Miniwaste project final report

Miniwaste project final report www.miniwaste.eu Avec le soutien financier de la Commission européenne

LIFE08 ENV/EN/000486

Final report on the project activities From 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2012 Date written

31st March 2013 MINIWASTE project Project location

The 38 towns making up Rennes Métropole, the City of Brno, the City of Porto and the 7 related towns

Project start date:

01/01/2010

Project end date:

31/12/2012

Total budget

€ 2,289 402

EC contribution:

€1,126 626

(%) eligible costs

50% Beneficiary data

Name of beneficiary

Rennes Métropole

Contact person

Mr. Daniel Delaveau, President of Rennes Métropole

Address

4, Avenue Henri Fréville CS 20723 35207 Rennes Cedex 2 FRANCE

Telephone No.

+33 (0)299 866060 - direct line +33 (0)299 866569

Fax:

+33 (0)299 866161 - direct line +33 (0)299 866531

E-mail

[email protected]

Project web site

www.miniwaste.eu

Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

LIST OF KEY WORDS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. 4

II.

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 6 1.1.

THE CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................... 6

1.2.

THE MINIWASTE PROJECT ................................................................................................................... 6

1.3.

THE PARTNERS .................................................................................................................................... 7

1.4.

THE CO-FINANCIERS ............................................................................................................................ 8

1.5.

PRESENTATION OF THE REPORT.......................................................................................................... 8

III

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 8 3.1

ACHIEVEMENT OF RESULTS WITH REGARD TO DESIRED OBJECTIVES ................................................. 8

3.2

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................................ 10

IV.

ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION ............................................................................................................ 11

4.1

PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT TEAM ............................................................................................ 11

4.2

PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH............................................................ 12

4.2.1

Project structure ............................................................................................................................ 12

4.2.2

Project schedule ............................................................................................................................ 12

4.3

V.

ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH............................................................... 14

4.3.1

Technical difficulties ...................................................................................................................... 14

4.3.2

Budgetary difficulties .................................................................................................................... 15

4.3.3

Project amendment ....................................................................................................................... 15

TECHNICAL SECTION ........................................................................................................................... 16 5.1

ACTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 16

Action 1 – Project management and monitoring ............................................................................ 16 Action 1.1 – Project management (performed by: RM).......................................................................................... 16 Action 1.2 – Monitoring and assessment (RM) ....................................................................................................... 21 Action 1.3 – Audit (RM) ........................................................................................................................................... 22

Action 2 – Implementation of waste management tools .............................................................. 24 Action 2.1 – Inventory of knowledge within and outside the consortium (ACR+) ................................................. 24 Action 2.2 – Deployment of the IT tool by Rennes Métropole (RM) ...................................................................... 28 Action 2.3 – Deployment of the IT tool by the partners (RM) ................................................................................ 44 Action 2.4 – Implementation of protocols for assessing composting projects (IRSTEA) ....................................... 45

Action 3 – Implementation and assessment of the waste reduction plans ............................. 67 Action 3.1 – Implementation and assessment of the waste reduction plan by Rennes Métropole...................... 67 Action 3.2 – Implementation and assessment of the waste minimisation plan in Brno ..................................... 134 Action 3.3 – Implementation and assessment of the waste minimisation plan in Lipor ..................................... 150 Action 3.4 – Guidelines for EU local councils on how to minimize organic waste ............................................... 189

Action 4 - Communication on the project ...................................................................................... 190 Action 4.1 – Project web site (Lead partner: ACR +) ............................................................................................. 190 Action 4.2 – Layman’s report and communication tools (Lead partner: RM) ...................................................... 194


2

Action 4.3 – Display panels (Lead partner: RM) .................................................................................................... 201 Action 4.4 – Organisation of the half-way conference (Lead partner: Brno) ....................................................... 202 Action 4.5 – Organisation of the final conference (Lead partner: RM) ................................................................ 203 Action 4.6 – Dissemination in the media (Lead partner: ACR +)........................................................................... 207 Action 4.7 – Participation in workshops, seminars and conferences (Lead partner: RM) ................................... 208

Action 5 –After-LIFE communication plan ................................................................................................ 212 5.2

ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS. ............................................................................................................. 212

5.2.1

Miniwaste project assessment in Rennes Métropole ................................................................ 212

5.2.2

Miniwaste project assessment in Lipor ...................................................................................... 217

5.2.3

Miniwaste project assessment in Brno ...................................................................................... 218

5.2.4

Miniwaste project assessment for IRSTEA ................................................................................. 223

5.3

OUTSIDE LIFE ...................................................................................................................................... 224

5.4

OUTPUTINDICATORS .............................................................................................................................. 224

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 224

VI.

6.1

SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURE PER ACTION.................................................................................................... 224

6.2

FINANCIAL FORMS ................................................................................................................................. 225

6.3

COMPOSTER SALES ................................................................................................................................ 225

VII.

ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................... 231


3

I.

LIST OF KEY WORDS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Key words: - Composting: the transformation, in controlled conditions, of biodegradable matter in the presence of water and oxygen by means of micro-organisms. The end product is an organic amendment. - Mulching: covering the soil, around the bases of plants, with opaque plant matter that nonetheless enables the penetration of air and water. This practice protects the structure of the soil and limits loss of water and growth of weeds. - Individual composting: the practice of composting at home individually in the garden or in an apartment. - Communal composting: the collective practice of composting through depositing organic waste and the upkeep of a composting area by several homes. - Collective catering composting: composting of organic waste generated by the preparation of meals in collective catering and/or leftovers of meals eaten by the establishment’s visitors. - Worm composting: method for degrading organic waste by composting worms that produces two natural fertilisers: worm effluent or compost effluent and vermicompost or earthworm compost. - Organic waste: in household waste, this is kitchen waste (vegetable peelings and other food leftovers) and green plant waste (hedge trimmings, cut grass, dead leaves, etc.). - Composting site advisor: the contact person for a building or establishment, involved solely on the site in question in providing information for users and helping to run the overall independent communal composting scheme. - Composting guide: ambassador for hands-on prevention and management of household organic waste and related waste. He or she may be an inhabitant of the town performing the mission voluntarily. - Composting masters: technical advisor and facilitator for hands-on prevention and management of organic waste. He or she is an employee of a local authority competent in waste collection and/or disposal, of a relay organisation (association or company) or a specialist consultant in this field.


4

- Food waste: products potentially to be consumed as foodstuffs that deteriorate or are disposed of all along the food chain (cf. FAO report in May 2011 “Global Food Losses and Food Waste”).

Abbreviations: RM: Rennes Métropole EU: European Union EC: European Commission FR: French EN: English PT: Portuguese CZ: Czech ADEME: Agence de l’Environnement et de la maîtrise de l’énergie (French Environment and Energy Management Agency) GRPAS: Groupe Rennais de Pédagogie et d’Action Sociale (Rennes education and social action group) GECE: Market research and survey company


5

II.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. The context Each citizen in the European Union produces 502 kg of solid urban residue per year, a figure that is constantly on the increase. According to a report by the World Bank in 2012, 1.3 billion tonnes of waste are produced per year worldwide. This figure is likely to reach 2.2 billion tonnes by 2025, which is just as alarming a prospect as global warming. This situation, combined with the limited capacity of treatment facilities, makes waste prevention a priority for all waste management policies. Organic waste, which represents a third of the content of European citizens' waste bins, is one of the main targets for waste prevention actions and waste flow reduction initiatives. This waste possesses a low calorific value (LCV) and can therefore simply be channelled away from incineration. Research conducted by ACR+ demonstrates that 10% of organic waste can be avoided by limiting food waste (by favouring responsible purchases, cooking methods and behaviour) and that 30% to 70% can be dealt with organically, for example by composting. The reduction of organic waste is a fundamental question for European cities. The local authorities of Rennes Métropole (France), Brno (Czech Republic) and LIPOR (the Porto conurbation in Portugal), as well as ACR+, the European waste management network, and IRSTEA, a French compost research centre, have joined forces as part of this joint project (Miniwaste) with the aim of defining, developing and publicising the appropriate tools for efficient implementation and monitoring of initiatives to reduce organic waste.

1.2. The Miniwaste project The main objective of the Miniwaste project involves demonstrating, in compliance with directive 2008/98/EC, that it is possible to significantly reduce the amount of organic waste (food waste and green plant waste) at source in a controlled and sustainable manner. Such reduction can be achieved by: - Encouraging the practice of collective or individual composting for food waste and green plant waste (grass, leaves and small branches). - Developing sustainable gardening practices (mulching and grinding) for green plant waste. - Supporting food waste reduction initiatives. In order to achieve this, 3 demonstration programmes have been deployed in at least three different States in the EU (France, Portugal and the Czech Republic), at pilot scale (Brno) and on a large scale (Rennes Métropole and LIPOR) in order to involve a considerable proportion of the population in the initiative undertaken in order to reduce organic waste. The main idea was to provide the inhabitants and local authorities with flexible solutions that are well-suited to their needs.


6

The second objective involves developing and implementing a set of protocols to assist implementation and monitoring of the operations undertaken in order to help European local authorities in the deployment and assessment of their organic waste prevention actions. In particular, analysis was conducted on the quantities of waste composted, the quality of the compost produced with regard to industrial compost standards and the efficiency of various types of composter bin. It was demonstrated that the local authorities did not have the sufficient structured technical means to design and implement an appropriate prevention programme and suitable management plan for reducing waste as well as an efficient system of control using measurable indicators to check whether the objectives are achieved. The aim of the Miniwaste project is to compensate for this shortcoming via setting up a knowledge base and feedback system that makes it possible to identify models for useful actions and to benefit from measurable indicators concerning targets, actions and results. The last objective involves publicising recommendations and guidelines for other European cities, demonstrating how easy it is to reproduce the successful and original Miniwaste initiatives for minimising organic waste. The tools and methods developed as part of the Miniwaste project will therefore me made available to European local authorities on completion of the project.

