This is a presentation of Enzo Favoino, ISWA Chair of WG on Biological Treatment of Waste. The presentation reviews the significant role of food waste on rebalancing and improving the global carbon cycle. Strategic approaches, opportunities and challenges to reduce food waste and to optimize food waste management are provided along with specific examples

2. Contextual remarks:
- more than just waste management
• Biodegradables represent the vast majority of MSW
arisings (above all in S and SE Europe)
• Major contributor to GHGs from inappropriate
management of MSW (4 to 11% of total GHGs come
from landfills)
• Proper management often driven by strategies to
reduced impacts of disposal
– Landfill diversion targets (EU Landfill Directive)
• Extended benefits: soils, farmlands, the environment
– Climate Change (UNFCCC)
– Desertification (UNCCD)
– Biodiversity, fertility, resilience, prevention of floods,
erosion (EU Soil Thematic Strategy)

3. Comparison of waste composition
Country Cambodia Malaysia Lao Philippines Paraguay Tanzania Honduras
Dar es
Phnom Penang Vientiane Manila Asuncion Tegucigalpa
Salaam
Component Penh 1988 1991 1997 1994 1999
1996
Kitchen waste 63.3 32.8 16.9 45.82 36.6 42 47.2
Paper 6.4 25.5 2.8 15.39 6.4 3.1 11.5
Textile 2.5 3.4 1.6 4.33 1.3 1.2 2.8
Plastic 15.5 11.2 6.1 15.6 3.9 2.2 7.1
Grass & Wood 6.8 14.4 38.2 7.45 22.2 25.3 11.6
Leather & Rubber 0.1 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.9 2.2
Metal 0.6 2.6 3.7 5.47 1.3 2 1.9
Bottle & Glass 1.2 1.4 9.3 2.69 3.1 3.5 3.5
Ceramic & Stone 1.5 0.2 (Inc. in glass) 1.26 2.5 0.4 12.1
Miscellaneous 2.1 7.8 20.3 1.19 22 19.4 0.1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
ASG (ton/m3) 0.25 0.19 0.168 0.19 0.22 0.39 0.2
Total around 70% Total around 75%

4. MSW composition (EC, 2001)
AU BE DK FIN FRA GER GRE IRL ITA
YEAR (quantities) 1998 1997 1998 1997 1998 1998 1997 1998 1998
Total MSW (million tonnes) 4.85 4.69 2.93 2.51 44.4 49.1 3.9 2.06 26.9
(38)
Total (OECD) (1997 data, 4.1 4.85 2.95 2.1 28.8 40.0 3.9 2.03 26.6
or latest year)
Kitchen and Yard Waste 29.2 34.9 37 40 29 29.9 47 27 33.6
Yard Waste 13.4 5.0
Kitchen Waste 21.6 28.5
Paper and card 24 18.9 36.8 16 20 32.5 22.8
Paper
Cardboard
Timber 1.4 1.9 I
Textiles 2.8 2.6 0.8 2 2.1 5.1
Nappies 2.8 2.0
Plastics 8.2 6.8 4.5 5.4 4.5 11.4 10.3
Glass 9.4 5.1 2.3 9.2 4.5 4.8 7.2
Metals 7.2 3.7 3.2 3.2 4.5 2.6 3.0
Ferrous metals 1.7
Non-ferrous metals 0.9
Other 17.8 26.0 12.4 37.3 31.5 15.5 19.2 15.9

5. Food wastage: factual evidence
• “Love Food Hate Waste” programme (WRAP UK)
• 8.3 million tonnes of food thrown away by
households in the UK every year.
– Only considering those issues in the domain of
retailers/households
– NOT considering the leftovers from processing of
food commodities !!
• wasting food costs the average family with
children £680 a year
• By means of stopping wasting food that could
have been eaten, the CO2 impact would be the
equivalent of taking 1 in 4 cars off the road (!!)

