NGER default values
7. allocate the recovered waste by source stream.

17.4 Significant data gaps and quality issues


Table 13 describes the main data problems and how they are dealt with in the report.

Table 13 Main data problems and how they were dealt with
Type of issue Details Adjustments and rationale

Extrapolated from 2014-15 data assuming


NSW change in waste per capita is equal to
No data on NSW recycling data 2016-17
the change in other parts of Australia.
Required for a complete national data set.
Data
Extrapolated from 2015-16 data assuming
unavailable No data on Qld hazardous waste data 2016-
no change in waste per capita. Required for
17
a complete national data set.
No waste data for 2007-08, 2011-12, 2012-
Data interpolated in trend displays
13
None. Incorporating this data could lead to
About 100 kt of WA C&D waste was double-counting when it is processed in a
deposited at recycling operations in 2016- subsequent year, distorted recovery rates in
17 but not processed. This is excluded from a subsequent year, and/or the need to track
Unrecorded WA data. waste vintage. (See discussion in Appendix
waste B.)
Some tens of thousands of tonnes of
unprocessed Vic C&D waste was deposited As above. Reasonable quantity estimates
at a site outside Geelong in 2016-17. This is are also unavailable.
excluded from Vic data.
Some waste may have been counted twice. Corrected when identifiable and
Particular risks are discussed below. quantifiable.
Interstate transfers are at risk of being
included in data from both generating and ACT recycling quantities were deducted
Double- receiving jurisdiction, for example:
counting from NSW recycling data and estimates (all
• ACT non-organic recyclables sent to NSW years).
(and elsewhere?) For others, data was not identifiable and
• NSW C&D recyclables sent to Qld quantifiable. No adjustment made.
• SA recyclables sent to Vic

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 83
Type of issue Details Adjustments and rationale

Organic hazardous waste may be included


For several states the relevant data did not
in both tracking system and compost
match up. No adjustment made.
industry data.
WA asbestos and contaminated soil data is
Totals in hazardous waste data were
likely to be included in both hazardous
deducted from WA landfill data (all years).
waste and landfill data.
Interstate transfers are also at risk of being
included in the data from the receiving, but
Corrected when identified. Data on NSW
not the generating, jurisdiction, for
landfill waste to Qld in recent years was
example:
collected by Qld, allowing reallocation to
Misallocated • NSW landfill waste sent to levy-free NSW. Vic landfill transfers to NSW were
jurisdiction landfills in Qld estimated and reallocated to Vic (recent
• Vic landfill waste sent to levy-free landfills years). ACT landfill transfers to NSW could
in rural NSW not be quantified so no adjustment was
made.
• ACT landfill waste sent to levy-free
landfills in NSW.
Some MSW may be included in C&I or vice-
Misallocated
versa, e.g. transfer station waste all counted None
stream
as MSW.
Waste is allocated to ‘recycling’ if recorded
in state and territory data, either because it
was received at a recycling facility or
entered a recycling process. However, some None. Data on these quantities is not
Ambiguity
of this material may have: available. However, the quantities are
over the fate
• not been processed generally relatively small. NSW regulates
‘recycling’
and restricts stockpile sizes.
• been processed then stockpiled on-site
• been processed but then stockpiled off-
site.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 84
Bibliography
This bibliography incorporates references from the national waste data reporting tools used in
compiling this report.

