Agenda of Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee – Terms of Reference

Background

Section 43 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 states that a territorial authority must adopt a waste management and minimisation plan which provides:

· objectives, policies and methods for effective and efficient waste management and minimisation,

· collection, recovery, recycling, treatment and disposal services

· facilities for waste management

· waste minimisation activities including education and public awareness; and

· a framework for funding implementation, grants and advances of money

The Solid Waste Management Committee which had been set up with Napier City Council, jointly prepared a Waste Minimisation Plan (WMMP) which was formally adopted in 2012. This committee was disestablished upon adoption of the WMMP. In early 2014 the Joint Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee was established to meet to oversee and manage a range of programmes and interventions to achieve effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the Omarunui landfill catchment.

The WMMP must be reviewed every 5 years. A Waste Assessment, which is the first step of the review has been undertaken and options are being developed for the WMMP. It is proposed that all submissions on the draft WMMP are heard by a joint committee of Napier City and Hastings District Council:

Purpose

· To approve the content of the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for public consultation.

· To hear submissions and make recommendations to the constituent Councils on the draft regional Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2011-2017.

· To be responsible for overseeing, supporting, monitoring and reporting progress toward achieving the intent of WMMP. As well as representing the interests of participatory Councils in the WMMP.

· To review the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan at least every six years to meet the requirements of the WMA 2008

Members

Three elected members appointed from Hastings District Council

Three elected members appointed from Napier City Council

Name

The Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

Status

By agreement of the local authority members, the Joint Waste Futures Joint Project Steering Committee has been established as a Joint Committee under clause 30A of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Delegated Authority

The Joint Committee will have responsibility and authority to:

1. Accept and hear submissions on the joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2017-2023, and report back to the individual Councils on an as required basis.

2. To make recommendations to each participant Council on the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

3. To monitor performance and progress to give effect to the purpose of the WMMP and to make recommendations to the constituent Councils accordingly.

Administering Authority and Servicing

Hastings District Council shall administer the Joint Committee meetings.

Meetings

The Hastings District Council’s Standing Orders will be used to conduct the Joint Committee meetings.

The Joint Committee shall meet as and when required as agreed for the achievement of the purpose of the joint committee.

Quorum

The quorum at any meeting shall be not less than four (4) including not less than two representatives of each of the member bodies.

Voting

The members shall strive at all times to reach a consensus.

Each representative shall be entitled to one vote at any meeting.

There shall be no casting vote.

Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson

The Joint Committee shall also appoint by simple majority vote, a Chairperson from one Council and a Deputy Chair from the other Council.

Variations

Any Member may propose an amendment (including additions or deletions) to the Terms of Reference which may be agreed to by the Joint Committee.

Variations to the Terms of Reference must be referred to the constituent Councils for ratification.

Term of Office

The primary purpose of this Joint Committee is the approval and adoption, by both Councils, of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. However the Joint Committee will continue to meet as and when required to oversee performance of the WMMP in operation.

Friday, 26 March 2021

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

Nā:

From:

Cloe Vining, Waste Minimisation Officer

Te Take:

Subject:

Events Waste Minimisation Update

1.0 Purpose and summary - Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the committee of the intentions and methods that could be implemented to minimise waste at events in the Hastings District. This report relates to “Action L” of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) 2018-2024.

1.2 The Hastings District is coming alive with more events being hosted here each year. There are many different types of events; including community events in the parks, concerts, winery events, sporting events, street festivals, fairs, sector group events, etc. Regardless of who is hosting the event, events appear to act as a de facto representative of the town/region in which they are being hosted in.

1.3 The waste team has little data on waste volumes produced from events locally, however external estimates suggest that the typical event attendee produces 1.89kg of waste per day. Apply that to an event with between 4,000 to 20,000 people and we have significant amounts of waste (7.5 tonne to 37 tonnes) that with proper planning and systems can easily be reduced and diverted to reuse.

1.4 A number of other regions around the country such as Auckland, Tauranga, Nelson, New Plymouth and Marlborough are seeing events choosing to be more waste conscious. Hastings has not seen this same uptake as other regions from event planners and leaves room for improvement.

1.5 Event waste is an achievable waste stream that with some initial groundwork and support from the waste minimisation team could see some tangible improvements in diversion volumes that will reflect well on the Hastings District.

2.0 Event Waste Background

2.1 Minimising event waste is unfortunately not as straight forward as providing different bins for different types of waste and therefore reducing the amount that ends up in the landfill bin.

2.2 When recycling and organic waste bins are left unattended, despite users’ best intentions and good signage, these bins will almost always end up being too contaminated for the contents to be able to go to their originally intended destination.