1.3. The partners Rennes Métropole (FR), Project leader

Rennes Métropole, which includes the city of Rennes and its conurbation, is in charge of managing the waste of the 38 municipalities in the conurbation. ACR+ (Europe),

ACR+ is an international network of local and regional authorities that aims to promote sustainable use of resources and management of waste through prevention at source, re-use and recycling. LIPOR (PT) LIPOR is the organisation responsible for managing the municipal waste produced in the eight municipalities in the Porto region. Brno (CZ)

The city of Brno is an independent territorial unit in the Czech Republic which manages the waste of 29 districts. Irstea (FR)

Irstea is the French national institute for research in science and technology for the environment and agriculture.


7

1.4. The co-financiers Miniwaste benefits from co-financing from the European Commission LIFE+ programme. The initial project budget amounted to € 2,289,402 with an EU contribution of € 1,126,626. LIFE is the European Union’s financial instrument for supporting environmental projects within and outside the EU. The programme was launched in 1992 in order to facilitate implementation and development of European policy and law concerning the environment via co-financing of pilot or demonstration products with added value for Europe. The ADEME (the French Environment and Energy Management Agency) and the Ille-et-Vilaine General Council also contributed to the project by providing funding for the actions carried out by Rennes Métropole: € 290,735 from the ADEME and € 48,730 from the General Council.

1.5. Presentation of the report For the various initiatives deployed, this report includes a reminder of the objective, the methodology used, the partners involved, the results, the problems encountered and the innovative aspects linked to this action. Throughout this report, links to the tools developed available on the miniwaste.eu web site are provided.

III

SUMMARY

3.1

Achievement of results with regard to desired objectives

The table below displays the results obtained on completion of the project with regard to the objectives revised during the project, taken into account by the EC in the amendment. (Annex/ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION/Annex 1)


8

MINIWASTE PROJECT

Goals Results 2012/2010 Rennes Métropole

Composting

Reducing food waste

Communal composting sites Communal composting participants Individual composters Indoor composters (vermicomposters / electric composters) Establishments implementing or promoting communal composting (schools, etc.) Demonstration locations Participating establishments (community centres, restaurants) People trained in food waste reduction

Events / conferences Training sessions Awareness-raising People trained in composting techniques activities/training Special training for composting assistants/guides sessions Composting assistants/guides involved Number of eco-cookery classes Grinding/mulching

grinding association Communal grinding equipment


% target

Goals Results 2012/2010 LIPOR

% target

Goals 2012/2010

Results

% target

Brno

220 2200 5000 45 30 150

199 6411 5795 45 31 6

90% 291% 116% 100% 103% 4%

50 500 6500 100 270 10

75 1232 6666 102 319 10

150% 246% 103% 102% 118% 100%

3 30 350 1 5

4 40 350 3 5

133% 133% 100% 300% 100%

8

5

63%

5

4

80%

2

2

100%

600

463

77%

2800

3712

133%

30

64

213%

100 36 700 6 100 0

145 48 561 3 16 9

145% 133% 80% 50% 16% -

35 350 10400 10 100 30

55 501 11177 6 108 52

157% 143% 107% 60% 108% 173%

9 10 100 10 5

10 5 68 36 5

111% 50% 68% 360% 100%

14 24

12 24

86% 100%

For certain result indicators such as the number of communal composting sites, the number of people trained in composting techniques, the results are close to the objectives set for Rennes Métropole. For other indicators such as the number of participants in communal composting or the number of individual composters provided, the results have exceeded the objectives set. However, most of the results obtained by LIPOR exceed the objectives to be achieved, apart from the number of training sessions for composting guides. For the city of Brno, the results are also positive; only the objectives concerning composting techniques training sessions as well as the training sessions for composting guides were not attained. The overall objective of testing, assessing and improving the 3 local waste reduction plans was also reached. Provision of a methodological guide with all the tools developed was achieved. Most of the environmental objectives were reached or even exceeded. This situation is linked to better knowledge of expected diversion rates according to the initiatives developed, thanks to the work of IRSTEA. The results obtained are shown in the table below: RM Objectives

Tons

Collective housing *

220

444

Separatedhousing

5,000 35

Collective structures

Brno Objectives Tons

LIPOR Objectives Tons

1.2

38

36

5,232

5 350

50

4,000

1920

76

2

1

230

37

Amounts of waste diverted thanks to composting for all the partners

3.2

Problems encountered

The main problem was raising awareness amongst the population in each territory, for all partners. Indeed, the need for direct mobilisation of inhabitants as well as the necessity for them to change their behaviour were the main constraints on development and achievement of the initial objectives. Additionally, it was difficult to mobilise certain local partners, in particular housing complex managers who were few to reply, or in some cases did not reply at all, to requests from the local authorities. Furthermore, some municipalities were not particularly involved in the initiatives put forward; probably due to a lack of time and resources. In such a context, it was necessary for all the Miniwaste project partners to find the communication methods that were most efficient and suited to the target populations. Another difficulty emerged when it came to developing an IT tool with a European dimension, since the disparities between the different countries were significant and the levels of knowledge and monitoring of waste were incongruous.


IV.

ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION

4.1

Presentation of the project team

As provided for in the project proposal, RM set up a dedicated team from the beginning of the project, including: - A Project Manager - An Administrative and Financial Manager - A Technician - A Communications Officer The composition of the Rennes Métropole project team and its partners was modified during the period during which the project was set up: - Replacement of Emilie Floch, RM Administrative and Financial Manager, by Annaïck Lanoë in November 2010 part time; and by Tifenn Contival, part-time Communications Officer. - Reinforcement of the Rennes Métropole project team with the manager of the prevention/treatment centre manager (Nathalie Gaillard) on one third time. - Retirement of Annie Resse, IRSTEA research engineer on 31st December 2011. - Replacement of Lucie Humplikova, Brno Administrative and Financial Manager, by Jan Stepnica in January 2012. - Departure of Olivier de Clercq, Administrative and Technical Manager for the ACR+ team in June 2012; departure of Alexia Ripoll, Administrative and Communications Manager, replaced by Katarzyna Koniecka on 1st August 2012.

The Miniwaste team at the start of the project – March 2010

The org chart as of December 2012 is included in the annex. (ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION/Annex 2)


11

4.2

Presentation of the project management approach 4.2.1

Project structure

The project is structured around 5 actions: - Action 1: project management and monitoring. - Action 2: definition of facilitative tools and assessment tools. - Action 3: implementation of reduction plans and development of the methodological guide. - Action 4: communication about the project. - Action 5: post-project communication plan. For each action, sub-actions were defined and scheduled under the supervision of one of the partners with contribution from other partners as follows: - Actions performed by Rennes Métropole: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.4, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7 and 5 - Actions performed by ACR+: 2.1, 4.1, 4.6 - Actions performed by Brno: 3.2 and 4.4 - Actions performed by LIPOR: 3.3 - Actions performed by IRSTEA (formerly CEMAGREF): 2.4

4.2.2

Project schedule

The provisional schedule for the sub-actions was initially as follows:


12

Action Action number or name

2010 I

II

III

2011 IV

I

II

III

2012 IV

I

II

III

IV

1. Project management and monitoring 1.1 Project management 1.2 Monitoring action (+ assessment) 1.3 Financial auditing 2 – Implementation of a waste management structure and IT tool 2.1. Inventory of knowledge within and outside the group 2.2. Creation of a computerised waste management platform within RM 2.3. Deployment of a computerised waste management platform for the partners 2.4. Implementation of various protocols for assessing the composting projects 3 – Implementation and assessment of waste reduction 3.1. By RM 3.2. By Brno 3.3. By LIPOR 3.4. Directives for EU municipalities in order to reduce organic waste 4 – Promotional activities 4.1 Project web site 4.2 Non-specialist report and communication tools 4.3 Notice boards 4.4 Organisation of a mid-term conference 4.5 Organisation of a final conference 4.6 Media communication 4.7 Participation in workshops, seminars and conferences 5 – Post-LIFE communication plan


13

During deployment of the project, the partners encountered delays with certain sub-actions, in particular: - Deployment of the IT tool: actions 2.2 and 2.3. - Delivery of scientific protocols for implementation and assessment: action 2.4. - Installation of notice boards: action 4.3.

4.3

Assessment of the project management approach 4.3.1

Technical difficulties

The majority of actions planned as part of the partnership are maintained, in particular concerning actions 1 and 4. Action 2: Action 2, and in particular the creation of the IT tool (sub-actions 2.2 and 2.3) as well as provision of the protocols (sub-action 2.4), met with significant delays in relation to the initially planned schedule, but this problem proved to be unavoidable. The IT tool was destined to define the most relevant organic waste prevention actions for a given territory and monitor their implementation. It was therefore vital to be able to draw on feedback from the consortium in order to refine the solutions to be developed depending on the territory in question, as well as being essential to have the assessment protocols developed by IRSTEA. In fact, the development of this tool required the availability of the final protocols from IRSTEA, which were themselves delivered several months late. Analysis showed that it would not have been possible with the initially announced schedule to produce a tool that provides the gains and quality finally obtained after 2 years of feedback. Furthermore, precise definition of the tools functions was also indispensable and required considerable work, both with the partners and also during the external study conducted in 2011 (concerning in particular the definition of relevant indicators at European level).

The final version of this tool was therefore made available only after a considerable delay. Nevertheless, it was possible to perform a test phase lasting several months involving a certain number of local authorities. Significant promotion was put in place before the end of the project to announce the delivery of this tool. Action 3: A certain number of difficulties were encountered concerning achievement of the desired results:


14

Two types of indicators were defined to assess the project’s progress: - Indicators linked to the activities organised: number of public conferences, number of training sessions, number of events prepared, etc. - Indicators linked to the participation of the public in activities proposed by local authorities: number of requests for communal composting areas, number of people attending training, number of participants at conferences, etc. These two types of indicators do not solely depend on the drive of the local authority in question, but also depend on the receptiveness of the target population with regard to the events and activities put in place. Mid-way through the project, i.e. 18 months after the launch of awareness raising actions, it emerged that support from the public had not reached the desired level. It was therefore necessary to increase efforts on the ground in order to obtain greater public involvement. At the start of the project’s third year, promising results emerged. The difficulty in mobilising the local populations in the three cities gave rise to modifications concerning the following aspects: - Implementation methodologies for a part of the awareness raising actions. - Change in a part of the quantitative objectives. These modifications led to a request to the EC for an amendment to the project.

