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.

Assessment of economic instruments for countries with low municipal waste management performance: An approach based on the analytic hierarchy process.

Economic instruments provide significant potential for countries with low municipal waste management performance in decreasing landfill rates and increasing recycling rates for municipal waste. In this research, strengths and weaknesses of landfill tax, pay-as-you-throw charging systems, deposit-refund systems and extended producer responsibility schemes are compared, focusing on conditions in countries with low waste management performance. In order to prioritise instruments for implementation in these countries, the analytic hierarchy process is applied using results of a literature review as input for the comparison. The assessment reveals that pay-as-you-throw is the most preferable instrument when utility-related criteria are regarded (wb = 0.35; analytic hierarchy process distributive mode; absolute comparison) mainly owing to its waste prevention effect, closely followed by landfill tax (wb = 0.32). Deposit-refund systems (wb = 0.17) and extended producer responsibility (wb = 0.16) rank third and fourth, with marginal differences owing to their similar nature. When cost-related criteria are additionally included in the comparison, landfill tax seems to provide the highest utility-cost ratio. Data from literature concerning cost (contrary to utility-related criteria) is currently not sufficiently available for a robust ranking according to the utility-cost ratio. In general, the analytic hierarchy process is seen as a suitable method for assessing economic instruments in waste management. Independent from the chosen analytic hierarchy process mode, results provide valuable indications for policy-makers on the application of economic instruments, as well as on their specific strengths and weaknesses. Nevertheless, the instruments need to be put in the country-specific context along with the results of this analytic hierarchy process application before practical decisions are made.