2.3 To help combat these issues it is essential that bin stations are manned with staff or volunteers to help guide people to use the right bins. It is also important that food vendors are using the right types of packaging for their food that can be recycled or composted.

2.4 At bin stations there is often a lot of confusion around what is compostable food packaging. Currently food waste and compostable packaging collected commercially from events is usually taken to BioRich for composting.

2.5 From July 2021 BioRich will no longer by accepting any Polylactic Acid (PLA) containing materials coming to their site as it effects their BioGro (organic) certification. PLA is a material used to make many different types of compostable packaging, generally the types that look like they are plastic. PLA is often used as liner of cardboard packaging to make it water proof. This change can be confusing for a lot of food vendors who have previously bought compostable packaging containing PLA, thinking that they are doing the right thing.

2.6 Minimising event waste can also go much further than having manned bin stations. Around the country we are starting to see events avoid single use packaging completely and instead opting for reusable crockery and having staff and volunteers run wash stations. Also using the likes of rental cups from an external entity, where attendees pay a small deposit for a reusable cup that is used throughout the event, which can then be returned in exchange for their deposit back. Feedback suggests that using these methods leaves a very good impressions on attendees. Attendees can be encouraged to bring their own cup/container to events.

2.7 Knowing how to implement staffed bin stations or opting for reusables can seem intimidating for event organisers and something often left to the last minute to action, or put in the too hard basket from the beginning.

3.0 Proposed event waste minimisation approach

3.1 The waste minimisation team aim to have new materials and processes in place in time for the planning of the 2021/22 summer event season to help event planners minimise event waste.

3.2 Event waste requirements can be considered through the solid waste bylaw review process. Many other Councils around NZ have included solid waste bylaws requirements to reduce waste at events and submit event waste minimisation plans for approval. The bylaw review process is likely to take approximately 1 year and will not be completed in time for the 21/22 event season.

3.3 To equip event planners with the knowledge and tools to be able to minimise their event waste and what options are available to them. The waste team are putting together an ‘Event Waste Guide’ based on guides made by other Councils with a focus on Hawke’s Bay facilities and requirements. The guide will give event planners the knowledge and tools to also submit a waste minimisation plan to Council as outlined in 3.2.

3.4 The Event Waste Guide will be available to event planners/organisers either in PDF format or hard copy during their initial stages of contact with Council event staff to allow them as much advanced planning time as possible.

3.5 The Environment Centre Hawke’s Bay (EC), a not for profit organisation supported by HDC through a contract for service, currently offer services for waste minimisation at events. The EC are looking to shift this focus from offering overall waste management services, to more of a waste minimisation at events coordinator or facilitator service. This service would still assist event planners with overall supervision, access to a pool of volunteers, and coordination with local waste operators, however through this role the EC would aim to place more responsibility on the event holder to provide sufficient staffing and resourcing to carry out the waste minimisation aims. For larger events or for events that would prefer to outsource waste planning, the EC services would be available to ensure waste minimisation can still be achieved.

3.6 The waste team are also putting together an ‘event packaging guide’ which will contain a comprehensive list of packaging types and the companies in New Zealand that provide compostable, PLA free food packaging. This will be available for event planners and food vendors to reduce confusion around packaging and provide clear guidance on the most suitable packaging types. It is expected that event planners/organisers will place requirements on food vendors participating at their event to only use certain types of packaging to assist with the management and minimisation of waste. To coincide with the packaging guide a packaging accreditation can be created that would include signage which vendors could display advising customers that are using sustainable packaging.

3.7 Reusable cup schemes such as rental cups will also be encouraged in the waste guide. Such schemes could operate by charging attendees a small fee for the use of a reusable cup and they are able to get a partial refund once they return their cup at the end of the event. There are a number of ways that a reusable cup system can be set up. This includes the incorporation of a branded cup in the ticket price that can then be taken home as a keep sake.

3.8 The waste team are looking at creating waste kits on trailers for community events to borrow to help simplify their planning requirements. Event organisers would pay a deposit that would be returned upon all the items being returned. It is likely that there would be two different kits available.

- The first kit would contain all the relevant equipment to be able to set up a waste station at an event, and would include materials such as different colours wheelie bins, signage, PPE gear, litter picks, liners, etc.

- The second kit would contain the relevant equipment to be able to set up a wash station for an event wanting to avoid single use materials and utilise reusables. It would contain the likes of wash buckets, tables, PPE, a steriliser, flags and signage, etc. The uptake for the second kit will likely be lower and a bit slower than the first kit as this is more of a commitment for events to take on than the first kit. By providing the equipment however the waste team hopes that this will encourage event planners to consider the next step.

