2018-06-27 SM - Attachment 1 to Item 2 - Directions Paper Transforming Queensland's Recycling & Waste Industry

2.1.1 Action plans
As at December 2016, two voluntary action plans under the Strategy had been developed. These were developed
by the Waste Recycling Industry Association of Queensland (WRIQ), and the Australian Organics Recycling
Association (AORA).

Additionally, the former EHP released Queensland’s Litter and Illegal Dumping Action Plan (Litter Plan) in 2013 to
complement the anticipated release of the Strategy. The Litter Plan sets out the Government’s vision to create a
Queensland free from litter.

As at 30 June 2016, action plans required under Chapter 6 of the Act have been developed by all 22 Queensland
Government departments and 44 out of 77 local governments. Many of these action plans consider the targets,
objectives and vision of the Strategy and therefore contribute to its implementation.

2.1.2 Data limitations
In reviewing the progress against targets, it is important to note the following limitations and assumptions
concerning the underlying data.

 Data coverage: The waste data represented in this report and in the Strategy were provided to the department
  by reporting entities designated under chapter 7 of the Act and registered with the Queensland Waste Data
  System (QWDS). Reporting entities include all 77 councils in Queensland as well as non-council waste facilities
  that receive, sort, recycle, treat or dispose of at least 1,000 tonnes of waste in the previous financial year.
  Reporting is not mandatory for entities that fall below this regulatory threshold of 1,000 tonnes, however some of
  these facilities do voluntarily report these data to the department. At the time the review was initiated, data was
  available up to the end of the 2016.
 Missing data: Facilities that fall below the 1,000 tonne per annum threshold are not mandated to report to the
  department, and so data is only captured where operators volunteer this information. Additionally, data is not
  collected for activities undertaken by illegal waste operators or for illegally dumped waste that goes undetected.
  The magnitude of this ‘missing’ data is not currently known.
 Baseline setting: The baseline data used to set interim targets at the start of the strategy period includes waste
  brought into Queensland from other states (interstate waste) and wastes associated with the management of
  natural disasters (disaster waste). These source streams are the result of external factors that are not
  necessarily a reflection of Queensland’s consumption and waste generation practices, however insufficient data
  is available for the FY2013 year to allow the effects of these waste streams to be isolated. It should be noted
  that there were several severe weather events in 2013 including ex-Tropical Cyclone Oswald and tropical lows
  generated disaster waste that may have contributed to the reported rise in the per capita waste generation rate
  (1.86 tonnes in 2013 compared to 1.64 tonnes in the previous year), and potentially influenced the baselines
  calculated and reported in the Strategy.
 Changes to allocation of waste materials to source streams: Prior to 2013, all green wastes were deemed to be
  MSW. This categorisation changed in 2013, when green waste reported by local governments was deemed to
  be MSW with the remainder (from other sources) deemed to be C&I waste. Further changes were introduced in
  2015, when green waste not delivered by independent commercial operators was deemed to be MSW. The
  categorisation of timber waste and scrap metal has also been refined over time. As a result of these changes,
  the recycling rates for individual source streams (MSW, C&I, C&D) across various years are not directly
  comparable.
 Regional data: The Strategy includes recycling targets for SEQ, regional centres, and remote areas. However,
  tracking and measuring the flow of recyclable materials on a regional basis is problematic, particularly when it
  involves large companies operating in multiple regions. For example, the point of measurement and reporting
  for an entity that collects waste materials in a regional centre may be in SEQ. This would result in a higher
  apparent recovery rate for SEQ rather than the regional centre, where the waste originated.

 Data confidence: Data estimation techniques have improved over time, for example, through the use of
   weighbridges at waste facilities. As a consequence there is a higher degree of confidence in the 2016 data
   compared to the preceding years.




                                                           5




                                                                                                                        | 29