Delivering Key Waste Management Infrastructure Lessons Learned from Europe

1
Delivering Key Waste Management
InfrastructureLessons Learned from Europe

• Presentation by SLR Consulting Limited
• Adam Baddeley Alban Forster
• 15th June 2006

2
Presentation Aims

• Goals of the study
• Summary of Key Findings
• Comparative Performance Analysis
• Approach and Methodology
• Case Studies
• Lessons Learned
• Outline Recommendations

3
Goals of the Study

• Understand if, how and why other EU Member State
  are performing better than the UK in delivering
  key waste management infrastructure
• Review and analyse the relative performance of
  other EU Member States in meeting their targets
  under Article 5 of the Landfill Directive
• To provide detailed analysis of the reasons for
  the development of new waste management
  facilities
• Identify elements of best practice and trends
  across member states which facilitate
  infrastructure development

4
Summary of Key Findings

• No consistent system or approach across Europe
• The best performers have changed (over the last
  10-15 years) through a combination of
• Firm political commitment and early decisive
  action
• Regulatory and fiscal measures consistent with
  waste hierarchy
• Integrated plan development (principally at
  regional level)
• Strong commitment, accountability and ownership
  of waste related issues
• Integration of waste streams for treatment and
  disposal
• All these factors have contributed to a regime of
  certainty and a reduction in risk for local
  authorities and project developers
• The poorer performers have lacked such an
  integrated approach
• Politically inconsistent messages, little
  co-operation between tiers of govt
• Regulatory and fiscal measures contradicting the
  waste hierarchy
• Poor strategic planning capability with lack of
  regional framework
• Weak local accountability and ownership of waste
  related issues
• Lack of integration of waste streams

5
Comparative Performance Review
6
MSW Growth and Generation Rates

• MSW continues to grow in all member states

• Both large and small tonnage countries have
  similar generation rates

7
Composting and Recycling

• France Germany have seen most rapid capacity
  increase in composting

• France, Germany and UK have seen most rapid
  capacity increase in recycling

8
Energy from Waste and Landfill

• France Germany have seen most rapid changes in
  EfW

• Germany Italy show rapid decline, but both
  Spain and the UK show significant increase in
  landfill

9
Summary of Comparative Performance

• High Recycling (gt25)
• Sweden, Germany
• High Composting (gt25)
• Austria
• High R C (gt50)
• Austria
• High Recovery (gt70)
• Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden
• High Landfill (gt60)
• Italy, Spain, Ireland, UK

10
Landfill Directive Performance
4 year derogation
4 year derogation
11
Approach and Methodology
12
Austria
13
Analysis of Key Features (Austria)

• Electoral desire for sound waste management due
  to poor experience of landfill operation
• Widespread district heating

• Large facilities financed by public-private SPVs
  (often state power cos) with prudential style
  borrowing
• Risk typically borne by SPV and/or municipality
  but not regarded as a key constraint

• Regional waste planning and decision-making
• But some influence at municipality level
• Average 10 years delivery for EfW

• 1997 Landfill ban (effective 2004)
• Landfill tax of 65/T (to 87 in 2006)
• Strict regulatory standards

14
Headline Infrastructure Data (Austria)
A further 0.5MTpa capacity is currently under
construction
15
Context (Austria)

• The key drivers in Austria are the Landfill
  Ordinance which has introduced a landfill ban
  and a high level of landfill tax
• (Franka Busic Austrian Government)
• We have a broad regime of certainty, which
  facilitates the development of a wide variety of
  treatment plants
• (VOEB - Austrian Waste Management Association)
• We make a decision at regional or city level
  about the route we want to follow, and then seek
  to follow that strategy for development of
  infrastructure
• (AVE - State owned power / waste company)