3.9 It is difficult to quantify the difference is in costs for events that minimise waste and those that don’t. There would be clear costs saved from less disposal costs to landfill which is generally the more expensive disposal option. For larger events such as the recent Six60 concert a waste minimisation leader would need to be employed to oversee the work, however this person would likely be required is there were no waste minimisation aims also. If events are using reusable schemes then food vendors are saving on packaging costs. Rental cup schemes can be planned to be cost neutral by incorporating the expense in to other areas. By setting up trailer kits the waste team hopes to be able to minimise any additional costs especially for the likes of smaller free community events.

3.10 To also help with any potential additional costs, using levy funds, the waste team is also looking to set up funding options of various levels to event planners depending on the level of waste minimisation that they are committing to. The levels of commitment could be awarded as badges that are then used as a type of waste certification for that event. Continued support and check-ups would be needed for event planners to ensure that funds haven’t been granted then waste efforts dropped and goals not reached.

For example:

- Fully committed (the highest commitment): there is no single use packaging at this event, reusables only, and a bin for collecting food waste. Technically a zero waste event as there are no rubbish bins nor rubbish being created. The highest benefits of this level of commitment is that attendees are moving away from the ‘take-make-dispose’ model of purchasing and experiencing the circular economy in action.

- Almost there (second highest): The event is technically zero waste to landfill with no landfill bins, but has bins for recycling and food and compostable packaging, so is still using single use materials.

- Waste stations (currently the level that some events in the Hawkes Bay are opting for): Waste stations are used with bins for rubbish, recycling and composting. The waste stations would need to be staffed to ensure the diversion is being achieved. This level of commitment is much better than only having landfill bins as we are diverting waste from landfill, however where possible the waste team would like to encourage event planners to consider reusable options and avoid the single use mind set and waste being created in the first place.

3.11 The fund would most likely be capped depending on which commitment level event planners are aiming for. The fund would not cover the cost of rubbish disposal, but could be used for the likes of: volunteer recognition, hiring the Environment Centre’s waste minimisation services, food waste disposal etc.

3.12 Ideally, the same commitment badges would be able to be applied across the wider Hawke’s Bay in the future. The waste team will be in communication throughout the planning process and share information and work with Napier, Central Hawke’s Bay, and Wairoa waste teams.

3.13 There are many Councils around the country that are working to support event planners in minimising waste, with some processes and programmes well established. When creating a Hastings based approach, the waste team don’t intend to reinvent the wheel, and instead draw on the resources that are already available and tailor them to the needs of Hawkes Bay events planners.

3.14 The waste team intend to fully communicate its intentions with event staff within Council, event planners, food vendors, commercial operators, and other relevant parties.

4.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee receive the report titled Events Waste Minimisation Update dated 26 March 2021.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Friday, 26 March 2021

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

Nā:

From:

Cloe Vining, Waste Minimisation Officer

Angela Atkins, Waste Planning Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Treated Timber Disposal Option with Pan Pac

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the committee about an opportunity to partner with Pan Pac and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) to explore the possibility of using treated timber as a boiler fuel and seek approval to formally support and continue with this project.

1.2 This project aligns with many aspects of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) namely;

1.3 The target a 30% total tonnage decrease in organic waste to landfill by 2024.

1.4 JWMMP GOAL ONE - REDUCE, RECOVER AND RECYCLE MORE WASTE IN ORDER TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE NEW ZEALAND WASTE STRATEGY GOAL: “REDUCING THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF WASTE”.

Objective 1: To reduce total amount of waste to landfill per person in Napier and Hastings, particularly with regard to organic waste e.g. green waste and food waste.

Objective 2: To increase recovery (identification and removal of items) destined for landfill that can be reused, recovered or recycled.

1.5 JWMMP GOAL FOUR - UTILISE INNOVATIVE AND COST EFFECTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION APPROACHES.

Objective 1: To continue investigating new alternative waste disposal technologies using cost-benefit analyses, and apply these outcomes where appropriate.

1.6 JWMMP Action Plan actions;

1.7 6F - Continue to research emerging opportunities and innovation for reduction, treatment and disposal of residual waste.

1.8 6K - Continue to investigate local, national and international market options for difficult-to-recycle materials.

1.9 Timber is a significant waste stream in the Hawke’s Bay that the waste team are looking at alternative options for.

1.10 Pan Pac operates a sawmill at Whirinaki that currently uses untreated timber as a fuel source to power the on-site boiler.

