Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

Auckland Waste
Management and
Minimisation Plan
getting aucklands
waste sorted
June 2012
CONTENTS
FOREWORD 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART A: Auckland now and into the future 12

1
Introduction 13
1.1 Context for Auckland waste management
15
1.2 Legislative and policy framework
16
VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
22
2.1 Vision
22
2.2 Targets
23
2.3 Strategic objectives
24
2.4 Guiding principles
25
2.5 Tangata whenua world view on waste management and minimisation
26
2.6 Role of the council
27
2.7 Public health protection
28
2.8 Monitoring and reporting progress
28
3 THE CURRENT SITUATION: FINDINGS FROM THE

AUCKLAND council WASTE ASSESSMENT

28
3.1 Summary of key findings
28
4 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
30
4.1 Future waste projections
30
4.2 Future resource recovery/recycling projections
31
4.3 Summary of future demand drivers
31
PART B: FUNDING
32
1 OVERVIEW
33
PROPOSED APPROACH
35
3 Financials 36
PART C: ACTION PLAN
38
40
INTRODUCTION TO THE ACTION PLAN
1.1 Strategic context
40
1.2 The action plan process
41
1.3 Criteria for identifying and assessing options
41
2 KEY methods 41
2.1 Standardise funding methods for domestic waste and recycling services
41
2.2 Kerbside refuse receptacles
43
2.3 Move towards a consistent domestic kerbside

recycling service across the region

45
2.4 Introduce a domestic kerbside organic waste collection
48
2.5 Regional inorganic collection
49
2.6 Develop a Resource Recovery Network (RRN)
50
2.7 Support business - particularly in the construction

and demolition industries
52
2.8 Advocate for product stewardship
52
2.9 Advocate for amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008
54
2.10 Facilitate local enterprise
54
2.11 Investigate enacting a waste bylaw
55
2.12 Hauraki Gulf Islands
55
2.13 Implement a Strategic Framework for Communication,

Waste Minimisation Programmes and Community Development
56
ACTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
59
3.1 Waste policy and operational actions
61
3.2 Communications and Waste Minimisation Programmes
73
PART D: APPENDICES
76
Appendix 1: Auckland Council Waste Assessment
77
Appendix 2: Monitoring and Reporting Framework
77
Appendix 3: Community Grants Scheme Framework
80
Appendix 4: Options for Domestic Kerbside Organic Waste

Collection and Domestic Inorganic Waste Services

81
TABLE OF DEFINITIONS
86
Placement
to come
from
printer
Printed on Cocoon Offset Recycled, made from 100% FSC certified post-consumer
waste, processed chlorine free, using K+E Bio vegetable based inks and citrus cleaners.
FOREWORD
The way we deal with waste in the 21st century is challenging cities in every part
of the globe in unprecedented ways.
I fully recognise that changes have to be made if we are to protect and enhance
Auckland in the future. Tackling this complex issue will require courage, creativity
and resolve.
This is a challenging task. I will be taking a close personal interest in our progress
over the next few years.
This difficult issue touches everyone. It signals change to a smaller or greater degree
for every household, but these are changes that we, as Aucklanders, can make together
because we know for sure that they are for the good of the city and for all of us.
This plan is about reducing the waste we throw into the bin, and about recycling
and reusing more. We know that many of the resources we depend on, which we
have often taken for granted, are becoming scarce. Yet there is so much we can do
to ensure that resources we previously regarded as of no use such as food/green
waste and industrial waste are fully used, and reused, reducing what we send
to landfills.
We want to aim high but also make sure we take people with us. In particular,
the vulnerable must be protected and supported that is why any changes
will be made carefully over a period of four years.
All the actions that this plan will eventually require of us, are ones
we would expect of a country that brands itself as clean and green,
and of a city that aspires to be the worlds most liveable.
Len Brown
Mayor of Auckland
WASTE Management and Minimisation PLAN I 5
Executive Summary
Getting Aucklands Waste Sorted is the first Auckland-wide waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP). It is driven by
a number of pieces of legislation including the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA), the Local Government Act 2002 and the
Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010. With the amalgamation of the former councils, Auckland Council
has seized the unique opportunity to create an integrated suite of waste services across the region in order to significantly reduce
waste1 in the medium term, with the long-term aspirational goal of Zero Waste. In a world faced with many major challenges
now and in the future, this plan takes a precautionary approach to conserving Aucklands natural resources and doing it in an
economically efficient way.
Any potential change will be done carefully and in stages over the next few years. This will allow time for further collaborative
discussions with the waste industry and communities, and to enable an extensive education programme before, during and after
any change. At all stages the council will remain open to innovative and creative ideas from both industry and the community.
The plan, including a comprehensive list of actions, is based on the findings of the Auckland Council Waste Assessment2, and
feedback from a range of community and industry stakeholders. It also reflects the goals and directive of the Auckland Plan.
After analysing current waste services, and the nature of the industry and waste management infrastructure, the Auckland Council
Waste Assessment concluded that it will be challenging for the council to achieve a significant reduction in waste to landfill under
present ownership, governance and operational arrangements. This will need further consideration over time.
This plan focuses on the approximately 17 per cent of the waste stream that the council currently influences (the remaining over
80 per cent is largely controlled by the waste industry, with limited council influence). The plan outlines specific actions that the
council proposes to achieve consistent, streamlined, efficient waste services across the Auckland region in the domestic market
that it influences and a considerable reduction in waste to landfill. Although the council does not control the services provided by
the private sector, it will work collaboratively with the sector in order to achieve an overall reduction in waste to landfill under the
legislative requirement to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within its district.
Creating a consistent, streamlined service means first addressing the different methods of waste collection, suites of services and
funding models operated by the seven former councils. This fragmentation, along with lack of council influence over the waste
stream, failed to fully meet the intent of either the WMA or the objectives of the former councils waste management plans.
Standardisation of service (with the exception of the Hauraki Gulf Islands, rural areas, some scenic and coastal holiday areas
and multi-unit properties) is one way to solve these shortcomings. The council recognises, however, that standardisation does
not necessarily mean one size fits all, so will work with local boards and communities to reflect local needs as far as practicable.
Working with industry, commerce and the waste sector is also vital, as is understanding the drivers of peoples behaviours.
Environmental, economic, social and cultural impacts of changes to waste services must also be considered. The complexity
of Aucklands waste situation needs a multifaceted WMMP. Whatever decisions are made, however, change is inevitable, and
the changes Auckland must make need to be managed carefully and progressively, particularly changes to refuse payment. The
approach taken in this plan is to help communities across Auckland to reduce, recycle and reuse as much as possible only then
will householders have to directly pay for what is left over that will go to landfill.
A wide range of initiatives are outlined in the plan. Some can be implemented immediately. Existing contracts that expire at
various points over the next few years mean other initiatives will have to be introduced over a longer timeframe. The council is
conscious that ratepayers, while being mindful of their environmental and wider responsibilities, want rates to be kept as low as
possible. The net cost (excluding growth and inflation) of the ultimate package of measures to reduce waste to landfill, including
the new measures, is not to exceed the net rates requirement for 2014/2015, bearing in mind that all households will have the
potential to substantially reduce the disposer-pays component of their waste if they use the full suite of services.
Local government amalgamation has presented Auckland with an excellent opportunity to redesign the way waste is managed
across the region and to become a leader in waste minimisation and resource efficiency. In doing so, Auckland can position itself
among other leading edge, innovative cities around the world working towards Zero Waste goals3.
1 The definition of waste used in this plan is from the WMA. It refers to anything disposed of or discarded and includes a type of waste that is defined
by its composition or source (e.g. organic waste, electronic waste, or construction and demolition waste) and to avoid doubt, includes any component
or element of diverted material, if the component or element is disposed of or discarded.
2 The Auckland Council Waste Assessment was released in February 2011, updated in July 2011 and formally noted in August 2011.
3
S uch as Vancouver (www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste), San Francisco (www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/overview)

and Adelaide (www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au).
IN BRIEF
The plan has three main drivers:
the legislative requirement that:

A territorial authority must promote
effective and efficient waste management
and minimisation within its district (WMA)
the legislative need to review the seven

former local authorities waste plans and
the obvious desirability of forming one
cohesive consistent WMMP for the region
the councils adoption of an aspirational

goal of Zero Waste.
THE Plan Includes:

A vision:

'to become the most liveable city in the world, Auckland will aim
for the long-term, aspirational goal of Zero Waste4 by 20405,
turning its waste into resources'.
With:
a short to medium-term target to reduce domestic kerbside refuse
from 160kg to 110kg per capita per year (a 30 per cent reduction) by
2018, subject to the full range of services discussed in this plan being
implemented
a longer-term stretch goal to reduce total council- and privatesector-influenced waste to landfill by 30 per cent from the baseline
of 0.8 tonnes per capita per year over the next 15 years (by 20276)
by working with the commercial sector and the private waste industry
a n in-house target to reduce councils own in-house waste
by 30 per cent per capita by 20187.
guiding principles
strategic objectives
summary of findings from the Auckland Council Waste Assessment
actions/methods.
Zero Waste was the vision in the waste plans of five out of seven of the former councils of Auckland.
5 The Auckland Plan.

6
Estimated by Waste Not Consulting drawing on data from the former councils and available private data and subject to
discussions with the waste industry, appropriate regulation and ongoing resource allocation.
7 This figure is extrapolated out from waste audits done by Waste Not Consulting for the former Auckland and North Shore
city councils. A baseline for the new council was established in June 2012.
WASTE Management and Minimisation PLAN
Key actions/methods proposed

in this plan include:
1. a move towards consistent funding of domestic
a kerbside collection of organic waste for

urban areas only. This service would also be
private-good-funded (through rates and/or
other funding sources). This collection would
be complemented by an intensive drive to
encourage home composting, including in
areas where the organic service is not provided.
If the council were to provide a food waste only
collection, or a combined system where the
disposal of green waste would be minimal, that
would be accompanied by a determined effort
to work with the green waste industry to
reduce the 10 per cent of green waste still in
domestic refuse and other green waste which
currently finds its way to landfill.
a n inorganic collection to dispose of bulky

items and retrieve reusable and recyclable
items
p rovision of disposer-pays kerbside refuse

and private-good-funded (through rates and/
or other funding sources) recycling collection
services for domestic-type waste from
commercial properties.
waste and recycling services throughout the region

(in terms of public-good, private-good
and disposer-pays8)
2. provision of consistent domestic waste and

recycling services and receptacles across the
region from 2015, where practicable, including:
a fortnightly disposer-pays kerbside refuse

collection using wheelie bins in urban areas
with choice of bin size/capacity ranging from
60 to 240 litres, costing about $2.50 per lift9
for an 80litre bin. This charge per lift will be
commercially competitive
a fortnightly disposer-pays kerbside refuse

collection using a mix of wheelie bins (60 to
240 litres) and prepaid bags in rural areas,
the Hauraki Gulf Islands and certain holiday
and scenic areas, with pricing reflecting the
additional cost of this service
a fortnightly kerbside recycling collection

using wheelie bins with choice of bin size/
capacity ranging from 140 to 360 litres.
This service would be private-good-funded
(through rates and/or other funding sources).
This would include collecting a wider range of
recyclables than currently, with potential to
expand the range even further over time
If ratepayers adopt the full suite of services, thereby

minimising their disposer-pays costs, over the longer
term the average ratepayer/household will be no worse
off financially and will enjoy more services. Concurrently,
there will be a net environmental benefit10.
a 240-litre wheelie bin recycling service for

the former Rodney area as soon as practicable
Note that the council does not intend to run any of the
above services itself but would contract for provision.
S ee Part B, section 2 of this report for definitions of public-good,

private-good and disposer-pays.
9 This includes GST but does not take into account the start of the
Emissions Trading Scheme charging regime and is dependent on
the council retaining 90 per cent market share.
10 In terms of less waste to landfill and improved resource efficiency.
3. development of a resource recovery network

including facilities for hazardous waste and
construction and demolition material drop-off
4. supporting business waste reduction particularly

in the construction and demolition industries
5. advocacy for Container Deposit Legislation

subject to further discussion with industry, and
development of product stewardship schemes
for products such as electronic waste, tyres,
batteries, nappies etc
6. advocacy for changes to the WMA to give industry

the same responsibilities for waste reduction as
local authorities
7. facilitating local enterprise through the council

developing initiatives and handing them to local
enterprises to run at an appropriate time and by
community grants and innovation competitions
8. investigating enactment of a waste bylaw by

31 October 2012 to support the intent of the
plan and actions detailed within it, including a
cleanfill regulation
9. introduction of a comprehensive waste

minimisation programme to support the changes
including education, community engagement
and community development.
Other actions
proposed in the
plan include:
developing waste and recycling services
for multi-unit dwellings
providing schools with recycling services

developing and enhancing waste exchange
and waste brokering services
piloting a sell-on-behalf-of service for

unwanted items of value
providing public place recycling bins

working towards all events organised by
the council and run on council properties
to be run as Zero Waste events
providing consistent loose litter collection across

the region and reducing litter and illegal dumping
developing comprehensive monitoring

and reporting systems.
Concurrent with these actions Auckland Council will
work with the waste industry and landfill owners to
reduce private sector-controlled volumes of waste to
landfill. It will also encourage innovative ideas for
specific waste streams (e.g. wood waste) which
could be recovered for reuse or energy conversion.
Auckland Council, including its council-controlled
organisations (CCOs), must also walk the talk by
demonstrating good waste-wise practice in its own
operational processes, rules, practices and procurement
policies. The councils preliminary in-house waste
assessments indicate potential to reduce waste. It will,
therefore, undertake to mirror the community kerbside
refuse target, by committing to a 30 per cent reduction
in waste per capita (from a 2012 baseline tonnage)
from its in-house activities by 2018.
I 11
PARTA
DRAFT WASTE MINIMISATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN
AUCKLAND NOW
AND INTO THE FUTURE
1 introduction
Auckland sent 1.174 million tonnes
of waste to landfill in 201011.
This represents approximately 0.8tonnes
of waste for every person in Auckland12.
This waste includes a significant quantity
of material that, if separated, could be
recycled and put to beneficial use.
For example, around 65 per cent of kerbside
refuse collected from households could be
recycled or composted (or processed in some
other way) instead of being sent to landfill13.
11 K
PMG data collection report, 24 June 2011. 1.174 million tonnes divided by 1,522,000 (high population projection) equals 0. 77 tonnes per capita,
rounded up to 0.8 tonnes per capita.
12 This figure is an average across the entire waste stream, not just the part the council influences.
13 Auckland Council Waste Assessment Appendix F: Auckland Council Waste Assessment Data Update Table 2.5. Waste Not Consulting. August 2011.
15%
RECYCLABLES
35%
refuse
40%
FOOD WASTE
10%
green waste
Figure 1: Composition by weight of an average refuse bag/bin in Auckland14
The purpose of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA)

is to encourage waste minimisation and a decrease
in waste disposal in order to:
1
2
protect the environment

from harm; and
provide environmental, social,
economic and cultural benefits.
14 Food and green waste figures have a margin of error of 5 per cent. (Auckland Council Waste Assessment. Appendix C. Waste Not Consulting.
Composition of kerbside refuse from residential properties in Auckland. October 2010).
It also aims, through the waste levy, to increase the cost

of waste disposal so it better reflects the cost of waste
to the environment, society and the economy.
A waste management and minimisation plan (WMMP)
documents the goals and actions adopted by a council
to achieve effective, efficient waste management and
minimisation, as well as the funding rationale for waste
services and where the councils waste levy funding will
be spent. Most New Zealand councils already have a
waste management plan which, if reviewed, would not
require major changes in waste management practices.
However, the amalgamation of the Auckland councils
means the status quo seven completely different
waste systems is not a preferred or viable option.
A new, more equitable, efficient and effective
approach is needed. The first Auckland Council Waste
Management and Minimisation Plan is an opportunity
to design an integrated suite of systems that will
meet the councils legislated waste minimisation
responsibilities and steer Auckland on its journey
towards Zero Waste.
1.1 Context for

Auckland waste
management
The Local Government Act 2002 states that solid waste
collection and disposal is one of the five core services
that the council needs to consider in performing its
role, in particular with regard to the contribution that it
makes to its community. Before the 1990s, the rationale
for waste management was protection of public health.
However, the perceived need for councils to be involved
lessened as waste management standards improved,
and as landfill engineering and operation became
more specialised and capital-intensive. Consequently,
councils in the Auckland region, unlike those of other
large metropolitan areas, withdrew almost entirely from
waste infrastructure ownership.
In recent years, as the focus broadened to include
sustainability and waste minimisation, this lack of
involvement constrained Aucklands former councils in
meeting their waste minimisation obligations.
Auckland Council now only influences approximately
17 per cent15 of the waste stream, with the remainder
controlled by private waste operators.
15 R
efer to Appendix F of the Auckland Council Waste Assessment.
The 17 per cent is based on 2008-2010 updated tonnage data
as a percentage of current regional waste to landfill.
15 R
efer to Appendix F of the Auckland Council Waste Assessment.
The 17 per cent is based on 2008-2010 updated tonnage data as a
percentage of current regional waste to landfill.
This will remain a barrier to significant waste reduction

unless the waste industry and business, in collaboration
with the council, is able to voluntarily increase diversion
from landfill.
Change could be driven in three ways:
1. the government could amend the Waste

Minimisation Act 2008 to give industry the same
waste minimisation obligations as local authorities
2. Auckland Council could negotiate with

infrastructure owners to gain more influence
over the waste stream
3. in combination with option 1 or 2, the council

could establish additional resource recovery
infrastructure to overcome logistical hurdles for
new service provisions.
These scenarios need to be explored and all would take
some time to accomplish.
Consequently, this plan works on two fronts: working
with the private waste sector and the business
community to reduce waste volumes, and reducing
waste to landfill by focussing on the 17 per cent the
council currently influences.
Of the four landfills and 17 transfer facilities servicing
the Auckland region, Auckland Council has full control of
only one the Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Transfer
Station. It has no operational control of any landfills
apart from the small Claris landfill on Great Barrier Island.
And through its property CCO, the council owns a 50
per cent share of the Whitford landfill via a joint venture
with Transpacific Industries Ltd.
Most of the former Auckland councils were the principal
collectors of domestic kerbside waste in their areas
through contracts with the private sector. The exception
was the former Rodney District Council which left
residents to arrange their own collection services from
private waste operators. All former councils provided
a kerbside recycling service. Service levels differed
considerably in terms of receptacle used (bags or bins),
capacity (ranging from no restriction in the former
Manukau City Council to a cap of 120 litres in the
former Auckland City Council), and funding method
(from disposer-pays to fully rates-funded).
DRAFT WASTE
WASTE
Management
MINIMISATION
and Minimisation
& MANAGEMENT
PLANPLAN
1.2 Legislative and

Policy Framework
1.2.1 The Waste Minimisation Act 2008
The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) is the
key piece of legislation regulating waste management
in New Zealand. The sections of the WMA most
relevant to this WMMP are:
Section 3: Purpose of the Act
The purpose of the WMA is: to encourage waste
minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal to:
protect the environment from harm; and

provide environmental, social, economic
and cultural benefits.
Section 8: Product stewardship
The purpose of this part is to encourage (and, in
certain circumstances, require) the people and
organisations involved in the life of a product to
share responsibility for:
ensuring there is effective reduction, reuse,

recycling or recovery of the product; and
managing any environmental harm arising

from the product when it becomes waste.
Section 25: Waste disposal levy
The purpose of this part is to enable a levy
to be imposed on waste disposed of to:
raise revenue for promoting and achieving

waste minimisation; and
increase the cost of waste disposal to recognise

that disposal imposes costs on the environment,
society and the economy.
Section 42: Responsibilities of territorial authorities

A territorial authority must promote effective
and efficient waste management and minimisation
within its district.
Section 46: Funding of plans
1. A territorial authority is not limited to applying

strict cost recovery or user pays principles for any
particular service, facility, or activity provided by
the territorial authority in accordance with its
waste management and minimisation plan.
2. Without limiting subsection (1), a territorial

authority may charge fees for a particular service
or facility provided by the territorial authority that
is higher or lower than required to recover the costs
of the service or facility, or provide a service or
facility free of charge if:
it is satisfied that the charge or lack of charge

will provide an incentive or disincentive
that will promote the objectives of its waste
management and minimisation plan; and
t he plan provides for charges to be set

in this manner.
This plan considers waste and diverted materials

in keeping with the waste hierarchy, as required by
the WMA. The waste hierarchy states that waste
actions are to be addressed in priority order so as
to extract maximum benefit from resources and
to produce the least possible residual waste.
DRAFT
WASTE
WASTE
Management
MINIMISATION
and
& MANAGEMENT
Minimisation PLAN I 17
Other sections of the

WMA that are relevant
to this WMMP are
Section 43:
Waste management and
minimisation plans
Section 44:
Requirements when preparing,
amending, or revoking plans
Section 45:
Joint plans
Section 46:
Funding of plans
Section 47:
Grants
Section 51:
Requirements for waste assessment
Section 52:
Waste management and minimisation
services, facilities, and activities
Section 53:
Proceeds from activities and services
must be used in implementing waste
management and minimisation plan
Section 54:
Waste must be collected promptly,
efficiently, and regularly
Section 48:
Governor-General may give
directions to territorial authority
Section 55:
Health Protection Officer may serve
notice on territorial authority for
causing nuisance
Section 49:
Minister may set performance
standards for territorial authorities
Section 56:
Bylaws
Section 50:
Review of waste management and
minimisation plan
Reduction - lessening waste generation
Reuse - further using of products in their existing form

for their original purpose or a similar purpose
Recycling - reprocessing waste materials to

produce new products
Recovery - extraction of materials or energy from

waste for further use or processing, and includes, but
is not limited to making materials into compost
Waste
disposal
Treatment - subjecting waste to any

physical, biological, or chemical process to
change the volume or character of that
waste so that it may be disposed of with
no, or reduced, significant adverse effect
on the environment
disposal - final deposit of waste

on land set apart for the purpose
Figure 2: Waste hierarchy16
16 From the Ministry for the Environment website www.mfe.govt.nz
Maximum conservation of resources
Waste
diversion
The purpose of the WMA is to encourage waste

minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal in
order to protect the environment from harm, and
provide environmental, social, economic and cultural
benefits. It also requires councils to promote
effective and efficient waste management and
minimisation within their districts even if, as in
Auckland, over 80 per cent of waste and diverted
materials are collected, recovered and disposed of by
private operators. These legislative requirements are
the main reason for councils desire to explore, with
industry and government, ways to substantially
reduce waste to landfill.
The waste disposal levy introduced by the WMA is
currently set at $10 per tonne of waste disposed
to landfill (imposed at disposal facilities)17. This
is very low by international standards and is
likely to increase over time. The intention of the
levy is to put the cost of waste disposal (including
economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts
of landfilling) onto the disposer, creating an economic
incentive to divert and recycle.
The waste levy also creates a funding pool for
waste minimisation initiatives. Half of the money
collected is put into a contestable Waste Minimisation
Fund and the other half is split among local authorities
on a population basis. Local authorities must use
levy funds for waste minimisation in keeping with
their WMMPs. Funds can be withheld if the Minister
for the Environment believes the territorial authority
has not adopted a plan, reviewed it as required, has
not spent funds appropriately, or has not met
performance standards. Auckland Council currently
receives approximately $4.2 million annually from
waste levy funds.
1.2.2 New Zealand Waste Strategy

In adopting a WMMP, the council is required by the WMA
to have regard to the New Zealand Waste Strategy.
It includes specific targets for reducing various

types of waste including organic, special, construction,
demolition and hazardous waste. For example, one
of the targets for organic waste was to divert at
least 95 per cent of garden waste from landfill by
December 2010. This, and other targets, were not
achieved and specific targets have since been dropped
from the revised 2010 strategy. However the council
considers that they remain valid goals to aim for
within an updated timeframe, as without targets
the focus is diluted.
The plan covers all aspects of

waste management from collection
to treatment and disposal.
The revised 2010 Waste Strategy, Reducing
harm, improving efficiency, provides direction
to local government, businesses (including the
waste industry), and communities on ways to:
reduce the harmful effects of waste
improve the efficiency of resource use18.
The WMMP defines waste as waste to landfill.