16
Austria - Case Study 1

• Durnrohr EfW Facility

Operator - AVN Owner - EVN Technology - EfW
(Moving Grate) Capacity - 300 kTpa Location -
Zwentendorf Commercial Start-up - 2004
Key Features Reason for facility - lack of
landfill space so broad political support Policy
Drivers - landfill ban, landfill tax Funding
Structure - publicly owned, privately
operated Development Timescale - 7 years, plus 3
years construction
17
Austria - Case Study 2
Linz MBT (Composting) Plant
Operator - Linz AG Owner - Linz AG Technology -
MBT (Linde) Capacity - 84 kTpa Location - Linz
(Upper Austria) Commercial Start-up - 2004
Key Features Reason for facility - desire to
use, but conserve large local landfill
void Funding Structure - financed through local
taxation by City of Linz Development Timescale -
3 years (inc. 9 mths planning consultation)
18
Case Studies
19
Eco-port, Amsterdam
Operator - AEB, Gemeente Amsterdam Owner - WEE
Amsterdam (public) Technology - Principally EfW
(Incin) Capacity - 800kTpa (530kTpa in
2007) Location - Amsterdam Commercial Start-up -
1993
Key Features Reason for facility - municipality
wanted it, established culture of EfW Integrated
Recovery - haz waste, sewage sludge, bottom ash
recycling Economies of scale - increased process
scope to reduce investment Planning - not a case
of if permits obtained, but under what
conditions
20
Crobern MBT Facility, Germany
Operator - WEV (public/private) Owner - WEV
(public/private) Technology - MBT Capacity - 300
kTpa Location - Leipzig, Saxony Commercial
Start-up - 2005
Key Features Reason for Facility - existing
landfill and Landfill Ordinance Funding
Structure - joint venture company with SITA
operating facility Planning - local political
support - pre-permit (twin tracked with
licensing) Costs - 70M with 100/t operating
costs - more expensive than EfW!
21
Isseane Recovery Park, Paris
Operator - SYCTOM Owner - SYCTOM ( private
contractor) Technology - Moving-Grate
EfW Capacity - 460 kTpa ( 55 KTpa MRF) Location
- Issy-les-Moulineaux (Paris) Commercial Start-up
- 2007
Key Features Existing site - will replace a 40
year old incinerator on adjacent
site Decision-making - in Departement Plan -
regional then municipal permit Consultation -
local Sentinelles conduct extensive site
monitoring Waste Hierarchy - MRF will be
situated on same site
22
Ecoparc I, Barcelona
Operator - Sociedad Ecoparc S.A Owner - UTE
Ecoparc (PPP) Technology - MBT - AD
(Linde) Capacity - 300 kTpa MSW Location -
Barcelona, Catalunya Commercial Start-up -
January 2002
Key Features EU Cohesion Funds - 36M
represented c.65 of technology
investment Politics - project tied into
modernisation of two existing incinerators Green
Electricity Tariff - electricity from biogas
subsidised at 110 / MWh Three-tier compost
standards - large part of organic output used on
land
23
Lessons Learned
24
Cultural Themes
25
Cultural Themes
26
Cultural Themes
27
Cultural Themes
28
Cultural Themes
29
Cultural Themes
30
Cultural Themes
31
Planning Themes
32
Planning Themes
33
Planning Themes
34
Planning Themes
35
Planning Themes
36
Planning Themes
37
Policy Themes
38
Policy Themes
39
Policy Themes
40
Policy Themes
41
Policy Themes
42
Policy Themes
43
Finance / Ownership Themes
44
Finance / Ownership Themes
45
Finance / Ownership Themes
46
Finance / Ownership Themes
47
Finance / Ownership Themes
48
Outline Recommendations

• Alternative systems of financing, such as
  prudential-style borrowing, underwritten by
  direct (potentially variable rate) local taxation
• Allows a broader spread of risk to make projects
  more acceptable to both contractors and investors
• A clear mandate for Regional Planning Authorities
  to lead waste capacity planning (backed by
  up-to-date, reliable waste data)
• Facilitates shared infrastructure and distances
  local politicians from unpopular decisions
• A transparent system of compensation for local
  communities in which treatment facilities are
  located
• Can ease protests against new facilities whilst
  delivering social infrastructure projects, and
  potentially lower council tax bills
• Integration of strategic planning of MSW
  infrastructure with that for non-hazardous
  industrial wastes
• May result in lower gate fees, fewer total waste
  treatment sites being required, and reduced
  transport emissions

49
Lessons Learned report available _at_
http//www.ciwm.co.uk/pma/2224