Name:
Martin Louw
Date Submitted
2021-04-19 11:10:31
Do you think our Waste Minimisation and Management Plan (WMMP) is on the right track?
Yes
Do you agree with our proposal to adopt a zero waste attitude across the district by 2038?
Yes
Do you have any further comments on the WMMP?
The need to confront the waste issue head on is urgent and actioning the WMMP is urgent. The following points provide feedback on this plan
On the positive side
• Setting a target of 2038 by which time the district will achieve a zero-waste status is an exciting and courageous proposal and should be applauded. The term zero-waste should probably be defined at some stage
• It's great to see that composting is being trialled. I would love to see this made generally available and subsidised to encourage people to opt-out of the proposed organic waste collection bin
• Setting up resource recovery centres is an excellent initiative and will provide opportunities for new businesses to spring up and for people to start seeing waste as a resource
• It is encouraging to see the council taking a more proactive role in promoting product stewardship in the district instead of waiting for central government to act. I noted that this is no 1 on the Leadership and Management action list! Although government involvement is essential when setting country-wide rules and processes, the council has an important role to play in managing the downstream waste to ensure products follow the required path when they reach end-of-life. Representation on working groups, offering to pilot processes, engaging with and supporting local manufacturing and retail businesses to move away from the take-make-dispose mentality, are all valid actions. They get us away from the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach and closer to solving the problem
On the negative side
• There appears to be a watering down of the target to reduce kerbside waste to landfill. In the original draft we reviewed in December 2020 (as well as in the June 2017 plan), a 5% decrease per capita per year was proposed. This is now showing as 1% in the WMMP plan presented. Not only is this not very ambitious but if the associated target to reduce organic waste by 30% by 2025 is achieved this will create a nearly 2% annual reduction in kerbside waste to landfill on its own. Perhaps its the way the targets are worded but they should not overlap like this. Leaving the target at 5% might be a stretch but at least it will provide some incentive to gain reductions in areas other than organic waste
• The increase in costs and therefore rates will hurt those who are not well off. I realise it makes the system harder to administer but if say a discount was available on the rubbish bags upon presentation of a community services card, this might soften the blow
General Points
• It is critical that the council maintains control of the rules about what should happen to waste and that this should not be left to private operators to decide. They will be driven by the profitability of their businesses not by doing the right thing. They must be governed by the same rules as the council collection service
• In addition it is critical that a contract similar to the one currently in place with Smart Environmental is not signed again by the council. The inflexibility of this contract has left the council in a state of paralysis until late 2023 when the contract expires, unable to do anything substantial to change the outcomes of the waste streams until that time. Or at least this is what we are told.
• Of course the most important aspect of the WMMP is for it to be actioned. I note for example that while some key targets set in the June 2017 WMMP were met, others were not. Senior management accountability and public reporting are essential in order to avoid this latest version of the WMMP being a tick box exercise
• Transition Matamata have long lobbied the council to take a broader view of sustainability and to develop strategies and plans across the entire sustainability spectrum. Measures need to be developed that stay consistent and allow accurate measurement of progress over time. Targets can then be set and progress reported regularly to the community. I note the acknowledgement in the report that this has not been possible "due to changes in the way we collect and store information". We absolutely do not want to see a line such as this appearing in the next review
• I appreciate that waste is an in-your-face problem for the council to deal with but there are many other areas of waste which are hidden and yet still cause significant damage to people and the environment (e.g. CO2 emissions, energy waste, industrial waste water). Exclusively concentrating on solid waste risks ignoring other areas of potentially greater concern. You could argue for example that if we made absolutely no change to the way we deal with solid waste in the next 30 years but just kept burying the problem in the ground (something I'm not suggesting), this would not be nearly as catastrophic for the earth as allowing global temperatures to rise by 2 degrees during the same period. And yet where do we see the council's plan for dealing with climate change? As an aside, I note that the council's published Sustainability Policy 2012 has an action to create a Climate Change policy dated 2014/15! A much wider view of waste (and sustainability in general) is urgently required.
