| 05 |
Conference |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WasteMINZ
Conference 2005
With 450 registrations, some innovative keynote speakers
and exciting trade exhibits both inside and out of the
hotel venue, it appears everyone went home sated withknowledge
(or food and wine) from the 17th WasteMINZ Annual Conference!
Workshops on Tuesday 1 November facilitated by Ministry
for the Environment staff provided updates on contaminated
sites, contracts, tourism waste and litter, and a report
on climate change projects
relating to waste issues.
The TLA forum was ably led by Bradley Nolan from North
Shore City Council – he’s so on to it that
we’ve got minutes to send to all those who attended.
And if you didn’t attend and would like a copy just
email WasteMINZ at info@wasteminz.org.nz and
we’ll include you in the list.
Ros Sievers from Rotorua District Council and Lisa de
Haan from Materials Processing Ltd led an eager bunch of
resourceful recoverers to the Rotorua Intown Recycling
Centre and travelled to the Landfill Recycling Centre.
Apart from the bus driver going missing for a short time
prior to departure and extra enthusiastic folk joining
the tour this was a successful and busy afternoon.
Tim Charleson presented the contaminated sites workshop
with the success story of groundwater remediation at the
Red Stag Timber Mill, and then led a group of interested
workshoppers to view the site in question.
Ron Salter from Salter’s Cartage gave us a few
words at the conference opening reminding us of the growth
of the ‘waste industry’. His pithy comments
summed up the changing times in waste - five years ago
he was asked for some money to put on the bar – these
days it’s called sponsorship – and costs a
lot of more!
A
screaming banshee in everyone’s rooms at
approximately 1.30am on Tuesday night called
sleepers from one of the accommodation
blocks at the Park Heritage to vacate the building – it was noted
that all the women were wearing the hotel towelling dressing gowns whilst
all the men were fully dressed – make of that what you will!
|
Our plenary session on Wednesday included thought provoking
keynote addresses from Australians Dr Richard Denniss,
Jon Ward and David Hanlon, as well as Professor Des Gorman,
clinical head of medicine at Auckland University. The lunchtime
sponsor on Wednesday challenged delegates to make a direct
link between waste and sustainability, by considering how
much waste they produced during breakfast.
The challenge was to write their answers on the MWH team’s
yellow T-shirts - while they were still wearing them! The
top five entrants to guess closest to thewinning figure
of 83.5kg received
a MWH Digital Pedometer - a much appreciated prize.
Wednesday night saw a huge crowd at Te Puia (Te Whakarewarewa)
where the Pohutu Geyser obliged all night and positively
gushed over us.
Thursday presented a continuing diversity of papers and
people were composting, waste exchanging and tracking waste
amongst other topics!
Finally, denying any sort of exhaustion or over-indulgence,
a large contingent of people headed out to the Agrodome
for the conference dinner where we indulged in guessing
sheep breeds and enjoyed the entertaining Mark Hadlow,
with a closing finale by a ‘Steelcan Band’. |
top
|
From
the Board
The annual conference is always the highlight of the Institute’s
year, and this year was no exception. The thing that came
through most clearly for me from the sessions is that we
are into trying to change people’s behaviour. We
all agree that we need to change society’s behaviour
towards waste and there is general agreement on the goal.
The differences in opinion come in looking at the processes
to reach the goal. This is where the forum of the conference
is so useful. It is an opportunity to celebrate successes,
to share experiences, debate solutions and gain an understanding
of other people’s
perspectives, all wrapped up in an atmosphere that encourages dialogue. As
always, Carole and the conference team did an excellent job to ensure the smooth
running of the conference.
Some issues like hazardous waste, landfills and contaminated
sites are perennial ones, but that doesn’t lessen
their importance. New issues also saw the light of day,
some of which have lain dormant for years. This year waste
levies, organics and safety provided good opportunities
for lively discussion. The waste levies issue in particular
generated a great deal of debate from both sides of the
issue. As Allan Goddard pointed out at the conference dinner,
this issue was debated a decade ago, but nothing came of
it at that time. We learn from history that if you don’t
initially resolve an issue you are destined to go around
the mountain until you reach a decision. Maybe this time
around we will decide on the levies issue.