Diverted materials means discarded materials not sent
to landfill such as those collected for recycling and
composting. The plans primary focus is solid waste.
However, it also takes into account the potential harm
of all wastes: solids, liquids and gases (but not the
collection or treatment of human bio-solid waste
although treatment of the residual sludge for reuse
might be explored in future in collaboration with
Watercare Services Ltd).
The plan covers all aspects of waste management from
collection to treatment and disposal. In the waste
hierarchy landfilling is the least desirable outcome
however, it is not technically or economically feasible
to divert all materials from landfill at this time.
The first New Zealand Waste Strategy, Towards Zero

Waste and a sustainable New Zealand, released in
2002 sets out the governments long-term priorities
for waste management and minimisation.
17 This amount remains unchanged following a recent high

level national review by the Minister for the Environment.
18 These are the two goals of the New Zealand Waste

Strategy 2010.
While Auckland Council accepts that landfilling will

remain the main waste disposal option for some time,
its WMMP establishes Zero Waste as a long-term
aspirational goal and the key driver of council services.
Councils decisions on the plan must also accord
with the following Acts of Parliament:
Local Government Act (LGA) 2002

The Health Act 1956
Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991
Emissions Trading Amendment Act 2008
he Hazardous Substances and New
T
Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO)
Waste collection, treatment, and disposal has been

highlighted as a source of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and is believed to be responsible for
6 per cent of Aucklands overall emissions (based
on 2009 levels19). It is estimated that in 2009 GHG
emissions from waste totalled 618 ktCO2e (kilotonnes
of carbon dioxide equivalent). Under a business as
usual scenario, emissions are projected to increase
a further 35.8 per cent by 2031. Councils goal is a
40 per cent reduction in human generated GHG
emissions20 by 2031 (based on 1990 levels). The
WMMP must contribute to the target by creating
and identifying waste minimisation, collection and
treatment services and single-stream (e.g. waste
wood) waste-to-energy opportunities. The council
is currently developing a GHG emission reduction
strategy for discussion.
limate Change (Emissions Trading)

C
Amendment Act 2008
Local Government
(Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010
WMMP establishes Zero Waste

as a long-term aspirational
goal and the key driver
of council services.
19 A
RUP (2011) Potential Policy Options to reduce Greenhouse
Draft Technical
Report to
(2011).
Client
Report
19 AGas
RUPEmissions:
(2011) Potential
Policy Options
reduce
Greenhouse
for Auckland
Gas
Emissions:Council.
Draft Technical Report (2011). Client Report for
Auckland Council.
20 The Auckland Plan
To become the most liveable

city in the world, Auckland will
aim for the long-term, aspirational
goal of Zero Waste by 2040, turning
its waste into resources.
2 Vision and
Guiding Principles
2.1 Vision
To become the most liveable city in the
world, Auckland will aim for the long
term, aspirational goal of Zero Waste by
2040, turning its waste into resources.
Zero Waste means changing the way
we think about waste, treating it as a
resource rather than a disposal problem.
Put another way, Zero Waste is
about moving from linear to cyclical
resource flows.
2.2 Targets
design
marketing
processing
linear
raw materials
manufacturer
Auckland Council, underpinned by the plans of the

former councils, wishes to work towards a substantial
reduction in the entire waste stream sent to landfill.
This plan provides:
details on how the council proposes to deal

with the waste it directly influences
sorting
cyclical
collection
an outline of councils intentions towards

reducing total waste to landfill.
consumption
Source separation
landfill disposal
Figure 3: Linear and cyclical

resource flows
The Zero Waste philosophy encourages redesigned
resource life cycles in which almost all products and
materials are reused as in the natural world. Minimal
waste is sent to landfills. The following working
definition, often cited by experts in the field, came
from a working group of the Zero Waste International
Alliance in 200421.
Zero Waste is a goal that is ethical, economical,
efficient and visionary, to guide people in changing
their lifestyles and practices to emulate sustainable
natural cycles, where all discarded materials are
designed to become resources for others to use.
Zero Waste means designing and managing products
and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the
volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve
and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them.
Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all discharges
to land, water or air that are a threat to planetary,
human, animal or plant health.
Encouraging waste reduction at source through
informed purchasing and producer responsibility, and
establishing resource recovery and recycling systems
further down the supply chain, gives Auckland the
potential to significantly reduce waste to landfill
and become a resource efficient city.
This plan focuses on the 17 per cent of the waste

stream that the council influences (made up of
domestic kerbside waste collections). Therefore, the one
short to medium-term target chosen to measure the
effectiveness of the plan over the next six years is
also in the area of domestic kerbside waste collections.
Each person in the Auckland region produces, on
average, approximately 160kg22 of kerbside refuse per
year (including refuse collected by the private sector).
The former Auckland councils with disposer-pays
funding methods sent the least waste to landfill
as little as 104kg per person per year. Those that used
rates funding and unrestrained volumes sent as much
as 199kg per person per year. While this comparison
does not take into account other variables such as
the size of the bin or bag, the range of recyclables
collected23, waste minimisation initiatives or socioeconomic factors, it still suggests that introducing
disposer-pays across the Auckland region will
significantly reduce the amount of waste sent
to landfill.
The initiative expected to produce the largest waste
reduction, if introduced with disposer-pays funding for
refuse, is kerbside organic waste collection (food waste
only or food waste plus green waste). Because around
50 per cent (by weight) of the contents of kerbside
refuse bins and bags is organic material24 (with food
waste being about 40 per cent of the bin, and green
waste about 10 per cent), this action has the potential
to almost halve the domestic kerbside waste stream.
22 B
ased on 2010/2011 data. Total council-collected kerbside residential
tonnes divided by population using council services. This does not relate
directly to the figure of approximately 0.8 tonnes per person given in the
introduction section as this larger figure includes waste from all sources
including commercial waste, household hazardous waste, waste dropped
off at transfer stations and inorganic collections.
23 This does not include the inorganic collection.
21
www.zwia.org
24 Auckland Council Waste Assessment Appendix F: Auckland Council Waste

Assessment Data Update Table 2.5. Waste Not Consulting. August 2011.
If the council were to provide a food waste only collection,

that would be accompanied by a determined effort to
work with the green waste industry to reduce the 10 per
cent of green waste still in domestic refuse and other
green waste which currently finds its way to landfill.
Based on these and other initiatives in the action

plan (and subject to economic viability assessments),
the short to medium-term target for council and
private sector domestic kerbside refuse sent to landfill
is a 30 per cent reduction from the current regional
average of 160kg per person per year to 110kg per
person per year by 2018.
Before amalgamation, the Royal Commission on Auckland

Governance25 noted that the fragmented nature of the
region meant opportunities were being lost, including
public education programmes using television and other
media. With amalgamation, Auckland can now roll out a
major regional public education campaign to support the
significant changes proposed.
a substantial investment in a comprehensive

waste minimisation programme, including education
(e.g. reducing food waste, alternatives
to disposable nappies), community engagement and
community development.
Longer-term, and subject to the collaborative programmes

with the private sector outlined in the action plan and
ongoing discussions with the waste industry, the council
aims for a stretch goal of 30 per cent reduction in waste
going to landfill (council and waste industry influenced)
over the next 15 years from a baseline of 0.8 tonnes per
capita per year.
Current (2010/2011),
160kg per person per year
target (2018)
110kg per person per year
Figure 4: Domestic kerbside refuse short

to medium-term target of 30 per cent
reduction per capita per year
This target can be achieved by combining:
a different charging regime
potential investment in new infrastructure

for collecting and processing organic waste
a reduction in overall organic volumes to landfill

through collaboration with the waste industry
an intensive, incentivised drive for home composting
a restriction of organic waste (green waste

and food waste) from domestic refuse collections
2.3 Strategic
objectives
To most effectively reduce waste, Auckland Council
has adopted Strategic Option 3 in the Auckland Council
Waste Assessment26 as its preferred strategic direction.
One of the parts of this option refers to either gaining
more influence over the entire waste stream to
encourage separation and resource recovery (and reduce
waste going to landfill), or advocating for changes to
the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) to give
industry the same waste minimisation responsibilities
as local authorities.
Negotiations with industry to secure more council
influence over the waste stream could be a medium
to long-term exercise. The focus of this plan is, therefore,
primarily on the part of the waste stream that the
council influences, made up mainly of domestic kerbside
collections, with a smaller amount from transfer station
drop-off and inorganic collections.
25 Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 2009 report

www.royalcommission.govt.nz
26 http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/Services/Documents/
wasteassess-report.pdf
With this in mind, the strategic objectives of

this plan are:
reducing Aucklands reliance on landfills

achieving operational efficiencies in
domestic waste and recycling services
reducing harm from waste
restricting organic waste going to landfill
developing an infrastructure and processes

to maximise resource recovery
reducing councils responsibility for dealing

with end-of-life consumer products and packaging
through appropriate advocacy
maximising local economic development

opportunities; e.g. jobs created by diverting
waste from landfill
reducing litter and illegal dumping and

related costs.
2.4 Guiding Principles
is underpinned by mauri as a key concept for

indigenous resource management and waste so
that land, water and food gathering sources are
protected from the inappropriate disposal of waste28
is built on the premise that innovation and

lateral thinking are needed to solve intractable
waste problems
supports the idea that, wherever possible, the

generator of waste should be responsible for
paying the true cost of managing waste, thereby
encouraging waste reduction
signals that communities need to understand

and be involved in solutions. A strong emphasis is
placed on promoting waste reduction behaviour
by engaging the community through direct
involvement, education and community-based
programmes
is also open to developing partnerships with

tangata whenua in order to:
- support sustainable development of

Ma-ori outcomes, leadership, community
and partnerships
This waste management and minimisation plan

(WMMP) draws on key principles to guide
decision-making. The plan:
- enable tangata whenua to co-manage

natural resources29
is based on the internationally recognised waste

hierarchy (figure 2), the goal of which is to move
up the waste hierarchy as far as possible
recognises kaitiakitanga27 and stewardship, which

takes an integrated view of the environment and
the relationship between all things. Kaitiakitanga
and stewardship represent the obligation of current
generations to sustain the environments capacity
to support life for present and future generations
aims to deliver the most cost effective and

efficient solutions to meet the requirements of
the WMA and the New Zealand Waste Strategy
while maximising waste diversion and minimising
costs to ratepayers
will be monitored and evaluated, and reported

on each year. Accurate data is essential to track
progress and enable future decision-making
supports improving energy efficiency and

carbon sequestration and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
is integrated, meaning it addresses all legislative

requirements and is aligned with councils own
policies and bylaws
incorporates the principles of sustainability by

considering the social, cultural, environmental and
economic impacts of its decisions
27 The exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in

accordance with tikanga Ma-ori in relation to natural and physical
resources; and includes the ethic of stewardship (Resource
Management Act 1991, s.2.1).
28 A
s acknowledged by the New Zealand Waste Strategy 2002, inappropriate
waste disposal can damage the relationship Ma-ori have with their
lands, waters, food gathering areas, and wa-hi tapu. Dumping waste into
mahinga kai diminishes the sites mauri and mahinga kai values. The
interdependence of mahinga kai ecosystems means any contamination,
even of one species, has a negative flow-on to all species in the ecosystem,
including people. (Draft Regional Policy Statement 2010.)
2.5 Tangata whenua

world view on waste
management and
minimisation
As the people are intrinsically linked with the natural

world, the mana of the iwi, hapu, or wha-nau is directly
related to the wellbeing of the natural resources within
their rohe, or region33.
manaaki tangata: care and regard for the people
2.5.1 Introduction
The tangata whenua world view encapsulates

multi-layered concepts in relation to environmental
knowledge. At the heart of the tangata whenua/
mana whenua world view is a belief that everything
and everyone is interconnected and, therefore, should
be valued and cared for30. To be consistent with this
view, waste management and minimisation cannot be
regarded in isolation from environmental management31.
This is an essential feature of Te Ao Ma-ori. This section
summarises those tangata whenua ethics, values
and principles that inform waste management and
minimisation32.
manaaki whenua: care and regard for the land

manaaki atua: care and regard for taonga Ma-ori
2.5.2 Tangata whenua high level

ethics and values
Tangata whenua ethics and values stem from a belief
system about the origin of the universe in which humans
and nature are not separate, but related parts of a
unified whole. Descended from the union of Ranginui
(the sky father) and Papatuanuku (the earth mother)
and their offspring, humans share a common whakapapa
(genealogy) with other animals, plants and geographic
locations. According to whakapapa, the natural world is
our kaitiaki (guardian) who nurtures and cares for us. The
concept of reciprocity and reverence means we in turn
are also kaitiaki with a responsibility to care for
te ao turoa (environment). As a result there are functional
relationships between tangata whenua and particular
ecosystems that are unique to iwi, hapu and wha-nau.
The primary responsibility for mana o te whenua
(status of the land) in this context resides with ahikaa
or mana whenua from specific geographical areas.
For Mana Whenua in the Auckland region, Mana Motuhake

(absolute sovereignty) is the term that best describes
sustainability in te ao turoa as it focuses on the value of:
(natural resources) bestowed upon the whenua

by Io (creator).
2.5.3 Waste management and minimisation

There is no waste in nature and there was very little
waste in the early society of tangata whenua. In fact,
the Ma- ori language does not have a word that aligns
directly to the meaning of waste. The waste produced by
tangata whenua was of a high organic content and was
disposed of onto or into the land, where it would slowly
decay and not come into contact with water sources.
Waste was viewed as a resource which would return to
Papatuanuku (earth mother) as compost. Everything was
biodegradable, or could be reused, recycled or viewed as
a recoverable resource.
The traditional handling of waste was organised so
that waste associated with specific activities was handled
through a complex set of rules34. These practices required
different disposal methods for different types of waste,
for example human waste was not mixed with food
waste. A closed loop approach ensured that material
was separated appropriately for composting or further
use. Body waste was kept separate from solid waste
and disposed of back into the ground at a great
distance from water.
Advances in technology mean that waste produced
by all sectors of society has become more difficult
to deal with, due to:
increased volume brought on by an increased

population and behavioural changes
an increase in non-organic and potentially hazardous

components to the waste stream35.
30 A
uckland Regional Council (2007) Te Kohao o te Ngira,
Mana Whenua response to the draft long term Sustainability
Framework for the Auckland Region.
33 Department of Conservation (2002) NZ Biodiversity Strategy.
31 M
inistry for the Environment (1993) Planning in Waste
Management, Te Whakaari o Takitimu. Guidelines for Ma-ori.
32 A
uckland Regional Council (2007) Te Kohao o te Ngira,
Mana Whenua response to the draft long-term sustainability
framework for the Auckland region.
34 M
inistry for the Environment (1993) Planning in Waste Management,
Te Whakaari o Takitimu. Guidelines for Ma-ori p73.
35 S outhland Regional council (1996) Regional Solid Waste
Management Plan.
Modern solid waste management and minimisation

can incorporate a tangata whenua world view. There
are also specific realities which need to be considered
particular to tangata whenua when developing waste
management and minimisation plans. For example, it
is well documented that tangata whenua have strongly
voiced the need to keep waste (and the leachate from
waste) out of surface, ground and coastal waters and
to ensure that refuse disposal facilities are not sited on
waahi tapu (areas of cultural or historical significance).
Tangata whenua ethics and values can provide the
framework to explore strategies and techniques to deal
with solid waste in the Auckland region, as modern
concepts of valuing natural resources, reusing, recycling
materials, and care with disposal of residual waste have
many synergies with the tangata whenua world view.
2.6 Role of the council

minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal. The
councils role under the act is to promote effective and
efficient waste management and minimisation within
its district. Although the council has adopted Strategic
Option 3 in the Auckland Council Waste Assessment
as its preferred strategic direction, it does not intend
to run its own collection services, but wherever
practicable, provide them via waste operator contracts.
In addition, the council is keen to encourage innovation
within the private sector such that waste is seen as a
valuable resource.
The council is focused on the end goal and on how
services are provided to achieve this goal. Who delivers
the services is a secondary consideration. The council
will support and encourage industry when it is working
proactively towards the same goal.
Auckland Councils governance, policy development
and operation of waste management are conducted
as follows.
Governing body
Auckland Councils governing body and local boards
share decision-making responsibilities. The governing
body focuses on region-wide strategic decisions,
such as regional landfill contracts, the shape of regional

waste services, preparing a solid waste bylaw, and
setting regional strategies, policies and plans. The
governing body will consult with and consider the
views of the local boards before making decisions that
affect the communities within each local boards area,
or the responsibilities or operations of that board.
The governing body is responsible for the
following waste activities:
Auckland WMMP
standards and guidelines for waste

management and disposal
region-wide service standards, such as

refuse and recycling services
landfill management.
Local boards
Local boards are responsible for communication with
community organisations and special interest groups
within their local board area and identifying and
communicating the interests and preferences of the
people in local board areas in relation to the content
of the councils strategies, policies, plans and bylaws.
In accordance with legislative principles, local boards
are generally responsible for making decisions on
non-regulatory activities except where decision-making
on a region-wide basis will better promote the
wellbeing of communities across Auckland.
Under the current allocation of decision-making
between the governing body and local boards,
local boards have decision-making and oversight
of variations to region-wide service levels for the
local area, such as refuse and recycling services, and
have decision-making and oversight of local waste
management plans and projects, within regional
parameters. Local boards will be an important part
of the implementation of this plan, advising on such
aspects as the rural/urban boundary split, the provision
of community education, the placement and number
of public place recycling bins and service levels in
the Hauraki Gulf Islands. They may also choose to
be proactively involved in the potential establishment
of local resource recovery centres36.
36 Any actions would be in the context of local board budgets.
2.7 Public health

protection
The wide range of public and private waste services
in the Auckland region ensures public health will be
adequately protected in the future. Auckland has
access to landfills that meet national legislative
requirements for at least 20 years or more. This plan
proposes services for better waste minimisation and
considers alternatives to landfills in the longer term.
The community has adequate access to council or
privately-owned drop-off and collection services for
refuse, hazardous waste and litter, but further service
improvements and waste minimisation are achievable.
In its feedback on the Auckland Council Waste
Assessment, Auckland Regional Public Health Service
stated no major concerns relating to public health
with current solid waste services and said the waste
assessment appeared to be thoroughly researched.
Correspondence with Auckland Regional Public
Health Service is included in Appendix F of the waste
assessment and its feedback has been considered in
this plan.
2.8 Monitoring and

reporting progress
The council intends to monitor and report on progress
regarding the WMMP and will develop and implement
a clear, transparent monitoring and reporting system
for this. Accurate information on how services are
performing is essential for monitoring progress and
planning for future demand.
Key areas that require monitoring include level of
service, compliance (with legislative requirements and
regulations), waste reduction and diversion. Data will
be gathered through community satisfaction surveys,
council records (KPIs, etc), Solid Waste Analysis Protocol
Audits (SWAPs) and agreements with landfill operators
to supply tonnage data. Progress will be reported
through council publications, website andthe annual
report. See Appendix 2 for further details.
3 The Current
Situation:
Findings from
the Auckland
council Waste
Assessment
The Auckland Council Waste Assessment37 was initiated
under the auspices of the Auckland Transition Agency and
released in February 2011. It was then updated in
July 2011 and formally noted in August 2011. The
assessment is a stock-take of waste services provided
throughout the region, an estimate of demand for future
services, and includes proposals (including new
infrastructure) for meeting that demand.
3.1 Summary of
key findings

