These differences can lead to confusion
for households, contamination of material
streams, and make it difficult to educate the
community about what they can recycle.
In 2017/18, contamination rates in
Victorian MSW ranged between 3% and
27%, with an average of 10.4% across
all local government areas.56 Minimising
contamination in MSW, which has the
lowest recovery rate of the three waste
streams, will contribute to improved
resource recovery in Victoria.
Consistency in sorting and collection can
also make it easier for local governments
to provide information on how to recycle.
Our polling of Victorians found that a
quarter of respondents did not know
which bins things should go in, which
was a barrier to sorting recyclable waste.57
This suggests that providing more information to households about which
materials can be recycled and how to
recycle them can reduce contamination.
Better source separation can also lead to
improved resource recovery by providing
cleaner materials streams. At a minimum,
our analysis suggests that either glass, or
paper and cardboard, need to be collected
separately from commingled recyclables.
Glass is a key contaminant of other
commingled recyclables, particularly
paper and cardboard. Separating
the collection of these materials could
reduce contamination. This should be
supplemented by a separate FOGO
collection, which could reduce the
amount of organic material going into
the residual garbage bin and to landfill.
In 2017/18, contamination rates in
Victorian household waste ranged between
3% and 27%, with an average of 10%
across all local government areas.
56   Sustainability Victoria (2019) Victorian Local Government
Annual Waste Services Report 2017–1857   Quantum Market Research (2019) Kerbside Collection
Deep Dive, report for Infrastructure VictoriaProcurement of
waste services
Unlike commercial business waste
services, which are contracted,
household waste collection and sorting
services are procured by local councils.
While households could collect and
transport wastes themselves, there are
obvious cost advantages to coordinating
waste collection and transport.
To benefit, households cooperate through
their regular collection service and local
councils procure these services from the
private sector.
A simple tender process is used to price
and allocate these contracts. Households
pay a flat rate for this service as a
component of council rates. To build
on economies of scale, some councils
have investigated pooling demand for
waste collection services across council
boundaries.58 While this can lead to
short-term cost savings it can also
lead to consolidation in the number of
collections services, reducing competition
and driving up costs.
To correct this, a new auction approach
could be used known as descending
simultaneous package smart auctions.59 60
These auctions are used by governments
and businesses for a range of procurement
and allocation problems (e.g. allocation of
aquaculture sites in Victoria, and mobile
phone frequencies) and can harness
competition to minimise costs and allocate
contracts efficiently.
78
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria


61   Stoneham et al (2002) Auctions for Conservation Contracts: An Empirical Examination of Victoria’s
Bush Tender Trial, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsFunding of waste
processing services
In waste collection, this type of auction
minimises costs through a decentralised
process in which service providers can
put together combinations of collection
zones through competitive bidding.
This approach can reduce costs to
households by mitigating the market
power of service providers.
58   Positive network externalities arise because additional
participants to a network reduce the cost of providing
services to all participants.
59   Plott, Charles R. and Lee, Hsing-Yang and Maron, Travis
(2014). The Continuous Combinatorial Auction Architecture.
American Economic Review, 104 (5). pp. 452-456. ISSN
0002-8282
60   Crampton, P . (2001). Handbook of Telecommunications
Economics, Martin Cave, Sumit Majumdar, and Ingo
Vogelsang, eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V. Although markets generally allocate
resources efficiently, governments can
further increase investment in recycling
and resource recovery.
The Victorian Government actively
ensures the recycling and resource
recovery sector is meeting community
needs and government objectives.
Grants are widely used to encourage
industry initiatives to align with the
Government’s strategic objectives.
Although grants can have some competitive
elements, they are essentially a form
of bi-lateral negotiation between
government and industry. In bi-lateral
negotiations, a well-informed supplier
will often benefit over a less informed buyer.
Firms and organisations know their costs
of production, and governments often
do not. As a result, grants may not always
lead to the best outcomes or value.
Resource recovery grants have historically
been capped at a maximum of $500,000.
The Centre for Market Design at the
University of Melbourne identified auctions
as an alternative approach that could
achieve these goals. Auctions can reveal
information needed to efficiently allocate
resources. They do this by harnessing
competition between competitors to
identify who wins and at what price.
Well-designed auctions have been
shown to achieve a given outcome
at lower prices than grants.61  In addition, the Victorian Government and
other governments throughout Australia
and around the world already use a range
of other financial support approaches to
create policy outcomes. Approaches such
as rebates, subsidies or low-interest loans
could also improve resource recovery in
Victoria by encouraging more competition
or new technologies in the market for
resource recovery and processing services.
One example is the Clean Energy Finance
Corporation (CEFC) model.
The CEFC invests in clean energy
projects in several sectors including
energy, agriculture, manufacturing, property,
as well as waste. In 2019, the CEFC
established the Australian Recycling
Investment Fund to fund recycling projects
that use clean energy technologies.
Grants may not
always lead to the
best outcomes
or value.
79
What we found Infrastructure Victoria


Governance and policy settings
in the sector are not quite right
All three tiers of government (Australian,
Victorian and local) have important
but different roles in recycling and
resource recovery. These roles are not
always clearly defined in legislation or
elsewhere, and often overlap. Significant
gaps in legislation and regulation
can lead to missed opportunities.62
In Victoria, government waste and resource
recovery portfolio agencies work together
to manage, plan and deliver services for
Victoria. These agencies collaborate to
reduce waste to landfill by working with
local councils, industry and the Australian
Government to increase the recovery
of resources where possible.
The relevant Victorian Government
agencies are the Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning
(DELWP), Environment Protection Authority
Victoria (EPA), Sustainability Victoria (SV)
and seven Waste and Resource Recovery
Groups (WRRGs). In addition to these
agencies, local government and private
sector operators deliver recycling services
to households and businesses. EPA, SV
and the WRRGs receive most of their
funding from the Municipal and Industrial
Landfill Levy.
Victoria’s current recycling and resource
recovery system governance does not
deliver on the Victorian Government’s
waste and recycling objectives.
There is a significant opportunity to
clarify policy direction and regulatory
application and enforcement. The future of the Landfill Levy
Established under section 70 of the
Environment Protection Act 1970, one
of the key purposes of the Landfill Levy
is to provide an incentive to minimise
waste, encourage greater re-use and
recycling and promote investment in
alternatives to landfill. Given that the
amount of waste generated in Victoria
is increasing, and is forecast to continue
to do so, the landfill levy alone is not
providing enough of an incentive to
meet these objectives.
As we identified in our Evidence
Base Report, this is likely because
the cost of the landfill levy is not felt
by manufacturers, or directly by
households. This suggests that the
landfill levy should be considered
just one of a suite of policies the
Government can use, including
regulatory interventions like product
stewardship schemes, setting targets,
supporting market development
and investing in infrastructure.
This aligns with what we have observed
in high-performing jurisdictions around
the world, where a landfill levy or tax is
only part of a broader policy framework
applied across the waste lifecycle.The Landfill Levy can also contribute
to poor outcomes. The impact of the
levy on landfill gate fees can lead to
waste stockpiling or illegal dumping.
Also, inconsistencies in landfill levies
across state borders can encourage
cross-border waste flows to places
where costs are lower.
Recognising this challenge, the National
Waste Policy Action Plan made Victoria
responsible for investigating how to
harmonise waste levies across Australia
to encourage best practice waste
management. This work is ongoing and
there have been recent announcements
of a Victorian levy increase as part of
the Recycling Victoria package.
There is an opportunity to consider
Victoria’s Landfill Levy in the broader
context of the Victorian Government’s
policy objectives for the recycling and
resource recovery sector. For example,
increases to the Landfill Levy could
make alternatives to landfill more cost
competitive, including energy recovery
through waste-to-energy. Given energy
recovery is preferable to disposal,
setting the right price is consistent with
existing Victorian Government policy
80
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria


This could ensure that current
governance structures do not slow
development. Harmonising Victoria’s
policy and strategy to improve recycling
and resource recovery with applicable
legislation and regulation could benefit the
state significantly.63 In addition, a recent
VAGO report and feedback from a range
of stakeholders shows confusion in the
roles and responsibilities of government
agencies. This may prevent the sector
functioning efficiently.64
In 2019, VAGO also found that in the
absence of a statewide waste policy,
Victorian agencies involved in waste
management lack clarity on their priorities
and how best to use resources. In its
report, VAGO found that existing waste
and resource recovery strategies and
plans, developed by DELWP , SV and
the WRRGs, have a range of objectives
and actions that do not provide clear
and coherent guidance in place of
a statewide policy.
Without an overarching policy, there are
no targets for agencies in the Victorian
Government to aim for or measure
against. Adding to this is the lack of
certainty and stability of funding for
recycling and resource recovery. This
presents a barrier to understanding
whether Victorian Government agencies
have enough resources to perform
their roles and responsibilities.65In looking at jurisdictions with high-
performing recycling and resource
recovery systems, we found that an
overarching policy framework for waste,
recycling and resource recovery,
supported by specific targets for
recycling, is the foundation.66 Targets
can be used to incentivise performance.
It is also important to ensure that they
have net benefits and do not place
additional burdens on households
or businesses.
62   Victorian Auditor General’s Office (2019) Recovering
and Reprocessing Resources from Waste
63   Infrastructure Victoria (2019) Legislative and
regulatory review
64   Centre for Market Design (2019) Opportunities to
improve infrastructure investment in the Victorian waste
economy, report for Infrastructure Victoria
65   Victorian Auditor General’s Office (2019) Recovering
and Reprocessing Resources from Waste
66   AlphaBeta (2019) Recycling and resource recovery
infrastructure in Victoria: International and Australian
comparisons, report for Infrastructure Victoriaand can help transition toward a circular
economy. In the longer term, the Landfill
Levy could continue to be assessed as the
impact of other policies begin to be felt. Any
future changes to the levy rate should
consider the potential disruption that may
be caused by a sudden increase such as
disruption to existing commercial
arrangements, increased illegal dumping or
stockpiling. A phased approach to Landfill
Levy changes could minimise this risk.
There is also potential to put the Landfill
Levy to greater use. Unspent Landfill Levy
is held in the Sustainability Fund (the fund).
We heard from a range of stakeholders,
both in face-to-face consultation and
through submissions, that more of the
Landfill Levy should be invested in the
recycling and resource recovery sector.
This is supported by the Victorian
Government Auditor General’s Office
(VAGO) 2019 analysis that Victoria
spends less than other jurisdictions
on waste and resource recovery,
despite managing much higher
volumes of waste.
81
What we found Infrastructure Victoria


