Report 3: 2020-21

Waste Management – Service Delivery

Key findings

LG entities deliver essential waste collection and drop-off services but few are likely to meet State and community expectations to avoid and recover waste

LG entities and their contractors provide regular waste collection and drop-off services that are valued by their community. We reviewed 20 community scorecards, which surveyed community feedback on LG performance between 2017 and 2019. Three quarters of the responses ranked waste collection services as the highest performing area for the LG entities, who received an average positive rating of 92% for weekly waste collection services. These results show that the community and other stakeholders are confident that LG entities will regularly collect and dispose of their household waste.

Most LG entities are unlikely to meet State and community targets to increase waste recovery by 2020 and 2025, and do not always provide public information on their progress. In 2017-18, the waste recovery rate for the Perth and Peel region was 41%, and for the MRCs, 28%. This was well short of the targets of 65% for Perth and Peel, and 50% for MRCs. At the time, none of the 33 Perth and Peel LG entities and only 1 of the 5 MRC LG entities (City of Bunbury) had met the targets. LG entities need to do more to manage waste in line with current community and State expectations, to avoid and recover more waste, and contribute to a circular economy.

State and local waste planning and data capture is inadequate

State planning for significant risks, including recycling, has been poor. Key State government entities have been aware of the potential impact of insufficient waste processing infrastructure since 2012. However, the required planning and proactive response to mitigate the risks, such as reduced access to international markets and limited local waste facilities, has not been timely, nor adequate. This had increased the amount of waste that ends up in landfill, which is contrary to the State’s objective to protect the environment.

There is still no State waste infrastructure plan, despite the Waste Authority identifying this as a priority in 2012 in the first Waste Strategy. As a result, there is limited guidance on the location and type of waste infrastructure. This is evident with the approval of 2 proposed waste-to-energy facilities located within 5 km of one another in the south of Perth (Appendix 1). The 2 operating material recovery facilities are also in the south metropolitan area. This imbalance in the location of waste infrastructure further increases the risk that waste facilities may not meet the long-term needs of their communities and the State.

LG waste management planning is also inadequate and not all plans are easily accessible to the community. We found that only 7% of LG entities across the State had a waste plan on their website to provide transparency on their waste activities. Further review of our sampled LG entities showed that none had public waste plans and only 3 of 7 had a waste plan for their LG or region that met WARR Act recommendations. Without good plans that are publicly available, the community and other stakeholders cannot hold LG entities accountable, nor can they ensure that waste management activities align with the State’s strategic direction.  

Nearly 80% of LG entities contract out kerbside waste collection services but they have not required their contractors to help meet the State’s waste recovery targets. Our review of the main contracts from our sampled LG entities showed that none had obligations or targets for contractors to improve rates of waste recycling or reprocessing. Services focused mainly on timely waste collection and transport. This is a missed opportunity for LG entities to ensure contractors are also contributing to State recovery targets.

Limited guidance from DWER on how LG entities classify and allocate waste costs means that the full cost to deliver waste and recovery services is unknown. LG entities reported that they spent $297 million in 2017-18 on waste services. However, because there was no clear or consistent approach to how LG entities allocate these costs, the potential for variation in reporting is high. Improved consistency in allocating and reporting the cost of waste services will allow LG entities to choose waste services that provide value for money, improve waste recovery and meet community expectations.

The LG Census relies on data that LG entities self-report and there are limited controls to check its accuracy. We found examples of LG entities reporting the same tonnes of waste collected in multiple years, as well as variation in the way LG entities categorise and record waste streams.

However, State government entities have recognised that the poor quality waste and recovery data reported by LG entities means that government and industry are limited in their ability to monitor progress and make informed decisions. DWER and LG entities have improved data capture in the last 3 years, and the Waste Authority outlined further improvements in a Waste Data Strategy released in November 2019. This should allow LG entities to better monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the waste services they deliver.

