New Research Shows 30% Of Auckland Recycling Goes To Landfill; Industry Calls For Action

Approximately 30% of what goes into kerbside recycling bins in Auckland ends up being sent to landfill, either because it’s contaminated or because it’s not in fact recyclable.

That’s the main take-out from new research presented by the Waste & Recycling Industry Association (WRIA), based on waste audits carried out at Auckland’s Material Recovery Facility (MRF). Receiving all of the region’s kerbside recycling, the Auckland MRF is by far the largest in the country, and is managed by Re:Group on behalf of Auckland Council.

WRIA Executive Director Barney Irvine says most of the MRF waste is material that should never have found its way into the recycling system.

“Close to two-thirds of the waste is stuff like stones, nappies, and textiles,” he says. “Often people know full well this isn’t recyclable – sadly, they’re using their recycling bin as a second rubbish bin.”

The other third, however, is material that could potentially be recycled, but that is contaminated (e.g., covered in food scraps) or that hasn’t been put into the recycling in the right way (say, lumped together in bags).

“A lot of this is people trying to do the right thing, but not really knowing how,” he says. “Confusion about recycling rules is still widespread.”

Mr Irvine says the high proportion of waste and contaminated material is a poor outcome for the environment, and a poor outcome for Auckland ratepayers.

It results in means more avoidable waste to landfill, more damage and disruption to the recycling system (non-recyclables like plastic wrap often get caught in the machinery, causing lost operational time) and poorer quality recycled material at the end of the process.

“What’s more, with items like batteries and gas cannisters often being thrown into recycling bins, fires remain a serious threat to MRF safety and performance,” says Mr Irvine.

While the waste and contamination issue is more acute in Auckland, it is a major challenge for MRFs throughout the country, and the WRIA is calling for action at the national level.

Mr Irvine says the first step should be a large-scale public education programme on recycling, funded by central government.

“This was promised, but never delivered,” he says. “It now needs to be made a priority.”

Mr Irvine adds that councils that have gone harder on enforcement tend to have had more success in bringing down MRF contamination rates.

“One tool that has worked well is a ‘three-strikes’ policy for serious mis-use of the recycling bin: on the first strike, advice is provided; on the second, a warning is issued; on the third, access to a recy­cling bin is removed altogether.”

Finally, the WRIA wants to see the manufacturers and brand owners that place problematic materials on the market take greater responsibility for the cost of dealing with them.

Mr Irvine says Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes – where producers pay a fee for the volume of material placed on market, with the fee used to cover recycling or dispos­al costs – are an effective way to do this, and now need to be the focus of concerted government action.

“We need a designated unit set up to drive the EPR programme,” he says. “In terms of priority products, batteries and e-waste would be obvious starting points.”

© Scoop Media