Assessment of collection schemes for packaging and other recyclable waste in European Union-28 Member States and capital cities.

The Waste Framework Directive obliged European Union Member States to set up separate collection systems to promote high quality recycling for at least paper, metal, plastic and glass by 2015. As implementation of the requirement varies across European Union Member States, the European Commission contracted BiPRO GmbH/Copenhagen Resource Institute to assess the separate collection schemes in the 28 European Union Member States, focusing on capital cities and on metal, plastic, glass (with packaging as the main source), paper/cardboard and bio-waste. The study includes an assessment of the legal framework for, and the practical implementation of, collection systems in the European Union-28 Member States and an in depth-analysis of systems applied in all capital cities. It covers collection systems that collect one or more of the five waste streams separately from residual waste/mixed municipal waste at source (including strict separation, co-mingled systems, door-to-door, bring-point collection and civic amenity sites). A scoreboard including 13 indicators is elaborated in order to measure the performance of the systems with the capture rates as key indicators to identify best performers. Best performance are by the cities of Ljubljana, Helsinki and Tallinn, leading to the key conclusion that door-to-door collection, at least for paper and bio-waste, and the implementation of pay-as-you-throw schemes results in high capture and thus high recycling rates of packaging and other municipal waste.

Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems--part II: methodological guidance for a better practice.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly used in waste management to identify strategies that prevent or minimise negative impacts on ecosystems, human health or natural resources. However, the quality of the provided support to decision- and policy-makers is strongly dependent on a proper conduct of the LCA. How has LCA been applied until now? Are there any inconsistencies in the past practice? To answer these questions, we draw on a critical review of 222 published LCA studies of solid waste management systems. We analyse the past practice against the ISO standard requirements and the ILCD Handbook guidelines for each major step within the goal definition, scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation phases of the methodology. Results show that malpractices exist in several aspects of the LCA with large differences across studies. Examples are a frequent neglect of the goal definition, a frequent lack of transparency and precision in the definition of the scope of the study, e.g. an unclear delimitation of the system boundaries, a truncated impact coverage, difficulties in capturing influential local specificities such as representative waste compositions into the inventory, and a frequent lack of essential sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. Many of these aspects are important for the reliability of the results. For each of them, we therefore provide detailed recommendations to practitioners of waste management LCAs.

Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems--part I: lessons learned and perspectives.

The continuously increasing solid waste generation worldwide calls for management strategies that integrate concerns for environmental sustainability. By quantifying environmental impacts of systems, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool, which can contribute to answer that call. But how, where and to which extent has it been applied to solid waste management systems (SWMSs) until now, and which lessons can be learnt from the findings of these LCA applications? To address these questions, we performed a critical review of 222 published LCA studies of SWMS. We first analysed the geographic distribution and found that the published studies have primarily been concentrated in Europe with little application in developing countries. In terms of technological coverage, they have largely overlooked application of LCA to waste prevention activities and to relevant waste types apart from household waste, e.g. construction and demolition waste. Waste management practitioners are thus encouraged to abridge these gaps in future applications of LCA. In addition to this contextual analysis, we also evaluated the findings of selected studies of good quality and found that there is little agreement in the conclusions among them. The strong dependence of each SWMS on local conditions, such as waste composition or energy system, prevents a meaningful generalisation of the LCA results as we find it in the waste hierarchy. We therefore recommend stakeholders in solid waste management to regard LCA as a tool, which, by its ability of capturing the local specific conditions in the modelling of environmental impacts and benefits of a SWMS, allows identifying critical problems and proposing improvement options adapted to the local specificities.