1.11 After joint discussions between Pan Pac, HBRC, Napier City Council (NCC), and Hastings District Council (HDC), the organisations are investigating the opportunity for treated timber to be also used for fuel in the boiler, diverting this waste away from landfill and providing a beneficial re-use.

1.12 Pan Pac are seeking HDC support for an application to the national Waste Minimisation Fund (WMF) to contribute to the testing and resource consent costs involved with investigating this option. The waste minimisation team are presenting this report to seek committee approval to formally support Pan Pac’s application.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee receive the report titled Treated Timber Disposal Option with Pan Pac dated 26 March 2021.

B) That the Committee support, by way of officer time devoted to this project, to investigate further the possibility of using treated timber as a boiler fuel source by way of an application to the National Contestable Waste Minimisation Fund.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 The 2019 Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP) survey estimated that 13.1% of all waste to Omarunui landfill is timber (treated and untreated). In 2019 ~90,000 tonnes of waste were sent to landfill, therefore approximately 11,790 tonnes of this was timber. MfE estimates estimate that approximately 14% of all New Zealand’s waste to landfill is timber. In 2020 a little over 108,000 tonnes of waste went to Omarunui landfill, which equates to over 14,000 tonnes of timber based on the SWAP survey results.

3.2 Currently, untreated timber is able to be repurposed commercially either through mulching or composting facilities. There are no economically viable alternative options for dealing with treated timber.

3.3 There is very little data about what proportion of timber waste is treated and untreated, however informal estimates from landfill staff suggest that treated timber would equate to between 50 and 60% of all timber to landfill.

3.4 It can be extremely difficult to tell the difference between treated and untreated timber, therefore when mixed loads come to the Henderson Road Transfer Station, after any reusable timber pieces are pulled out the rest will be left in the pit to go to landfill.

3.5 Orchard and vineyard posts are generally all made from treated timber, meaning Hawke’s Bay deals with millions of treated timber posts. From discussions with orchard industry members, many orchards stockpile treated timber on their orchards, unable to burn them due to burning restrictions, and unwilling to landfill them due to the high volume and high cost in doing so. In landfill timber posts are a hassle to deal with operationally as the posts are difficult to spread and compact.

3.6 Treated timber is also the more common type of timber used in building and construction sector now, compared to older builds which generally used untreated hard wood.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 Until May 2019, Pan Pac in Whirinaki accepted free drop off of untreated timber from any member of the public which was used in the furnace. Pan Pac’s resource consent with the HBRC has a condition prohibiting the burning of any treated timber in their furnace. Pan Pac later ceased this untreated timber drop off service due to the risk of treated timber being mixed in and breaching their resource consent conditions.

4.2 Pan Pac currently accepts untreated timber loads from some trusted commercial businesses that is used in their furnace for hog fuel.

4.3 Golden Bay Cement (GBC), located at Marsden Point, Whangarei is currently the only place in New Zealand offering an alternative disposal option for treated timber. GBC accept treated and untreated timber that is used in their kiln as fuel in the cement making process.

4.4 Representatives from the HDC and NCC waste teams and HBRC have met with staff from Pan Pac to understand the process required, if they were to take Hawkes Bay’s treated and untreated timber.

4.5 Pan Pac have investigated the minimum necessary steps to be carried out before treated timber could be accepted at their plant would require:

· A variation to the current resource consent would first need to be obtained to be able to carry out the tests.

· Specialised stack testing for treated timber would need to be carried out. Stack tests are done quarterly as per resource consent conditions, sampling emissions and contaminants from the boiler. For these specific tests treated timber would need to be added in to the fuel source and the contaminants measured to verify whether it is environmentally sound to burn treated timber with the current infrastructure.

· If the stack tests show favourable results for burning treated timber, Pan Pac would either need to apply for a variation to, or a new resource consent to allow for the continued inclusion of treated timber as hog fuel.

· Pan Pac would have a finite capacity for additional timber fuel based on the other fuel sources they already have, however initial estimates suggest that the assumed ~14,000 tonnes of timber currently going to landfill would be acceptable, as well as additional amounts from orchard stock piles and other sources.

· An important consideration during testing is the testing of the fly ash which is the remaining ash once the timber has been burnt. Testing the ash will analyse the contamination levels of the ash which will determine whether it will still be able to be disposed of in the mono-fill site (where it currently goes). If it is too highly contaminated due to the treated timber component then it would likely need to be disposed of at an appropriate landfill. The fly ash would need to be assessed against the Ministry for the Environment disposal guidelines to ensure it is ok to landfill.

4.6 Further detail regarding the operational aspects of treated timber going to Pan Pac are yet to be determined. It is likely Pan Pac would need to undertake site improvements to handle the additional loads and it is expected that a charge would apply to drop off timber there to cover the operational costs of doing so.