Auckland sent 1.174 million tonnes38 of waste

to landfill in 2010 including domestic and
industrial and commercial waste. This represents
approximately 0.8 tonnes per person per year.
Waste management and minimisation services are

fragmented in Auckland. Few key facilities are owned
by the council, and the majority of landfills and
transfer stations are owned by two large commercial
waste companies. As a consequence, the council
influences only approximately 17 per cent of the
waste stream; the rest is controlled by private
industry.
There is limited information on the quantity or

composition of waste sent to managed fill and
37 w
ww.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/wasteplan Waste Assessment
documents are at the bottom of the web page.
38 A
ppendix F of the Auckland Council Waste Assessment: Auckland Council Waste
Assessment Data Update. Waste Not Consulting. Based on data provided by
KPMG August 2011.
cleanfill sites in the Auckland region. However, it

is estimated that just under 1.8 million39 tonnes
of material is disposed of annually, 30 per cent
of which is construction and demolition material.
(There is a need for accurate data if progress is to be
tracked with confidence.)
The council kerbside services collected 194,564

tonnes40 of refuse in 2010/2011. Of this, it is
estimated that more than 50 per cent was organic
material (about 40 per cent of the total being food
waste and 10 per cent green waste41).
It is estimated that up to 30 per cent of the waste

Auckland sends to landfill from all sources could
be diverted42. This material would include organics,
timber, metal and plastics43.
The rates component of waste services to

householders varies considerably across the region,
depending on the services offered by former
councils and the methods of funding. The lowest
solid waste component of household rates is that of
former councils that implemented disposer-pays for
refuse services.
Many opportunities were lost under the old

Auckland governance structure, including uniform
systems for kerbside collections. The new
governance structure reignites those opportunities
as waste management services, particularly the
recovery of recyclables, lend themselves to a
regional approach. This is an economic issue:
combined waste streams allow economies of scale
when making the large investments needed for new
sorting technology and facilities44.
A range of issues and risks rule out waste to energy

(WTE) as an option for dealing withAucklands
domestic waste stream at this time, although this
may well change in the future. A key issue is that
WTE is on the recovery level of the waste hierarchy
(see Fig. 2, page 15 of the Auckland Council Waste
Assessment) and therefore at odds with the Waste

Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) and the councils
Zero Waste goal45. Additionally, the council
currently has insufficient influence over Aucklands
waste stream to supply a WTE facility, which
involves significant capital costs46.(Subsequent
to the waste assessment, a draft climate change
mitigation strategy is being worked on that
considers certain waste streams potential as
feedstock for energy generation.)
Transport inefficiencies were identified relating

to the distances council-contracted waste
operators travel from waste collection areas
to and from transfer stations and landfills47.
Although after further analysis these were not as
high as originally thought, there is still potential
for some improvement, particularly as costs were
not included for other important aspects such
as congestion impacts, transfer station or landfill
waiting times, emissions and pollution, road
damage, truck configurations, transfer station or
landfill opening hours, and night hours and bulk
hauling at night. After discussions with the waste
industry it is clear that the industry is very focussed
and successful in mitigating transport inefficiencies.
The three strategic direction options identified in

the waste assessment were to:
1. continue with the status quo with some

streamlining
2. continue with the status quo with new

activities to maximise diversion (including
a kerbside organic collection of some sort).
3. take actions as in option (2) but also seek

operational influence over the entire waste
stream, advocate for legislation for stronger
product stewardship and/or that places similar
requirements on the private sector to reduce
waste as required of local government under
the WMA. (Option 3 was subsequently adopted
by Auckland Council on 15 March 2011.)
39 Auckland Council Waste Assessment. Chapter 3. Table 3.4-4.

40 A
ppendix F of the Auckland Council Waste Assessment: Auckland Council
Waste Assessment Data Update. Waste Not Consulting. August 2011.
41
Initial estimate from the Waste Assessment Part C . Organics report

Page 4. Reassessed by Waste Not Aug 2011.
45 A
ppendix F of the Auckland Council Waste Assessment: Waste to Energy
for Auckland discussion paper. Campbell McPherson. May 2011.
42
E stimates of potential to reduce waste to landfill were mindful of

high reductions in some European countries (over 60 per cent) where
significant regulation has been imposed but were calculated for Auckland
conditions.
46 H
owever, the door needs to stay open to this possibility in the future, and
proactive consideration can be given to specific waste streams being utilised
for the production of heat or as a fuel source, such as a significant amount of
wood waste (60,000 tonnes per year) that is currently being diverted from
landfill for use as a bio-fuel in some wood-fired burners of industries such
as timber processing.
43 Waste Not supplementary data the Waste Assessment, August 2011.

The overall goal emanates from this data.
44 A
ppendix F of the Auckland Council Waste Assessment: Royal Commission
on Auckland Governance report. Part 5, Section 30.
47 A
ppendix F of the Auckland Council Waste Assessment: Evaluating potential
transport inefficiencies in Auckland waste. Ernst and Young. May 2011- case
study on council-controlled domestic waste collection.
4 Looking to the Future

4.1 Future waste projections
Waste generation is traditionally linked to economic and population growth. However, accurate waste
projections are difficult, given the limited data on Aucklands waste trends and the recent world recession,
which has contributed to a temporary drop in waste to landfill of over 16 per cent48.
The following projections are based on 2.7 per cent waste growth per year. This figure has been chosen as
the mid-point between projected long-term GDP growth of 3.54 per cent and projected long-term population
growth of 1.8 per cent.
COUNCIL-COLLECTED KERBSIDE WASTE TO LANDFILL

300,000
2.7% growth,
no change to services
COUNCIL-COLLECTED KERBSIDE
WASTE TO LANDFILL
Introduction of 3-bin kerbside collection, disposer-pays
300,000
2.7% growth,
2.7%new
growth,
with
services
for refuse & Rodney refuse collection service
250,000

2.7% growth,
with new services
(TONNES)
WASTEWASTE
(TONNES)
250,000
200,000
Graph 1:
Council-collected
kerbside waste to
landfill projection
200,000
150,000
150,000
100,000
100,000
50,000
50,000
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
DATE
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
DATE
TOTAL AUCKLAND WASTE TO LANDFILL (COUNCIL PLUS COMMERCIAL)

1,800,000
1,800,000
1,600,000

TOTAL AUCKLAND WASTE
TO
LANDFILL
(COUNCIL
PLUS COMMERCIAL)
for refuse
& Rodney
refuse collection
service
2.7% growth,
2.7% growth,
2.7% growth,
with new services

(TONNES)
WASTEWASTE
(TONNES)
1,600,000
1,400,000
2.7% growth,
with new services
Graph 2:
Total waste to
landfill (Council plus
Commercial) projection
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
800,000
800,000
600,000
600,000
400,000
400,000
200,000
200,000
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
DATE
2016
DATE
2017
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
48 Appendix F of the Auckland Council Waste Assessment. Auckland Council Waste Assessment Data Update. Waste Not Consulting. August 2011.
4.2 Future resource 4.3 Summary of future

recovery and
demand drivers
recycling projections
Future demand for waste and recycling services
in the region could be driven by:
Resource recovery activities rely on a source of

discarded materials (from kerbside recycling collections
or construction and demolition waste, for example)
and a market for these materials.
The market for diverted materials is extremely variable,
with economic fluctuations having a significant impact
on both supply and demand.
Waste growth of 2.7 per cent a year would increase
demand for the councils kerbside collection services
(not to mention other recoverable-material services).
If disposer-pays charging for refuse is introduced,
demand would become even stronger as householders
seek to minimise their waste disposal costs by recycling
more. These higher levels of diversion would inevitably
create pressure to expand the capacity of existing
resource recovery facilities, and for the creation of new
facilities and services. This is seen as an opportunity for
both the waste sector and for community groups to
expand reuse or recycling initiatives, with the potential
to create both jobs and training opportunities for
young people.
The market for diverted

materials is extremely
variable, with economic
fluctuations having a
significant impact on both
supply and demand.
growth in the Auckland region: number of

households or population serviced
changes in commercial and industrial

activity or economic conditions
land use changes (e.g. from agricultural

to residential)
changing patterns in consumption or

product quality
national policy and legislation

(e.g. product stewardship, waste levy)
council regulation (e.g. bans on certain

materials to landfill)
council waste minimisation and education

programmes
impact of waste flows from and to

other regions
changes in technology
community expectations.
PARTB
Funding
DRAFT WASTE Management and Minimisation PLAN I 33
1 OVERVIEW
To fund the recommended actions in this waste
management and minimisation plan (WMMP),
the following must be considered:
alignment with the intent of the Waste

Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) to minimise waste
to landfill and raise the cost of disposal to landfill
affordability and the minimisation of costs

to the rates account
transparency
equity and fairness.
Councils have a number of funding systems available

for paying for waste services. The primary sources of
income for councils are rates funding and user charges
on some or all of the resident population. The option
recommended in this plan for refuse collection and
disposal is disposer-pays a transparent method with
direct correlation between household use of the service
and the associated cost.
A secondary revenue source for Auckland Council
is commercial waste activities such as operation of
the Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Transfer Station,
licensing fees, dividends (such as from Whitford Landfill
joint venture) and other waste services such as revenue
from the Waiheke Transfer Station.
A third source comes from bundling the cost of
collection services and using some of the revenue from
disposer-pays to offset costs of private-good waste and
recycling services, as per section 46 of the WMA,
which states:
(2)Without limiting subsection (1), a territorial

authority may charge fees for a particular service or
facility provided by the territorial authority that is
higher or lower than required to recover the costs of
the service or facility, or provide a service or facility
free of charge, if:
(a) it is satisfied that the charge or lack of charge
will provide an incentive or disincentive
that will promote the objectives of its waste
management and minimisation plan; and
(b) the plan provides for charges to be set in
this manner.
A fourth source is funding from the government
waste levy. For 2012/13 the levy funds available
to Auckland Council are anticipated to be about
$4.2 million. This comes from the portion (50 per cent)
of the government waste levy funding pool allocated
to local authorities on a population basis. Central
government stipulates that this money is to be spent
on waste minimisation activities in accordance with
WMMPs. These activities have been clearly identified in
this plan.
The council plans to spend approximately $1.2 million
of the waste levy income annually on additional waste
minimisation education and promotion49 over the
first four years of the plan a significant increase on
previous expenditure levels. The short-term spike is
expected to diminish as waste reduction outcomes are
achieved. This portion of the levy money will then be
redirected into other waste minimisation activities50.
46 Funding of plans
(1)A territorial authority is not limited to applying
strict cost recovery or user pays principles for any
particular service, facility, or activity provided by
the territorial authority in accordance with its waste
management and minimisation plan.
49 Initial council estimate of the range of education programmes.

To be refined after formal consultation.
50 In 2010/2011 waste levy funds were used to enhance kerbside
recycling services in the former Papakura and Franklin areas.
Theplan also indicates that $1.6 million will be spent

every year on offsetting the cost of introducing a new
enhanced kerbside recycling service for schools, an
extended WasteWise schools programme and
a community grants scheme. The remaining
$1.4 million waste levy funding will be spent on
ongoing implementation and strategic planning of
the new initiatives adopted in the WMMP. A portion
of it will be accumulated to offset the capital costs
for setting up an organics processing facility.
Auckland Council could also apply for funding from the
contestable portion (50 per cent less Ministry for the
Environment (MfE) administration costs) of the waste
levy funding pool (the Waste Minimisation Fund) to help
establish an organic waste collection and processing
facility, in partnership with the waste industry. This will
be explored when decisions on the final suite of services
are made. Likewise, an application to match funding in
the proposed community grants scheme ($500,000)
could be investigated.
When discussing the funding of publicly provided
services, issues around public-good, private-good and
disposer-pays need to be considered. Public-good,
used in the context of waste services, generally refers
to services provided for the public in order to meet
environmental policies and standards. These services
which benefit the whole community cannot normally
be linked to specific individuals who use the service, so
the cost is usually met through general rates.
Private-good often refers to services that meet
environmental policies and standards that are linked
to specific individuals kerbside recycling services,
for example. In most cases costs are met through
general rates or subsidised by other waste services or
the government waste levy. If disposer-pays for refuse
is chosen, some of the private-good costs can be
legitimately met through a small surcharge, reflecting
both the community and individual benefit derived
from services.
Disposer-pays aligns closely with central governments

policy to provide financial disincentives in order to
minimise waste sent to landfill. As a consequence there
are areas where disposer-pays is the most appropriate
funding approach, such as for refuse disposal collections
taken to landfill. Additionally, the legislation allows local
government to subsidise other private-good services
through any disposer-pays services surpluses.
Charging methods for waste services have varied
considerably across the region. With regard to kerbside
refuse services, some ratepayers currently pay directly
for the refuse they send to landfill by purchasing bags
or stickers (disposer-pays). Others pay indirectly
through their rates bill. Kerbside recycling collections,
on the other hand, are generally paid for by rates or by
revenue from other waste services operations.
Because charging mechanisms and services both vary,
it is hard to give a simple cost comparison across
former councils. Each had its own mix of receptacle
size, collection frequency, charging mechanisms
and percentage of private sector services. The mix
of streamlined services and consistent funding
mechanisms proposed in this plan are intended to
reduce waste to landfill while delivering services at the
lowest possible cost to the ratepayer.
In view of this, the net cost (excluding growth and
inflation) of the ultimate package of measures to
reduce waste to landfill including the new measures, is
not to exceed the net rates requirement for 2014/2015,
bearing in mind that all households will have the
potential to substantially reduce the disposer-pays
component of their waste if they utilise the full suite
of services.
2 Proposed
Approach
2.1 Public-good
services51
Services considered to be for public good
that will be funded through rates include:
2.2 Private-good
services
Services considered to be for private good that will
be funded through surpluses from disposer-pays
refuse services, rates or in combination with
disposer-pays include:

domestic kerbside recycling (collection

and processing)
resource recovery centre operation
domestic organic waste collection and processing.
illegal dumping enforcement
abandoned vehicle removal and disposal
litter collection and bin emptying
public place recycling
hazardous waste collection and disposal
advocacy
events
bylaw enforcement (costs that may not be

covered by waste operator licensing fees)
domestic refuse collection and disposal

to landfill
transfer station operation.
policy development and administration
subsidisation of Hauraki Gulf Islands

waste services.
Services considered to be for public good that

will be funded through the government waste levy
and/or Waste Minimisation Fund include:

kerbside recycling services for schools
a public education and behaviour change

programme
a community grants scheme
possible part-funding of an organic waste

(food waste only or food waste plus green
waste) collection.
51 It should be noted that all the funding methods apply only to the
17 per cent of the waste to landfill that the council influences.
Inorganic collections will be funded through rates.
2.3 Disposer-pays
Services funded through disposer-pays, or in
combination with private-good funding, include:
2.4 Hauraki Gulf

Islands
Because of their isolation and the higher cost of
service provision, the Hauraki Gulf Islands (HGI),
will be treated differently from greater Auckland.
These communities may receive reduced services
or, alternatively, their local boards may investigate
different ways of funding services.
This plan recommends subsidising services through
rates (at a level to be determined at a later stage,
but not to be less than the mainland) when all other
aspects of the services are determined. Until then
the current subsidy will remain in place.
3 Financials
Waste and recycling services will cost
Auckland Council approximately $90 million in
2012/13 ($65million in rates-charging, $25 million
in disposer-pays charges and waste levy funding).
The cost of the proposed actions in the plan
is around $30 million, bringing the total cost of
services and facilities to $120 million (excluding
any costs for the Emissions Trading Scheme).
A key objective of introducing disposer-pays
is to make people more accountable for the waste
they produce. The suite of services offered in this
plan is forecast to have minimal rates impact
region-wide and minimal impact on total cost
of waste services to households. Households that
respond to waste minimisation programmes and
increase their use of recycling and organic waste
services should have lower costs for their
council-provided waste services.
Cost estimates in this plan are based on the premise

that 90 per cent of properties in the region come
under the same system (disposer-pays refuse,
private-good-funded recycling, private-good-funded
organic collections). Estimates would be subject to
change depending on the councils market share of
each activity within the system.
The following table provides a comparison of the
domestic waste and recycling systems the council
could provide and their potential impact on waste
reduction and rates across the region.
A key objective of introducing

disposer-pays is to make
people more accountable for
the waste they produce.
These notes and limitations refer to the table on the right.
Notes:
Limitations:
Options 2-11 include a biennial inorganic

collection (an added $3 million annually
over the status quo baseline).
Other inorganic options for consideration will

adjust the rates funding in the above options
by the following:
The figures are estimates only. Preparation

of both the Auckland Council Waste Assessment and
this plan has relied on information from multiple
sources including SWAP analyses from former councils,
the Auckland Regional Council Waste Stocktake and
Strategic Assessment 2009, permits, contracts, consents
and annual reports. The accuracy of these sources is
contingent on the best information available at the time,
and the degree of disclosure from the waste industry.
1.
a nnual collection requires an additional

$3 million over the biennial budget baseline
2.
a booking system will reduce the biennial

budget requirement by $2.4 million
3.
a further hybrid option for Waitakere, Rodney

and Franklin areas as booking systems with
the remainder as biennial will reduce the
requirement by $0.3 million.
The waste reduction targets reflect participation

rates which will be achieved after three years of
operation. The rate funding above reflects lower
initial participation rates.
Options 57 recognise that the green waste

component currently in refuse can be further
reduced by education and working with industry.
The impact of the Emissions Trading Scheme

and growth have not been factored in.
Financial analysis and modelling has relied on the

best financial information available at the time of
producing this plan.
The proposed way forward with a rigorous analytical
stepped process with continuous validation of
data and peer review will mitigate the potential for
discrepancies/errors in further waste management
and minimisation planning.
Table 1: Summary of estimated net rate requirement and waste reduction outcomes
of domestic waste and recycling service options (excluding GST)
Option
Disposer-pays charge
per lift
Net rate requirement

(estimate)
Waste reduction
(estimate)
1.Status quo (14/15) (currentsystem)

Excluding growth and inflation
45% of region pays for

refuse with disposer-pays
$72 million
(excludes Rodney)
0% (baseline)
PROPOSAL OPTIONS
Streamlined system with two bins - for refuse (120L bin) and recycling (Includes Rodney)
2. Disposer-pays refuse.
$3.00
$35.9 million
7%
$1.00
$73.5 million
7%
4. Rates funded refuse.
$0.00
$92.3 million
0%
Enhanced system with three bins - for refuse (80L), recycling and food waste
(in false bottom 60-litre bin, 23l capacity) (Includes Rodney)
$2.50
$70.5 million
30%
$1.00
$88.7 million
30%
$0.00
$107.5 million
10%
Enhanced system with three bins for refuse (80L), recycling and commingled
food/green waste options (in 60L bin with 30L capacity) (Includes Rodney)
$2.50
$72.2 million
30%
$1.00
$90.4 million
30%
$0.00
$109.2 million
10%
Option to add a 240l green waste service collected monthly, additional cost $12.7 million
11. Green waste only.
$0.00
$12.7 million
5%
Enhanced system with three bins for refuse, recycling and food waste (in false bottom 60L bin,
23L capacity) (Includes Rodney)
5a. Disposer-pays refuse no rural
$2.50
$69.5 million
30%
$2.50
$69.6 million
30%
$2.50
$66.4 million
30%
and HGI organic.

5b. Disposer-pays refuse no rural and
HGI organic, inorganic biennial except for
Waitakere, Rodney and Franklin region on
property booking and bags options in rural
and HGI.
6. Disposer-pays refuse fortnightly organics
(subject to low odour bin) no collection in
rural and HGI.
Please see the notes and limitations on the previous page.
PART C
Action plan
Vision:
To become the most liveable
city in the world, Auckland
will aim for the long-term,
aspirational goal of Zero
Waste by 2040, turning its
waste into resources.
1 introduction to
the action Plan
This action plan outlines a six-year programme52 to
achieve the vision and targets presented in Part A
(although some actions will be ongoing). It includes
a funding structure, aspects of which will be updated
each year as part of the councils annual plan following
a period of public consultation, as required by the
Local Government Act 2002.
The plan will be reviewed within six years. Any
significant changes will be incorporated into the
councils Long-term Plan (LTP) process and subject to
public consultation.
The action plan has been designed to meet the
requirements of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008
(WMA) and the Local Government Act 1974, and 2002,
by including all practicable options to achieve the
councils waste minimisation objectives. These options
have been assessed in terms of their future social,
economic, environmental and cultural impacts on the
wellbeing of the city and its residents.
1.1 Strategic Context

This action plan draws on the strategic context of
Part A to determine specific actions and programmes,
and is focused on the long-term aspirational goal of
Zero Waste by 2040. As noted in section 2.1, Part A,
the vision of the waste management and minimisation
plan (WMMP) for the city is supported by the strategic
objectives below.
Vision:
To become the most liveable city in the world,
Auckland will aim for the long-term, aspirational
goal of Zero Waste by 2040, turning its waste
into resources.
52 It should be noted that the action plan includes both actions in
the 17 per cent of the waste to landfill that the council influences
and collaborative actions with the industry and business that the
council has an interest in, but does not control.
Strategic objectives:
reduce Aucklands reliance on landfills
achieve operational efficiencies in
reduce harm from waste

restrict organic waste going to landfill
develop infrastructure and processes
to maximise resource recovery
reduce the councils responsibility for dealing

with end-of-life consumer products and

packaging through appropriate advocacy
maximise local economic development
opportunities (e.g. jobs created by
diverting waste from landfill)
reduce litter and illegal dumping
and related costs.
Targets
Given the opportunity to reduce the average
content of refuse bins or bags, the short to
medium-term target is:
to reduce domestic kerbside refuse by 30 per cent

by 2018. This means reducing domestic kerbside
refuse to landfill from 160kg per person, per year
to 110kg per person, per year by 2018 subject
to the full range of services in this plan being
implemented.
The council will mirror this reduction by undertaking:
to reduce the generation of its own in-house waste

by 30 per cent per capita by 2018 from 2012
baseline tonnages.
Depending on collaborative programmes with the
private sector and the outcome of discussions with
the waste industry, the following medium to
long-term (15 years) target is:
to reduce total waste to landfill (including

council and private-sector-influenced waste)
by 30 per cent by 2027 from a baseline of
0.8 tonnes per capita.
DRAFT WASTE Management and Minimisation PLAN
1.2 The Action

Plan process
This action plan is the result of the findings of the
Auckland Council Waste Assessment, preliminary
feedback on issues from local boards and other key
stakeholders53 and feedback from submissions in
the statutory consultation process.
1.3 Criteria for

identifying and
assessing options
The council has made decisions on methods and actions
in the WMMP in accordance with the Local Government
Act 2002, section 77. The following criteria have been
used for evaluating options54.
Environmental issues:
waste minimisation (e.g. volume of

waste reduction or diversion from landfill)
resource efficiency benefits

environmental harm
climate change related issues and impacts.
Social and cultural issues:
health and safety considerations (including public

health, staff and contractor-related issues)
public concern and interest

partnership and community involvement
the level to which producer and consumer
responsibility is supported.
Economic issues:
estimated whole-of-life cost

consideration of whether revenue is
generated by the initiative (where relevant)
other economic impacts, such as avoided

costs or other benefits to the council or
other stakeholders.
53 Auckland Council Waste Assessment: Appendix F Consultation.

