NATIONAL SURVEY OF DOMESTIC MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIC WASTE

Transcription

1 NATIONAL SURVEY OF DOMESTIC MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIC WASTE Analysis results September 2008 Study realised for ADEME by INDDIGO and LH2

2 CONTENTS 1. FRAMEWORK OF THE ASSIGNMENT WHAT THE STUDY TELLS US ABOUT DOMESTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT, BIOWASTE MANAGEMENT AND WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GENERAL EXTENT AND EVOLUTION OF DOMESTIC MANAGEMENT Extent of domestic management Extent of burning Green waste burning Burning and separate collection of cardboard packaging Extent of animal feeding domestic management of biodegradable waste is more a matter of habit, but is not declining Domestic management is more a matter of habit Domestic management is not declining LINKS WITH BIOWASTE MANAGEMENT Knowledge of services provided Does the presence of civic amenity sites encourage the domestic management of green waste? Is the separate collection of green waste compatible with domestic management? THE COMPOSTING PROCESS AND QUALITY OF COMPOST Those who compost use their compost Smell is rarely mentioned HEALTH IMPACT OF HOME COMPOSTING DOES THE COMPOST BIN HELP SPREAD THE PRACTICE OF COMPOSTING? The compost bin encourages home composting in urban areas Free distributions of compost bins favour their use IMPACT OF DOMESTIC MANAGEMENT ON WASTE FLOWS Evaluation method Synoptic Flow diagram ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL TO REDUCE HOUSEHOLD WASTE Intentions to modify behaviour Population types Evaluation of the «potential for domestic management» CONCLUSION... 13

3 1. FRAMEWORK OF THE ASSIGNMENT Within the framework of the National Plan for Supporting Home Composting, the ADEME wished to evaluate the extent and the nature of domestic management practices and their evolution over time, Over the whole of French territory through a telephone survey on a representative sample of households (mainland France and overseas territories), Within 39 local authorities running model operations. Characteristics of the national survey: A sample of adults over 18 representative of the French population for gender, age, socio-professional category of head of household, rurality/town size and region; Number of interviews: 1037 on the mainland and 100 overseas; Length of questionnaire: approximately 15 minutes; Interviews conducted by telephone (hub CATILH2) between 25 th March and 7 th April The sample was weighted to ensure the correct proportion of the different housing types (54% individual houses, 44% flats, according to INSEE), and to allow for the true proportion of inhabitants of the French overseas territories. The surveys conducted in the 39 local authorities used a questionnaire similar to the national survey (with some adaptation so that local services could be referred to by name), with the same hub but with: Between 100 and 103 interviews per local authority Period of survey: between 7 th April and 9 th May D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 1/15

4 2. WHAT THE STUDY TELLS US ABOUT DOMESTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT, BIOWASTE MANAGEMENT AND WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GENERAL The survey, beyond establishing a photograph of the state of the art of domestic management practices, sought to reply to several questions about the development of this domestic management EXTENT AND EVOLUTION OF DOMESTIC MANAGEMENT EXTENT OF DOMESTIC MANAGEMENT The domestic management of organic waste is a reality for 62% of the French population (kitchen waste) and 70% of those having a garden (green waste). Domestic management covers solutions as diverse as animal feed, leaving grass cuttings on the lawn, spreading wood ash or composting. This diversity requires a different approach according to the categories of waste. For kitchen waste: Over all types of housing: 25% of households manage mainly at home the most voluminous categories of kitchen waste (peelings, spoiled fruit or vegetables, meat scraps). Composting is the priority solution for plant-derived waste (18% of households state this as the priority solution) whilst animal food is the top destination for meat scraps (19% of households). A strong differentiation according to housing type: 35 43% of house-dwellers manage mainly at home the most voluminous categories of kitchen waste (peelings, spoiled fruit or vegetables, meat scraps). This figure, higher than the average for all housing types, is explained mainly by a higher use of composting (31-32% of house-dwellers) and animal feed (31% of house-dwellers give meat scraps to animals). In individual housing, only 53-55% of households throw their peelings or spoilt fruit in the dustbin (60% bin meat scraps). For garden waste: 54% of households are concerned for green waste from leisure gardens, 22% for vegetable gardens. Waste from vegetable gardens is mostly home-managed (81% of households with gardens) and often composted (67%). Only 3% of these households put this waste in the dustbin. For green waste (the figures are for households with a garden): practices are different for branches and clippings on the one hand and the other garden wastes on the other hand. For lawn mowings, leaves, weeds or annual plants when finished, the practices are quite similar: D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 2/15