4.7 Specialised stack testing and the resource consent variation is roughly costed at $100,000. It is proposed that Pan Pac applies to the national Waste Minimisation Fund (WMF) to support the testing phase costs.

4.8 The WMF is an MfE annual contestable fund available to provide funding for projects that promote or achieve waste minimisation. The timing and priorities for the 2021 funding round are yet to be set, however based on last year’s timeline, it is expected that applications will close sometime in May.

4.9 It is likely that further funding would be sought by Pac Pac if initial testing is favourable to apply for a new resource consent or variation and any potential site upgrades. The ongoing operational costs could be covered by a gate charge.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1 Support of Pan Pac’s application to the WMF to apply for a resource consent variation and carry out specialised stack testing:

Advantages

· If stacking results are favourable and the project proceeds beyond testing, there will be the potential to divert up to 14,000 tonnes of waste from landfill annually in the Hawkes Bay, and more from other nearby regions.

· The diverted material would have a second use as hog fuel before any lesser amount of residual ash is disposed of either through organic waste streams or to landfill.

· Meets the targets, goals and objectives of the Joint WMMP, mainly the target to reduce organic waste to landfill.

Disadvantages

· Officer time to formulate a WMF application and letter of support.

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei

5.2 Do not support Pan Pac’s application to the WMF.

Advantages

· Involves no staff time.

Disadvantages

· Timber continues to be sent to landfill, taking up valuable space and continuing to be difficult to manage.

· The viability of an alternative timber waste stream is not explored.

· Does not meet the goals and objectives of the Joint WMMP.

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 If committee approval is received, the next steps of the process will be:

· Pan Pac to investigate a more comprehensive budget and process for project

· Pan Pac to lead the compilation of an application to the WMF

· HDC waste team staff to provide waste related information and data and a formal letter of support for the application to WMF fund.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-Rohe

The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as set out in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by (and on behalf of) communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This proposal contributes to the purpose of local government by primarily promoting the environmental wellbeing and more specifically through the Council’s strategic objective of a community which wastes less.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

As this project is in initial stages, no consultation with iwi or hapu has occurred, however should the project be approved, this engagement will be undertaken.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

Should the project proceed, it will have significant sustainability outcomes; reduced waste to landfill (organic waste creates methane as it breaks down) and is in-line with the Climate Change Commission draft advice (February 2021).

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

In – kind support in the form of officer time, there is no direct financial cost to Council at this stage.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being not of significance. Should the project proceed, consultation with the community will occur as part of the Resource Consent processes.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto / ā-waho

As detailed in the report, external consultation/discussions are underway between Pan Pac, HBRC, HDC and NCC.

Risks

Opportunity: An opportunity to significantly reduce the volume of organic waste disposed of at Omarunui Landfill, in particular treated timber.

REWARD – Te Utu

RISK – Te Tūraru

[State the benefit, opportunity, innovation of the outcome & whether it benefits; Safety (public/ staff/ contractors), Finances, Service Delivery, Legal compliance, Reputation.]

· Disposal space freed up for other materials, thus potentially extending the life of landfill.

· Meeting the aims of the Joint WMMP.

[State the significant risks or threats (4 or 5 max) to the objective & whether they affect; Safety (public/ staff/ contractors), Finances, Service Delivery, Legal compliance, Reputation.]

· Obtaining funding for the project via the WMF.

· Obtaining Resource consents to use treated timber as a boiler fuel over the long term.

· Costs to make improvements to the furnace.

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

Not required at this stage.

Friday, 26 March 2021

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

Nā:

From:

Angela Atkins, Waste Planning Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Hastings District Council - Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Implementation Update

1.0 Purpose and summary - Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 This report is to update the committee regarding the implementation of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) and activities undertaken over the past three months in the Hastings District by Hastings District Council (HDC) staff.

1.2 The Ministry for the Environment completed a Waste Levy Expenditure Audit of HDC in December 2020. This audit identified full compliance with HDC’s obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and there were no areas for improvement identified. A copy of the report is appended as Attachment 1.

· A copy of the Joint WMMP can be viewed on the HDC website

WMMP Progress Update

1.3 Attachment 2 details progress made against the Joint WMMP Action Plan. Progress is steady to date with some actions completed, many underway and some yet to be commenced. The Joint WMMP covers the period August 2018 to July 2024.

1.4 An Infographic is attached (Attachment 3) detailing the kerbside recycling and rubbish collection statistics from the past quarter.