The role of local governments
and the WRRGs
Victorian local governments are, in
many ways, the front line of recycling
and resource recovery in Victoria.
 Local governments are responsible
for waste collection and recycling
services for their residents with
support from the Waste and Resource
Recovery Groups (WRRGs).
According to the VAGO Delivering Local
Government Services Report (September
2018), most council services are not legally
mandated, including recycling services.
Current legislation gives councils the
option to deliver a service, but household
recycling and collection is not mandatory
for councils. This presents practical barriers
to transparency and accountability, and
funding of waste collection services.
Without clear roles and responsibilities
for local governments, it is difficult to
measure their delivery over time.
Greater role clarity is likely to be a low-
cost fix with wide-ranging benefits to the
performance of the sector. This could be
achieved through either amendments to
the Local Government Act 1989, or the
introduction of waste management-
specific legislation.
There are seven WRRGs across Victoria
The WRRGs are responsible for developing
Regional Waste and Resource Recovery
Infrastructure Plans (RWRRIPs), supporting
local councils to procure waste and
recycling services, infrastructure and service
planning at a regional level, and educating
the community on waste avoidance and reduction. Currently, the WRRGs support
councils in procuring recycling and resource
recovery services by supporting
collaborative procurement processes
to achieve economies of scale. However,
it is not mandatory for councils to
participate in procurement processes
run by the WRRGs, which can lead
to market power imbalances between
individual local governments and recycling
and resource recovery service providers.
Some of the roles and responsibilities
of the WRRGs, specifically for regional
resource recovery infrastructure planning,
overlap with SV’s role in statewide resource
recovery infrastructure planning. This was
identified by VAGO as a cause for confusion
among stakeholders in the sector.67 In
addition, VAGO noted that the Metropolitan
WRRG (the biggest WRRG covering
the greatest number of councils) does
not have enough funding to perform its
functions. Specifically, MRWWG’s remit
was expanded to include C&I and
C&D waste, but MWRRG was not given
additional ongoing funding to support
these responsibilities. As such, MWRRG
has reallocated funds internally to deliver
a C&I strategy, which may hinder its
ability to meet other core objectives.68
The United Kingdom provides an
international example of governance
frameworks that could be adopted
in Victoria to provide greater clarity.
There, similarly to the EPA in Victoria,
the Environmental Agency acts as a regulator; and similarly to DELWP , the
UK waste management policies are set
by central government. However, the
collection and processing of waste and
recycling are provided by a Waste
Collection Authority (local authorities)
and a Waste Disposal Authority.
The UK’s Environmental Protection Act
1990 (the Act) sets out the roles and
responsibilities for Waste Collection
Authorities (WCAs) and Waste Disposal
Authorities (WDAs). It is prescriptive, and
very specific when compared to equivalent
bodies and legislation in Victoria and
separates the responsibility of waste
collection and waste processing services
into different authorities. A similar approach
in Victoria could improve role clarity,
supporting greater consistency of service
provision and better data collection, and
has the potential to address some of the
market power imbalances currently seen
in the sector by aggregating procurement
of processing services. The United Kingdom
provides an international
example of governance
frameworks that could
be adopted in Victoria
to provide greater clarity.
82
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria


Data collection
and reporting
The availability and use of timely and
accurate data will be key to improving
Victoria’s recycling and resource
recovery. A clearer understanding
of the volume and flows of materials
will help both the Government and
private sector plan and invest in
infrastructure. This can ultimately
strengthen the end markets for
these materials and lead to greater
recycling and re-use.
In 2011, VAGO found that a lack of
data quality had affected the reliability
of performance data and projected
performance. VAGO recommended that
SV develop a knowledge management
system to rationalise data, and to identify
and rectify data quality issues along with
modelling accuracy. Better data collection
can help monitor improvements in
performance.69
In 2019, VAGO again noted that data
quality issues limit the Government’s ability
to understand how much waste is being
generated and what happens to materials
when they are recovered for recycling. This
limits the Government’s ability to plan for,
or invest in, infrastructure and to develop
an overarching waste policy.70 The data currently available is collected
through voluntary surveys of councils and
waste reprocessing operators, which
means data is often inaccurate or
incomplete.
VAGO noted that without regulatory
or legislative requirements for councils
or operators to report data, or to monitor
the flow of materials segregated for
recycling after these are sent to recovery
or reprocessing facilities, it is difficult
for SV to resolve data limitations and
these problems are likely to persist.71
67   Victorian Auditor General’s Office (2019) Recovering
and Reprocessing Resources from Waste
68  ibid.
69   Victorian Auditor General’s Office (2011) Municipal
Solid Waste Management
70   Victorian Auditor General’s Office (2019) Recovering
and Reprocessing Resources from Waste
71   Victorian Auditor General’s Office (2019) Recovering
and Reprocessing Resources from Waste
83
What we found Infrastructure Victoria


Organics Plastics Packaging
glassPaper and
cardboardE-waste Masonry Metals Tyres Textiles
Tonnes of
material generated2,489,166 586,282 344,093 1,997,800 83,445 5,222,935 1,590,409 69,537 190,411
Tonnes of
materials recovered1,081,845 137,167 263,686 1,481,017 66,162 4,179,629 1,455,579 57,200 165
Proportion of total waste
generated19% 4% 3% 15% 1% 39% 12% 1% 1%
Recovery rate 43% 23% 77% 74% 79% 80% 92% 82% 0%
Proportion available in
garbage bin35% 11%* 11%* 11%* 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Proportion of waste
generated that is exported2% 15% 3% 32% 1% 0% 31% 43% 15%
Proportion of waste
recovered that is exported4% 63% 4% 43% 1% 0% 34% 53% N/AThe end markets for
materials vary greatly
Developing end markets for recycled
materials is a challenge for countries
all over the world. Even countries that
are considered best in the world for
recycling and resource recovery with
large manufacturing bases, such as
South Korea, rely heavily on export
markets for some materials, particularly
plastic composites.72
The lack of strong end markets for
recovered materials is stifling the
development of Victoria’s recycling and
resource recovery sector. If recovered
materials are not valued by producers
or consumers, there is little to no incentive
for businesses to invest in processing
infrastructure. The strength of end markets varies
by material type. Figure 25 provides
an overview of the performance in
resource recovery across a range of
indicators for key materials.
There has been a significant focus
in Victoria on establishing infrastructure
to collect, sort, and to an extent, reprocess
recovered resources but the supply
of recycled materials has not always
been matched by demand. In many
cases, there is limited market interest
to establish significant, ongoing demand
for products made from recycled
materials. Effectively, investment in developing local
markets for recycled products or high-
quality products for export have been
limited. Fostering sustainable end markets
for recyclable glass, plastic, paper and
organic materials can play a larger role
in solving the stockpiling problems
Victoria has recently experienced and
reducing the state’s reliance on landfill.
Source: Blue Environment & Infrastructure Victoria analysisFigure 25: The opportunity for improved recovery and reprocessing in Victoria varies by material72   AlphaBeta (2019) Recycling and resource recovery
infrastructure in Victoria: International and Australian
comparisons, report for Infrastructure Victoria
* 11% is the combined total of plastics, packaging glass and paper and cardboard84
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria


Markets are important
One challenge in developing end
markets for recycled materials is
the cost of using recycled content
in manufacturing. This is especially
true of plastics. Recycled plastics
manufacturers operate in the same
market as virgin plastics producers,
and so must compete with virgin
producers. The raw feedstocks
for most plastics are fossil fuels,
which are cheaper to use than
recycled materials.
The reasons for the differences between
the cost of virgin and recycled materials
are two-fold. First, the price of any product
reflects the cost of making it. In the case
of recycled materials, this includes the cost
of collecting, transporting, sorting and
processing recovered materials to a point
where they are a substitute for virgin
material, such as glass cullet, plastic
pallets or resin, or pulp for paper and
cardboard.
Second, the price of virgin materials tends
not to include the full lifecycle costs of these
products, such as the environmental impact
of extracting them or the costs of disposal,
due to regulatory and market failures to
ensure all these costs are reflected.
Most producers, seeking to minimise costs
in production, will choose the lowest-cost
input that serves their needs. Because
virgin materials can be cheaper, producers
are less likely to use recovered materials,
limiting their market.Another barrier is lack of awareness or
concerns about the quality of recycled
products. Concerns about contamination
of materials, or insufficient information
about the potential uses of recovered
materials, can mean that consumers and
producers are reluctant to buy products
containing recycled content. This can
be seen with plastics, due to concerns
about the potential use of recycled plastics
in food packaging.
Multiple stakeholders have raised the
importance of standards or certification
of recycled materials with us. Creating
certification standards for products made
from recycled content can address the
lack of information and certainty about
the quality of recycled products and provide
an indicator of quality. This can increase
the price of these products, making them
more attractive to producers and ultimately
strengthening the end market for recycled
materials.
For example, the regulatory settings for
the management of digestate – which is
the by-product from the anaerobic digestion
process – can be refined. The biggest
regulatory issue raised by regional
stakeholders is how the digestate is
managed and its viability in agricultural use.
 For stakeholders running anaerobic
digestion plants, the biggest issue was
the current regulations. While the EPA’s
current regulations do permit the use of
digestate in agriculture, the approach requires approval of all individual waste
suppliers and digestate consumers,
which can be difficult to manage as
these change. Widespread adoption of
anaerobic digestion in the EU is supported
by HACCP regulatory frameworks to ensure
the resulting digestate is safe for use in
agriculture. HACCP is widely used for food
production in Australia. In addition, there
is uncertainty around the application of
carbon credits to anaerobic digestion,
particularly where operators are obliged
to reduce carbon emissions through
regulation. Standards and specifications
should be reviewed and relaxed only
where there is no risk of causing harm
to human health or the environment.
A lack of demand for recycled material
in production, regardless of costs, is also
a barrier to developing end markets for
recycled materials, particularly mixed
materials. Producers want clean, single-
stream materials. Recycling becomes far
more complex when dealing with products
that use composite materials. Composite
materials, which use multiple polymers
can be difficult to separate during recycling.
For example, disposable coffee cups
are predominantly made from paper, but
an interior lining – commonly made of
polyethylene – make these cups very
difficult to recycle.
85
What we found Infrastructure Victoria