Wider uptake of existing better practice waste management methods could be key to improving waste recovery

LG entities are not all using a range of well-known and available practices that can improve waste recovery. The most significant of these are community waste education and behaviour change programs. LG entities, their private waste contractors and others in the sector all produce slightly different waste education materials. Bin tagging programs that reduce contamination are available to all LG entities and their contractors, but are not widely used. Inconsistent messaging and limited use of behaviour change programs increases the risk of bin contamination and contributes to recyclable materials ending up in landfill.

There is poor uptake of the State’s waste messaging programs to encourage waste avoidance and recovery by LG entities. The Waste Authority first produced a WasteSorted toolkit in 2018 to help LG entities communicate with their residents. However, the 7 audited LG entities do not use it. Each prefer to use their own or their contractors’ graphics and messages, some of which were developed prior to 2018. It is important for all entities to provide regular and consistent community messaging about waste avoidance and recovery to households, industry and government.

Results from LG entities that have adopted the 3-bin food organics and garden organics (FOGO) collection system have been positive, yet uptake has been limited. The Cities of Melville and Bunbury reported annual waste recovery rates of over 60% from 2016-17 to 2018-19, which was much better than the State average of 25% in 2017-18. Each had adopted a 3-bin FOGO system or used alternative waste treatment to separate and process organic waste, and provided regular and consistent waste education. This approach to waste avoidance and recovery was not evident at the other LG entities we sampled, though these LG entities reported constraints that prevented them from adopting a 3-bin FOGO system. Separating and reprocessing FOGO, which is typically over a third of MSW, can significantly increase waste recovery rates. For those LG entities already using a 3-bin system to collect garden organics (GO), the transition to FOGO may require a change in processing infrastructure, along with associated approvals and licensing by DWER.

Financial incentives for households to avoid or reduce waste are rare but can be effective in facilitating behaviour change. We identified only 2 LG entities that offered financial rewards to residents for reducing their waste. Bunbury charges ratepayers less for smaller size waste bins and the Town of Cambridge does not charge for the yellow-lid recycling bins. These simple, cost effective incentives can help change behaviours and reduce the amount of waste disposed to landfill.

Bulk verge waste can be recycled but often ends up in landfill. All 33 Perth and Peel LG entities and all 5 MRC LG entities, offered verge collections or bulk bins in 2017-18. Around two-thirds of smaller regional LG entities provided drop-off facilities instead. For the Perth and Peel LG entities:

  • 6 sent all bulk waste to landfill in 2017-18
  • only 4 recycled 50% or more
  • the remaining 23 recycled an average of 20%.

Recycling bulk waste offers effective recovery of a range of commonly disposed items such as metal, cardboard, wood and mattresses.

The State Government has made good progress since 2016, but LG entities need more support to address local challenges

The State Government has implemented many of the recommendations from our 2016 audit (Appendix 2). But WA’s waste recycling rate of 53% in 2016-17 was still 5% below the national average.[1] The DWER and Waste Authority have addressed 13 of our 16 audit recommendations. They are currently addressing the remaining 3, however 2 critical recommendations to prepare a State waste infrastructure plan and comprehensive better practice guidance are not complete. Implementing these outstanding recommendations is crucial to help LG entities plan and deliver waste services for their communities, and improve the State’s waste recovery.

A combination of local challenges and a lack of tailored support from State government entities prevents LG entities from recovering more waste. LG entities indicated that there was limited opportunity to interact directly with the State government entities that provide waste management guidance. LG entities may also prioritise local issues, such as managing litter or illegal dumping, above Waste Strategy 2030 headline strategies. Without engaging with individual LG entities, particularly in more remote areas, State government entities are unlikely to understand fully the challenges each LG faces, nor offer the support needed for them to recover more waste.

There is unspent landfill levy funds that the Waste Authority can effectively use to progress the State’s waste management objectives. The unspent balance of the WARR Account had grown from $30 million in 2015-16 to $40 million in 2018-19. The purpose of the funds is to promote programs for the management, reduction, reuse, recycling, monitoring or measurement of waste. These reserves can help to better support a range of Waste Strategy 2030 initiatives.

[1] National Waste Report 2018

Back to Top