1.5 An online kerbside satisfaction survey was undertaken in November to help inform educational messages regarding the services going forward. An info-graphic is attached as Attachment 4 detailing the responses received.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee receives the report titled Hastings District Council - Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Implementation Update dated 26 March 2021.

Attachments:

1 ⇩	2020 Waste Levy Expenditure and WMMP Audit Report	SW-29-2-21-18
2 ⇩	WMMP Implementation Progress Report - March 2021	SW-29-2-21-19
3 ⇩	Quarterly Kerbside Services Update Infographic - Oct to Dec 2020	SW-29-2-21-15
4 ⇩	Refuse and Recycling Kerbside Services - November 2020 Online Survey Results Infographic	SW-28-6-21-9

Friday, 26 March 2021

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee

Nā:

From:

Angela Atkins, Waste Planning Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Local Government Waste Manifesto - 2020

1.0 Purpose and summary - Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report to share with the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee the updated version of the Local Government Waste Manifesto 2020 (Attachment 1).

1.2 The Manifesto outlines the actions that Central Government needs to take to reduce waste to landfill. The updated Manifesto summarises the impacts of China National Sword and COVID 19 on the recycling sector, summarises progress made to date on the 5 key actions called for in the original manifesto and identifies 3 new actions for the government to progress. These three new actions are:

· Invest in onshore and local infrastructure for processing of recovered materials – in particular plastics, paper, organics and building materials

· Standardise household rubbish and recycling collection systems to improve the quality of material collected and the materials that are collected.

· Phase out the use of hard to recycle plastics and initiate a compulsory national label for recyclability on packaging.

1.3 The 2018 version of the manifesto and covering memo to the mayor are attached as additional background information.

2.0 Recommendations – Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee receive the report titled Local Government Waste Manifesto - 2020 dated 26 March 2021.

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Local Government Waste Manifesto 2020	SW-29-2-20-1
2 ⇩	Local Government Waste Manifesto 2018	SW-25-18-4452
3 ⇩	Support for the Local Government Waste Manifesto as a LGNZ remit, Memo to Mayor, May 2018	SW-25-18-4451

Item 7 Local Government Waste Manifesto - 2020
Support for the Local Government Waste Manifesto as a LGNZ remit, Memo to Mayor, May 2018	Attachment 3

· MEMORANDUM

File Ref SW-25-18-4451

To: Mayor Sandra Hazelhurst

From: Angela Atkins

Copy to: Deputy Mayor Tania Kerr

Date: 8 May 2018

Subject: Support for the Local Government Waste Manifesto as a LGNZ remit

· _________________________________________________________________________________

Summary

· The Local Government Waste Manifesto (Waste Manifesto) (Attachment 1) identifies five key strategic Central Government actions essential for improved outcomes in waste management and minimisation in New Zealand.

· The Waste Manifesto work programme priorities were agreed to by the WasteMINZ TA forum (territorial authority waste officers), via vote at the annual forum meeting in November 2017.

· The WasteMINZ TA forum is now seeking political support for the Waste Manifesto. To this end Mayor Lester from Wellington City Council is proposing that the Waste Manifesto be adopted as an LGNZ remit at the LGNZ AGM in July.

· The Zone 4 sector group in Wellington has agreed to support and nominate the remit and it is currently with the remit screening committee for approval.

· The Waste Manifesto contains two actions that have already secured a LGNZ remit, including a New Zealand Container Deposit Scheme, and a Product Stewardship scheme for ewaste. The additional components of the Waste Manifesto proposal includes:

o Review of the New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS) – currently there is no clear strategic direction, no national targets or timelines, which limits confidence for investment in the sector.

o Implementation of the National Waste Data Framework (NWDF) - as developed by the sector in partnership with MfE - the OECD still regularly reports New Zealand as “one of the worst” with 0% recycling and 100% waste. While this is not correct, New Zealand has not been collecting sufficient data for the OECD to report otherwise. Improved data would also enable TAs to plan more effectively, as well as measuring and monitoring performance.

o Application of the waste levy to all landfill types, and then, subject to further work, increase the levy - the former alone could generate as much as $100M in levy funds. Based on the current TA levy allocation (50%), extending the levy to all landfill types would create a significant increase in the levy revenue for Council spending on waste management and minimisation activities (currently the levy brings in $35 million per year across New Zealand).

o Establish product stewardship schemes for tyres, agricultural chemicals and agricultural plastics. The tyre industry has helped to develop Tyrewise, a tyre product stewardship scheme. All that remains is to implement the scheme, and it has industry support to do so. As farms dumps are a permitted activity for many Councils, waste agricultural chemicals and plastics will continue to contaminate the environment when burnt and buried unless farmers are supported and enabled by the appropriate product stewardship schemes.