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 85
City of Palmerston (2016) July 26 Special Council Agenda, available from:
https://www.cityofpalmerston.com.au/council/meetings/council-meetings/2016
City of Palmerston (2017) Annual Report 2016/17, available from:
https://www.cityofpalmerston.com.au/search/node?keys=annual+report
Clarence City Council (2017) Annual Report 2016-17, available from: https://www.ccc.tas.gov.au/annualreport
Cradle Coast Waste Management Group (2016) Annual Report 2015-16 (draft), Burnie
Danish EPA (Environmental Protection Agency 2017) Waste Statistics 2015, available from:
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2017/08/978-87-93614-20-8.pdf
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs 2018) Official Statistics UK Statistics on Waste, available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-waste-data
DELWP (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2018) Recycling Industry Strategic Plan, available from:
https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/326110/Recycling-Industry-Strategic-Plan.pdf
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (n.d.) Manure Production Data, available from: manure
https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/business-priorities/environment/intensive-livestock/cattle-feedlots/managing-
environmental-impacts/manure-production-data
Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (2007) Report into the Construction and Demolition Waste Stream
Audit 2000-2005, available from: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/waste/070320-constr-demolition.pdf
Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (2010) Disposal Based Survey of the Commercial and Industrial
Waste Stream in Sydney, available from: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/warrlocal/100005-waste-survey-pt1.pdf
Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts (2009) The Tasmanian Waste and Resource Management
Strategy, Hobart, available from:
https://epa.tas.gov.au/documents/tasmanian_waste_and_resource_management_strategy.pdf
Department of the Environment and Energy (n.d.) Product Stewardship, available from:
https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-policy/product-stewardship
Department of Waste and Environmental Regulation (n.d.) WA Container Deposit Scheme, available from:
https://www.der.wa.gov.au/our-work/programs/111-wa-container-deposit-scheme
Department of Waste and Environmental Regulation (n.d.) WA’s Ban on Lightweight Plastic Bags, available from:
https://www.der.wa.gov.au/your-environment/wa-plastic-bag-ban
Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (2018) Landfill Levy Rates to Rise from January 2015, available from:
https://www.der.wa.gov.au/about-us/media-statements/112-landfill-levy-rates-to-rise-from-january-2015
DoEE (Department of the Environment and Energy 2017) Annual Report 2016-17, available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/annual-report-2016-17/home
DoEE (Department of the Environment and Energy 2017) Approved Co-regulatory Arrangements – Annual Reports,
available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/waste-resource-recovery/publications#research-ewaste
DoEE (Department of the Environment and Energy 2018) National Pollutant Inventory – Transfers, data.gov.au, available
from: https://data.gov.au/dataset/npi/resource/ff5842c5-dc80-4f16-b473-8417d6b8536e?inner_span=True
DoEE (Department of the Environment and Energy 2018) Australian Energy Statistics, Table O, available from:
https://www.energy.gov.au/publications/australian-energy-statistics-table-o-electricity-generation-fuel-type-2016-17-
and-2017
DoEE (n.d.) National Greenhouse Gas Inventory – Kyoto Protocol Classifications, available from:
http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/
DoH (Department of Health 2018) Expert Health Panel for PFAS, Summary Report, available from:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ohp-pfas-expert-panel.htm
Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2017) What is Circular Economy?, available from:
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy.
Encycle Consulting & SRU Consulting (2013) A Study into Commercial and Industrial Waste and Recycling in Australia by
Industry Division, prepared for the DSEWPaC (now DoEE), January, available from:
www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/91b2180c-b805-44c5-adf7-adbf27a2847e/files/commercial-industrial-
waste.pdf
Engage Victoria (2018) E-waste Landfill Ban, for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, available from:
https://engage.vic.gov.au/waste/e-waste
Envisage Works and SRU (2018) 2016-17 Australian Plastics Recycling Survey National Report, prepared for the DoEE,
available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/waste-resource-recovery/publications/australian-plastics-
recycling-survey-report
Envisage Works and Sustainable Resource Use (2016) National Recycling and Recovery Survey 2015–16 for Plastics
Packaging, prepared for the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, available from:
https://www.packagingcovenant.org.au/documents/item/1070
EPA NSW (2014) Domestic Kerbside Waste and Recycling in NSW: Results of the 2011 Waste Audits, available from:
https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/publications/warrlocal/140442-audits-2011
EPA NSW (2016) Environmental Guidelines Solid Waste Landfills, edition 3, NSW, April, available from:
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/waste/solid-waste-landfill-guidelines-160259.pdf

