Tag: waste

Categories
Lytton Advisory

Hot Take on Queensland’s New Waste Strategy: good diagnosis, harder delivery

Queensland’s Less Landfill, More Recycling 2035 strategy gets one big thing right: the state has stopped pretending this is just a “household behaviour” problem. Queensland is second-last nationally on recycling, household recycling has slipped from 32% in 2015 to 28% in 2024–25, and the 2035 ambition is to lift the overall recycling rate to 65%. 

Three bouquets.

First, the strategy is honest about the scale of the problem. It calls out low recycling performance, rising household landfill, and the fact that almost half of the red-lid bin is food and garden organics. 

Second, it recognises Queensland is not one market. A statewide infrastructure roadmap, regional transport options, local-scale processing and energy-from-waste planning are all sensible responses to a decentralised state. 

Third, it finally gives end markets the attention they deserve. Recycling does not work unless someone buys the output. The proposed procurement policy, supplier listing, recycled-content trials and end-of-waste reform are all practical levers. 

Three brickbats.

First, the strategy is stronger on direction than delivery. Too many actions are framed as “support”, “consider”, “investigate” or “work with”. Councils will need funding certainty, not just partnership language.

Second, the waste levy remains politically and financially sensitive. The strategy says levy settings underpin the approach, but local governments will want to see whether levy revenues are recycled into the infrastructure and behaviour-change work they are being asked to deliver. 

Third, energy from waste is now clearly in the tent, but the sequencing matters. It should manage genuine residual waste after avoidance, reuse, recycling and organics diversion — not become a shortcut around better resource recovery. 

Immediate action items for councils.

Councils should consider moving now on five fronts.

  1. Build the local evidence base. Update waste audits, red-bin composition, contamination rates, illegal dumping costs, transfer station flows, landfill airspace and levy exposure. The strategy is target-driven, so councils need their own baseline.
  2. Prepare kerbside options and business cases. Model yellow-lid expansion, green-lid or FOGO pathways, bin-lid harmonisation, home and community composting, and multi-unit dwelling solutions. The strategy specifically flags more yellow and green-lid bins and organics diversion. 
  3. Get shovel-ready infrastructure projects into the pipeline. Councils should identify regional processing gaps, land, approvals, transfer station upgrades, organics capacity, glass/crushing options, and shared procurement opportunities before the state infrastructure roadmap hardens. 
  4. Use procurement as market-making. Review council specifications for roads, civil works, parks, drainage and buildings to identify where recycled content can be used without compromising performance or cost. 
  5. Treat priority wastes as operational risks. Batteries, mattresses, tyres, textiles, e-waste, plastics and organics need local collection points, contracts, education and enforcement pathways — especially where they create fire, dumping or transport-cost risks. 

The bottom line: this is a good strategy. But the real test will be whether councils can convert it into bankable projects, lower red-bin tonnes and credible local circular-economy markets.

#WasteManagement #CircularEconomy #LocalGovernment #Queensland #Recycling #FOGO #Infrastructure #ResourceRecovery

Categories
Circular Economy Economics Policy Waste Management

Takeaways the key to a circular economy?

Following the NSW Government’s released of an independent review of its resource recovery framework and implications for the circular economy, three key takeaways struck me:

  • The review identified friction between the environment and safety objectives of the existing NSW waste and resource recovery framework and the need for flexibility to support innovation and a smooth transition to a circular economy.
  • A key criticism of the EPA was their handling of the revocation of the mixed waste organic material (MWOO) exemption in 2018. This led to recommendations for the resource recovery regime to be put on a similar footing to environmental and planning approval regimes.
  • The debate over the definition of waste continues, as the broad interpretation in the case of EPA v Grafil has potentially slowed the advancement of the circular economy.

The Review made a recommendation that the EPA should investigate a pathway to enable an “end-of-waste” outcome for suitable common, low-risk recovered materials to better enable reuse and promote circularity.

There were many other matters raised in the review, highlighting the challenges of both resource recovery and closing the loop between waste and input to future production processes.

You can read the full report here.

The balance between environmental protection, regulation to achieve that and innovation to drive the emergence of the circular economy is still being worked out.

How do you think this is being played out in other jurisdictions? What tradeoffs have to be made between effective environmental regulation and commercial innovation to achieve the circular economy?