4.3.2

Budgetary difficulties

Alterations to the initial budget had to be made for various reasons: over-estimation or underestimation of certain expenditure items or change in the subject of the expenditure due to methodological modifications. All the categories of expenditure were concerned by these budgetary modifications, but only the categories ‘external assistance fees’ (F3) and ‘other costs’ (concerning the purchase of material and printing of communication documents) (F7) were significantly modified, which were then taken into consideration in the amount of European subsidies provided.

4.3.3

Project amendment

A request to modify the aspects below was submitted to the European Commission at the beginning of September 2012: - Alterations to the methodology of a certain number of actions, the related proofs and resulting financial changes; in some cases, the partners suggested a certain number of compensatory measures.


15

- Updating of quantitative objectives for certain desired results and, in some cases, proposal of compensatory measures to counterbalance the reduction of certain objectives. - Purely budgetary changes for the 2 budgetary categories concerned (F3 and F7). The request also presented the change of the name of CEMAGREF to IRSTEA (Institut National de Recherche en Sciences et Technologies pour l’Environnement et l’Agriculture - national institute for research in science and technology for the environment and agriculture). The amendment was granted by the EC in December 2012 and signed by the 2 parties.

V.

TECHNICAL SECTION

5.1

Actions Action 1 – Project management and monitoring Action 1.1 – Project management (performed by: RM) Initial action dates: 01/01/2010 – 31/12/2012 Effective action dates: as above

Objectives

The objective of this action is to set up a project management system in order to ensure that the commitments undertaken by the partners at the beginning of the project are respected. This involves close and regular contact between the beneficiary, Rennes Métropole, and its partners. This action also involves the provision of progress reports to the EC. Achievements

•

Partnership agreements:

The partnership agreements between Rennes Métropole and each partner were written and signed by all the partners: IRSTEA (on 23rd June), ACR + (25th June), LIPOR (28th June) and Brno (16th August). These partnership agreements made it possible to define and formalise the commitments of each partner to the smooth running of the project. •

Steering committee meetings:

The steering committee is made up of the beneficiary and its partner teams involved in the project.


16

In January/February 2010, the RM project team met with all the partners in their respective structures. The aim was, on the one hand, to present the new RM project team (since the RM team that worked on developing the project had left the local authority) and, on the other hand, to agree on the organisation to be implemented. The schedule of visits was as follows: - LIPOR: 20th and 21st January 2010 - ACR+: 25th January 2010 - IRSTEA: 1st February 2010 - Brno: 2nd, 3rd and 4th February 2010 The steering committee regularly met throughout the project in the different countries of the partners: Belgium, France, Portugal and the Czech Republic. RM organised the first steering committee meeting in Rennes on 17th and 18th March 2010 (Annex 1.1/Minutes of meetings). The opportunity of this meeting was also taken to bring together the experts' committee for the first inventory workshop. The second meeting in Brussels, which served as a second inventory workshop, on 27th May 2010 was used to present the financial and administrative monitoring methods to be adopted by all the partners and to provide a note on what they should produce for the initial report (Annex 1.1/Minutes of meetings). A third meeting took place between the partners on 13th and 14th January 2011 in Rennes. During this meeting, the partners presented progress reports for their actions (Annex 1.1/Minutes of meetings & Annex 1.1 Partner presentations). The partners decided to devote a specific point of the agenda to the following meeting so as to draw up a comparison of waste characterisation data in LIPOR, Brno and Rennes Métropole, with the aid of engineers from IRSTEA (formerly CEMAGREF). LIPOR was unable to attend this meeting. Nonetheless, a telephone conference between Rennes Métropole and LIPOR took place on 23rd February 2011, in order to discuss their progress and cover all the points on the agenda of the steering committee meeting (Annex 1.1/Telephone conference). All the partners then met on 12th and 14th September 2011 in Brno for a steering committee meeting, before and after the project's mid-term conference which took place on 13th September of the same year (Annex 1.1/Minutes of meetings). A fifth meeting took place between the partners on 6th and 7th March 2012 in Porto (Annex 1.1/Minutes of meetings). For this meeting, the experts were also invited for the project’s 2nd experts’ committee. Only Vincent Gobbe attended and actively participated in the discussions. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

17

The final (6th) steering committee meeting took place on 9th and 10th October in Brussels with ACR+ (Annex 1.1/Minutes of meetings). This meeting was initially scheduled to take place in Rennes in tandem with the final conference, but this would have involved the devotion of too much time for all the partners. It was therefore decided to organise a specific meeting in October, which enabled all the partners to agree on the final deadlines for the deliverables. •

Experts’ committee meetings:

The composition of the experts’ committee underwent several changes during the project. The departure of some experts, due to lack of availability (Sylvain Segal) or lack of interest (Thorsten Nord), was offset by the arrival of Joëlle Van Bambke (involved in the Green Cook project supported by Programme Life+) and Annie Resse (retired from Irstea, expert in home composting). At the end of the project, the experts’ committee was made up of: - Vincent Gobbe (vice-chairman of the Comité Jean Pain, Belgium) - Annie Resse (formerly of IRSTEA, France) - Joëlle Vam Bambeke (IBGE, Belgium) - Kathleen Shelfhout (OVAM, Belgium) - Denis Mazaud (ADEME, France) - Serge Vogels (Espace Environnement, Belgium) Three experts’ committee meetings were organised during the project at the same time as certain steering committee meetings: - In Rennes, for the project launch on 17th and 18th March 2010. - In Porto, during the mid-term conference in Brno, on 6th and 7th March 2012. - In Rennes, the experts were invited to the project’s final conference on 20th and 21st November 2012. For precise agreement on the role of each expert, a list of various deliverables to be produced throughout the project was drawn up. For each of them, one or more experts able to contribute to production of the deliverable were assigned (Annex 1.1/List of experts’ committee deliverables). •

Financial committee meetings:

The financial committee brings together the beneficiary RM and the French co-financiers: ADEME and the Ille-et-Vilaine General Council.


18

Its members met 3 times in Rennes during the project as scheduled: - On 23rd November 2010 - On 8th December 2011 - On 3rd December 2012 During the first two meetings, RM reported on the project's progress and the plans for the following year. The last meeting was used to present all the results obtained by RM and IRSTEA, as well as to organise the process for distributing financial aid (Annex 1.1/Minutes of meetings of the financial committee). •

Activity reports:

The activity reports submitted to the European Commission since the beginning of the project are as follows: - Initial report:29th September 2010 - Additional report (on the request of the EC):3rd February 2011 - Mid-term report:30th June 2011 - Intermediate report:30th July 2012 - This final report For each report, the EC sent a letter to RM, the beneficiary (on 29th March 2011, 1st December 2011 and 26th September 2012), including any remarks about the report in question and a list of clarifications expected in the following report. Furthermore, an internal report (not submitted to the EC) was submitted to the company Astrale by RM, on 29th July 2010, with the aim of highlighting the initial difficulties encountered on the project, especially by Rennes Métropole. These difficulties concerned some of the objectives set. This report also made it possible to initially evaluate the budgetary modifications. This note aimed to inform Astrale of the deviations identified several months from the start of the project. In this final report, a reminder of all the questions raised by the EC about all the reports has been drawn up for each action with the related answer. •

Telephone meetings

Monthly telephone meetings were set up between RM and its partners via a telephone platform.


19

During the first year, only a few telephone conferences were organised due to technical and organisational problems. They were only genuinely implemented at the start of 2011. The minutes were sent to the partners following each meeting. In total, 11 telephone meetings were held in 2011 and 7 in 2012 (Annex 1.1/Telephone meetings). Problems encountered

•

Mobilisation of experts

During the Miniwaste project, it was difficult to mobilise the experts. This is shown by attendance at the different experts’ committee meetings:4 out of 7 present at the 1st meeting; 1 out of 7 present at the 2nd meeting; 2 out of 7 present at the 3rd meeting. In 2010, RM attempted to set up bi-monthly telephone meetings, yet such meetings did not regularly take place. Availability problems of the various participants, technical aspects linked to opening a telephone platform as well as communication in English served as constraints on establishing close contact between the 7 experts. These telephone meetings were therefore abandoned. However, regular requests by e-mail were made in order to obtain feedback from the experts on the documents and tools produced: inventory of good practices, protocols developed by IRSTEA and the IT tool (Annex 1.1/List of experts’ committee deliverables). Despite the implementation of this management plan, little feedback was forthcoming. The following should however be noted: - The involvement of Vincent Gobbe (Vice-Chairman of the Comité Jean Pain) who shared his thoughts with the partners on the components of the IT tool. - The participation of Denis Mazaud during performance of the Bio-IS study and definition of the IRSTEA protocols. - The technical support from Annie Resse during the tool’s test phase in September and October 2012 when it was being finalised. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter dated 1stDecember 2011: Question: “Please specify whether the Experts’ Committee as well as the Financial Committee created at the start of the project have met once again. Please send the minutes of these meetings.


20

Please include a project org chart including all the people working on the project”. The experts’ committee meetings, like the financial committee meetings were organised 3 times during the project (see above). The minutes of the meetings are appended to the report. The org chart is also displayed in the appendices (ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION/ Annex 2).

