The purpose of the project is to assess the possibility of developing indicators for
environmental impacts from management of all waste. The study has covered a determination
of the purpose of indicators as well as an assessment of available calculation methods,
relevant data material as well as time required to conduct the indicator calculation for
the entire waste management field. Below, the considerations having emerged in the course
of the project are summarised.
On the basis of current statements of waste management, the study finds that there may
be a need to supplement the statement with a qualitative assessment of waste streams. The
purpose may be partly a prioritisation of efforts in relation to different material
fractions, and partly a prioritisation among the different treatment options.
In the project two proposals for calculation of indicators have been considered,
referred to as Model A and Model B. From a calculation point of view they are relatively
similar, but in terms of data they require somewhat different input.
If the purpose is to provide an outline of the relative contribution to resource and
environmental impacts on the surroundings from the different waste fractions, Model A is
more relevant. It gives the possibility, for example, to identify areas where the
environmental impact from waste can be reduced by reducing waste generation or by
promoting the use of alternative materials in product manufacture. This perspective is
interesting, but calls for changes in manufacture of goods and consumption patterns, which
are beyond the scope of this project.
If the purpose is to focus on environmental and resource benefits and potentials from
an optimisation of waste management in the entire waste management field, Model B
will be sufficient. If Model B is carried out for all waste fractions, it will be possible
to identify the largest resource and environmental savings in waste management. It will
also be possible to supplement with calculations focusing on which fractions hold the
largest potential for further savings. Finally, it will be possible to limit the statement
to some selected fractions for which there is a wish to assess resource and environmental
benefits from the selection of different waste treatment options.
The trial run, including the calculation and results from it, calls for a discussion of
the degree to which the indicators calculated contribute with information that was not
already available. Two interesting points should be mentioned.
One of the points is that focus is on life-cycle-based indicators. Thus, aspects have
been included of materials having caused energy consumption, resource consumption and
landfilling upon manufacture. For example, minerals extraction generates waste from
mining. This means that the indicator for landfilling of waste in several cases can lead
to surprising results.
At the same time, impacts from waste management are also included – for example
credits for energy from incineration or recycling/landfilling of slag from incineration.
The fact that such aspects have an impact on the assessment of waste treatment has been
seen clearly in the trial run of the three materials.
The second point is that a statement using the three indicators results in a
significantly different picture of waste fractions’ relative impact compared to pure
quantitative statements. In particular, the calculation shows that despite relatively
small waste quantities, aluminium has a significant weight when using resource indicators.
By contrast, resources such as sand, constituting the basis for glass, hardly have any
weight at all. This may give reason to consider on which measures are most relevant for
promotion within waste management.
In Chapter 5 the different indicators are assessed as well as the environmental and
resource-related aspects they focus on in connection with the waste fractions tested. It
seems that resource consumption and energy consumption supplement each other in an
expedient way. Even if in some ways there is a certain degree of duplication, because
energy is part of the indicator for both resources and primary energy, the two indicators
express very different aspects of energy use. Whereas energy as a resource focuses on
non-renewable resources, the indicator for primary energy expresses to a high extent
environmental impacts due to, for example, greenhouse gases and acidifying substances.
Thus, the energy factor is important as a supplement to the resource factor. The energy
consumption indicator has the advantage compared to most environmental impacts that it is
a rather certain parameter for which it is relatively easy to aggregate several forms of
energy.
Due to the weighting of resources in the EDIP method the loss of a limited resource,
such as copper, will weigh more than for example wood which is in principle regenerated if
resources are not over-exploited. This dimension is an important aspect of the EDIP
project that makes it possible to discuss resource problems in a far more qualified way
than hitherto. For example, the principle has been applicable to assess whether recycling
of slag is a matter of resource savings or rather a question of reducing landfill
requirements. The calculation showed that in the overall perspective the reduction of
landfill requirements is far more important than the resource savings from substitution of
gravel.
There are several examples of LCA methods being deficient, for example concerning
the data basis. For the resource parameter it is decisive that relevant information on the
supply perspective is available for the different raw materials. One example from the
project of lack of data is sulphur, where a statement of world resources taking extraction
of sulphur from fuel into account is not available. If only resources of relatively
readily available sulphur are taken into account, the resource factor, for example for
paper, will be highly influenced by this single factor.
The landfill factor must still be considered as a temporary measurement until in
connection with the further development of LCA methods, a clarification is available on
how to state environmental impacts from landfilling. Particularly for organic material
fractions such as paper, landfilling does not result in a permanent need for landfill
capacity, but will result in the generation of, for example, greenhouse gases. At the same
time the landfill factor in quantitative terms needs a weighting of environmental impacts
from different waste fractions for landfilling.
In the choice of parameters, simplification has been made where environmental impacts
for practical reasons have been disregarded. By merely reflecting resource consumption,
energy and landfill requirements, the indicators may give a distorted picture and call for
prioritisations in the waste management field that would be inexpedient from a broad
environmental impact aspect. Therefore, indicators for some fractions where environmental
contaminants are involved, such as heavy metals or persistent organic compounds, must be
supplemented with other assessments than waste quantities. This is the case, for example,
for assessments of all hazardous waste where the three indicator values cannot stand
alone.
The study of the existing data basis discussed in Chapter 6 showed that a mapping
stating all waste streams (Model A) is only feasible, if concurrently a relatively
extensive study of a number of material fractions is carried out concurrently, for example
through an update of existing mass-flow analyses or material-flow statistics.
The other presentation model showing realised savings (Model B) with a less extensive
effort can be used as an indicator calculated annually on the basis of existing waste
statistics supplemented with other types of studies and statistics. It can show whether
the objectives set up for recycling are met and add information on potentials for
increased recycling of a material fraction.
A focal point of the discussions under the project has been to identify which
indicators can be calculated compared to what indicators should show. This has resulted in
calculations being presented in two different ways, each with their strengths and
weaknesses. Due to data uncertainties and deficiencies, indicators for both models must be
regarded as a supporting tool in a decision-making process incorporating several factors.
A current publication of indicator values to a wider audience will require presentation of
a number of assumptions and reservations.
The indicator calculation cf. Model A can give a status for the resource and
environmental impact of most waste fractions, but as described above it is relatively
extensive. At the same time the results generated can primarily be used for a discussion
of needs for reducing waste generation through intervention in the production and
consumption stages, which is beyond the scope of this project.
Model B will be suitable for meeting the most essential purpose of indicator
calculation: to identify the most significant resource and environmental potentials from
further optimisation of waste management. At the same time, Model B can also document that
efforts so far for environmental optimisation of waste management have actually generated
results.
Model B can be carried out the first time with an input of 8 man-months and can be
updated annually with an input of around 2 man-months (including provision and updating of
LCA data).
It is important for the assessment of the amount of time required to know the audience
to whom results are to be presented. In the presentation of the different results in the
trial run, a balance has been sought between simplification and aggregation in order to
satisfy the interested waste expert. Therefore a number of figures have been referred to
the appendices. If results of an indicator calculation are to be presented to a wider
audience it will probably be necessary to aggregate results for presentation further.
Concurrently, a form of presentation of more detailed documentation should be identified.
Some kind of electronic presentation through databases will be suitable, as it can give
the user a tool to search for the information needed. Presentation of this type, however,
is not part of the above-mentioned assessments of amount of time required.
| Front page | | Contents | | Previous
| | Next | | Top |