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 86
EPA SA (2017) Landfill Bans, available from:
https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/data_and_publications/standards_and_laws/waste_to_resources_policy/landfill_bans
EPA SA (2018) Container Deposits, available from: https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/container_deposit
EPA SA (2018) Plastic Bag Ban, available from:
https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/data_and_publications/all_publications/for_councils/plastic_bag_ban
EPA SA (2018) Waste Levy, available from: https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/business_and_industry/waste-levy
EPA Tasmania (2013) Plastic Shopping Bags, available from: https://epa.tas.gov.au/sustainability/resources-for-the-
community/plastic-shopping-bags
EPA Tasmania (2018) Controlled Waste Tracking System, available from: http://epa.tas.gov.au/regulation/waste-
management/controlled-waste-tracking-system
EPA Tasmania (2018) Studies into Container Deposit Systems, available from: https://epa.tas.gov.au/policy/other-
topics/resource-recovery/container-deposit-scheme
EPA Victoria (2016) Landfill and Prescribed Waste Levies, October, available from: http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/your-
environment/waste/landfills/landfill-and-prescribed-waste-levies
EPA Victoria (2016) Prescribed Industrial Waste Classifications, July, available from: http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/business-
and-industry/guidelines/waste-guidance/prescribed-industrial-waste-classifications
EPA Victoria (2018) Waste Management Policy (Combustible Recyclable and Waste Materials), available from:
https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/guidelines/waste-guidance/combustible-recyclable-and-waste-
materials
Eunomia (2017) Recycling – Who Really Leads the World? (Issue 2), available from: http://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-
tools/recycling-who-really-leads-the-world-issue-2/
Fattal A, Kelly S, Liu A and Giurco, D (2016) Waste Fires in Australia: Cause for Concern?, prepared for the Department of
Environment, Canberra by the UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures, Sydney, available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/publications/waste-fires-australia
Green Industries SA (2015) South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2015-2020, available from:
https://www.greenindustries.sa.gov.au/publications-waste-strategy-2015-2020
Green Industries SA (2018) Disaster Waste Management Capability Plan and Guidelines, available from:
https://www.greenindustries.sa.gov.au/disaster-waste-management
Green Industries SA (n.d.) Household Chemicals and Paint Drop-off Depot, available from:
http://www.greenindustries.sa.gov.au/hazwaste
Helen Lewis Research (2018) Overview of State Waste Infrastructure Plans, prepared for the Department of the
Environment and Energy, July
Hobart City Council (2017) Annual Report 2016-2017, available from: https://www.hobartcity.com.au/Council/Strategies-
and-plans/Annual-report
Hyder Consulting (2011a) National Waste and Recycling Reporting : A More Uniform Approach to Data, prepared for the
Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (now
Department of the Environment and Energy), available from:
http://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/576918/AA004437_R03-
02_ACT_Waste_Scenarios_Analysis_FINAL_REPORT.pdf
Hyder Consulting (2011b) Liquid Waste Assessment, prepared for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities (now Department of the Environment and Energy), available from:
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/fd8e59bd-b64d-42b3-8a73-5021d21310be/files/liquid-
waste.pdf
IndustryEdge (2018) Assessment of Australian Recycling Infrastructure and 2016-17 Exports to China – Paper and
Paperboard, prepared for the Department of the Environment and Energy
IndustryEdge Pty Ltd and Equilibrium OMG Pty Ltd (2017) National Recycling and Recovery Surveys: paper packaging, glass
containers, steel cans and aluminium packaging, prepared for the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, available
from: https://www.packagingcovenant.org.au/documents/item/1074
International Solid Waste Association (2013) ISWA Guidelines: Waste to Energy in Low and Middle Income Countries,
available from: https://www.iswa.org/index.php?eID=tx_iswaknowledgebase_download&documentUid=3252
Jordan, T (2017) ‘City of Launceston recycles 7500 tonnes in 2016-17’, The Examiner News, 16 December, available from:
https://www.examiner.com.au/story/5123423/city-of-launceston-recycles-well-saving-600000/
KAB (Keep Australia Beautiful 2017) National Report 2016-17 : National Litter Index, available from: http://kab.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/1802_KAB_nli_report_v2_2016-17.pdf
Minister for the Environment (2018) NSW Cuts Litter by a Third, press release, 7 August 2018, available from:
https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/news/media-releases/2018/epamedia180807-nsw-cuts-litter-by-a-third
Mobile Muster (2017) Annual Report, available from:
https://www.mobilemuster.com.au/media/135343/mob_annualreport-2016-17final.pdf
NEPC (National Environment Protection Council 1998) National Environment Protection (Movement of Controlled Waste
between States and Territories) Measure, available from: http://www.nepc.gov.au/nepms/movement-controlled-waste