54 A
uckland Council Waste Assessment: 7.5-5 Options assessment
by waste stream and waste hierarchy.
I 41
2 Key METHODS
A comprehensive suite of actions has been developed,
to meet the councils legislative obligations and
work towards its Zero Waste goal. The actions have
been drawn from the former councils waste plans
(which were legally the Auckland Councils plan) and
were identified and evaluated in the
Auckland Council Waste Assessment and through
pre-statutory consultation with key stakeholders. They
include changes to funding methods and kerbside
services but also specific services to help schools,
businesses and the community reduce waste.
The list of actions/methods, with brief descriptions,
is included in sections 3.1 and 3.2.
The following key actions/methods are described in
more detail as they represent significant changes to
the way waste will be managed and minimised across
the region.
2.1 Standardise
funding methods for
domestic waste and
recycling services
Public-good, private-good and
disposer-pays
When discussing the funding of publicly provided
services, the council has made a distinction between
public-good, private-good and disposer-pays.
Public-good, used in the context of waste services,
generally refers to services provided for the public
in order to meet environmental policies and standards.
These services which benefit the whole community
cannot normally be linked to specific individuals
who use the service. Examples are litter services,
environmental promotion and education, enforcement
of illegal dumping, and hazardous waste services.
The cost of these services is generally met through
general rates.
Private-good often refers to services that meet
environmental policies and standards that are linked
to specific individuals kerbside recycling services, for
example. In most cases costs are met through general
rates or subsidised by other waste services or the
government waste levy. In some cases, however,

costs are legitimately met through a portion of
disposer-pays charging, reflecting both the community
and individual benefit derived from services (e.g. the
organic waste collection proposal).
Disposer-pays aligns closely with central
governments policy to provide financial disincentives
to minimise waste sent to landfill. As a consequence
there are areas where disposer-pays is the most
appropriate funding approach, such as for refuse
collections taken to landfill. Additionally, the legislation
allows local government to subsidise other
private-good services through any disposer-pays
services surpluses.
Rates versus disposer-pays
funding for refuse
When refuse services are funded through general rates,
all owners of rateable properties are sent a rates bill
based on the relative value of their property.
The money collected is put into a central pool and the
council decides where this money is spent.
A variation on this funding model is a targeted
rate. The money collected is earmarked for a
specific purpose and cannot be reallocated to
other things. The advantage of rates funding is
that it is straightforward. The council has existing
mechanisms for calculating charges and, because
rates are a charge against the property, debt
recovery is virtually assured.
The fundamental problem with residents paying
for refuse collection through rates (whether the
general rate or a targeted rate), is the lack of a direct
financial incentive to limit the amount of refuse they
generate. Those who separate recyclables receive no
economic benefit. Disposer-pays funding overcomes
this, providing residents with an incentive to reduce
the waste they generate, while also giving them the
power of choice: pay directly for waste, or reduce
and recycle and pay less.
This raises the question whether disposer-pays is
equitable. Large households that create a lot of
waste and do not use recycling services would be
likely to pay more through a disposer-pays system
than if they paid through rates. Similarly, tenants
in ratepayer-funded parts of the city who do not
currently pay directly for refuse collection would now
incur that cost. This could be a concern for parts of
the community already financially stretched.
However, rates-funded collection also has equity

issues. Small households (owner-occupied) pay
proportionately more, in effect subsidising large
households (living in similar size and value houses).
The council believes that with intensive, targeted
education programmes and enforcement, these
issues can be managed. In fact, they already have
been in parts of the city with similar socio-economic
demographics, where the change from rates to
a disposer-pays approach has been made.
Current situation
Residential properties
Kerbside refuse collections:
45 per cent of Auckland households pay through
disposer-pays (in the former North Shore, Rodney,
Waitakere, Papakura and Franklin areas) and
55 per cent pay through rates (in the former
Auckland and Manukau areas).
Kerbside recycling collections:

most households in the region pay through
rates. In the former Waitakere area this service
is treated as a private good and is subsidised
through surpluses derived from disposer-pays
refuse collection and transfer station charges
(the transfer station was owned by the council).
Inorganic collections:
households in the former North Shore,
Auckland, Manukau, Papakura and Franklin
areas pay for this service through rates.
Residents of the former Waitakere area pay
through a combination of subsidised
private-good funding and disposer-pays.
Commercial properties
Kerbside recycling collections:
commercial properties in the former Rodney,
North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland, Papakura and
Franklin areas receive a rates-funded, domestictype recycling service. Those in the former
Manukau area do not receive a service.
Kerbside refuse collections:

commercial properties in the former North Shore,
Waitakere, Papakura and Franklin areas receive
council-provided, disposer-pays refuse services
(for domestic quantities). Those in the former
Auckland area receive a rates-funded service.
There is no council-provided service in the former
Manukau area.
Action:
Commercial properties:
The council will standardise funding methods

for domestic waste and recycling services for
residential and commercial properties across
the region, including:
disposer-pays funding of kerbside refuse

collections
private-good funding of kerbside recycling

collections for one bin with user-pays
charging for additional bins and/or
increased levels of service
private-good funding of kerbside organic

waste collections (if provided) for one bin
with user-pays charging for additional bins
and/or increased levels of service.
Residential properties:
disposer-pays funding of kerbside

refuse collections
private-good funding of kerbside
recycling collections
private-good funding of kerbside
organic waste collections
rates funding of inorganic services
public-good funding for services such
as litter collection, hazardous waste
and removal of illegal dumping.
Helping people adjust to change.
As a priority, the council will support the

changeover to disposer-pays charging
for refuse with an intensive community
development and engagement campaign
over the next three years, particularly
in those areas where refuse is currently
rates-funded and where pilots will be
undertaken, and in any other areas where
community engagement will assist in the
rollout of change.
D
ue to the change for tenants in ratesfunded refuse collection areas, the
council will work with key stakeholders
to consider ways in which tenants with
lower socio-economic means might be
supported through this change.
diversion will be introduced,
Organics

together with larger dry recycling
bins, and a customer service Radio
Frequency Identification system (RFID),
before disposer-pays funding starts in
areas which are currently rates-funded,
so that people have the opportunity
to adjust to recycling and minimise
their refuse charge. The diversion
could be in multiple ways, including an
openness and encouragement of local
community green waste initiatives.
A
transition programme will be
developed, starting in 2015, and lasting
a minimum of six months for the
introduction of disposer-pays, including
possible targeted rate adjustments in
the first year.
2.2 kerbside refuse

receptacles
Current situation
Residents of the former Auckland area
use 120-litre wheelie bins for kerbside
refuse collections.
Residents of the former Rodney,

Waitakere, Manukau, North Shore, Franklin
and Papakura areas use bags (or in some
case stickers). Disposer-pays wheelie bins
and bags are offered by private waste
contractors in these areas.
Instituting disposer-pays for refuse collected in
bags is relatively straightforward provide prepaid
bags or stickers.
Bin collection is slightly more complex, but the simplest
method is a weekly collection with a targeted rate related
to the size of bin chosen by the resident (the smallest
capacity bin incurring the least cost). Although residents
have an incentive to choose a smaller bin with this
method, they have no incentive to reduce waste below its
capacity, nor do they have an opportunity to reduce their
disposer-pays cost.
A better method from a waste minimisation perspective
is to use bins with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
tags which record the name and address of residents
and the credit held in their waste accounts. The tags
communicate with an RFID reader on the collection
vehicle and a record is kept of the number of bin lifts
chargeable to a particular householder55.
Using RFID tags on refuse bins (as well as recycling bins
and, potentially, organic bins) will also enable households
to monitor the amount of waste and recyclables they
55 Covechas reviewed, and concurs with,an initial analysis by the Information

Services Department at Auckland Councilonthe cost and feasibility of
charging fees for the collection of waste from bins equipped with RFID tags.
put out for collection and how much they are paying
for refuse disposal56. Potentially residents will be able to
track their own details on a council website.
RFID tags will also enable the council to provide better
customer service to track down lost or stolen bins,
monitor contractor performance (e.g. investigate missed
pick-ups) and determine which parts of the city require
targeted waste minimisation education, advice and
assistance to help households minimise refuse costs.
Thetype ofpayment channels thatwillbe offered for
the kerbside collection servicewill be aligned with the
organisational-wide policies and standardsthatare
currently being developed by the finance business unit.
This will leverage off existing organisation-wide services
where investment has already been made.
As wide a range of payment channels as possible
willbe considered, for example:
website (credit card)
telephone Interactive Voice Recognition

(IVR) (credit card)
over the counter (cash, cheque, EFTPOS)

(e.g. at a supermarket or post office)
internet banking (bill payment or direct credit).
These can be either on a prepaid or on-account basis.

While payment via a prepaid system ishighlypreferable
to minimise debt collection costs, RFID prepaid
systemshave only fairly recently beenimplementedin
Europe, therefore aspects of the system will need to be
worked through before implementation.
Current estimates58 are that the cost per lift would

be around $2.5059 for an 80-litre bin (collected
fortnightly). The charge per lift will be commercially
competitive. This figure has been calculated using the
following assumptions about the revenue generated
from the per lift cost:
it will recover the full cost of refuse

collection and disposal
it will also provide some funding for the

kerbside recycling service
it may also provide some funding for the proposed

kerbside food waste collection (with possible
support from the waste levy).
The charges will be subject to a full economic analysis,
efficient procurement processes and to market forces.
They will be set annually through the annual plan or
three yearly through the Long-term Plan.
While wheelie bins will be introduced across all urban
areas of the city, a mixed bin and bag service will be
provided in rural areas and the Hauraki Gulf Islands
(HGI). This is to overcome difficulties householders
face in these areas with long gravel driveways, lack
of road frontages and other factors.
As organic waste would no longer be included in
kerbside refuse bins or bags (reducing both volume
and odour), collection of refuse would be fortnightly,
alternating with the recycling collection.
The restriction of organic waste going to landfill from
the domestic collection could be by way of a bylaw.
A change to an RFID systemwould be one of those

targeted for an extensive education programme.
Combining choice of bin size and prepaid per lift
charges allows the needs of different-sized households
to be met while also providing a strong incentive
to reduce waste. Several bin sizes can be offered to
residents, all with RFID tags57. The RFID records the
bin size with other details, and refuse charges are
calculated accordingly.
58 Based on economic modelling done by Covec, September 2011.

56 The proposal is for information to be made available
through an interactive website.
57 Bins used for current collections can either be on-sold or recycled.
59 Cost estimates are based on the premise that 90 per cent of properties
in the region come under this overarching system, and that costs would
change depending on the percentage of the council market share. Costs
exclude future ETS charges as levels are currently unknown.
Action:
The council will introduce wheelie bins for
refuse across the urban parts of the city but

a mix of bags and bins in rural areas and the
HGI for refuse, with pricing to reflect the
added cost.
Council officers will:

work with the appropriate rural local
boards and communities to identify
the boundary between urban and rural
properties for the purpose of waste
collection
work with the urban local boards to
identify any narrow roads or particular
properties which may need tailored
solutions for the collection of bins
work with the councils Parks, Recreation
and Heritage Forum and the appropriate
local boards on how best to deal with
houses with no road frontage, scenic
spots, parks and holiday areas
work with local boards and communities
in rural and coastal areas where there may
be opportunities for drop-off areas.
The
council will ensure it has the resources
to respond to particular situations of need

(e.g. disability, age, immobility) by working
with those people to deal with their bins
on a one-to-one basis, engaging neighbourly
support where possible.
A range of bin sizes for refuse will be

provided, from 60 to 240 litres.
collections will be fortnightly.

Refuse

Refuse charges for bins will be on a per

lift basis.
Customer service:
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) will be
used on all bins to improve customer service

and enable more efficient and effective
management of waste infrastructure.
A wide range of accessible options for
the pre-payment of refuse charges will

be made available.
2.3 Move towards

A consistent
domestic kerbside
recycling service
across the region
Current situation
Households in the former Auckland, Franklin,
Papakura and Manukau areas use 240-litre wheelie
bins for kerbside recycling, collected fortnightly.
Households in the former Waitakere and North

Shore areas use 140-litre wheelie bins collected
fortnightly.
Households in the former Rodney area use 55 and

70-litre crates collected weekly in urban areas and
fortnightly in rural areas.
In the former Waitakere, North Shore and Rodney

areas, paper and cardboard are collected separately.
In other areas all materials are collected in one bin
(commingled).
The rollout of a uniform kerbside recycling service
across the Auckland region will be implemented.
Existing contracts in the former North Shore and
Waitakere areas do not finish until 2015, so it will take
time to implement a uniform system across the region.
In the meantime, 140-litre bins with paper collected
separately will continue to be used in those areas that
currently have them. In Rodney, the contract using
crates for recycling will end in 2013. It is proposed
that the contract will be re-tendered with a change
to wheelie bin collections as soon as practicable. The
material collected from Rodney is currently processed
by Visy and it is considered that there will be capacity
to cope with the additional tonnage from wheelie bins.
However, given community and industry concerns
about commingled collections, an opportunity will
be given for some flexibility in the intended rollout
of this service.
A pilot separate collection has been proposed by

industry in the former Rodney area by the
Auckland-based glass recycling industry which is
interested in retaining a higher value from collected
glass than commingled collection systems in
New Zealand can provide. The outcome of this pilot,
and further industry discussions, will be taken into
account before the contracts are retendered.
In addition, Auckland-based paper recyclers have
indicated their wish to consider the retention of
the existing separate paper collections.
Movement on either or both of these issues will
be dependent on the price gap between commingled
and separate collections being removed, or at no
net cost to the council.
Expand the range of recyclables

In all areas the range of recyclable materials collected
will be expanded to include:
all plastic codes 17

aluminium and steel (including clean aluminium
foil and empty aerosol containers)
glass bottles and jars

Tetra Pak milk and juice cartons.
The wider range of recyclables collected will

allow residents to reduce the amount of waste
they put in their refuse bin.
Disposer-pays funding for refuse should also
encourage recycling: around 15 per cent
(24,000 tonnes) of material put in Aucklands kerbside
refuse each year could be put in recycling bins
under this proposal.
Action:
The council will introduce larger recycling
bins across the region with a choice of bin
sizes (on request).
Commingled (paper, glass, plastics etc)

collections will be provided across the city.
Working with industry:
The council will work proactively and

collaboratively with operators to help expand
the markets for a wider range of recyclables.
The council will work with industry and

innovative business ventures to retain more
of the value of recyclable products (e.g. by
recycling used glass into new bottles instead
of into roading aggregate) either by closing
the price gap for separate collections, or by
other means.
Under these parameters, the suggestion of
a separate glass collection trial in Rodney
will be explored in consultation with Rodney
Local Board and residents, subject to
funding from industry.
Retaining the separate paper collection in
North Shore, Rodney and Waitakere will
be considered if the funding gap for that
separate collection can be closed before
the current collection contract expires.
on the outcome of the above,
Depending

negotiation with the industry will occur
on the option of a separate collection for
glass and for paper to be offered for all
urban areas, provided this proves to be
practicable and can be achieved at no
net cost to the council. This may include
a user-pays element.
The council will hold collaborative discussions

with the waste industry on innovative ways
to achieve the same waste reduction goal.
At the same time, it will liaise with the
industry to monitor any new technologies
to either reduce waste, or in the area of
waste to energy.
2.4 Introduce a
domestic kerbside
organic waste
collection
Organic waste, consisting of food or kitchen waste
(about 40 per cent of total kerbside waste) and
green (or garden) waste (about 10 per cent of
total kerbside waste) makes up over 50 per cent by
weight60 of domestic kerbside refuse in the Auckland
region. Diverting this material would make a major
contribution to the councils short to medium and
long-term goals. It would also provide householders
with a service to help reduce the amount they pay for
disposer-pays refuse.
The council will introduce a regular, rates-funded
kerbside collection to divert organic waste from
household refuse. The type of waste collected
(food waste only or food waste plus green waste),
the method of collection and processing, and the
frequency of collection will be determined through
the procurement process.
Private operators already provide domestic green waste
collection services (generally using 240-litre wheelie
bins or 600-litre bags). Whatever option is chosen,
the council will ensure that the effect on the green
waste industry is minimised. Some initial options and
estimated costs for organic collections are discussed
further in Part D, Appendix 4 of this plan.
They include:
Food waste only
60-litre wheelie bin with false bottom. Automated,

weekly collection.
Food waste plus some green waste
60-litre wheelie bin. Automated, weekly collection.

Separate green waste and food waste
60-litre food waste collected weekly and

240-litre green waste collected monthly.
Both automated collections.
60 A
uckland Council Waste Assessment Appendix C: Composition and
tonnage of Auckland Councils kerbside residential refuse collection. Waste
Not Consulting 2010. This has a plus or minus margin of error
of approximately 5 per cent.
From a waste hierarchy perspective, diverting organic

material from landfill by collecting and processing
it is preferable to disposal. However, diversion is
less desirable than beneficial activities like home
composting, or not creating organic waste in the first
place. This is particularly relevant, as it is estimated that
one-third of all bought fruit and vegetables are thrown
away. Therefore, this plan proposes an intensive drive
to encourage and incentivise home composting and
reduction of food waste in the first place.
Some residents do not throw out organic waste, but
compost or worm farm it at home, feed it to animals,
or put it down an insinkerator and would therefore not
need to use the service. The council will work on ways
of valuing their contribution.
If it recovered 75 per cent of all organic material
currently being disposed of to landfill (from both
council and private domestic kerbside collections), a
food waste collection has the potential to reduce waste
to landfill by approximately 70,000 tonnes annually61
and a combined food waste/green waste collection has
the potential to divert up to 85,000 tonnes annually.
The processing method used would depend on whether
food waste or food waste combined with green waste
was collected. The processing options are wider with a
food waste only collection, and there may be potential
to produce end products, such as stock feed and liquid
fertiliser, as well as compost.
If compost proved to be the best solution (combined
or single stream collections) this would increase the
amount of compost available in the Auckland region.
Those involved in the sale of compost have indicated
that the Auckland residential compost market is near
saturation. Initial cost modelling for the organics
collection has therefore excluded any return from the
sale of end product. This means the retail price for
compost can be adjusted to increase market demand
or in fact, to create new markets. The council needs
to undertake further economic analysis on the whole
proposal, and would work with the organic processing
industry to develop long-term stable markets for the
additional compost that would become available if
composting was chosen.
The Ministry for the Environments 2007 State of the
Environment Report62 notes a loss of organic matter
from cropping soils in New Zealand. The most
promising markets for compost from Aucklands
61 Auckland Council Waste Assessment Appendix C: Report 2.