Action 1.2 – Monitoring and assessment (RM) Initial action dates: 01/01/2010 – 31/12/2012 Effective action dates: same as above

Objectives

The objectives of this action are to check on accomplishment of actions planned and respect of commitments made by all the partners, but also to ensure that the objectives set are reached in accordance with the project schedule. Assessment of the Miniwaste project’s impact is also an objective or this action. Achievements

To establish a monitoring protocol, a template for a “project sheet” (Annex 1.2/Project sheet) and “action sheets” (Annex 1.2/Partner action sheets/Action sheet template) were drawn up by RM to be filled in by the partners in order to confirm the actions planned in relation to the initial proposal (Annex 1.2/Partner action sheets). A list of deliverables was created in accordance with the project schedule (Annex 1.2/Deliverables schedule). This document was regularly updated for the provision of activity reports or for steering committee meetings. As proposed in the project proposal, a half-yearly report was drawn up each semester (an internal report) to inform the vice-president in charge of the project at Rennes Métropole of the project’s progress. It was also sent to the partners (Annex 1.2/Progress table No. 4). Assessment of the project’s impact was conducted in the territories of the 3 local authorities: Rennes Métropole, Brno and Porto. The results are shown in part 5.2.


21


The difficulty with monitoring lies in the assiduity of Rennes Métropole and its partners in updating the monitoring documents. In fact, since the writing of activity reports itself is very time-consuming, it emerged that the updating of some monitoring documents put in place, especially the action sheets, did not provide gains in terms of monitoring. However, the deliverables schedule was used very regularly during the steering committee meetings and telephone meetings. The monthly telephone meetings proved to be much more efficient for maintaining monitoring and close contacts between the partners, in addition to the half-yearly steering committee meetings. Furthermore, information was provided to the Vice-President and the group of elected representatives in the bureau of the Rennes Métropole waste committee during some of the monthly meetings of this bureau of the committee. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter dated September 26 2012: Question: “Please supply the final assessment of the monitoring indicators and the final versions of the action forms”. The monitoring indicators were updated regularly in order to check whether the objectives were reached. The table of the final results can be found in section III.1. The final version of the action sheets that make up the 3 waste reduction plans developed in Brno, LIPOR and RM is available in the appendices of actions 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3.

Action 1.3 – Audit (RM) Initial action dates: 01/07/2012 – 31/12/2012 Effective action dates: 01/04/2011- 31/03/2013

Objectives

The European Commission, within the scope of the project, requires that Rennes Métropole set up an accounting review of the expenditure outlaid that will be used as a basis for calculating and providing community aid to Rennes Métropole. The objective of action 1.3 is to ensure the accuracy of the state of expenditure outlaid by Rennes Métropole and its partners within the scope of the European project Miniwaste. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

22

Methodology

A tender was launched on 5th July 2011 (announced on e-megalisbretagne.org) and in tandem an invitation for tenders was sent on 11th July 2011 to: -

Actu’elles – Saint-Grégoire ASP – Rennes FAR Conseils – Lyon SIRIUS Paris – Paris Geirec – Rennes KPMG – Rennes

The tender documents are featured in the appendices (Annex 1.3/Financial audit short-list file). The deadline for reception of tenders was set as 11th August 2011 at 12.00. Only one application was received by Rennes Métropole by the deadline: a joint tender by Sirius and KPMG. This offer was analysed (Annex 1.3/Analysis of tenders) and the joint tender by Sirius and KPMG was awarded the contract to perform the financial audit of the Miniwaste project. It was agreed with the auditor that the audit would be conducted in 3 phases:

-

Phase 1: analysis of proof of expenditure made in 2010-2011. Phase 2: analysis of proof of expenditure made from January 2012 to September 2012. Phase 3: analysis of proof of expenditure made from October 2012 to December 2012.

For each phase, the auditor supplied Rennes Métropole with a list of additional information to be provided by each of the partners. Results

On 15th March 2013, a financial audit report was issued by Sirius and KPMG on the basis of the accounting records supplied by the 5 partners in the Miniwaste project. This report indicates that on the basis of the financial control, in accordance with the programme described, the auditors consider that they have obtained reasonable assurance that the financial report of the project LIFE08 ENV/F000486, entitled MINIWASTE, beginning the 01/01/2010, end ending the 31/12/2012, gives a true and fair view of the expenses, income and investments incurred/made by Rennes Metropole, ACR+, IRSTEA, BRNO and LIPOR in connection with the abovementioned project within the time limit laid down by the Commission and in accordance with the LIFE+ Programme Common Provisions, the national legislation and accounting rules.

The report is featured in the annex. (Annex 1.3/Audit report)


23


The first difficulty was, as for other aspects of the project, working in the various languages of the partners (supporting documentation supplied in Czech for example). Furthermore, a delay was observed during the phases of the audit due both to the partners but also the auditor. However, this delay did not have an impact on the date on which the audit report was expected, i.e. 15th March 2013. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter dated 26th September 2012: Question: “You mention that a first audit phase was conducted from March to June 2011 even though the auditor was not selected before February 2012. These dates are incoherent. Please provide clarifications”. In fact, the first phase of the audit was performed in 2012 and not in 2011.

Action 2 – Implementation of waste management tools Initial action dates: 01/01/2010 - 30/06/2010 Effective action dates: 01/01/2010 - 30/09/2010

Action 2.1 – Inventory of knowledge within and outside the consortium (ACR+) Objectives

ACR+ was in charge of identifying and describing good practices regarding waste minimisation in Europe outside the partners’ context. At the first step, the inventory was not to focus only on bio-waste: the objective was to get a broad picture of waste prevention strategies in the studied contexts, or even to identify relevant actions for duplication to the Miniwaste project. Each partner was to contribute to this inventory by providing the necessary information required by ACR+ on the basis of their respective experience in the domain, and including: -

Identification of good practices regarding waste prevention in Europe at local and regional levels. Identification of monitoring indicators and assessment schemes used by public authorities. Description of the management tools (databases, training, monitoring tools) and monitoring strategies.


24

A technical report describing the identified good practices was to be published (in English), in order to serve as a basis for discussion with the partners and its content to be used to design the IT tool (action 2.2), to identify speakers for the 2 dissemination events, to illustrate the content of the final report with other examples outside the project partners experience. The report was to highlight both implementation and monitoring aspects of waste prevention actions, and to stress the involvement of different stakeholders (private sector, NGOs, academic, administrations, schools, hospitals, retail shops, etc.) and the communication aspects. Some recommendations were planned to be made with regards to other actions and objectives of the project. The final objective was to help developing the waste management tools and to improve the database fields and complete the set of indicators. Methodology

Originally, it was planned that a questionnaire would be drawn up and sent to ACR+ contacts requesting specific information needed by the project. The questionnaire would be accompanied with direct phone contacts when needed. For each case, a detailed description would be requested, including at the minimum: -

The local context concerning waste production patterns. Description of waste prevention legal/political framework; strategies; actions and their results. The monitoring schemes and tools; the indicators and targets; the communication strategy; the involvement of different stakeholders and the commitment at political level.

Rather than sending a questionnaire, ACR+, in accordance with RM, sent a factsheet to get the information from the cases’ implementers more efficiently. A template was prepared and it was sent by mail already pre-completed to the identified case study’s implementer to validate its content. ACR+ sent the factsheets to the partners and the experts for comments and took them into account when finalising the factsheets. ACR+ was to take advantage of its extensive network of members and contacts which are mainly local and regional authorities in charge of waste management. ACR+ was also to benefit from the external advisory of the Experts’ Committee appointed by RM (see action 1.1), in order to draft the questionnaire and analyse the results together. Workshops with project’s partners were planned in order 1) to clarify their contributions (inventory within the consortium) and expectations about other experiences, and 2) to share a common analysis on the first inventory. These workshops were to take place in experienced cities, outside the consortium in order to allow on-site visits.


25

Results

ACR+ gathered information about 20 case studies worldwide that would be of high interest for the Miniwaste project. Ten of them were selected by ACR+ and the partners as to be Miniwaste good practices (the quality of information was privileged). These selected cases come from Europe (including Switzerland) and cover the following themes: home composting, community composting, farm proximity composting, fight against food waste, closed loop gardening, re-use centres. The experiences about home composting of RM and LIPOR were also considered to be the subject of two factsheets as the actions led are pioneering. In the end, only LIPOR’s case was turned into a factsheet in order to give more room to experiences from outside the partnership. Ten factsheets were finalised in September 2010: -

Home composting - Italy (Piemonte) Home composting - UK (Kent) Home composting - Portugal (LIPOR) Home composting - France (Chambery) Community composting - Belgium (Flemish Region) Community composting - Switzerland (Zürich) Farm proximity composting - Austria (Freistadt) Fight against food waste - UK (WRAP) Closed Loop gardening - Belgium (Flemish Region) Reuse centres - Belgium (Flemish Region)

For each of these, ACR+ provided detailed information regarding the general characteristics of the responsible body, local context, applied strategy (objectives, approach and methodology), relevant instruments, stakeholders, the means and actions (including communications), legislative and financial aspects, results, indicators and monitoring tools (if any), as well as the challenges encountered and success factors applied. On the basis of these factsheets, a technical report was written for dissemination of the inventory on the Miniwaste website. This report is a compilation of the factsheets. It embodies an overview of what can be done to reduce organic waste in the European Countries. When the report was finished, the graphic designer of Rennes Métropole worked on the layout. The technical report has been available since the beginning of February 2011 on the Miniwaste website (news and article on the homepage, “best practices” page, “project’s results” page, documents section: http://www.miniwaste.eu/mediastore/11/16428_1_FR_original.pdf) and on the ACR+ web site (http://www.acrplus.org/miniwaste). Two workshops took place during the first semester of 2010. The aim was to clarify the content of the inventory and to assess the progress made in gathering the good practices, drafting the factsheets and finally completing the inventory.