· All of the proposed waste manifesto actions exist within the scope of the Central Government provisions available in the Waste Minimisation Act (2008). Ministerial media announcements and Council officer discussions with Ministry officers suggest the waste manifesto may be timely.

Background

The Local Government Waste Manifesto (Attachment 1) was developed by the Territorial Authority Forum (TA Forum) sector group of the Waste Management Institute of New Zealand (WasteMINZ). The sector group is made up of waste officers from 64 city and district councils from around New Zealand. The purpose of the sector group is to create consistency and efficiency for territorial authorities through sharing knowledge and best practice for waste management and minimisation.

Waste is a significant issue for local government to deal with and the tools and policy levers local government has are limited. Consequently, the most efficient solutions to issues discussed at the TA Forum often come back to the need for Central Government policy and action. New Zealand is some 10-20 years behind many other developed nations in the application of waste management and minimisation policy. This national situation has constrained councils’ ability to address waste issues effectively. One advantage to this is that many policy solutions have now been tried and tested by other countries, which puts New Zealand in a position where it can adapt and adopt those that work well.

What is in the Waste Manifesto?

The Waste Manifesto provides a concise list of strategic Central Government policy actions necessary for a real reduction in waste to landfill, and enhanced environmental outcomes in New Zealand. The key priorities of the Waste Manifesto include:

Priority 1: The need for a strategic approach – the current lack of a strategic direction for waste in New Zealand has led to limited action and investment in the waste sector. A revision of the New Zealand Waste Strategy (2010) with clear goals and objectives, along with measurable and time bound targets would encourage joined up local, regional, and national planning. Strategic planning at all tiers would in turn provide a clear direction and give confidence for the investment of private sector and waste levy funds.

Priority 2: Changes to the waste disposal levy – New Zealand’s waste disposal levy was introduced in 2009, it has remained at $10 per tonne since. Meanwhile, waste disposal nationally has increased by 35% over the same time frame. The levy is also only applied to about 30% of all waste (i.e. Class 1 landfills only). Currently the levy brings in around $35 million per annum, of which half is returned to TAs for spending in accordance with their WMMP action plans. If the levy was extended to all landfill types (i.e. including Class 2, 3 and 4 landfills), it would generate in the order of$100 million (possibly more as tonnage to class 2, 3 and 4 landfills is often based on estimates). Assuming the same model of levy redistribution (50% to TAs), this would significantly increase TAs ability to invest in the delivery of their WMMP actions.

Different countries have adopted different levy rates, structures, and supporting policies to reduce waste. Figure 1 overleaf depicts the current levy rates for different countries (in NZ $). It can be observed that most countries have a significantly higher levy rate than NZ, with UK having the highest of $162 per tonne.

Levy Rates for Active Waste in Different Countries, NZ $

Source: The New Zealand Waste Disposal Levy, Potential Impacts of adjustments to the current Levy Rate and Structure (2017)

Increasing the rate of the levy is arguably the New Zealand government’s most powerful policy tool for driving change across the entire sector. As has been seen in other countries, changes to the levy would have impacts on industry, local government, across the different regions and on greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to note that the Waste Manifesto advocates for the government to undertake further work on the effects of raising the levy would be on specific sectors and regions. Following that work, further consultation is requested on the proposed changes before implementing any change.

Priority 3: Better Waste Data – New Zealand currently lacks comprehensive, reliable waste data. As a result the OECD has recently reported on the international stage that NZ has 0% recycling and 100% waste. ^{^[1]}

A project led by the sector (through WasteMINZ), with funding support from the Ministry for the Environment and councils developed the “National Waste Data Framework” in 2015/16. Ministry officials are currently considering making waste a tier 1 reporting requirement with Statistics NZ. As such, the NWDF has the potential to become mandatory.

Many councils have recognised this waste data issue within their latest WMMP and are currently working towards the implementation of the NWDF. Our draft Joint WMMP with NCC contains the goal to “improve information on waste generation and movements in Napier and Hastings” with the objective “to work towards aligned data collection and reporting systems across Hastings District and Napier City and New Zealand.” Addressing the data issue at the local, regional and national level will also support better strategic planning and improve confidence for investment in the sector.

Priority 4: Container Deposit Scheme – A Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) involves consumers paying a deposit (e.g. 10 cents) when they purchase a drink from a store, then receiving their money back when they return the container to an official collection point. The main purpose of a CDS is litter reduction. A recent study^{^[2]} has shown that:

“Where present, container deposits reduce the amount of beverage containers on the coasts of both the United States and Australia by 40%. What’s more, the reduction is even more pronounced in areas of lower socio-economic status, where plastic waste is most common.”