5 - civic amenity site for about one quarter of households, and domestic management around 50% for mowings and 40% for the other wastes. - All these wastes are composted by about 30% of households. - The additional 10% of domestic management for mowings are linked to the practice of lawn mulching (grasscycling), i.e. leaving the mowings on the lawn (18% of households). - Open burning or dumping in local landfill involves about 5% of households for lawn mowings and up to 10% for the other wastes. For branches and small clippings there is: - more frequent use of the civic amenity site (one third of households); - considerably more open-air burning (nearly 20% of households); - domestic management according to «good practices» for about 15% (of which 9% composting for small clippings and 10% firewood for the branches). Finally, around 12% of households with gardens recycle all these categories of garden waste through separate collection of green waste (28% in the Paris Region, where these collections are more widespread, and 10% in the rest of the country) EXTENT OF BURNING Green waste burning Country-wide, 20% of those with a garden claim mainly to burn branches and small clippings. The survey «model local authorities» shows that several municipalities indicate a good level of domestic management because the level of burning is considerably higher than the national average. This practise can go hand in hand with a good level of composting. Apart from those situated in Normandy (possibly for climatic reasons...), these local authorities are most often situated in rural areas, whether in the South or further North. On the other hand there is much less burning where the population is more urbanised, including in individual housing, for obvious reasons of nuisance. Their level of domestic management depends therefore more on composting or the use of green waste as mulch. For rural communities, it would be interesting to evaluate the health impact of this burning and to draw conclusions on whether it should be promoted or restricted Burning and separate collection of cardboard packaging According to the national survey, burning of cardboard packaging and paper remains a principal destination respectively for 4% and 6% of French households overall, and 19 and 26% of households equipped with hearths or wood stoves. In the model local authorities survey burning of cardboard packaging is more often cited in rural than urban areas, in the same type of habitat. Separate collection remains, fortunately, the principal destination packets. The word used in French is «cartonnettes», which refers to smaller cardboard packaging such as cereal D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 3/15

6 of cardboard packaging (65 to 91% of mentions with a mean in the national survey of 77%), but where burning is prevalent, rates of separate collection are lower. It may be that this is a simpler means of useful disposal than separate collection: when the hearth or stove is in use, burning cardboard saves storing it or taking it to 'bring' points, a widespread means of collection in rural areas. For rural authorities, it would be interesting to evaluate the health impacts of this burning, and to draw conclusions about the messages to take to users of wood-burning stoves or hearths, especially in a context where the State encourages by fiscal means the use of wood for heating EXTENT OF ANIMAL FEEDING Another specificity of rural areas is feeding animals with kitchen waste (meat or fish scraps). This contrasts with urban areas, where even in individual housing the feeding of domestic animals is less widespread, as there are fewer of these animals: in individual housing in large cities like Rennes métropole, Nantes Métrople or Rouen District Council animal feeding is mentioned barely more than half as often as the national average (21 to 23% compared to 35%) DOMESTIC MANAGEMENT OF BIODEGRADABLE WASTE IS MORE A MATTER OF HABIT, BUT IS NOT DECLINING Domestic management is more a matter of habit The survey shows clearly that domestic management practices are more a matter of habit than of recent adoption. The inhabitants have always done things that way for 85% nationwide and for at least 70% of those covered by model schemes which exhibit a good level of domestic management. This trend is even stronger for green waste (86% of garden owners nationwide have always managed it that way, and at least 78% of those in individual housing in model schemes) Domestic management is not declining One of the aims of the survey was to see whether domestic management was declining. This is not the case. To find the answer the people surveyed were required to state: whether they had modified their waste management habits, since when, and whether they felt they now throw less kitchen waste in the dustbin or, on the contrary, now throw more or as much kitchen waste in the dustbin. This question was repeated for house waste and green waste. The national survey shows that only 4% of people have modified their behaviour in the sense of throwing more or as much in the dustbin. Those who did, did so mainly from lack of space or equipment LINKS WITH BIOWASTE MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE OF SERVICES PROVIDED Several types of collective biowaste management have been set up in France. The Collection survey of evaluates their extent in terms of population covered. The declarations of the respondents about the 1 La collecte des déchets par le service public en France, résultats année 2005 ; ADEME December D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 4/15

