A comparison on Queenslands building waste practices nationally and best practice internationally

1. A COMPARISON ON
QUEENSLAND’S BUILDING WASTE
PRACTICES NATIONALLY AND
BEST PRACTICE
INTERNATIONALLY
Presented by Joshua Reiher

2. 2
www.companyname.com
© 2015 Planner PowerPoint Template. All Rights Reserved.
Seminar Outline
Conclusion
Purpose of the study
4 vital benefits of
proper recycling
schemes
Outline study content
Introduction
 Comparison of
QLD’s waste
recycling techniques
to NSW, Bangladesh,
Shenzhen and
Netherlands
Results
 Importance of
recycling construction
waste
 Problems with
management of C&D
waste in construction
 Discussion of
recycling methods
Discussion
• Proposed
Improvements

3. Introduction
Construction+Engineering = does not support
environmental welfare
Reducing demand upon new resources
Minimising costs in the transport and production
energy sectors
Preventing Landfills
Promoting Sustainability
Qld is largest waste contributor in construction
industry
QLD’s construction industry continually expanding =
more waste
Australia deposits 45% (8.5 million tonnes) of its
C & D waste into landfill per year
Benefits of proper waste
management schemes
Problems in Queensland

4. Maintaining a healthy recycling
environment
Resources are not infinite
Economic impacts
Social impacts
Discussion
Importance of recycling Construction Waste

5. Lack of Gvt incentive
Complexity of waste C&D waste
management
Companies lack experience/no set
rules
Discussion
Problems with the management of C&D waste in
Queensland

6. Waste reduction and recycling strategy 2012-2020
Waste disposal levy for C&D and C&I
Waste disposal levy < $30/tonne
Discussion
Queensland – Current Methods
Distribution of Levy Funds

7. Fairly allocates levy on waste production levels
Innovative development of new recycling
technologies
Increase landfill diversion rates
Discussion
New South Wales – Levy increase and
separation of regulated areas
Makes recycling more attractive
NSW disposal levy for respective regions (NSW
Gvt, 2015)
Period Sydney
Metropolitan
Areas (SMA)
Extended
Regulated Areas
(ERA)
Regional
Regulated
Areas(RRA)
2009-2010 $58.80 $52.40 $10.00
2010-2011 $70.30 $65.30 $20.40
2011-2012 $82.20 $78.60 $31.10
2012-2013 $95.20 $93.00 $42.40
2013-2014 $107.80 $107.80 $53.70
2014-2015 $120.90 $120.90 $65.40

8. Establishes effective/efficient framework between
stakeholders
Establishes fluent “collection-transport-
dumping/recycling of waste’ process
Economically better for companies
Discussion
Bangladesh – Third party waste management
companies
Saves city council money

9. Higher landfill charges = more cost-benefits in long
run
Higher charge scenario had cost-benefits of nearly
10x that of low charging scenario!
More effective waste management schemes are
identified
Discussion
Shenzhen – Statistical analysis: higher landfill
charges create greater cost-benefits
Low charging levies = No economic return until
halfway through duration of project

10. 95% of processed material can be reused
Involves simple treatment methods
Promotes conservation of energy
Discussion
Netherlands – The Close Cycle Construction
concept
Reduces waste production
Combusts C&D waste in thermal process

11. QLD levy too low > attracts waste from other states
QLD levy too low > companies still use landfills
QLD levy too low > waste management schemes not
developing
Results
Comparison of Queensland to New South Wales
and Shenzhen
QLD levy too low > drastically lower cost-benefits for
companies
QLD does not have sufficient regional levy costs

12. QLD has no proper mitigated partnerships between
stakeholders (City council, construction companies,
third party waste management companies)
This leads to no economic incentives such as price
reductions
QLD has little to no cohesion between stakeholders >
inability to efficiently manage waste
Results
Comparison of Queensland to Bangladesh

13. QLD doesn’t have processes such as The Closed
Cycle Construction concept in place
QLD landfill usage will continue to rise
QLD is missing out on the ability to reuse of 95% of
its C&D processed material
Results
Comparison of Queensland to Netherlands
QLD is landfilling possible recyclable material

14. Review/Improve on waste management plans
Contribute levy revenues received by the
Queensland Government that exceeds forward
estimations towards building waste programs
Different levies for metropolitan and regional areas
within Queensland
Conclusion
Proposed Improvements for Queensland
Propose an additional interstate levy for companies
travelling interstate to dump waste
Incentives for third party waste management
companies that focus on recycling
Compulsory company education on recycling
Support investment in resource recovery facilities to
improve the reprocessing of easily recycled building
materials
Invest Queensland Levy funds into The Closed Cycle
Construction concept
Increase Landfill disposal charges/levy