Waste Management Background Paper

Waste Management Criteria
The Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme’s
Waste Management Criteria
Background Paper
August 2022

1

Waste Management Background Paper

Document revision number

Date

Summary of changes

1.2 – Clarification of criteria
wording

August 2022

Clarification is made in table 9 (criteria for
sorting facilities) to align with the updatedCriteria document wording. Facilities sorting
waste for EfW must demonstrate recycled
waste goes to an eligible recycling facility,
along with the residual waste going to aneligible EfW facility.

2

Waste Management Background Paper

The Climate Bonds Initiative gratefully acknowledges the Technical and Industry Working Group members
who supported the development of these Criteria. Members are listed in Appendix 1. Special thanks are
given to Resource and Waste Solution’s Terry Coleman, the lead specialist coordinating the development of
the Criteria through the Technical Working Group and to Golder Associates for the use of their WRATE
software (www.wrate.co.uk).

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
C&I waste - commercial & industrial waste
CD&E waste - construction, demolition and excavation waste
CH4 - methane
CI - carbon intensity
CO2 - carbon dioxide
CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent
CV - calorific value
EfW – energy from waste
E-waste - electronic waste
EPR - Extended Producer Responsibility
GIB - Green Investment BankGWMO - The Global Waste Management Outlook
GWP - global warming potential
HDPE - high density polyethylene
ICT - information and communications technology
IEA - International Energy Agency
IPCC - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LCA - life cycle assessment
MBT – mechanical biological treatment
MRFs - material recovery facilities
MSW - municipal (solid) waste
PAS - Publicly Available Specification
PET - polyethylene terephthalate
PP – polypropylene
SLCP - short-lived climate pollutant
TCFD - Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
WEEE - waste electrical and electronic equipment

3

Waste Management Background Paper

List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1: Criteria development timeline
Figure 2: The waste hierarchy
Figure 3: Proportion of global waste managed by different methods
Figure 4: Municipal waste and resource management assets/activities
Figure 5: Schematic representation of qualifying carbon intensity threshold for EfW plants
Figure 2-1: Pathway to Certification
Figure 4-1: Net GWP for different waste management options
Figure 4-2: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of food waste
Figure 4-3: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of garden waste
Figure 4-4: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of waste paper
Figure 4-5: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of waste card
Figure 4-6: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of waste plastics
Figure 4-7: Decarbonisation of the UK electricity grid (Dept. for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)
Figure 4-8: Effect of electricity grid decarbonisation on landfill and EfW
Figure 4-9: Effect of different efficiencies of EFW
Figure 4-10: Effect of landfill gas capture and electricity generation
Figure 4-11: Annual net greenhouse gas emissions
Table 1: Examples of issued labelled green bonds funding waste assets and projects
Table 2: Examples of issuers of unlabelled green bonds
Table 3: Key principles for the design of the Waste Management Criteria
Table 4: scope of eligible projects and assets for Climate Bonds Certification under the Waste Management
Criteria
Table 5: clarification of which Sector Criteria assets or activities are eligible for Climate Bonds Certification
under the Waste Management Criteria.
Table 6: Quantitative and qualitative ranking of waste management options (Life cycle emissions
kgCO2e/tonne of waste)
Table 7: Criteria for Waste Collection
Table 8: Criteria for Waste Storage
Table 9: Criteria for Waste Sorting
Table 10: Criteria for Recycling and Reuse
Table 11: Criteria for Composting
Table 12: Criteria for Anaerobic Digestion
Table 13: Increases in recycling in Europe
Table 14: Criteria for Energy from Waste
Table 15: Criteria for landfill gas recovery
Table 16: Checklist for evaluating the Issuer’s Adaptation & Resilience performance in respect of a waste
management facility
Table 5-1 Calculation of average electricity grid carbon intensity
Box 1: Waste TypeBox 2: Key observations and statistics on waste management
Box 3. Publicly Available Specification 100: Specifications for Compost Material
Box 4. Publicly Available Specification 110: Specification for bio-based waste digestate
Box 5. EfW and the draft EU Taxonomy
Box 6. Step by Step Approach to assessing Energy from Waste

4

Waste Management Background Paper

Definitions
Certified Climate Bond: A Climate Bond that is certified by the Climate Bonds Standard Board as meeting therequirements of the Climate Bonds Standard, as attested through independent verification.
Climate Bond Certification: allows the issuer to use the Climate Bond Certification Mark in relation to thatbond. Climate Bond Certification is provided once the independent Climate Bonds Standard Board is satisfied
the bond conforms with the Climate Bonds Standard.
Climate Bond: A climate bond is a bond used to finance – or refinance - projects needed to address climatechange. They range from wind farms and solar and hydropower plants, to rail transport and building sea walls
in cities threatened by rising sea levels. Only a small portion of these bonds have been labelled as green or
climate bonds by their issuers.
Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI): An investor-focused not-for-profit organisation, promoting large-scale
investments that will deliver a global low carbon and climate resilient economy. The Initiative seeks to develop
mechanisms to better align the interests of investors, industry and government so as to catalyse investments
at a speed and scale sufficient to avoid dangerous climate change.
Climate Bonds Standard (CBS): A screening tool for investors and governments that allows them to identify
green bonds where they can be confident that the funds are being used to deliver climate change solutions.
This may be through climate mitigation impact and/ or climate adaptation or resilience. The CBS is made up of
two parts: the parent standard (Climate Bonds Standard v3) and a suite of sector specific eligibility Criteria.
The parent standard covers the certification process and pre- and post-issuance requirements for all certified
bonds, regardless of the nature of the capital projects. The Sector Criteria detail specific requirements for
assets identified as falling under that specific sector. The latest version of the CBS is published on the Climate
Bonds Initiative website.
Climate Bonds Standard Board (CBSB): A board of independent members that collectively represents $34
trillion of assets under management. The CBSB is responsible for approving i) Revisions to the Climate Bonds
Standard, including the adoption of additional sector Criteria, ii) Approved verifiers, and iii) Applications forcertification of a bond under the Climate Bonds Standard. The CBSB is constituted, appointed and supported
in line with the governance arrangements and processes as published on the Climate Bonds Initiative website.
Green Bond: A Green Bond is where proceeds are allocated to environmental projects. The term generally
refers to bonds that have been marketed as “Green”. In theory, Green Bonds proceeds could be used for awide variety of environmental projects, but in practice they have mostly been the same as Climate Bonds, withproceeds going to climate change projects.
Industry Working Group (IWG): A group of key organisations that are potential issuers, verifiers andinvestors convened by the Climate Bonds Initiative. The IWG provides feedback on the draft sector Criteria
developed by the TWG before they are released for public consultation.
Technical Working Group (TWG): A group of key experts from academia, international agencies, industry
and NGOs convened by the Climate Bonds Initiative. The TWG develops the Sector Criteria - detailed
technical criteria for the eligibility of projects and assets as well as guidance on the tracking of eligibility statusduring the term of the bond. Their draft recommendations are refined through engagement with financeindustry experts in convened Industry Working Groups and through public consultation. Final approval of
Sector Criteria is given by the CBSB.
Waste Management Assets and Projects: Assets and projects relating to the management of waste, and/or
the development or acquisition of associated infrastructure. These facilities might include: energy from waste,anaerobic digestion, recycling and other technologies such as the installation of effective gas collection andrecovery systems on landfill sites.

5

Waste Management Background Paper

Table of Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

3

List of Tables and Figures

4

Definitions

5

1

7

2

3

4

Introduction
1.1

Overview

7

1.2

Funding needs of a low-carbon and climate resilient economy

7

1.3

Role of bonds

8

1.4

Introduction to Climate Bonds Initiative and the Climate Bonds Standard

9

1.5

Process for Sector Criteria Development

9

1.6

Revisions to these Criteria

10

Sector Overview

11

2.1

What is Waste Management

11

2.2

The Development of Waste Management

14

2.3

Waste Management and climate change

16

2.4

Investment need

19

2.5

Bonds in the sector

19

Principles and Boundaries of the Criteria

22

3.1

Guiding Principles

22

3.2

Assets and Activities Covered by these Criteria

23

3.3

Assets out of Scope

26

3.4

Overarching Considerations

27

3.5

Setting Mitigation Thresholds for Waste Management

28

3.6

Main Results from the Life Cycle Assessment for Waste Materials

29

3.7

The Criteria for Waste Management

31

3.8

Adaptation & Resilience Requirements

41

Appendices44

Appendix 1: TWG and IWG members

44

Appendix 2: Pathway to Certification

46

Appendix 3: Summary of public consultation

47

Appendix 4: Using life cycle assessment in the development of the Criteria

52

Appendix 5: Qualifying Criteria for Energy from Waste facilities

77

Appendix 6: Further Reading

80

6

Waste Management Background Paper

1 Introduction
1.1

Overview

This Background Document serves as a reference document to the Waste Management Criteria. The
focus of those Criteria is municipal waste management and is the first sector-specific criteria for waste
management that the Climate Bonds Initiative has released. The purpose of this Background
Document is to provide an overview of the key considerations and issues that were raised during thecourse of development of the Waste Management Criteria.
The Criteria for different sectors of the economy are developed through a consultative process withsector-specific Technical Working Groups (TWGs) and Industry Working Groups (IWGs), and throughpublic consultation. The TWGs comprise academic and research institutions, civil society
organisations, multilateral banks and specialist consultancies whereas IWGs are represented by
sector-specific and financial industry experts including potential bond issuers, investors andunderwriters. This document aims to capture these various dialogues and inputs and substantiate thereasoning behind the Waste Management Criteria. A period of public consultation offers theopportunity for any member of the public to comment on the Criteria.
This Background Document begins with an introduction to the challenges in financing a low carbon
and climate resilient world and the role that bonds can play in meeting these challenges, particularly
through the standardisation of green definitions. Section 2 provides an introduction to the waste
management sector and the implications of climate change on the sector in terms of both emissions
and climate risks. Section 3 explains the principles and boundaries of the development of the Waste
Management Criteria, what is included and excluded and synthesises the discussions arising from the
Waste Management TWG and IWG and presents the resulting Criteria.
Supplementary information is available in addition to this document including:
1. Climate Bonds Standard V3: the umbrella document laying out the common requirements that all
Certified Climate Bonds need to meet, in addition to the sector-specific Criteria (V3 is the mostrecent update version).
2. Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme Brochure: an overview of the purpose, context
and requirements of the Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme.
For the documents listed above, see https://www.climatebonds.net/standard/waste. For more
information on the Climate Bonds Initiative and the Climate Bond Standard & Certification Scheme,
see https://www.climatebonds.net/standard.

1.2

Funding needs of a low-carbon and climate resilient economy

The current trajectory of climate change is expected to lead to a global warming of 3.1-3.7°C above
pre-industrial levels by 21001, posing an enormous threat to the future of the world’s nations andeconomies. The effects of climate change and the risks associated with a greater than 2ºC rise inglobal temperatures by the end of the century are significant: rising sea levels, increased frequency
and severity of hurricanes, droughts, wildfires and typhoons, and changes in agricultural patterns andyields. Avoiding such catastrophic climate change requires a dramatic reduction in global greenhousegas emissions.

1

According to Climate Tracker, under current policies we could expect 3.1-3.7ºC: 2018. Temperatures: Addressing global
warming. Accessed on 17.05.2018. Available from: http://climateactiontracker.org/global.html

7

Waste Management Background Paper

Meanwhile, the world is entering an age of unprecedented urbanisation and related infrastructuredevelopment. Global infrastructure investment is expected to amount to USD 90 trillion over the next
15 years, which is more than the entire current infrastructure stock.2
To ensure sustainable development and slow climate change, this infrastructure needs to be lowcarbon and resilient to climate change, without compromising the kind of economic growth needed to
improve the livelihoods and wellbeing of the world’s most vulnerable citizens. Ensuring that the
infrastructure built is low-carbon is estimated to raise annual investment needs by 3–4% to USD 6.2
trillion.3 Climate adaptation needs add another significant amount of investment, which is estimated at
USD 280–500 billion per annum by 2050 for a 2ºC scenario.4
According to the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), there are two broadchannels through which climate change can present risks to business activities and assets5:
1. Physical risk: the risk of impacts from climate- and weather-related events, such as floods
and storms that damage property or disrupt supply chains and trade;
2. Transition risk: the financial risks that could result from the process of adjustment towards alower-carbon economy. These include sudden shifts in demand; legal risk due to parties who
have suffered loss or damage seeking compensation; and changes in policy favouring lower
carbon technologies.
These could prompt a reassessment of the value of a large range of assets as costs and opportunities
become apparent, and widespread inadequate information on these risks could even threaten thestability of the financial system. Risks to financial stability will be minimised if the transition begins
early and follows a predictable path, thereby helping the market anticipate the transition to a 2ºC
world.

1.3

Role of bonds

Traditional sources of capital for infrastructure investment (governments and commercial banks) areinsufficient to meet capital requirement needs to 2030; institutional investors, particularly pension andsovereign wealth funds, are increasingly seen as viable actors to fill these financing gaps.
Capital markets enable issuers to tap into large pools of private capital from institutional investors.
Bonds are appropriate investment vehicles for these investors as they are low-risk investments withlong-term maturities, making them a good fit with institutional investors’ liabilities (e.g. pensions to be
paid out in several decades).
Across investors and financial markets, different entities face different types and severities of risks
related to climate change, depending on many factors including degree of long-term exposure,
likelihood of negative climate impacts, and ability to mitigate impacts or shift positions.
Bonds offer relatively stable and predictable returns, and long-term maturities. This makes them agood fit with institutional investors’ investment needs. Labelled green bonds are bonds with proceeds
used for green projects, mostly climate change mitigation and/or adaptation projects, and labelledaccordingly. The rapid growth of the labelled green bond market has shown in practice that the bondmarkets provide a promising channel to finance climate investments.
The green bond market can reward bond issuers and investors for sustainable investments that
accelerate progress toward a low carbon and climate resilient economy. Commonly used as long-term
debt instruments, green bonds are issued by governments, companies, municipalities, commercial

2

The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, (2016a). The Sustainable Infrastructure Imperative: Financing for Better
Growth and Development. The 2016 New Climate Economy Report. (n.d.). Available online.
3
The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, (2016b). The Sustainable Infrastructure Imperative: Financing for Better
Growth and Development. The 2016 New Climate Economy Report. (n.d.). Available online.
4
UNEP, (2016). The Adaptation Finance Gap Report. Available online.
5
TFCD, (2017). Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Available from:https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/final-recommendations-report/. Accessed on 04.06.2018.

8

Waste Management Background Paperand development banks to finance or re-finance assets or activities with environmental benefits.
Green bonds are in high demand and can help issuers attract new types of investors.
Green bonds are regular bonds with one distinguishing feature: the proceeds are earmarked for
projects with environmental benefits, primarily climate change mitigation and adaptation. A greenlabel is a discovery mechanism for investors. It enables the identification of climate-aligned
investments with limited resources for due diligence. By doing so, a green bond label reduces frictionin the markets and facilitate growth in climate-aligned investments.
However, currently green bonds only account for less than 0.2% of the global bond market which
stands at USD 100 trillion. The potential for scaling up is tremendous. The market now needs to growmuch bigger quickly.

1.4

Introduction to Climate Bonds Initiative and the Climate Bonds
Standard

The Climate Bonds Initiative is an investor-focused not-for-profit organisation whose goal is topromote large-scale investments through green bonds and other debt instruments to accelerate a
global transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy.
Activating the mainstream debt capital markets to finance and refinance climate-aligned projects andassets is critical to achieving international climate goals, and robust labelling of green bonds is a key
requirement for that mainstream participation. Confidence in the climate objectives and the use offunds intended to address climate change is fundamental to the credibility of the role that green bonds
play in a low carbon and climate resilient economy. Trust in the green label and transparency to theunderlying assets are essential for this market to reach scale but investor capacity to assess green
credentials is limited, especially in the fast-paced bond market. Therefore, the Climate Bonds Initiative
created Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme, which aims to provide the green bondmarket with the trust and assurance that it needs to achieve scale.
The Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme is an easy-to-use tool for investors and issuers
to assist them in prioritising investments that truly contribute to addressing climate change, both froma resilience and a mitigation point of view. It is made up of the overarching Climate Bonds Standard
detailing management and reporting processes, and a set of Sector Criteria detailing the requirements
assets must meet to be eligible for certification.
The Sector Criteria cover a range of sectors including solar energy, wind energy, marine renewableenergy, geothermal power, low carbon buildings, low carbon transport, forestry, bioenergy and water.
The Certification Scheme requires issuers to obtain independent verification, pre- and postissuance, to ensure the bond meets the requirements of the Climate Bonds Standard.

1.5

Process for Sector Criteria Development

The Climate Bonds Standard has been developed based on public consultation, road testing, review
by the assurance roundtable and expert support from experienced green bond market actors. The
Standard is revisited and amended on an annual basis in response to the growing green bond market.
Sector-specific Criteria, or definitions of green, are developed by Technical Working Groups (TWGs),
made up of scientists, engineers and technical specialists. Draft Criteria are presented to Industry
Working Groups before being released for public comment. Finally, Criteria are presented to the
Climate Bonds Standard Board for approval as seen in Figure 1.

9Waste Management Background Paper

Figure 1: Criteria development timeline

1.6

Revisions to these Criteria

As part of the Climate Bonds Initiative’s goal to accelerate a global transition to a low-carbon, climate
resilient economy, the Waste Management Criteria seek to maximise viable bond issuances withverifiable climate outcomes. All groups and individuals involved recognise the unique nature of this
sector and its inherent lack of data. The Criteria should be a foundation and starting point from whichto encourage increased transparency and consistency in application of scientific best practices anddata in the context of bond issuances.
The Criteria will be reviewed three years after launch, or potentially earlier if the need arises, at which
point the TWG will take stock of issuances that arise in the early stages and any developments inimproved methods and data that can increase the climate integrity of future bond issuances. After the
first review, the Criteria will be reviewed again periodically on a needs basis as technologies and themarket evolve. As a result, the Criteria are likely to be refined over time, as more information
becomes available. However, certification will not be withdrawn retroactively from bonds certified
under earlier versions of the Criteria.

10Waste Management Background Paper

2 Sector Overview
2.1

What is Waste Management

One of the first legal definitions of waste on record was in the US Solid Waste Disposal Act 1965,
where the term ‘solid waste’ was defined as meaning ‘garbage, refuse, and other discarded materials’
In Europe, the first Framework Directive on Waste (75/442/EEC) gave the following definition: ‘waste'means any substance or object which the holder disposes of or is required to dispose of pursuant to
the provisions of national law in force’ and similar definitions have been adopted in other countries
and internationally: the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and Their Disposal defines “wastes” as “substances or objects which are disposed of or are
intended to be disposed of or are required to be disposed of by the provisions of national law”.
Waste tends to be categorised as: municipal (solid) waste (“MSW”), commercial & industrial waste(“C&I waste”), construction, demolition and excavation waste (“CD&E waste”), hazardous waste,agricultural & forestry waste, and mining & quarrying waste. While the definition of MSW varies
between countries, it is widely understood to include waste from households, and similar C&I waste.
There are also specific waste categories such as hazardous waste, food waste, electronic waste (“ewaste”) and packaging waste that cut across multiple domains (e.g. e-waste will appear in MSW as
well as C&I waste). Wastewaters are usually excluded from definitions of waste. Box 1 provides
details on the different waste types. The focus of this Background Document is municipal solid waste.

11

Waste Management Background Paper

Box 1: Types of waste.
Municipal waste (MSW) consists of waste from households and similar commercial and industrial
waste. Household waste typically consists of newspapers, food and other product packaging, food,clothing, electronic appliances, batteries, etc. In composition terms, MSW tends to be broken down
into those materials that can be usefully recycled: paper and card, plastics, glass, metals, textiles,
food and garden (yard) waste, and other. MSW contains relatively small amounts of hazardous
waste.
Commercial and industrial waste (C&I waste) comes from premises operating a trade or business.
Industrial waste is generated from manufacturing and other industrial processes, including sectors
such as food & drink, textiles, wood, paper, power & utilities, chemicals manufacturing, metals
manufacturing, machinery & equipment. Commercial waste comes from sectors such as retail,hotels, catering, education, transport, storage, etc. By material type, C&I waste typically consists ofpaper and card, food waste, plastics (film and dense plastics), chemical waste, metals, clinical andhealthcare waste, non-metallic wastes, animal and vegetable waste, sludges and mineral waste.
Construction, demolition and excavation waste (CD&E waste) is generated during excavation, andthe construction, renovation, or demolition of buildings and civil infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges,
flyovers, subways, etc.). It contains a high percentage of relatively inert materials (e.g. concrete,masonry, asphalt) but also wood, metal, glass, gypsum, plastic, cardboard and hazardous
substances such as treated wood and asbestos.
Hazardous waste: Waste that can pose substantial, potential threats to public health or theenvironment. It includes infectious clinical waste from hospitals etc.; waste from the production ofpharmaceutical products; waste from the production of inks, dyes, pigments, paints, lacquers andvarnish, acids and alkalis and chemical substances arising from research and development.
Agricultural & forestry waste: Includes crop residues, animal faeces and urine, wood residues andwaste. Traditionally managed as part of the agricultural value chain, with the majority of waste
either returned to the soil or used as biofuel.
Mining & quarrying waste: The majority of mining and quarrying waste is surplus soil or rock,termed over-burden. This is primarily managed by mining companies as near as possible to thepoint of generation. Overburden tends to sit outside national waste environmental control regimes,
although will be subject to development controls. In Europe, liquid and slurry waste from mining issubject to the Mining Waste Directive.
Food waste: Any food and parts of food that are removed from the food supply chain. It resultsfrom many things, including inefficiencies in food supply chains, food becoming spoilt or out of
date, oversupply, and consumer shopping and eating habits.
E-waste: Also commonly referred to as waste electrical and electronic equipment (“WEEE”). This
includes a wide range of electronic products such as computers and televisions, as well as
electrical equipment such as hairdryers, washing machines, and air-conditioners. This is thefastest-growing waste stream around the world due to increased consumer demand, obsolescence(real and perceived), and rapid developments in technology and innovation6.
Packaging waste: Packaging is any material used to hold, protect, handle, deliver and present
goods. By material type, packaging waste typically consists of cardboard, glass, plastic, wood,steel and aluminium. Plastics, including some packaging waste, make up the largest proportion ofmarine litter.