7 existence of these services provides another indicator with figures 10 to 20% lower than those from the collection survey: Accepting green waste in civic amenity sites: 91% of the population has access to these sites according to the 2005 Collection survey, but 73% according to the present survey; Door-to-door collections for biowaste and/or green waste: 30% of the population is served according to the 2005 Collection survey, 20% according to the present survey but there may have been some confusion with collections of bulky objects. Despite this difference, the survey reflects well the massive development of civic amenity sites and the very modest level (compared with Germany for example) of biowaste/greenwaste collections. In France, the collections of biowaste/greenwaste rarely concern kitchen waste. The domestic management survey also reflects this situation since only 3% of those surveyed cite this destination as the main one for their kitchen waste DOES THE PRESENCE OF CIVIC AMENITY SITES ENCOURAGE THE DOMESTIC MANAGEMENT OF GREEN WASTE? The national survey brings out the importance of civic amenity sites particularly for small branches and clippings (30% of garden owners use it for these items) and to a lesser degree (25%) for leaves and mowings. The civic amenity site is thus the top destination for small branches and clippings whereas domestic management is top for leaves and mowings. The civic amenity site would thus appear to be complementary to domestic management. But the survey in the model municipalities give a slightly different picture: In the more urban local authorities (apart from the Paris regions since civic amenity sites are rare there), inhabitants tend to turn to the civic amenity sites notably for all they cannot burn in the open air (branches, clippings, leaves) but also for whatever is voluminous and which they don't wish to keep in their small garden (leaves, mowings). In rural areas, inhabitants do not use the civic amenity sites for green waste so much, although a large proportion state that they have one available (accessible in 10 minutes) While it is clear that there is some point in avoiding burning in towns, it is also clear that the civic amenity site constitutes a rather easy solution to get rid of the green waste of one's garden while avoiding thinking about individual choices of making and maintaining one's garden which generate large quantities of biomass: fast-growing hedges, perfect lawns... Thus the very existence of today's civic amenity site service does not necessarily encourage more domestic management. By today's service, it is meant sites which often accept with few limits all kinds of green waste,including those which can be relatively easily managed at home (leaves, mowings...). It would be interesting to analyse more closely the impact on domestic management of restricting the volume accepted at civic amenity sites (x m3 maximum per visit for instance, such as the limits imposed on professional gardeners and landscapers) IS THE SEPARATE COLLECTION OF GREEN WASTE COMPATIBLE WITH DOMESTIC MANAGEMENT? The «model authorities» surveys show quite clearly that domestic management is weaker where door-todoor green waste collections exist, whether in urban or rural areas. It would therefore seem to be incompatible for a local authority to encourage simultaneously both collective (biowaste collections) and individual (domestic management) practices D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 5/15

8 2.3. THE COMPOSTING PROCESS AND QUALITY OF COMPOST THOSE WHO COMPOST USE THEIR COMPOST One of the challenges of the National Plan for Supporting Domestic Composting is to extend good practice. One way of measuring the quality of composting is to ascertain the satisfaction of long-term users. The national survey shows indeed that: The compost is used by 8 households in 10, and among the reasons cited for not using compost, poor quality involves only 7% of the non-users. The non-use of compost is mostly due to a lack of need, or to the compost being too 'young' or not ready. This result applies equally to «experienced composters» and to «novices», and independently of the method used (in heaps or bins). Considering that most users have been composting for a long time, it is reasonable to assume that they find the quality of the compost satisfactory SMELL IS RARELY MENTIONED One of the aims of the survey was to see whether any inconveniences linked to composting disappear with years of practising. The question was not asked directly but those surveyed could mention smells (or other inconveniences) as a reason for abandoning composting resulting in more waste thrown in the dustbin. Only 4% of people declared having modified their behaviour towards I throw away more or as much waste. These rarely cite smell as a cause of changing their behaviour (however the numbers involved are very small). It is therefore possible to say that statistically smells are without effect on continuing the practice of composting, either because there are none or because they are not considered annoying by the user. This result should be considered in parallel to the fact that meat or fish scraps, potential sources of smells or attractive to rodents, are rarely composted (only 8% of households) HEALTH IMPACT OF HOME COMPOSTING Research is under way to evaluate the health impact of home composting. The national survey sheds some light on the practice: How is composting monitored? 72% of households compost without particularly monitoring the process, a figure which should be considered in parallel with the high percentage of composting in heaps, which requires less maintenance: only 22% of heap users follow the process compared to 39% of bin users. But since the number of heap users is higher than bin users, as many households follow their compost process among heap users (14%) as among bin users (14%). These figures remain well below the ideal level, since all those who compost should monitor the process. Health aspects of collecting the kitchen waste Several questions tackled the kitchen waste management practices before composting. According to the users' answers, they seem to be satisfactory: D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 6/15