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 87
NSW EPA (2014) NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-21, NSW EPA, Sydney, available from:
https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/recycling-and-reuse/warr-strategy
NSW EPA (2018) Household Chemical CleanOut, available from: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/recycling-
and-reuse/household-recycling-overview/household-chemical-cleanout
NSW EPA (2018) Return and Earn, available from: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/recycling-and-
reuse/return-and-earn
NSW EPA (2018), Waste Levy, available from: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/waste/waste-levy
NT EPA (2017) Environmental Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act Annual Report 2016-17, available from:
https://ntepa.nt.gov.au/container-deposits/reports
NT EPA (n.d.) Plastic Bag Ban, available from: https://ntepa.nt.gov.au/waste-pollution/plastic-bag-ban
NTWMG (Northern Tasmania Waste Management Group 2018) NTWMG 2016/17 Annual Report and 2017/18 Annual Plan
& Budget, available from: http://rethinkwaste.com.au/download/northern-tasmanian-waste-management-group-
annual-report-plan-budget-2016-2018/
Office for National Statistics (2016) Overview of the UK Population: February 2016, available from:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overvie
woftheukpopulation/february2016
Paintback (2017) First Coat, available from: https://www.paintback.com.au/publications
PSD (Pollution Solutions and Designs 2017) Biosolid Production in Australia 2017, prepared for the Australia & New Zealand
Biosolids Partnership, December.
PwC and WCS (Price Waterhouse Coopers and Wright Corporate Strategy 2011) Cost Benefit Analysis Report, Attachment C
to the Packaging Impacts Consultation Regulation Impact Statement, prepared for the Standing Council on Environment
and Water, available from: http://www.nepc.gov.au/system/files/consultations/c299407e-3cdf-8fd4-d94d-
6181f096abc8/files/att-c-cost-benefit-analysis-report.pdf
Queensland Government (2017) Recycling and Waste in Queensland 2017, available from:
https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/management/waste/data-reports/recycling-waste
Queensland Government (2018) Container Refund Scheme, available from:
https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/management/waste/container-refund
Queensland Government (2018) Plastic Bag Ban, available from:
https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/management/waste/plastic-bags
Queensland Government (2018) Transforming Queensland’s Recycling and Waste Industry Directions Paper, available from:
https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/assets/documents/pollution/management/waste/transforming-qlds-recycling-
waste-industry-directions-paper.pdf
Randell Environmental Consulting (2017) National Market Development Strategy for Used Tyres 2017-2022, prepared for
Sustainability Victoria and others, available from: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/public-
registers/documents/AA1000409%20-%20Tyre%20Stewardship%20Australia%20Limited%20-%20Annexure%203%20-
%20Appendix%20F%20-%20National%20Market%20Development%20Strategy%20for%20Used%20Tyres%20-
%2005.12.17%20-%20PR.pdf
REC & AWE (Randell Environmental Consulting and Ascend Waste and Environment 2017) Hazardous Waste Stockpiles in
Australia, prepared for the Department of the Environment and Energy, July
REC and BE (Randell Environmental Consulting and Blue Environment 2015) National Waste Data Classification and
Reporting System Supporting Documentation: Standard Operating Procedures, Reporting Tool User Guide, and Reporting
Guidance, prepared for the Australian Government Department of the Environment, August
SARDI (South Australian Research and Development Institute 2015) Primary Production Food Losses: Turning Losses into
Profit, February, available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277558902/download
Schmidt C, Krauth T and Wagner S (2017) Export of plastic debris by rivers into the sea, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, 51 (21),
pp 12246–12253.
Soft landing (n.d.) The Recycling Process, available from: https://www.softlanding.com.au/the-recycling-process/
Southern Waste Strategy Authority (2013) Kerbside Waste Collection Review for Southern Tasmania, prepared by Blue
Environment
SSCEC (Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications 2018) Never Waste a Crisis: the Waste and
Recycling Industry in Australia, SSCEC, Canberra, available from:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/WasteandRe
cycling/Report
Standards Australia (2017) AS 4123.7-2006 Mobile Waste Containers: Colours, Markings, and Designation Requirements
Statistics Denmark (2015) Denmark in Figures 2015, available from:
https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/Publikationer/VisPub?cid=19006
Statistics Norway (2018) 10513: Waste Account for Norway, By Treatment and Material (1 000 tonnes) 2012-2016,
available from: https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/10513/
Statistics Norway (2018) 11342: Population and Area (M) 2007-2018, available from:
https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/11342/