If all the coastal US states without CDS were to implement it, there would be an estimated

“…6.6 million fewer containers on the shoreline of the US each year.”

There are multiple other benefits to an NZ CDS^{^[3]}, these include:

· savings on kerbside services for NZ Councils of up to $20.9 Million (mainly through fewer trucks);

· increasing recycling rates from 45-58% to 79%-82% nationally

· savings to NZ Councils of up to $8.1 Million through reduced disposal and litter clean-up costs

· other benefits including job creation and increased public engagement

An important open question relating to a NZ CDS is “where would the public drop their drink containers?” In other countries this has been addressed through a mix of models including retailer drop offs, reverse vending machines, and depot drop offs. This level of detail would be subject to much greater consideration for all stakeholders if the minister decides to investigate a CDS for NZ. The Waste Manifesto also advocates for a consultation process so the details can be worked through in a collaborative way.

Priority 5: Mandatory Product Stewardship – Product stewardship is widely established around the world; and such schemes are particularly effective at dealing with problematic waste streams. Broadly speaking, product stewardship schemes place the responsibility on the producer and sellers for managing products at the end of their life. The Waste Manifesto advocates for product stewardship on three problem waste streams in NZ:

· Ewaste - This already has an LGNZ remit.

· Tyres - An industry developed and supported scheme has already been developed (called Tyrewise) but requires Central Government support.

· Agricultural chemicals and agricultural plastics - As farms dumps are often a permitted activity (necessitated by practicality), in the absence of product stewardship schemes, agricultural chemical and plastic wastes will continue to contaminate the air (when burnt) soils (when buried) and water ways (as farm dump pits are not required to be lined). Farmers need access to schemes that help them divert these harmful wastes from farm dumps.

Attachment 1: Local Government Waste Manifesto (SW-25-18-4452)

Angela Atkins

Waste Minimisation Officer

· angelama@hdc.govt.nz

[2] Schuyler et al. (2018). Economic incentives reduce plastic inputs to the ocean. Marine Policy. Source: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X17305377

[3] Preston Davies (2017) Cost-benefit analysis of a Container Deposit Scheme. Report for the Auckland Council, August 2017

Te Rā Hui: Meeting date:	Friday, 26 March 2021
Te Wā: Time:	10.30am
Te Wāhi: Venue:	Council Chamber Ground Floor Civic Administration Building Lyndon Road East Hastings
Te Hoapā: Contact:	Democracy and Governance Services P: 06 871 5000 \| E: democracy@hdc.govt.nz
Te Āpiha Matua: Responsible Officer:	Waste Planning Manager - Angela Atkins

Group Members:	Heamana Chair: Councillor Ann Redstone (HDC) Deputy Chair: Councillor Api Tapine (NCC) Councillors Damon Harvey and Sophie Siers (HDC) Councillors Annette Brosnan and Richard McGrath (NCC)
Tokamatua: Quorum:	4 members - at least 2 Councillors from each Council
Apiha Matua Officer Responsible:	Waste Planning Manager – Angela Atkins
Te Rōpū Manapori me te Kāwanatanga Democracy & Governance Services	Lynne Cox (Extn 5632)

1.0	Apologies & Leave of Absence – Ngā Whakapāhatanga me te Wehenga ā-Hui At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received. At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
2.0	Conflict of Interest– Mahi Kai Huanga Members need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have.
3.0	Confirmation of Minutes - Te Whakamana i Ngā Miniti Minutes of the Joint Waste Futures Project Steering Committee held Friday 4 December 2020. (Previously circulated)
4.0	Events Waste Minimisation Update	9
5.0	Treated Timber Disposal Option with Pan Pac	13
6.0	Hastings District Council - Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Implementation Update	19
7.0	Local Government Waste Manifesto - 2020	43

Item 6 Hastings District Council - Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Implementation Update
2020 Waste Levy Expenditure and WMMP Audit Report	Attachment 1

Item 6 Hastings District Council - Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Implementation Update
WMMP Implementation Progress Report - March 2021	Attachment 2

Item 6 Hastings District Council - Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Implementation Update
Quarterly Kerbside Services Update Infographic - Oct to Dec 2020	Attachment 3

Item 6 Hastings District Council - Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Implementation Update
Refuse and Recycling Kerbside Services - November 2020 Online Survey Results Infographic	Attachment 4

Item 7 Local Government Waste Manifesto - 2020
Local Government Waste Manifesto 2020	Attachment 1

Item 7 Local Government Waste Manifesto - 2020
Local Government Waste Manifesto 2018	Attachment 2