One of the good things about the sector groups is that
the ongoing search for solutions can now be continued on
a more regular basis. The Board has put in a lot of effort
to allow the formation of these groups to enable us to
become more effective agents for change and it is now up
to the wider membership to take up the opportunities to
utilise and accelerate the process.
Jeff Seadon |
top |
‘Wow!’ is all
I can say – what a busy buzzy boisterous conference.
Everyone piled into the Park Heritage Hotel
in early November with a keen air of anticipation and eagerness
to get on with the job of listening and learning and sharing
news and views. It was great to see many long term attendees
as well as a lot of new faces and companies who were exhibiting.
A successful conference is reliant upon YOU – to
attend, participate and contribute – so we’re
glad you joined us. It was a great sight to see all 450
conference registrants and trade exhibitors meeting new
friends and catching up with old friends, and after a busy
three days I hope you weren’t too shattered.
Comments we’ve received tell us that
the conference is well organised, timely and friendly.
Our Australian friends who joined us for keynote addresses
and workshops, as well as those who were exhibiting, were
very complimentary about the friendliness of people and
added value in their various fields.
Conference organisation from start to finish
is done inhouse and huge thanks are due to the Conference
committee: Allan Goddard, Terry Beckett, Sandy Thomas,
Brian Gallagher, Alison and Lyn. Thanks must also go to
the judges for best written paper, Norm Thom for organising
the papers, Nigel Clarke (who was moving so quickly at
the conference he became a blur), and of course our principal
sponsors EnviroWaste, Nuplex, Ministry for the Environment
and Sulo. Supporting sponsors Salter’s
Cartage, Tonkin & Taylor, Perry Environmental, Chemwaste, Onyx, MWH, Tredi,
Steelcan Recycling, Dominion Breweries, Waste Management NZ Ltd along with
Medi-chem and Electric Hedgehog must all take a bow and accept our profuse
and sincere thanks for their support.
Brian Gallagher of Timaru District Council,
John Webber from the Packaging Council and Mike Huddleston
from Onyx Group have retired from the WasteMINZ Board after
four years’ valuable service. Their contribution
as Board members ensured the continuing growth and provision
of services for members of WasteMINZ. I personally both
appreciated and valued their time and input to WasteMINZ,
and huge thanks are due to them.
With three vacant seats on the board there
were a creditable number of nominees (seven), and I thank
all those folk for their interest. As announced at the
WasteMINZ AGM Paul Bishop (EnviroWaste), Neal Absalom (Omarunui
Landfill) and Charles Willmot (IPENZ) were the successful
contenders for
the three vacant seats. I look forward to working with the Board and continuing
WasteMINZ growth.
Two WasteMINZ members were nominated for
Honorary Membership and the unanimous vote at the AGM sees
John Palmer, from Tauranga District Council and Jim Bradley
from MWH join the ranks of Honorary Members. Jim has recently
been awarded the William Pickering Engineering Leadership
Award (IPENZ) which recognises an engineer who has demonstrated outstanding
leadership and is a role model for engineers. Congratulations to you Jim -
I’m sure all those who work with you or those you’ve helped over
the years will agree this is a well deserved award.
Executive Officer,
Carole Inglis |
top |
WasteMINZ congratulates the 2005
conference winners
Best
Expo Site Winner:
Materials
Processing Ltd.
 |
|
Best
Expo Site Runners-up:
Miltek NZ Ltd
Friendlypak
|
|
Best
Written Paper:
Tony Moore - Christchurch
City Council -‘ Waster Pays – one
year on in Christchurch’ |
|
Best
Written Paper Runner-up:
Dominic Salmon
- 'When the Resource Efficiency Honeymoon is
Over. Launching and maintaining a Resource Efficiency
Programme in Hawke’s Bay’ |
|
top |
WasteMINZ
2005 – Best
Written Paper
Waster Pays – One Year on in Christchurch
By Tony Moore, senior planner, Christchurch City Council
This year’s Best Written Paper sponsored
by Waste Management NZ Ltd at the WasteMINZ Conference
was by Tony Moore, senior planner at Christchurch City
Council. Following is a muchabridged version of Tony’s
abstract. The full version, along with all other papers
presented at the conference, is available here.