62 Environment New Zealand 2007. p 239.
organic waste are therefore expected to be the

agricultural and horticultural areas on either side of
Auckland. Use by Auckland Councils Parks and Reserves
unit would also be an option, and for sporting facilities
and turf applications.
Action:
The council will divert the organic
component of the waste stream that
is currently going to landfill.
A regular rates-funded kerbside collection
of organic waste will be introduced in urban
parts of the city.
The method of diverting the organic waste
will be determined at the procurement phase
of the process, to see what proposals the
market presents.
The councils governing body will:
set the criteria for the choice of method

for diverting organic waste
overview the procurement process for
the diversion of the organic waste.
The council will:
set appropriate criteria for choosing

the method of diverting organic waste,
recognising the existing waste industry, but
that the councils overall aim is to maximise
the overall green waste recovery
carry out trials to find the right solution for
Auckland for diverting organic waste
hold exploratory discussions on potential
collaboration with other councils including
Environment Bay of Plenty and Waikato
Regional Council
intensify and incentivise composting
education and explore community initiatives,
including suggestions raised in submissions
develop ways of valuing or acknowledging
those who already home compost
explore ways in which the community and
voluntary sector and iwi/Ma-ori organisations
can divert green waste from landfill.
There will be no provision of kerbside organic
collection service to the HGI and rural areas. The
Solid Waste Unit will work with the relevant local
boards, community organisations and residents on
ways to reduce organic material (especially food
waste) going to landfill by alternative methods.
2.5 Regional
inorganic collection
Current situation
Kerbside inorganic collections are provided in
the former North Shore, Auckland, Manukau and
Papakura areas on an annual or biennial basis.
A drop off system is provided in the former Franklin

area and a booking system (with material collected
from within residents properties) is provided in the
former Waitakere area. No service is provided by
the council in the former Rodney area.
Although most councils in New Zealand do not provide
inorganic collections and they are rare in overseas cities,
they have been operating in some parts of Auckland
for years. While recognising that they have negative
impacts (such as health and safety issues for collectors
and the public, mess, security issues, damage to reusable
items through scavenging, illegal dumping and providing
a disincentive to product stewardship), the council
acknowledges they are popular with some parts of
the community. The council will therefore provide an
inorganic collection across the region until a better way
to retrieve more recyclable and reusable items can be
provided. Such an alternative would be likely to involve
the resource recovery network described in section 2.6.
One of the main things council has considered when
deciding on the options is whether collections should
take place from the kerbside or from within residents'
properties (as occurs in the west of Auckland). The latter
has many advantages because it reduces the negative
impacts associated with kerbside collections and has
the added benefit of being able to retrieve more items
intact that could be recycled or reused.
A kerbside system would need to have a shorter set
out period before collection and be more rigorously
monitored to deter illegal dumping and commercial
scavenging, and to mitigate some of the negative
impacts associated with those systems.
Detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages
of the various inorganic collection systems can be
found in Appendix F of the Auckland Council Waste
Assessment, Issues Paper 3.
A brief summary of some of the options and

estimated costs are provided in Appendix 4 of
this plan and include:
Recovering more resources:
1. an annual kerbside collection

2. a biennial (once every two years) kerbside collection
3. an annual collection from within residents'
properties operated via a booking system
4. no collection resource recovery centres only.
Action:

The council will develop a range of more

effective systems for the recovery of
inorganic material. The council will provide
one rates-funded, on-site booked inorganic
collection per year for every ratepayer from
2015 onwards, as well as local places within
the resource recovery network where people
can drop off inorganic material at other times.
Kerbside inorganic collections will be phased
out as the new systems are put in place.
From 2012-2015 the council will:
p rovide a rates-funded inorganic
collection across the region
provide an improved biennial kerbside
inorganic collection in the former legacy
areas which currently have a kerbside
collection, with shorter set out times and
stricter enforcement
the annual inorganic on-site booking
retain

system in the former Waitakere area but
with an improved methodology to divert
more resources. The service will be ratesfunded
offer an on-site annual inorganic booking
system in the legacy Franklin and Rodney
areas and in the Hauraki Gulf Islands
develop ways to respond to domestic
inorganic material from commercial areas.
Kerbside inorganic collections

will be phased out as the new
systems are put in place.
The council will start work to explore:

the
potential to extend resource recovery
systems progressively across the region
provided by and for business and the
community
which appear to be successful
initiatives

in resource recovery such as Secondhand
Sundays, Freecycle and garage sale networks
initiatives for sports, charity
fundraising

and groups like Guides or Scouts
the
introduction of a booking system in
discussion with local boards which are
keen to develop resource recovery centres
and work to improve resource recovery
systems.
The remaining local boards will be given the
option of considering the introduction of an
annual on-site booking system instead of a
biennial kerbside collection, before a regional
on-site booking system is introduced.
2.6 Develop a
Resource Recovery
Network (RRN)
The Zero Waste goal calls for an infrastructure that
supports maximum resource recovery. The resource
recovery network (RRN) provides such an infrastructure.
The idea of a region-wide network of resource recovery
parks, developed for the former Auckland councils in
200563, came with a recommendation for seven large
resource recovery park hubs linked to up to 60 smaller
community recycling depots. The idea was to develop
the RRN in stages and fund it through savings made
by cancelling inorganic collections, imposing a regional
landfill levy (this was before the national waste levy
was introduced), and the sale of recovered materials.
It was estimated that this infrastructure, supported
with appropriate policy and an electronic stock control
and trading system, could divert as much as
25 per cent of material going to landfill within five years
and create new jobs and business opportunities through
the expansion of the recovered materials industry.
63 A
uckland Council Waste Assessment Appendix F: Reclaiming
Aucklands Resources: A Resource Recovery Network for the
Auckland region. Envision New Zealand Ltd. 2005.
A resource recovery park hub was proposed for each

of the former council areas, using existing, redesigned
transfer stations where appropriate. Small scale
community recycling depots would be located within
communities owned and operated by the private
sector, community enterprises or the council. The
concept could not proceed further at the time, due
to the fragmented nature of the region and lack of
council ownership of facilities.
With the new council in place, the idea of a resource
recovery network where businesses could drop off
sorted materials and residents could drop off items at
smaller scale community recycling depots is still seen
as helpful for reducing waste to landfill but may take
some time to put in place.
Many positive ideas on resource recovery came
through the submissions from the community,
iwi/Ma-ori and industry.
The council wishes to build on
these ideas and this energy and will engage proactively
to help facilitate progress.
Organic waste processing facility

A 2009 investigation into diverting organic material64
from landfill in the Auckland region identified the need
for a processing facility supported by two organic
waste transfer facilities. The transfer stations would
ideally be located at resource recovery parks. On the
assumption that a processing facility would need to be
on suitably zoned land, close to end-product markets,
south Auckland and the Waikato were identified as the
most likely locations. The organic waste collected from
southern parts of Auckland would be delivered directly
to the processing facility and organic waste from other
areas would be consolidated at facilities located, ideally,
in north Auckland and in the south/central area. If
compost was the end product, and food waste only is
collected, a certain amount of green waste would also
be required to facilitate processing.
As the method of diverting and processing
organic waste is not yet decided, the need for
additional processing facilities is not yet known.
This will be reconsidered in conjunction with
the procurement process.
64 Investigation into options for beneficial processing of

food waste. Morrison Low and Associates. July 2009.
Timing
Although the RRN (potentially including an organic
waste processing facility) is a medium to longer-term
project, the resulting infrastructure will allow Auckland
to sort and process a far greater range of materials,
including construction and demolition, hazardous,
household inorganic and organic waste.
Many positive ideas

on resource recovery
came through the submissions
from the community,
iwi/Ma-ori and industry.
Action:
The council strongly supports this concept as it is
an essential component to achieving the goals of
the New Zealand Waste Strategy and the purpose
of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.
The council will coordinate a collaborative
dialogue with industry, the community/
voluntary sectors and iwi/Ma-ori organisations
to explore the following areas:
how the council might support existing
community and business recycling
initiatives more actively (such as their
inclusion in an interactive website giving
information about recycling businesses)
including existing centres
new resource recovery initiatives both
how

by the community/voluntary sector,
iwi/Ma-ori organisations and by business
might be nurtured
to build on the energy and passion
how

from submissions
how interest from the existing network
of refuse transfer stations might be
developed.
A network of drop-off points for hazardous
waste will be developed, and the Hazmobile
service will be phased out.
2.7 Support business

particularly in the
construction and
demolition industries
The council will support business waste minimisation
through a number of initiatives, particularly in the
construction and demolition industries. The proposed
RRN would provide the infrastructure (in tandem with
privately owned facilities) to enable businesses to drop
off reusable and recyclable materials for processing and
sale (for reuse or remanufacturing). On-site support is
also proposed, with the council working with businesses
to reduce waste outputs and broker the exchange
of reusable and recyclable materials between waste
producers and recyclers or reusers.
Support will also be provided through a communications
programme and promotion of existing online waste
reduction guides and resources such as REBRIs
(Resource Efficiency in the Building and Related
Industries) waste reduction tools65 and the
Green Star66 building accreditation programme.
In addition, the council will investigate establishing
demonstration projects to encourage the use of
recovered materials in construction projects, as well
as acknowledging businesses that successfully reduce
construction and demolition waste.
For business in general, the council will support
programmes such as Eco Smart and Conscious
Consumers67 and improve the efficiency of the RENEW
waste exchange68, which supports redistribution
between those businesses with industrial by-products or
surplus materials, and those businesses or people who
can use them. A waste ranger service is also proposed,
to provide hands-on help to areas with high waste
outputs (such as businesses in CBDs).
Action:

The council will support business waste

reduction, particularly in the construction
and demolition industries, by providing the
infrastructure and/or support industry to
recover, reuse and recycle materials and by
actively working with businesses to reduce
waste and facilitate the exchange of reusable
and recyclable materials.
The council will publicise on its website and
elsewhere, the availability of services that
provide for the reuse and recycling of products.
2.8 Advocate for

product stewardship
Product stewardship, sometimes called extended
producer responsibility (EPR), is a policy approach
that aims to ensure producers and consumers take
greater responsibility for the environmental costs
of the products and packaging they produce and/or
consume. As such, product stewardship shifts the main
responsibility for recovery, recycling and disposal from
local government to private industry, incorporating costs
in the product price. The focus is on keeping products
and packaging from entering the waste stream and
facilitating design that promotes recovery and recycling.
Products commonly targeted by such schemes include
packaging, batteries, disposable nappies, solvents, tyres
and electronic goods; although in theory, any product
may be managed in this way.
The WMA promotes product stewardship and makes
provision for the introduction of voluntary and
mandatory schemes. However, to date, no mandatory
schemes have been introduced and voluntary schemes
(successful as some have been) are limited in their
effectiveness69. Voluntary schemes currently exist in
New Zealand for glass packaging, agricultural chemicals
(and packaging), used oil and paint.
65 Hosted by BRANZ. www.branz.co.nz/REBRI

66 A
programme of the New Zealand Green Building
Council. www.nzgbc.org.nz
67
www.consciousconsumers.org.nz
69
68 www.renew.org.nz
Changing Behaviour: Economic instruments in the Management of

Waste: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (Preface).
One of the best known mandatory product

stewardship schemes is Container Deposit Legislation
(CDL), which places a small deposit, typically 10 or
20 cents, on beverages such as soft drinks, wine, beer,
milk, fruit juice and water. The deposit is refunded
when empty containers are returned to recycling
facilities. The scheme operates successfully around
the world and significantly increases recycling rates
(typically 70 to 90 per cent70 compared to 30 to
40 per cent currently in New Zealand71).
If CDL were introduced, substantial savings would
be seen on kerbside collection and litter clean up, as
well as a reduction in environmental harm caused by
containers entering waterways and the sea. CDL can
only be introduced at a national level so Auckland
Council would need to advocate for its introduction.
Some parts of industry oppose CDL, arguing that it
will undermine current recycling programmes72 or
that it will be too expensive to operate73.
Other problematic waste streams for which product
stewardship schemes could be introduced include
electronic waste (computers, televisions, etc.), tyres
and batteries all of which pose a significant threat
to the environment when disposed of incorrectly.
Collection and consolidation points could be provided
at RRN facilities.
The 2013 changeover from analogue to digital
television makes a product stewardship scheme for
televisions an urgent matter (there will be an influx
of obsolete equipment). The council will also support
any proposals which address the growing number of
discarded tyres74, such as a proposed collaborative
scheme being developed by industry.
70 Changing Behaviour: Economic instruments in the Management of

Waste: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. (Preface.)
71 The Incentive to Recycle: A Container Deposit System for
New Zealand. Envision NZ Ltd. 2007.
72 The Incentive to Recycle: A Container Deposit System for
New Zealand. Envision NZ Ltd. 2007.
73 P otential Impacts of the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill: Update
report. Covec. 2008 and National Container Deposit Scheme Impacts
prepared by Australian Economist Consultancy ACIL Tasman on behalf
of the Australian Food and Grocery Council in September 2011.
74 Tyre Track a voluntary scheme has wound up due primarily to a
number of the smaller tyre retailers not joining the scheme and some
of those who had, not reporting all their tyre movements (MWH 2004
End of Life Tyre Management: Storage Options-report to MfE from
Auckland Council).
If CDL were introduced,

substantial savings would be
seen on kerbside collection and
litter clean up, as well as a
reduction in environmental harm
caused by containers entering
waterways and the sea.
Action:
The council strongly supports the concept of
product stewardship (in line with the WMA) for
all products.
The council will collaborate with the private
sector on new voluntary product stewardship
schemes as a first step, but maintains the
right to advocate for mandatory product
stewardship for that product if significant
measurable progress is not made in reducing
that waste to landfill.
The council will advocate for the introduction
of Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) (as
an effective means of dealing with the costs
of collecting recyclables, as well as offering
significant community benefit) subject to
further discussion with industry.
The council will include product stewardship
ideas raised in submissions for review and
potential collaboration between the council
and the private sector.
The council will encourage industry and
advocate to the government to develop
solutions for products that need priority
attention such as:
nappies and incontinence pads exploring
effective, affordable self funding services
TVs
(especially during the digital TV
changeover)
tyres
construction and demolition waste
batteries

e-waste.
2.9 Advocate for

amendments to the
Waste Minimisation
Act 2008
minimisation and a decrease in waste disposal, and
the act requires the council to promote effective and
efficient waste management and minimisation within
its district. Because Auckland Council only influences
approximately 17 per cent of the regions waste, its
ability to carry out this responsibility is limited and
will remain so unless it either gains more influence
over the waste stream, or industry is given the same
responsibilities as council.
The purpose of the WMA

is to encourage waste
minimisation and a decrease
in waste disposal.
Following discussions with industry, the council
proposes to advocate for amendments to the WMA
that would give industry the same obligations as local
authorities to reduce waste to landfill. This advocacy
would not affect the councils ongoing discussions
with the waste industry around ways for the council to
obtain greater influence over the waste stream. Neither
would it affect any of the actions outlined in this plan,
which are predominantly directed at the 17 per cent of
the waste stream that the council currently influences.
Action:

The council will advocate to the government

to amend the waste legislation to apply
the same responsibility for waste reduction
to industry as currently legislated for local
government.
2.10 Facilitate
local enterprise
There are many examples around New Zealand
that show how, with council support, local enterprises
(businesses, community groups, etc.) can play an
important role in achieving their communities
waste reduction objectives75.
The council proposes to explore new initiatives that,
once established, can be transferred to local enterprises
to operate. In effect, the council is proposing reverse'
BOOT (build, own, operate transfer) schemes, where the
council would develop initiatives and local enterprises
would be the recipient operators76. (In normal BOOT
schemes the private sector builds, owns and operates a
facility and then hands it over to the public.)
Opportunities for such schemes, once the resource
recovery network is established, range from operation
of recycling depots to producing new products from
recovered materials. There may also be opportunities
to transfer services such as the proposed sell on behalf
of service for reusable items (described in section
3.1.9) and delivery of waste minimisation education
and communication programmes. Product stewardship
programmes may also offer opportunities for the council
to develop systems and/or provide access to facilities
for example, for used oil (for which the council is already
running a pilot project), electronic waste, etc.
Facilitating the involvement of local enterprises in waste
minimisation and resource recovery initiatives aligns
with Auckland Councils Draft Economic Development
Strategy, particularly with the strategys focus on
innovation, a business-friendly and well functioning city,
growing local skills and jobs and creating a sustainable
eco-economy.
Action:

The council will investigate and develop

initiatives that will enable local enterprises
and mana whenua involvement in resource
recovery and waste minimisation activities.
75 F or example the Community, Business and Environment Centre

(CBEC) in Kaitaia www.cbec.co.nz
76 A
uckland Council Paper to the 2011 WasteMinz conference.
Product Stewardship: Balancing up the Responsibility.
2.11 Investigate enacting 2.12 Hauraki

a waste Bylaw
Gulf Islands
A waste bylaw may be required to implement aspects
of this plan and may include (amongst other things):
regulating the deposit of waste and

diverted materials
regulating kerbside collection and transportation

of waste and diverted materials through
licensing of waste operators
regulating access to waste management

and minimisation facilities provided, owned
or operated by the council
prohibiting the disposal of diverted material

to disposal facilities
controlling litter and providing receptacles

for litter in public places.
The bylaw may also address issues such as unsolicited
advertising material, shopping trolleys, clothing bins,
multi-unit dwellings and abandoned vehicle.
The bylaw may also address

issues such as unsolicited
advertising material,
shopping trolleys, clothing
bins, multi-unit dwellings and
abandoned vehicles.
Action:

The council will investigate developing

and enacting, by 31 October 2012, new
regional waste bylaws that support the
intent of this plan.
In this context, the council will investigate
a cleanfill regulation.
The provision of waste services in the Hauraki Gulf

Islands (HGI)77 is much more expensive than on
the mainland due to the islands isolation and the
expense of shipping materials offshore for disposal or
recycling78. Although the higher average costs need
to be addressed, it is acknowledged that charging the
full disposer-pays cost for waste services would be
prohibitive for island communities. Nor is itpractical
to consider each island in isolation,especiallygiven
the large number of holiday makers and boats that
visit. It is thereforerecommendedthat theHGI be
considered as an entity and that a uniformamount
is charged for disposer-pays refuse bags or bins. This
would enable a much fairer distribution of costs;
that is, boat owners, visitors and residents would all
make their contribution. One option would be for
Hauraki Gulf-specific, prepaid refuse bags to be made
available at marine stores, bait shops and garages
throughout the region, as well as on the islands (and
potentially for kerbside collections) and for them to
be able to be dropped off at designated facilities on
and off the islands and potentially on waste barges79.
Waiheke Island residents could also use wheelie bins
with RFID tags to facilitate disposer-pays charging.
Preliminary engagement with local boards has
indicated that due to the different logistical issues
on each of the islands, local boards in the Hauraki
Gulf should have a larger say in the waste services
provided, and have input into how they could be
funded. The council will decide in conjunction with
local boards for recommending to the governing
body how much of the cost of waste services should
be imposed through disposer-pays charging and
how much should be subsidised from region-wide
public-good funding (i.e. general rates). This plan
recommends subsidised services through rates at a
level to be determined later, when all other aspects
of the services are determined80. Once this has
been established details of specific services and
infrastructure requirements can be addressed.
77 Waiheke, Great Barrier, Rakino and Kawau Islands.

78 A
uckland Council Waste Assessment Appendix F: Issues paper 5:
Geographically Remote Areas Waste Management and Resource
Recovery.
79 The council will investigate and discuss with the local community
ways of dealing with existing refuse barges.
80 With the proviso that charges are not less than the mainland.
The current level of subsidy provided to the islands is

about $2.2 million or about 60 per cent of the actual
cost of providing the service.
Whichever services are provided, they must support
the vision and goals of the region. An important step
will be to work out how to remove organic material
from the waste stream. Local collection and processing
solutions could be developed, the shape of which will be
determined by the level of disposer-pays refuse charging.
A key principle will be to try to keep organic material on
the islands. Another will be to ensure all waste assets are
managed appropriately to comply with resource consent
and legislative requirements.
Current contracts on Waiheke Island expire in 2019, so
changes to service provision before then would only be
possible with agreement from both parties.
Action:
Further work will be carried out together
with local boards (Waiheke, Great Barrier and
Rodney) to determine the level of service
provision on the Hauraki Gulf Islands and
the level of disposer-pays charging and level
of subsidy for refuse, with the final decision
resting with the governing body.
The council will:
introduce a mixed disposer-pays bag and

wheelie bin collection for refuse
develop a workable, accessible system for boat
users to enable a disposer-pays system to
work effectively
explore opportunities for local resource
recovery initiatives in collaboration with
residents, industry, the community/voluntary
sector and the local boards in order to
maximise reuse and recycling, and to retain as
much material as possible on the islands
ensure all waste assets on the islands are
managed appropriately to comply with
resource consent and legislative requirements.
2.13 Implement a
Strategic Framework
for Communication,
Waste Minimisation
Programmes
and Community
Development
A strategic framework for communication, waste
minimisation programmes and community
development81 has been developed to support
implementation of this plan. Its aim is to encourage
widespread uptake of the proposed changes to
collections and services, and to promote everyday
actions to reduce waste. The framework will provide
high level direction for communication campaigns,
education, community engagement and community
development activities, ensuring a cohesive, targeted
package is delivered to the region82. Local boards and
key local organisations will be sounding boards for the
effectiveness of such campaigns, and in some cases
will be actively involved.
How communities deal with waste is influenced
by many factors, including household size, the
cost of waste disposal, home ownership status, the
convenience of collection services, knowledge of how
to reduce, reuse and recycle, and cultural norms and
location. These factors will influence the way in which
communities respond to any proposed service changes
and how successfully those changes are adopted.
The experience of councils in Auckland and around
New Zealand shows that with the right support,
communities can easily reduce the waste that goes
to landfill.
81 Community development is the process of helping a community

strengthen itself and develop towards its full potential.
82 It should be noted that framework includes both actions in the 17 per cent
of the waste to landfill that the council influences and collaborative
actions with the industry and business that the council has an interest
in, but does not control.
Figure 5: Strategic framework for waste minimisation
Aim
Towards Zero Waste

To raise awareness and encourage change in waste practices at home,
at work and in the wider community to reduce waste going to landfill
Community development
To motivate people to adopt

waste wise behaviour through
education and targeted
engagement programmes
To empower people to manage

and minimise their waste, at a
community and business level
Whole community,
targeted areas
Households, businesses,
schools
Community organisations,
targeted households, business
- Television
- Community based social
marketing
- Recycling and resource
exchange website
- Social media
- Phone applications
- Printed collateral (information
packs, calendars, brochures)
- Market research
- Household visits Waste Rangers