Market development approaches
Enabling the use of products
containing recycled materials supports
the development of markets and
improves the sustainability and
resilience of the sector by providing
a pathway for materials.
Regulation and legislation can be both
a barrier and an enabler, and these are
prime opportunities for government.
Victoria already performs well in this
regard – VicRoads is a national leader
in the use of recycled products in pavement
construction – but we can do more.
Government can support demand for
recycled materials by supporting research
and development to commercialise the
use of recycled products, particularly
packaging, manufacturing and agriculture.
This provides an evidence base to give
people confidence in using recycled
products, and shows that recycled
products are fit for purpose. The Victorian
Government can also provide a supportive
environment for using recycled materials
by either changing design specifications
and procurement standards to encourage
or mandate the use of recycled materials.
Recycling Victoria – a new economy
includes commitments to increase
innovation, prioritise the use of recycled
materials in construction and to develop
and promote standards, specifications and
guidance materials to increase the use
of recycled materials. The Commonwealth
Government has also made similar
recent commitments.Material Small
R&D project
indicative costLarge
R&D project
indicative costField
trialsTotal indicative
R&D cost
Paper & cardboard $100,000 x 10 $200,000 x 10 $200,000 x 5 $4,000,000
Plastics $100,000 x 10 $200,000 x 10 $200,000 x 5 $4,000,000
Glass $100,000 x 10 $200,000 x 10 $200,000 x 5 $4,000,000
Organics $100,000 x 10 $200,000 x 10 $200,000 x 5 $4,000,000
Tyres $100,000 x 10 $200,000 x 10 $200,000 x 5 $4,000,000
E-waste $100,000 x 10 $200,000 x 10 $200,000 x 5 $4,000,000
Total $24,000,000Figure 26: Market development for multiple materials
takes considerable research and development
The Victorian Government
can enable the use
of recycled materials
by changing design
specifications and
procurement standards.
Since 2016, SV has awarded a total of
$4.1 million in R&D grants to a total of
29 projects. These grants leverage funding
and in-kind contributions from industry
and research partners. Small R&D projects
typically focus on one line of enquiry, with
limited scope of lab testing of materials.
Large R&D projects typically focus on two
to three lines of enquiry, with broader scope
of lab testing of materials. Demonstration
projects and field trials are the opportunity
to prove performance in the real world
in a controlled manner with associated
monitoring and evaluation to allow for
specifications to be changed and/or
commercialisation to occur. Funding in recent years has been
spread across up to eight materials.
Given the trial and error nature of research
and development, success cannot be
guaranteed. A more ambitious program
with a higher chance of commercialisation
could be pursued with the following
indicative contribution from the Victorian
Government, and additional funding
and in-kind support provided by the
Commonwealth Government, industry
and academia.
86
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria


Infrastructure Victoria is committed to
consultation and creating recommendations
through an open, evidence-based,
transparent process.07.
What we
heard from
our stakeholders


The consultation program for this
advice included two main phases.
The first phase ran from April to August
2019. We met with more than 150
individuals and organisations from
across the waste sector, business and
government, all of whom provided
valuable input and helped us refine
the scope of our research and analysis.
A report that summarises the outcomes
of this phase is available at
infrastructurevictoria.com.au
01.
Have we identified the right
outcomes for Victoria to aim for?
02.
Have we identified the most
effective potential actions for
government to take?
03.
Which, if any, of the initiatives implemented
in Wales would you like to see applied in
Victoria?
04.
What do you think of the market design
opportunities proposed to improve
waste sector outcomes and efficiency? Throughout our work, we also regularly
consulted with a Sector Advisory Group
which included people representing local
government, the WRRGs, the waste
management industry and broader industry.
We released our Evidence Base Report
for consultation in October 2019. This
report discussed the findings of technical
research we commissioned in developing
the evidence base. Consultation on the
Evidence Base Report was open from
13 October 2019 to 13 December 2019.
We received 53 submissions from
individuals, organisations, business
and local governments. The feedback
we received helped us understand
stakeholders’ priority issues and concerns
and helped us refine our advice and
recommendations.
There were several key themes that
emerged in the feedback we received
on the Evidence Base Report. A summary
of the most common issues and how  they relate to our final advice to the
Victorian Government is below.
Submissions are available in full at
infrastructurevictoria.com.au
The feedback we received from
stakeholders has provided highly
valuable insights that have informed
our final advice. Infrastructure Victoria
would like to thank everyone who
contributed to this work.05.
Where do you think government should
focus their efforts to increase recycling and
resource recovery? (For example, through
setting targets, promoting consistency
or funding local councils?)
06.
Which materials or infrastructure
types present the most opportunity
in your region?
07.
What is a legislative barrier or enabler
that you have encountered when
trying to use recycled materials?
In our Evidence Base Report, we posed seven questions for response:
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria
88


Container Deposit Scheme (CDS)
The most commonly raised issue in the
submissions we received was the desire
for a CDS in Victoria. Victoria is the
only jurisdiction in Australia that has not
introduced or announced it is planning
to introduce a CDS.
Reasons for introducing a CDS in
Victoria ranged from the potential to
reduce contamination of other materials
streams in resource recovery to supporting
stronger end markets for recycled glass
and ensuring consistency across Australian
jurisdictions. Some feedback we received
suggested there should have been
more consideration given to a CDS
in our Evidence Base Report.
In this report, we included additional
analysis of the costs and benefits
of a CDS, including research and
consultation undertaken by the Victorian
Parliamentary Inquiry into Recycling and
Waste Management. Our analysis of the
evidence suggests that a CDS can improve
outcomes in recycling and resource
recovery as part of a broader suite
of initiatives.
Product stewardship and
extended producer responsibility
The concept of product stewardship
schemes received support from many
stakeholders, particularly for hard-to-recycle
products like electronics or complex
packaging. Our analysis supports
this position. We found that without well-designed
product stewardship schemes there is
little incentive for consumers or producers
to consider the cost of waste. This is a
market failure, suggesting there is a role
for government to intervene. We also
found that the most successful product
stewardship schemes in high-performing
jurisdictions around the world are
compulsory. There are a number of product
stewardship schemes in place across
Australia, but none are compulsory.
Waste-to-energy
The terms of reference for this advice asked
Infrastructure Victoria for advice on the
infrastructure required for, and the role for
government in providing support to, a
waste-to-energy sector that prioritises
extracting recyclable material and recovers
energy only from residual waste.
A number of stakeholders identified
waste-to-energy as a preferable to landfill,
which aligns with the waste hierarchy,
but noted the importance of prioritising
avoidance, re-use and recovery.
Stakeholders also identified practical
barriers to establishing waste-to-energy
infrastructure in Victoria being the lack
of policy clarity around waste-to-energy
in Victoria, the lack of an end market for
residual waste to energy by products,
and the role of the landfill levy in influencing
the competitiveness of waste-to-energy.
89
What we heard from our stakeholders Infrastructure Victoria


Landfill Levy
The Landfill Levy was identified as
having potential for better use. Some
stakeholders suggested that, at a minimum,
the Victorian Government should consider
making the Landfill Levy consistent
with neighbouring states. Victoria has
recently announced an increase to its
levy and is leading efforts for national
levy consistency under the National
Waste Policy Action Plan.
This work can consider the potential for
the Landfill Levy to be used to further
support a transition toward a circular
economy and alternatives to landfill,
such as waste-to-energy. This view aligns
with a point made by multiple stakeholders
who highlighted the need to reinvest more
of the Landfill Levy with a specific focus
on infrastructure that supports a transition
towards a circular economy.
Collections
Stakeholders commonly identified that
the approach to kerbside collections is
a barrier to improving resource recovery,
particularly for MSW. We received
feedback that improved source separation
– particularly separating paper and
cardboard from other co-mingled
recyclables – and a more consistent
approach to collections across councils,
could increase recovery rates. We agree. Our analysis suggests that greater source
separation leads to cleaner streams, which
can improve resource recovery rates. At
the same time, a more consistent approach
to kerbside collections makes it easier
for households to separate their waste
correctly and reduces contamination.
Market development
We heard that the Victorian Government
has a role to play in supporting end markets
for recycled materials. Without an end
market for recycled materials, the design
of collection and processing systems
is irrelevant.
Government procurement can go some
way to supporting an end market for
these materials by buying them directly.
The Government can also support their
use in the broader economy by facilitating
the development of standards and
specifications for recycled products
(such as compost, digestate from anaerobic
digestion, bottom ash from thermal
waste-to-energy, and plastics in
construction or packaging applications).
Standards and certification can build
consumer confidence in these products,
supporting a market. Stakeholders
commonly identified the lack of confidence
in these products as a barrier.Regional infrastructure
Regional stakeholders identified lack
of access to recycling services and
infrastructure as a barrier to resource
recovery in regional areas. In some cases,
geographic consolidation of infrastructure
makes sense due to economies of scale.
In others, providing processing
infrastructure in regional areas can
reduce costs by eliminating or reducing
transport costs, leading to improved
recovery rates. Our analysis supports
this, particularly with materials that are
sensitive to transport costs and gate fees,
such as organics. Regional infrastructure
can also provide jobs in regional areas.
90
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria


The second phase of the project was the
delivery of our Evidence Base Report in
October 2019. This report built on the
outcomes of our stakeholder consultation
with detailed modelling and analysis,
supported by international examples for
comparison, including engagement with
key stakeholders in Wales and England.
Our technical work packages, summarised
below, consider the infrastructure, policy
and market settings for Victoria’s recycling
and resource recovery sector. We
also compiled the most up-to-date
and comprehensive dataset for recycling
and resource recovery performance
in Victoria to inform our analysis.
The final phase, the focus of this
report, is to articulate the advice and
recommendations for the Victorian
Government on the basis of the evidence
we have gathered through our technical
work, site visits to facilities across Victoria
and South Australia, and feedback we
have received from stakeholders including
the Sector Advisory Group. We also
coordinated with a Government Advisory
Group to ensure resource recovery
and recycling work across government
was shared.
The full versions of all technical
work undertaken to inform
this advice are available at
infrastructurevictoria.com.auInter-jurisdictional analysis
We commissioned an assessment
of recycling and resource recovery
practices, technologies and markets
in other jurisdictions to understand the
potential for the Victorian Government
to adopt and adapt similar practices,
technologies and associated policies.
Sector mapping and market design
We worked with the Centre for Market
Design at the University of Melbourne
to analyse the Victorian recycling and
resource recovery sector. This analysis
identified major decision or transaction
points in the cycle, those involved at each
point, where markets are missing or
failing, and what the causes are.
We looked at the incentives influencing
each transaction including the availability
of information, the effect of regulation
and the role of price, and applied market
design principles to find approaches
to build resilience in the sector.
Infrastructure analysis
The infrastructure analysis identifies and
explores technologies and processes for
waste and resource recovery. It considers
the context for the planning, funding,
construction and operation of infrastructure
under different policy and investment
scenarios.
This enables us to understand the potential
for the Victorian Government to adopt
specific approaches to resource recovery and recycling through policy, regulation,
market design, support of new
infrastructure proposals and/or the
potential to attract new operators
to Victoria to further develop the market.
Materials flow analysis
and sensitivity testing
This work presents a current benchmark
of waste flows, material market values,
value add opportunities and fates of
materials in the Victorian waste and
resource recovery sector. It identifies
opportunities to increase recovery rates
and improve material outcomes to realise
a circular economy in Victoria. This analysis
shows where materials could go if subject
to improved processing or end market
development under a range of different
scenarios, reflecting different policy
settings. These policy settings represented
a refinement of the scenarios that were
considered in our initial infrastructure
analysis.
Legislative and regulatory settings
We examined the legislative and regulatory
settings in place in the sector as well as
any existing plans or strategies that are
barriers or enablers to enhancing the sector
in Victoria. This work was intended to
understand the authorising environment
for waste and resource recovery, such as
the barriers to using recycled materials in
a range of applications and the regulatory
requirements for resource recovery facilities
(including planning and land use settings). We developed our advice to the
Victorian Government in three phases of
stakeholder engagement and technical
analysis. During the first phase of the
project, which was completed in August
2019, we met with and heard from more
than 150 organisations and individuals
from across the waste sector, business,
industry and government who provided
valuable input and helped us refine
the scope of our research and analysis.
92
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria


Community polling
Using a representative sample of 1,000
Victorian households, we undertook a
quantitative online survey in July 2019
to better understand community attitudes
and perceptions on recycling and resource
recovery. The survey covered attitudes
and perceptions towards waste sorting
practices, people’s willingness to change
their behaviour and perceptions of
product packaging.
Community focus groups
We engaged Quantum Market Research
to develop a deeper understanding of how
Victorians’ attitudes and perceptions will
influence the success of various potential
kerbside waste sorting and collection
initiatives. Focus group participants were
engaged to help investigate levels of
motivation amongst Victorians to adhere
to new sorting and collection initiatives,
and the underlying factors that either
motivated people or limited their adherence
to new rules and practices.
End market barriers and enablers
This work analysed the market for
recycled and recovered materials and
found that there are variety of market
failures and complexities relating to the
generation, collection and processing
of waste, in addition to weak end markets
for many recovered materials.
We identified specific policy levers that
government can use to address these market failures and complexities, and
facilitate a well-functioning market that
will improve resource recovery.
Infrastructure gap analysis
Building on our initial infrastructure analysis,
this work was undertaken to inform our
understanding of the waste and resource
recovery infrastructure needs across
Victoria now and into the future, with
specific consideration of the needs of
different regions and managing a range
of different waste material.
This work informed our recommendations
about what infrastructure will be required,
and where, by analysing current waste
and resource recovery infrastructure
capacity and capability throughout Victoria
and identifying gaps in future capacity
or capability.
Our analysis also considered the potential
impacts of Victorian and Australian
Government policy directions as well as
priority materials for short-term effort to
increase recycling capacity and capability.
The final phase, the focus of this report, is to articulate
the advice and recommendations for the Victorian
Government on the basis on the evidence we have
gathered through our technical work, site visits to
facilities across Victoria and South Australia, and
feedback we have received from stakeholders
including the Sector Advisory Group.
93Methodology Infrastructure Victoria


Infrastructure Gap Analysis Overview
Infrastructure Victoria have undertaken
an Infrastructure Gap Analysis to consider
the appropriate infrastructure facility types
that will be required to manage current
and future resource recovery needs of
Victoria considering:
\ projected waste generation
and resource recovery rates
\ the required capacity to manage
future waste tonnes
\ the required capability to transform
recovered resources into valuable
commodities
\ the potential suitable locations
for future infrastructure
\ the indicative capital investment required
\ the indicative timing of when
infrastructure will be required based
on current and emerging waste policies
and market challenges.
The recommended infrastructure
facilities are an estimated forecast
of what may be required in future years
to respond to emerging waste and
resource recovery trends. They are
not prescriptive and should be used
for guiding purposes only. The complete
Infrastructure Gap Analysis can be
viewed as a Technical Document at
www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/
project/advice-on-waste-infrastructure-
in-victoria/Infrastructure Victoria developed a
methodology to guide its recommendations
for types of infrastructure needs and the
potential locations of infrastructure to
respond to current and emerging waste
trends. To guide this, Infrastructure Victoria
commissioned Brock Baker Environmental
Consulting to undertake a ‘Waste and
Resource Recovery Infrastructure Data and
Spatial Analysis’ report and Blue
Environment to develop a ‘Victorian Waste
Flows Projection’ model. These data sets
informed Infrastructure Victoria’s gap
analysis.
Priority materials
Infrastructure Victoria has identified and
undertaken detailed analysis of six priority
waste material streams: E-waste, glass,
organics, paper and cardboard, plastics,
and tyres.
Infrastructure Victoria has identified these
as priority waste materials for analysis
based on:
I.  Their exposure to current market
challenges including international
import bans and fluctuating
commodities prices.
II.  The potential impacts of the COAG
waste export ban that seeks to restrict
the export of ‘scrap’ glass, paper and
cardboard, plastics and tyres which will
be phased in from July 2020 and come
into full effect by July 2024. III.  The opportunity to divert organics from
landfill, which comprises significant
tonnes that could be readily recovered
for beneficial uses.
IV.  The introduction of the Victorian e-waste
landfill ban in July 2019 which requires
diversion of e-waste to resource
recovery pathways. It is noted that
e-waste is also heavily exposed to
increasing international import
restrictions as well.
Infrastructure Gap
Analysis Methodology
Drawing upon this work, Infrastructure
Victoria’s methodology included analysis of:
\ current and predicted waste generation
by material type
\ reprocessing capacity by material type
\ reprocessing capability by material type
\ location of resource recovery
infrastructure and its proximity to end
markets
\ the Statewide Resource Recovery
Infrastructure Plan (SWRRIP) and
Regional Implementation Plans
\ existing resource recovery hubs of
statewide significance as identified in
SWRRIP
\ stated government priorities to support
regional economies in transition e.g.
 in the Latrobe Valley.Appendix A:
Resource recovery infrastructure
forecast investment by 2039
94
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria


\ The ability to meet a range of policy and
resource recovery target scenarios by
2022, 2025, 2030 and 2039. These
include:
– The COAG Waste Export Ban proposal
that seeks to restrict the export of
‘scrap’ glass, paper and cardboard,
plastics and tyres which will be phased
in from July 2020 and come into full
effect by July 2024.
– The APCO plastics recycling target
of 70% of plastics to be recycled
in Australia by 2025.
– The National Waste Policy target
of an 80% average resource recovery
rate from all waste streams following
the waste hierarchy by 2030.
– The Victorian e-waste landfill ban.
Infrastructure Gap
Analysis Key Assumptions
\ The results and recommended
infrastructure facility types are indicative
only. Technology choices and accepted
feedstocks must be chosen at the
discretion of any project proponent.
The Infrastructure Gap Analysis presents
data that can inform these decisions.
\ The Infrastructure Gap Analysis is
based on responding to forecast waste
generation and resource recovery trends.
\ Recovery and reprocessing capacity
are based on both known and estimated
capacities.\ Recovery and reprocessing capability
are based on both known and estimated
capabilities.
\ Full businesses cases have not
been developed.
\ Consultation with key stakeholders
has not occurred.
\ Capital expenditure costs are based
on industry estimates and comparable
recent investments in the waste and
resource recovery sector.
– Infrastructure has been costed at 2020
costs. This has been extrapolated out
to 2039 based on 2020 costs alone.
There has been no inclusion of NPV,
discount rates, CPI, etc.
– It is noted that over time, capital
investment for infrastructure will most
likely increase.
\ Operating costs have been excluded
from this analysis.
\ Locations are indicative only and are
based on assumptions around potential
site opportunities.
– Suburbs and towns have been
identified based on the aforementioned
methodology and are for illustrative
purposes only.
– Any decisions on locations will need to
be made primarily by the private sector
and guided by appropriate land use
planning and environmental approvals. – Suburbs and towns are named as a
locality guide only and are approximate.
– For example, where an organics
reprocessing facility is identified in
a township, the facility would have
to be located in an appropriately
zoned area and would likely be on
private land within the broader area
of any given township.
Infrastructure Gap Analysis
Recommendations
Infrastructure Victoria recommends
that there is an immediate and an ongoing
need for investment in Victoria’s waste and
resource recovery network. Infrastructure
Victoria estimates that by 2039:
\ Investment in approximately 87
new or additional resource recovery
infrastructure facilities will be required
throughout Victoria.
\ An increase in total resource
recovery infrastructure capacity
of 3,157,500 tonnes is required.
\ A forecast capital investment of
between $800 million to $1.1 billion
by 2039 will be needed to deliver the
required infrastructure.
95
Methodology Infrastructure Victoria