26

The first workshop, organised by RM, took place during the kick-off meeting in Rennes on the 17th and 18th of March 2010. It was the occasion for the partners to visit home-composting sites in Rennes and to discover the management of these sites by a subcontractor of RM (the society EISENIA). ACR+ led the discussion about the content of the factsheets. The partners and the experts decided to grant 2/3 of the factsheets to bio-waste prevention while the remaining 1/3 will be related to other waste flows and/or waste prevention in general. Concerning the second workshop, RM made a public tender for the organisation of the meeting in Brussels on the 27th and 28th of May 2010. Espace Environnement was chosen and had to organise the coming. Several visits were also organised in addition with the workshop. -

The Comité Jean Pain Composting sites in Belgium whose composting and awareness methods are complementary with the methods used by the partners (Londerzeel, Dilbeek, a green nursery in Anderlecht, Watermael-Boitsfort). The Comité Jean Pain is considered to be one of the best demonstration places for waste prevention in Europe, and the actions implemented in Flanders constitute a good example for the implementation of composting actions in urban areas. During the workshop itself, ACR+ made a progress report on the inventory, i.e. 5 factsheets had been sent to the experts and the partners for comments. For the 5 additional factsheets which were still to be drafted by ACR+, the studied region and the content were discussed by the partners. The Miniwaste inventory report is included in the annex. (Appendix 2.1/Inventory of prevention good practices). It has been advertised as follows: • • • • • • •

1 press release (17/2/2011)(Annex 2.1/press release) 1 article in the ACR+ newsline (sent to ACR+ members) (21/2/2011)(Annex 2.1/newsline) 1 article in the Warmer Bulletin (specialized magazine on Waste and Resources with 1,000 subscribers) (April 2011)(Annex 2.1/Warmer bulletin) 1 article on the ACR+ website (11/2/2011) (see online) 4 articles in the Miniwaste newsletter n°2 (9/2/2011), n°4 (11/5/2012), n°5 (14/11/2012), n°6 (13/12/2012) (see online) 8 articles on the Miniwaste website (11/2/2011, 9/2/2012, 11/5/2012, 25/5/2012, 12/7/2012, 16/8/2012, 13/9/2012, 29/10/2012) + mentioned in other articles (see online) Mentioned in LinkedIn discussions (for instance on 2/5/2012) )(Annex 2.1/Comment on LinkedIn)


To complete the factsheets, despite reminders and calls, some feedback was missing from some cases’ implementers. ACR+ called back and tried to get this information from other intermediates. In order to gather all comments from ACR+, experts and partners about good practices and be as complete as possible, the deadline for the technical report on the inventory was postponed to the end of September 2010.


27

It did not cause problem to the rest of the project, since the finalization of the computerized waste management platform (which aimed to include the inventory’s results) had been postponed too. While the project’s proposition suggested that the inventory workshops took place in experienced cities outside the project, the 2 workshops were held within the partnership (France and Belgium). Indeed, in 6 months this constraint was not reachable due to the lack of time and the availability of the other cities. RM tried to contact Vienna, but the contact person was not available at that time.

Action 2.2 – Deployment of the IT tool by Rennes Métropole (RM) Initial action dates: 01/07/2010-01/04/2011 Effective action dates: 17/03/2010-31/12/2012

Objectives

The objective of this action is to create a computerised platform for management of organic waste to serve as a decision-making tool for the local authorities that will use it by assisting them during the following steps: - Diagnostic of the territory in terms of organic waste prevention and definition of organic waste prevention actions adapted to the respective territories. - Implementation of these actions on the basis of feedback from European schemes gathered as part of action 2.1 and provision of methodological sheets. - Assessment of the impact of these actions using tables of monitoring indicators and calculations from the protocols developed by IRSTEA as part of action 2.4. Methodology

A working group was set up at the start of this action, made up of the project partners and experts. In order to successfully implement action 2.2 in Rennes Métropole, the following organisation was put in place: •

Project deliberation

During two meetings in 2010, namely the steering committee meeting in March 2010 (Annex 2.2/Tool preparatory meetings 2010) and the meeting in Brussels in May 2010 (Annex 2.2/Tool preparatory meetings 2010), the partners together defined the purpose of the IT tool and deliberated on its overall structure based around 3 modules:


28

1.

A decision-making module including a territorial diagnostic grid and a certain number of scenario fact sheets proposing various organic waste prevention actions to be carried out.

2.

An action implementation and monitoring module, with trend charts in particular.

3.

A results consultation module, for producing graphs to display results.

An internal meeting at Rennes Métropole between the Miniwaste project team and the IT department took place on 2nd September 2010 to decide on the access procedure, distribution process and the type of software suited to this tool (Annex 2.2/Tool preparatory meetings 2010). Following this, a working meeting was organised on 4th October 2010 (Annex 2.2/Tool preparatory meetings 2010) with IRSTEA and the IT department and Household Waste Reclamation department of Rennes Métropole in order to: - Work on the data computation and processing part of the tool. - Define a methodology for creating and deploying the tool. The working group also looked into the choice of reference values, aimed at situating a territory in relation to the mean or to a pre-determined value, in order to steer the choice of prevention actions. The result of this work was presented to and validated by the partners during the telephone meeting on 26th October 2010 (Annex 2.2/Tool preparatory meetings 2010). Faced with the scale of work required to choose relevant indicators for development of the IT tool and at the same time guarantee consideration of the Miniwaste project's European dimension, Rennes Métropole decided to call upon an external consultancy able to provide technical expertise. •

Choosing the indicators

Rennes Métropole therefore issued a call for tenders and appointed an external consultancy: Bio-Intelligence Services (BIO IS). The tender documents can be found in the appendices (Annex 2.2/Indicators short-list file).

The mission of BIO IS lasted three months from mid-march 2011 and was split into three parts described below:


29

Phase 1 – Module 1 Phase 1 enabled BIO IS to select indicators in accordance with two main criteria: -

The ease with which data can be obtained. The relevance of the data in relation to the prevention actions that can be proposed.

This phase was validated by the partners after each of them had given their opinion concerning the indicators chosen. Subsequently, BIO IS put forward reference values corresponding to the selected indicators and prevention sheets (prevention actions that could be undertaken) called “action sheets”.

Phase 2 – Module 2 Firstly, phase 2 enabled the supply of detailed information explaining step-by-step the implementation of the prevention actions recommended as part of the diagnostic. This information was recorded on the “procedure” sheets. The second stage of this module involved preparing the trend charts. In particular, they were to enable monitoring and assessment of prevention action results.

Phase 3 – Module 3 Phase 3 was implemented after completion of phase 2. In fact, this phase made it possible to define the best way of presenting the results of the previous module in graphical form for better visualisation of the results. •

Creating the IT tool

In March 2012, a call for tenders was issued to designate the IT company to develop the tool. AMJ Group was subsequently appointed in May 2012 to develop the tool. A study launch meeting was held on 23rd May 2012. Throughout development, weekly telephone meetings were held between the service provider and the IT and Household Waste Reclamation departments of Rennes Métropole. An initial version of the tool was delivered to Rennes Métropole in June 2012. •

Testing the IT tool

Two test phases of the tool were set up involving local authorities outside the Miniwaste consortium in order to validate the partners’ main choices with regard to ergonomics, relevance of indicators, understanding and relevance of the results obtained: Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

30

• • •

1st test phase: 18th July to 20th August 2012 2nd test phase: 18th September to 5th October 2012 3rd test phase: 5th October to 10th October 2012

The test panel was made up of 16 local authorities met during seminars at which the IT tool was present (for example in Lorient and during the ORBIT conference in Rennes). ACR+, LIPOR, Brno and IRSTEA also called upon volunteers in their networks in order to find interested local authorities.

SYCTOM (Paris) SMICVAL Libournais Haute Gironde Nantes Métropole SMICTOM du NAR SYDOM Jura SIEVD SIRDOMDI Angers Loire Métropole Sictom Loir et Sarthe Sictom des forêts BMO Communauté d'agglomération PauPyrénées ADEME Morlaix Communauté IBGE HAROKOPIO University (go-between for further contacts)

List of organisations in the tool's test panel

The main objective of the tests was to obtain feedback from the local authorities on how easy it was to use the tool (ergonomics). The first test phase was aimed in particular at receiving feedback from the local authorities following simulations of territorial diagnostics concerning in particular the relevance of the results obtained from different sectors of the local authority in question.


31

In order to achieve this, the local authorities were requested to complete an on-line questionnaire to provide their analysis after use of the tool and to send the result of a diagnostic module simulation on 2 sectors of their territory. The 2nd test phase sought to obtain feedback from the local authorities on use of the monitoring module (module 2). The panel was also requested to complete a questionnaire and return the file corresponding to the monitoring module completed for 2 sectors. The 3rd phase, which was very short, only concerned the module for graphical visualisation of the results, with the aim of having a maximum amount of feedback to present to the steering committee meeting in Brussels on 9th and 10th October 2012. The feedback from the local authorities and the partners for all of these test phases were analysed by the Rennes Métropole project team and AMJ Group. The complete list of questions and problems encountered by the local authorities as well as the answers provided are included in the appendices (Annex 2.2/List of Mantis tickets). The feedback from the partners expressed during the meeting of the steering committee in Brussels is featured in the appendices (Annex 2.2/Tool testing feedback). The most relevant remarks were taken into account, resulting in delivery by AMJ of a complete version of the IT tool in French and English during the project's closing conference on 20th November 2012. Thereafter, final improvements were made until a final version of the tool was delivered on 19th December 2012 (see results). Results:

•

BIO INTELLIGENCE SERVICE study

This study focused on defining indicators and computation methods for organic waste management within the scope of a waste reduction strategy. It enabled development of the IT tool content. The final report for this study is featured in the annex (Annex 2.2/BIO IS study final report). •

Computer development of the tool

The IT tool comes in the form of a zip file including Excel files, PDF files as well as a ‘Read Me' file. The tool can be accessed by opening a browser tool whose interface is displayed below:


32

Miniwaste Brower tool interface Using this browser tool, it is possible to access the 3 modules, scenario fact sheets, procedure sheets and protocols, as well as the on-line help.

-

The “Diagnostic” module

The initial “Diagnostic” module is made up of 3 tabs (settings, territory and results) to which can be added as many tabs as there are municipalities or sectors concerned by the diagnostic. The “settings” tab contains the French national statistical data. These values theoretically cannot be modified, since they are essential for the computation algorithm of the “diagnostic” module. However, it is possible to modify them in case of any significant change to French national data or if the tool is used in countries where the characteristics described have different values to those in France. The “territory” tab of the diagnostic is made up of 13 indicators. A maximum number of these indicators must be completed by the users of the tool in order to produce a comprehensive diagnostic of the territory. Data entry is mandatory for seven of these indicators.


