7 rules for waste strategy
If we step back from thinking of waste as one big problem, and instead see it as many small opportunities, we quickly come to the problem of how to design waste strategy to enable this.
But why waste strategy? Why not just let the market resolve the problem itself?
Why strategy?
Waste has the unique property of containing negative value. That is, unlike goods and services that people pay to receive, people pay for the removal of waste.
Without strategy, waste will simply flow to the place and/or social group least able to resist it. Irrespective of whether that is a good outcome or not.
We need strategy to change this situation, to turn the tide on waste such that it can have a neutral or positive value. We need strategy to protect our vulnerable people and places.
The market won’t resolve this problem because free markets are not structured to compete for something with a negative value.
Instead, goods such as waste are bundled into a commodity with a positive value (such as a removal, processing or disposal contract), and this item is then opened up to competition. Without this bundling, there is no competition. There is just “away”.
The market won’t resolve this problem because free markets are not structured to compete for something with a negative value.
Deciding what that positively valued waste commodity looks like is the role of waste strategy.
Waste as opportunity
Waste as a single problem calls for a simple, cost effective solution. For many years that was landfill (for public health). In Europe it then shifted to incineration (for recovering energy).
Trying to create opportunities across the whole of the waste stream requires a very different approach. It requires the development of a patchwork of niche processing facilities that, in aggregate, support each other and create exceptional waste outcomes.
It needs to first of all be built upon a very close understanding of what waste exists in the place that is being designed for. That is, it needs location specific, fine-grained data.
It also needs to understand the tension between scale and focus. To boil this tension down, a niche waste facility needs to service the smallest possible market to return a satisfactory profit.
Being very focused means that there is an immense amount of space to work within strategically, many niches to pull together.
I have come up with seven rules for knitting together a niche based waste strategy.
The rules for developing a niche based waste strategy
In order of priority for strategy development:
1. Prioritise waste types that make up a large proportion of waste generated.
Given limits on attention and resources, it is important to focus on wastes that will yield noticeable results. I call them “focus wastes”, and they are those materials that dominate in tonnages (if that is what the ultimate metric is).
If the strategy is about reducing waste to landfill, then focus wastes will be the most prevalent in landfill. If the strategy is about reducing waste generation, the focus wastes will be the most generated.
Other wastes are only important where they provide a supporting role to focus wastes, or where they can be treated alongside focus wastes.
Agreeing on the metric is essential here, as it drives the strategy.
2. Utilise technology that is simple to develop and operate
Simple technology is most likely to happen quickly, and is less likely to fail. It may even already exist in the area, and can thus be re-purposed to deal with new material types. It permits quick wins and builds confidence for future endeavours.
Simple technology is also more accessible to a range of potential providers, opening up scope for competition and collaboration, and so creating a greater diversity in approach.
3. Collect waste in a way that is efficient and convenient
There is a balance between the simplicity of waste processing and the efficiency of its collection. Source separated waste is easy to process, but loses efficiency in its collection.
Mixed waste can be efficiently collected and requires less education, but also needs more complexity to separate out the different waste types (if, indeed, it is possible).
This rule avoids deferring costs and responsibilities solely to the generator or collector, and recognises that different places will have different optimal solutions. Notice that this rule comes AFTER simple technology — always prefer simple technology to efficient and convenient collection.
4. Take an approach that has a low net cost (processing cost less value of saleable products)
It is easy to justify technology that has a low net cost. It requires the least ongoing support, and can become self-supporting with small changes in the surrounding economics. It also easier to site and finance.
A solution that requires customers / ratepayers / taxpayers to pay a high premium for a long period of time is vulnerable to a “cost focused” change in direction. A change in direction that leads to all progress halting or being unwound.
Interestingly, invariably the lowest cost option for waste management is to design it out of production in the first place.
5. Seek strong potential markets for recycled product
The long term financial sustainability of any waste processing technology is underpinned by strong markets. These markets may need development to reach their potential, but that potential must exist.
Be relatively firm on the actual potential, recognising all of the usual barriers in bringing a product to market. Materials recovered from waste confront all of these barriers along with the overarching challenge of being “waste”.
Understand that markets require quality, and that waste processing must reliably deliver products as specified.
Also understand that markets are dynamic, and so any solution needs to keep developing. This is why focus matters so much.
…the lowest cost option for waste management is to design it out of production in the first place.
A strong potential contributor to markets is government, and there are many cases where government can change its procurement to enable waste derived products to flourish without any adverse change to quality or cost.
6. Maintain optionality
Optionality means maintaining space for promising opportunities to be pursued where they present. In the context of waste, this means avoiding long supply contracts or programs, or technologies that require secured or exclusive tonnages.
It favours steadily development from pilot scale to let markets and generators keep up, rather than massive, full scale interventions crashing through.
This is not always possible, but try to settle on “no regrets” options, options that can be changed up and developed over time.
7. Hedge your bets
Explicitly develop several different options for the same waste type. This seems less efficient than going for a single technology to rule them all, but it makes a far more antifragile system.
For instance, in developing a wood chip facility, a compost plant and Processed Engineered Fuel production, waste timber has a suite of potential processing options. There is ample waste, and they can all take up the challenge.
Redundancy is to be encouraged.
The upshot
The upshot from this approach to waste strategy development is that the final strategy will look quite humble. The centrepiece systems won’t be awe-inspiring, and the investments required will be small.
It won’t need controversial decisions to proceed, and it will happen quickly.
It might even attract local support.
It will definitely create more jobs and contribute more to the local economy.
It will foster entrepreneurship and innovation, fostering the circumstances for a well-rounded waste ecology that permits something with a negative value to receive a positive value.
It’s not so good for the ego, but it’s wonderful for people and planet.