6

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), (2013). Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated
transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF. Available online.

12

Waste Management Background Paper
The Global Waste Management Outlook7 (“GWMO”) reviews waste management around the world.
Global waste generation8 is estimated at between 7 to 10 billion tonnes per annum. For OECD
countries this estimated to comprise 24% MSW, 32% C&I waste, and 36% CD&E waste9.10. The
World Bank11 estimates global MSW generation from the 40% of the world’s population living in cities(3 billion people) to be 1.3 billion tonnes per year, increasing to 2.2 million tonnes per year by 2025.
Box 2 summarises some of the key observations and statistics in both reports to help inform priority
areas within the waste management sector.
Box 2: Key observations and statistics on waste management [1,4]1. MSW generation and national
income: Whilst generation rates vary widely within and between countries, MSW generation per capita
is highly correlated with national income. Waste generation per capita is expected to increase for lowand middle-income countries as their economies grow. Stabilisation or even a slight decrease has
been seen in high-income countries but only when undergoing some form of economic downturn or
stagnation.
2. MSW composition: Organic materials form the bulk of MSW, ranging from 34% in high-income
countries to 53% by weight in both low and lower-middle income countries. The remaining
components of MSW (in order of percentage contribution by weight) are paper and card, plastics,
glass, and metals.
3. MSW collection coverage: The average collection coverage in low-income countries is 36%,
increasing to 82-100% in upper-high income countries. Africa (25-70%) and Asia (50-90%) are thecontinents with the lowest average coverage.
4. MSW waste treatment: Landfilling and incineration of waste are the most common management
methods in high-income countries. While quantitative data is not readily available, it is understood thatmost low and lower-middle income countries dispose of their waste in open dumps11.
5. MSW recycling: Recycling rates are highest in high-income countries (averaging 35% and up to70%), although some low and lower-middle income countries achieve reasonable recycling rates(averaging 15 to 30%).
6. Global investment in waste processing technologies 12: By waste type, the largest investment areas
were: MSW (28%), Agricultural & forestry (26%), Organic (12%). By country (for MSW only), thelargest investment areas were the UK (24%) and the US (11%) for developed countries, and China(10%) and India (5%) for developing countries. By facility type (for MSW only), the largest investmentareas were: combustion (with energy recovery) (44%), waste processing (15%), gasification (11%),integrated/mixed facilities (9%), and recycling (8%).

It is widely recognised that the quality and availability of waste data is low13 14 15. This presents achallenge in producing historical and current waste statistics as well as future projections. The WorldBank estimates global municipal waste production at 2.01 billion tonnes but also cautions about waste
7

Wilson, D.C. et al., (2015). Global Waste Management Outlook Summary for Decision-Makers. UN Environment and ISWA.
Available online: https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/galleries/Publications/ISWA_Reports/GWMO_summary_web.pdf
8This figure covers MSW, C&I waste and CD&E waste.
9
Data for OECD countries is used as a proxy due to limitations on data availability for the rest of the world. Data does not include
agricultural & forestry waste and mining & quarrying waste.
10
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), (2013). Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF. Available online.
11
Hoornweg, D. and Bhada-Tata, P. 2012. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Washington D.C., US:
World Bank. No.15.
12
Based on analysis of global data on the development of new waste treatment and recovery facilities over the 2-year period
2013-2014.
13
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), (2013). Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF. Available online.
14
United Nations Environment, (2015). Global Waste Management Outlook. Osaka, Japan: UNEP Division of Technology,
Industry and Economics (DTIE) International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC).
15
Hoornweg, D. and Bhada-Tata, P. 2012. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Washington D.C., US:
World Bank.

13

Waste Management Background Paper

data generally16. However, although data on MSW are far from complete, they are much better thanthe data on CD&E waste and C&I waste. Estimates suggest CD&E waste generation of 821 million
tonnes in the EU (in 2012), 250 million tonnes in the US (in 2006), 77 million tonnes in Japan, 33
million tonnes in China and 17 million tonnes in India (all in 2010) 17.
Best estimates on hazardous waste generation indicate 34 million tonnes in the US (in 2011) and 101
million tonnes in the EU (increasing by 3.3% from 2010 to 2012)18. Similar estimates are not available
for C&I waste, with the exception of the UK, which generated an estimated 48 million tonnes in201219. These figures bear little or no relation to the respective populations and the likely scale ofwaste generation.

2.2

The Development of Waste Management

Over the last 40 to 50 years, waste quantities have continued to grow with improvements in living
standards and, with increasing urbanisation, the amount of waste that has to be collected andmanaged has increased in parallel. However, standards for waste management and hence theenvironmental impacts of waste vary widely. In much of the developing world waste is disposed of inopen dumps, some of which are on fire and none of which has systems to collect and utilise landfill
gas produced from decomposition of the waste which contains methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Across Europe standards of waste management are some of the highest globally and there has beena growing emphasis on recycling, reuse and recovery and on substantially reducing the landfill of
untreated biodegradable waste, supported by legislation.
The waste hierarchy (Figure 2) is a well-known framework that illustrates the different waste
management options in the general order of their relative environmental impacts. Prevention isprioritised followed by reuse, recycling, other recovery with disposal as the last resort. Generally, allcountries have experienced problems dealing with the quantities of waste produced by theirincreasing, and increasingly affluent, populations and, over the past three decades, many developed
economies have sought to move away from landfill and deal with waste higher up the wastehierarchy, mainly by recycling and composting with the recovery of energy from waste replacing
landfill for residual waste.
There has been an increase in recycling rates in high-income countries over the last 30 years, withaverage MSW recycling rates in EU countries increasing by 13 percentage points between 2004 to2014 from 30.6% to 43.6%20, while there has been a decrease in the amount of MSW sent to landfill
in the majority of OECD countries from 2000 to 201321 22.

16

Kaza, S., Lisa, Y., Bhada-Tata, P. and Van Der Woerden, F., (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste
Management to 2050. Overview booklet. World Bank, Washington, DC.
17
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), (2013). Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF. Available online.
18
Ibid.
19
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), (2015). Digest of Waste and Resources Statistics – 2015
Edition.[Online] London, UK: DEFRA. Available online. [Accessed 12 September 2016].
20
European Environment Agency, (2016). Waste Recycling. Available online.
21
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), (2013). Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF. Available online. .
22
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (2015). Environment at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators.
[Online] Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Available online. [Accessed 12 September 2016].

14

Waste Management Background Paper

Figure 2: The waste hierarchy

Government Interventions
Many governments have used fiscal intervention as a means to move the management of waste up
the hierarchy. In the EU, the majority of countries apply landfill taxes (averaging €80 per tonne ofwaste) that have increased with time. Other examples of fiscal interventions include New York’s tax
credit in favour of remanufacturing firms and China’s reduced or eliminated Value Added Tax on
products manufactured using recycled/secondary materials23.
The EU bans certain waste types from landfill (e.g. tyres and liquids) and imposes mandatory limits on
the amount of biodegradable MSW landfilled24. Some member states have gone further: in the
Netherlands, for example, landfill bans and a very high landfill tax has led to the closing of 60 landfill
sites and landfill operations running at a financial loss due to low quantities of incoming waste25.
Countries around the world have also adopted Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”). Thisrequires producers to take responsibility for the costs of managing their products when they reach endof life. In the EU, EPR legislation exists for batteries, packaging waste, end-of-life vehicles, and waste
electrical and electronic equipment (“WEEE”).
Private Sector Interventions
Many global businesses now have environmental strategies and targets to increase recycling rates
and decrease the percentage of waste sent to landfill, some businesses even targeting zero waste tolandfill26. In the UK, the Courtauld Commitment 2025 is a voluntary commitment by businesses in thefood & drink sector to reduce UK food & drink waste by 20% over 10 years; signatories including Birds
Eye, Coca Cola, KFC, Marks & Spencer, Pizza Hut, and Tesco27. And Procter & Gamble hasdeveloped a partnership with its waste management provider Veolia, to repackage and repurpose
waste detergent into new cleaning solutions28.

23

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), (2015). Delivering the Circular Economy: A Toolkit for Policymakers. Isle of Wight, UK:
EMF.
24
Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP), (2015). Landfill taxes & bans.[Online] Düsseldorf, Germany:
CEWEP. Available online. [Accessed 12 September 2016].
25
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), (2013). Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF. Available online.
26
Examples include Ford, Mars, and Unilever.
27
Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). [No date]. The Courtauld Commitment 2025.[Online]. Available at:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/courtauld-commitment-2025. [Accessed 12 September 2016].
28
Veolia. [No date]. Circular Economy Case Studies: Cleaning up in partnership with Procter & Gamble.[Online] Available at:
http://www.veolia.co.uk/Procter-Gamble. [Accessed 12 September 2016].

15

Waste Management Background Paper

Future Waste Management
Innovation in science and technology offers more opportunities to reduce resource use and convert
waste into resources. 3D printing, for example, can reduce material use significantly and has enabled
a 90% reduction in titanium waste from the manufacture of Airbus aircraft titanium parts29. Moreover,innovation in business models and ways of delivering goods and services will further transform how
resources and waste are managed. The proliferation of collaborative consumption platforms (e.g.
AirBnB, Uber, and Zipcar) and businesses offering performance models (e.g. Ricoh leasing printers,
Interface leasing carpets, Philips leasing lighting) suggest that the shift in consumer preferences andasset utilisation is already underway.
For the future, in 2015, the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development set out 17
Sustainable Development Goals in its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including“sustainable consumption and production” that specifies targets on waste and resource use. The
European Union’s 2018 adoption of a new “Circular Economy Package” demonstrates a shift ingovernment ambitions, moving away from just dealing with waste towards resource efficiency and acircular economy approach30.
However, the improving living standards of large populations in developing countries is likely toincrease the overall amounts of waste. In developed economies, the focus is likely to be on reducing
waste, e.g. through greater resource efficiency and longer useful lives, the circular economy,increasing reparability and remanufacturing, recycling and using energy recovery to deal with what
remains with minimal landfill; whereas in much of the developing world the next steps will probably beproviding more and better waste collection services and managing waste in controlled landfills rather
than open dumps.

2.3

Waste Management and climate change

Current state of waste management and future projections
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that waste management
accounted for 2.9% of global GHG emissions31 in 2010 (1446MtCO2e), the main sources being
landfilling (43%), wastewater handling (54%) and waste incineration (<3%). Wastewater is excluded
from these Criteria. Landfill (including open dumping) is the main source of methane, which makes up
90% of total GHG emissions from waste32. Globally, landfilling is the third largest source ofanthropogenic methane33. Methane is classified as a short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP), a class ofclimate pollutants increasingly under international scrutiny. Addressing SLCPs alongside CO2 is the
only way of limiting global temperature increases to below 2 degrees Celsius34.
More recently, the World Bank has estimated GHG emissions from waste management alone as 5%of global GHG emissions or 1.6 billion tonnes CO2e, primarily from open dumping and disposal in
landfills without landfill gas capture systems35. Even this underestimates the sector’s potential forclimate change mitigation, when the overall effects of better waste and resource management are
taken into account. Prevention, reuse, recycling, and energy recovery can all reduce methane
emissions from landfill, avoid emissions linked to resource extraction and production using virginmaterials, and offer an alternative energy source to fossil fuels. Accounting the whole lifecycle,

29

Winne, S., et al., (2012). Increasing the climate resilience of waste infrastructure. London, UK: Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
30
A circular economy is an alternative to a traditional linear economy (make, use, dispose) in which we keep resources in use
for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use, then recover and regenerate products and materials
at the end of each service life.
31
The IPCC estimate does not take into account benefits from material recycling, organic recycling and energy from waste.
32
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), (2015). Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe. Isle ofWight, UK: EMF.
33
Global Methane Initiative. Global Methane Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities.
https://www.globalmethane.org/documents/analysis_fs_en.pdf
34
Climate and Clean Air Coalition, (2018). Why act on short-lived climate pollutants (infosheet)
http://ccacoalition.org/en/resources/why-act-short-lived-climate-pollutants-infosheet
35
Kaza, S., Lisa, Y., Bhada-Tata, P. and Van Der Woerden, F., (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste
Management to 2050. Overview booklet. World Bank, Washington, DC.

16

Waste Management Background Paper

incorporating the benefits of recycling and energy recovery, the sector has the potential to contributea 10 to 15% reduction in global GHG emissions36.
Figure 3: Proportion of global waste managed by different methods37

Figure 3 from the World Bank37 shows the proportion of the world’s waste recovered or disposed of indifferent ways. 70% of waste is landfilled or just dumped.
The IPCC has not forecast what changes need to be made globally in waste management to achieve
a 2°C global warming target. However, the following data give an indication of future investment
needs:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●

An estimated 57% to 64% of the population in low income countries do not have access to awaste collection service. Globally more than 2 billion people have no waste collection38
meaning waste is probably tipped nearby or burned.
Even where waste is collected, a large proportion of the collected waste is taken to dumps or
uncontrolled landfills, 39
By 2050 the world’s population is forecast to grow by 2.2 billion to 9.8 billion: 90% of thisincrease will be in Africa and Asia.40
66% of this population is projected to be urban.41
Population in the group of 47 least developed countries is expected to almost double to 1.9
billion by 205042.
By 2050, the share of world income in low and middle-income countries will double to 40%43.
The amount of waste generated world-wide is projected to increase from 2.02 billion tonnes in2016 to 3.4 billion tonnes by 205044.
The IPCC estimated GHG emissions from waste management (excluding wastewater)45 in2010 as 665MtCO2e.: 93% of these were from landfill or dumping.

36

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). 2013. Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF.
37
Kaza, S., Lisa, Y., Bhada-Tata, P. and Van Der Woerden, F., (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste
Management to 2050. Overview booklet. World Bank, Washington, DC.
38
Wilson, D.C. et al., (2015). Global Waste Management Outlook Summary for Decision-Makers. UN Environment and ISWA.
Available online: https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/galleries/Publications/ISWA_Reports/GWMO_summary_web.pdf
39
Ibid.
40
UN, (2014). World Urbanization Trends.
41
Ibid.
42
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html
43
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSDNETWORK/Resources/Roadto2050Part1.pdf
44Kaza, S., Lisa, Y., Bhada-Tata, P. and Van Der Woerden, F., (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste
Management to 2050. Overview booklet. World Bank, Washington, DC.
45
The IPCC estimate does not take into account material recycling, organic recycling and energy from waste.

17

Waste Management Background Paper

Thus, the future picture is of many more people each generating more waste than today, resulting in
global waste that, without investment in prevention, collection and management, will produce
increased greenhouse gas emissions, estimated at 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2e. by 205046.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Management
Like all human activity, waste management processes produce greenhouse gases. The two principal
greenhouse gases produced by waste management activities are methane and carbon dioxide. Other
greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide, are produced by different waste management processes
but their quantities are much smaller and consequently they are much less important in relation to theimpact of waste management on climate change.
Carbon dioxide is produced from:
•
•
•
•
•

burning waste, where the carbon in materials, such as plastics, paper and food, is oxidisedby combustion;
the biological, aerobic decomposition of waste plant and animal matter, for example, food,garden or yard waste and paper and card in composting or in shallow open dumps;
the operation of collection and waste management systems:
fuel for vehicles and heavy plant to move waste; and(indirectly) the electricity required to operate waste management equipment.

Where organic waste is decomposed in the absence of air (anaerobically)47, the bacteria responsible
produce a mix of gases, typically consisting of more than 98% carbon dioxide and methane,containing 50% to 60% methane. Such decomposition occurs in anaerobic digestion processes, in
landfills and in open dumping48.
The carbon dioxide released from the decomposition of biogenic wastes (food, paper and card etc.)from landfills, composting, anaerobic digestion and from waste combustion is regarded byinternational convention as not contributing to climate change, having been absorbed from theatmosphere by plants etc. in the first place. Emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide are accounted forby the IPCC under the ‘land use / land use change and forestry’ sector by calculating the net loss (orgain) in global biomass49.
Methane from landfills and fossil carbon dioxide from the combustion of, e.g. plastics are key GHGs
from waste management50. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, 28-34 times more potent thancarbon dioxide over a 100-year timeframe and 84-86 times more powerful over 20-years51. As well as
being a powerful greenhouse gas, methane is a source of energy. The methane-rich gas fromlandfills and from anaerobic digestion can be captured and burned to generate electricity and/or heator purified and turned into fuel. Combustion of waste, either from open burning or by modern
incineration produces carbon dioxide from both biogenic and fossil carbon-based waste materials. In
a modern energy from waste plant, the heat produced from this combustion is recovered to produce
electricity and/or heating or cooling.
Given the 1.4 billion tonnes of waste that is currently landfilled or dumped without known landfill gas
controls, recovering the methane produced from landfill is likely to be the most important contributionof waste management to climate change mitigation.

46

Kaza, S., Lisa, Y., Bhada-Tata, P. and Van Der Woerden, F., (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste
Management to 2050. Overview booklet. World Bank, Washington, DC.
47
In the absence of oxygen.
48
Some shallow open dumps will degrade aerobically.
49
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). 2015.The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics. Isle of Wight, UK:
EMF.
50
Ibid.
51
IPCC 5th Assessment Report18

Waste Management Background Paper

2.4

Investment need

The sector already has $300 billion of active projects52, of which $85 billion relates to MSW53. The
investment required to deal with future waste management within a 2ºC scenario is difficult toquantify, particularly as it is the capital cost that is of interest, that cost depends on the type ofmanagement system and a lot of the investment will be in developing countries. The World Energy
Council has estimated the global waste to energy market will reach $40 billion by 202354. Moreover,the capital expenditure for waste management in developing Asian countries has been estimated at
between $23.7 and $90.3/tonne for composting and energy from waste respectively55. The overall
investment required, taking an average of the global waste forecast to be generated between 2016
and 2050, is between $2.1 trillion and $7.8 trillion.
With regard to MSW, recovery of energy from residual waste is likely to form the largest funding area
based on the proportion of MSW that is not currently recycled or composted; but recycling facilities,
composting and AD and waste collection will also require substantial investment, for example, to meet
new targets. Whilst statistics on MSW growth and collection coverage suggest that low-income
countries are in more urgent need of funding, higher income countries must not be ignored as theyseek to upgrade their infrastructure and increase recycling and recovery.
Historically, both the public sector: national or local governments, international and financing
institutions, and the private sector have financed investments in the sector56. The majority of public
sector funding has been from local or regional government, making service delivery vulnerable topolitical factors and national economic problems57. Although private operators have more flexibility
because their income can be related to the cost of service delivery, they also require external funding
to upgrade or develop new, capital intensive facilities.
In its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC states, “The major impediment in developing countries isthe lack of capital, which jeopardises improvements in waste and wastewater management.
Developing countries may also lack access to advanced technologies. However, technologies mustbe sustainable in the long term, and there are many examples of advanced, but unsustainable,technologies for waste management that have been implemented in developing countries. Therefore,
the selection of truly sustainable waste and wastewater strategies is very important for both the
mitigation of GHG emissions and for improved urban infrastructure.”58

2.5

Bonds in the sector

Given the funding needs of the sector, there is a role for the $100 trillion bond market to playalongside governments and international organisations who have been the dominant funders. The
USD 93 trillion global bond market has a huge potential to provide capital for waste management
investment.
Green bonds have proven to be a useful tool to mobilise debt capital market for climate changesolutions. The green bond market has been growing rapidly over the last three years with the global
issuance totalling USD155bn in 2017. However, the rapid growth in the green bond market has been
met with questions around the environmental claims of these bonds. In the absence of clear andwidely accepted definitions and standards around what is green, many investors have raised
concerns about ‘greenwashing’, where bond proceeds are allocated to assets that have little oruncertain environmental value. This can both shake confidence in the market and hamper efforts tofinance a transition to a low carbon economy. The Climate Bonds Standard Waste Management
Criteria define what is low carbon and climate resilient waste management assets and projects by
52

Over a two-year period January 2013 to December 2014.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). 2013. Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF.
54
Waste to Energy 2016, World Energy Council.
55
João Aleluia, Paulo Ferrão, Assessing the costs of municipal solid waste treatment technologies in developing Asian
countries, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Waste Management
56
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). 2013. Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated
transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF.
57
Ibid.
58
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch10s10-6-3.html
53

19

Waste Management Background Paper

setting requirements of climate change mitigation and adaptation impacts in the waste sector. The
Criteria provide guidance to the market on what types of waste management projects should be
included in the green bonds to ensure the robust growth of the market.
There are two types of green bond: labelled and unlabelled green bonds59. Labelled green bonds
issued to date tend to be mixed use of proceeds bonds60, including assets and projects of othersectors. Most assets and projects that are funded are waste treatment facilities, waste-to-energy
facilities and waste collection vehicles61. Bond issuers include municipalities, waste managementcompanies, general corporates (e.g. Apple), commercial banks (e.g. HSBC), and development banks.
Table 1 provides some examples of issued labelled green bonds funding waste assets and projects.
Table 1: Examples of issued labelled green bonds funding waste assets and projects
EntityDescription

Use of bondproceeds

Issuancesize

Issuance
date

Matur
ity

CouponLabel

Apple*

US
technology
business

Waste andpollution
management
projects toimprove recycling
and reduce
landfill waste$1.5bnFeb 2016

7
years

2.85%

Sustainalytics

Bank of
Qingdao*

Chinesebank

Recycling
projects$616m

Mar 2016

3-5
years

3.253.4%

EY

City of Napa*

US
municipality

Composting
facility and roof
extension of an
existing recycling
facility$12.5mOct 2016

2-10
years

1.092.44%

Self
label

Kommunivest*

Swedenmunicipalbank

Waste-to-energy
projects$600m

Apr 2016

3
years

1.5%

CICER
O

Link REIT*

Hong Kong
Real Estate
Investment
Trust (REIT)

Projects to
reduce waste tolandfill by 40% by
2022

$500m

Jul 2016

10
years

2.87%

Sustainalytics

NordicInvestment
BankInternational
financial
institution

Waste
management
facilities$565.5m

Sep 2015

7
years

0.375%CICER
O

Ramsey County(Minnesota)USmunicipality

Acquisition of an
existing waste
management
facility – wasteto-energy andrecycling$17.9mFeb 2016

1-25
years

33.125%

Self
label

59

Labelled green bonds are bonds with use of proceeds earmarked to finance new and existing projects with environmental
benefits. A green bond label is a signalling or discovery mechanism for investors.
60
A mixed use of proceeds bond here means a bond where a proportion of the proceeds will fund waste assets but the remainder
will fund assets in other sectors.
61
Waste collection vehicles are subject to the Transport Criteria.