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 88
Sustainability Victoria (2017) Bin Audit Calculator, available from:
https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/Government/Victorian-Waste-data-portal/Victorian-statewide-bin-audits/Bin-
audit-calculator
Sustainability Victoria (2017) Detox Your Home, available from: https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/You-and-Your-
Home/Waste-and-recycling/Detox-your-home
Sustainability Victoria (2017) Recycling Collection Service Results, available from:
https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/Government/Victorian-Waste-data-portal/Victorian-Local-Government-Annual-
Waste-Services-report/Recycling-collection
Sustainability Victoria (2017) Victorian Local Government Waste Services Report Workbook 2015-16, available from:
https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/Government/Victorian-Waste-data-portal/Victorian-Local-Government-Annual-
Waste-Services-report
Sustainability Victoria (2018) Statewide Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan, available from:
https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/About-Us/What-we-do/Strategy-and-planning/Statewide-Waste-and-Resource-
Recovery-Infrastructure-Plan
Sustainable Resource Use, Perchards, SagisEPR (2014) Study into Market Share and Stocks and Flows of Handheld Batteries
in Australia : Trend Analysis and Market Assessment Report, prepared for the National Environment Protection Council
Service Corporation, available from: http://www.batteryrecycling.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Stocks-and-
flows-of-handheld-batteries-report-final.pdf
The Engineering ToolBox (2004) Liquid Densities, available from: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/liquids-densities-
d_743.html
UN (United Nations 2009) Wastewater Treatment, available from
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodology_sheets/freshwater/waste_water_treatment.pdf
US EPA (2017), The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recovery, Cincinnati, available from:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100SSJP.PDF?Dockey=P100SSJP.PDF
US EPA (2018) Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model :
Management Practices Chapters p.5-2, available from: https://www.epa.gov/warm/documentation-chapters-
greenhouse-gas-emission-and-energy-factors-used-waste-reduction-model
US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2018), Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2015 Fact
Sheet, available from: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/advancing-
sustainable-materials-management
Victorian Government (2018) Victoria Says No to Plastic Waste, available from: https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/victoria-
says-no-to-plastic-waste/
VLAA (Victorian Litter Action Alliance 2013) Litter Statistics Fact Sheet, available from: https://www.litter.vic.gov.au/-
/media/SV-VLAA/Downloads/Litter_Statistics_Fact_Sheet_-_2014.pdf?la=en
Wagait Shire Council (2016) Annual Report 2015-2016, available from: http://wagait.nt.gov.au/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/WSC-15-16-report-lo-res-nov15.pdf
Waste Authority (2012) Western Australian Waste Strategy: “Creating the Right Environment”, Perth, available from:
http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/publications/western-australian-waste-strategy-creating-the-right-environment
Waste Authority WA (2017) The 2015-16 Census of Western Australian Local Government Waste and Recycling Services,
available from: http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/media/files/documents/LG_Census_2015-16.pdf
Waste Authority WA (2018) Household Hazardous Waste, available from:
http://www.wasteauthority.wa.gov.au/programs/funded-programs/household-hazardous-waste/
WEF (World Economic Forum), Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company (2016) The New Plastics Economy —
Rethinking the Future of Plastics, available from: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-
plastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics-catalysing-action
Williams, E (2018) ‘Thousands sign up for green bins ahead of expansion to Belconnen’, The Canberra Times, 22 July,
available from: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/thousands-sign-up-for-green-bins-ahead-of-expansion-
to-belconnen-20180713-p4zref.html
ZWSA (Zero Waste South Australia 2007) Disposal Based Survey, October/November, available from:
www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resources/publications/landfill/Landfill_Audit_2007_1.pdf
ZWSA (Zero Waste South Australia 2018) South Australia’s Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan, September,
available from: https://www.greenindustries.sa.gov.au/sa-waste-resource-recovery-infrastructure-plan
ZWSA (Zero Waste South Australia 2009) ZWSA Food Waste Pilot Kerbside Audit 2008 - 2009 Master Report, prepared by
EC Sustainable

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 89
Appendix A Chart data

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 90
Chart data
(The abbreviation ‘CAGR’ means average annual growth rate.)

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%

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 91
Data for Figure 5 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 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%

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 92
Data table for Figure 12 Trends in the generation of core waste by jurisdiction, Australia 2006-07 to 2016-17
Kilotonnes
Jurisdiction 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
ACT 704 716 710 892 841 711 873 941 2.9%
NSW 15,863 18,490 17,374 17,484 17,908 17,690 17,948 18,086 1.3%
NT 528 374 377 371 567 474 487 347 -4.1%
Qld 9,586 9,763 9,181 9,113 10,265 10,596 10,322 11,245 1.6%
SA 3,115 3,320 3,321 3,830 3,898 3,811 4,068 4,034 2.6%
Tas 831 787 844 924 900 931 1,066 938 1.2%
Vic 12,088 11,519 12,855 13,167 12,459 13,153 13,341 13,714 1.3%
WA 5,829 5,992 7,388 6,399 5,906 6,694 5,668 5,182 -1.2%
Total 48,545 50,960 52,049 52,178 52,744 54,060 53,774 54,487 1.2%

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%

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 93
Data table for Figure 17 Comparison of core waste recycling and exports of waste materials for recycling from
Australia to all destinations by material category, 2016-17
Kilotonnes
Material category Recycling Waste materials for recycling export
Masonry materials 12,266
Metals 4,982 2,141
Organics 7,299
Paper & cardboard 3,361 1,453
Plastics 306 215
Glass 612
Textiles, leather & rubber (excl. tyres) 88
Hazardous 1,729
Other 1,072
Total of others 400

Total 31,715 4,209

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%

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 94
Data table for Figure 23 Disposal of core waste by material category, stream and jurisdiction, Australia 2016-17
Kilotonnes
Material category Kt Stream Kt Jurisdiction Kt
Masonry materials 4,871 MSW 6,208 ACT 439
Metals 538 C&D 6,660 NSW 6,489
Organics 5,399 C&I core 7,109 NT 291
Paper & cardboard 1,876 Total 19,976 Qld 5,875
Plastics 2,182 SA 615
Glass 467 Tas 416
Textiles, leather & rubber (excl. tyres) 570 Vic 3,672
Hazardous 3,754 WA 2,179
Other 319 Total 19,976
Total 19,976