Appropriate phasing of infrastructure
investment, construction and
commissioning will be different for
each priority material. Specifically:
\ By 2024 investment in recovery and
reprocessing infrastructure will be
needed for paper and cardboard,
to meet the requirements of the
COAG waste export ban.
\ By 2025, investment in recovery
and reprocessing infrastructure will
be needed for organics and plastics.
\ By 2030, investment in recovery
and reprocessing infrastructure
will be needed for e-waste.
\ And by 2039, investment will be needed
in value-add recovery and reprocessing
infrastructure for glass and tyres.
To manage total forecast resource recovery
trends by 2039, it is estimated that future
resource recovery investment required by
2039 will include:
\ e-waste investment between $12m to
$55m to manage 34,500 tonnes per
annum
\ glass investment between $17.5m
to $24.3m to manage 328,000 tonnes
per annum
\ organics investment between
$229.75m to $317.32m to manage
805,000 tonnes per annum\ paper and cardboard investment
between $157m to $198m to
manage 2 million tonnes per annum
\ plastics between $367.9m to $511.28m
to manage 515,000 tonnes per annum
\ tyres investment between $6m to $8m
to manage 15,000 tonnes of commingled
recycling per annum
\ new MRF investment between $12m
to $20m to manage 80,000 tonnes
of commingled recycling per annum.
Infrastructure Facility
Type Considerations
E-waste
\ Infrastructure is recommended to
manage emerging waste streams
of high hazard and high value.
\ Reprocessing locations for e-waste
products including batteries, televisions,
computers, monitors and peripherals
have been recommended in existing
metropolitan Melbourne hubs.
Solar photovoltaic (PV) panel reprocessing
has been recommended:
– To account for installation of solar
PV panel uptake and density
throughout Victoria based on data
from the Clean Energy Regulator
and mapping by the Australian PV
Institute (https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/
historical#7/-36.545/144. 316).– To complement existing metropolitan
Melbourne e-waste reprocessing hubs.
– In Bendigo due to its proximity to
current and future deployment of
household, commercial and large-scale
solar in central and northern Victoria.
– In both Geelong and Morwell to service
future end-of-life arisings in south west
Victoria and Gippsland and to leverage
existing infrastructure and labour forces
where economic transition is occurring
in Victoria.
– Outside Melbourne and the Geelong
region, the northern and eastern
regions of Victoria have the highest
density of solar PV installations. Both
Bendigo and Morwell can potentially
serve as the reprocessing hubs for
these regions.
Glass
\ Infrastructure is recommended to
manage future glass recovery with a
view to increasing capacity and capability
to process glass into glass sand products
for use in sand replacement applications,
crushed rock and aggregate blends,
and abrasives.
\ In particular, glass sand and aggregate
infrastructure is recommended to be
deployed throughout regional Victoria to
realise the potential for use in local road
and infrastructure construction activities
to manage future end-of-life arisings and
support local circular economic activity. 96
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria


\ One additional glass beneficiation plant
has been recommended due to the recent
decrease in capacity following the January
2020 closure of the GRS beneficiation
facility in Coolaroo. However, Infrastructure
Victoria cautions that any investment
in additional glass beneficiation should
consider both current and long-term
market demand for glass cullet for use
in Victorian glass packaging production.
Organics
\ Anaerobic digestion has been identified
as a suitable technology to manage
current and future commercial food
organics recovery.
– The north of Melbourne is already
serviced in Wollert, servicing key
clients such as the Melbourne Market
(wholesale fruit and vegetables).
– There are still significant opportunities
to service food production businesses
in Melbourne’s south east (Dandenong
South) and in Victoria’s Goulburn
Valley (Girgarre).
– Other locations throughout Victoria may
also be viable and further investigation
of suitable location is recommended
\ As Melbourne councils introduce further
FOGO services, the existing capacity
to consolidate and reprocess organics
into compost will be insufficient.
– Dedicated Special Materials Recovery
Centres (transfer stations for organics) are recommended for hubs identified
in the SWRRIP in Melbourne’s western
(Laverton North) and northern (Epping)
suburbs.
– Due to the challenges in meeting EPA
requirements and managing social
licence to operate, it is unlikely that any
future significant organics reprocessing
will occur in metropolitan Melbourne.
– To meet the increasing FOGO service
demands, and to meet Melbourne’s
growing population and traffic
congestion, Infrastructure Victoria
recommends that SMRCs are
constructed to provide opportunities
to consolidate and aggregate FOGO
prior to transportation, enabling
transport efficiencies to be realised
and haul FOGO to regional Victorian
reprocessing facilities.
– Laverton North is approximately
50km from the Barwon South West
region and approximately 100km
from the Central West region. Epping
is approximately 30km from the
southern end of the Goulburn Valley
region and approximately 125km
from the Central West region.
– Melbourne’s south east is presently
well serviced.
\ In-vessel composting has been
recommended in areas close to
large regional centres to manage
EPA requirements, social licence  and urban amenity issues.
\ Open windrow composting has been
recommended in regional Victorian
locations that are potentially more likely
to manage EPA requirements, social
licence and urban amenity issues.
Paper and cardboard
\ Pulp mills have been recommended
following the COAG export ban to
manage the shortfall in both capacity
and capability to meet these new
requirement and/or domestic production
requirements. However it must be noted
that such infrastructure is expensive
and based on current paper markets,
the entrance of any new stakeholders
is considered to be unlikely. Therefore,
any new pulp mills would likely need to
complement existing market players.
\ There is an opportunity for niche
and bespoke paper and cardboard
products to be produced to meet
shifting consumer sentiment and
corporate shifts away from single
use plastics in packaging.
\ Additional paper separation technology
upgrades at MRFs are recommended
to meet the COAG waste export ban
requirements.
\ Further C&I paper recovery facilities
are also recommended to meet the
COAG waste export ban requirements.
97
Methodology Infrastructure Victoria


Plastics
\ Further investment is required in plastics
reprocessing infrastructure including to
mechanically shred, wash, granulate,
flake by single polymer type or pelletise
by single polymer type.
\ Victoria potentially has significant
competitive advantage and existing
plastics manufacturing infrastructure
that could be leveraged to manage
this challenge. Victoria is currently
home to two major plastics resins
manufacturing businesses.
– Qenos has resins manufacturing
production operations in NSW and
in Altona, Victoria. Qenos is the
sole manufacturer of polyethylene
in Australia.
– LyondellBasell has resins manufacturing
production operations in NSW and
Geelong, Victoria. LyondellBasell is
the sole manufacturer of polypropylene
in Australia.
– The presence of these two major
resins manufacturers in Victoria,
with considerable market access,
represents a significant opportunity
to use recovered plastics in resins
manufacturing in Australia.
\ Investment in both metropolitan
Melbourne and regional Victoria
would be appropriate. Regional Victoria
has historically proven to be suitable
for the reprocessing of plastics and
there are opportunities for regional
flaking and pelletising infrastructure.Tyres
\ No further tyre reprocessing to
shred tyres is required in Victoria
to meet current domestic and export
market demands.
\ However, should there be interest
in building domestic demand for
Tyre Derived Products from passenger
tyres, then there is an opportunity
for investment in increased fibre
separation infrastructure.
\ It is recommended that such infrastructure
be located in Melbourne’s northern
suburbs where Victoria’s two major tyre
reprocessing businesses are located.
MRFs
\ Generally, Victorian MRF infrastructure
will need upgrading to increase the ability
to sort and separate mixed materials.
Presently, MRFs typically produce bales
of mixed materials including paper
and plastics. The market demand and
in some cases, market authorisation,
is seeing limited outlets for mixed
baled materials. Further investment
will be required in infrastructure to
present sorted, clean streams of
recovered materials.
\ Beyond this, there are notable gaps in
the provision of MRF infrastructure in
Victoria’s south west and central western
regions. Infrastructure Victoria sees
opportunities for new MRF infrastructure
to be located in Geelong and Ballarat
to service these Victorian regions.
Figure 27: Resource recovery
infrastructure forecast investment
by 2039
Note: Locations are indicative only based on Infrastructure
Victoria methodology. In some instances facilities are likely to
be outside of the identified town centres in a neighbouring area.
Capex costs are based on 2020 cost estimates only. Tonnes
per annum are based on Waste Data Flows analysis. Number
of facilities to manage projected TPA may be scaled up or down
based on facility size design. Proposed scale is indicative only.
98
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria


Infrastructure Victoria Recycling and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Facility Recommendations 2020 to 2039
Supply
chain roleMaterial
typeFacility typeNo. of
facilities
2039Capacity
(Tonnes per
annum) 2039Low capex High capex Indicative locationRecoveryMixed MRF – Mechanical separation
and optical sorting2 80,000 $12,000,000 $20,000,000 Ballarat,
Geelong
Organics SMRC – Transfer stations
dedicated to organics with
hard stand, cover, bays2 240,000 $18,000,000 $36,000,000 Epping,
Laverton North
Paper MRF – Paper separation
upgrades11 440,000 $16,500,000 $33,000,000 Bendigo, Coolaroo,
Dandenong South, Echuca,
Heidelberg, Laverton North,
Lucknow, Morwell, Springvale,
Truganina, Wangaratta
Paper SMRC – C&I paper recovery 6 300,000 $51,000,000 $60,000,000 Ballarat, Coolaroo,
Dandenong South, Geelong,
Laverton North, TruganinaReprocessingE-waste Manual disassembly &
mechanical processing –
Batteries2 4,000 $1,750,000 $2,200,100 Dandenong South
E-waste Solar photovoltaic
panel reprocessing5 25,000 $7,500,000 $50,000,000 Bendigo, Dandenong South,
Geelong, Laverton North,
Morwell
Glass Beneficiation plant 1  108,000 $8,100,000  $13,338,000 Laverton North
Glass Sand/aggregate plant – Large 2 100,000 $4,250,000 $5,000,000 Clayton South
Glass Sand/aggregate plant – Small 12 120,000 $5,160,000 $6,000,000 Bairnsdale, Ballarat, Bendigo,
Echuca, Mildura, Morwell,
North Geelong, Wangaratta,
Warrnambool, Wodonga
Organics Anaerobic digestion 2 60,000 $15,000,000 $48,000,000 Dandenong South, Girgarre
Organics In-vessel composting –
large & medium4 250,000 $137,500,000 $161,250,000 Ballarat, North Geelong
Organics In-vessel composting – medium 3 75,000 $41,250,000 $46,875,000 Mansfield, Morwell,
Warrnambool
Organics Open Windrow composting 6 180,000 $18,000,000 $25,200,000 Bairnsdale, Bendigo,
Mildura, Swan Hill, Wallan
Paper &
cardboardOther e.g. food fibre packaging
and tissue, paper towel4 40,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 Dandenong South,
Laverton North
Paper &
cardboardPulp mill 2 600,000 $90,000,000 $105,000,000 Dandenong South,
Laverton North
Plastics Chemical processing 1 20,000 $34,000,000 $40,000,000 Dandenong South
Plastics Chemical processing & flaking &
pelletising plant (food grade)2 70,000 $67,350,000 $90,000,000 Altona
Plastics Chemical processing, pelletising
plant, flaking & pelletising plant
(food grade & non-food grade)4 145,000 $104,850,000 $143,760,000 Geelong
Plastics Flaking & pelletising plant – Small 8 80,000 $53,360,000 $80,000,000 Bairnsdale, Bendigo,
Mildura, Morwell, Shepparton,
Warrnambool, Wodonga
Plastics Flaking & pelletising plant (food
grade & non-food grade)2 100,000 $45,850,000 $64,285,000 Ballarat
Plastics Pelletising plant 1 25,000 $25,000,000 $39,475,000 Laverton North
Plastics Pelletising plant & flaking,
pelletising plant (non-food grade)2 75,000 $37,500,000 $53,760,000 Campbellfield
Tyres Fibre separation plant 1 15,000 $6,000,000 $8,025,000 Somerton
Total number of facilities and total capex 87 3,157,500 $808,695,000 $1,141,543,200
Infrastructure has been costed at 2020 costs. This has been extrapolated out to 2039 based on 2020 costs alone. There has been no inclusion of NPV, discount rates, CPI etc. 99
Methodology Infrastructure Victoria


Appendix B:
Defined terms
Term Definition
%RR Percentage recovery rate
ACCU Australian Carbon Credit Unit
APCO Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation
C&D Construction and Demolition Waste
C&I Commercial and Industrial Waste
CDS Container Deposit Scheme
CEFC Clean Energy Finance Corporation
COAG Council of Australian Governments
DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
E-waste In Victoria, e-waste (electronic waste) refers to any item with a plug,
battery or cord that is no longer working or wanted
EP Act Environment Protection Act (both the Environment Protection
Act 1970 and Environment Protection Act 2017)
EPA Environmental Protection Authority Victoria
EPR Extended Producer Responsibility
EU European Union
FOGO Mixed Food Organics and Garden Organics
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
HDPE High-density polyethylene (type of plastic)
MRF Material Recovery Facility
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NTCRS National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme
PBO Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria
100


Term Definition
PET Polyethylene terephthalate (type of plastic)
Pyrolysis A thermal process for separating materials without oxygen
PVs Solar photovoltaic panels
R&D Research and Development
VRIP Victorian Recycling Infrastructure Plan
SMRC Specific Materials Recovery Centre
SV Sustainability Victoria
SWRRIP Statewide Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan,
now referred to as the Recycling Infrastructure Plan (RIP)
VAGO Victorian Government Auditor General Office
WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
WRRGs Waste and Resource Recovery Groups
Methodology Infrastructure Victoria
101


Sources Image credits
7 News (2019) Class action win for residents affected by
Coolaroo recycling plant fire, Available at https://7news.com.au/
news/court-justice/class-action-win-for-residents-affected-
by-coolaroo-recycling-plant-fire-c-378097, accessed on
7 October 2019
Access Economics (2009) Employment in waste management
and recycling, report for the Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts
AlphaBeta (2019) Recycling and resource recovery
infrastructure in Victoria: International and Australian
comparisons, report for Infrastructure Victoria
Blue Environment (2019) Victorian Waste flows projections,
report for Infrastructure Victoria
Brock Baker Environmental Consulting (2020) Waste
and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Data and Spatial
Analysis, report for Infrastructure Victoria
Centre for Market Design (2019) Opportunities to improve
infrastructure investment in the Victorian waste economy,
report for Infrastructure Victoria
Clean Energy Finance Corporation (2016) Energy from
waste in Australia: a state-by-state update
Crampton, P . (2001) Handbook of Telecommunications
Economics, Martin Cave, Sumit Majumdar, and Ingo
Vogelsang, eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
Deloitte (2019) Regulatory Impact Statement: Proposed
environment protection regulations, report for the
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
and the Environment Protection Authority
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
(2017) Turning waste into energy, Join the discussion
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
(2018) Management and storage of combustible recyclable
and waste material, Policy Impact Assessment
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
(2019) A circular economy for Victoria – Creating more
value and less waste
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
(2020) Recycling Victoria: A new economy
Department of Treasury and Finance (2019) Victorian
Budget 19/20 – Budget Paper No. 3Infrastructure Victoria (2018) Advice on Automated
and Zero Emissions Vehicles Infrastructure
Infrastructure Victoria (2019) Evidence Base Report:
Recycling and resource recovery infrastructure
Infrastructure Victoria (2019) Legislative and regulatory review
Infrastructure Victoria (2020) Resource Recovery Infrastructure
Gap Analysis
Office of Resource Recovery, Department of Environment and
Science (2019) Energy from Waste Policy – Discussion paper
for consultation
Parliament of Victoria Legislative Council Environment
and Planning Committee (2019) Inquiry into recycling
and waste management – final report
Plott, Charles R. and Lee, Hsing-Yang and Maron,
Travis (2014). The Continuous Combinatorial Auction
Architecture, American Economic Review
Quantum Market Research (2019) Kerbside Collection
Deep Dive, report for Infrastructure Victoria
Quantum Market Research (2019) Waste Advice Research,
report for Infrastructure Victoria
Stoneham et al (2002) Auctions for Conservation Contracts:
An Empirical Examination of Victoria’s Bush Tender Trial
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Sustainability Victoria (2014) Victorian Statewide Garbage
Bin Audit 2013
Sustainability Victoria (2019) Victorian Local Government
Annual Waste Services Report 2017-18
Victorian Auditor General’s Office (2011) Municipal Solid
Waste Management,
Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (2019) Recovering and
Reprocessing Resources from WastePages 14, 22 (top), 40, 45, 65,
67, 72 and 83: (C) Sustainability Victoria
Page 77: DELWP Image Library (C) 2020
Advice on recycling and resource recovery Infrastructure Victoria
102


List of figures
Figure 1
Recycling and resource recovery
infrastructure outcomes
Figure 2
Preferred waste outcomes
Figure 3
Recovery of household and commercial
waste is low, and is an opportunity
Figure 4
Some materials are more
problematic than others
Figure 5
Resource recovery infrastructure
comes in many different forms
Figure 6
Reprocessing capacity varies by material
Figure 7
End-of-life plastic generation is
expected to grow in Victoria
Figure 8
Plastics processing shortfall is
expected by 2025
Figure 9
End-of-life glass generation
will grow by 2039
Figure 10
Glass processing is sufficient
Figure 11
More organic waste is expected over timeFigure 12
Organics processing shortfall
is expected by 2025
Figure 13
End-of-life paper and cardboard
volumes are expected to increase
Figure 14
Paper and cardboard processing
shortfall is immediate
Figure 15
End-of-life tyres are expected
to increase by 2039
Figure 16
Tyre processing capacity is sufficient
Figure 17
E-waste is projected to grow
Figure 18
E-waste processing shortfall
is expected by 2030
Figure 19
Estimated value of recovered
materials in 2019 – Victorian prices /
South Australian prices
Figure 20
The Victorian recycling industry
has the potential to generate up
to 5,000 new jobs by 2039
Figure 21
Reprocessing infrastructure is highly
concentrated around MelbourneFigure 22
Most processing occurs in
Melbourne; except for organics
Figure 23
Indicative location of required recovery
and reprocessing infrastructure
Figure 24
Bin lid colours are inconsistent
across Melbourne
Figure 25
The opportunity for improved
recovery and reprocessing in
Victoria varies by material
Figure 26
Market development for multiple
materials takes considerable research
and development
Figure 27
Resource recovery infrastructure
forecast investment by 2039Methodology Infrastructure Victoria
103


This publication may be of assistance to you,
but Infrastructure Victoria and its employees
do not guarantee that the publication is without
flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your
particular purposes and therefore disclaims all
liability for any error, loss or other consequence
that may arise from you relying on any information
in this publication. You should seek appropriately
qualified advice before making any decisions
regarding your particular project.
Printed by Infrastructure Victoria
April 2020
© Copyright Infrastructure Victoria 2020
Except for any logos, emblems, trademarks,
figures and photography, this document is made
available under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. It is a condition
of this Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence
that you must give credit to the original author,
who is Infrastructure Victoria.
This document is also available at
infrastructurevictoria.com.au.
ISBN 978-1-925632-43-9 (Print)
ISBN 978-1-925632-44-6 (pdf/online/MS word)
Printed on 100% recycled paper


     EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROSTAT

Directorate E: Sectoral and regional statistics
Unit E -2: Environmental statistics and accounts; sustainable development

Guidance for the compilation and reporting
of data on municipal  waste according to
Commission Implementing Decision s
2019/1004 /EC and 2019/ 1885 /EC, and the
Joint Questionnaire of Eurostat and OECD
(Note : The Commission Delegated Decision on average loss
rates has not yet been implemented;  future version s of this
guidance will contain further details on the  published legal act. )

Version of
6th October 2023

C:\Users\alvar\Desktop\UCM-TFM-G1\data\LLM\pdfs\Guidance on municipal waste data collection.pdf