20

Waste Management Background Paper* This is a mixed use of proceeds bond where a proportion of the proceeds will fund assets in the waste sector
but the remainder is used to fund assets in other sectors.

Unlabelled green bonds62 have generally been issued by organisations whose primary activity iswaste management. That is, who might be deemed ‘pure play’ operators. These organisations havetended to be corporates or municipalities, the majority of which are based or headquartered in the US.
While developed markets have dominated bond issuance, there has also been issuance fromemerging markets such as China and Mexico. The main activities of bond issuers either fall into
recycling or waste-to-energy. Table 2 provides a sample of issuers in the unlabelled green bondmarket.
Table 2: Examples of issuers of unlabelled green bonds
Organisation

Description of activity

Country oforiginType

Cascades Inc.

Produces packaging and tissue products composed
mainly of recycled fibres

CanadaCorporate

Covanta Energy
Corporation

Operates waste-to-energy facilities

US

Corporate

GMR Materials Co.
LtdEngages in waste automobile and waste appliancerecycling business, and plant destruction activities

South Korea

Corporate

Jefferson County(Alabama)

Provides solid waste management services

US

Municipality

Scott County(Minnesota)

Provides services in hazardous waste disposal,
recycling, and solid waste management

US

Municipality

Super Dragon

Engages in industrial waste removal and disposal
as well as recycling of previous metals andelectronic industrial waste

TaiwanCorporate

62

Unlabelled green bonds do not carry a green label and are issued by ‘pure play’ companies that operate in climate-aligned
sectors e.g. renewable energy.

21Waste Management Background Paper

3 Principles and Boundaries of the Criteria
This section sets out the key principles governing the Criteria for qualifying waste management assets
and activities under the Climate Bonds Standard and describes the assets and activities covered bythose Criteria.

3.1

Guiding Principles

The Climate Bonds Standard needs to ensure that the waste management assets and projects
included in Certified Climate Bonds deliver GHG mitigation potential and climate resilience benefits inline with best available scientific knowledge and compatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement. At
the same time, the Waste Management Criteria need to be pragmatic and readily usable bystakeholders in the market to maximise engagement and use. High transaction costs run the risk of
reducing uptake of a standard in the green bond market. Keeping the costs of assessment down while
maintaining robust implementation of the criteria is important. Table 3 sets out the principles guiding
the development of the Waste Management Criteria to meet and balance these two goals.
Table 3: Key principles for the design of the Waste Management Criteria
Principle

Requirement for the Criteria

Level of ambition

Compatible with meeting the objective of 2ºC or less temperature rise above
pre-industrial levels set by the Paris Agreement, and with a rapid transition toa low carbon and climate resilient economy.

Robust system

Scientifically robust to maintain the credibility of the Climate Bond Standard.

“Do not reinvent thewheel”

Harness existing robust, credible tools, methodologies, standards and data toassess the low carbon and climate resilient credentials of any technology,
endorsed by multiple stakeholders where possible.

Level playing field

No discrimination against certain groups of producers (such as smallholders)or geographies or technologies.

Multi-stakeholder
supportSupported by key stakeholders; those within the relevant industry, thefinancial community and broader civil society.

Continuous
improvement

Subject to an evolving development process with the aim of driving continuous
improvement and credibility in the green bond market.

To grow the market meaningfully, bonds in the waste management sector should fit the needs of bothinvestors and issuers.
Bonds used to finance the waste management sector are fairly common and share similarities withother large-scale infrastructure bonds. Waste Management has traditionally been handled bymunicipalities through public investments. As the sector grows and privatisation continues to play anincreasing role in public investments through public-private partnerships and the like, it is important at
this stage to ensure both traditional asset investment strategies and novel asset/waste investment
strategies are covered in the Criteria.
To date, the green bond market has primarily been used to finance general waste management,
recycling facilities, fleet upgrades, landfill gas capture, and strategies to reduce waste to landfill. Whilefinancing these investments has several benefits, the role of the Climate Bonds Standard and Waste
Management Criteria is to develop technology-agnostic, climate mitigation and resilience thresholds

22Waste Management Background Paper

for the sector. These metrics and thresholds help asset owners, issuers, and investors determine themost climate compatible types of activities to finance.
By determining the types of activities to finance through bonds, issuers will be key drivers for growthin the waste management climate/green bond market. However potential bond investors can also
drive the market's growth by signaling the types of investments they are eager to make.
For bond investors, this means eligibility Criteria should promote bond issuances that are:•

Relatively straightforward, predictable, and easy to understand (e.g., in terms of the source
and credibility of expected cash flows);
Transparent regarding use of bond proceeds and intended impacts, facilitating independent
third-party scrutiny;
Sizeable, liquid and preferably rated; andA comparable investment opportunity relative to non-green-labelled bonds. This may mean,for example, involving concessional funding or government incentives to improve therisk/return profile, particularly at this nascent stage.

•••

For bond issuers, this means eligibility Criteria should:••

Allow a relatively wide scope for eligible activities;
Indicate scientifically robust references and approaches for calculating climate benefits (e.g.,guidelines for selecting among existing methodologies and tools);
Cater to a range of potential issuers (and users of the guidance), including: (a) relatively large
companies, including banks, who aggregate across sectors and industries, (b) smaller
companies and organisations, where there may need to be some aggregation and, or,concessional support, and (c) government agencies; andLeave room for issuances that are short-term inter alia trade / input finance, insurance,
uptake of relevant, proven technology.

•

•

3.2

Assets and Activities Covered by these Criteria

These Criteria cover assets and activities that deal with municipal waste (MSW) which consists ofwaste from households and similar wastes from industry and commerce. They therefore exclude otherwastes from industry and commerce, all hazardous wastes and CD&E wastes. Assets and activities
dealing with waste prevention are also out of scope of these Criteria, as are all assets and activities
dealing with wastes other than MSW or similar wastes (Section 3.4).
Figure 4 shows the different types of waste management assets and activities in the waste hierarchy
to illustrate those that are covered by these Criteria.

23

Waste Management Background Paper

Figure 4: Municipal waste and resource management assets/activities

Preventing or reducing the generation of waste is at the top of the waste hierarchy because it offers
the largest environmental benefits through reducing the extraction, refining and processing of raw
materials in addition to not producing waste and therefore no greenhouse gas emissions associatedwith waste management. However, waste prevention takes place in industry sectors other than waste
management and may not involve tangible assets.
Therefore, these Criteria are restricted to the eligibility of assets that deal with waste and focus onequipment, facilities and vehicles in the following activities:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●

Collection (including collection infrastructure, containers) 63
Transportation (covered by the CBI Transport Criteria)
Sorting to separate recyclables
Reuse and recycling (including processing into secondary raw materials and repair)Composting & anaerobic digestion of green/garden/yard and food waste
Thermal treatment with energy recovery of residual waste (outside the EU)
The installation of gas recovery systems for landfill sites (for non-operational landfill sites
only)

The key mitigation opportunities within the above activities are raw material substitution (throughmaterial recycling), fossil energy substitution (through energy recovery and from recycling), and thecollection and utilisation of landfill gas. Material recovery includes the sorting and processing of waste
to produce materials that substitute virgin materials.
The resulting scope of eligible assets and activities is presented in Table 4 using a traffic light systemfor ease of use as follows:•

63

Green: almost certain to be compatible with a low carbon or climate-resilient economy in all
circumstances and therefore automatically eligible for certification;

Collection vehicles and other transport infrastructure are covered under CBI’s Transport Criteria documents.

24

Waste Management Background Paper••

Red: not eligible for certification under any circumstances either because they are
incompatible with a low carbon or climate-resilient economy;
Amber: potentially eligible for certification subject to meeting the specified criteria for that
asset or activity.

The first column in Table 4, ‘Eligible activity types’, gives a list of all the activity types that are within
scope of the Waste Management Criteria. The second column, ‘Example use of proceeds’, is an
illustrative list of the type of projects that may be included in a Certified Climate Bond. It is notpossible to include an exhaustive list of all potential uses of proceeds due to the breadth ofpossibilities, but all uses of proceeds must fall within one of the specified eligible activity types.
Table 4: Summary scope of eligible projects and assets for Climate Bonds Certification under the
Waste Management Criteria
Eligible activity types

Example use of proceeds

Material Reuse

Facility repairing and/or reusing products orcomponents for same purpose for which
they were conceived.

Material Recycling

Facilities producing recycled glass, metal,
paper, and plastic from post-consumer
waste.

Mitigation

Adaptation& resilience

Facilities using recycled glass to produce
glass aggregate.

Collection Infrastructure

Containers provided for waste.

Composting

Facility producing compost via green waste
such as food, garden or yard wastes.

Anaerobic Digestion

Facility processing food, garden or yard, orother organic materials to produce biogas
and digestate for e.g. electricity generation

Pre-sorting

Facilities for segregating mixed recyclables
into separate, saleable streams, e.g.
material recovery facilities (MRFs).

Waste Incineration or Gasification& Energy Recovery

Facility producing electric and/or heat via
the combustion of municipal solid waste OR
mixed residual waste.

Facility producing electric and/or heat via
gasification of residual municipal solid
waste.

25

Waste Management Background Paper

Decommissioned Landfill only, with Project to capture biogas from nonGas Capture & Energy Generation operational landfill (ceased receiving waste
except inert restoration materials).

3.3

Assets out of Scope

It is essential that clear guidance on which Sector Criteria assets and projects are eligible for Climate
Bonds Certification is given. This saves confusion and means that it is clear to the verifier, issuer andinvestor which requirements a given asset or project is expected to meet. Table 5 identifies possible
overlaps and explains which Sector Criteria should be referred to in which cases. The following
sections give further explanation.
Table 5: Potential assets which have overlaps with other Climate Bonds Certification Criteria.
Assets or Activity

Comments on Applicable Sector Criteria

Municipal Solid Waste
Prevention

Manufacturing facilities reducing their waste generation both pre and postconsumer are not within the scope of the Waste Management Criteria.
They will be considered when Manufacturing Criteria are developed.

Remanufacturing
Facility

Manufacturing facilities using reclaimed or recycled materials to
manufacture goods and services are not within the scope of the Waste
Management Criteria. They will be considered when Manufacturing
Criteria are developed.

Land Transport

Vehicles used within the waste facilities are eligible for certification if theymeet the Transport Criteria. Other mobile plant assets within the facility
itself are eligible for certification under the Waste Management Criteria
when part of a wider eligible project.
All collection vehicles and those used for transfer of waste are also eligible
but must comply with the Transport Criteria.

As outlined above, although waste prevention offers the largest environmental benefit, waste
reduction and prevention are factors that will be taken into account in future iterations of other industry
sector Criteria. The scope of these Criteria is to deal with materials when they have become waste
and up until they cease to be waste.
The TWG initially considered other categories of waste: hazardous, construction, demolition andexcavation (CD&E) waste, WEEE and other wastes from industry and commerce that were not similar
to municipal waste. However, although data on municipal waste were sparse, they were substantiallybetter than those for any of the other categories of waste. There were insufficient data on amounts,
composition and on the emissions of greenhouse gases over the life cycle of their treatment. For
these reasons, the Waste Management Criteria cover only municipal waste.
Table 4 also shows that recycling glass as glass aggregate is not eligible under these Criteria,
because it offered only marginal climate change mitigation benefits which were negated by thetransport of the glass during collection and to the recycling facility. However, recycling glass generally
where it involves remelting, such as packaging glass into new packaging glass is automaticallyeligible.

26

Waste Management Background Paper

3.4

Overarching Considerations

Geographic coverage
The Waste Management Criteria are designed to be universally applicable and, unless statedotherwise, can be applied to the waste management assets and activities listed regardless of thelocation of those assets or activities. Where these more generic Criteria are insufficient to indicate theclimate compatibility of the asset, additional, context-specific requirements are stipulated. This
context-specificity is necessary to account for the differing pace of development of the waste
management sector and technology deployment across different geographies moving themanagement of waste up the waste hierarchy to better greenhouse gas mitigation options.
Bond term vs. asset lifetime
The term of a bond may be equivalent or less than the planned life of the asset or activity that it
finances. The Criteria must define the boundaries within which the benefits of an asset or activity will
be evaluated and quantified – i.e. over the period of the term of the bond or over the operational life of
the asset. Assets and projects funded by Climate Bonds should provide GHG mitigation benefits overthe entire operational life of the asset as this more accurately reflects the overall climate benefits fromthe asset. Asset life has therefore been set as the temporal boundary of the Waste Management
Criteria. This will ensure that only investments that have net positive impacts on climate change overthe life of the asset are certified.
Objective Assessment of Climate Change Impacts
It was decided early in the development of these Criteria that while the waste hierarchy provided agood guide for the relative attractiveness of different approaches to waste management, as it is only ageneral guide, where possible, the climate change impacts of different waste management assets
should be compared using life cycle assessment (LCA) but applied to global climate change impacts,
given the Climate Bonds Initiative’s climate focus. This was particularly important in taking into
account the benefits related to the recycling of different materials and also the effects that the
decarbonisation of the electricity grid would have on the climate change benefits of energy fromwaste.
LCA is an environmental accounting technique used to study and improve the impacts of a product orservice. It involves considering everything in the economy that is affected by the study, drawing aboundary around this and quantifying all the material and energy flows across this boundary (to andfrom the environment). It is a holistic approach, considering all the environmental effects of a
proposed change from the change in the extraction of raw materials through to their final disposal. It isalso objective, in that it uses independent data and it should be transparent, with all assumptions
clearly stated. It therefore avoids shifting environmental burdens from one place or one time toanother and ensures all the environmental burdens and benefits that relate to a product or service aretaken into account.
However, due to its holistic nature, an LCA can be time-consuming and expensive. Criteria for
certification of Climate Bonds need to maximise simplicity and minimise transaction costs for issuers.
In part this means ensuring that issuers can get a reasonably clear steer as to whether their asset/
bond is or is not likely to be eligible for certification in advance of starting the process of certification,
including contracting a verifier to give assurance over compliance.
A simplified LCA approach that avoids the need for issuers to carry out either an LCA or extensive
and expensive data collection was adopted for the development of these Criteria. This is described in
more detail in Appendix 4.

Choices affecting an LCA
For an LCA of a given waste management system there are several issues that can significantly affectthe results:
27

Waste Management Background Paper

●
●
●
●
●

The global warming potential (GWP) of methane;
The GWP of biogenic carbon dioxide;
The value assigned to stored carbon dioxide, for example, by storing carbon dioxide deep
underground in geological formations, or by converting biomass to carbon and storing this;The limits of what is included and excluded from the assessment, known as the systemboundary; andThe assumptions that are made.

Each of these was considered in some detail (see Appendix 4). It was decided that:●●●

The GWP of 28 for methane (relative to carbon dioxide’s value of 1) used in the latest IPCC
Assessment report64 would be used, except where this was fixed within life cycle data sets orsoftware at the AR4 value of 25, when the latter would be used.
For any carbon dioxide produced from living matter: plants and/or animals, a GWP of 0 would
be used, compared with a value of 1 for carbon dioxide from fossil sources, such as coal
combustion.
A specific allowance of 3.67 kgCO2e65 per kg of carbon would only be made for carbon
storage or sequestration where this was the principal function of the asset.

The assumptions made for the LCAs and how the systems were defined are also discussed inAppendix 4.

3.5

Setting Mitigation Thresholds for Waste Management

The Criteria have been based on the characteristics of the waste and the waste management
process, and are designed so that they are met by the processes that perform best or are below thethreshold for each waste type or material.
Numerous life cycle assessments of different waste management systems were modelled to build apicture of the GHG impacts from different wastes managed in different ways and under different
circumstances. The modelling is described below and in more detail in Appendix 4.
The intended purpose of the modelling was two-fold:●●

To produce a sufficiently clear picture of the nature and level of the thresholds required foreach type of waste; andTo provide sufficient information to preclude the need for issuers to carry out their own life
cycle assessment.

More than 100 different waste management scenarios were modelled covering: different wastematerials and residual waste compositions, different management options and different carbon
intensities for the electricity grid. The LCA modelling was carried out using the WRATE software, a life
cycle tool developed by the Environment Agency and approved by the England and Wales
Governments. The software was also used by the UK’s Green Investment Bank (GIB)66.
Although LCA is used to calculate various impacts, such as ozone depletion potential, human toxicity
etc., only the emissions related to climate change were of interest. There was no evidence from anyof the modelling or from elsewhere that:a. there were significant other impacts from the waste management system studied; orb. the same standards as applied in developed countries should not and could not be applied
globally.

64

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Waste Management. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Bogner,J., M. Abdelrafie Ahmed, C. Diaz, A. Faaij, Q. Gao, S. Hashimoto, K. Mareckova, R. Pipatti, T. Zhang]. Cambridge, UK and New
York, US: Cambridge University Press.
65
This is calculated from the atomic mass of carbon (12.01) and the molecular mass of carbon dioxide (44.01): 12.01 kg ofcarbon will produce 44.01/12.01 = 3.67 kg CO2.
66
Now the Green Investment Group (GIG) following its acquisition by Macquarie.

28

Waste Management Background Paper

Initially ten different systems for managing all MSW were modelled. This was:●●●in part to address concerns that promoting the removal of some waste fractions could makethe overall impact from the system worse;
to look at the effects of different energy conversion efficiencies;
to understand if and how the results reflected the waste hierarchy.

The ten systems which were initially modelled were:
1. Landfill without gas capture;
2. Landfill with efficient (75%) gas capture;
3. EfW with 15% thermal efficiency67;
4. EfW with 25% thermal efficiency plus 40% green and food waste to composting;
5. Gasification, with residual to landfill (as 2);
6. EfW with 25% thermal efficiency plus 40% green and food waste to AD;
7. EfW with 25% thermal efficiency;
8. EfW with 25% thermal efficiency, plus 10% dry recycling;
9. EfW with 25% thermal efficiency, plus 20% dry recycling; and10. 20% recycling, with residual to landfill (as 2).
Each of these was modelled for two waste compositions, typical of both developed and developing
countries and initially used three different carbon intensities of electricity grid (coal, coal and gas –50:50 and natural gas), producing sixty sets of results. Later sensitivities examined the effects oflower carbon intensity grids (see Appendix 4).

3.6

Main Results from the Life Cycle Assessment for Waste Materials

The results of the initial modelling showed that:●

the LCA work generally supported the waste hierarchy, with the possible exception of foodand garden (yard/green) waste where composting and anaerobic digestion resulted in slightly
higher greenhouse gas emissions that combustion in a modern, high-efficiency (29% net
overall) EfW plant producing electricity that displaced a mixed coal and gas electricity grid68;●

the biggest single change in GHG emissions from a change in waste management resulted
from installing efficient gas collection and recovery systems on landfill sites; and●although the waste compositions used made a difference to the results, alterations to the
hypothetical electricity grids produced considerably more change in the overall results.

More details of the modelling, the compositions and grids used can be found in Appendix 4.
Managing Different Waste Materials
Further LCAs were conducted on the constituent materials in waste, examining the impacts frommanaging them separately in every way that was practicable for that material. The results of thisanalysis are reproduced in an overall grid (Table 6), showing the GHG impacts of managing thedifferent waste materials by different methods.
Table 6 shows eight different materials that are most commonly separated for recycling or biologicaltreatment plus the two hypothetical residual compositions for the developing and the developed world,
combined with six different methods of management, including landfill, divided into an additional four
categories with different gas recovery rates, three additional categories for energy from waste for

67

Thermal efficiency is a simpler way to measure performance of a plant than that used by the EU to define the difference
between recovery and disposal. It is equal to the net useful energy produced (electricity supplied to the grid – electricity takenfrom the grid)/energy available in waste input). A thermal efficiency of 25% is approximately at the boundary of recovery.
68
Subsequent analysis examined the effect of lower carbon electricity grids.

29

Waste Management Background Paper

different thermal efficiencies, and up to an additional three recycling routes for each material, forexample, packaging glass to packaging glass or glass to aggregate69.
Emissions are given as kgCO2e/tonne of the particular waste fraction assessed, or per tonne ofresidual waste. Figures in brackets are negative and therefore (by convention) show an overall
benefit. The colouring gives a visual indication of the climate change impacts of the waste managed
in a particular way: dark green showing the highest benefit (largest negative emissions) through to red
which shows those waste options with the highest GHG emissions for a particular waste or wastematerial.
Table 6: Quantitative and qualitative life cycle emissions of waste management options(kgCO2e/tonne of waste)
kg CO2e/ per tonneof waste processed
Plastics

Landfill
50%

Landfill
70%

Landfill
80%

101

Landfill
90%

CompostingAD

Gasification

48

EfW
20%

EfW
25%

EfW
29%

RecyclingHigh

Recycling
Medium
(824)

1,184

1,233

1,038

883

(1,338)Recycling
Low

Cardboard

1,100

720

530

340

(265)

(339)

(299)

(393)

(469)

(62)

Paper

1,485

971

713

456

(232)

(294)

(256)

(338)

(404)

(550)

(376)

(299)

Food

547

360

267

173

(27)

(96)

(94)

(65)

(95)

(118)

Green

569

375

277

180

(29)

(130)

(118)

(89)

(124)

(153)

Glass

(407)

(226)

(25)

Steel

(1,829)

Aluminium(10,721)

Not
modelled

Not valid

Residual Europeana

226b

(119)

49

(164)

Residual
Developinga

209b

(67)

76

(103)

GHG Emissions(kgCO2e/tonne)( >1000)

501-1000

251-500( 101-250)(51-100)(<50) →
<50

51-100101-250251-500

501-1000>1000

Notes:
a. Based on slightly different marginal grid from first five rows
b. Calculated with 75% gas recovery
System boundaries, data and assumptions are described in more detail in Appendix 4
Residual waste can be treated by AD, but the solid products are landfilled and it has not been modelled.
Paper and cardboard cannot be recycled to the same quality product due to the reduction in fibre length.
Plastics can theoretically be recycled to the same use but sometimes mixed plastics cannot be sufficiently separated
economically.
It is accepted that aluminium, steel and glass can go to landfill or EfW but essentially there are no significant direct benefits or
disbenefits from their landfill or from combustion – they all pass through each ‘process’ essentially unchanged without
generating any significant emissions. Although EfW facilities recover both ferrous and non-ferrous metals, this benefit is nottaken into account here.