- Personalised waste plans
- Business programmes/
certification
- Experiential learning
- Curriculum linked education
- Waste resources and systems
- Community learning centres
- Workshop and presentations
- Evaluation
- Community based
resource networks
- Social enterprise
- Business partnerships
- Place based community
driven projects
- Business incubation
- Action learning
Objectives
To raise awareness and provide

information about major service
changes and waste wise
behaviour through social
marketing and information
Audience
Waste minimisation programmes
Tools
Communications
Innovative programmes - community education - partnerships - new services
For the purposes of this plan, waste wise behaviour

comprises the regular actions Aucklanders can take
to better manage and minimise their waste. Besides
separating and recycling, people can avoid waste in
the first place through their consumption choices,
composting, mulching garden waste, and using waste
exchange and resource recovery services. The diagram
on the next page (Figure 6) shows the full range of
actions people can take and many Aucklanders
are already taking them. The aim of this plan is to
encourage the whole community to do so.
Strategies to support change

in the community
Communities vary in their ability to adapt to
change and in the support they require to do so.
Implementing this plan requires empowering people
to minimise the waste they produce and thereby
reduce the cost of disposal. To ensure this, household
and community engagement programmes will target
areas with a higher proportion of large households,
renters and other groups. The council will work closely
with local community groups and networks to provide

the information and support needed before, during
and after the introduction of new services.
Community-based social marketing

As indicated in the strategic framework above, three
streams of activity will support the introduction of
new services and foster waste wise behaviour in the
community communication, waste minimisation
programmes and community development. Until
recently, the term education was applied to all
communication, information and engagement
programmes for waste minimisation. While education
can help raise awareness of a problem, it is less reliable
in fostering change in peoples daily behaviour. There
is often a gap between what people know, what they
intend to do and what they actually do. Techniques
such as community-based social marketing (CBSM),
developed specifically to address this gap, have been
used successfully elsewhere to foster waste wise
behaviour. While education will remain an important
part of the plan, CBSM will be used in the design
Figure 6: Everyday waste reduction actions

Establish and
maintain compost,
bokashi or worm farm
Mulch lawn clippings
and garden waste
Separate and correct
set out of organic
Buy only as much fresh food
waste
as needed, reuse left-overs
Separate and correct set
out of recycling
Avoid, recycle and
reuse construction
and demolition waste
Organics
ti o
r u c li ti o
t
s
n
Co
o
em
and d
Li
eg tter
a
al
du n d
mp
ing
H az
Buy products with

recyclable packaging or
no packaging at all
n d Pa p e
r
p
a
cka
gi n g
Buy economy sized

products, concentrates
and refills
a rd
ou
Handle, store and dispose of

hazardous waste safely
s
Inorganics
a n d s p e cial
Avoid and reduce the use

of hazardous substances
Put litter in its place

secure your rubbish
ill
Refuse set out and

secured
Use waste
exchanges and
brokerage
services
Separate and
book inorganic
collection
Separate and
drop off of
hazardous and
special waste
Join extended producer

responsibility and
industry accreditation
programmes
Trade, gift
Buy products
and exchange
with extended
reusable goods
producer
responsibility or
waste reduction
credentials
of waste minimisation programmes, and be one of

the underpinning parts of education, communication,
community engagement and empowerment activities.
Communication
Innovative and engaging campaigns will be developed.
They will include a set of consistent and clear
waste-wise messages. Campaigns will play an important
part in supporting the rollout of new services, and will
link to education and support activities.
Education
Curriculum-linked programmes within schools build
understanding and create a sense of responsibility
around waste. Schools are also focal points within
communities and young people are important role
models for parents and wha- nau. The WasteWise schools
programme will continue and be expanded to more
schools across the region.
Community engagement
Direct engagement with households and communities
through household visits, workshops and other activities
is an important way to encourage waste-wise behaviour
at home. Targeted community engagement programmes
will help communities implement practical waste
minimisation solutions at home.
Community development
A community development approach may be most
effective in some communities, where service changes
are likely to have more impact. This means engaging
with groups such as NGOs, trusts and the volunteer
sector, who know their communities well and have
strong networks and experience in communicating with
local people. Programmes that build capacity in specific
communities and have social, economic, environmental
and cultural outcomes will be explored in order to
develop community understanding, involve people in
solutions and create lasting change.
Business partnerships
Businesses are an intrinsic part of our communities,
providing social and economic support. Work and
home practices are closely linked. It is proposed
to continue working with small-to-medium sized
businesses under existing programmes and to explore
ways to strengthen these relationships. Partnerships
with business associations and industry groups, will
be key.
Evaluation and research

An evaluation framework will be developed to track
the progress of the communication, education and
community development activities in this plan, and
continually improve them.
Action:

The council will implement a continued

and intensive community education,
engagement and community
development programme during and
after implementation of the plan.
Consideration will be given to the use
of more than the official five languages
(given the multi-cultural nature of
Auckland) when reaching into particular
communities.
Targeted programmes will be developed
and implemented to assist and inform
communities on how to reduce waste.
The council recognises that community
education, engagement and development
are not one off or one-size-fits-all
processes they need to be ongoing
and linked to other council programmes
as much as possible.
The council will work in partnership
with the active network of communitybased organisations focused on waste
reduction in the engagement and
education aspects of the rollout and
ongoing implementation of the plan.
Specific actions are described in section 3.2.
3 Actions and
Implementation
As discussed in part A of this waste management and
minimisation plan (WMMP), the formation of
Auckland Council represents both a significant challenge
and a unique opportunity for waste minimisation in
the region. Part A shows how the present system is
structurally unlikely to deliver the waste reduction
outcomes required under the councils new strategic
direction, and central government legislation. A step
change is required. To this end, this plan includes the
following actions as the best means of charting a
course towards Zero Waste.
The actions have been developed to ensure that
waste management and minimisation is effective and
efficient, and reduces potential for public harm, as
required by the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA).
By adhering to the waste hierarchy model, the actions
will also maximise the economic potential of the
Auckland regions waste stream.
Under the plan, actions will be implemented over a
short to medium timeframe. They will drive changes
in behaviour, efficiencies in waste management and,
ultimately, a significant reduction in waste per capita.
They will not only align waste and recycling outcomes
with legislative requirements, but will also help
Auckland reach its goal of becoming one of the
most liveable cities in the world.
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 list the full range of actions
the council will take towards its short to medium
and long-term goals with a brief detail/description,
funding method and timeframe for implementation
added.
Actions fall into two broad categories:
1. policy and operations

2. communications and waste
minimisation programmes.
Policy and operations actions describe how the council
will change and implement services across the region.
Communications and waste minimisation programmes
actions provide the support needed to ensure the
success of the changes, along with ongoing programmes
for businesses, schools, and the community.
RESIDENTS AND VISITORS are ABLE

TO RECYCLE IN PUBLIC AREAS.
3.1 waste policy and

operational actions
Waste Policy Actions
3.1.1 Standardise funding methods for domestic waste and recycling services
Action
Detail/Description
What this will mean

for households
Timeframe
Residential properties:
Fund kerbside refuse
collections through
disposer-pays
Disposer-pays funding will be introduced for

kerbside refuse collections across the region.
Refuse charges will be set to cover more than the
cost of collection and disposal of refuse to landfill,
with the surplus used to fund waste reduction and
recycling initiatives in accordance with Section
46 of the WMA.
Residents will pay directly for the waste they

produce and will have an incentive to reduce
the amount they put out at the kerbside.
Charges will be commercially competitive.
2015
(July onwards)
Fund kerbside recycling

collections through
private-good funding
Private-good funding of kerbside recycling

collections means the costs of this service will be
paid for through rates, surpluses generated from
disposer-pays refuse charges, waste levy funds or
a combination of these methods.
Kerbside recycling services will appear free to

residents as there will not be a direct charge.
As a result, residents will have an incentive to
recycle as much as possible to reduce the cost
of refuse disposal.
2015
(July onwards)
Fund organic waste collection

through private-good charging
Fund regional inorganic
collection through rates
Subject to a procurement process, an organic

waste (food waste only or food waste plus green
waste) collection will be tested and implemented.
The service would be private-good funded
(supported through rates, surpluses generated
from disposer-pays refuse charges, waste levy
funds or a combination of these methods).
Because there is no user-charge for the service

there will be an incentive to put organic waste
in the organic waste bin rather than the refuse
bin and thus reduce residents refuse volumes.
2015
(July onwards)
Fund regional inorganic

collection through rates
Inorganic collections will be funded through rates.
Residents will not pay any direct disposer-pays

charge for this service.
2015
Fund litter collection services,

public recycling, hazardous
waste services and removal
of illegal dumping through
public-good funding
All litter services (collection of loose litter,

emptying litter bins etc), public recycling services
and illegal dumping enforcement will be paid for
through public-good funding (rates).
Residents will not pay any direct user charges

for these services. As they are classified as a
public-good they will be funded through rates.
2015
(July onwards)
Fund kerbside domestic-type

refuse collections through
disposer-pays
Disposer-pays funding will be introduced for

kerbside refuse collections in areas where they
are currently rates-funded. Refuse charges will be
set to cover more than the cost of collection and
disposal of refuse to landfill, with the surplus used
to fund waste reduction and recycling initiatives
in accordance with Section 46 of the WMA.
Businesses will pay directly for the waste they

produce and will have an incentive to reduce the
amount they put out on the kerbside.
2015
(July onwards)

recycling services through
private-good funding
Private-good funding of kerbside recycling

collections means the costs of this service will
be met through rates, surpluses generated from
disposer-pays refuse charges, waste levy funds or
a combination of these methods. If businesses
require additional bins or collections, requests will
be considered on a disposer-pays basis.
Standard kerbside recycling services will appear

free to businesses as there will not be a direct
charge. As a result businesses will have an
incentive to recycle as much as possible to
reduce the cost of refuse disposal.
2015
(July onwards)

organic waste collection
through private-good funding
An organic waste (food waste only or food waste

plus green waste) collection would be privategood funded (supported through rates, surpluses
generated from disposer-pays refuse charges,
waste levy funds or a combination of these
methods).
Because there is no user-charge for using the

service there will be an incentive to put organic
waste in the organic waste bin rather than the
refuse bin.
2015
(July onwards)
Commercial properties:
3.1.2 Advocate for legislative change

What this will mean
for the region
funding
method
CDL is seen as an effective means of dealing

with the costs of collecting recyclables,
as well as offering significant community
benefit. It would significantly increase the
number of beverage containers recovered
and recycled in Auckland and would reduce
kerbside collection and litter costs. It cannot
be implemented regionally so would need
to be introduced as a nationwide scheme
by central government. The council can
advocate for its introduction on the basis
that it is a scheme that transfers the majority
of the costs of recovery and recycling from
ratepayers to producers and consumers,
in keeping with the intent of the WMA.
Opposition from some parts of industry will
be reviewed before advocacy starts.
When purchasing a beverage, consumers

would pay a small deposit, which would be
refunded when they return the container
to a recycling centre. Recycling rates would
increase, leading to less litter and reduced
waste and recycling service costs. Depending
on how the scheme was administered there
would be opportunities for small businesses
and community enterprises to run collection
depots.
Public-good
funded
2012 ongoing
Encourage industry
and advocate to
the government to
develop solutions
for products that
need priority
attention such
as nappies and
incontinence pads,
TVs (especially
during the digital
TV changeover),
tyres, construction
and demolition
waste, batteries and
e-waste
Electronic waste, tyres and batteries pose a

significant threat to the environment when
disposed of incorrectly. Product stewardship
schemes would ensure they are recovered
and recycled, or disposed of correctly.
Collection and consolidation points could
be provided at RRN facilities. Nappies (and
incontinence pads) and construction and
demolition waste contribute significantly to
the amount of waste going to landfill.
Residents would be able to dispose of these

products in an environmentally responsible
manner. There will be less need for inorganic
collection services and less waste would
be put in kerbside refuse collections.
Manufacturers will have more incentive to
design products for recovery and recycling.
Public-good
funded
2012 ongoing
Advocate for
amendments to
the WMA to give
industry the same
waste minimisation
obligations as local
authorities
It is estimated that around 30% of material

going to landfill could be diverted to
beneficial use (recycling, composting, etc.),
yet there is no legal imperative for industry
to reduce waste to landfill. Amending
the WMA to give industry the same
responsibilities as local authorities would
significantly reduce the amount of waste
sent to landfill.
The amount of waste sent to landfill

would decrease significantly and Auckland
would move much faster towards its Zero
Waste goal.
Public-good
funded
2012 ongoing
Action
Detail/Description
Advocate for the

introduction of
Container Deposit
Legislation (CDL)
subject to further
discussion with
industry
Timeframe
3.1.3
investigate enacting a waste bylaw
Action
Detail/Description
Investigate
developing and
enacting a waste
bylaw by 31
October 2012 to
support the aim and
intent of this plan
Existing bylaws expire on 31 October 2012.

Development of a bylaw may be required if
it is determined to be the most appropriate
method of regulation. In accordance with
Section 56 of the WMA:
(1) A territorial authority may make bylaws
for one or more of the following purposes83:
a.
prohibiting or regulating the deposit

of waste
b.
regulating the collection and

transportation of waste
c.
regulating the manner of disposal of

dead animals including their shortterm storage pending disposal
d.
prescribing charges to be paid for

the use of waste management and
minimisation facilities provided, owned
or operated by the territorial authority
e.
prohibiting, restricting or controlling

access to waste management and
minimisation facilities provided, owned
or operated by the territorial authority
f.
prohibiting the removal of waste

intended for recycling from receptacles
provided by the territorial authority by
anyone other than:
What this will mean

for the region
funding
method
A bylaw will help ensure households and

businesses use waste and recycling systems
correctly, so they do not present a hazard or
inconvenience to others. Alongside intensive
education programmes the council will have
the ability to ensure that those who do not
act responsibly are penalised.
Public-good
funded
2012 ongoing
Public-good
funded and
fees from
licensing
operators.
2012 ongoing
Timeframe
The proposed waste bylaw would consider

requiring both community-based and
commercial waste industry and waste
reduction organisations to provide relevant
information of a non-commercial nature
for monitoring purposes and community
education.
i the occupier of the property from

which the waste in the receptacle
has come; or
ii a person authorised by the territorial
authority to remove the waste.
(2) A bylaw must not be inconsistent with
the territorial authoritys waste management
and minimisation plan.
The bylaw may also address issues such as
unsolicited advertising material, shopping
trolleys, clothing bins, multi-unit dwellings
and abandoned vehicles. It could also
consider a significant increase in the littering
and illegal dumping fines.
Investigate
developing and
enacting a cleanfill
regulation
Investigate, draft and adopt a bylaw

prohibiting disposal of certain construction
and demolition materials in landfills and
cleanfills, and regulating cleanfills.
83 Waste Minimisation Act (2008) section 56
Reusable and recyclable material will be

diverted to beneficial use.
Waste Operational Actions

3.1.4
Move towards consistent domestic waste and recycling services across the region
What this will mean
for households
funding
method
Timeframe
Residents will be offered a range of

wheelie bin sizes for refuse from 60 to
240 litres (one per dwelling). Wheelie bins
will be manufactured with RFID tags that
automatically debit the residents prepaid
account when the bin is emptied. Different
charges will apply for emptying different
sized bins. Collection will be available
fortnightly on a specified day, but residents
who do not put their waste out will not
be charged. Bins will not be emptied if the
resident's account does not have sufficient
credit (although some discretion is expected
in the transition time). A waste account
will be created for all residents (one per
dwelling).
Residents will be able to manage their

waste costs through choice of bin size and/
or frequency of collection. They will be able
to choose the bin size that best meets their
households needs but the smaller the bin,
the less they will pay. A fortnightly collection
service will be offered, but residents can
choose to put their bin out less frequently.
Disposer-pays
2015
Introduce a
disposer-pays mixed
bag and wheelie
bin service for
rural areas and the
Hauraki Gulf Islands
A disposer-pays mixed bag and wheelie bin

kerbside refuse collection will be provided
in rural areas and the Hauraki Gulf Islands.
Residents will have the option of bin size and
capacity ranging from 60 to 240 litres.
Rural residents and Hauraki Gulf Island

residents will be able to use prepaid bags
for refuse. They will also have the option
of an RFID-tagged wheelie bin (of varying
capacity). Charges will reflect the added cost
of the service, and on HGI will be partially
subsidised.
Introduce a
council-provided
collection service in
the former Rodney
District Council area
A disposer-pays bin service would be offered

in urban areas of Rodney and a mixed bin or
bag service in rural areas.
Action
Kerbside refuse
collection
Introduce wheelie
bins in urban areas
for those areas that
currently use bags
Kerbside recycling
collection
Introduce larger
wheelie bin and
expanded range of
materials
Detail/Description
Residents will be offered a range of wheelie

bin sizes from 140 to 360 litres (one per
dwelling). Recyclable materials will be
collected fortnightly. The range of materials
collected will be expanded to potentially
include all plastics (codes 17), aluminium
and steel (including clean aluminium foil and
empty aerosol containers), glass bottles and
jars, and Tetra Pak milk and juice cartons.
Residents will have more choice in bin size

and can choose one that best fits their needs.
The wider range of materials accepted means
more material will be able to be diverted
from residents refuse bins, reducing refuse
disposal costs.
Roll out a fully

commingled
service across
the region (once
existing collection
and processing
contracts expire)
The recycling service will be commingled

across the region. However, if industry can
close the funding gap for separate collection
of glass and/or paper and there is no net
cost to the council, there is potential for
these materials to be collected separately.
Households would be able to put all materials

in one bin with a fully commingled collection.
With separate collections an additional
receptacle may be required.
Trials for separate

glass and paper
collections will be
carried out subject
to industry funding
Further details in section 2.3
2015-2019
Private-good
funded
2015
2012
onwards
Kerbside organic
waste collection
Introduce a new
collection for
organic waste (food
waste only or food
waste plus green
waste)
Pilots will be carried

out to find the
right solutions for
Auckland
Inorganic collection
Introduce a regional
collection for
inorganic waste
Residents will be provided with a service

for diverting organic waste from refuse,
which would be private-good (rates) funded.
Residents who have an alternative for
private disposal to beneficial use (e.g. home
composting, bokashi, feeding to animals,
insinkerator, etc.) can continue using
alternative methods and will not need the
new service.
This will be a new service for residents. It will

provide an opportunity to reduce the amount
of residual waste they put in their refuse bin
by up to 50%. The service will be privategood funded.
Private-good
funded
Further details on trials in section 2.4
Up until 2015 residents will be able to

dispose of one cubic metre of inorganic
material every one or two years. The council
will monitor and enforce the collection
system as well as illegal dumping and
commercial scavenging to minimise negative
impacts. The existing booking system for
Waitakere will continue with an improved
methodology and rates funding. After 2015
the council will provide an annual on-site
booking service along with resource recovery
facilities to drop off goods and materials
outside of the collection period.
2015
2012
onwards
Residents will eventually have access to

a system that enables them to dispose of
goods and materials in a way that maximises
resource recovery.
Rates-funded
2015
Exploratory work
will be carried
out on extending
potential resource
recovery systems,
successful resource
recovery initiatives
and fundraising
initiatives
Further detail in section 2.5
2012
onwards
Work with local

boards to discuss
potential for
resource recovery
centres and
review inorganic
collections
2012
onwards
3.1.5 Services for the commercial sector

What this will mean
for the region
funding
method
Businesses, in some of the former councils,

were offered household kerbside refuse
and recycling services. These services will
continue while an investigation into future
service provision is undertaken.
There will be no disruption to services while

the council investigates options.
Public-good
funded
2012-2015
Introducing RFID-tagged wheelie bins

for domestic collections would give the
council the ability to offer the same suite
of services to businesses, with the potential
for increased collection frequency. Refuse
collection would be on a disposer-pays basis,
and recycling would likely be private-good
funded for one bin, with disposer-pays
charging for additional bins. Organic waste
collections, if provided, would likely be
provided on a similar basis. The investigation
would determine what demand there is
for the services and how they would be
implemented (including receptacle type,
etc.). Special consideration would be
given to the needs of businesses in central
business districts.
Businesses would have access to services

that allow them to sort and recycle their
non-trade waste (e.g. from lunchrooms,
offices, etc.). Although they would pay for
additional recycling services (over and above
those provided through the targeted rate)
this would be less than refuse collection
charges, providing an incentive to recycle.
Providing consistent recycling services at
home and work will help reinforce the waste
minimisation message throughout the region.
Public-good
funded
(investigation)
2012/2013
(investigation)
Disposer-pays
funded for
refuse
2015
(implementation)
Action
Detail/Description
Continue to provide
household kerbside
collection services
to businesses that
currently receive
them
Investigate options
for providing
household kerbside
collection services
to businesses (i.e.
for non-trade
waste) throughout
the region
Timeframe
Private-good
funding for
recycling and
organic waste
collections
Investigate and
develop ways
of responding
to domestic
inorganic material
from commercial
properties
Public-good
funded
(investigation)
2012
onwards
Publicise reputable
businesses that
provide for reuse
and recycling of
particular products
on its website and
elsewhere
Public-good
funded
2015
3.1.6 Multi-unit properties

What this will mean
for the region
funding
method
The council will work with the Waitemata