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    5 1 Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to Member States on the reporting of
municipal  waste data , pursuant to the requirements  laid down  in Commission Implementing
Decision s 2019/10041 and 2019/18852, as well as , until 2025,  Commission Implementing
Decision 2011/753 /EU3. In particular, this  guidance highlights important considerations
relating to the calculation of municipal  waste generated and  recycled  according to these new
legal acts, including the application of new calculation rules  (as reported in the landfill and
municipal waste repor ting obligation questionnaires) . In addition, the guidance supports the
delivery of municipal waste statistics within the Eurostat and OECD Joint Questionnaire.
Guidance to support Member States in the completion of the quality check report s (hereafter
referred to as the ‘ quality report s’) can be found in the  Quality Report template s themselves
(which exist within each of the municipal waste questionnaires) .
This guidance document will continue to be further improved and expanded as more
experience becomes available with data collection and reporting. For revised versions of this
guidance document, please check https://ec.europa.eu/eu rostat/web/waste/methodology .
2 Scope and definitions
The reporting obligation is based on  the implementing decisions described in the introduction
for European Council Directive s 2008/98/EC  (the Waste Framework Directive [ WFD] , as
amended most recently  by Directive (EU) 2018/851 ) and 1999/31/EC  (the Landfill Directive ,
as amended most recently by Directive (EU) 2018/850 ).
Municipal waste  is defined in Article 3 (2b) of European Council Directive 2008 /98/EC on
waste4 as:
“mixed waste and separately collected waste from households, including
paper and cardboard, glass, metals, plastics, bio - waste, wood, textiles,
packaging, waste electrical and electronic equipment, waste batteries and
accumulators, and bulky waste, includ ing mattresses and furniture”
and:
“mixed waste and separately collected waste from other sources, where
such waste is similar in nature and composition to waste from households.”
The provision  further clarifie s what items the above definition does not include :

1 https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32019D1004
2 https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?qid=1595832235588&uri=CELEX:32019D1885
3 https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011D0753
4 For the consolidated version see https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:01994L0062 -
20180704&from=EN


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    6 “Municipal waste does not include waste from production, agriculture,
forestry, fishing, septic  tanks and sewage network and treatment, including
sewage sludge, end -of-life vehicles or construction and demolitio n waste.”
Furthermore,
“the definition is without prejudice to the allocation of responsibilities for
waste management between public and private actors ”.
In other words, waste from households and waste similar in nature and composition shall be
included in municipal waste, no matt er who collects this waste.  These features do not all
apply at the same time but in a hierarchical order . Figure 1 shows the order in that the
definition should be ap plied.
Figure 1: Decision -tree for the attribution of waste to municipal waste


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    7 Further guidance on applying  the definition of municipal waste is given  in Section 4.1.1 , and
in Annex 1  of this guidance .
Other relevant definitions under Article 3 include:
• ‘bio-waste’ means biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste
from households, offices, restaurants, whole sale, canteens, caterers and retail
premises and comparable waste from food processing plants;
• ‘separate collection’ means the collection where a waste stream is kept separately by
type and nature so as to facilitate a specific treatment;
• ‘re-use’ means an y operation by which products or components that are not waste
are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived;
• ‘treatment’ means recovery or disposal operations, including preparation prior to
recovery or disposal;
• ‘recovery’ means any o peration the principal result of which is waste serving a useful
purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a
particular function, or waste being prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the
wider econom y. Annex II of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste  sets out a non -exhaustive
list of recovery operations;
• ‘material recovery’ means any recovery operation, other than energy recovery and the
reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or other means  to generate
energy. It includes, inter alia, preparing for re -use, recycling and backfilling;
• ‘preparing for re -use’ means checking, cleaning or repairing recovery operations, by
which products or components of products that have become waste are prepared  so
that they can be re -used without any other pre -processing . For example, the
preparation on furniture, objects, books, clothes, electric and electronic devi ces (by
means of repairing or refurbishing operations) prior to their  reintroduc tion on  the
marke t;
• ‘recycling’ means any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed
into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It
includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery
and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling
operations;
• ‘backfilling’ means any recovery operation where suitable non -hazardous waste is
used for purposes of reclamation in excavated areas or for engineering purposes i n
landscaping. Waste used for backfilling must substitute non -waste materials, be
suitable for the aforementioned purposes, and be limited to the amount strictly
necessary to achieve those purposes;
• ‘disposal’ means any operation which is not recovery even  where the operation has
as a secondary consequence the reclamation of substances or energy. Annex I of
Directive 2008/98/EC  sets out a non -exhaustive list of disposal operations;


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    8 Further definitions regarding the application of the new calculation rules are given in Article 1
of Decision 2019/1004 ; here only the definition of the calculation point and the meas urement
point shall be repeated:
• ‘calculation point’ means the point where municipal waste materials enter  the
recycling operation whereby waste is reprocessed into products, materials or
substances that are not waste or the point where waste materials cease to be waste
as a result of a preparatory operation before being reprocessed;
• ‘measurement point’ means  the point where the mass of waste materials is measured
with a view to determining the amount of waste at the calculation point;
3 Due date for data submission  and application of new
calculation  rules
3.1 Old calculation rules
Until the implementation of Directive (EU) 2018/851 and the associated Commission
Decision 2019/1004, the reporting formats and rules for the 2020 preparation for reuse and
recycling target  implemented in 2008 by Directive 2008/98/EC  in Article 11(2) (a) were set out
by the following:
• Commission Decision 2011/753/EU  (rules for the 2020 recycling target  – referred to
here as the “Old calculation rules” ).5
o This is still in force and only becomes redundant beyond reporting of
reference year 2024 data, after w hich the new targets for 2025 under the new
rules will then apply. According to Article 11(2) (c) of Directive (EU) 2018/851 ,
by 2025, the preparing for re -use and the recycling applies to a new strict
definition of municipal waste defined in Article 3(2b) of this same Directive,
and the rate shall be increased to a minimum of 55 % by weight. From
reference year 2025, with regard to proving compliance with this target, of the
four calculation methods given in Annex I of Commission Decision 2011/753,
only met hod four will then be valid (using the new rules), meaning the
approximation of municipal waste by the other three calculation methods will
no longer be possible .
• Implementing Decision C(2012)2384 (establishing the Member State questionnaire) .6
o This was repealed and replaced by Article 8 of Decision 2019/1004 . This
updates the format of the questionnaire, as can now be found as the quality
check report labelled “QR Table 3 - Recycling rate” within the Excel based
annual reporting MWRO que stionnaire, detailed in Section 4 below .

5 https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011D0753
6 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/waste/reporting/pdf/C_2012_2384.pdf


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    9 Decision 2011/753 allows Member States to choose one of four calculation methods by
which the target in W FD Article 11(2)(a) can be met, applying respectively to:
1. the preparation for reuse and the recycling of paper, metal, plastic
and glass household waste;
2. the preparation for reuse and the recycling of paper, metal, plastic,
glass household waste and other single types of househol d waste
or of similar waste from other origins;
3. the preparation for reuse and the recycling of household waste;
4. the preparation for reuse and the recycling of municipal waste.
If a Member State reports under calculation method  4, then the amounts should be the same
as reporting against the new calculation rules.
Regarding reporting on household and similar waste, Member States were required to set
out how the reported data related to the data on household waste and other econo mic
activities reported under Regulation (EC) No 2150/20027 (the Waste Statistics Regulation).
Regarding municipal waste, reporting was voluntary under the Joint Questionnaire of
Eurostat and the OECD – i.e. no legally binding requirements regarding the c alculation rules
were set.
3.2 New calculation rules
With the implementation of Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 30 May 2018  amending Directive 2008/98/EC , and the associated Commission
Decision 2019/1004,  Member States are required to meet and report on new targets from
2025 regarding municipal waste .8 The updated directive  sets out new calculation rules for
these new  targets  in Article 11a . The new rules require compliance with the new targets
based on data for all mun icipal waste , and not from a subset of municipal waste as
allowed under the old rules .

7 https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32002R2150
8 WFD Article 11(2) is as follows. Paragraph (a) is governed by th e old rules and (c) to (e) by the new rules:
“(a) by 2020, the preparing for re -use and the recycling of waste materials such as at least paper, metal,
plastic and glass from households and possibly from other origins as far as these waste streams are
similar to waste from households, shall be increased to a minimum of overall 50 % by weight;
(b) by 2020, the preparing for re -use, recycling and other material recovery, including backfilling
operations using waste to substitute other materials, of non -hazardous construction and demolition
waste excluding naturally occurring material defined in c ategory 17 05 04 in the list of waste shall be
increased to a minimum of 70 % by weight;
(c) by 2025, the preparing for re -use and the recycling of municipal waste shall be increased to a
minimum of 55 % by weight;
(d) by 2030, the preparing for re -use and  the recycling of municipal waste shall be increased to a
minimum of 60 % by weight;
(e) by 2035, the preparing for re -use and the recycling of municipal waste shall be increased to a
minimum of 65 % by weight.”


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    10 As these  new targets only come into force from 2025, until 2025  Member States must
continue to prove compliance with the 2020 target under Article 11(2) (a) of the WFD .
While Member States may continue to prove compliance with the 2020 target using the
allowable methods set out under Decision 2011/753 , Article 7 of Decision 2019/1004 states
that:
“1. Member States shall report the data and submit the quality check report
concerning the implementation of points (a) and (b) of Article 11(2) of
Directive 2008/98/EC in the format laid down in Annex IV.
As regards the implem entation of point (a) of Article 11(2) of Directive
2008/98/EC, Member States which report the data and submit the quality
check report in the format laid down in Annex V shall be deemed to comply
with the first subparagraph.
2. Member States shall report the data and submit the quality check report
concerning the implementation of points (c) to (e) of Article 11(2) and
Article 11(3) of Directive 2008/98/EC in the format laid down in Annex V. ”
Therefore, according  to paragraph (1) , Member States may  choose to prove compliance
with the 2020 target until reference year 2024 using the new calculation rules and
format  (i.e. the rules and format required for the targets under WFD Article 11(2) (c) to (d), as
set out through Decision 2019/1004, including Annex V ).
If Member States choose to prove compliance against the 2020 target using the new
calculation rules and format, then they do not need to complete  the reporting table under
Annex IV of Decision 2019/ 1004 (Table 3 within the MWRO Excel Questionnaire ).
However, if Member States do not choose to prove compliance against the 2020 target using
the new calculation rules and format then they are required to  complet e the reporting tables
in both Annex IV and Annex V of Decision 2019/1004 (i.e. both Table 2 and Table 3 within
the MWRO Excel Questionnaire) .
Member States can use the flow chart presented in Figure 2 to help guide them through the
process of completing Table 2 or Table 2 and Table 3. It presents the decisions around
reporting that Member States need to make and the required actions that f ollow from these
decisions, in terms of which tables they should complete; it also presents the outcomes in
terms of how compliance will be measured.


