Prevention Sharing minds, changing life styles

Prevention

Sharing minds,

changing life styles

Jean-Jacques Dohogne – ACR+

Summer School course – San Sebastian July 2011

Testing...

Who buys at least once a month organic or

ecological products?

Who uses his reusable shopping bag 90% of times?

Who is printing both sides 90% of times?

Who is drinking tap water almost all the time?

Who is composting at home or in the community?

Our consumption patterns...

… makes that we are literally eating away our planet and leaving

a huge waste pile

Think globally, Act locally!

Think Life Cycle, Close the Loop!

Sustainable consumption and production

Waste hierarchy, no trade off!

Waste prevention benchmarking is key!


Today







Ecological rucksackR

esou

rce

indi

cato

rs

Ecological rucksack

10 tons kg WEEE

540 tons natural materials

1kg gold

1kg gold

Res

ourc

e in

dica

tors

Source: Umicore 2011

Ecological rucksack

1kg Aluminium85 kg natural materials

3,5 kg recycled aluminium

1kg Aluminium

Res

ourc

e in

dica

tors

Source: Umicore 2011

Ecological footprint

1900’ 1950’ 2010’

1 haEcological

footprint of the rich

countries per person

Productive surface

available per person

5,6 ha

2 ha

3 ha

6 ha

1,4 ha

50.000 kg

Municipal waste – top of iceberg

Source: ACR+, 2011

41.500 kg

600 kg

2900 kg

3500 kg

500 kg

Municipal waste

Industrial waste

Resources

Res

ourc

e in

dica

tors

Switch to vegetarian diet reduces the resource

consumption per person per year with 1600 kg

When will we reach ‘peak oil’?

Res

ourc

e in

dica

tors

50.000 kg

Wake up – we reach several peaks!!

Source: ITRE, 2009

2006-2026

3500 kg

Peak

Res

ourc

e in

dica

tors

Depletion Main area of usage

2055-2100 Energy generation, chemical industry,…

2010-2025 2075 Energy generation

2100 2160-2210 Energy generation

Passed? Drinking, agriculture, industry,…

2020 Electronics, industry, medicine

2020-2030 Electronics, pharmaceuticals

Platinum

Silver

“The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the

same level of thinking we were at when we created them” -

quote Albert Einstein

Res

ourc

e in

dica

tors







Cradle to grave system

Take Make Waste

Life

cyc

le th

inki

ng

Resource Product Waste

Technological & Biological Cycle

of products

Life Cycle Thinking

Rethink

Recycle Reuse

Repair

Reduce

Redesign

Cradle2Cradle

Resources WasteResources Waste

Life

cyc

le th

inki

ng

Products

Source: ACR+, 2011

RESOURCESWASTE

ReuseSelling/ donate

Prepare for reuse

Recycling

Recycled materials

Life Cycle ThinkingLi

fe c

ycle

thin

king

PRODUCT 2nd LIFE & morePRODUCT

1st LIFE

¨PARTS/ MATERIALS

Source: ACR+, 2011

OTHER NEW

PRODUCT







Eco-design requirements for recycled content, recyclability, durability …

Eco-design criteria for packaging

Extended warranty and support for product repair schemes

Promote durability/ banning of planned obsolescence

…

Sust. Cons & Prod. Action Plan

Review prospects 2012

Sus

tain

eble

Con

s. &

Pro

d.

Source: DEFRA 2009

How many of the consumers in Europe buy green products?

Who says more than 30%?

Sus

tain

eble

Con

s. &

Pro

d.

Source: DEFRA 2009

95% would buy green

75% know what a green product is

63% looking for green

47% saw green products

Green Behavior Segments

Source: 2009 GMA/Deloitte Green Shopper Study, studied > than 6,000 shopper experiences in 11 major retailers

22% bought green

Sus

tain

eble

Con

s. &

Pro

d.







Waste hierarchy

Strict avoidance

Waste prevention

Waste minimi-sation

A labelsReduction at source

More efficient

Less efficient

Reuse

Prepare for reuse

Recycling

Inciner. + energy rec.