Table 6 can be used to examine the relative environmental costs and benefits of managing different
waste fractions and residual waste using different assets. To find the best option of those considered
for managing a material simply compare the numbers in the table for the relevant row. The lowest
number, including any negative numbers (shown thus (79)), is the best option for managing thatwaste material from the point of view of climate change mitigation.
For residual waste assets70, the calculations behind Table 6 use a high carbon intensity71 marginal
electricity grid72 of 50% coal and 50% natural gas. Initial analysis of the life cycle results from WRATE
showed that the performance of EfW plants and landfill with gas recovery, are affected by:●

the carbon intensity of the electricity displaced;69

Other methods of management, including pyrolysis and gasification followed by chemical recycling were discussed but were
not included at this stage due to the variability and the lack of life cycle data.
70
Referring to energy from waste and landfill.
71
The carbon intensity of electricity is the total emissions (often expressed as kgCO 2e per kWh) of electricity supplied to the grid.
72
Marginal grid here means that electricity generation that will be substituted by electricity generated from EfW, AD or from the
combustion of landfill gas.

30

Waste Management Background Paper●●

the efficiency of the EfW plant or landfill gas recovery; andthe composition of the residual waste, particularly the percentage of fossil carbon.

All of these were examined in detail as the Criteria were developed.
Recycling will also be affected by changes in the electricity grid, both where the recycling is located,because these processes require power; and also where virgin raw material extraction andprocessing takes place, because both these can consume large amounts of electricity. The climatechange benefits derived from recycling being the difference between the emissions avoided fromextracting and producing the material that is displaced and the emissions from collecting andprocessing it into secondary raw material. Therefore, if the grid carbon intensities for extraction andprocessing are much lower than those for recycling, recycling may become much less beneficial, oreven potentially harmful, for climate change mitigation.
However, the countries where virgin materials are extracted and processed and those collected waste
is processed into secondary raw materials (and therefore the electricity grids used) are determined by
global markets. Therefore, while default (e.g. global or European) values were used in the modelling,
it is not possible to predict how recycling of different materials in any one asset will be affected bychanges in the electricity grid in different countries.
Generally, only those options shown by the life cycle modelling to be the best for managing theparticular waste fraction have been included in the Criteria below. For residual waste, these meansthat landfill has been excluded and EfW has been included, because landfill of residual waste always
produced substantial emissions contributing to climate change. The exception is composting andanaerobic digestion, that have been included although they show lower climate change benefits thanhigh electricity only efficiency EfW plant. This is because none of the modelling used a very low
carbon grid, and this could make anaerobic digestion and composting more beneficial than EfW.

3.7

The Criteria for Waste Management

These Criteria cover waste management operations for waste once it has become waste at all levelsof the hierarchy. By definition then it excludes waste prevention. Waste Management Criteria aredefined for storage infrastructure, sorting and MRFs, reuse and recycling, composting and anaerobic
digestion, incineration with energy recovery and landfill gas recovery. All mobile plant used at waste
management facilities, such as forklifts, loading shovels etc. are included within the assest covered bythese Criteria.
Waste Collection
The development of low carbon waste processing assets requires organised, regular, waste collection
services – in effect, it is essential infrastructure for low carbon waste management systems, hence its
inclusion in these Criteria. Collection here covers containers and vehicles used to collect and deliver
waste to waste facilities.
Table 7 below details the Criteria for assets collecting and handling municipal solid waste, including
mixed residuals, recyclables, and green/yard waste. Although collection produces only a minor part ofthe impacts of most waste management systems, greenhouse gas emissions from waste collection
mainly arise from vehicles used to transport that waste. Therefore, all collection and other wastetransport vehicles will have to meet CBI’s general Transport Criteria for low GHG emission vehicles.
Additionally, where containers are provided or used for storing or transporting waste, these should be
100% recycled and recyclable material to be certified.

31

Waste Management Background Paper

Table 7: Criteria for Waste Collection
Assets covered

Eligibility Criteria

ISO containers,
recycling bins, wheeledbins, green/ garden
waste containers

Made from 100% recycled and recyclable materials. Containers forresidual waste will not be eligible unless part of an investment that
also includes an equivalent number of separate containers formaterial recycling.
Support source segregation of waste.

Collection vehicles

Must meet Transport Criteria

Waste Storage
Bond issuances often include a mix of assets, many of which support the main processing activity. In
the case of assets for handling or storing waste, their effect on the mitigation impact of the system issmall in comparison to the processing assets. In order to reduce the requirements on the issuer while
maintaining the potential for the largest mitigation impact across the system, handling infrastructure,such as waste storage facilities are automatically certifiable, if they are dedicated to supporting waste
management facilities that meet any of the other elements of these Criteria, e.g. storage for a metals
recycling facility, or storage for an eligible Energy from Waste facility. Transport linked to storage mustmeet the Transport Criteria. Other mobile plant assets within the facility itself are eligible forcertification when part of a wider eligible project. Table 8 below details the criteria for assets storing
and bulking municipal solid waste.
For the purposes of clarity, waste storage assets which are not dedicated to eligible waste
management facilities are not covered under the Criteria as they have no added indirect mitigation
benefit for the waste sector.
Table 8: Criteria for Waste Storage
Assets covered

Eligibility Criteria

Storage and bulking
facilities

Dedicated to eligible waste processing asset(s) downstream. Those
downstream assets do not need to be certified but do need to meet thecriteria for that asset type. All waste stored must be transferred to thoseassets.

Collection vehicles

Must meet Transport Criteria

Waste Sorting, Separation and MRFs
Waste sorting is an intermediate process which should be followed by recycling. It has relatively little
impact on mitigation but is often a necessary step to provide clean, separated materials for recycling.
In this circumstance it is eligible for certification. It is also eligible when used in mechanical biologicaltreatment (MBT) prior to processing in EfW facilities to reduce the overall impact on climate change,
provided that the EfW would itself be certifiable.
MBT to landfill (in full or in part) is not eligible, because outputs have to go to an eligible facility andlandfills are not eligible under these Criteria. Biodegradable waste to landfill from MBT is only partiallytreated and will still produce methane. The contribution of landfill emissions to climate change, the32

Waste Management Background Paper

highly uncertain nature of methane emissions from landfills; and the uncertainty about the amount ofmethane generated from residual municipal waste that is only partially degraded by MBT prior tolandfilling are all supportive of this exclusion.
It is good practice (and a legal requirement in some countries) that the producer of the waste should
know where its waste will be taken and to what type of process it will be subjected. In this instance, aform of evidence such as invoices or weighbridge tickets that the waste is going to a facility that iseligible under these Criteria will be required.
Table 9 below details the criteria for assets sorting municipal solid waste.
Table 9: Criteria for Waste Sorting
AssetscoveredEligibility Criteria

Sorting facilities

Facilities sorting mixed recyclables into separate glass, metal, plastic, paper,
etc. are eligible for certification where the outputs are demonstrated via
invoices or weighbridge tickets to go to facilities that are or would be certifiable
under CBI’s criteria.

(Includes
material
recoveryfacilities(MRFs) andsome MBT
plants.

Facilities processing mixed residual waste to produce feedstock for EfW are
eligible where they separate waste components for recycling and both therecycling and residual outputs are demonstrated via evidence to go to facilities
that are or would be certifiable under the Climate Bonds Waste Management
criteria.
In other words, they go to facilities that are or would be, respectively,
certifiable under the Recycling and Reuse Criteria per Table 10 (for therecycling outputs), and under the EfW criteria per Table 14 (for the residual
outputs).

Recycling and Reuse
These assets include facilities processing separated, recycled waste materials into secondary raw
materials, and facilities reselling, repairing, refurbishing or reconditioning goods, equipment andappliances. These assets all produce materials for the consumer and/or commercial market. Table 10
below details the Criteria for assets processing waste into new materials.
Recycling offers one of the largest net mitigation benefits within the municipal waste management
sector. Materials refurbishment, reuse, and recycling/recovery produces both direct mitigation benefits
through prevention of materials to landfill and indirectly by offsetting new material extraction, refining,processing.
The conversion of waste material into a different material by chemical reaction (other than
combustion) – termed ‘chemical recycling’, is being developed across many countries now to enhance
the recycling of plastic and paper waste. Chemical recycling should be seen as a complementary
solution to mechanical recycling where the latter proves to be inefficient such as in the case of difficult
to recycle plastics, i.e. not properly sorted, multilayered or heavily contaminated waste. Chemical
recycling of difficult to recycle plastics is eligible under the Recycling and Reuse part of this Criteria.
Reuse is more complex. Some items could be reused for a purpose that would not have been fulfilled
by a new product. For example, if an electric kettle is reused as a garden ornament where none was
required previously and a replacement kettle is still required, that reuse offers no tangible benefits.
Therefore eligibility is limited to putting products back to their original use.
Table 10 below details the criteria for assets relating to recycling and reuse.

33

Waste Management Background Paper

Table 10: Criteria for Recycling and Reuse
Assets covered

Eligibility Criteria

Facilities processing
recyclable waste
fractions into secondary
raw materials

The secondary raw materials (such as steel, aluminum, glass,plastics) cease to be waste and are sold to be used as secondary raw
materials.

Facilities collecting, sort,clean, refurbish,recondition and/ or repair
products

The products are put back to their original use without any further
pre-processing required.
For waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) specifically,
the product is covered by an ecolabelling scheme and only those
products meeting the three lowest energy use categories are eligible.

Composting
These Criteria cover facilities for composting food waste and/or garden/yard (green) waste into
compost.
These facilities receive only separated green and/or food waste and use aerobic biologicaldegradation to produce composts. Table 11 below details the criteria for assets composting green andfood waste.
The Criteria are based on the UK Publicly Available Specification (PAS 100)73 for waste derived
composts (see Box 3 for more details). This was developed by WRAP and the Environment Agency
and is overseen by BSI, the UK equivalent of CEN. Other, similar standards74 will be acceptableprovided they cover the following to an equivalent level:●●●●

Waste inputs,
Monitoring,
Sampling and testing, andProduct quality.

The process also has to have zero measurable methane emissions and these requirements areincorporated in an environmental permit which is independently regulated.
Table 11: Criteria for Composting
Assets covered

Facilities processing foodand/ or green/ garden/
yard waste to produce
compost for agricultural,municipal or consumer
applications

Eligibility Criteria••

Zero measurable methane emissions
Monitoring, sampling and control of the following is carried out
in accordance with PAS100 guidance or equivalent nationalor state standard or guidance:- Waste inputs (to ensure only source separated,uncontaminated garden/yard and other appropriate waste
is received).
- The process (for example, to ensure temperature,moisture and emissions are aligned with correct process
operation). And73

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/PAS%20100_2011.pdf
For example, the South Australia guidelines, https://infostore.saiglobal.com/en-gb/standards/as-4454-2012121773_SAIG_AS_AS_267608/
74

34

Waste Management Background Paper•- Product quality (properly sampled and analysed forparameters that would affect its use: for example, heavy
metals and other biocidal substances, particle size,
contamination, stability).
The resulting product is not landfilled and replaces non-wastematerial in the market.

Box 3. Publicly Available Specification 100: Specifications for Compost Material
The British Standard Institution publicly available specification for compost materials known as BSI
PAS 100 applies across the UK and covers the whole of the production cycle from waste input,
production methods, sampling, quality control, contaminants and laboratory testing. The materialmust be sampled and tested to make sure that the product meets the PAS 100 criteria andtherefore is fit for use. PAS 100 applies only to source-segregated biodegradable wastes treated at
centralised, on-farm and community composting facilities.
PAS 100 was selected as an example because:••••

CBI wishes to certify only those assets that genuinely contribute to climate change
mitigation.
There is a need for a standard to ensure compost is produced and used beneficially without
environmental detriment.
It is publicly available, in use and was developed by a group involving all the different
parties.
It covers standards for the waste input, the process, the product, its use and its monitoring.

However, any similar state, national or government agency standards that apply similar criteria toachieve similar quality compost are acceptable, for example, South Australian EPA Compost
Anaerobic
Guidelines Digestion
and Western Australia, Environmental Standard: Composting.
These Criteria cover facilities for digesting food waste and/or green waste anaerobically to produce
biogas consisting of carbon dioxide and methane. The gas should be burned to produce electricity
and/or heat, or purified to methane for vehicle fuel, injection into the gas grid or chemical conversion.
Because the feedstock contains only biogenic carbon, any electricity or heat produced fromcombustion to form carbon dioxide is essentially free of fossil carbon. The carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e) intensity of the electricity is dictated by how much methane escapes from the process.
The Criteria are based on the UK Publicly Available Specification (PAS 110)75 for waste digestates(see Box 4 and Appendix 6 for more details). This was developed by WRAP with the Environment
Agency and others is overseen by BSI, the UK equivalent of CEN. Other, similar standards will be
acceptable provided they cover to an equivalent level the following:●●●●

Waste inputs,
Monitoring,
Sampling and testing,
Product quality.

The process must also have methane emissions less than or equal to 1285g per tonne of waste input.
This has been calculated as equivalent to the 100gCO2e/kWh derived by CBI’s Technical Energy
Group as the carbon intensity of renewables. These, equivalent or more stringent requirements must
be incorporated in an environmental permit which is independently regulated.

75

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/bsi-pas-110-producing-quality-anaerobic-digestate

35

Waste Management Background Paper

Table 12 below details the criteria for assets processing food and/or green waste using anaerobic
digestion and composting technologies.
Table 12: Criteria for Anaerobic Digestion
Assets covered
Facilities which produce
power and/ or heat using
food and/ or green/ yard
waste

Eligibility Criteria
•
•
•

•

Total methane emissions <= 1285g CH4/ tonne of waste input(this is approximately equivalent to 100g CO2e/ kWh)
Woody waste must be segregated before or after processing
and sent to an eligible EfW or composting plant
Monitoring, sampling and control of the following is carried out
in accordance with PAS110 guidance or equivalent nationalor state standard or guidance- Waste inputs (to ensure only source separated,uncontaminated food and other appropriate waste isreceived).
- The process (for example, to ensure temperature andemissions are aligned with correct process operation).
And- Product quality (properly sampled and analysed forparameters that would affect its use: for example, heavy
metals and other biocidal substances, nutrients andcontamination).
The solid and liquid products are not landfilled and replace
non-waste materials in the market.

Box 4. Publicly Available Specification 110: Specification for bio-based waste digestate
The British Standard Institution publicly available specification for whole digestate, separated liquor
and separated fibre derived from the anaerobic digestion of source-segregated biodegradable
materials covers the whole of the production cycle from waste input, production methods, sampling,
quality control, contaminants and laboratory testing. The material must be sampled and tested tomake sure that the product meets the PAS 110 criteria and therefore is fit for use. PAS 110 applies
only to source-segregated biodegradable wastes treated at centralised, anaerobic digestion facilities.
PAS 110 was selected as an example because:••••

CBI wishes to certify only those assets that genuinely contribute to climate change mitigation.
There is a need for a standard to ensure compost is can be used beneficially without further
environmental detriment.
It is publicly available, in use and was developed by a group involving all the different parties.
It covers standards for the waste input, the process, the product, its use and its monitoring.

However, any similar state, national or government agency standard that applies similar criteria toachieve similar quality controls on anaerobic digestion is acceptable.

Energy from Waste
In this document, energy from waste means assets producing electricity and/or heat or cooling fromthermal decomposition of waste by combustion or assets using another thermal process such as
gasification. These assets produce electricity and/or heating or cooling, and also extract somematerials from residual waste for recycling, such as ferrous and non-ferrous metals.
As illustrated in the waste management hierarchy, the best ways to deal with waste are to i) avoid
creation of it at all, but ii) where it is created, reuse or recycle it. There is, therefore, a rationale for
excluding EfW from these Criteria, on the basis that EfW is a ‘once-through’ process that takes out ofcirculation potentially recyclable materials, and recognizing this activity as Paris Agreement
36

Waste Management Background Paper

compatible may undermine the goals of establishing a zero-waste circular economy as quickly as
possible, if it diverts green investment away from activities higher up the waste management
hierarchy.
Against this though, there is the reality that there is currently no prospect of recycling everything.
Even in the European Union, with one of the most environmentally aware legislatures in the world, it isaccepted that more than one third of municipal waste will be managed as residual waste even in
203576. It is possible that with developments in the circular economy, waste prevention and in waste
technologies that residual waste might effectively be reduced more quickly than either those targets or
past trends imply and CBI will continue to monitor this and keep the treatment of residual waste andthe eligibility of EfW facilities under review.
In the meantime, we still need to manage residual waste in the way that has least impact on the
climate. EfW is the only route that, subject to conditions, is currently able to provide this. However,EfW should be viewed as potentially a transitional technology that offers substantial mitigationcompared to landfill, so long as lock-in of such technology (and lock-out or delay of alternative
investments higher up the waste management hierarchy) is avoided.
Table 6 illustrates the options considered by the TWG for dealing with residual waste. Of these,
landfill has been excluded from eligibility for the treatment even of residual waste due to the highmethane emissions produced, even with the most optimal gas recovery systems in place. Pyrolysis
was excluded due to the lack of data for a successful, commercially sized plant. For gasification, wewere able to access life cycle data for one process but there has, as yet been no widespread take upof the technology. In either case, where the organics from these processes are used to provide
energy in the form of electricity, heating and cooling, they are likely to offer similar climate change
benefits to EfW.
In the EU, the Technical Expert Group convened by the European Commission to support its
proposed draft Regulation on sustainable investment is working on a Sustainability Taxonomy. It ishighly likely that the EU Sustainability Taxonomy currently under development will not recognize EfW
facilities (see Box 5 below). Therefore, CBI has decided that it will not currently regard EfW facilities
within the EU as eligible, because it does not wish to undermine those objectives and guidelines
within the EU.
Hence these Criteria allow for the certification of EfW facilities in all jurisdictions except the EU,
subject to the following conditions aimed to address concerns over EfW displacing recycling either i)now (by processing more than residual waste available) or ii) in the future via locking in EfW facilities
and diverting green finance away from new recycling, re-use or waste prevention activities. The
Criteria also set efficiency requirements on EfW facilities to ensure certified facilities provide a climate
mitigation benefit. These conditions, the rationale for them, and the steps to assess them are
explained in more detail below. In line with the potential positioning of EfW as a transitional activity or
technology while circular economy systems are established, these Criteria will be reviewed on aregular basis to align the Criteria with most climate-friendly waste management and investment
practices for each waste stream, including any residual waste, as these evolve.

The EU’s Framework Directive on Waste (WFD), as modified to include the Circular Economy Package, prescribes new, higher
levels of recycling of 65% and 60% by 2035. Thus, the recycling targets mean there will be 35% or more residual waste in the
EU when the targets are achieved.
76

37

Waste Management Background Paper

Box 5: EfW and the draft EU Taxonomy
The TEG published a draft Taxonomy Report in June 20191 and is currently reviewing its proposals
in light of feedback from a public consultation over the summer and will release an updated
Taxonomy Report to the Commission early in 2020. The June 2019 draft report states that experts’opinions differed on whether EfW would be an appropriate environmentally sustainable activity
offering a substantial contribution to climate mitigation, but ultimately EfW was excluded from thedraft Taxonomy. The arguments for and against its inclusion were based on:••••

Against: the large portion of waste currently incinerated that could be recycled;
For: the reliance of some individual Member States on the incineration;
Against: the risk that further increasing capacities (in the EU) could result in lock-in
preventing more reuse and recycling
Against: recognition of EfW causes harm to the environmental objectives of a circular
economy: waste prevention and recycling.

Thermal efficiency
A minimum thermal efficiency (electrical and heat output to grid divided by the heat content in thewaste (net calorific value or lower heating value basis)) has been set for EfW plant of 25% aselectricity, representing the approximate boundary between the EU definition of incineration which isrecovery and that which is disposal.
Removing fossil carbon inputs
CBI’s analysis of the effects of waste composition and decarbonisation of electricity grids shows thatboth can have substantial effects on the climate change mitigation potential of an EfW plant to theextent that certification would not meet CBI’s guiding principles. In order to address these concerns,
CBI undertook additional analysis to investigate the effects of fossil carbon content of the waste,efficiency of the EfW plant and the carbon intensity of the electricity grid on the climate change
mitigation benefits of EfW.
The results of the analysis show that, where the electricity grid is decarbonised, EfW (without allowing
for carbon dioxide ‘savings’ from metals recovery that takes place) could produce a net burden on
climate change. Further, although it could still be a better residual waste management option thanlandfill, for fossil-based plastics it was worse. To ensure that EfW did meet the CBI’s guiding
principles, an additional qualification requirement has been introduced: the average net carbon77
intensity of the electricity (and/or heat) produced over the planned lifetime of the plant, must be lessthan the carbon intensity of electricity (and/or heat) produced by a qualifying EfW plant (i.e. 25%
electrical efficiency) when both dense and film plastics are removed from the waste input. Thisqualification requirement is termed the ‘waste management allowance’. In order to qualify forcertification under the Criteria, EfW plant must therefore demonstrate that the average carbon
intensity of the electricity produced is less than the average carbon intensity for delivering
management of residual waste when potentially recyclable dense and film plastics have been
removed. It does not matter how this carbon intensity is achieved or when, as long as the averageover the life of the plant meets the requirement. A plant operator might plan to a gradualdecarbonisation trajectory with a related recycling strategy removing increasing amounts of plastics.
Alternatively, an operator might be above the average for the first five years but have confirmed plans
to deliver heat to a new industrial premises being built next-door. Box 6 gives the steps involved.

77

Fossil carbon dioxide only.