33

Interface of the territory tab On completion of entering the territory indicators, the user can create as many sectors as he or she wants in order to carry out the diagnostic for all these sectors. For each sector created, a new tab appears. On these new “sector name” tabs, there are 24 indicators to fill in, including 10 compulsory ones. These indicators have been defined to give the best characterisation of the sector and to provide as detailed a diagnostic as possible. This tab also enables visualisation of the intermediate computations required for the diagnostic and comprehension of the method that results in completion of the diagnostic. In particular, it is possible to view the computation formulas for each of the sectors that result in:

-

A grade (in %) enabling evaluation of the relevance of each prevention action among the 5 families of action possible: domestic management of organic waste in individual homes, domestic management of organic waste in collective housing, domestic management of green plant waste, food waste by households, prevention of organic waste produced by entities other than households).

-

A potential for kitchen and green plant waste reduction (in tonnes per year) enabling assessment of the maximum amount of waste that can be diverted from collection.

The “Result” tab The “result” tab displays 3 tables. The 1st table of results gives access to the 14 “scenario fact sheets” which provide a summary of how the prevention action is implemented. Each fact sheet has the same structure: a description of the action, the list of related indicators, the theoretical waste reduction potential (using data from a bibliography), how easy it was to set up the action, the type of waste concerned, the place where the action is implemented, the steps of action implementation, the people involved, the required equipment and personnel, the estimated costs and expected results.


34

The 2nd table (see figure 3) shows the results of the diagnostic for each sector, the grade of relevance obtained for each family of action and the reduction potential.

Table of results

By reading these 2 tables, the user will have all the information required for deciding on what strategy to put into practice: he or she chooses the desired action(s) on the selected sector(s) by checking the "put into practice" box on the results table. The 3rd table provides a summary of the actions chosen. When the choice to put a given action into practice has been made, the user is invited to consult the IT tool "procedure" sheets in order to follow the steps for implementing these actions. These 5 sheets have the following structure: people involved, deadlines, diagnostic and definition of objectives (12 to 9 months in advance), involvement of partners and key players (9 to 6 months in advance), preparation and launch of the operation (6 to 3 months in advance), communication, training and general administration (3 to 0 months in advance, launch, monitoring and continuous improvement (0 to 6 months after the launch), assessment of the initiative (12 months after the launch), reproduction of the initiative (12 to 18 months after the launch), estimated cost, human resources required, sources. On these sheets, links lead to the protocol forms developed by IRSTEA that give guidance to the user for implementation of certain tools (e.g., conducting a survey of practices, organising an organic waste weighing campaign, sizing-up a communal composting area) and assessing actions.


35

-

The "Monitoring" module

Monitoring of territory indicators The "Monitoring" module enables annual monitoring of actions put in place in:

1- The territory 2- The chosen sectors Through achievement indicators and indicators for flows of collected and/or produced waste (11 in total), it is possible to monitor the development of a territory’s characteristics subsequent to implementation of actions to prevent organic waste selected in the "Diagnostic" module. The fields concerning the territory must be filled in each year. The "monitoring" part of the actions implemented in the sectors has a higher number of indicators: -

10 indicators of resources, covering both the financial and human resources necessary for implementing the actions. 10 indicators of achievements, covering the events that take place as part of prevention. 3 indicators of participation, illustrating the number of people who have attended the various activities organised in the municipality/sector. 11 indicators of behaviour, covering in particular the rates of awareness, the number of establishments, associations and shops involved. 11 indicators for flows of waste collected and/or produced. 4 indicators of flows of waste avoided concerning green plant waste and kitchen waste.


36

The values of all these indicators mentioned above can be filled in each quarter for detailed monitoring, but it is possible to fill them in every six months or annually, according to the user’s choice. In order to facilitate the collection of data, whether in the territory or in the municipalities/sectors, in this module, potential sources of information are also indicated.

-

The "Graphs/Results" module

This module is split into 2 tabs. One concerns the territory and the other concerns the sectors. This module is used for visualising, in graphical form, certain monitoring values from the "monitoring" module.

Examples of graphs from the "results" module The "territory" tab displays the graphs in three parts: 1- 4 graphs representing the changes in the number of composters and worm composters given to individuals, shared by neighbourhoods, or collectively in housing complexes. 2- 4 graphs representing the changes in amounts of household waste collected by the local authorities, residual household waste, green plant waste collected from households or even food waste.


37

3- The last part of the "territory" tab contains the graphs concerning the overall amount of waste taken to waste disposal sites as well as the amount of green plant waste taken to waste disposal sites. The "sector" tabs are also split into 5 parts which correspond to the 5 indicators mentioned previously:

•

•

• • •

Indicators of resources: this first part made up of 10 graphs is used to visualise the quarterly changes in financial and human resources devoted to any of the following promotion: composting in individual homes, composting in collective housing, sustainable management of green plant waste or reduction in food waste by households. Indicators of achievements: this part is used for quarterly monitoring of the number of events organised related to promoting composting, reducing food waste, reducing green plant waste as well as promoting domestic composting. Other graphs can be used to monitor the number of individual composters distributed, the development in numbers of neighbourhood composting areas, composting schemes for housing complexes or for collective catering. Indicators of participation: this part is used to monitor the number of people involved in various actions to promote composting as well as in promoting the sustainable management of green plant waste and the reduction of food waste. Indicators of change in behaviour: these graphs are used to monitor the development in the impact of the various awareness raising actions implemented. Indicators of flows of waste collected or produced: the graphs in this part are used for monitoring the flows of waste, i.e. the amounts of household waste collected, the amounts of residual household waste, the amounts of green plant waste and the amounts of food waste collected. Two additional graphs are used for the same type of monitoring, but for the amounts of green plant waste taken to waste disposal sites.

Players and partners involved:

The players especially involved in this action are as follows:

•

IRSTEA developed the technical and scientific protocols for assessment of the domestic composting projects.3 protocols were defined and were integrated into the monitoring part of the tool. IRSTEA was part of the working group with RM set up to define the tool's functions.

•

The consultancy Bio Intelligence Services worked on the tool’s content: the indicators and the fact sheets.

•

AMJ Group carried out the computer development of the tool, making it possible to provide a functional tool that enabled both diagnostics and monitoring of prevention actions at territory or municipality scale.

•

As administrator of the Miniwaste.eu web site, VERSIO worked on web enabling of the IT tool on this same web site.


38

The panel of local authorities outside the consortium as well as the partners LIPOR, Brno and ACR+, were also significantly involved in building the tool thanks to the tests that they performed. Assessment of the quality of results and objectives

In light of the feedback from certain local authorities, following the project’s final conference, concerning the interest in this tool, we believe that the objectives set have been reached. However, in the forthcoming months, download rates for the tool should be assessed. The partners (RM, LIPOR, Brno and ACR+) are responsible for publicising the tool’s existence. LIPOR: “LIPOR contributed to the tool development using our knowledge from the experience that we have so far. LIPOR’s waste management strategy was defined in 2007 and has been evolving, also with the contribution of Life Miniwaste. Our strategy is defined for the entire region, despite the municipalities’ strategy. We want to clarify that the strategy of LIPOR does not depend on the results of the IT TOOL. Occasionally we can use the IT TOOL for pilot projects to be implemented by LIPOR or to help and support the implementation of bio-waste projects in a specific region by parishes or municipalities. We think the IT TOOL is useful, especially for those local authorities that are starting bio-waste management. “ The promotion of this tool is available at the website of LIPOR (http://www.lipor.pt/pt/educacao-ambiental/horta-da-formiga/terra-a-terra/miniwaste-projetolife/). This tool, along with the others actions that will continue to be developed, will be promoted frequently using the LIPOR’s promoting tools: e-news, website of LIPOR, presentations or other events.

Rennes Métropole: For Rennes Métropole, a description sheet for the tool was published on the national web site for the network of local authorities committed to a local programme of waste prevention: the A3P network. Furthermore, since the ADEME was associated to creation of the tool (in the person of Denis Mazaud), the tool should be efficiently promoted in French local authorities committed to actions to prevent organic waste. ACR+: ACR+ will publicise the existence of the tool in the following ways: - Via a webinar about the IT tool in March 2013 (audience: ACR+ members). - Through a press release on the tool and the guide during March 2013 (audience: the European press). - Via an article in the “ACR+ newsline” weekly newsletter, date to be determined (audience: ACR+ members). Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

39

-

Through an article in the “ACR+ update” quarterly newsletter, during summer 2013 (audience: all the contacts of ACR+ - 12,000 contacts).

Brno: The computerized tool – the project leader handed over the electronic platform to the City of Brno in the 3rd quarter of the year 2012. The platform version in the Czech language was available at the end of 2012. Data available to the city at that time were uploaded to the platform. A print screen is shown in Attachment No. 23. Distribution plan: • • • •

2013 - website of MINIWASTE project and website of the City of Brno 2013 - Union of Towns and Municipalities of the Czech Republic. The Union associates around two and half thousand towns and municipalities. We assume that the platform will be placed at the website of the Union Continuously - the platform will be presented as part of awareness raising activities, i.e. during lectures given by the employees of Environmental Department of Brno City Municipality Continuously - the City of Brno will distribute the platform to major cities in the Czech Republic

The actual use of the computerised tool by Czech towns and municipalities is hard to assess before the distribution plan will have been fully implemented. Problems encountered

Schedule delays

The main difficulty was respecting the initially defined schedule, which was not possible to do for various reasons: -

The necessity to come to agreement on the expectations of the partners and experts concerning the tool.

-

The necessity to possess the results of the work by IRSTEA on the development of protocols to assist implementation and assessment of prevention actions, which were obtained at the end of 2011.