Lanfilling

B

C

D

E

Was

te h

iera

rchy

Treating waste as a resource

Recycling & composting =

42%

Incineration = 20%

Landfilling = 38%

2030 targets considered in the EC Roadmap Resource Efficiency

Prevention = 15%

Prepare for reuse/Recycling &

composting = 80/90%

Incineration = 5-10%

Landfilling = 5 %

2009 2030

Source: waste issues in the context of resource efficiency -Pavel Misiga (EU 2011)

Was

te h

iera

rchy

Flanders 2010 = 73%

Recycling overall 50%

2010 20302020

Measu

re o

f perf

orm

ance

Source: TNO, 2010

‘Requires managed austerity & design philosophy’

Roadmap towards sustainability

Recycling overall 90%

Product life time increase by > 50%

Product life time doubled or tripledEnergy consumption/

cap like 1960s/ 1970s

Energy consumption/ cap like 1950s/ 1960s

Was

te h

iera

rchy

Useful economic instruments

Raw materials

Recycled products Selective

collection

Products

WasteRaw material

taxes

Eco-taxes

Green certificates

EPR fees

Deposit refunds

Waste collection

taxes (PAYT)

Disposal taxes

Life cycle Disposal

Secondary raw materials

Incineration taxes

Incineration

Tax rebates

Tax rebates

Was

te h

iera

rchy







Was

te p

reve

ntio

n

Is Spain producing above EU27 average

MSW?

EU 27 (2009)= 505 kg/inh/y

Spain (2009)= 545 kg/inh/y

We can reduce with 100 kg/inh/y!

ACR+ -100 kg benchmark

Waste generation EU 15 in kg/inh/y

600 kg/inh/y 500 kg/inh/y

Waste generation EU 15 in kg/inh/y

(with prevention)

-100 kg or -15%

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n

Strict avoidance

Waste prevention

A++

Reduction at source

Reuse

A+

A

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n

Complete prevention of waste

generation by reducing material

intensity in production &

consumption

Minimising material cosumption

Multiple use of a product in its

original form, for its original

purpose or for an alternative,

with or without reconditioning

Waste hierarchy detailed

Waste prevention as a multi-instrumental approach

How?Legal instruments

Economic instruments

Educational instruments

Communication tools

Technical instruments and technologies

Why?Resources (saving material and energy resources)

Climate change (reducing GHG emissions)

Socio-economic (creating sustainable jobs & lifestyles)

Financial (saving money)

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n







“Systematic research into the waste

prevention activity performances and the

underlying processess and methods of one or

more leading reference bodies in a certain

field, and the comparison of one’s own

performance and operating methods with these

‘best practices’, with the goal of locating and

improving one’s own performance”

Benchmarking?

What?

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

Waste

generation(kg/inh./y)

Potential waste

quantitative benchmark

(kg/inh./y)

All Waste 600 100

Bio-waste 220 40

Paper waste 100 15

Packaging waste 150 25

Bulky & other waste 130 20

ACR+ -100 kg benchmark

Per waste stream

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

Benchmarking - casesW

aste

pre

vent

ion

case

s

Bio-waste generation(kg/inh./y)

Potential bio-waste

quantitative benchmark(kg/inh./y)

1 Bio-waste 220 40

Green scaping10

Smart gardening

Smart food consumption 10

Home, community & on-site composting

20

ACR+ -100 kg benchmarkBio-waste, best practices

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

ReuseReduce

Home composting

Reduce

Smart gardening

Bio-waste, best practicesACR+ -100 kg benchmark

Food banks

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

On-site leave compostingRoyal Parks (UK)

Target

Result

100% leave waste by 2005

100% of the leave waste composted

10.000 trees

3000m3 green waste

1800m3 compost

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses Waste reduction

Food redistributionFareshare (UK)

Target

Result

Target

Result

100.000 vulnerable people6000 volunteers2200 community org. & charities

25.000 people benefit every day

Redistribute 20.000 tons of food/y

10.500 tons of food redistributed

Participation

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

Waste reduction

CO2 emissions down

by 25200 tons

Home compostingKent Council (UK)

Target

Result

Target Results

35% of the HHLDs by 2010/11

34% of HHLDs in 2008

• 18500 biowaste reduction• 103.000 compost bins sold• 250 active compost advisors• Residual waste from 733 to 704kg/hhld/y

• 13875 biowaste reduction• 75000 compost bins sold• 185kg biowaste composted/hhld/y

Participation

Waste reduction

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

Is home composting waste prevention?

Packaging waste

generation(kg/inh./y)

Potential packaging

waste quantitative benckmark(kg/inh./y)

2 Packaging Waste 150 25

Encourage refillable/ returnable bottles

12

Promoting tap water 2

Encouraging reusable bags 1

Fighting excess packaging 10

Packaging waste, best practicesACR+ -100 kg benchmark

Get rid of one way

packaging

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

Reuse

Reduction at sourceStrict

avoidance

Packaging waste, best practicesACR+ -100 kg benchmark

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

Marks & spencerW

aste

pre

vent

ion

case

s

PlanA (UK)

Target

Result

Target

Results

All M&S shops

100%

• Reduce weight of non-glass packaging by 25% by 2012

• Reduce single use carrier bag by 33% by 2010

• Non-glass packaging reduced by an average of 20% (from 25gr to 20gr)