38

Waste Management Background Paper

Box 6. Step by Step Approach to assessing the qualifying carbon intensity of Energy from Waste
Step 1: Obtain the best available, detailed waste compositional analysis for the waste input.
Step 2: Adjust if necessary for changes in recycling since the analysis.
Step3: Combine with proximate analysis of the different waste fractions (calorific value, total carbon
content, estimated proportion of fossil carbon), calculate the net CV and the fossil carbon content of
the projected waste input.
Step 4: Calculate what would be the emissions intensity of the EfW plant gCO2e/kWh produced at theminimum qualifying efficiency when the dense and film plastic has been removed (termed the waste
management allowance.
Step 5: This figure is the emissions intensity that must be demonstrated to be met if the plant is to beconsidered as eligible under this Criterion.
Note that it is not necessary to remove all the dense and film plastics. The qualifying limit can beachieved through other (or a combination of) measures, such as increased plant efficiency due, e.g.
to the recovery and supply of heat.
Recycling of outputs
Recycling of metals and bottom ash is also a requirement: incinerator bottom ash (IBA) must be
recovered as must at least 90% of the metals from the IBA but no allowance will be made for thisadditional recycling in relation to the emissions of carbon dioxide it saves.
Avoiding lock-out of recycling
Over the period of 25 years (the typical operational period for an EfW contract), recycling can be
expected to increase substantially. There has been concern that municipal waste could become
locked into residual waste management contracts and hinder efforts to increase recycling. In the EU,
the rate of recycling and composting of municipal waste is planned to increase from an average 46%
in 2017 to meet the 65% target in 2035, or approximately 1% per year. CBI analysed data from theEuropean Environment Agency for recycling and composting in 32 European countries over a periodof approximately 10 years78. Table 13 shows the average increase in the rate of recycling andcomposting rate grouped by the starting rate in 200479.
Table 13: Increases in recycling in Europe
Percent
Start range
Percent
increase% recycling
pointsforecast

andcomposting
50 to 59
40 to 49
30 to 39
20 to 29
10 to 19
0 to 9increase over
10 years
5.5

5.5

5.3

5.5

5.7

5.5

12.2

15

16.0

15

16.4

15

The overall average data show that between 2004 and 2014, the rate of recycling and composting
increased from 30.6% to 43.6%, an average rate of approximately 1.3% per year. Table 13 showsthat the largest increases are where the starting point is lowest and once 30% or more has beenachieved, the average rate of increase for the slows markedly from almost 15% to just over 5%. There
78
79

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/waste-recycling-1/assessment
Where 2004 data were unavailable, different years were used.

39

Waste Management Background Paper

have been exceptions to this: with higher growth, notably Wales and Taiwan80; and also those withmuch lower or even negative growth (Austria and Finland). None of these countries has been
included in the above averages.
Therefore, in order to ensure that increases in recycling are not prevented by contracts which divert
waste components that would have been recycled to EfW as residual waste, an EfW plant will not be
eligible for certification where its capacity is greater than the amount of residual waste that would beavailable, as predicted by the third column of Table 13. For example, where the total amount ofmunicipal waste collected for the area is 400,000 tonnes per year and the recycling/composting andreuse rate is 25%, then over a 25-year life, we assume the rate will increase by 15% in the first ten
years, 5.5% in the next ten and 2.75% in the final five years, giving a recycling rate of 48.25% in 25
years’ time. Therefore, with no growth in waste amounts, the maximum permitted capacity of EfW
would be 51.75% of 400,000 or 207,000 tonnes per year.
Table 14: Criteria for Energy from Waste
Assets covered

Eligibility Criteria

Facilities which produce
power and/ or heat/cooling by the thermal
processing of residual
waste, including rejects
from recycling/
composting/ AD

For EfW facilities outside the EU only:
•
•
•
•
•

Plant efficiency >= 25%; AND
Bottom ash recovery; AND>= 90% recovery of metal from ash; AND
Average carbon intensity of electricity and/ or heat over thelife of the plant <= waste management allowance; AND
The capacity of the plant does not exceed the calculated
residual waste at any time in the plant’s life.

(EfW facilities within the EU are not eligible for certification.)
Landfill Gas Recovery
Landfill, as shown by Table 4-3 in Appendix 4, has the highest impacts on climate change of any
waste management method due to the effects of the biogas generated from anaerobic decompositionof the waste and emitted to the atmosphere – biogas is approximately 50% methane, with a 100-year
average GWP of 28 times that of carbon dioxide. Controlled landfill has advantages over opendumping but, unless the methane produced is collected and destroyed, it will contribute significantly to
climate change. Landfills globally present a substantial threat to climate change – they are essentiallyuncontrolled bioreactors; are at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, are not compatible with a 2ºC
scenario and therefore do not meet the CBI’s guiding principles for certification (Section 3.1).
However, installing effective gas collection and recovery at an existing landfill site produces thelargest single contribution to climate change mitigation per tonne of waste (see Table 4-4, Appendix
4). Therefore, although operational landfills are excluded from certification, the installation of landfill
gas recovery systems at landfills that are closed, or being restored with soil and/or subsoil, is deemed
certifiable. A minimum efficiency has been set for certification of landfill gas recovery: 75% of the total
landfill gas generated over the gas-generation lifetime. This is considered to be the maximum
practicable extraction efficiency over the gas generation lifetime of the landfill (circa 150 years)81.
Achieving this level requires sacrificial gas wells, stand-by flares, constant expert management andmaintenance of the gas control and recovery system for many decades after waste input and with it,
the income, have ceased.

80

Recycling – Who really leads the World? Issue 2, Eunomia and the European Environmental Bureau

81

For example,
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/321606/LFTGN03.pdf

40

Waste Management Background Paper

For a gas capture asset to qualify for certification, it must no longer be taking biodegradable waste or
prolonging the lifespan of the landfill asset. This requirement is to ensure no green bond funding goes
towards supporting continued development of landfill facilities.
Table 15 below summarises the Criteria for assets processing municipal solid waste to produce
electricity, heat or cooling and fuel.
Table 15: Criteria for landfill gas recovery
Projects covered
Projects to capturebiogas from closed
landfill facilities

Eligibility Criteria
•
•
•

3.8

Gas capture >= 75%; AND
Gas used to generate electricity and input to the natural gas
grid or used as vehicle fuel; AND
The landfill is not accepting further waste (with the exceptionof restoration materials)

Adaptation & Resilience Requirements

Framework for Criteria addressing Climate Adaptation and Resilience
As discussed in Section 2, municipal waste management has the potential to improve the resilience of
ecosystems to climate change by preventing waste, emissions and other pollutants from entering theenvironment. And conversely, climate change can influence the resilience of assets and facilities via
an increased number and intensity of weather events, coastal inundation, and more extreme
temperatures.
Therefore, specific requirements about climate change adaptation and resilience are included toensure that; waste management facilities are resilient to climate change; and waste management
assets/projects have no negative impact on climate resilience of areas in, or beyond that in, which
they are operated.
The climate risk posed to the waste management sector is more about asset level resilience andhence the siting of facilities. Therefore, those seeking certification for waste management assets andprojects will be required to conduct a climate risk assessment and have an adaptation plan wherehigh risks are identified – assessed via the Adaptation and Resilience Checklist.
Adaptation and Resilience Checklist
The Adaptation & Resilience checklist focuses on the processes the issuer should demonstrate they
have been through to determine if the issuer is asking and evaluating the right questions regarding
climate change resilience at the right stages of development and if the issuer is monitoring andreporting appropriately.
To meet the requirements, issuers must demonstrate that:●●●

Climate related risks and vulnerabilities to the asset are identified; andImpacts in, and beyond, the asset to ecosystems and stakeholders are identified; andStrategies to mitigate and adapt to the climate risks and vulnerabilities identified to protect theasset.

The checklist (Table 16) is a tool to verify that the issuer has implemented sufficient processes andplans in the design, planning and decommissioning phases of a project to ensure that the operationand construction of the asset minimises environmental harm; the asset is appropriately adaptive andresilient to climate change; and supports the adaptation and resilience of other stakeholders in thesurrounding environment.

41

Waste Management Background Paper

All elements of this checklist must be addressed, with appropriate evidence provided that theserequirements are being met or are not applicable in respect of the specific assets and projects linked
to the bond. It is expected that the evidence will encompass a range of assessment and impact
reports and associated data, including, but not limited to, those reports required to meet national andlocal licensing and approval processes. This might include Development Consent Orders,
Environmental Impact Assessments, Vulnerability Assessments and associated Adaptation Plans.
Table 16: Checklist for evaluating the Issuer’s Adaptation & Resilience performance in respect of awaste management facility
Item

Proof given

Overall assessment

Section 1: The issuer identifies the climate related risks and vulnerabilities to the asset/site

Processes are in place (as part of both the asset design andongoing management) to assess key risks to the assets from achanging climate.
These key risks should include the following, plus any others
felt to be of concern for the operation of these assets. The risks
should be identified and interpreted in terms of the impact on
the asset and the related effects for the business – e.g. impact
on operating feasibility and schedules, and potential systemoutages, impact on maintenance requirements etc.
N.B. This list taken from World Banks Climate and Disaster
Risk Assessment Tool
●
●
●
●
●

Temperature changes, and extremes in temperature
Extreme precipitation and flooding
Drought
Sea level rise and storm surge
Strong winds

How these affect the asset or site in question will be highlyvariable and will be for the issuer to identify and relate to theiroperations. These assessments should use climate
information, modelling and scenarios from a peer-reviewed
source.
This assessment should be done regularly. The frequency of
the assessment will depend on the nature of the climate
related risks and vulnerabilities, and should be specified by theissuer and reported against in subsequent annual reporting.
Section 2: The issuer identifies the impacts in larger context (spatially and temporally) beyond theasset/site (i.e. the impacts of the underlying assets and projects on the broader ecosystem andstakeholders in that ecosystem)
Processes should be in place (as part of both the asset designand ongoing management) to assess the impact of the waste
management asset on the climate resilience of otherstakeholders in the social, economic and environmental
system in which it operates and how to mitigate or reduce any
negative impacts
42Waste Management Background Paper

These assessments address:
●
●
●
●
●
●

Any ways in which waste management facilities might
affect the climate resilience of otherusers/stakeholders?
Any ways in which waste management facilities
improve the adaptation capacity of otherusers/stakeholders?
For example, they may include:
Impact on water quality and quantity for other users inthe basin
Waste and pollution emitted
Fire hazards

Section 3: The issuer has designed and implemented strategies to mitigate and adapt to theseclimate risks and vulnerabilities
An adaptation plan has been designed and is being
implemented to address the risks identified in the assessments
above.
The issuer has designed or amended asset maintenance plansto ensure that scheduled maintenance is sufficient to cope withthe ongoing impacts of climate change; and a plan has been
established to govern how to approach emergency
maintenance needs arising from sudden climate change
impacts (e.g. extreme storms).
The issuer has training, capacity and governancearrangements in place for how the organisation will deal with
the impacts of exceptional events (e.g. droughts, floods,
severe pollution events, extreme storms, winds etc.).
The issuer has monitoring and reporting systems andprocesses to identify high risk scenarios.
The issuer has contingency plans to address disruption tooperations or loss of the asset and any resulting environmental
or social damage.
The issuer has processes for feeding risk assessment backinto decision-making.
The issuer has a budget allocated to implementing theadaptation plan and has a named member of staff responsiblefor its implementation.
The issuer complies with any existing broader or higher-level
adaptation plans, such as NAPAs.

43

Waste Management Background Paper

4 Appendices
Appendix 1: TWG and IWG members
Working group members
Waste Management Technical Working Group Members
Adam Read - Ricardo Energy & Environment
Adrian Barnes - Green Investment Bank
Amrita Sinha - C40
Bernie Thomas - Resources Futures
Brendan Edgerton - World Business Council on Sustainable Development
Carla Tagliaferri - University College London
Chris Hoy - Ricardo Energy & Environment
Dominic Hogg - Eunomia
Gary Crawford - Veolia / International Solid Waste Association
Jess Allan - Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association
Keith James - WRAP
Libby Bernick – Trucost
Margaret Bates - University of Northampton
Mariel Vilella - Zero Waste Europe
Mia (Chang) He - CECEP Consulting
Phil Coughlan - Herrera
Professor Richard Murphy - University of Surrey
Samantha Arnold - Golder Associates
Shui-e Yin - Environmental Sanitation Engineering Technology Reseaarch Center of Ministry of
Housing and Urban-Rural Development
Sourabh Manuja - The Energy and Resources Institute
Stuart Ferguson - London Waste & Recycling Board
Suneel Pandey - The Energy and Resources Institute
Terry Coleman - Resource and Waste Solutions LLP
Thom Koller - Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association
Wenqin Lu - CECEP Consulting
Waste Management Industry Working Group Members
Alexandra Licurse - Debt Capital Markets Origination
Andrew McIntyre - ADB
Atul Sanghal - Emergent Ventures
Charles Gooderham - ERM
Chiael Anderson - ERM
Chiew Lee TAN - NEA
Chindarat Taylor
Damasco Zagaglia - ISS
Desmond Ho – NEA
Doug Farquhar - DNV GL
Dr. Tahsin Choudhury - Tuev Nord
Duncan Russel - ERM
Emilie Hagan - Atelier Ten
Eng Kim TAN - NEA
Grace Sapuay
44

Waste Management Background Paper

Hailei Zhu (Albert) - CQC
Herman Oterdoom
James Leung - NEA
Janina Lichnofsky - ISS
John Sayer - Carbon Care Asia Limited
John Scanlon - Suez
Joseph BOEY - NEA
Julien Grimaud - 2ei
Larry Grant - Eden Eco Solutions
Margaret Andrews - Suez
Mark Berry - Norton Rose FulbrightMark Fisher - EY
Melanie Eddis - ERM
Mike Cao - Shanghai Mu Yi Investment Advisors Ltd.
Michael van Brunt - Covanta
Monica Reid - Kestrel Verifiers
Myles Cohen - Earth Link
Paul Gilman - Covanta
Pip Best - EY
Rainer Winte - Tuev Nord
Robert Rosenberg - ISS
Sarah Fee - ERM
Soo San ONG - NEA
Stacey Mack - NSF
Stan Krpan - Sustainability Victoria
Stuart Hayward Higham - Suez UK
Susan Robinson - WM
Tara Hemmer - WM
Tina Sentner - NSF
Xing Lan - Carbon Care Asia Limited
Yixiang - Coamc
Yongjun Li - Tuev Nord

45

Waste Management Background Paper

Appendix 2: Pathway to Certification
Climate Bonds Certification is available to bonds, or other debt instruments, funding assets or projects
that meet the requirements of the Climate Bonds Standard. The actual certification process is a fivestep process shown in Figure 1.
First, the issuer must prepare the bond by identifying the assets or projects that will make up the useof proceeds. For Climate Bonds Certification to be awarded, the use of proceeds must match assets
and projects deemed eligible under the Climate Bonds Standard’s Sector Criteria. Eligible assets arelisted under the Climate Bonds Standard’s Sector Criteria. One bond may contain eligible assets froma mixture of different Sector Criteria.
Next, a prospective issuer must appoint an approved third-party verifier, who will provide a verification
statement that the bond meets the Climate Bonds Standard. The Climate Bonds Standard allows
certification of a bond prior to its issuance, enabling the issuer to use the Climate Bonds Certification
Mark in marketing efforts and investor roadshows. Subject to the recommendation of the third-party
verifier and all the relevant reports being submitted, the prospective issuer is awarded Climate Bonds
Certification.
Post bond issuance, the issuer and verifier have 12 months to submit a post-issuance reportconfirming proceeds have been allocated to eligible assets. Thereafter, the issuer must prepare abrief report annually to confirm that the bond is still in compliance with the Climate Bonds Standard.
Climate Bonds Certification is also available to bonds that have already been issued, this is referred
to as post-issuance certification. The issuer just needs to appoint a third-party verifier to prepare areport stating that all use of proceeds falls within the Climate Bonds Standard’s eligible projects andassets.
Figure 2-1: Pathway to Certification46

Waste Management Background Paper

Appendix 3: Summary of public consultation
Public consultation for the Waste Management Criteria was held June 2019 – August 2019. Public
consultation consisted of two webinars and promotion via the Climate Bonds blog and twitter.
Technical Working Group and Industry Working Group members also promoted public consultation
via their networks.
No.
1Category
Overarching
principles/
ethos

2

Overarching
principles/
ethos

3

Overarching
principles/ethos

Feedback Received
The criteria should adopt a systems
perspective to be able to identify thehighest priority intervention points
including climate data, policy drivers,
and interactions between waste
infrastructure and systems on the
ground. This systems perspective
should be guided by the wastehierarchy, which is both an effective
guide and policy tool for local waste
decisions and serves as a climate
decision making tool. The steps at
the top of the waste hierarchy(reducing generation of waste, reusesystems, and organics infrastructure- compost and anaerobic digestion)
provide the most significant climate
benefits in the waste management
sector. This perspective is echoed in
the European Investment Bank’s
Circular Economy Guide which
identifies energy recovery (EfW) as aleakage from a circular system.
Thus, systems and infrastructure at
the top of the hierarchy should beprioritized for climate interventions
before disposal systems like EfW
and landfill gas.
The text states that “Assets dealing
with waste prevention are also out of
scope of these Criteria, as are all
assets dealing with wastes otherthan MSW or similar wastes (Section
3.4). This is a critical missed
opportunity to support the highest
goal of any waste management
hierarchy and covers a set of
activities that could use extensive
investment.

We are concerned that the criteria
does not include waste
prevention/reduction activities whichhave the highest GHG savings
potential.

Response
The waste hierarchy is a good
general guide but life cycle studies
can show reasons for departurefrom it. We have taken into accountthe waste hierarchy by recognisingthat those mid-hierarchy areautomatically eligible (e.g.
recycling), whereas those lower
down are subject to moreconditions/ criteria and limit eligible
use of proceeds – e.g. landfill where
only specific projects for gas
capture on closed landfills are
eligible. We are aiming to promoteassets higher up the hierarchy.
Separate collection and treatmentof organics is only of marginal
climate change benefit in its own
right; the major benefit comes fromdiversion of the waste from landfill
but this counter-factual was notconsidered for any option and only
absolute, not comparative benefits
were taken into account.

We agree that minimising waste in
the first place is the best way
forward and that waste prevention
is critical to minimising emissions.
However, these are not tackled
here / at this time as waste
prevention measures would falloutside of the waste management
criteria, as the Criteria deals with
waste once it has become waste. Intime, we aim to expand our othersector criteria (e.g. buildings, foodsupply chains, manufacturing etc.)
to ensure waste creation isminimised economy wide. But thisis a complex issue, covering design,
construction/ manufacturing,transport etc. in many sectors.
As above.

47

Waste Management Background Paper

4

Overarching
principles/
ethos

5

Waste toEnergy6

Waste toEnergy7

Waste toEnergy8

Waste toEnergyWe have strong reserves about thescope of activities covered under thiswaste management standard. We
are surprised that waste prevention
activities are not included. Waste
prevention is on the top of the wastehierarchy and should hence beprioritized. On the other hand, weare concerned that activities at thelow end of the waste hierarchy, suchas waste incineration, have madetheir way into the standard and canqualify as ‘environmentally friendly’.
The criteria should exclude waste-toenergy as an eligible asset as aclimate mitigation strategy under thecurrent framework which would not
be in line with transition to a net-zeroemissions economy by 2050.

It is particularly difficult to understandwhy CBI’s draft standards are
weaker than and, in many cases,
contradict EU waste policy.
We are concerned that the criteria
are not in line with the long-term netzero emissions strategy. Our major
concern is that waste incineration
with energy recovery (R1) despite itsvery high direct CO2 emissions (600g CO2eq per kWh) is still considered
as a climate change mitigation
strategy.
Deem as ineligible all schemes
which promote the burning of woody
biomass to generate electricity otherthan combined with heat at small,
local scale.

As above.
Activities at the bottom of the wastehierarchy have been
excluded. Those at the lower endof the hierarchy are subject tostringent eligibility conditions.

We appreciate the concerns around
EfW. Unfortunately, there iscurrently no prospect of recycling
everything, even in the EU.
Therefore, we still need to manage
residual waste in the way that has
least impact on the climate. With
that in mind, using energy from thatwaste makes sense, and we haveproposed criteria that impose atighter threshold on emissions
intensity by requiring higher
performance and also allowing
recycling to develop. Our criteria
are global, and many places do nothave infrastructure in place forextensive recycling etc. yet, andEfW (particularly under these
conditions) is a better option thanlandfill. We see EfW as atransitional activity and will be
reviewing the Criteria after 2 years
with the view to potentially remove
this from the Criteria in alignment
with most climate-friendly waste
management practices at thatmoment in time.
As above, our criteria are globa butthey are also aligned with EU waste
policy as set out in the Framework
Directive on Waste.
The Criteria bring the emissions
intensity down from the current
500g to 600g CO2eq per kWh by
increasing efficiency, recovering
heat and decreasing the fossil
content of the waste
input. Ultimately, if beneficial
recycling cannot be achieved, CBI
needs to consider the best way ofmanaging residual waste.
Only energy from waste schemes
dealing with residual waste are
eligible.

48

Waste Management Background Paper

9

Waste toEnergyExplain further how the defossilisedcarbon intensity of 240gCO2/kWh iscomputed.

10

Waste toEnergy11

Waste toEnergy12

Waste toEnergy13

Cross cutting

The lack of use of waste heat is thecritical factor here. If EfWs don’t use
waste heat, then they shouldn’t meetthe criteria. In fact, they should be
incentivised to improve this (maybe
get cheaper finance the more theydo) through a banding on the level of
CHP QA they achieve. This isalready an established practice (toget ECAs and banded ROCs), so will
work as a platform to expand.
The criteria for energy-from-waste(pages 35 & 36) take into accountonly the plastic derived fraction of
the energy, the remainder being
considered carbon-neutral“renewable” energy. This is afundamental misunderstanding as
the climate impact of a combustion
material is not solely depended on
the fossil- or non-fossil nature of its
carbon atoms, but on the entire
impact of the chain of extraction,
production, manufacturing andtransport up to the arrival at thefacility.
The technical standards are quite
hard to follow and validate. For
example for Energy from Waste
facilities (EfW), the last criteria of
average carbon intensity of electricity
and/or heat from the EfW over thelife of plant being less than a certain
metric, to be honest that is quite hardfor me to follow and given we arefinancing some of these facilities it isdifficult to identify if they fall under
this criteria based on the technicalspec which we received from theborrower.
Furthermore, the text should provide
support for separation of organics.
As noted in the text, organic
materials form the bulk of MSW,
even more so in the global south,and generate methane when sent tolandfills and dumps. The mosteffective way to prevent thesemethane emissions - and to avoid
CO2 emissions from burning thosematerials - is to separate organics.
Yet the climate benefits of compost
and the application of compost isThis is now the waste management
allowance. The residual waste
composition and the properties ofeach fraction are used to calculate
the emissions intensity of usefulenergy produced in a qualifying
plant.
CBI has provided a standard thatwould normally require the recoveryof heat as above. However, theeligibility criteria allow for operators
to meet the carbon intensity in one
or more different ways, including
the provision of heat.