6. http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/

7. Food waste and climate change
• Organics emits CO2 – short-term (biogenic)
carbon  C neutral
• Use of compost replaces fertilisers – avoidance
of CO2 and other GHG’s ought to be considered
• Use of compost may lock-up carbon in the soil –
“sequestration” ought to be considered
• AD turns carbon into a substitute fuel (biogas:
100-150 m3/tonne d.m.) – this replaces fossil
fuels

8. Problems with LCAs (“limitations”)
• LCAs often tend to account for material
replacement, not for induced effects (e.g. soil
improvement / improved workability)
– Only nutrients (NPK) considered, organic
matter neglected!
• Many beneficial effects of soil improvers
difficult to quantify - anyway important !!
– Improved workability
– Better water retention
– C sequestration

9. Composting in CDMs
• Composting included in CDM schemes by the
CDM Board (2005)
• A standard calculation method to assess GHG
savings has been defined
• Only methane savings from landfills are
allowed for, yet
• No crediting of soil-related benefits

10. Some savings – just to give a touch
• Replacement of mineral fertilisers  30-50 kg
CO2-eq/tonne
• Peat replacement  300-400 kg CO2-eq/tonne
• C sequestration (considering only long-term C !!)
 11 to 326 kg CO2-eq/tonne
– depending on HL times
– calculated only as C retained after 100 years !!)
• Biogas Production  100-150 kg CO2-eq/tonne
• Reduced N2O release ? Improved Workability ?
Water retention? Replacement of pesticides?
…..

11. Strategic approaches...
...to reduce impact of organics in landfills
• Landfill diversion targets (Directive 99/31 EC)
– Probably the most important driver for waste
management in last decade in the EU (and
elsewhere)
• Landfill Bans (e.g. US, Brazil)
– Garden waste only or organics as a whole
– May be lacking some flexibility, anyway an
important driver to consider for proper
evolution of waste management systems !
– Requires proper definition of acceptance.

12. The regulatory context
- drivers from EU env policy
• Revised Waste Framework Directive
– waste hierarchy
– Recycling/reuse targets
– prevention programmes
• Landfill Directive
– diversion targets for biodeg waste
– obligation for pretreatment
• EU Climate Change Programme
• EU Soil Strategy

13. Implementing Directive 99/31
(and art. 11 of WFD - material recovery targets!)
• Bans on biodegradables to landfills (e.g. BR, US)
– Most stringent provisions
– May lack flexibility
– Requires codified thresholds for acceptance at landfills
• Obligation on separate collection
– On Municipalities (e.g. NL) – may be deceived with poor
performing / low participation systems
– On households (e.g. AT) – very effective, if stringent
control possible
– May require phased implementation
• Targets for sep collection / composting / recycling
– Specific biowaste processing targets (e.g. Sweden)
– General recycling + composting targets (IT & UK)
– Result-oriented + flexible

14. Approaches, opportunities & challenges...
... in process design & management
• Enhancement of process performances
– Improved sanitisation
– Maturity achieved in a shorter time
– Reduced nuisance
• Reduction of nuisance may require odour treatment
– anyway, depends on:
– Location
– Capacity
– Materials
•  Keep decentralisation viable !!
– key aspect of composting
– Proximity
– Social benefits – growth of a local recycling industry

16. Austria
- Capacity and number of composting plants 1999/2000
80 % of plants
500.000 250
Total capacity [t a -1]
400.000 202 200
167
300.000 150
Count
200.000 100
25 % of cap.
61
100.000 50
31
0 0
>=5000 2000 - 5000 500 - 2000 50 - 500
Capacity classes INPUT [t a-1]

17. Phnom Penh, KH

18. Anaerobic digestion
• Potential benefits
– turns biogenic C into a substitute fuel – wider benefits
(renewable energy AND soil improvers)
– Not dependent on availability of bulking materials (e.g.
metropolitan areas, lack of gardens)
– May integrate management of liquid manures
• Constraints
– Unit investment and operational cost higher than
composting (in spite of revenues from energy production)
– More linked to economies of scale (higher capacities)
– Cost for the management of wastewaters – requires good
integration of waste management and management of
wastewaters
– e.g. co-digestion with sludge at WWTPs