9 The kitchen waste destined for composting is most often kept in an open or closed bucket which is emptied within 3 days for ¾ of users. The risk of seeing anaerobic fermentation develop is low such fermentation would of course annul the benefits of composting for the greenhouse effect. Over a third of users keep these buckets in the kitchen and 63% wash them each time they empty them DOES THE COMPOST BIN HELP SPREAD THE PRACTICE OF COMPOSTING? With few exceptions, the spreading of the practice of composting is accompanied by the distribution of or help with acquiring a compost bin, which brings up two questions: Is the compost bin the right tool, since it imposes a more regular monitoring of the composting process than the heap? Does the massive distribution of compost bins increase the number of practising composters? THE COMPOST BIN ENCOURAGES HOME COMPOSTING IN URBAN AREAS The national survey shows that composting in heaps predominates (64%) whereas composting in bins represents only 36% of composting households. But the bin is often acquired by new converts, since only 35% of households who acquired a compost bin composted already. Crossed comparisons show that the wastes alien to the garden landscape such as kitchen waste or paper hankies, are more often composted by users of bins than users of heaps: % of people declaring that they compost their waste... Composting in heaps Composting in bins Kitchen waste (the range corresponds to the different categories of kitchen waste) 42 à 46% 57 à 70% of bin users Paper hankies 1% 8% It seems therefore that even if distribution of compost bins is not 100% effective, if the people already composting are taken into account, it is the best solution for increasing the number of people composting as well as the amount of waste composted and particularly the amount of kitchen waste, which will reduce the amount going to the dustbin. However, the model authorities survey indicates variation in the usefulness of the bin according to the type of habitat. In rural areas, for kitchen waste, it does not seem to elicit better performance than the heap: the Haute Sarthe District, the SMICTOM of the Dijon Plain and the SYTEVOM of Haute Saône have more heap users with very high levels of domestic management. But in urban areas there does seem to be some advantage to the bin (Montpellier City District, Nantes Métropole) probably because in the town, due to the low level of animal feeding, the development of domestic kitchen waste management relies more on composting. On the other hand, the compost bin does not seem to entail any advantage for green waste: levels of domestic management are as high in municipalities where the use of heaps predominate (e.g. SMITOM in Redon) as in those where the bins predominate (e.g. Syndicat Mixte Sud Vendéen) D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 7/15

10 FREE DISTRIBUTIONS OF COMPOST BINS FAVOUR THEIR USE On a national level, the compost bins are, in the majority of cases, provided by the municipalities (40% of people composting with a bin), or else bought in shops (32%). A crossed analysis of the impact of providing a bin, and whether it is free of charge or not, is presented below 2 : Within the ten model local authorities which distributed free bins, on average 78% of inhabitants composting in bins state that they obtained them through the municipality, and the average proportion of people using bins is 53%, and is often over 60%. Within the 24 model authorities where the compost bin had to be bought (subsidised or not), on average 33% of those composting in bins claim to have obtained them through the local authority, and the average proportion of people composting in bins is 37%, which is scarcely more than the 34% observed nationally in individual housing. The free distributions would this seem to increase the number of people composting IMPACT OF DOMESTIC MANAGEMENT ON WASTE FLOWS EVALUATION METHOD Impact of domestic management of kitchen waste The bibliographical data coming from observation of quantities put in the compost bin or the reduction of the weight of the dustbin of those who compost remain sparse and need reinforcing with more research. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to consider, as a low estimate, that a person who regularly composts the main elements of his or her kitchen waste diverts 40 kg per year. If one considers that the domestically-managed kitchen waste represents on average 40 kg/psn/yr for 25% of the French population, the annual tonnage managed domestically for 62 million inhabitants will be 0.62 million tons, or 3% of the household waste collected in On the same basis, the waste corresponding to the 8% of the French population who have modified their behaviour in the last 5 years (with a fall in the quantities thrown in the dustbin) can be estimated at 0.2 million tons, or 1% of the total household waste collected in Impact of domestic green waste management on waste tonnages : Extrapolations are somewhat risky since the amounts of garden waste produced are very variable from one situation to another. Considering that only 35 to 44% of green waste producers use civic amenity sites or separate greenwaste collections, and taking the 2005 figures 4 of 56 kg/psn/yr (civic amenity sites plus 2 housing. Analysis made on comparable municipalities, excluding the five municipalities with high proportion of urban 3 The survey on public waste collection, «la collecte des déchets par le service public en France» carried out by ADEME indicates that 20.5 million tons of household waste was collected in D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 8/15