This is why waste prevention is at
the top of the hierarchy, because
these upstream impacts are
avoided. However, when
considering an LCA for waste, thewaste has zero burdens.
The same arguments can beapplied to recycling but CBI has
been consistent throughout.

We have simplified the structure of
the criteria for EfW to avoid theneed to look at the current andfuture electricity grids.

Both AD and composting are
included with eligibility criteria
because they provide a slightmitigation benefit. CBI is aware of
the issue of methane from landfills
and also that CO2 emissions areproduced from both AD andcomposting but like those fromburning biowaste in an EfW are notregarded by the IPCC as
contributing to climate change.
The main benefits from compostingand AD derive from avoiding landfill
49

Waste Management Background Paper

14

Cross cutting

15

Cross cutting

19

Cross cutting

20

Cross cutting

21

Other/
uncategorised

largely overlooked in the criteria.
Composting and anaerobic digestion(with composting) have the greatest
climate benefits, according to studies
by Eunomia and others.
If Climate Bonds don’t acknowledge
and endorse some form/mechanismof incentivising better CHP
efficiency, then its credibility risks
degradation. Sustainability needs toinclude environmental improvements
as well as economic (& social).
Simply comparing EfW to landfill is avery narrow perspective and bias
towards large companies bankrolling the protracted, highdevelopment costs of EfW that thenend up risk forcing out SMEs andmore innovative, higher efficiency
process advances for the future.
The parameters and assumptions
need to be assessed by anindependent service provider, so thatthey can be compared for tangible,
transparent scoring and audit trail
reporting by investors andstakeholders.
The LCA modelling was carried out
using the WRATE software, a life
cycle tool developed by theEnvironment Agency and approvedby the England and Wales
Government. This software hasreceived significant criticism from
Eunomia, which should be taken into
account. First of all, it seems that theLife Cycle Analysis carried out forthe purpose of this standards werelimited to GHG emissions – which isa narrow view of LCA. One of LCA’s
main advantages is to compare theoverall environmental performanceof a product/activity according tovarious impact categories, such as
air or water quality. The LCA resultspresented in the CBI standard solely
reports on the carbon footprint ofsome waste management strategy.
The CBI should ultimately encourageand promote waste programmes thatcan reach 75-80% separate
collection and treatment and thatmaximise further material recovery
with Mechanical Recovery andBiological Treatment.

It would be easier for a non-technicalperson to understand if we hadof organic waste, which is acomparative benefit and as outlined
in point 1, the avoidance of landfill
is not taken into account.
These Criteria are focussed on
climate change mitigation, as is
CBI.
There is no comparison madebetween EfW and landfill, theemissions calculated are absolutebut there is a recognition that there
is residual waste and CBI wants tocertify a high standard for dealing
with it.

There will be a verification process
in place.

It is true that WRATE has been
criticised by Eunomia but thatcriticism was neither significant nor
peer reviewed. It remains the only
LCA software approved bygovernment and has been used in
the environmental justification of
more than £1 billion investment in
waste management facilities by
Defra’s Waste Infrastructure
Development Programme and theGreen Investment Bank.
The background document explainsthat the focus of the LCA would beon GHG emissions, which are thosethat most concern CBI. Other
environmental impacts were also
checked to ensure there were no
major adverse implications.
CBI with the TWG examined all
waste management methods for
MSW. We have allowed forseparate collection for recycling toincrease over the coming years andhave ensured this is not
restricted. All genuine recycling iseligible, as are composting and AD,
subject to conditions to ensure theirclimate change benefit.
We have simplified the criteria for
EfW, which were the most complex.
50

Waste Management Background Paper

22

something easily understandable likeequivalent criteria for Anaerobic
Digestion Facilities (Methane
emissions < 450g per tonne of waste
input) which is a lot easier tovalidate.
The criteria do not coverdecentralised options for waste
management and processing.
Further, some of these processes
could be carbon accretive (-ve GWP
impact).

CBI was advised by the TWG about
methods of dealing with MSW andall these were considered. No
assets that weren’t covered wereidentified in public consultation,

51

Waste Management Background Paper

Appendix 4: Using life cycle assessment in the development of the CriteriaLife cycle assessment (LCA) is an environmental analysis technique used to study and improve theimpacts of a product or service on the environment. It involves including in the system studied
everything in the economy that is affected by the process or item under consideration, delineating thissystem, and quantifying all the significant material and energy flows across this boundary (to and fromthe environment).
LCA is a holistic approach, considering all the environmental flows resulting from a product or service:
any emissions to the environment; the materials used, from their extraction as raw materials throughto final disposal, any useful energy used or supplied and how it is generated. It is also objective, inthat it uses independent data and it should be transparent, with all assumptions clearly stated. It
therefore has the potential to avoid shifting environmental burdens from one place or one part of thesystem to another and ensures all the burdens and benefits from the environmental flows that relate
to a product or service are taken into account.
However, even a simplified LCA that avoids the need for issuers to carry out extensive and expensive
primary data collection was considered too complex and time-consuming for green bond issuers touse. The approach agreed with the TWG was therefore to carry out numerous, simplified or high-level
LCAs of waste management systems to examine the results and the effect of key parameters so as todraw broad conclusions that could be used to develop the Criteria.
Conducting high-level LCAs of the various waste streams involved in the sector using mostly genericdata has provided a comprehensive, science-based understanding of impacts of the system studied,while avoiding the higher costs of a full LCA and also avoiding the need to conduct LCAs on a projectby-project basis. The following principles were used to conduct the simplified LCAs to underpin the
Criteria.
1. limiting the number of processes for which data are required by including only the processes
that generate or avoid significant emissions;
2. ignoring processes that are unchanged in both the baseline and proposed systems, because
they won’t affect the outcome;
3. using existing data, databases and standardised factors instead of collecting new data;
4. unless there is evidence of other, serious environmental effects, considering only theemissions that contribute to global climate change; and5. employing one of the many, widely available pieces of software that perform the calculations
required.
Software used
There are several life cycle assessment tools available on the market. For this analysis. WRATE82
was chosen as it was developed and approved by the UK government, and conformed to the required
principles discussed above while not being overly burdensome.
WRATE was developed by and for the Environment Agency for England and Wales, independently of
any interests in any particular waste management process. It was developed specifically to enablewaste managers to carry out life cycle assessments for waste management. It was recommended bygovernment for use in assessing waste management facilities and is still in use today by local
authorities, waste management companies and is recommended for analysis by others such as the
National Infrastructure Commission.
The software includes data on the environmental flows (termed burdens - both capital andoperational) from all waste management processes within the system boundaries, including thefollowing:•82

the collection of wastes from households, including the manufacture, supply and maintenanceof any containers used;

Developed for the Environment Agency for England and Wales by ERM and Golder Associates.

52

Waste Management Background Paper
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

the transport of that waste, including the manufacture of vehicles, their maintenance andother operational requirements such as fuel and tyres;
any sorting or storage of the waste, including construction and operation;
the treatment of the waste, including construction and operation;
the disposal of any waste, including construction and operation;
the conversion of any waste materials into secondary raw materials or compost;
the production of raw materials, including those substituted by secondary raw materials
produced from waste; andthe generation of electricity and heat from conventional means substituted by energy fromwaste.

The model contains data gathered by the Environment Agency for numerous options for each of thesecategories. The data give the emissions resulting from the manufacture, construction and use of eachof the assets used in managing the MSW. Data on the production/manufacture of different materials
come from ecoinvent™, a standard life-cycle inventory database. When all the user-data on theweight of waste, its composition, the number of containers, the weight of waste managed by different
methods etc. has been entered, the software calculates the overall emissions from all the systemcomponents to give a total weight of each emission produced to air, water and land and the amountsof electricity, heat and raw materials displaced. These inventory data are the weights of all flows toand from the environment and the general economy associated with managing the specified waste forone year.
The software also calculates the environmental impacts from the inventory data by grouping together
related emissions: for example, for climate change, all greenhouse gas emissions are grouped andeach is given a GWP (equivalence to carbon dioxide). These equivalent figures are then added
together to give a total climate change impact of the waste management system being studied as aweight of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
WRATE was used to define each waste management system and to calculate the greenhouse gas
emissions associated with it and with managing each waste fraction. The studies were conductedboth to inform the TWG in its development of the Waste Management Criteria, and to provide
evidence as to whether an asset is or is not likely to be eligible for certification. The LCAs allowed the
TWG to develop comparisons across waste types and management options. This means that under
the Waste Management Criteria, issuers are not required to conduct their own life cycle assessmentof GHG emissions associated with their assets but can leverage results to demonstrate that they meet
the GHG emissions required for that type of facility).
The System Boundary, Assumptions and Other Factors Affecting the Results
The results for any given LCA of a waste management system will be affected by several overarchingissues:•••The global warming potential (GWP) of methane;
The GWP of biogenic carbon dioxide; andThe value assigned to stored carbon dioxide, for example, by storing carbon dioxide deep
underground in geological formations, or by converting biomass to carbon and storing this.

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of Methane
GWP is the means by which the effects on climate change of different processes emitting different
quantities of different greenhouse gases can be compared. GWP estimates reflect the energy
absorbed by different greenhouse gases relative to carbon dioxide and their relative effect is different
for different timescales. To ensure that the impacts of waste activities and mitigation actions are fairly
assessed, the choice of GWPs should take into consideration how they reflect the relative value ofmethane’s impact.
The table below provides the main options for GWPs for the calculation of CO 2e emissions.

53

Waste Management Background Paper

Table 4-1: Global warming potentials for different greenhouse gases83
Lifetime (years)
IPCC AR5
Carbon dioxide
MethaneNitrous oxide
PFC 14

CO2
CH4
N20
CF4

12
121
50,000GWP
IPCC AR5
20y
1
84
264
4,880

100y
1
28
265
6,630

As GWPs are calculated relative to carbon dioxide (CO2), GWPs based on a shorter timeframe (e.g.
20 years) will be larger for GHGs with lifetimes shorter than CO2 and lower for longer timeframes.
Thus, methane (CH4) has a lifetime in the atmosphere of 12 years and its 20-year GWP is 84
compared with the 100-year GWP of 28. The 100-year GWP therefore probably understates therelative value of methane’s true impacts on waste management and the 20-year GWP might be seen
as a more appropriate measure. However, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change and its Kyoto Protocol has adopted the 100-year GWP, which is now widely used as thedefault metric. Moreover, most life cycle inventory databases use the 100-year GWP.
This question is most significant when comparing the management of residual MSW by landfill or
EfW. A carbon balance was conducted to compare the climate change impacts from landfill and EfW
for different waste compositions using both GWPs. The results had little practical effect on the relative
preference between the two methods, with EfW generally performing better than landfill. However,most LCAs of waste management and most software uses the AR4 100-year average value of 25 or
the equivalent AR5 value of 28. Therefore, for consistency, CBI has adopted the 100-year GWPs in
the IPCC’s AR5 for the calculation of CO2e emissions. Methane has been assigned a GWP of 28,
except where it is incorporated into the software as the AR4 value of 25, when this will be used.
The GWP of biogenic carbon dioxide
Biogenic carbon is the carbon contained in the cells of living matter – plants and animals. By
convention, the IPCC (and LCA) do not normally ‘count’ emissions of carbon dioxide from biogenic
carbon. This is because biogenic carbon is in a short carbon cycle – plants absorb carbon dioxidefrom the atmosphere turn this into cellulosic material and other organic compounds, which then break
down and release carbon dioxide when the plant dies and decomposes or is burned. Provided thisplant growth is sustainable, e.g. the paper is from forest with constant biomass, there is no net
change in the amount of carbon dioxide available and a GWP of zero is assigned.
On the other hand, fossil carbon is typically in a carbon cycle of millions of years and when fossil fuels
are used, carbon is taken out of this ‘permanent’ store and converted to carbon dioxide that adds tothe concentration in the atmosphere. Hence fossil carbon dioxide is assigned a GWP of 1.
In reality, this is a simplification. If one considers the effect on the concentration of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, a GWP of 1 should be assigned to all carbon dioxide emissions, whatever the source
and then a value of -1 to carbon dioxide that is absorbed by plants. However, doing this means
knowing the net change in biomass resulting from the products we consume and the plants we grow –potentially a huge task. Where there is a major reduction in biomass, e.g., through unsustainable
felling of forest or fire, the overall effect of the associated CO2 emissions is no different from theburning of fossil carbon and should be given a GWP of 1.
If biogenic carbon is assigned a GWP of 1, because all carbon dioxide has the same effect in theatmosphere, this means:•83

fossil CO2, biogenic CO2 from sustainable forest and biogenic CO2 from unsustainable forest
have the same GWP.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (2013). Fifth Assessment Report.

54

Waste Management Background Paper••

The change in global biomass resulting from the system being considered must be known
and included in the calculation
To make the material flows balance mathematically a value of -1 should be assigned tobiogenic carbon dioxide absorbed by biomass.

Therefore, CBI certification will record biogenic carbon dioxide emissions where practicable but follow
UNFCCC convention and assigns biogenic carbon dioxide a GWP of zero.
Sequestered or stored carbon
A legitimate means of mitigating climate change is to sequester carbon by putting it into some form of
relatively permanent store, for example, by converting paper into carbon black or char or capturingfossil carbon dioxide and pumping it into long-term geological storage. The atomic weight of carbon isapproximately 12 and the molecular weight of carbon dioxide is approximately 44; therefore every 12
kg of carbon stored as carbon is equivalent to 44 kg of carbon dioxide or the climate change
mitigation benefit of every tonne of carbon stored is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.67 tonnes of carbon
dioxide.
This approach could also be considered for landfills, and for composting and AD. Although paper andother waste containing biodegradable carbon degrades in landfill, modelling and monitoring has
shown that approximately half the biodegradable carbon may remain in the landfill for a period of over
100 years. Compost also increases soil carbon, although the degradation of soil carbon appears to
be an order of magnitude faster than that in a landfill, possibly due to the action of organisms in soil,
and consequently new compost has to be added to maintain soil carbon levels.
This approach would give any carbon stored a GWP of -3.67 per unit weight of carbon. Effectively thisis a similar argument to that around biogenic carbon and, if adopted, one could argue biogenic carbon
dioxide should also be assigned a value of 1. As a point of fact, some of the effects of storage ofbiogenic carbon in a landfill are already taken into effect, in that the emissions from the carbon
assumed to be undegraded are not included.
A further complexity is that fossil carbon (mostly in plastic) is locked up in a landfill for much longer
than biogenic carbon and therefore any fossil carbon should also be assigned a similar GWP of -3.67.
Subject to two provisos, sequestered carbon is assigned a GWP of zero due to the uncertainties
involved and to align with current conventions. The two provisos are:••That where the main design function of a waste management process is to put biogenic
carbon into permanent store, this is allowed for by using a GWP value of -3.67 for the carbon
as carbon in store; andThis matter is kept under regular review by CBI.

The System Boundary
The results of any life cycle study will also be affected by what is included and excluded from theassessment, known as the system boundary; and the assumptions that are made.
The system boundary for these studies was effectively set by the software used, WRATE. The
physical system includes all equipment, processes and activities from when municipal waste is set out
ready for collection through to its disposal and any environmental emissions resulting from that
disposal. The temporal boundary for the generation of gas from landfills is 150 years and that forleachate is 5,000 years; by which times over 99% of degradation and release of any contaminants will
be complete.
Although generally regarded as minor and often ignored, the burdens from the construction of all
waste management plant and landfill sites are included as are those from are the manufacture of any
waste vehicles and any containers used for waste. Energy and fuel used, the extraction of raw
materials and their conversion into e.g. steel and their use in plant and vehicles are all included. Data
for materials used in construction were taken from ecoinvent, an industry standard database covering
global markets. The construction of waste management facilities that meet best practice was also55

Waste Management Background Paperconsidered by the TWG unlikely to vary significantly globally and would in any case, have only aminor effect on the results.
The extraction and manufacture of any materials that could be recovered from waste, such as
plastics, aluminium, paper and compost are also included, as are the materials and energy required totransform recyclate into secondary raw materials capable of substituting virgin materials, to allow therelevant savings from recycling materials to be calculated.
The software deals with different geographies, by allowing the user to input the appropriate electricity
grid and data for the relevant waste composition.
Assumptions
The main assumptions in the LCA modelling are as follows:
General
o

o
o

o
o
o

All systems are modelled from the waste at the kerbside through to its recovery as a replacement
raw material or it's assimilation into the environment. Benefits accrue to the system fromelectricity exported to the grid, heat supplied or material produced, due to the saving in theemissions that would have been produced by virgin production.
Waste is assumed to enter the system with zero burdens (no embodied emissions) and allemissions or emissions savings are attributable to the modelled system.
Two waste compositions were used for the residual waste studies:o A typical developed world, determined from a research study of over 40 separate
compositional analyses in England. This was then adjusted to account for 70% priorrecycling of steel and aluminium.
o A developing world composition based on the average of several developing
countries municipal waste compositions84.
The percentage of carbon etc. in each fraction was derived from the UK National Household
Analysis Programme85.
Electricity substituted is future long-run (build marginal) based on UK government projections.
For these calculations, CH4 was given a GWP of 25 relative to fossil CO2 (1) and biogenic CO2
has GWP of 0.

Landfill
o

o
o
o
o

Landfill gas degradation modelled on biogenic carbon content of waste fractions. % volume
methane from site monitoring, then modelled. The assumed end point is 150 years (this accounts
for 99.5% of CH4). Production of landfill gas is modelled according to waste composition following
analysis of the biogenic carbon and moisture contents in each fraction.
Leachate modelled using EA LandSim model over 5,000 years and the total emissions calculated.
Gas recovery was set as 75% lfg collection over lifetime.
99% of gas collected was assumed to be burned in lfg engine.
A gas engine (burns methane with CO2) - efficiency approx. 35%.

EfW
o
o
o

The conversion of fossil carbon to carbon dioxide >97% modelled on actual plant data andscaled.
Processes modelled:o for first comparison - dry scrubbing with selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR);o for second - wet scrubbing with selective catalytic NOX reduction.
Heat produced is not used unless stated.

84

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tanmoy_Karak/publication/230806748_Municipal_Solid_Waste_Generation_Compositio
n_and_Management_The_World_Scenario/links/0912f5049d07c2d5b4000000.pdf
85
Although these are UK figures, it was accepted by the TWG that whereas the proportion of different waste fractions would vary
(e.g. increased food waste and lower glass content in developing world composition, the composition of individual fractions w as
unlikely to vary substantially between countries.

56

Waste Management Background Paper

AD
o
o
o
o
o
o

Over 99% of methane is captured and combusted to biogenic carbon dioxide.
Gas engine (burns methane with CO2) – at an efficiency of approx. 35%.
Burdens associated with all materials of construction are included as are as e.g. iron ore,limestone, coal and oil in the ground.
Gas is stored prior to electricity generation.
Only basic gas clean-up to allow combustion in gas engine assumed, i.e. carbon dioxide notremoved to permit input to gas grid.
Digestate and liquor used as compost / fertiliser to replace non-waste products, including
chemical fertiliser based on N:P:K potential.

CompostingooooBased on commercial in-vessel process scaled up to meet quantity requirements.
No significant greenhouse gases are emitted from main processing - predominantly biogenic
carbon dioxide. Preparation prior to processing and post-processing assumed to use diesel.
Compost produced to PAS 100 standard assumed to replace compost made from non-wastematerials, e.g. peat.
A minor amount of ammonia is produced.

RecyclingooooRecycled glass, metals and plastics are assumed to have direct equivalence to virgin materials i.e. more recycled material is not required to perform the same function.
Substitution is based on average recycled rate in the market, not substituting virgin material.
100% recovery from arisings assumed.
No rejects assumed, because sorting etc. was not included in modelled system.

Modelling municipal waste management systems
Ten waste management systems were initially modelled:oooto provide an overall picture of the potential global warming impacts of a variety of different waste
management systems;
how this potentially varied with composition and electricity grid mix;
to develop some generic, indicative steps between different waste management options in termsof the GWP difference between them.

Each system was modelled to manage all the municipal waste, rather than a single material stream,such as food waste or glass.
MethodWRATE was used86 to model the management of 100,000 tonnes per year of municipal waste.
Ten different methods of waste management were modelled. These were:
11. Landfill without gas capture
12. Landfill with efficient (75%) gas capture
13. EfW with 15% thermal efficiency87
14. EfW with 25% thermal efficiency plus 40% green and food waste to composting86

CBI and the TWG wish to express their thanks to Golder Associates for making available the WRATE software and for carryingout some of the analysis.
87
Thermal efficiency is a simpler way to measure performance of a plant than that used by the EU to define the difference
between recovery and disposal. It is equal to the net useful energy produced (electricity supplied to the grid – electricity takenfrom the grid)/energy available in waste input). A thermal efficiency of 25% is approximately at the boundary of recovery.