• Single use carrier bags decreased by 64%

Participation

Waste reduction

92 reduction

Packaging optimisationW

aste

pre

vent

ion

case

s Optimum Pack design

Minimal Environm. impact

Minimum material

Underpacking Overpacking

Negative Environm .impact

Levy on plastic bagsW

aste

pre

vent

ion

case

s

Ireland – nation wide

Target

Results

90% reduction in single-use plasticBags by 2002

94% reduction or 328 21 single–use bags/inh/y1.2 billion 72 million single-use bags per year

Levy 2002 = 0,15%Levy 2007 (reviewed) = 0,22%

Waste reduction

Public water fountainW

aste

pre

vent

ion

case

s

Municipality of Castelfidardo(IT)

Target

Result

Results

All inhabitants (19.000 inh)

5% or 800 inhabitants

300.000 liter/y tapped corresponding to 200.000 bottles of PET (1,5l) prevented or 6000 kg of PET

Investment cost = 23.364 Euros

Mineral &

sparkling water Participation

Waste reduction

CO2 emissions down

by 10 tons

Paper waste generation(kg/inh./y)

Potential paper waste quantitative benckmark(kg/inh./y)

3 Paper Waste 100 15

Reducing unwanted and unaddressed mail

4

Encouraging dematerialisation through ICT

9

Reducing kitchen, tissue and towel paper

2

Paper waste, best practicesACR+ -100 kg benchmark

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

Reuse

Reduction at sourceStrict

avoidance

Paper waste, best practicesACR+ -100 kg benchmark

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

Office paper use reductionPublic company AMIAT in Turin (IT)

Target

Result

Results

350 employees

100%

Paper use went down by 80% 35 tons/y 7 tons/y or100kg/empl/y 20 kg/empl/y

Measures1.Draft mode printing2.Two sides copies3.Reuse one-sided copies4.Reuse enveloppes5.Use digital documents6.Email : do not print the mail if not necessary,7.…

Participation

Waste reduction

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

No junk mailNorth London (UK)

Target

Result

Results

10% of the population

7% of the population

18kg/hhld/y paper waste prevented

Participation Waste reduction

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

Flanders: 10% of

population has a

sticker

Bulky waste generation(kg/inh./y)

Potential bulky waste quantitative benckmark(kg/inh./y)

4 Bulky waste 52 40

Promote textiles waste prevention

15 4

Promote furniture waste prevention

20 4

Promote WEEE prevention

17 4

Bulky waste, best practicesACR+ -100 kg benchmark

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

Reuse

Reduction at source

Borrowing libraryAvoidance

Dry cleaning

Bulky waste, best practicesACR+ -100 kg benchmark

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

Community laundries Sweden

Textile Waste preventionNorth Wales (UK)

Result

Results

Participation

Waste reduction

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

1. 1543 tonnes (2.25kg/inh/y) or 8,6% the potential total amount of waste textiles in North Wales were collected.

2. 226 tonnes (0.33 kg/inh/y) or 15% were sold to the public and 85% or 1317 tonnes were sold to textile merchants as ‘charity rag’.

14 large and national charities operating 69 shops distributed over the North Welsh territory

Textile Waste management

Collection

Containers • Street• Retailers• SchoolsDoor-to-doorVoluntary bring

Processing Commercialise

Treatment process• Sorting• Labelling • Cleaning• Cutting• Baling…

International projects

Sales to clients

Recycling

Incinerated/ landfilled

30 to 40%

10 to 15%

50 to 55%

Reuse associationAERSS Spain

Result

ResultsPer year

5061 persons involved (employees + volunteers)

Total of 6327 tons reused

Participation

Waste reduction

Was

te p

reve

ntio

n ca

ses

Collected

Reused

Furniture

WEEE

Textile

19.600 tons

5.293 tons

10.284 tons

2.196 tons

506 tons

3193 tons

+/- 11% re

used

+/- 10% re

used

+/- 30% re

used

Reusable nappies in nurseriesW

aste

pre

vent

ion

case

s

Sant Cugat del Vallès (SP)

Target

Results

150kg/child/y or 34 Tons/y (228 pupils)

126kg/child/y or 28 Tons/y (228 pupils)

Year 1: 7 nappies/day - Year 2: 5 nappies/day +/- 6000 nappies/ child till 2,5 year

Waste reduction

Redistributing paintW

aste

pre

vent

ion

case

s

Community RePaint scheme (UK)

• 316.641 liters of paint collected

• 215.848 liters of paint redistributed

• 2292 community groups received paint

• 10424 individuals received paint

• 82 full time jobs created• 72 part time jobs created• 132 volunteers assisting

Market value of waste diverted = 1,5 million Euro

366 million liters paint sold/y

55 million unused/ stored,…

Participation

Waste reduction

Together we can make a change

Documents

Prevention Sharing minds, changing life styles