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    11 Figure 2: Flow Chart Guide to Completing Table 2 or Table 2 and Table 3  (MWRO q uestionnaire)

In addition, Article 5(5) of the Landfill Directive  requires that :
“Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that by 2035
the amount of municipal waste landfilled is reduced to 10 % or less of the
total amount of municipa l waste generated (by weight). ”
This target should be reported according to the format set out in Decision 2019/1885  (Table
4 in the separate ‘landfill’ Excel Questionnaire) .
To maintain an unbroken time -series , the reporting in the format under the Joint
Questionnaire will  also be maintained.
For the first full calendar year after the adoption of Decision 2019/1004, Member States were
able to report data voluntarily according to the new format , i.e. reporting  for the first time in
November 2020  for reference year 2019 . In November 2021  and subsequent years , Member
States are mandatorily required to report data according to the new format and
calculation rules for reference year 2020  and up (within Table 2  - MWRO questionnaire ).
This is in addition  to the option  of reporting for compliance against the 2020 target , which can
be done separately (within Table 3  - MWRO questionnaire ) according to the old rules .


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    12 The annual reporting of municipal waste data under the Joint Questionnaire (Table 1) by mid-
November (11 months after the reference year) will be maintained.
According to the agreement of the Directors group on sectoral and environmental statistics
and accounts ( DIME SA) of October 2019 , reconfirmed in October 2020,  Eurostat will collect
municipal waste statistics from the countries, with a deadline for delivery at T+11 months
within the limits of national data collection systems. Hence, municipal waste data are to be
sent in month 11 after the reference period. Eurostat will validate the municipal waste data
and publish them in months 12 -13 after the reference year. An in -depth validation takes
place in parallel over one to three rounds with the Member States and is fi nished in month 17
after the reference period. An update will be then published, just in time for meeting the legal
deadline according to legislation, which is T+18 months .
The questionnaire asks for municipal waste data collected by Eurostat and OECD and for
data required by the legislation :
• For data reference years 2019, 2020 and 2021 , both were collected in a single
integrated data collection, though they may come from different institutions within a
country (e.g.  National Statistical Institutes and environmental agencies or ministries).
Not all data may be available at T+11 months so that a re -submission of the
questionnaire at T+18 has typically been expected, which would provide the detailed
material breakdown and possibly revised summary indicators.
• For reference year 20 22 and beyond, the joint questionnaire (Table 1) has been
separated from the Waste Framework Directive reporting obligation data (Tables 2
and 3) and also from the Landfill Directive reporting obligation data (Table 4). This
allows fo r the joint questionnaire to be submitted in November at T+11 months , and
the other data to be submitted in June at T+18 months . Data between the reporting
tables should align, so it ma y be necessary to also submit re vised summary in dicators
within the joint questionnaire once the municipal waste and landfill reporting
obligation data becomes available.
In summary:
• The ‘Joint Questionnaire’ table reporting is to be made  using the ‘JQ’ Excel
Questionnaire and submitted by month 11 after the reference year; and
• The Waste  Framework Directive  and Landfill Directive reporting is to be made using
the two separate Excel Questionnaire s (the municipal waste reporting obligation
[MWRO] questionnaire , and the landfill questionnaire ) and subm itted by month 18 after
the reference year.  It will be v alidated by Eurostat and then submitted to the
Commission , or updates requested  through clarification exchanges,  for submission
thereafter.


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    13 4 Guidance for the completion of the reporting table s
As mentioned above , the Excel “Annual reporting of municipal waste ” questionnaire shall be
submitted 11 months  after the reference year  (mid November ), with the Joint Questionnaire
table completed. This is described in Section  4.1, and can be found in the  ‘JQ’ questionnaire
here:

In addition, the as sociated questions in the Table 1 Quality Report must  also be completed:

The reporting tables required for compliance with the abovementioned Waste and Landfill
Directive targets shall  be completed and submitted by Month 18  after the reference year  (i.e.
by the end of June) . The complet ion of the tables is described below in Sections 4.2 to 4.4,
and can be found in the questionnaire s here:
       and (in the separate file s)

In addition, the associated questions in the Quality Report s for Table s 2, 3 and 4  must  also
be completed  within each respective questionnaire :
and (separately)

Elements of data validation are included directly in the questionnaires  themselves. Where
found, please use the “Validate questionnaire” button , and/or undertake your own checks to
ensure that:
• Data  is not negative .
• Figures are numeric .
• Mandatory cells are completed.
• Aggregated values are equal to the sum of components.  (This will require that
voluntary cells are completed where data omission would result in component waste
material s not sum ming  to the total).
• Subordinate values are smaller than the parent value.  This applies to “of which”
values within Table 1. Within Table 2, it also applies to  the sum of recycling plus
energy recovery plus other recovery, as compared to generated waste .


Guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on municipal  waste  _________________________    14 4.1 Generation and treatment of municipal waste ( Eurostat /OECD Joint
Questionnaire)  [“Table 1” within the ‘JQ’ data collection questionnaire ]
The reporting under the Joint Questionnaire shall be continued to ensure the time -series is
maintained. An image of the reporting table from the questionnaire is provided in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Table 1 – Generation and treatment of municipal waste ( Eurostat/OECD Joint Questionnaire )

Country:
Reference year:
Municipal waste WST_OPE R UNIT DATA
Standard
footnotes
Total municipal waste generated* GEN Tonnes
Waste generated by households (OECD) GEN_HH Tonnes
Waste generated by other sources (OECD) GEN_OTH Tonnes
Separate collection (of total municipal waste generated) COL_SEP Tonnes
Municipal waste treated (of the waste generated, no matter in which country)* TRT Tonnes
Recovery RCV Tonnes
Preparing for reuse PRP_REU Tonnes
Recycling - material RCY_M Tonnes
    of which Metal recycling from incineration bottom ash RCY_M_IBA Tonnes
Recycling - composting and digestion RCY_C_D Tonnes
    of which Separate collection and recycling of biowaste at source - e.g. home composting COL_SEP_RCY_S Tonnes
Recovery - energy recovery (R1)* RCV_E Tonnes
Recovery - other* RCV_OTH Tonnes
Disposal DSP Tonnes
Disposal - incineration (D10)* DSP_I Tonnes
Disposal - landfill (D1, D5, D12)* DSP_L Tonnes
Disposal - other (D2-D4, D6-D7); (OECD) DSP_OTH Tonnes
Coverage of the collection system  (share of population covered by the data) COV %
Cell shading:
Green: Variable collected only from OECD countries2021
Explanatory
footnote
*Mandatory from reference year 2020 onwards for Reporting obligations  according to Commission Implementing Decisions 2019/1004 and  2019/1885
Light orange: Footnotes (only to be filled-in when relevant)White: Data provision is required. Generation and treatment of municipal waste (Eurostat and OECD Joint Questionnaire)
(in this questionnaire, please only report those parts of waste that fall under the definition of municipal waste)


Guidance for the compilat ion and reporting of data on municipal  waste  ____________________________    15 The approach to producing the statistics, particularly the definition of municipal waste and
recycling, should be aligned with the new reporting rules under the WFD (as set out above
and described in detail in the Annexes ). Note, the light grey cells sum r elevant parameters
automatically in the sheet.  The waste types and related database codes are indicated in the
first two columns.
The approach to producing the statistics, particularly the definition of municipal waste and
recycling, should be aligned with  the new reporting rules under the WFD (as set out in th is
guidance document and described in detail in its Annexes). Note, the grey cells sum relevant
parameters automatically in the sheet. Waste generated by households and by other sources
add up to tota l municipal waste generated. The variable separate collection is a subset of
total municipal waste generated. The waste treatment operations and related codes are
indicated in the first two columns. Note that Preparation for reuse, Recycling - material,
Recycling - composting and digestion, Recovery - energy recovery , and Recovery – other ,
are subsets of total Recovery. Metal recycling from incineration bottom ash is a subset of
material recycling. Separate collection and recycling of biowaste at source  e. g. home
composting is a subset of Composting and digestion. Total Disposal contains the subsets
Disposal - incineration (D10), Disposal - landfill (D1, D5, D12) and Disposal - other (D2 -D4,
D6-D7).
4.1.1  Waste generation
Municipal waste is defined in Article 3 (2) of European Council Directive 2008/98/EC on
waste9 as “mixed waste and separately collected waste from households, including paper
and cardboard, glass, metals, plastics, bio - waste, wood, textiles, packaging, waste electrical
and electronic equipment , waste batteries and accumulators, and bulky waste, including
mattresses and furniture” and “mixed waste and separately collected waste from other
sources, where such waste is similar in nature and composition to waste from
households.”
Waste that is similar in nature and composition to waste from households may also be
collected from enterprises,  and in such  case s it is classed as  municipal waste unless  it
origin ates from production , as stated in th e same  provision : “Municipal waste does not
include w aste from production, agriculture, forestry, fishing, septic tanks and sewage network
and treatment, including sewage sludge, end -of-life vehicles or construction and demolition
waste.”
Furthermore, the definition is without prejudice to the allocation of responsibilities for
waste management between public and private actors , i.e. it is irrelevant for the definition
who collects the waste  or on whose behalf the waste is collected .
Some further guidance on applying the definition of municipal waste is given  in Annex 1  of
this guidance.

9 For the consolidated version see https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:01994L0062 -
20180704&from=EN