57

Waste Management Background Paper

15. Gasification, with residual to landfill (as 2)
16. EfW with 25% thermal efficiency plus 40% green and food waste to AD
17. EfW with 25% thermal efficiency
18. As 7 (EfW with 25% thermal efficiency), plus 10% dry recycling
19. As 7 (EfW with 25% thermal efficiency), plus 20% dry recycling
20. 20% recycling, with residual to landfill (as 2)
Each of these was run for the latest England municipal waste composition representing a developed
world composition and also for municipal waste composition based on an unweighted average of datafrom several developing countries in Africa, South Asia, East Asia and the Pacific88. Eachcomposition was also initially modelled using three variations of electricity grid:a) Coalb) Coal and Gas, 50:50c) Natural gas
Assumptions and scenarios
Waste management systems include containers, vehicles and their fuel consumption. However, thecontributions of these assets to the system’s climate change potential were generally small, except
where the overall burden or benefit was near zero, e.g., glass to aggregate (Table 4-2). Because thetotal contribution from containers and transport is relatively small in the case of steel and all waste
management systems require containers and transport, any difference between them in scenarios
would be minimal and the TWG decided these steps could be omitted in further modelling, on the
grounds of simplicity and that these were unlikely to be generally significant. Burdens associated withmaterials in infrastructure were included, because although they were not considered to be significant,they are incorporated into the model and cannot easily be removed. The modelling therefore focusedon the impacts from the waste treatment processes.
Table 4-2: Proportion of the impacts from each stage of the life cycle.
Category
Collection
Transport
Sorting
Recycling

Steel
0%
8%
5%
-87%

Glass Aggregate
0%
41%
26%
-33%

Scenarios 1 and 2 were both simple landfills, with no gas collection and 75% gas collection. The
underlying model allows for 150 years generation of landfill gas – approximately 99.5% of all themethane generated by the landfill. Methane accounts for over 97% of the GWP from Scenario 1 and
100,000 tonnes of municipal waste generates almost 100,000 tonnes of CO2e. In Scenario 2, 75% of
methane is collected and most of this is converted to electricity. In both scenarios some methane isoxidized to carbon dioxide in the surface layers of the landfill.
In Scenario 3, all waste goes to an EfW with an efficiency of 15%, typical of such plant in operation a
decade ago. The residues all go to landfill.
Scenario 4 is a 25% thermal efficiency EfW (as scenario 7) but with 30% of waste (garden waste andfood waste 100%) going to composting. The process is an enclosed Agrivert process and thecompost is produced to PAS 100 standard and used.
Scenario 5 models an Energos 2-line gasification process, with all the residual waste going to alandfill with 75% gas collection.

88

Karak, T., Bhagat, R. M. and Bhattacharyya, P., (2012). Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Composition, and Management:
The World Scenario. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 42:15, 1509-1630.

58

Waste Management Background Paper

Scenario 6 is identical to Scenario 4 but the composting process is replaced by the BIOGENGreenfinch anaerobic digestion process. The digestate and compost are used to replace othercompost.
In Scenario 7, an EfW plant with 25% thermal efficiency is modelled. All the ash etc. goes to a landfill
with 75% gas collection
Scenario 8 uses the same EFW plant but with 10% dry recycling, via a transfer station. The recycling
comprises: paper and card 6,000 tonnes, glass 2,000 tonnes (recycled to clear containers), ferrous
metal 1,500 tonnes and non-ferrous metal 500 tonnes.
Scenario 9 is as Scenario 8 but with 20% dry recycling, made up from paper and card 12,000 tonnes,
glass 4,000 tonnes (recycled to clear containers), ferrous metal 3,000 tonnes and non-ferrous metal
1,000 tonnes.
In Scenario 10, the EfW plant in Scenario 9 is replaced by a landfill with 75% gas collection, therecycling is identical.
The electricity off-set is against the grid mix for all processes, except landfill, where it is the short-term
marginal fuel.
The summary waste management compositions used are shown in Table 4-3. The source of thecompositions is:••European – review of compositional analyses for England, conducted in 2007 (last year
available) and reported in 200989.
Developing – an unweighted, arithmetical average of waste compositions in Bangladesh(Dhaka), Cambodia, China (Beijing), Ghana (Kumasi), India, Kenya (Nairobi), Malaysia andNigeria (Oyo)90

Table 4-3: Example European and Developing world municipal waste compositions

89

Waste Fraction

European %Developing %Paper and card

24.0

11.0

Plastic film

3.8

3.8

Dense plastic

6.2

6.2

Textiles2.8

2.8

Absorbent hygiene products

2.3

2.0

Wood

3.6

0.0

Combustibles

6.1

6.1

Non-combustibles

2.7

2.7

Glass

7.9

3.0

Organic

31.6

57.0

Ferrous metal

3.1

2.0

Non-ferrous metal

1.3

1.0

Fine material <10mm

2.0

2.0

Waste electrical and electronicequipment

2.2

0.0

Taken from Defra, Municipal Waste Composition:

A Review of Municipal Waste Component Analyses, WR0119.

90

Karak, T., Bhagat, R. M. and Bhattacharyya, P., (2012). Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Composition, and Management:
The World Scenario. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 42:15, 1509-1630.

59

Waste Management Background Paper

Specific hazardous household

0.5

0.5

Total

100.0

100.0

The different compositions presented certain problems for comparing the different options. Whilst it
was possible to maintain the same overall proportion of municipal waste going to composting and AD,
the reduced amount of normally recyclable materials in the developing composition means that 20
percent dry recycling is not even theoretically achievable. Recycling all paper, glass, ferrous and nonferrous metal gives a total of 17 percent recycling, as close as it is possible to get to 20 percent. For
the 10 percent recycling option, the amount of each material was scaled down proportionately from 17
percent to give 10 percent overall.
In all, therefore, 60 scenarios were run and the GWP impacts calculated (applying 100-year averagefor the GWP methane of 25). Table 4-4 gives the net (overall) results for GWP for each waste
management option, for both compositions and for each of the three grid types.
Results in parentheses are negative and (by convention) relate to a net benefit in respect of climatechange. The results show that the largest impact on climate change results from the landfill with nogas collection: more than three times the next highest impact.

60

Waste Management Background Paper

Table 4-4: Potential Climate Change Impacts of Different Waste Management Options (100,000 tonnes MSW)Electricity Grid/Composition

Coal
European

Coal/Gas
European

Low Carbon
European

Coal Developing

Coal/Gas
Developing

Low Carbon
Developing

Waste Management Method

kg CO2ekg CO2ekg CO2ekg CO2ekg CO2ekg CO2eLandfill, no gas collection

100,392,480

100,392,480

100,392,480

92,627,722

92,627,722

92,627,722

Landfill, 75% gas to electricity

17,011,821

22,633,040

32,979,449

15,698,013

20,902,169

30,480,935

EFW 15% thermal efficiency(7,505,503)

4,943,573

27,857,331(2,890,544)

7,568,873

26,820,467

EFW 25% Thermal, 30%
composting(31,143,873)(11,104,564)

25,779,770(21,306,891)(5,000,835)

25,012,077

Gasification, residual to landfill(31,711,367)(11,893,589)

24,582,993(23,257,135)(6,707,207)

23,754,574

EFW 25% thermal with 30% AD(37,422,437)(16,172,833)

22,939,169(27,316,635)(9,857,879)

22,276,692

EFW 25% thermal(39,505,296)(16,375,846)

26,196,199(29,660,611)(10,266,313)

25,430,814

EFW 25% thermal with 10%
recycling(44,307,760)(23,039,702)

16,106,267(34,324,407)(17,007,141)

14,867,002

EFW 25% thermal with 20%
recycling(49,110,220)(29,703,554)

6,016,338(37,771,178)(21,848,814)

7,457,875

Landfill, 20% recycling(6,624,920)(2,324,821)

5,589,936(5,502,919)(1,507,585)

5,846,223

Note to Table 4-4 : Figures in parentheses are negative and show an improvement in overall GWP.

61

Waste Management Background Paper

Table 4-5: Difference in Global Warming Potential between different waste management systems (kgCO2e/tonne)
From

To

Coal
European

Coal/Gas
European

Low Carbon
European

Coal
Developing

Coal/Gas
Developing

Low Carbon
Developing

Landfill, no gas
collection

Landfill, 75% gas toelectricity

834

778

674

769

717

621

Landfill, 75% gas toelectricity

EFW 15% thermal

245

177

51

186

133

37

EFW 15% thermal

EFW 25% with 30%
composting

236

160

21

184

126

18

EFW 25% withcomposting

Gasification, residual tolandfill

6

8

12

20

17

13

Gasification, residual tolandfill

EFW 25% thermal with 30%
AD

57

43

16

41

32

15

EFW 25% thermal with
30% ADEFW 25% thermal

21

2

(33)

23

4

(32)

EFW 25% thermal

EFW 25% with 10%
recycling

48

67

101

47

67

106

EFW 25% with 10%
recycling

EFW 25% with 20%
recycling

48

67

101

34

48

74

EFW 25% with 20%
recycling

Landfill, 75% gas toelectricity with 20% recycling

(425)

(274)

4

(323)

(203)

16

Note to Table 4-5: Positive numbers represent an improvement in overall GWP and figures in parentheses are negative – that is the change increases GWP.

62

Waste Management Background Paper

Results
The results should be seen as indicative. They are dependent on the waste compositions, electricity
grids, other data and assumptions. Nonetheless, they reflect other studies and are consideredreasonable to use to compare one waste management asset with another.
Table 4-5 shows the difference in Global warming potential (in kgCO2e per tonne of waste) due tochanging from the waste management option in the first (left hand) column to the waste management
option in the second column. For example, to calculate the change in GWP in a developing country
with a coal-based electricity grid resulting from switching municipal waste from a landfill with 75% gas
collection to an EfW plant with 15% thermal efficiency read directly from the appropriate row in thecolumn for Coal – Developing: 186 kgCO2e benefit per tonne of waste. Figures in parentheses show adecrease in environmental performance and should be subtracted.
Figure 4-1 shows eight of the ten waste management options for the two compositions and three gridtypes. The figures for landfill with no gas capture have been excluded because they are substantiallyhigher in all cases and their exclusion allows a larger scale to be used. The results for ‘Landfill with
75% gas collection plus 20% recycling’ have also been excluded here, because they are more
beneficial (due to the recycling element) and therefore don’t appear to conform to the waste hierarchy
order and reduce clarity in the graph.

63

Waste Management Background Paper
Figure 4-1: Net GWP for different waste management options

Net GWP for 100,000 tonnes municipal waste: KgCO2e

40,000,000
30,000,000

kgCO2e20,000,000
10,000,000(10,000,000)

LANDFILL, 75% GAS EFW 15% THERMALEFW 25% THERMALTO ELECTRIC
WITHCOMPOSTINGGASIFICATION,RESIDUAL TO
LANDFILL

EFW 25% THERMAL EFW 25% THERMAL EFW 25% THERMAL EFW 25% THERMAL
WITH 30% AD
WITH 10%
WITH 20%
RECYCLING
RECYCLING(20,000,000)(30,000,000)(40,000,000)(50,000,000)
Coal European

Coal:Gas European

Low Carbon European

Coal Developing

Coal:Gas Developing

Low Carbon Developing(60,000,000)

64Waste Management Background Paper
It is important to stress that these results are based on hypothetical, simplified scenarios using hypotheticalelectricity grids and example waste compositions. Therefore, the results should be seen as indicative. The
results show that:
1. From Figure 4-1, There is a general decrease in the GWP impact of the options from left (landfill with gas
recovery but no recycling) to right (medium-high efficiency EfW plant with 20% recycling).
2. The exception to this is 25 percent efficiency EfW for both compositions and the lower carbon electricity
grid, where it contributes more to GWP than any option except landfill and 15 percent efficiency EfW.
3. Landfill with recycling shows the lowest impact of any system for the lower carbon grid. Whereas with acoal-based electricity grid: for European composition, it would have an impact between that of 15 percent
thermal efficiency EfW and a landfill with no recycling and 75% gas recovery. For the developing world
composition, it would have an impact between 15 percent thermal efficiency EfW and EFW 25 percent
thermal efficiency with 30% composting.
4. For the coal and coal/gas grids and both compositions, sending green waste/food to high efficiency EfW
rather than to composting or anaerobic digestion produces a lower GWP impact.
5. The biggest single improvement step results from installing gas recovery at a landfill – more than all theother changes combined. Installing gas recovery at a landfill reduces GWP by between 621 and 834
kgCO2e/tonne. Most of this reduction is due to preventing methane emissions to atmosphere: thegeneration of electricity from this gas produces a much smaller benefit.
The general decrease in the GWP impact of the options with decreasing landfill and increasing energy
recovery and recycling supports the broad order of the waste hierarchy. However, whereas the hierarchyholds good for low efficiency EfW plant, higher efficiency EfW performs better for green waste and food waste
in this modelling than do composting and anaerobic digestion, except with the lower carbon electricity grid,where the general waste hierarchy order is restored.
From Table 4-4, for the lower carbon grid only, landfill with recycling shows marginally the lowest impact of any
system. Thus, with this electricity grid, a switch from EfW to landfill whilst maintaining 20% recycling would
produce a very slight benefit in GWP. However, this relative benefit is very dependent on the grid and for acoal-based grid or 50:50 coal and gas based grid would result in a substantial increase in GWP.
With a low carbon grid, waste composition makes little difference to the impact of each waste management
option.
Overall it was concluded that the improvement in GWP achieved with any new waste management
infrastructure depends very much on what is the existing waste management system that it is proposed toreplace, as well as what products are being displaced from the economy by those produced from managing
the waste, e.g. whether recycled glass is replacing packaging glass or merely aggregate. Moreover, thebenefits of any change are also very dependent on both the waste composition and (particularly) on theelectricity grid, which as described above, has a substantial effect on the climate change mitigation benefits ofenergy from waste.
LCA of Waste Materials
Having carried out the LCAs above on systems for managing all municipal waste, the next stage of modelling
was to analyse the greenhouse gas emissions associated with managing different fractions of municipal waste
to investigate the best ways of handling each of these.
Disposal and recovery options for different waste fractions
The first stage of the analysis was to set out the different fractions of municipal waste to be managed. The
materials considered were garden or green waste, food waste, wastepaper, waste card, and plastic (onlydense plastic was considered in the analysis, plastic film was ignored, due to no processes being included in
the software and a lack of evidence of commercially viable recycling processes).
Modelling
The TWG considered that, whereas the proportions of each waste fraction (paper, card, glass, aluminum etc.)
varied markedly with the level or economic development and urbanization, the materials themselves tended tobe manufactured for global markets and, with the possible exception of food waste composition, would not varysignificantly. Each practical method managing for each material was modelled – these are limited by thephysical and chemical characteristics of the waste material and therefore will be similar throughout the world.
65

Waste Management Background Paper
The Environment Agency life cycle software for waste management, WRATE, was used to define the waste
management system in each case and to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with managing
each waste fraction. (Note that managing glass, metals and residual waste were not modelled, because they
had previously been modelled and only one or two realistic options were available for them).
Unless otherwise stated, the analysis was based on the following factors and assumptions:
•
•
•
•
•
•

The country modelled was the UK.
The electricity grid was assumed to be that forecast for 2020.
The materials were as outlined above. For plastics only dense plastics were considered; the paper
evaluated was: white office paper.
Chemical and proximate analysis for the different fractions came from analysis undertaken during the
UK government’s national household waste analysis programme.
As they had previously been shown to be insignificant, transport, containers and all intermediatestages were excluded from the analysis.
Methane was given a GHG equivalence of 25 times carbon dioxide.

The methods considered for waste management were: landfill (with four different gas collection efficiencies),
Energy from waste (using three different thermal efficiencies), gasification (based on data from the Energos
plant), anaerobic digestion, composting and different types of recycling.
Each material was modelled in turn using the relevant models. The results for each material are reported in thefollowing sections and shown in the graphs.
Food waste
Food waste is probably the fraction of municipal waste likely to vary most with geography in terms of its
constituents and therefore quality. Unlike plastics, steel, aluminium etc. which are manufactured and supplied
for a global market, the food consumed, bought, method of preparation and waste tend to be associated withthe local demographics and often climate.
In general, food waste is characterised by high moisture content, ready biodegradability and low heating value(CV). The WRATE model incorporates analysis undertaken in the UK as part of the government’s national
household waste analysis programme91 gave the results shown in Table 4-6.

Table 4-6: Proximate analysis of food waste used in WRATE
Gross CV

5.345

MJ/kg

Net CV

3.393

MJ/kg

C

13.455

%

H

1.895

%

N

0.985

%

S

0.095

%

O2 plus errors

16.01

%

Moisture

62.75

%

Ash

9.335

%

Although these figures are made up from the analysis of several samples at the time and was considered
representative, the sampling dates from the 1990s when recycling was almost non-existent in the UK. Asidefrom changes in eating and cooking habits, it is likely that the analysis of food waste reflects some loss ofmoisture to co-collected paper and card.
One thousand tonnes of food waste were modelled using WRATE for the five options considered available forfood waste: landfill, energy from waste, gasification, anaerobic digestion and composting. Food waste to91

Dept. of the Environment, National Household Waste Analysis Programme, Phase 2, Chemical analysis,
1995
66

Waste Management Background Paper
landfill was modelled at four gas recovery rates and food waste to EfW plant at three thermal efficiencies: theresults are shown in Figure 4-2 and Table 4-7.
Under the conditions modelled (2020 electricity grid and with a GWP of 25 for methane) all the landfill options
contribute to global climate change, whereas all the other waste management options show greenhouse gas
reductions. The best option for managing food waste is very high efficiency (29%) EfW – approximately 23%
better than anaerobic digestion. However the difference between 25% efficiency EfW, gasification andanaerobic digestion is marginal, and anaerobic digestion is better than lower efficiency EfW plant.
If the projected decarbonisation of the electricity grid had been used it would make a difference to themagnitude of the results but not to the overall order.
Figure 4-2: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of food waste

Table 4-7: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of food waste (kgCO2e)
Landfill
50%
gascollectedLandfill70%
gascollectedLandfill80%
gascollectedLandfill90%
gascollectedEfW
20%
efficienc
y

EfW
25%
efficienc
y

EfW
29%
efficiencyGasifierAD

Compost547,255

360,211

266,689

173,167-65,362-94,648

118,078-93,913

95,782-27,151

However, AD should not be discounted for food waste: EfW plant cannot burn food waste alone, requiring acalorific value approximately double that of food waste to operate effectively. Additionally, if AD is combinedwith gas cleaning and removal of carbon dioxide to produce biomethane, the resulting methane can be usedas transport fuel or fed into the gas grid to replace fossil fuels and burned at high efficiencies, which would leadto an increased carbon benefit.
Garden waste
Garden waste (also known as green waste and yard waste) consists of plant matter such as grass cuttings,
weeds and other plants, prunings, small branches, leaves and soil. It is often collected separately and ischaracterised by relatively high moisture content, the presence of material that does not readily biodegrade,such as lignins or ligno-cellulose in hard, woody material and also by the presence of significant quantities of‘inert’ material such as soil.

67

Waste Management Background Paper
Table 4-8: Proximate analysis of garden waste used in WRATE
Gross CV

6.5

MJ/kg

Net CV

4.58

MJ/kg

C

17.17

%

H

2.305

%

N

0.745

%

S

0.08

%

O2 plus errors

17.9

%

Moisture

57.975

%

Ash

9.2

%

As for food waste, this analysis stems from a time when garden waste was not usually collected separately
and soil would be recorded as a separate category in the results. The effect of separate collection would be toincrease ash content and decrease the CV and unit biogas yields.
One thousand tonnes of garden waste were modelled using WRATE for the five options available for garden
waste: landfill, energy from waste, gasification, anaerobic digestion and composting. Garden waste to landfill
was modelled at four gas recovery rates and to EfW plant at three thermal efficiencies: the results are shown in
Figure 4-3 and Table 4-8.
Figure 4-3: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of garden waste

Table 4-8: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of garden waste (kgCO2e)
Landfill
50% gascollectedLandfill
70% gascollectedLandfill
80% gascollectedLandfill
90% gascollecte
d569,270

374,545

277,183

179,821EfW
20%efficienc
y118,353

EfW
25%
efficienc
y-88,774

EfW
29%
efficienc
y124,409

Gasifier

AD

Comp
osted

152,917

129,665

29,049The results are (unsurprisingly) very similar to those for food waste: the landfill options all produce greenhousegases, whereas all other options produce a net benefit to climate change. Anaerobic digestion is on a par withhigher efficiency EfW and gasification. EfW with 29% overall efficiency performs best.
68

Waste Management Background Paper
As above, although it performs best, an EfW plant will not operate burning only garden waste, because the CV
is below the minimum requirement of approximately 9 MJ/kg.
Waste paper
Unlike glass and metals, which can in theory be recycled and reprocessed an infinite number of times, paper
deteriorates in quality every time it is recycled and re-pulped due to a decrease in average fibre length. Highquality paper such as office paper requires longer cellulosic fibres than newspaper or some cardboard andpaper cannot therefore be recycled to the same quality fibre each time, although recycled fibres can make up a
proportion of the higher quality paper.
In addition to the four landfill, three EfW and gasification options modelled for food and garden waste, threerecycling options were modelled in WRATE. These were office paper to office paper (Paper rec1), office paper
to newspaper (Paper rec2) and mixed paper to mixed paper (Paper rec3). The results are shown Figure 4-4
and Table 4-9.
Figure 4-4: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of waste paper

Table 4-9: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of waste paper (kgCO2e)
Landfill 50%
gas collected

Landfill 70%
gas collected

Landfill 80%
gas collected

Landfill 90%
gas collected

EfW 20% efficiency

EfW 25% efficiency

1,485,327

970,686

713,366

456,046-255,803-338,203

EfW 29%efficiency

GasifierAD

Recycling 1

Recycling 2

Recycling 3-404,123-293,973-231,721-549,993-376,265-299,467

The pattern of the results for landfill and combustion is similar to that for food and for garden waste, except that
EfW is significantly better than AD due to the dual effect of the higher CV of waste paper generating more heatto be converted into steam and electricity92 and the fact that paper is more difficult to biodegrade than, e.g.,food waste93. However, the three recycling options also perform well but only office paper to office paper
92

National Household Waste Analysis Programme.
WRc report to the Environment Agency on 100 day anaerobic test: newspaper produced 76 litres of biogas per kg. of volatile solids
compared with 312 litres for vegetables.
93

69

Waste Management Background Paper
outperforms energy from waste at 29% efficiency. Recycling paper to newspaper is a better option than 25%
efficiency EfW.
Waste Cardboard
Waste cardboard is regarded as slightly easier to anaerobically digest that high-quality paper. However, it has
a higher heat content than paper and will produce more electricity than paper when burned. It also has ahigher carbon content, is more degradable and will therefore produce more biogas than paper under similar
conditions. Waste cardboard was modelled for the same options as paper – landfill and combustion plus asingle recycling option (there is only one available in the model). The results are shown in Figure 4-5 andTable 4-10.
Figure 4-5: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of waste card

Table 4-10: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of waste card (kgCO2e)
Landfill
50% gascollected

Landfill
70% gascollected

Landfill
80% gascollected

1,100,435

720,081

529,904

Landfill90%
gascollecte
d339,72
6EfW
20%efficienc
y

EfW
25%
efficienc
y

EfW
29%
efficiencyGasifierAD

Recycling1

298,793

393,407

469,098

339,353

265,047-61,607

The results show a similar pattern to those for paper: all the landfill options having the effect of increasing
greenhouse gas emissions and all other options reducing them. There is a larger difference between
gasification and AD, both of which are better options than the recycling option. The recycling option is for card
recycled to corrugated cardboard and uses average EU data. All the energy from waste options outperform theAD and recycling options.
Plastics waste
Plastics waste is a component of municipal waste that covers both physical and chemical types. Physically,
plastics waste can be separated into dense plastics (bottles, jars, food containers etc.) and plastic films.
Dense plastics can themselves be separated into polymers, including: high density polyethylene (HDPE),
polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). It is possible to separate plastics by type and70Waste Management Background Paper
recycle plastics waste to displace virgin polymers and gain maximum carbon benefit or to recycle plastics as
mixed plastics to a lower grade use, such as a wood substitute.
Each plastic type will have slightly different burdens associated with its production, although they will be similar
in magnitude and thus the benefits of recycling each type will be similar. There are no known commercial
operations for recycling plastic films successfully and therefore only dense plastics were modelled forrecycling. One individual material (HDPE) and one mixed plastic recycling option were considered in themodelling. The results are shown in Figure 4-6 and Table 4-11.
Figure 4-6: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of waste plastics

Table 4-11: Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of 1000 tonnes of waste plastics (kgCO2e)
Landfill
50% gascollected
100,614

Landfill
90% gascollected
48,125Gasifier

EfW 20%efficiency

EfW 25%efficiency

EfW 29%efficiency

Recycling 2

Recycling 1

1,183,723

1,232,525

1,038,187

882,716-823,927-1,337,950

The results for plastics waste show a different pattern from the other waste fractions considered. Whilst
recycling is clearly the most beneficial, landfill clearly outperforms all energy from waste options, including
gasification. This difference is due to the change in material composition from biogenic to fossil carbon.
For landfill, this means there is little or no methane produced from degradation of the waste and the emissions
are principally due to the combustion of fossil fuels in on-site plant, those associated with landfill constructionand electricity for leachate treatment. In contrast, EfW and gasification are generating electricity from 100%
fossil fuel and at relatively low efficiencies compared with the marginal electricity displaced in 2020. Bothplastics recycling options: HDPE to HDPE (Plas rec1) and dense mixed plastic to dense mixed plastic (Plas
rec2) produce substantial greenhouse gas benefits, whereas the overall greenhouse emissions from landfill
produce a small contribution to climate change. All energy from waste options have substantial greenhousegas emissions and are the worst options for managing plastic waste alone.
Summary
The above results have been combined with earlier analysis of recycling metals and glass and managing
residual waste in Table 7 in the main document.