• In addition, this approach should be supplemented by a dedicated role (or roles) reporting into the highest level of the council. The role(s) should be responsible for ensuring actions associated with plans such as this one are completed in a timely manner, and that progress is reported publicly (and more than annually as proposed in the Monitoring & Evaluation section). The senior executive must be accountable for the outcomes
On the positive side
• Setting a target of 2038 by which time the district will achieve a zero-waste status is an exciting and courageous proposal and should be applauded. The term zero-waste should probably be defined at some stage
• It's great to see that composting is being trialled. I would love to see this made generally available and subsidised to encourage people to opt-out of the proposed organic waste collection bin
• Setting up resource recovery centres is an excellent initiative and will provide opportunities for new businesses to spring up and for people to start seeing waste as a resource
• It is encouraging to see the council taking a more proactive role in promoting product stewardship in the district instead of waiting for central government to act. I noted that this is no 1 on the Leadership and Management action list! Although government involvement is essential when setting country-wide rules and processes, the council has an important role to play in managing the downstream waste to ensure products follow the required path when they reach end-of-life. Representation on working groups, offering to pilot processes, engaging with and supporting local manufacturing and retail businesses to move away from the take-make-dispose mentality, are all valid actions. They get us away from the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach and closer to solving the problem
On the negative side
• There appears to be a watering down of the target to reduce kerbside waste to landfill. In the original draft we reviewed in December 2020 (as well as in the June 2017 plan), a 5% decrease per capita per year was proposed. This is now showing as 1% in the WMMP plan presented. Not only is this not very ambitious but if the associated target to reduce organic waste by 30% by 2025 is achieved this will create a nearly 2% annual reduction in kerbside waste to landfill on its own. Perhaps its the way the targets are worded but they should not overlap like this. Leaving the target at 5% might be a stretch but at least it will provide some incentive to gain reductions in areas other than organic waste
• The increase in costs and therefore rates will hurt those who are not well off. I realise it makes the system harder to administer but if say a discount was available on the rubbish bags upon presentation of a community services card, this might soften the blow
General Points
• It is critical that the council maintains control of the rules about what should happen to waste and that this should not be left to private operators to decide. They will be driven by the profitability of their businesses not by doing the right thing. They must be governed by the same rules as the council collection service
• In addition it is critical that a contract similar to the one currently in place with Smart Environmental is not signed again by the council. The inflexibility of this contract has left the council in a state of paralysis until late 2023 when the contract expires, unable to do anything substantial to change the outcomes of the waste streams until that time. Or at least this is what we are told.
• Of course the most important aspect of the WMMP is for it to be actioned. I note for example that while some key targets set in the June 2017 WMMP were met, others were not. Senior management accountability and public reporting are essential in order to avoid this latest version of the WMMP being a tick box exercise
• Transition Matamata have long lobbied the council to take a broader view of sustainability and to develop strategies and plans across the entire sustainability spectrum. Measures need to be developed that stay consistent and allow accurate measurement of progress over time. Targets can then be set and progress reported regularly to the community. I note the acknowledgement in the report that this has not been possible "due to changes in the way we collect and store information". We absolutely do not want to see a line such as this appearing in the next review
• I appreciate that waste is an in-your-face problem for the council to deal with but there are many other areas of waste which are hidden and yet still cause significant damage to people and the environment (e.g. CO2 emissions, energy waste, industrial waste water). Exclusively concentrating on solid waste risks ignoring other areas of potentially greater concern. You could argue for example that if we made absolutely no change to the way we deal with solid waste in the next 30 years but just kept burying the problem in the ground (something I'm not suggesting), this would not be nearly as catastrophic for the earth as allowing global temperatures to rise by 2 degrees during the same period. And yet where do we see the council's plan for dealing with climate change? As an aside, I note that the council's published Sustainability Policy 2012 has an action to create a Climate Change policy dated 2014/15! A much wider view of waste (and sustainability in general) is urgently required.
• In addition, this approach should be supplemented by a dedicated role (or roles) reporting into the highest level of the council. The role(s) should be responsible for ensuring actions associated with plans such as this one are completed in a timely manner, and that progress is reported publicly (and more than annually as proposed in the Monitoring & Evaluation section). The senior executive must be accountable for the outcomes