The final schedule was therefore as follows:


40

STEPS BIO IS study

Period / Date

Phase 1 Phase 2

March - July 2011

Phase 3 Study final report Launch of the call for tenders to IT companies

March 2012

Designation of the IT company

April 2012

Testing of the tool by the partners

June – October 2012

Installation of the tool at RM

November 2012

Installation of the tool at LIPOR and Brno

December 2012

Cost overrun As previously explained, the initial complexity of creating the tool lays in the choice of indicators. This is why Rennes Métropole called upon the assistance of a consultancy (BIO IS) to take charge of defining relevant indicators on a European scale. This service involved a wide-ranging study that generated a cost overrun of € 5,000 in relation to the initially planned budget. This initial budget corresponded to assistance with project management to prepare the call for tenders to develop the IT tool.

Adaptation to the needs of local authorities As presented in the first two reports supplied, the functions of the tool needed to be reexamined in order to optimally meet the needs of the local authorities. In this context, certain platform related functions were not deemed to be relevant. In fact, a decision-making and indicator monitoring tool was preferred. Furthermore, the mapping function was not implemented, due to its technical complexity. In fact, the tool should be suitable for use by any local authority throughout Europe, but the SIG system is not in fact very widespread on a European scale. Regarding the sociological perspective, which can help define the communication modes in order to incite inhabitants to implement preventive practices, they are strongly related to lifestyles and consumer habits and as such cannot be studied specifically in each area, using the tool. In order to solve this problem and open up new pathways to be explored, fact sheets for the collection of feedback from the partners are proposed so they can be adapted to the specific features of each territory. Furthermore, the use of the tool does not require user training as was initially planned, but help for users is made available when downloading the tool. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

41

The longer term objective is for this tool to be easily used by any local authority and to ensure its durability beyond the end of the project. Monitoring of the tool after Miniwaste In order to capitalise on the results observed in each of the local authorities using the tool, a downloading form was put in place in order to have, on the one hand, a “trace” of the local authorities using the tool, but also to be able to request that they pass on their results every year. However, this work must be carried out by a body with the required legitimacy. Contacts are in progress to find out to what extent the data recovered can be analysed, capitalised upon and re-used by bodies such as the ADEME in France. The innovative aspect

The Miniwaste tool is a tool with which it is possible to conduct a diagnostic of a territory with regard to prevention actions, but also to perform monitoring thereof, a possibility not in existence to date. Deliverables:

The tool is accessed by the Miniwaste site, in the Tools section: http://www.miniwaste.eu/fr/boite-a-outils/outil-miniwaste.html Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter dated March 29 2011: Question: “Reference to the LIFE project is not visible in the meeting minutes and the specifications. Please improve this point”. This point has been corrected. The elements in the appendices have been updated accordingly. (Annex 2.2/Indicators short-list file & Annex 2.2/Tool preparatory meetings 2010). Letter dated December 1 2011: Question: “Please give a clear presentation of how the IT tool functions. The content developed by the consultancy BioIS is interesting. However, it seems that, in order to be a genuine decisionmaking tool, the action sheets should include more elements concerning the expected results in terms of waste reduction and implementation costs. In particular, the results and feedback from the Miniwaste project must be included”. The part of the report above that presents action 2.2 gives a precise description of how the tool works as desired. Furthermore, the “scenario fact sheets” have a section dedicated to the cost of implementing the prevention actions. This cost is either the result of bibliographical research or, where possible, the results of feedback from the Miniwaste project.


42

For example, the monitoring costs indicated in the “Prevention of organic waste produced by entities other than households” sheet is data from the tender awarded by Rennes Métropole to its service provider as part of the Miniwaste project. As regards the results expected in terms of waste reduction following the implementation of prevention actions, they were not included in the tool’s fact sheets because the quantity of waste potentially diverted is dependent on each territory. Nevertheless and thanks to a computation system developed, the “diagnostic” phase of the IT tool makes it possible to estimate the quantity of waste that can potentially be diverted following implementation of each prevention action. Feedback from the Miniwaste project made it possible to collect more detailed data that was included in the IT tool, in particular data related to waste characterisation that it was possible to carry out as part of the project. Letter dated September 26 2012: Question: “This action has again suffered delays even though the schedule was already very stretched. I informed you of my concerns on this subject in my previous letters, especially concerning the impact on the final quality of the tool. In order to be able to validate the final quality of the tool produced, please could you send: - The results of the tests conducted by the 13 volunteer local authorities. I await the results of the diagnostics and the corresponding graphs for the 13 local authorities as well as their assessments concerning how easy it is to use the tool and the relevance of the information obtained. - The distribution plan for the tool, in particular on a European scale”. The IT tool in English, French, Portuguese and Czech was made available to users in December 2012 on the Miniwaste project web site. 13 local authority groups were contacted with the objective of testing the IT tool. However, out of these 13 local authorities, not all of them provided feedback and the quality of the feedback from those that replied varied depending on the local authority in question. The list of questions and requests for further information can be found in the annexes of this report (Annex 2.2/Feedback on testing of the tool). Publicising of this tool was carried out from 2011 onwards during presentations made at seminars and conferences: a regional meeting in Saint-Brieuc (on 18th November 2011), in Lorient (on 14th March 2012), at the AMORCE seminar (on 3rd April 2012) and at the ORBIT conference (on 12th June 2012). European communication was conducted via the two most recent newsletters as well as the Newslines produced by ACR+ every month. The highpoint of promoting the tool was obviously at the final conference in Rennes on 20th and 21st November with a workshop dedicated to the tools developed. Following this conference, almost 30 organisations downloaded the tool from the Miniwaste web site, which demonstrates the significant impact of this event.


43

Action 2.3 – Deployment of the IT tool by the partners (RM) Initial action dates: 01/01/2011-30/06/2011 Effective action dates: 17/03/2010 – 31/12/2012

Objectives:

The objective of this action is to make the Miniwaste IT tool initially installed by Rennes Métropole available to LIPOR and Brno. Methodology

After having developed the IT tool in English and in French for Rennes Métropole in November 2012, AMJ Group, the service Provider for Rennes Métropole, extracted all the texts from the tool. These extractions were sent respectively to LIPOR and Brno so that translations into Czech and Portuguese could be carried out by translators chosen by LIPOR and Brno. Once the translations were completed, AMJ Groupe integrated them into the IT tool in December 2012. It was then able to check whether all the functions were valid.

STEPS Installation of the tool at RM

Period / Date November 2012

Installation of the tool at LIPOR and Brno

December 2012

The innovative aspect

Apart from the innovative aspect explained previously in action 2.2, the Miniwaste tool is the only LIFE programme tool that has been developed in 4 languages: French, English, Czech and Portuguese. Deliverable

The IT tool The main deliverable, i.e. the Miniwaste IT tool, is a file in Excel format that can be accessed from any computer with the MS Office suite or the OpenOffice free software pack. It is also compatible for Macs. It is available for download from the Miniwaste web site in French, English, Czech or Portuguese.


44

Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter dated September 26 2012: “In light of the new schedule, please could you specify when and how the associated beneficiaries were able to test the tool and provide their comments. Please give details of the type of improvements made in order to adapt the tool to the context of their respective countries and to European countries. Please explain why you mention 17/03/2010 as the start date for this task even though this action had still not commenced in June 2012”. When Rennes Métropole received the first versions of the IT tool, it swiftly sent the English version to the partners and in particular LIPOR and Brno to carry out simulations of territory diagnostics and action monitoring. LIPOR and Brno performed the tests using the English version and provided feedback to Rennes Métropole. Once the English and French versions had been finalised, the tool was translated into Czech and into Portuguese following the partners’ recommendations. (Annex 2.3/LIPOR test feedback) Some reference values and certain ratios used in the tool can be modified so that European countries that will use the tool can enter their own national reference values. 17/03/2010 was mentioned as the start date for this task because it corresponds to the initial discussions about the Miniwaste tool with the partners. The development of the tool only took place in June 2012 as indicated in action 2.2.

Action 2.4 – Implementation of protocols for assessing composting projects (IRSTEA) Initial action dates: 01/04/2010 – 30/06/2011 Effective action dates: 01/04/2010 – 31/11/2011

Objectives

Following the incentives given to recycling and recovery of organic matter by the European and national environmental policies, promotion of home composting to reduce the amount of organic material going to landfill has increased. However, if the success of this promotion can be assessed thanks to the number of composting bins distributed, the efficiency of home composting in terms of diversion of organic matter from the collection of municipal solid waste remained underestimated. In France, the state of the art produced under the National Plan for Support of Domestic Composting showed that communities do not have precise figures on the amount of waste diverted from the collection following the introduction of home composting (ADEME, 2008). More generally, it appeared that local authorities rarely assessed the impacts of home composting implementation on their territory (Langlois and Resse, 2008). Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

45

Moreover, in cases where the assessment took place, the used methods were not similar (survey, monitoring of the collection, weighing household, etc.) and the significance of the results has not been verified (Resse, 2007). Therefore, communities need to validate the performance of the home composting treatment to implement it on a large scale. Evaluating the success of the introduction of home composting has also to include the assessment of the quality of compost. This compost must be suitable for agronomic use without harmful effect for humans, soils and plants. Furthermore, only getting a “nice" product will sustain the commitment of the user in the practice of home composting. Yet again the data on the quality of compost obtained by users are sorely lacking (RDC Environment, 2008). This lack of characterization of compost quality is probably due to the fact that the physico-chemical and biological analysis are costly and require tedious sampling. Considering the context previously described, Irstea (formerly CEMAGREF) proposed to include in the Miniwaste project 3 sub-tasks in order to validate assessment protocols for home composting projects: •

First protocol concerned the assessment of the quantity of organic matter diverted from municipal waste collection thanks to home composting in individual housing. For this, we proposed to compare for the same experimental area results obtained by different assessment methods, to conclude on the accuracy of the results obtained by each, and the interpretation of these results. Ultimately, this work aimed at determining the essential indicators to be acquired to estimate the flow diverted through home composting and to propose a protocol for measuring these indicators, sufficiently precise and accessible to a community.

•

Second protocol concerned methods to help municipalities to develop and monitor collective home-composting operations. Indeed, lack of data concerning the efficiency of home-composting for collective housing and big producers of organic wastes (such as school restaurants) was even more pronounced than lack of data for individual housing domestic composting. Thus this part of IRSTEA’s work aimed at proposing method to assess the quantity of waste that can be diverted from collection thanks to collective home-composting and developing technical knowledge on the collective homecomposting practice.