19. Food waste
- key to achieving high material recovery rates
intensive kerbside incl. food waste + > 80 %
PAYT
70 %
intensive kerbside, incl. food waste
separation
Road containers + kerbside (doorstep) 50 %
for a few dry recyclables (paper)
40 %
“additional” systems, organics
included trhough containers on the
road 20 %
“additional” systems, containers on
the road for dry recyclables

20. Separate collection of biowaste
- facts and findings
• Similar schemes tend to give similar results
everywhere
• Schemes may be optimised
– Increased captures
– Best quality
– Integration of schemes may give cost optimisation (no
increase of costs for collection)
• e.g. reduced collection of residuals if captures of
biowaste are increased
• Best performing schemes based on labour-intensive
strategies (kerbside collection, hand pick-up)
– Less CAP.EX.,
– creation of jobs
– A shift of paradigm required – funds to activities, not only to
infrastructure (“software” besides “hardware”)

21. Food waste in residual waste...
... after (effective) separate collection
Municipality % Food waste
Altivole 7,82
Arcade 8,24
Breda di Piave 7,61
Casale sul Sile 9,42
Castello di Godego 8,05
Cessalto 6,30
Conegliano 9,40
Cornuda 7,19
Giavera del Montello 6,88
10% in residual waste (30% of MSW) = 3% of MSW
Starting from 35-40% organics in MSW  > 90% diversion!

22. Purity vs population
Purity VS Population
Collection at the doorstep
100 11127
12720
9652
4713
7824,192308 34849
30800
5971 75650
98 4332
11177 19230
16112
119187
23890
96
10493
20028
94 44748
50121
92 6832 Road containers (bring banks)
Purity
6893
90
88
9062
6152
6274
86
26475
84
7161
82
80
0
50.000
100.000
150.000
Population

23. Turin
• Pop. 909,000
• Separate collection = 42%
• 500.000 inhabitants already with collection at the
doorstep (“kerbside”)
– Sep. collection in neighbourhoods with kerbside,
incl. food waste = 59%
– Sep. collection in neighbourhoods without kerbside
(road containers, 3,2 m3) = 25%
11

24. Is waste “management” more difficult somewhere?
3

25. The “new” European Map – Economist 2010
*
7

26. Salerno
• 150,000 inhabitants
• Pilot project covering 30,000 inhab., July 2008
• Extension in 5 steps, completed in September
2009
• Separate collection= 75 %
• Organics 50% !

27. Cost optimisation (Lombardy, pop. 10M, 1500 Municipalities)
Cost of collection (green bars)
and cost of treatment/disposal (blue bars)
Euro/person

28. Tools & strategies to cut costs
Tool Details Applies where…..
Reducing pick- Hand pick-up of small … food waste
 up time receptacles much faster collected separately
than mechanical loading from garden waste, in
small receptacles
Reduction of Effective systems to collect …captures of biowaste
the frequency biowaste make its are increased
 for collection of
“Residuals”
percentage in Residuals
less than 15 %
Use of bulk Bulk density of food waste …tools for collection
lorries instead is much higher (0.7kg/dm3) of food waste prevent
 of packer
trucks
than garden waste deliveries of garden
waste

29. Discussion – what in the next 10 years?
• Biological treatment (as a whole) already a
PROVEN strategy with varied approaches
– Often regarded as “a way forward” in Countries in
early steps of establishing Waste Management
Strategies
– Low-cost, prompt effect approaches
• We KNOW compost benefits to soils – given
increasing adoption of life-cycle thinking, we also
need to SHOW EVIDENCE
– Intrinsic limitations of LCAs
– Contribution to prevention of GHGs

30. What is at stake
• Reduction of food wastage
• Proper management of food waste
– Benefits to soil
– Benefits in terms of reduced GHGs
– Show evidence !!
• Further reduction of food waste impacts during
disposal in landfills
• Infrastructure and WM activities
– Separate collection – and related optimisation
– Composting, AD, MBT