This paper provides a case study on the impact of direct
charging for domestic refuse collection in Christchurch.
It is particularly relevant to policy and decision makers
wanting to implement polluter/waster pays policies for
domestic refuse collection and for those with an interest
in the impact and effectiveness of such policies.
Direct charging for waste disposal is a core policy contained
in the New Zealand Waste Strategy and in the waste plans
of councils throughout the country.
In April 2004 Christchurch City Council went part way
to a full direct charging regime for domestic refuse collection.
It halved the number of 50 litre, rate-funded rubbish bags
allocated to each property, to 26 bags per year, and lowered
the annual rates demand accordingly. Case studies from
other cities investigating the impact of direct charging
for refuse collection are not clear because many also include
the introduction of, or improvements to kerbside recycling
services. In the case of Christchurch, the change was made
without altering other waste or recycling services, making
it possible to isolate the impact of moving towards direct
charging in the city.
KEY FINDINGS – ONE YEAR ON
It would be premature to judge the effectiveness of the 26 rubbish bag decision
on the first year of the scheme, however the following observations could
be made about the period from 1 May 2004 to 30 April 2005:
- The cost of providing 26 rubbish bags per year to
each property came off the rates, meaning that the Christchurch
rates are now 1.2% lower than they would have been with
a 52 rubbish bag allocation.
- A 16% (3800 tonne) increase in the total amount collected
in green kerbside recycling crates, with contamination
remaining at previous background levels.
- A 10% (3360 tonne) reduction in the total amount of
waste collected in black rubbish bags. This waste reduction
equates to a saving for the community of nearly $620,000
(at $187per tonne to collect and dispose of the rubbish
bags).
- The total number of rubbish bags used in Christchurch
fell by 34%, indicating that households are making do
with fewer bags (average bag weight increased by 1 kg
per bag), and/or are using bags left over from previous
allocations, or moving to use private collection services.
- A 10% increase in households using private waste collection
services occurred, largely due to waste companies undertaking
aggressive promotional campaigns and public uncertainty
around the decision.
- Illegal dumping or “fly tipping” in the
city has remained at background levels.
- The amount of household rubbish collected in roadside
litter bins increased 15% above long-term trends. A programme
to manage this issue was implemented during the year.
CONCLUSIONS
In spite of an initial reluctance from the public, Council staff have received
relatively few complaints and in some instances letters in support of the
decision have been received. Experience from elsewhere indicates that after
an initial resistance, people accept direct charging for refuse disposal
(“pay as you throw” systems) and see them as a fair way to pay
for waste disposal services and to
minimise waste.
In Christchurch, even moving part way to a direct charging
system for kerbside refuse collection has resulted in waste
minimisation benefits. The 10% reduction in refuse collected
in rubbish bags and the 16% increase in kerbside recycling
are in line with experiences elsewhere and could be replicated
by others. Should the council consider a reduction of theremaining
26 rate-funded rubbish bags it would be prudent
to also increase the opportunities to recycle to avoid further “ leakage” to
private collection services and to litter bins.
Increasing the opportunities for residents to reduce
waste, through improvements to kerbside recycling services,
would provide a balanced carrot and stick approach, which
is generally more attractive to the public and effective
at reducing waste. Confusion through the public debate
and negative reactions to the Council’s decision
were likely to have resulted in a greater shift to private
collections and the use of litter bins for household waste.
Consequently, this paper concludes that moving, even
part way, toward direct charging for domestic refuse collection
is an effective way to encourage waste minimisation, provided
dumping in roadside litter bins and the impact of private
waste collectors are managed. However, greater waste avoidance
and perhaps public acceptance, would be achieved by combining
direct charging with an increased opportunity to recycle
at the kerbside. |
top |
WasteMINZ Conference 2005 - the faces of the conference |
 |
|
Did we see you at the WasteMINZ conference this year? |
 |
top |
|
|