11 separate collections), it seems probable that domestically managed greenwaste represents a tonnage at least equal to that collected and treated in collective units today, or 3.5 million tons. Impact of domestic management of house waste : It is somewhat risky to extrapolate amounts from frequency data due to the insufficiency of data available: it is not known how many kilograms of paper hankies are used by a person who composts them regularly, how many cardboard boxes are burned by a person who regularly burns their waste 5, what is the average quantity of wood ash produced by those who spread them on the garden, etc.... The domestic management of house waste is therefore not taken into account. Global impact of domestic management : According to our hypotheses and without counting the domestic management of house waste, the domestic management of organic wastes would appear to represent 4,120 thousand tons (620 kilotons of kitchen waste and 3,500 ktons of garden waste). The tonnage of organic waste collected by public service for biological recycling is 4,205 thousand tons (637 ktons of composted mixed household waste composted, 955 ktons of greenwaste/biowaste collected, and 2,613 kt of green waste brought to civic amenity sites). The tonnage of organic waste collected by public service, taking all types of treatment into account, is of course greater than this because unsorted household waste sent to mass burn or landfill contains 25-30% of readily-biodegradable waste, so between 5125 and 6151 kt, to add to 990 kt of green waste collected separately and 2613 kt of green waste collected in civic amenity sites. Altogether the public service manages between 8728 and 9754 thousand tons of organic matter which could also be managed at home. This range can be compared to the 4120 thousand tons managed at home altogether. The tonnage of organic waste managed at home is thus equivalent to that collected by the public service for organic recycling but half as much as the total tonnage of organic waste collected by the public service for all treatments combined. These 4,120,000 tons represent 11% of the total household waste managed by the public service (see flow diagram synopsis on the next page) SYNOPTIC FLOW DIAGRAM The estimated mass flows of domestic management are presented in the synoptic flow diagram on the next page. The data on tonnages of waste collected by the public service are from the collection survey of 2005 (already cited). 4 Source : ADEME collection survey «la collecte des déchets par le service public en France» for 2005 : 0.99 million tons collected by separate collection and 2.55 million tons of greenwaste collected in civic amenity sites 5 4% of the population claims to burn most of its cardboard, and 6% its paper. Supposing that a person who mostly burns their paper and cardboard burns 80% of the average production per person, 44 kg of paper and 26 kg of cardboard (in rural areas, according to the 1993 MODECOM), the amount burnt in the home would be: (0.06 x 44 x x 26 x 0.8) = 2.93 kg/psn/yr x = t/yr D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 9/15

12 mass flows of wastes collected in France by the public service for 2005 and impact of domestic managment - kilotons - burning of Kitchen Green waste cardboard waste packaging and paper? Σ domestic managment Household waste (HW) and separate collection (SC) Other household waste (bulky waste ) Mixed household waste SC Glass SC other packaging and paper SC biowaste SC biowaste Bulky waste civic amenity sites Σ collection by public service Σ recycling Σ organic recycling Σ incineration (with or without energy. rec.) Σ Landfill Σ Landfill for inert D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 10/15

13 2.7. ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL TO REDUCE HOUSEHOLD WASTE INTENTIONS TO MODIFY BEHAVIOUR Given that the answers to questions about intentions must be handled with great precaution, the survey would appear to show that intentions to modify behaviour point generally towards better practices but not necessarily towards more domestic management: If 13% of households state they are prepared to compost their kitchen waste more often and 13% of households state they are prepared to burn their greenwaste less often almost as many households state they are prepared to take their greenwaste more often to the civic amenity site as those prepared to burn it less often : it seems as if the destination 'civic amenity site' is set to replace burning! Finally, a minority of households envisage getting an animal to maintain the garden (4% of households overall and 6% of those in rural areas)! POPULATION TYPES The crossed analysis of the results of the national survey allows the definition of 'types' of people with similar behaviour; this brings out key points which could be acted on to improve things: 11% of the inhabitants of France are nature and animal people: - Their behaviour is linked to a certain lifestyle, close to nature - Living in the country in individual houses, they throw almost no kitchen waste into the dustbin because they feed domestic animals with it (poultry, pets...) - They compost greenwaste in heaps but also often burn it (40%) and do not on the whole envisage changing this habit - This group is no older than the national average 17% of inhabitants are gardeners : - Their domestic management falls into the logic of looking after the garden - Also living in the country in individual houses, they tend their vegetable garden and usually compost, but 1/3 of them only started recently - Many of them envisage composting more kitchen waste - This group is slightly older than average 17% of the population are eco-resistors : - older, not professionally active and often living alone, they sort neither their packaging waste nor their kitchen waste - These people definitely do not envisage composting their kitchen waste - They are people who do not produce a lot of waste and who probably 'don't bother to sort'. Finally, 47% could be called public service - A group made up mostly of individuals who follow the local waste collection policies and use the facilities put in place by the local authority D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 11/15