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%

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 95
Data table for Figure 28 Resource recovery rate trends of core waste by jurisdiction and stream, Australia 2006-07 to
2016-17
Jurisdiction 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
ACT 76% 77% 78% 76% 78% 74% 72% 53% -3.5%
NSW 62% 60% 65% 65% 63% 66% 64% 62% 0.0%
NT 12% 19% 19% 17% 14% 22% 20% 15% 2.3%
Qld 48% 46% 44% 50% 47% 47% 48% 47% -0.2%
SA 79% 80% 81% 82% 80% 83% 82% 82% 0.4%
Tas 40% 46% 48% 46% 50% 48% 53% 53% 2.9%
Vic 58% 61% 64% 65% 70% 70% 73% 72% 2.2%
WA 35% 35% 32% 41% 54% 48% 53% 57% 5.0%
Australia 55% 56% 57% 60% 61% 62% 63% 62% 1.2%

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%

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 96
Kilotonnes
Hazardous
Management 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
Recycling 1,674 1,632 1,770 1,985 1,999 1,999 1,863 1,729 0.3%
Other disposal 28 24 26 26 26 35 25 24 -1.5%
Landfill 2,519 2,383 2,291 2,438 3,024 2,919 3,064 3,731 4.0%
Treatment 774 735 793 899 867 966 857 822 0.6%
Energy from waste facility
Total 4,995 4,774 4,880 5,348 5,915 5,920 5,809 6,305 2.4%
Kilotonnes
Paper and cardboard
Management 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
Recycling 3,680 4,380 3,132 3,210 3,436 3,290 3,460 3,361 -0.9%
Other disposal
Landfill 1,866 1,899 1,973 1,868 2,045 2,035 2,186 2,230 1.8%
Treatment
Energy from waste facility
Total 5,546 6,279 5,105 5,078 5,481 5,325 5,646 5,591 0.1%
Kilotonnes
Metals
Management 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
Recycling 3,460 3,026 4,907 5,092 5,106 4,832 4,598 4,982 3.7%
Other disposal
Landfill 541 600 573 524 551 599 547 538 -0.1%
Treatment
Energy from waste facility
Total 4,001 3,625 5,481 5,615 5,657 5,431 5,145 5,520 3.3%
Kilotonnes
Plastics
Management 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
Recycling 254 278 294 292 326 334 345 306 1.9%
Other disposal
Landfill 2,290 2,397 2,451 2,331 2,216 2,182 2,160 2,182 -0.5%
Treatment
Energy from waste facility 17 17 17 8 17 22 28
Total 2,544 2,692 2,761 2,640 2,549 2,533 2,527 2,516 -0.1%
Kilotonnes
Glass
Management 2007 2009 2010 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 CAGR
Recycling 739 815 644 702 584 625 653 612 -1.9%
Other disposal
Landfill 515 525 541 508 482 473 456 467 -1.0%
Treatment
Energy from waste facility
Total 1,254 1,341 1,186 1,210 1,066 1,099 1,109 1,079 -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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 97
Data for Figure 32 Generation of food waste by management method, Australia 2016-17
Kilotonnes
Management Incl. food derived hazardous waste Excl. food derived hazardous waste
Energy from waste facility 50 50
Landfill 3,777 3,770
Other disposal 0
Recycling 910 491
Treatment 256
Total 4,993 4,311

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%

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 98
Data for Figure 44 Greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, 1989-90 to 2015-16
Year Emissions (kt CO2-e) Year Emissions (kt CO2-e) Year Emissions (kt CO2-e)
1990 15,240 1999 12,437 2008 11,307
1991 15,220 2000 12,238 2009 11,229
1992 15,063 2001 12,281 2010 11,502
1993 15,018 2002 12,453 2011 11,064
1994 14,432 2003 11,502 2012 9,775
1995 14,550 2004 11,062 2013 9,001
1996 13,130 2005 10,900 2014 9,012
1997 13,011 2006 10,623 2015 8,510
1998 12,317 2007 10,902 2016 8,694

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 99
Appendix B Principles for waste data and reporting

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 100
Principles for waste data and reporting
A major challenge in national waste reporting is reconciling data from jurisdictions and industries
that has been compiled using different concepts, definitions and methods. These differences can
also be problematic for regulators and waste companies dealing with cross-border issues.

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.

The content covers:


• definitions of key terms
• a proposed core data set for waste reporting
• proposed methods for classifying waste by source stream
• proposals for waste measurement, indicators and reporting.

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 101
Definitions
The table below defines some key terms required for consistent national waste reporting. Terms are
grouped by subject matter (via shaded rows).