Local Board and any other interested local
boards, developers, the waste industry
and residents, to find solutions for waste
management and minimisation services for
multi-unit dwellings. Guidance material will
be made available and practical assistance
provided from the waste rangers service.
Occupants of multi-unit properties will be

provided with the same level of waste and
recycling services offered to other residents
in the region. The council will enable body
corporates to provide their own service
solutions.
Public-good
funded
2012/2013
The council will ensure that the unitary plan

and waste bylaw stipulates that adequate
handling and storage systems for waste and
recyclable materials must be designed and
constructed in new multi-unit properties.
Adequate waste and recycling systems will

be available and easy to use for building
occupants.
Public-good
funded
2012/2013
Action
Detail/Description
Develop services
for multi-unit
residential
properties (10 or
more units)
Ensure handling and

storage systems for
recyclable materials
are provided in new
multi-unit
residential
developments
Timeframe
3.1.7
Provide kerbside recycling collections for schools
Action
Detail/Description
Offer schools a
council-provided
recycling service
and programme
There are approximately 560 primary,

intermediate and secondary schools in the
Auckland region. All will be offered wheelie
bins to enable them to participate in
kerbside recycling. A collaborative process
with the private sector will be initiated
to work out, if possible, a complementary
service delivery model to best support the
needs of schools. Other services will be
considered.
What this will mean

for the region
funding
method
Timeframe
All schools will be able to participate in

council-run kerbside recycling collections. As a
result there will be significant increase in the
amount of recyclable materials recovered.
Waste levy
2012 ongoing
What this will mean

for the region
funding
method
Timeframe
3.1.8 Develop a Resource Recovery Network

Action
Detail/Description
Develop the
resource recovery
network (RRN)
infrastructure
The concept of a resource recovery network

is a longer-term project. Strategically located
resource recovery parks and recycling
depots could provide local facilities to
maximise the diversion of waste from landfill.
They would support a range of initiatives
including organics collection, inorganic waste
processing, construction and demolition
(C&D) waste drop-off and processing,
hazardous waste drop-off and reusable goods
drop-off and resale. The RRN could make
these initiatives more cost effective and
convenient for the public and businesses.
It would have to be developed in stages. As
the first stage the council will coordinate
a collaborative dialogue with industry, the
community/voluntary sectors and iwi/Ma-ori
organisations. Further detail in 2.6.
Greater opportunities for resource recovery

will be provided to residents. When the RRN
is fully developed, businesses and residents
will have access to facilities where they can
drop off and purchase a wide range of used
goods and materials. The RRN will provide
services to residents whenever they need
them not just when a collection is occurring
(e.g. for hazardous waste, inorganic material).
Small businesses and community enterprises
could possibly run recycling depots.
Private-good
funded and/
or other
mechanisms
such as
the Waste
Minimisation
Fund
2013 ongoing
Establish hazardous
waste drop-off and
handling capacity at
resource recovery
facilities
The development of a network of drop-off

points for hazardous waste, and a
phasing out of the Hazmobile service.
When resource recovery facilities are

operating residents will be able to drop off
hazardous material (batteries, chemicals, etc.)
at resource recovery facilities at any time
not just when there is a collection.
Domestic
public-good
funded.
Commercial
disposerpays
2012 ongoing
Establish facilities
for construction and
demolition (C&D)
recovery within the
RRN
Large scale facilities for collecting and

processing C&D materials could be
developed as part of the RRN. Links will be
developed with existing private operations
and with organisations involved in promoting
C&D waste reduction. The council does not
intend to be in competition with current
C&D recovery businesses but (similar to the
green waste industry) will collaborate to
maximise C&D recovery and will potentially
plug gaps in logistics or locations.
Residents and businesses will be able to take

unwanted or waste materials to a facility
near them for sorting and recovery. The
facilities will provide feedstock for private
businesses dealing in recovered materials.
Private-good
funded and/
or other
mechanisms
such as
the Waste
Minimisation
Fund
2012 ongoing
Link an enhanced
waste exchange/
waste brokering
service with the
RRN
Enhanced internet-based waste exchange/

waste brokering services will be developed
to link with the RRN and provide a way to
advertise and sell materials collected through
the RRN.
Private and commercial customers will be

able to easily locate or sell used goods and
materials anywhere in the region without
physically going through the RRN.
Private-good
funded
2012 ongoing
3.1.9 Increase diversion of reusable items

Action
Detail/Description
Pilot a councilrun sell on behalf

of service for
unwanted items
of value
Most residents have items of value they

dont want. Many of these are disposed of
via the inorganic collection simply because it
is the easiest option. One solution is for the
council to offer a sell on behalf of service to
complement the inorganic booking service
(which would mainly deal with items of no or
low value) for those people who did not want
to take the time and energy to use current
services such as Trade Me. A specialist team
would identify and collect items suitable
for sale through a trading website or other
means. The council would take a commission
from the sale with the proceeds returned to
the residents or a charity.
3.1.10
What this will mean

for the region
funding
method
Residents would have a way to dispose of

goods and materials that might otherwise
accumulate on their properties or be disposed
of via the inorganic collection. Although many
people sell goods and materials via trading
websites, there are many who, for a variety of
reasons, cannot, or do not wish to do so.
Private-good
funded
Timeframe
2012-2014
Foster new ideas and support community waste minimisation initiatives

What this will mean
for the region
funding
method
The council will explore initiatives to enable

local enterprises and mana whenua to
participate in resource recovery and waste
minimisation activities. Opportunities
will emerge for local enterprises with the
development of the resource recovery
network and through initiatives such as
the sell on behalf of service for unwanted
items, product stewardship schemes,
and community education programmes.
Opportunities will also be explored to use
indigenous knowledge to support research
into indigenous waste practices and to
support Ma-ori communities developing
innovative solutions for their communities.
Supporting local enterprise and mana whenua

by facilitating opportunities for involvement
in resource recovery and waste minimisation
initiatives will engage the community
and increase local economic development
opportunities.
Public-good
funded
2012 ongoing
Establish a grants
scheme to support
community
initiatives
focused on waste
minimisation
Some of the former Auckland councils

ran grants schemes for community
waste minimisation initiatives. Auckland
Council will build on these models and
develop a funding scheme framework to
support community initiatives that reduce
waste to landfill. The scheme will have a
$500,000 funding pool and will be open to
business, the community/voluntary sector
and iwi/Ma-ori organisations. The council
could complement this by applying for
additional funds from the Ministry for the
Environments contestable funding pool.
The criteria for the fund will be focused
on the seeding of new initiatives including
developing business and community-based
resource recovery centres and programmes.
Small grants will support the development of

local waste minimisation initiatives and foster
new ideas and community buy-in. Clear
funding criteria, a requirement for measurable
waste reduction and good case studies will
ensure funds are used efficiently. Initially
a small political subgroup of the council
will be set up to allocate funds under the
grants scheme.
Waste
levy and
application
to the Waste
Minimisation
Fund
2012
(development
of funding
scheme
framework)
2013 ongoing
(provision of
scheme)
Support competitions
that encourage
secondary school
and tertiary
students to develop
innovative solutions
to intractable waste
challenges
The council needs to demonstrate its

openness to new ideas and responsiveness
to the creativity and talent of young New
Zealanders. Support would be provided to
competitions to encourage lateral thinking
around some of the intractable waste
challenges. Competitions could be run in
partnership with central government and the
private sector.
The region is likely to benefit from new

creative entrepreneurial thinking on
intractable waste problems.
Application
to the Waste
Minimisation
Fund/partial
sponsorship
2013
Action
Detail/Description
Investigate and
develop initiatives
that will enable
local enterprises
and mana whenua
involvement in
resource recovery
and waste
minimisation
activities
Timeframe
3.1.11
Public place recycling and events

What this will mean
for the region
funding
method
Continued support for public place recycling

to be delivered in the most cost effective
way, including the provision of public
recycling bins to encourage people to recycle
when they are away from home. Local board
input will be sought on the installation of
new bins. Alternative funding options will be
investigated to cover the cost of servicing
bins. Consistent wording on bins will be used
across the region.
Residents and visitors will be able to recycle

in public areas as they do at home, reinforcing
the waste minimisation message.
Public-good
funded
2012 ongoing
Work towards all

events organised by
the council and on
council properties
to be run as Zero
Waste events
Work towards all events organised by the

council or held on council properties and
parks to be run as Zero Waste events
meaning they will be planned in such a way
that as little waste as possible goes
to landfill.
Recycling facilities will be provided at all

events and waste minimisation will be
considered during event planning.
Public-good
funded
2013 ongoing
Develop a consistent
framework for waste
minimisation and
litter prevention
at events
A framework for waste minimisation and

litter prevention at events will be developed.
This will include development of guidance
material and supporting public information.
Event organisers will have access to clear

guidance and support.
Public-good
funded
2012/2013
Action
Detail/Description
Provide public place

recycling bins
3.1.12
Timeframe
Manage and reduce litter and illegal dumping

What this will mean
for the region
funding
method
Some of the former councils provided a

loose litter collection service. Auckland
Council will provide a consistent service
across the region.
Litter will be managed consistently across the

region, leading to a cleaner environment.
Public-good
funded
2012 ongoing
The council will adequately resource litter

and illegal dumping abatement. Extra
enforcement measures will sit alongside
the communication and community
engagement programmes planned.
The council has adopted a new litter
infringement schedule. In addition to
enacting a waste bylaw, the council can:
Residents will enjoy a cleaner, litter-free

environment. Litter collection and disposal
costs (funded through rates) will be reduced.
Public-good
funded and
licensing fees
2012 ongoing
Action
Detail/Description
Provide consistent
loose litter
collections across
the region
Actively enforce and
control littering and
illegal dumping
appoint warranted litter officers

and litter wardens
advocate for container

deposit legislation
run an education and

awareness campaign.
Timeframe
3.1.13 Hauraki Gulf Islands

What this will mean for the
Hauraki Gulf islands (HGi)
funding
method
The council will carry out further work with

HGI local boards (Waiheke, Great Barrier
and Rodney) to determine the level of
service provision and the level of disposerpays charging and subsidies with the final
decision resting with the governing body.
The level of the charge should not be less
than on the mainland.
There may need to be a trade-off between

refuse charges and service level provision.
Public-good
funded
2012/2013
Introduce a mixed
disposer-pays
bag/wheelie bin
collection service
for refuse
A choice of prepaid refuse bags or disposerpays wheelie bins will be provided on HGI.
Residents will have the choice of using bags

or bins for refuse. Both will be disposer-pays.
Disposerpays and
public-good
funded
2013-2015
Develop a workable,
accessible system
for boat users to
enable a disposerpays system to
work effectively
A system will be developed, to ensure boat

users pay their share of refuse disposal costs.
Boat users will pay their share of the waste

services they use, reducing the burden on
island residents. Disposer-pays will provide an
incentive to reduce the amount of
waste produced.
Disposerpays and
public-good
funded
2013-2015
Investigate and
establish organic
waste diversion and
processing systems
on Waiheke and
Great Barrier islands
Organic collection and processing systems

will reduce the amount of refuse sent to
landfill by up to 50%. The type of systems
established will depend on the level of
disposer-pays charging for refuse. Processing
will be undertaken on-island.
Residents and holiday-makers will be able to

reduce their waste disposal costs by using
organic recycling systems. Islanders will have
access to locally produced compost and/or
mulching materials.
Private-good
funded
2013-2015
Explore
opportunities for
local resource
recovery initiatives
on the islands in
collaboration with
residents and local
boards in order to
maximise reuse
and recycling and
to retain as much
material as possible
on the islands
Opportunities for developing local resource

recovery facilities and finding local uses for
locally recovered materials will be explored.
Materials would not need to be shipped off

the islands. Opportunities for local job and
business creation may be developed.
Private-good
funded
2013-2015
Ensure all waste

assets are managed
to comply with
resource consent
and legislative
requirements
All assets, including Claris landfill on Great

Barrier Island, will be managed so they
comply with all consent and legislative
requirements.
The life of waste assets will be maximised,

reducing future costs to ratepayers across
the region.
Public-good
funded
2012 ongoing
Action
Detail/Description
Determine level of
service provision
and level of
disposer-pays
charging for refuse
Timeframe
THE EDUCATION CHILDREN

RECEIVE INFLUENCES
THEIR WORLD VIEWS AND
BEHAVIOUR AS ADULTS.
3.1.14 Corporate Responsibility Walking the talk

What this will mean
for the region
funding
method
Timeframe
Auckland Council has an important role: to

demonstrate good waste-wise practice in its
own operations. The council will therefore
commit to reducing waste from its own
in-house activities by 30% per capita by
2018. The target initially applies only to
normal office waste. Waste arising from
other council activities will be incorporated
progressively in consultation with affected
operational departments. The results of
the waste reduction programme will be as
transparent as possible, and included on
the councils website to demonstrate its
willingness to walk the talk. The progressive
implementation of waste reduction
programmes and targets is regarded as an
obligation on council-controlled organisations
(CCOs) through their Statements of Intent.
The council will adopt best practice in its own

operations and provide a model for other
organisations in the region. Support will be
provided from politicians and staff towards
the in-house waste reduction programmes.
Public-good
funded
2012
ongoing
The council and its CCOs will include clauses

relating to minimising waste and using
recovered materials (where practical) in
contracts for council building, maintenance,
demolition and infrastructure projects.
As a large organisation, the council has the

potential to stimulate demand for local
recovered and recycled materials
(e.g. crushed concrete, compost, etc.).
Public-good
funded
2012 ongoing
What this will mean

for the region
funding
method
Reporting and monitoring will be considered

a part of the profile and consciousness raising
on the need to reduce waste. The council
being transparent about its own waste
reduction will be an upfront way of standing
alongside the community in its efforts.
Public-good
funded
2012
The website would promote businesses

that provide solutions. It would also enable
residents to check on their individual or a
local board and others progress, to gain
comprehensive information on their area.
Public-good
funded
2012
onwards
Action
Detail/Description
Reduce in-house
council waste by
30% per capita by
2018 from 2012
baseline tonnages
Promote waste
minimisation
and the use of
recovered materials
in its contracts
The council will also encourage local reuse

where possible.
3.1.15
Monitoring and reporting
Action
Detail/Description
Develop and
implement a
monitoring and
reporting system to
measure progress
towards targets
Gathering accurate information on how

services are performing is essential for
monitoring progress towards targets and
planning for future demand. The council
will develop clear and transparent
monitoring and reporting systems.
Key areas that require monitoring include
level of service, compliance (with legislative
requirements and regulations), waste
reduction and diversion.
Timeframe
Data will be gathered through community

satisfaction surveys, council records (KPIs
etc), annual Solid Waste Analysis Protocols
(SWAPs) and through the provisions of the
waste bylaw. See Appendix 2 for further
details.
Initiate development
of a multi-functional
interactive website
A multi-functional interactive website will

be developed as a key part of reporting
progress and helping communities and
businesses divert recyclables and find
waste reduction solutions, and to provide
data gathered through the RFID system.
Any new waste bylaw policy development
should include consideration of whether the
council can require both community-based
and commercial waste industry and waste
reduction organisations to provide relevant
information of a non-commercial nature for
monitoring purposes and for community
information.
3.2 Communications and Waste

Minimisation Programmes
Households (WasteWise Neighbourhoods) and Community
The following actions are proposed to communicate with, educate and empower households. These actions will be developed
further within an integrated, community-based, social marketing framework. All actions are funded by government waste levy
funds and public-good funding for the first four years of the plan and then through a mix of public and private-good funding.
3.2.1 Kerbside Refuse and Recycling Collections Support change in service

Action
Description
Timeframe
Change
communications
to affected areas
Develop a high visibility social marketing campaign to all households affected by any service changes.
Learn from experience of other regions campaigns, including Reduce Your Rubbish and Big Clean Up. Likely
methods to include: media, printed material, billboard, TV, radio, community information line, applications
for SMART phones, prompts and reminders (calendars, stickers, kitchen caddies), social media and a new,
dedicated waste website.
2012-2015
Targeted community
education
Develop a programme to encourage communities particularly those with English as a second language,
those who currently put out a lot of refuse, or those that may struggle with a direct refuse cost to adopt
waste wise behaviour before, during and after the transition to disposer-pays. The programme will be developed in consultation with these communities and draw on lessons from the existing targeted community
education programme. Likely methods include local training and employment opportunities, waste ranger
household visits, workshops and presentations.
2012 ongoing
3.2.2 Kerbside Organic waste collections Support new service and ongoing waste-wise behaviour
Action
Description
Timeframe
Intensify
programmes to
encourage uptake
of composting
options.
Intensify programmes to encourage and incentivise the uptake of onsite and home composing across
the region. Composting programmes will encourage conventional composting, worm farming, bokashi
and low waste gardening practices. A range of tools will be used to engage the community, including
workshops, home visits, online tuition, information and incentives. The programmes will also be promoted
to small to medium businesses across the region and link to business engagement initiatives such as
Conscious Consumers.
2012-2015
Targeted community
education
Develop a community-driven programme for targeted areas to encourage uptake of organic waste
collections, composting and other organic waste reduction activities.
2012-2015
Food waste
prevention
Develop new programmes focussed on minimising food waste through purchasing, storage, planning
and preparation, and reuse actions. This could include involvement in the Love Food Hate Waste
programme being implemented in Australia currently, which includes community campaigns and
business partnerships. The programme has multiple outcomes, targeting organics recycling as well
as improved community wellbeing. Likely tools include supermarket tours, competitions and
community workshops.
2012-2015
3.2.3 Other Waste Management and Minimisation Services

support and ongoing behaviour change
Action
Description
Timeframe
Waste rangers for

households
Develop a household programme encouraging good practice behaviour for recycling, organics, avoidance,
reduction and disposal of inorganic, hazardous, special waste and used goods. Likely methods include
household visits, waste information and audits. Build on lessons from current operational activity and focus
on priority areas. Pilot with 500 households before expanding to region.
2012 ongoing
Reusable nappy
programme
The council will continue delivering the existing programme, supporting options available to parents to
reduce the number of disposable nappies they put out in household refuse. The council will explore ways
to expand and intensify efforts to keep parents well informed on solutions for waste reduction. Broaden the
scope and method of delivery to include working in partnership with hospitals, birthing centres and
day-care centres for reusable alternatives.
2012 ongoing
Community-based
e-waste recycling
programme
Develop community-based programmes for reuse and recycling of inorganic and special waste and reusable
goods. Feasibility studies are needed to assess opportunities for community involvement and to partner
with existing national programmes such as the RCNs Community Electronics Recycling. Link to product
stewardship schemes in longer term.
2013
Recycling depots
Develop a programme to support the establishment of recycling depots and social enterprises linked to
the resource recovery network. The aim will be to build community capacity to minimise waste, develop
community-driven projects and generate local employment. Feasibility studies are needed to assess the
economic opportunities.
2014 ongoing
Research and
evaluation
Baseline research to better understand community values, understanding, attitudes and behaviour in regard
to waste, in order to support programme development, social marketing campaigns and ongoing evaluation
of the effectiveness of council interventions.
2012 ongoing
3.2.4 Litter and illegal dumping

Action
Description
Timeframe
Develop anti-litter
campaigns based
on the review of
existing programmes such as
Be a Tidy Kiwi
Be a Tidy Kiwi is a public information campaign aimed at reducing litter. Although widely known,
its effectiveness in achieving behaviour change is unknown. This programme will be reviewed to
determine its contribution to waste minimisation, and for any potential rebranding.
2012 ongoing
'Beautify your
neighbourhood
litter and rubbish
campaigns
Draw on the experience of successful campaigns such as Beautify Your City. Run targeted social
marketing campaigns to change litter, illegal dumping and other non-conforming behaviour in
targeted public places in particular strip shopping streets and shopping centres.
2012 ongoing
3.2.5 Waste Minimisation Learning Hubs

Action
Description
Timeframe
Waste Minimisation
Learning Hubs
Continue to develop the three Waste Minimisation Learning Hubs in Henderson, Waiheke and Onehunga.
These hubs are open to community groups, adult education providers and schools. There is significant
potential to expand the scope of these hubs and also link them to community capacity building projects.
2012 ongoing
Schools
Schools are hubs in their communities and the education children receive influences their world views and behaviour
as adults. The following programmes have been developed over time by former councils in the Auckland region and
have high levels of success. All actions are funded by waste levy funds.
3.2.6 WasteWise Schools

Action
Description
Timeframe
WasteWise Schools
This programme helps schools reduce their waste and promotes waste reduction practices that students
can transfer into their home and everyday life. It provides an opportunity for student-driven solutions for
waste reduction and whole-school involvement in waste minimisation. The programme will be continued
with additional support for schools to implement organic waste reduction systems for educational
purposes. The council will also support the continued development of the waste component
of Enviroschools.
2012 ongoing
WasteWise Schools
communication
Promote WasteWise Schools programme and develop waste education, web-based and e-learning resources
such as podcasts and e-tutorials.
2012 ongoing
Business
Develop an integrated strategy to engage business in targeted waste streams in particular organics and C&D.
Foster local economic activity and new business opportunities in resource recovery and recycling. Build consumer
demand for extended producer responsibility and business leadership in waste reduction.
3.2.7 Business engagement and programmes

Action
Description
Timeframe
Change/ongoing
communications
Carry out a social marketing campaign for business to encourage waste wise behaviours and raise
visibility of key programmes and services. Complete overhaul of website, RENEW database and
development of business communications strategy.
2012 ongoing
'Waste rangers
for business
Develop a new programme that targets the waste behaviour of businesses in CBDs and other public
places and shopping strips. This programme will provide hands-on help to areas with high refuse
outputs and link with town centre and business association initiatives.
2012 ongoing
Conscious
Consumers
Continue to support this new, innovative programme that works with the hospitality industry to reduce
organic and packaging waste. Support expansion of the programme to other industries where appropriate
in the future.
2012 ongoing
Eco Smart business
The council is to participate in and continue to support this national programme targeted at business
in partnership with MfE and the Employers and Manufacturers Association. Recently rebranded, the
programme offers incentives and education to reduce waste in production, packaging, distribution
and service delivery.
2012 ongoing
Waste brokers
for business
Seed funding to develop a pilot Waste Broker Service, a new initiative to link waste producers with recyclers
and reusers, and create efficiencies in materials redistribution. There is potential for this programme to be
delivered directly by the council, local business or social enterprise located within the RRN. This programme
is to be developed using innovative methods and drawing on lessons from other regions.
2012 ongoing
Promote programmes
such as REBRI and
Green Star to
the building and
construction industry
As well as developing resource recovery facilities for receiving and processing C&D waste, and
enacting clean fill regulations, the council can help reduce C&D waste by promoting business
programmes that encourage on-site waste separation, and waste minimisation such as REBRI,
and the Green Star accreditation programme.
2012 ongoing
Investigate
establishing
demonstration
projects
The council will investigate the possibility of establishing demonstration projects to encourage the use of
recovered materials in construction, and to demonstrate waste reduction on construction sites.
2012 ongoing
Acknowledge
successful
businesses
The council will acknowledge businesses that successfully reduce construction and demolition waste.
2012 ongoing
PART D
Appendices
Appendix 1
Auckland Council
Waste Assessment
Attached (CD) or available on
the Auckland Council website at:
www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/wasteplan
Appendix 2
Monitoring and
Reporting FRamework
The council will monitor and report on progress towards
meeting the strategic objectives and targets of the waste
management and minimisation plan (WMMP). This information is
essential for evaluating how services are performing and
for establishing baseline data to assist future planning.
A framework for monitoring and reporting is outlined in this section. Key areas that require monitoring include
waste reduction, level of service, and compliance with legislative requirements and regulations.
Action
Relating
to targets
Relating to strategic objectives
Method of
assessment
Reporting
Collect and report

on quantity,
composition and
destination of domestic
kerbside waste
Short to medium-term
target (30% reduction
per capita in domestic
kerbside waste to
landfill by 2018).
Council records
Annual report
Annual Solid
Waste Analysis
Protocol (SWAP)
assessments
Council
publications
Council
website
Annual report
Council
publications
Council
website
Report on quantity of
commercial waste sent
to landfill
Collect and report on

quantity, composition
and destination of
council-collected
diverted materials
Long-term target
(Reduce council- and
private-sector-influenced
waste to landfill by
30% from the
baseline of 0.8 tonnes
per capita per year in
next 15 years).
Achieving operational efficiencies in

Reducing harm from waste
Preventing organic waste going to landfill
Reducing the councils responsibility

for dealing with end-of-life consumer
products and packaging
Reducing Aucklands reliance on landfill

target (30% reduction per

capita in domestic kerbside
waste to landfill by 2018).