71

Waste Management Background Paper
Changes in residual waste management impacts
The calculations below used UK data for electricity generation and some of the underlying data that went into
the Environment Agency software, WRATE, developed by Golder Associates and ERM. WRATE itself was not
used in this calculation.
Two scenarios are considered, each for two waste compositions:••

All waste to landfill or to EfW; andCurrent waste composition and low fossil carbon waste composition.

The following assumptions were made:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

100,000 tonnes per year of municipal waste managed.
‘Current’ is based on the waste composition for England 2009.
The ‘Low fossil’ option is based on municipal waste with a similar heating value but with 20% biogenic
carbon compared with 17% in the current option and 4% fossil carbon compared with just over 7% in
the current option.
Approximately 48% of biogenic carbon is assumed to degrade in a landfill.
75% of landfill gas is recovered to produce electricity.
10% of methane is oxidised to carbon dioxide through the surface layers.
Landfill gas is 50:50 by volume methane and carbon dioxide.
Electricity consumed by the EfW plant (the parasitic load) is approximately 3% of electricity produced.
Emissions from waste transport and construction are excluded.
Where a decarbonised grid is quoted, it means the grid has the downward trajectory for carbon emitted
per unit of electricity generated as shown in Figure A1,
The calculations follow the convention and do not count short-cycle (biogenic) carbon.
Unless stated otherwise, methane is given a 100-year average GWP of 28.
No additional allowance is made for storage of carbon within the landfill.
Both landfill and EfW are electricity only.
Landfill gas is used to generate electricity in gas engines with an overall efficiency of 35%.
No benefit is given to EfW for any metals or aggregate recovery but no burdens are assigned relating
to its landfill.

Figure 4-7: Decarbonisation of the UK electricity grid (Dept. for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)

Carbon Intensity of Electricity Grid
0.6

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050

kgCO2e/KWh

0.4

Year

72

Waste Management Background Paper
Figure 4-7 shows total net greenhouse gas emissions aggregated for all years from 2015 to 2050 calculated
for 100,000 tonnes of municipal waste per year. Business as usual assumes grid decarbonisation as in Figure
4-7 above. Negative results show a relative benefit in terms of global climate change, whereas positive results
show a relative worsening.
Effect of changes in the carbon intensity of the electricity grid
Figure 4-8 below shows the effect of different grid mixes on the overall GWP contribution of each waste
management option for both the current and a low-fossil waste composition. The effect of grid decarbonisation(from coal through coal and gas to nuclear and renewables) is progressive but more significant on EfW than on
landfill. This is because the greenhouse gas impact of landfill is principally from emissions of methane which
remain unaffected by the decarbonisation of the grid. On the other hand, decarbonisation of the grid has asignificant effect on the impacts of EfW, changing it from a net benefit over the whole period, to a net
contributor to climate change of almost 700,000 tonnes CO2e over the 35 years. The effect on EfW is due tothe fossil content of the electricity generated by the EfW plant and the relative low efficiency of current practice.
Figure 4-8: Effect of electricity grid decarbonisation on landfill and EfW

GWP for different Grid carbon intensities
2E+09

Total Net Emissions kgCO2e

1.5E+09
1E+09
500000000
0
Current - EfWCurrent - Landfill

Low fossil - EfW

Low fossil - landfill-5E+08-1E+09-1.5E+09
Coal

Coal:Gas

Decarbonisation

EfW still outperforms landfill in these scenarios, although for current municipal waste composition theadvantage is much smaller – down from almost 900,000 to 175,000 tonnes CO2e over the period; and the low
fossil (higher biogenic) carbon municipal waste composition shows an even greater difference, reflecting
greater methane emissions from the landfill and a lower carbon intensity of electricity recovered from EfW.
Effect of different EfW efficiencies
Figure 4-9 shows the total cumulative results over the period 2015-2050 for the UK projected griddecarbonisation trajectory. The graph shows how the contribution to climate change mitigation of EfW isaffected by the efficiency of energy conversion in the plant.
At 10 per cent efficiency, EfW contributes some 450Mtonnes CO2e less to climate change than landfill. Thisadvantage increases by approximately 50 per cent for a high efficiency plant.
For comparison, the performance of EfW with a mixed (50:50) coal and gas grid is also shown.

73

Waste Management Background Paper
Figure 4-9: Effect of different efficiencies of EFW

GWP for different EfW efficiencies
2E+09

Total Net Emissions kgCO2e

1.5E+09

1E+09

500000000

0
Current - EfWCurrent - Landfill

Low fossil - EfW

Low fossil - landfill-5E+08
10% efficiency

20% efficiency

30% efficiency

50% coal:gas grid

The effect of landfill gas collection
Figure 4-10 shows the effect of a landfill with different landfill gas capture and recovery schemes. For no gas
collection, all methane produced within the landfill that is not oxidised in surface layers is emitted as methane
without any electricity generation. ‘Gas collection, no electricity’ shows the effect of 75 per cent gas recovery
with flaring. In ‘gas collection and electricity’ the collected landfill gas is burned to generate electricity rather
than being flared.
The difference between the option with no gas collection and those with gas collection is substantial – a
reduction from 5.36 MtonnesCO2e to 1.34 MtonnesCO2e. The change does not affect EfW, which still
contributes almost 700,000 tonnes CO2e to global climate change. The 4 MtonnesCO2e reduction inemissions from landfill due to landfill gas collection is not sustained in the change from flaring to energy
generation, where the decrease is just a further 44,000 tonnesCO2e. (Note that the effect with a 50:50 coal:gas
electricity grid (included for completeness) is minimal.)Annual net greenhouse gas emissions
Figure 4-11 shows the effect of a progressive reduction in grid carbon intensity (as shown in Figure 4-7) on theannual net emissions of greenhouse gases for each option. This assumes 30 per cent efficiency EfW and an
artificially high 90 per cent landfill gas collection. The net global climate change impact of the current and low
fossil landfill options increases relatively steadily through to 2029/2030, when it levels off. In contrast both EfW
options show a net benefit to climate change in the early years but their impact increases more rapidly than for
landfill again until 2029/2030, when the rate of increase is lower.
However, the overall effect is that, for these assumptions, if an investment in either EfW or landfill is being
considered for climate change mitigation, a decision based solely on current electricity up to 2023 would return
EfW as the preferred option, whereas one based on electricity from 2024 would favour landfill.

74

Waste Management Background Paper
Figure 4-10: Effect of landfill gas capture and electricity generation

GWP for different gas recovery and utilisation

Total Net Emissions kgCO2e

7E+09
6E+09
5E+09
4E+09
3E+09
2E+09
1E+09
0
Current - EfW
no gas collection

Current - Landfill
gas collection no electLow fossil - EfW
gas collection & electLow fossil - landfill
50% coal:gas grid

Figure 4-11: Annual net greenhouse gas emissions

Annual Net GHG emissions (kg CO2eq)

kg CO2 eq
30,000,000

20,000,000

10,000,000

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050

0

-10,000,000-20,000,000-30,000,000
Current - EfWCurrent - Landfill

Low fossil - EfW

Low fossil - landfill75Waste Management Background Paper
Conclusions
The analysis above demonstrates the effect that the three key variables: waste composition, efficiency ofoperation and the greenhouse gases emitted by the energy source that is being displaced have a significant
effect on the climate change performance of managing residual waste by EfW or landfill. For the scenarios andcompositions considered above, the proportion of gas recovered was the most significant factor for landfill,whereas for EfW it was the carbon intensity of the electricity grid.
Gas recovery and thermal efficiency are both parameters that can be designed, engineered and therefore
controlled. However, to ensure EfW plant meet the overall objectives of certification, additional consideration isrequired; this is given in the Energy from Waste section (page 37) and in Appendix 5.

76

Waste Management Background Paper

Appendix 5: Qualifying Criteria for Energy from Waste facilities
Introduction

EfW generally has a lower impact on climate change than landfill for a given amount of residual
waste and is therefore preferred to landfill for dealing with residual waste. Residual waste facilities
will always deliver less benefit than facilities handling waste streams segregated for recycling,
because the waste is that left over after extracting valuable materials and the benefits of recycling
are excluded. Whether the proportion of waste recycled is 25%, 50% or 65%, there will still be
residual waste to be managed and managing residual waste should be recognised as a necessity
and therefore a need that is met by EfW. However, how beneficial an EfW plant is in relation to
mitigation of climate change or how great an impact it makes will vary with factors such as:●●●

the efficiency of the plant;
the composition of the residual waste; andthe carbon intensity of the grid over the plant’s operational life.

Therefore, for EfW the Criteria should also include conditions to guard against circumstances thatwould result in poor performance with regards to climate change and to improve the mitigation
performance of all EfW plant.
EfW is dealing with the residual waste – the waste that is left after recycling and composting/AD andis generally likely to have higher emissions of greenhouse gases than recycling. Thus, there is abalance to be struck between the emissions allowed in relation to delivering effective waste
management and emissions that are greater than those associated with the generation of electricity.
Future Electricity grid carbon intensities

CBI has assumed that renewable energy can be delivered with electricity grid carbon intensities ofless than 100gCO2e/kWh and this is compatible with limiting global temperature rise to below 2ºC.
To calculate a simple average, the average of the electricity grid intensity at the start of operations
and the renewable figure of 100gCO2e/kWh is calculated. If the electricity produced by an EfW plantmatched or bettered this forecast average carbon intensity for the grid, the plant will be in line withthe 2ºC trajectory for electricity generation. However, this is highly unlikely. Currently an EfW plantburning typical European municipal waste with 25% efficiency will probably have a carbon intensityof between 500 and 600gCO2e/kWh, well above most European electricity grid carbon intensities.
The effects of fossil carbon in EfW waste input

As outlined above, EfW plant do not only produce electricity and/or heat but also manage residual
waste, as well as recovering some metals and ash as aggregate. These processes all haveadditional climate change burdens or deliver additional benefits by reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and CBI considers that of these, residual waste management should be recognised byallowing additional emissions from EfW plant. The results of the LCA work for CBI (Table 7 in themain background document) show that from the viewpoint of climate change mitigation, recycling is
the best option for managing plastics, whereas EfW can be the worst. Therefore, to determine what
additional climate change burden the function of EfW plants in managing residual waste justifies, thecarbon intensity of the electricity generated was calculated with different levels of plastics removed
from the waste input. The results showed that, using a typical European composition containing
approximately 10% dense and film plastics, removing all the dense plastics still produces a carbon
intensity of over 400gCO2e/kWh, due to:●●other fossil carbon containing material in the waste; andseparate recycling of other materials (paper and card, food and garden waste)
substantially reducing the weight of non-fossil carbon materials.

77Waste Management Background Paper
A hypothetical example overall limit for EfW

To explore what maximum reduction might practically be achieved, a UK waste management systemwith high prior recycling of other materials, (excluding textiles) was modelled. In this scenario, theremoval of all plastics (both dense and film) prior to combustion reduced the predicted fossil carbon
content of the waste input to 3.6% and the carbon intensity of the electricity from a qualifying plant toapproximately 240gCO2e/kWh. In this example, the upper limit of greenhouse gas emissions for an
EfW operating in the UK would be set at the carbon intensity of 240gCO2e/kWh.
Although in this example this is the lowest carbon intensity achievable by EfW through plastics
recycling and represents the minimum eligibility, there is no requirement on how this limit is met.
Thus, although its derivation was based on removing all plastics from the feedstock, it is not arequirement of the Criteria that this is how the limit is achieved, so long as, on average over the plantlife, the carbon intensity of the emissions does not exceed the figure that was derived in this way: thelimit can be achieved, for example, by increasing efficiency through delivery of heat or by a
combination of measures.
Calculate the emissions intensity of the EfW plant for electricity

a. Use a representative analysis of the actual or proposed waste input to the EfW plant anddetermine the percentage by weight of each fraction (paper, card, dense plastic, glass, metaletc.).
b. Analyse each fraction to determine:
1. The moisture content and lower heating value (calorific value) for each fraction;
2. The carbon content of each fraction
c. Estimate the percentage fossil carbon for each fraction.
d. Using the qualifying efficiency (25%) of the EfW plant and the analysis above, calculate theemissions intensity in gCO2e/kWh with all the dense plastic and plastic film fractions removed.
e. This is the upper limit for the average emissions of fossil carbon dioxide from the EfW plant in
gCO2e/kWh over its lifetime.
As stated above, this is how the upper limit in the qualifying criteria for EfW emissions should bedetermined, not necessarily how it should be achieved. It does not require an EfW plant to remove
all plastics but does require it to achieve the same level of emissions as would have been achieved if
the plastics had been removed94.
In order to qualify for certification under the Criteria, operators of EfW plant must therefore
demonstrate that the average carbon intensity of the electricity they produce is less the ‘allowance’for residual waste management based on the carbon intensity of the EfW plant with the plastics
removed. No allowance should be made in this calculation for the benefit from any additional
recycling of metals and aggregate from EfW.
Table 5-1 shows the calculation steps to establish the predicted average electricity grid carbon
intensity.
Table 5-1 Calculation of average electricity grid carbon intensity

Data

FormulaCurrent/starting electricity grid carbon intensity

E gCO2e/kWh

Grid intensity at end of plant life

e gCO2e/kWh

Year of carbon intensity (E)

YG

Year EfW starts operation

YS

Year EfW ceases operation

YE

Carbon intensity of grid for EfW start (WS)

WS = E - (E – e)*(YS - YG) / (YE - YG)

94

It is recognised that it is practically impossible to remove all plastics. However, both dense and film plastics should essentially beremoved in their entirety.

78

Waste Management Background Paper

Carbon intensity of grid for EfW end (WE)

WE = E - (E – e)*(YE - YG) / (YE - YG)

Average electricity grid carbon intensity for EfW
operational life

(WS + WE)/2

Dealing with heat

Where heat is also supplied, a similar procedure is followed, calculating the carbon intensity of the
EfW plant from the total emissions of CO2e divided by the sum of the amounts of electricity and heatproduced in kWh.
The threshold for heat and power combined is calculated as the average carbon intensity of the gridelectricity and heat displaced. The average carbon intensity for conventional electricity displaced is
calculated as for the power only option above. For the heat component threshold, the carbon
intensity of the current heat source displaced is used, (if not available, this can be calculated fromthe fuel used and efficiency of the heat source) or, if not known, generic carbon emissions factors 95
for heating should be used. To be compatible with a 2ºC scenario, the carbon intensity of heating will
have to decrease in a similar fashion to that for electricity. Effectively, this means that heating will
have to be supplied by renewable sources. Therefore, the CBI has assumed the carbon intensity ofheating is also 100gCO2e/kWh. The calculation for the average carbon intensity for heat is thensimilar to that shown above for electricity.
To calculate the combined heat and power threshold, the proportion of the energy output that is
electricity multiplied by the average carbon intensity of electricity is added to the proportion of theoutput that is heat multiplied by the average carbon intensity of the heat that is displaced.

95

For example, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/government-conversion-factors-for-company-reporting#conversion-factors-2018

79Waste Management Background Paper

Appendix 6: Further Reading
1. Blok, K., Hoogzaad, J., Ramkumar, S., Ridley, A., Srivastav, P., Tan, I., Terlouw, W., and de Wit, M.,(2016). Implementing Circular Economy Globally Makes Paris Targets Achievable. [s.I.] [s.n.]
2. Circle Economy, (2016). Circular Amsterdam: A vision and action agenda for the city and themetropolitan area. [Online] Amsterdam, Netherlands: Circle Economy. Available online. [Accessed 3
October 2016].
3. Cointreau, S., (2006). Occupational and Environmental Health Issues of Solid Waste Management:
Special Emphasis on Middle- and Lower-Income Countries. [Online] Washington D.C., U.S.: World
Bank. Available online. [Accessed 3 October 2016].
4. Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP). 2015. Landfill taxes & bans. [Online]
Düsseldorf, Germany: CEWEP. Available online. [Accessed 12 September 2016].
5. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), (2015). Digest of Waste and Resources
Statistics – 2015 Edition. [Online] London, UK: DEFRA. Available online. [Accessed12 September2016].
6. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), (2013). Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and businessrationale for an accelerated transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF.
7. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). 2014. Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the scale-up
across global supply chains. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF.
8. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). 2015. Delivering the Circular Economy: A Toolkit for
Policymakers. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF.
9. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). 2015. Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive
Europe. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF.
10. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). 2015. The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of
Plastics. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF.
11. Entreprises pour l’Environnement (EpE), (2013). Protocol for the quantification of greenhouse gas
emissions from waste management activities. Paris, France: EpE.
12. European Commission, (2015). Closing the Loop: An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy.
[Online] Brussels: European Commission. Available online. [Accessed 3 October 2016].
13. Green Investment Bank (GIB), (2015). Green Impact Reporting Criteria – June 2015. Edinburgh,
Scotland: GIB.
14. Hoornweg, D. and Bhada-Tata, P., (2012). What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. Washington D.C., US: World Bank.
15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (2007). Waste Management. In: Climate Change
2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Bogner, J., M. Abdelrafie Ahmed, C. Diaz, A. Faaij, Q.
Gao, S. Hashimoto, K. Mareckova, R. Pipatti, T. Zhang]. Cambridge, UK and New York, US:
Cambridge University Press.
16. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E.
Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge, UK and New
York, US: Cambridge University Press.
17. Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN), (2016). Innovation Opportunities from Industrial Waste. [Online]
London, UK: KTN. Available online. [Accessed 15 September 2016].
18. Mavropoulos, M. [No date]. Waste Management 2030+: The future of waste management in an
overcrowded planet. [Online]. Vienna, Austria: International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). Available
online. [Accessed 15 September 2016].
19. OECD, (2016). Policy Guidance on Resource Efficiency. [Online] Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Available online. [Accessed 3 October 2016].
20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (2015). Environment at a Glance
2015: OECD Indicators. [Online] Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Available online. Accessed 12
September 2016].
21. The Scottish Government, (2016). Making Things Last: A Circular Economy Strategy for Scotland.
[Online] Edinburgh, Scotland: The Scottish Government. Available at:
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00494471.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2016].
22. Turner, D., Williams, I., and Kemp, S., (2015). Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling ofsource-segregated waste materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 105, pp.186–197.
23. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), (2015). Global Waste Management Outlook.
Osaka, Japan: UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE) International
Environmental Technology Centre (IETC).
80

Waste Management Background Paper
24. United Nations Environmental, (2010). Waste and Climate Change: Global Trends and Strategy
Framework. Global Waste Management Outlook. Osaka, Japan: UNEP Division of Technology,
Industry and Economics (DTIE) International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC).
25. Veolia, (2015). Imagine 2050: The innovations we will need in waste, water and energy to ensure asustainable future. [Online] London, UK: Veolia. Available online. [Accessed 13 September 2016].
26. Veolia. [No date]. Circular Economy Case Studies: Cleaning up in partnership with Procter & Gamble.
[Online] Available at: http://www.veolia.co.uk/Procter-Gamble. [Accessed 12 September 2016].
27. Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP). [No date]. The Courtauld Commitment 2025. [Online]
Available online. [Accessed 12 September 2016].
28. Winne, S., Horrocks, L., Kent, N., Miller, K., Hoy, C., Benzie, M., & Power, R., (2012). Increasing theclimate resilience of waste infrastructure. London, UK: Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA).
29. World Resources Institute (WRI), (2013). Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions:
Supplement to the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3). [Online] Washington D.C., US: WRI. Available
at: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/feature/scope-3-calculation-guidance [Accessed 5 Oct 2016].

81