Term Definition

Materials or products that are unwanted or have been discarded, rejected or


abandoned. Includes materials or products that are recycled, converted to
Waste
energy, or disposed. Materials and products that are reused (for their original or
another purpose without reprocessing) are not waste because they remain in use.
Waste that:
1. can have an angle of repose of greater than 5 degrees above horizontal, or
Solid waste 2. does not become free-flowing at or below 60 degrees Celsius or when it is
transported, or
3. is generally capable of being picked up by a spade or shovel.
Municipal solid waste Waste produced by households and council facilities.
(MSW)
Waste that is produced by institutions and businesses, including offices, schools,
Commercial and
restaurants, retail and wholesale businesses, and industries such as
industrial (C&I) waste
manufacturing.
Construction and Waste produced by demolition and building activities, including road and rail
demolition (C&D) construction and maintenance and excavation of land associated with
waste construction activities.
Source stream Either MSW, C&I or C&D.
The activities through which a waste is dealt with, in infrastructure approved to
Waste management
receive it.
A facility that captures, on average, more than 20% of the embodied energy in the
Energy recovery facility
waste it receives for beneficial use.
Accumulation of wastes in approved infrastructure such that materials are readily
Storage
retrievable.
Storage where there is a plan or a reasonable expectation that wastes will be
Short-term storage
stored for less than 10 years.
Storage where there is a plan and a reasonable expectation that wastes will be
Long-term storage
stored for more than 10 years.
The ultimate destination of waste within the management system. The fates of
Fate
waste are recycling, energy recovery, disposal and long-term storage.
A waste fate in which solid wastes are collected, sorted, processed (including
through composting), and converted into raw materials to be used in the
production of new products. For data reporting purposes, recycling:
Recycling • excludes materials in stockpiles of unprocessed waste materials
• includes all materials processed for recycling, whether they are quickly sold
or used, or stockpiled for later sale or use
• excludes residuals that are sent to landfill or otherwise disposed of.
A waste fate in which no material or resource recovery use is made of the waste.
Disposal
Includes disposal to landfill and to incineration without energy recovery.
A waste fate in which a substantial portion of the embodied energy in a waste is
Energy recovery
recovered.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 102
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.

The core data set for waste reporting


1. Waste reporting should include a core data set that is tracked over time and from which the
primary indicators of waste performance are derived. The core waste data set should be
defined with reference to types of source stream, management and waste category and type.
2. The core waste source streams are MSW, C&I and C&D waste.
3. A core set of waste categories and types is proposed, comprising solid and liquid hazardous
waste that is managed by the waste management industry, as listed in Table 14.
4. The core waste data set excludes
- uncontaminated soil (‘clean fill’) and rock.
- waste generated by the main processes of primary production (e.g. bark and sawdust from
forestry operation, agricultural manures, mining and mineral processing wastes) except
when they are managed by the waste industry36
- pre-consumer waste that is recycled on-site as part of a manufacturing process
- waste used for producing energy where the energy production process is on the site where
most of the waste was generated.
5. Where available and of interest, data on other waste may be sought and reported where
known, but outside the core data set. Non-core data may include ash, mining and mineral
processing waste, and food waste using a broader definition than in the core data set.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 103
Table 14 A proposed core set of waste categories and types
Waste category Waste type

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

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 104
- short-term storage
- long-term storage.
9. The fates of waste include:
- Resource recovery, including recycling and energy recovery
- Disposal, including landfill, thermal destruction, discharge to water body
- Long-term storage, including long-term on-site storage (regulator approved) and long-term
isolation.
Note: waste management method and waste fate may differ. For example: waste managed via
recycling may include contaminants that are subsequently disposed of; short-term storage is a
management type but not a fate; the fates of waste sent to treatment facilities are not
presently known.
Waste reuse may also be reported where the data is readily available, e.g. from tip shops.
Materials and products that are reused (for their original or another purpose without
reprocessing) are not waste because they remain in use. This definition of waste sets the broad
scope of current national reporting.
Figure 45 provides an overview of the potential scope of future national waste reports.

Figure 45 Potential future scope of national waste reporting


What?
What wastes to report

Core wastes How?


What waste management and fate should be reported and how
Masonry Materials
Metals
Masonry Materials
Waste generation
Glass
Who? Paper Metals
& cardboard Fates
Data from which generators Plastics
Glass
Organics
Waste streams Paper
Textiles, leather, rubber
Pathways Recycled

MSW (excl. tyres)


Plastics Energy from
Other waste
Household Mixed material wastes Short-term storage
Resource
Local Hazardous Recovery
Stockpiling
Government For example: acids, alkalis,
inorganic chemicals, reactive
C&I chemicals, Paints, hazardous Short-term storage Landfilled
organics, contaminated soils,
C&I core reporting asbestos
Note: includes liquid and solid Thermal
Manufacturing wastes Treatment destruction
as required
Electricity Non-core wastes Discharged to
generation waterbody
(wastes often managed on-site)
Mining Ash (from electricity generation)
Red mud (from bauxite refining)
Disposal
Minerals processing Brines (coal seam gas waste)

Agriculture and Manure, bagasse, bycatch etc.