Report on quantity
of materials deposited
in cleanfills (subject to
provision of information)

Long-term target (Reduce
council- and private-sector
influenced waste to landfill
by 30% from the baseline
of 0.8 tonnes per capita,
per year in next 15 years).


Achieving operational efficiencies in

(and cleanfill)
In agreement with
landfill operator to
supply tonnage
data
Bylaw
Council records
Annual report
Annual Solid Waste

Analysis Protocol
(SWAP) audits
Council
publications
Council
website
In agreement with
cleanfill operators
Annual report
Council
publications
Council
website
Annual report
Council
publications
Council
website
Annual report
Council
publications
Council
website
Annual report
Council
publications
Council
website
Bylaw
Council records
Developing an infrastructure to maximise

resource recovery
30% reduction per capita

in council in-house waste
by 2018.
Monitor and review

effectiveness of council
communication and
waste minimisation
programmes
target (30% reduction
per capita in domestic
kerbside waste to landfill
by 2018).
Monitor compliance
with legislative requirements and regulations
of all solid waste assets
and operations

quantity, composition
and destination of
council in-house waste
to landfill
Long term target (Reduce

council and privatesector-influenced waste
to landfill by 30% from
the baseline of 0.8 tonnes
per capita, per year in
next 15 years).
Bylaw

Reducing litter and illegal dumping and

related costs

target (30% reduction per
capita in domestic kerbside

waste to landfill by 2018).


littering incidences, and
on quantity of illegal
dumping


Maximising local economic

development opportunities
Legislative compliance achieved
Council waste
services reporting
Annual Solid Waste

Analysis Protocol
(SWAP) audits
Attitude and
behaviour baseline
survey, with annual
follow up surveys
Solid Waste
Analysis Protocol
(SWAP) audits
Council records
appendix 3:
COMMUNITY
GRANTS SCHEME
FRAMEWORK
Auckland Council will establish a grants scheme to
support community waste minimisation initiatives
(Section C, Section 3.1.10). Following is a brief proposed
framework outlining the purpose of the scheme and how
the grants may be delivered and monitored. Detailed
guidelines will be developed.
Purpose
The purpose of the grants scheme is in accordance with
Section 47 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008:
promote or achieve waste management and

minimisation
reduce waste to landfill, in accordance with the

objectives of this plan
foster new ideas and encourage community

participation in reducing waste to landfill.
Funding criteria
Successful grant applications must:
s upport the strategic objectives and targets

of this plan
lead to measurable waste reduction outcomes.
Funding priorities, aimed at addressing specific parts

of the waste stream (e.g. green waste) or certain issues
(e.g. illegal dumping) may be developed and reviewed
on an annual basis to focus a proportion of funds on
areas that require innovation and/or attention.
Grants may be used to support a wide range of
initiatives from education programmes to building
resource recovery infrastructure, with a focus on seed
funding for new initiatives.
Grant size
The size and number of grants will be determined
once funding priorities are set.
Monitoring and reporting requirements

Successful applicants will be required to submit reports
on the completion of their projects or according to an
agreed timeframe if the project is long term. Auckland
Council will report on the number, size, recipients and
outcomes of grants in its annual plan, on the councils
website and in council publications.
Recipients
The scheme will be open to community groups, local
businesses, marae, schools and other community-based
organisations operating within Auckland.
Grants may be used to support a wide

range of initiatives from education
programmes to building resource recovery
infrastructure, with a focus on seed
funding for new initiatives.
appendix 4:
OPTIONS FOR
DOMESTIC KERBSIDE
ORGANIC WASTE
COLLECTIONS AND
DOMESTIC INORGANIC
WASTE SERVICES
1 Kerbside
organic waste
collection options
In Britain although both separate and combined

collections operate in recent years separate food
waste collections systems have become more popular,
as higher value, beneficial end-products are developed.
In addition, if green waste is needed in the mix, the
amount can be more easily controlled.
There are currently no food-waste-only collections
operating in New Zealand. However, a large-scale
trial of a food-waste-only collection is currently
being conducted in Putaruru where, for a one-year
period, 2200 households are testing a 23-litre, manually
collected, roadside container with a lock-down lid, a
7-litre kitchen caddy, and a supply of biodegradable bags.
Combined food waste and green waste collections are
provided by Timaru District Council87 (which provides
a 240-litre wheelie bin collected fortnightly), and by
Christchurch City Council88 (which provides an 80-litre
wheelie bin collected weekly).
Auckland Council has undertaken extensive research
into the options for organic waste collection and
processing, which can be found in Appendix C of
the Auckland Council Waste Assessment (included
as Appendix 1).
For Auckland the choices are summarised in
the next table bearing in mind the following
key drivers for the council:
There are a number of options to reduce the

50 per cent by weight of domestic refuse collections
that is organic matter going to landfill. Worldwide,
organic diversion systems are generally offered in
two basic ways:
reducing waste to landfill

(and aiming for Zero Waste)
cost
convenience and ease of use for residents
separate green waste and food waste collections
combined green and food waste.
beneficial end products and end uses

(and potential revenue)
health and safety (for contractors)
impact on the private green waste sector.
Each city that has an organic collection operates under

a different regulatory environment with different
incentives and public/private sector involvement so no
system is exactly the same. For example, Toronto has
separate food waste and green waste collections84; and
Vancouver85 and Adelaide86 are introducing food waste
into existing green waste collections.
84 www.toronto.ca/greenbin
85 www.vancouver.ca/projects/foodwaste/index.htm
87 www.timaru.govt.nz/rubbish-and-recycling
86 www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/councils/food-waste-pilot
88 www.ccc.govt.nz/homeliving/rubbish/kerbsidecollection/index.aspx
Organic waste options

Option
Waste diversion
potential estimate
(tonnes per year)
A. Food waste only

60-litre wheelie bin with false
bottom, 23-litre capacity
Up to 48,000 tonnes of
food waste
Automated collection
7000 tonnes of green

waste, through user-pays
incentives
Weekly
Considerations
$13.7 million
1.
Automated collections reduce health

and safety risks.
2.
More food waste diversion than if mixed

with green waste.
3.
More processing options including composting,

and provides flexibility for higher value
products such as stock feed, liquid fertiliser.
4.
Requires source of green waste or tailings

for compost.
5.
Cheaper to operate than combined food

and green waste.
$14.2 million
B. Food waste combined with

a handful of green waste
Net cost
(estimate)
of organic
service only
44,000 tonnes
food waste
Weekly
8000 tonnes
green waste
$26.9 million
C. Separate food
waste and green
waste collections
240-litre wheelie bin for green
waste monthly
28,000 tonnes
green waste

bottom, 23-litre capacity for
food waste weekly
48,000 tonnes
food waste
Automated collection for both
6.
No impact on green waste industry.
7.
Some residents who already have a private

green waste collection would have four bins.
8.
60-litre false bottom bin may be seen

as unusual.
1.
Automated collections reduce health

and safety risks.
2.
Evidence from overseas shows that there is

a trend for mixed food/green waste bins to
capture less food waste than food waste alone.
3.
Additional cost due to larger quantities

being collected.
4.
May or may not increase food waste

volumes diverted.
5.
Minimal impact on green waste industry.
6.
Will attract some green waste already

diverted to home composting or green
waste collection services.
7.
Convenience for residents who only

have a little green waste and do not
want to use it on their sections.
8.
Fewer residents would have four bins.
1.
Large impact on green waste industry as green

waste potentially moves into a council scheme.
2.
Would mean four bins and four (total)

collection systems for most residents.
3.
Likely to reduce costs for residents who

currently contract a private green waste
collection (estimated to be 15% of
households), but may increase costs for
those who do not.
$12.7 million
D. Green waste only

240-litre wheelie bin
1.
Assumes that 100% of green waste currently

going into refuse will be diverted.
2.
Large impact on green waste industry as green

waste likely to move into a council scheme.
3.
Focused on waste stream that makes up only

10% waste to landfill.
4.
Likely to reduce costs for residents who

currently contract a private green waste
collection (estimated to be 15% of
households), but increase costs for those
who do not.
$0
1.
Does not reduce the 50% food waste and green

waste component of current refuse bags/bins
that currently goes to landfill.
$12.7 million
1.
As per Option A in table.
$13.2 million
1.
As per Option B in table.
$9.2 million
2.
As per Option A above.
$9.7 million
2.
As per Option B above.
28,000 tonnes green

waste
Monthly
E. No organic collections
A.a. Food waste only

food waste

incentives
Weekly.
No rural areas or Hauraki Gulf
Islands (HGI) organic collection
B.a. Food waste combined

with handful of green waste
39,400 tonnes food

waste
7200 tonnes green

waste
Weekly
No rural areas or HGI organic
collection
A.b. Food waste only
food waste

incentives
Fortnightly
collection
B.b. Food waste combined

with handful of green waste
60-litre wheelie bin
39,400 tonnes
food waste
Fortnightly
collection
7000 tonnes green

waste
2 Inorganic waste
collection option
Currently Auckland has a mix of kerbside inorganic
collections operated annually or biennially, from the
kerbside, or from within residents properties and
in some areas there is no collection.
Around the world the way cities deal with inorganic
waste or bulky items varies widely. Annual kerbside
inorganic collections like those that feature in parts
of Auckland are not the norm internationally, or in
other large cities in New Zealand.
Some of the more advanced cities in terms of waste
minimisation operate resource recovery centres often
run by the community sector. Residents can drop off
unwanted items at these facilities for reuse or recycling.
Or else bulky goods collected in such a way that
discarded items stay undamaged and can be reused.
This plan envisages the development, over time, of a

network of local resource recovery centres that could
divert more reusable and recyclable items and provide
economic opportunities for the community sector, iwi/
Ma-ori organisations and business, as well as providing
environmental, social and cultural benefits.
Many Aucklanders have, however, become used to the
inorganic kerbside service and appear loath to change
even though in two of the former councils there is either
a booking system or no service provided at all.
The proposed options for inorganic collection in
Auckland are summarised in the table on the next page,
bearing in mind the following key drivers for the council:
reducing waste to landfill (and aiming for

Zero Waste)
cost
health and safety (for contractors and the public)
ease of use for residents.
This plan envisages the development, over time, of a

network of local resource recovery centres that
could divert more reusable and recyclable items
and provide economic opportunities.
Inorganic waste options

Option
Waste diversion
potential
Net cost
(estimate)
Considerations
1. Annual kerbside
collection
Small amount
$10.1 million
1.
Not international best practice.
2.
Informal recycling is perceived to be a natural

exchange of goods.
3.
Commercial scrap metal dealers benefit but in

extracting metals often destroy the reuse or
recyclable potential of articles.
4.
Mess often obstructs footpaths and roads.
5.
Health and safety risks associated with

manual collections, handling sharp objects
and hazardous waste.
6.
Illegal dumping (fly tipping) of commercial waste.
7.
Very few waste collection companies would tender

for inorganic collections.
8.
No feed stock for resource recovery centres.
2. B
iennial kerbside
collection
Small amount
$6.8 million
1.
As (1) above but less cost.
3. Annual collection
from within residents
properties via a
booking system
Potentially more
$4.6 million
1.
Fewer health and safety, security and mess issues.
2.
Links user to waste being picked up.
3.
Reusable and recyclable items more likely to retain

value and go to resource recovery centres.
4.
Concern about potential increase in illegal

dumping did not occur when the system was
introduced in Waitakere as education and
enforcement were increased.
5.
Cost based on Waitakere model with 20%

participation rate.
1.
Households can take reusable items and recyclable

materials to resource recovery centres where they can
be resold or processed.
2.
Local enterprises could operate collection services.
3.
Longer-term solution.
4.
Cost includes reduction in current inorganic cost plus

approximately $1million in cost of building facilities.
Ongoing costs will reduce over time.
5.
As (1) above but less cost.
4. No collection
Resource Recovery
Centres only
2.a. Biennial kerbside

collection except for
Waitakere, Rodney and
Franklin which have booking,
with Waitakere enhanced
recovery
Potentially most
Small amount
-$3.2 million
$6.5 million
Note:
Current inorganic services inherited from the
former councils (mix of annual and biennial kerbside
services, an annual collection from within residents'
properties, drop-off points and no service) currently
cost ratepayers $4.2 million annually.
Limitations:
The figures above are estimates only. Preparation of both
the Waste Assessment and draft Waste Management and
Minimisation Plan has relied on information from multiple
sources including SWAP analyses from former councils, the
Auckland Regional Council Waste Stocktake and Strategic
Assessment 2009, permits, contracts, consents and

annual reports. The accuracy of these sources is contingent on the best information available at the time and the
degree of disclosure from the waste industry.
Financial analysis and modelling has relied on the best
financial information available at the time of drafting
this plan.
The proposed way forward with a rigorous analytical
stepped process with continuous validation of
data and peer review will mitigate the potential for
discrepancies/errors in further waste management
and minimisation planning.
Table of Definitions
Auckland Council Waste Assessment
Provides the necessary background information on the waste and diverted materials streams
that will enable a council to determine a logical set of priorities and inform its activities, as
defined by section 51 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. A waste assessment must be
completed prior to a WMMP being reviewed.
Cleanfill
Any landfill that accepts only material that, when buried, will have no adverse effect on people
or the environment.
C&D waste
Construction and demolition waste.
The council
In this plan, the council generally encompasses the collection of bodies that make up the
Auckland Council family: the governing body, local boards, CCOs and council advisory groups
and panels. For specific actions of the plan, however, the appropriate part of the council will
undertake that action.
Diverted material
Anything no longer required for its original purpose and, but for commercial or other
waste minimisation activities, would be disposed of or discarded.
Domestic waste
Waste from households.
ETS
Emissions Trading Scheme.
Landfill
A disposal facility as defined in section 7 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008,

excluding incineration.
LGA
Local Government Act.
Litter and illegal dumping
Littering is defined in the Litter Act 1979 as: litter includes any refuse, rubbish, animal
remains, glass, metal, garbage, debris, dirt, filth, rubble, ballast, stones, earth, or waste matter,
or any other thing of a like nature. A definition of dumping is that: dumping is not a separate
offence but is littering at the extreme end of the scale that depends on the amount and
nature of the litter that is deposited, the location and circumstances in which the littering
occurs and the resources required to remove the litter.
Mana whenua
Customary authority exercised by an iwi or hapu in an identified area.
Managed fill
A disposal site requiring resource consent to accept well-defined types of non-municipal

waste (e.g. low-level contaminated soils).
Mauri
The life force which all objects contain; a material symbol of a life principle.
MfE
The Ministry for the Environment.
MRF
Materials recovery facility.
MRB
Mobile recycling bin.
NZWS
New Zealand Waste Strategy.
Organic waste
In this plan organic waste refers to food waste (or kitchen waste) and green waste
(or garden waste).
Public places
Although the Litter Acts definition of public places includes public reserves and parks this
WMMP defines public places as spaces frequented by the public that are not privately
owned (e.g. shopping malls) and excludes the parks and reserves network.
RRC
Resource recovery centre.
RRP
Resource recovery park.
RTS
Refuse transfer station.
SWAP
Solid Waste Analysis Protocol (SWAP), an MfE-led baseline programme to provide solid
waste composition information.
Tangata whenua
Indigenous people, people of the land, in New Zealand, the Ma-ori people.
Waste
Anything disposed of, or discarded; and:

includes a type of waste defined by its composition or source (e.g. organic waste,
electronic waste, or construction and demolition waste); and
to avoid doubt, includes any component or element of diverted material, if the

component or element is disposed of or discarded.
Wha-nau
Family, including extended family.
WMA
Waste Minimisation Act 2008.
WMMP
A waste management and minimisation plan as defined in section 43 of the

Waste Minimisation Act 2008.
Auckland council WAste assessment CD
If your copy of the Auckland Council Waste Assessment is not here,

please visit www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/wasteplan or call 09 301 0101.
EUPL-0038 09/12 (plan) AC-1168

ISBN 978-1-927216-13-2 (print)
ISBN 978-1-927216-14-9 (Online)
If disposing of this document, please ensure you separate the wire coil from the pages prior to putting in the recycling bin.
Auckland Council disclaims any liability whatsoever in connection with any action taken in reliance of this document or for any error, deficiency, flaw or omission contained in it.

Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Auckland Waste

PART A: Auckland now and into the future 12

1.1 Context for Auckland waste management

1.2 Legislative and policy framework

VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

2.3 Strategic objectives

2.4 Guiding principles

2.5 Tangata whenua world view on waste management and minimisation

2.6 Role of the council

2.7 Public health protection

2.8 Monitoring and reporting progress

3 THE CURRENT SITUATION: FINDINGS FROM THE

3.1 Summary of key findings

4 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

4.1 Future waste projections

4.2 Future resource recovery/recycling projections

4.3 Summary of future demand drivers

PART C: ACTION PLAN

INTRODUCTION TO THE ACTION PLAN

1.1 Strategic context

1.2 The action plan process

1.3 Criteria for identifying and assessing options

2.2 Kerbside refuse receptacles

2.3 Move towards a consistent domestic kerbside

2.4 Introduce a domestic kerbside organic waste collection

2.5 Regional inorganic collection

2.6 Develop a Resource Recovery Network (RRN)

2.7 Support business - particularly in the construction

2.8 Advocate for product stewardship

2.9 Advocate for amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008

2.10 Facilitate local enterprise

2.11 Investigate enacting a waste bylaw

2.12 Hauraki Gulf Islands

2.13 Implement a Strategic Framework for Communication,

ACTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

3.1 Waste policy and operational actions

3.2 Communications and Waste Minimisation Programmes

Appendix 1: Auckland Council Waste Assessment

Appendix 2: Monitoring and Reporting Framework

Appendix 3: Community Grants Scheme Framework

Appendix 4: Options for Domestic Kerbside Organic Waste

WASTE Management and Minimisation PLAN I 5

S uch as Vancouver (www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste), San Francisco (www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/overview)

the legislative requirement that:

the legislative need to review the seven

the councils adoption of an aspirational

WASTE Management and Minimisation PLAN I 7

THE Plan Includes:

5 The Auckland Plan.

WASTE Management and Minimisation PLAN

WASTE Management and Minimisation PLAN I 9

Key actions/methods proposed

a kerbside collection of organic waste for

a n inorganic collection to dispose of bulky

p rovision of disposer-pays kerbside refuse

waste and recycling services throughout the region

2. provision of consistent domestic waste and

a fortnightly disposer-pays kerbside refuse

a fortnightly disposer-pays kerbside refuse

a fortnightly kerbside recycling collection

If ratepayers adopt the full suite of services, thereby

a 240-litre wheelie bin recycling service for

S ee Part B, section 2 of this report for definitions of public-good,

10 In terms of less waste to landfill and improved resource efficiency.

S uch as Vancouver (www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste), San Francisco (www.sfenvironment.org/our_programs/overview)

a kerbside collection of organic waste for

a n inorganic collection to dispose of bulky

p rovision of disposer-pays kerbside refuse

a fortnightly disposer-pays kerbside refuse

a fortnightly disposer-pays kerbside refuse

a fortnightly kerbside recycling collection

a 240-litre wheelie bin recycling service for

S ee Part B, section 2 of this report for definitions of public-good,

10 In terms of less waste to landfill and improved resource efficiency.

ensuring there is effective reduction, reuse,

managing any environmental harm arising

raise revenue for promoting and achieving

increase the cost of waste disposal to recognise

it is satisfied that the charge or lack of charge

t he plan provides for charges to be set

17 This amount remains unchanged following a recent high

18 These are the two goals of the New Zealand Waste

limate Change (Emissions Trading)