14 - This first step towards managing their waste (since it implies sorting and not just throwing everything in the dustbin) is not however accompanied by domestic management - Living often in flat without a garden, they sort their packaging waste and newspapers but 80% throw their kitchen waste into the dustbin - Many do not envisage composting their kitchen waste - Among those having a garden, more than the national average use the services of the civic amenity site EVALUATION OF THE «POTENTIAL FOR DOMESTIC MANAGEMENT» This evaluation is only presented for kitchen waste, which only 13% of citizens are prepared to compost more often. No assessment is presented for greenwaste given the contradictory intentions (concerning domestic management) declared by the possessors of gardens: as many people claim to be prepared to burn less often as to bring more often to the civic amenity site. According to the national survey, the domestic management of kitchen waste would appear to be practised regularly by 25% of the population but with a strong disparity depending on the habitat: 40% of those living in individual houses but only a few percent of those in flats (2-3% composting for the principal elements of kitchen waste in flats). About 55% of French people live in individual houses and 45% in flats. Assuming the progression of domestic management follows the declared intentions of the French population, domestic management will progress by 50% (13% more, the present level being 25%). Another estimation would be to consider that in the long run, only the 18% of people in the Eco-resistors group would not join in; but this supposes that a majority of the population would manage their kitchen waste including in flats where at present 60% do not home-manage any kitchen waste, and only 2 to 3% compost their kitchen waste. A last estimation is based on the following hypothesis: 80% of those in individual housing and 20% of flats (particularly small blocks) can manage their kitchen waste at home. The maximum amount diverted from household waste collections would then be 9% 6 of household waste, 6% more than today. Domestic management of kitchen waste is therefore an important option but cannot alone solve problems of lack of disposal facilities for waste collected by the public service. 6 Hypotheses and calculations: Out of a French population of , 55% live in individual housing and 45% in flats (collective housing) A house-dweller manages 40 kg of kitchen waste at home, a flat-dweller 35 kg Tonnage diverted from individual housing : x 0.55 x 0.8 x 40/ 1000 = tons Tonnage diverted from flats : x 0.45 x 0.2 x 35/ 1000 = tons Total tonnage diverted: 1.3 million tons/year or less than 7% of the household waste collected in D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 12/15

15 3. CONCLUSION This survey shows that domestic management is a real management option for household organic waste. Whilst it mostly corresponds to long-standing habits, it is worth noting that these good habits are not being lost, and are even finding new converts. The present level of domestic management as principal method of managing the most voluminous categories of kitchen waste is around 25% of households as a national average and about 40% for individual housing. This represents 620,000 tons of kitchen waste, 3% of the household waste collected by the public service. This level can be compared with the aim of getting about 50% of house-dwellers composting which many of the latest generation of County Household Waste Disposal Programmes set themselves: they will need to be more ambitious to develop domestic management further! Concerning greenwaste, the survey shows that more than half of households which produce such waste manage it domestically (composting for vegetable garden waste, leaves and mowings, or mulching). The civic amenity sites remain a priority outlet for woody waste but only 1/3 of households with a garden use them for this type of waste (20 to 25% for the other types of garden waste). Burning and local landfill (a few percent) are still used by 20% of households producing branches or clippings. The domestic management of garden waste is estimated at 3,500,000 tons. The tonnages in civic amenity sites can still increase, notably taking account of the stated intentions (of 13% of households with gardens) of decreasing their burning of branches, and the difficulty of managing them at home without a shredder (or without a wood-burning stove or hearth: 20% of households equipped with these use branches for firewood). In the light of these perspectives, it would be interesting to assess the economic and environmental pertinence of developing collective shredding solutions as a means of reducing the quantities of branches arriving in civic amenity sites. Finally, the quantities managed at home indicate that this option deserves some attention: altogether, kitchen and garden waste managed at home represent 4,120,000 ton/yr, a mass flow equivalent to the household waste organics collected by the public service for recycling D03-CH SO-JOR INDDIGO SAS / LH2 September 2008 p 13/15