Long-term on-
fisheries (Ag. & fisheries)
site storage
(regulator
Liquid Waste approved)
(non-hazardous)
C&D Long-term
Sewage isolation
Trade waste
Long-term storage
Waste Products
Where data is readily available

Waste material flow

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 105
Classifying waste by source stream
10. Subject to the subsequent points in this section, waste loads should be classified by stream as
follows:
- containing primarily MSW – classify as MSW
- containing primarily masonry materials – classify as C&D waste
- containing primarily C&I – classify as C&I waste.
11. Some waste collection processes that focus on MSW also collect some C&I waste (e.g. small
businesses serviced by council collections). Similarly some waste collection processes that focus
on C&I waste also collect some MSW (e.g. mixed-use high-rise buildings serviced by commercial
collections). Based on the method above, these are to be recorded as wholly arising from the
main stream. However, if the overall proportion of MSW included in the C&I stream or the
overall proportion of C&I included in the MSW stream is estimated to exceed 5%, steps should
be taken to quantify the amount and to adjust the overall data accordingly.
12. CDL returns should be classified as MSW except when there is strong evidence they are derived
from commercial activity.
13. Residuals from waste processing operations and transfer stations should be classified according
to the source stream from which most of its waste originates. For material recovery facilities,
transfer stations and alternative waste treatment facilities, residuals would mostly be classified
as MSW.
14. Waste loads in skip bins should be classified by stream as follows:
- self-haul by a resident – classify as MSW
- containing primarily masonry materials – classify as C&D waste
- all others – classify as C&I waste.
15. Waste generated as a result of natural disasters should be classified as C&D waste.

Waste measurement, indicators and reporting


16. Core waste data should be measured or estimated over the whole jurisdiction.
17. The aim should be to count waste once only in the jurisdiction it was generated. Efforts should
be made to avoid double-counting.
18. The primary measure for waste reporting is ‘wet weight’ tonnage.
19. A nationally agreed list of waste densities should be developed and used for converting volume
measures to weight. (Hazardous waste densities are already published in the Australian
hazardous waste data and reporting standard.)
20. Data should be collected from:
- all major waste management facilities
- major waste generators that manage waste via on-site storage
- ad-hoc facilities (such as construction sites undertaking on-site processing for offsite use)
where the waste quantities collectively managed are significant.
21. Data on the jurisdiction of origin should be collected. Where practicable, waste facilities should
record the jurisdiction of origin of incoming loads.
22. Significant data gaps should be filled through research and best estimates based on transparent
logic applied consistently over time. Methods for filling significant data gaps may be developed
and documented in a future national standard to ensure jurisdictions use similar approaches.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 106
23. Jurisdictions should require disposal facilities to record and report data on single material loads
by type (currently undertaken successfully by NSW, which captures about 30% of its landfill data
from single-load reports, providing the best data nationally on landfill composition).
24. In collecting data from the recycling industry, jurisdictions should collect data on:
a) (primary focus) the quantity of material entering the recycling process, i.e. net of any
contamination disposed of (this ensures all material is counted, and is counted once only)
b) the quantity of material received at the facility, so that increments to any stockpiles of
unprocessed material are measured
c) the quantity of recyclables removed from the site, including from stockpiles
d) the markets for recyclables based on a set of broad market categories defined to protect
commercial confidentiality.
25. Audits commissioned with the intention of providing a representative compositional
understanding of a waste stream and fate should apply waste categories that ensure the
proportion of residual materials in the category ‘other’ (or similar) are less than 5% of the total.
26. Jurisdictional waste reporting should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the primary
indicators of waste performance that are listed in Table 15.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 107
Table 15 Primary indicators of jurisdictional waste performance
Indicator Units Definition

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 108
Appendix C Method changes since the National Waste Report 2016

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 109
Method changes since the National Waste Report
2016
Between the publication of the National Waste Report 2016 and this report, the Department of the
Environment and Energy sponsored an improvements program to research, propose and decide
upon changes to national waste reporting methods. This work culminated in a report titled
‘Improving national waste data and reporting’, which is available on the Department’s website. The
main changes are summarised in Table 16.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 110
Appendix D A history of national waste reporting

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 111
A history of national waste reporting
National waste reporting was first attempted in the 1990s to measure progress in implementing the
1992 National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Strategy. This first attempt had little success,
mainly because the scope, categories and comprehensiveness of the data collected by each state
and territory did not correspond to that in the proposed system and there was little appetite to
change.

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.

National Waste Report 2018 Final


Page 112

You might also like