•

Finally third protocol concerned the assessment of home-made composts' quality. We proposed to study the link between the physico-chemical and biological indicators of compost quality and some “qualitative/sensory" indicators readily accessible to the master-composter or the individual composter. Indeed, parameters used for industrial compost characterization can be used to state on the quality of home-made compost. However these “scientific criteria" cannot be easily analysed by individual users and by municipalities. On the other hand, empirical “sensory" parameters can be easily measured by home-composters. Moreover such parameters might be easily filled in municipalities' surveys to assess the way to manage organic waste. The ultimate objective was thus to propose a simple compost assessment form.


46

Methodology

Protocol 1: Assessment of the quantity of waste diverted from collection thanks to home-composting in individual housing (Annex 2.4/Protocols/protocols 1) Proposed work and provisional timetable The aim of this part of the project was to test the most current assessment tools used by communities, to study the significance and complementarity of the results obtained with these tools and finally to propose a validated assessment protocol. The considered assessment tools were :1) a telephone survey; 2)the weighing of composted waste by volunteers; 3) the monitoring of quantities and composition of waste put in the collection bin; 4)the use of geographic information system (GIS) for the prediction of green waste production. The proposed methodology planned to test these tools on a sector of Rennes Métropole, with a telephone survey of 1000 households, a panel of 60 households for the monitoring of the quantity of waste put in the collection bin, 4 experimental campaigns of characterization of waste composition. The work was planned as proposed in the following table. Action

Deliverable products/ Milestone

Starting date

Deadline

01/01/2010

Quantity assessment of the composted waste in individual housing

Choice of the studied area Telephonic survey (setting up and exploitation) Study of the green w aste production through GIS Set up of the experimental study for waste quantification First experimental characterization

08/03/2010 07/06/2010 15/10/2010 01/06/2010 30/06/2010

Second experimental characterization

30/10/2010 31/01/2011

Third experimental characterization Fourth experimental characterization Resultats Analysis Synthesis

30/04/2011 Report Simplified protocol draft

30/06/2011

Achieved work and results The sector of Cesson-Sévigné (City of about 4000 households) was chosen in the Rennes Métropole territory to test the assessment tools previously described. In June 2010, 1000 households were asked by phone by a consultancy firm (LH2) about: the composition of the household, the type of their house, the management habits they had for food waste and green waste, a description of their composting practice (if concerned) and the possibility to be volunteer for weighing of composted waste. 30 % of the interviewed households agreed to answer. The answers enabled the Irstea team: •

To have a clear view of the sector composition (number of inhabitants, size of the gardens, composting practices, etc.).


47

•

•

To establish a typology of household habits for organic waste management and to propose to monitor 4 groups of populations: Households who are not composting; Household who are composting in pile; Households who are declaring putting their whole organic waste in composting bin; households who are declaring putting only a part of their organic waste in composting bins. To find 38 volunteer households for the weighing of composted waste

From June 2010 to may 2011, the 38 volunteer households were followed and contacted each month to know the amount and type of waste they put to composting. After 6 months, some households gave up and only 21 households still weighed their composted waste after one year. Information given through the monthly sheet enabled Irstea team: • • •

To confirm/consolidate information obtained through the telephonic survey. To establish quantity of composted food waste per inhabitant and par type of households composting habits. To conclude that weighing of composted green waste is difficult and those quantities of produced green waste have to be monitored with another tool.

From June 2010 to May 2011, the quantities of residual waste put to collection by seven groups of households were monitored thanks to weighing sensors installed on the garbage bins. The seven groups were the following: 1, 2, 3/ the previous volunteer households (pile composting, bin composting of all organic waste, bin composting of only a part of organic waste); 4, 5, 6/ three groups of 15 households not included in the volunteer panel but known for practicing composting (pile composting, bin composting of all organic waste, bin composting of only a part of organic waste); 7/ 15 households, who not practiced composting. Results showed that: • •

With the exception of July and August, the quantities collected did not vary significantly along the year. Quantities of residual waste are significantly higher for non-composting households: typology can be limited to 2 categories (composting and not composting) and the monitoring can be limited to one week per season.

Residual waste of the previous seven groups were sampled 4 times in a year (June 2010, October 2010, January 2011 and March 2011) and characterized following the standardized MODECOM method. Two types of results were obtained thanks to this method: •

•

The composition of the residual waste (in % of the total mass) did not differ significantly between composting and not composting households: if it exists, national statistics for waste composition can be used; if national statistics does not exist, characterization may be performed once a year (in October if green are not collected with residual waste, in April in other case). The characterization of residual waste cannot supply consistent information concerning green waste production.

Finally, GIS tools were used to: •

Compare the exact green area (grass + hedges / trees) of each weighing volunteer to the surface of the garden reported at the time of the survey,


48

•

•

Determine a value of production per plant and per square meter using the weighing performed by voluntary homes. This ratio will then be used as a reference for an application to a wider area by integrating: o The typology of households depending on the method of management of green waste, o The classification of surfaces of garden, Calculate the total deposit of green waste and then determine the percentage of green waste composted at home and the one brought in civic amenity centres

Thanks to SIG tools and cadastral information, we showed that interviewed households generally overestimated their garden surface. Comparing garden area with composting practice and weighing of green waste by volunteer households, it appears that the quantity of green waste put to composting ranged between 0.3 and 0.5 kg/m²/year. The typology of households proposed for food waste is not reliable for green waste. Two types are proposed depending on the garden total area: less than 300 m² or higher than 300 m². Thanks to the results obtained with the different tools, we managed to conclude that in order to assess the impact of individual home composting on the quantity of collected waste, communities have at least to: • •

Make a preliminary survey on the composting practices of households Quantify the residual waste production respectively for composting households and noncomposting households.

Then depending on the data they have or the precision they want for the assessment, two methods can be applied: a “scientific assessment” where all data have to be acquired experimentally directly on the studied territory, or a “computation assessment” where some of the data are given by statistics (national figures for example). The following tables give the tools that have to be used depending on the type of assessment and the mean figures that can be used for “computation assessment”. Assessment tool

Scientific assessment

Computation assessment

Survey

YES

YES

Measure of residual waste production

YES

YES

Weighing of composted waste by volunteers

YES

NO

GIS

YES

NO

Residual waste characterization

YES

NO

The detailed methodology to use the different tools and to obtain the ratio of food waste and green waste diverted from the collection is detailed in the scientific report proposed on the Miniwaste website

Self-assessment of results Concerning this first protocol, all the work announced in the project submission and planed in the time table was realized. The experimental part (survey, following of volunteers, residual waste characterization campaigns) were achieved in the announced deadline. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

49

Information meeting with volunteer households has been organized in June 2010 in order to maintain their motivation for weighing. Regular meeting were organized with Rennes Métropole technicians in order to discuss of the results obtained on the Rennes Métropole territory. All this work was regularly discussed with the European partners at the occasion of the steering committees and technical meeting. In September 2011, a technical meeting was organized between Irstea and Brno, at the occasion of the mid-term conference in Brno, in order to work out figures of Brno within the proposed protocol from Irstea. Moreover document and information were sent from Irstea to Brno concerning the characterization method for residual waste. Transmission of this first protocol to LIPOR was done during the technical committee in Porto in March 2012. Lastly, all the work done for this first protocol enabled the Miniwaste team to list the necessary indicators in the final Miniwaste product. Thus final report was only provided after the technical meeting in Porto in order to be sure that all partners agreed on the way to write the protocol, but all results were acquired in time with no impact on the design of the Miniwaste final tool. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC EC letter - 1st of December 2011: Question: “The results of weighing by volunteer households are not presented. However, you mention that the initial results have already been presented to the public on 08/11/10. Please send me the related presentation material”. The power point presentation and the minutes of the meeting are enclosed in the appendices. Question: “The results of waste characterisation are not presented in the report although a study report is supplied in the appendices. The campaign dates are not coherent: the first campaign was in September 2011 according to the mid-term report and 2010 according to the study report. Furthermore, please could you explain the use of these results in the project?”. In the mid-term report a paragraph appeared at the end of the First protocol part mentioning encountered problems: “PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND DELAYS “Time consumed to set-up the method for quantification of bio-waste production was higher than predicted (difficulties to define relevant locations for quantification, technical difficulties to equip the chosen locations for quantifications), which delayed its test at real scale and acquisition of data on this specific point. Whereas sampling should have started in March 2010, it started only in September 2010 i.e. 6 months later. Due to this delay, and to be able to keep 4 characterizations including summer characterization, the end of this task will be reach only in September 2011.” But this paragraph was incorrectly positioned as it concerned the second protocol. In the first protocol, the experimental campaign dates were those announced in the scientific report. Details of characterization results are given in annexes. These results have been used to understand the composition of the residual waste and compare it to the national composition and finally to measure the quantity of food waste that was not put in the composting bin. It also enabled us to state on the necessity of seasonal campaigns. Question: “The results of waste production quantification using detectors placed on the bins are not presented”.


50

The detailed results from the “chip on board” (COB) process applied to residual household waste bins are provided below:

1. Procedure for monitoring amounts collected Initially, monitoring of amounts collected for target households was made possible thanks to COB on the bins in the sector concerned. Records were planned each week for all the homes in the panel, whether weighing households or not. This weekly information was very precise and enabled regular monitoring of the households. Consequently it was no longer necessary to take 3 occasional readings per quarter as initially planned in the protocol. The first measurements were to be available from June 2010. Monitoring of amounts for the panel of homes selected was carried out at the address of the home when the waste was collected from the bin. The homes in each group were clearly identified. They were volunteer composting homes (weighers) which carried out weighing of organic waste diverted to composting and other “non-weighing composter” homes and “noncomposting” homes selected for characterisation of OMR. All extra information such as the number of inhabitants per home was obtained via a telephone survey. The weight recorded each week for each home that put out its bin for collection was then consolidated according to the group of homes concerned to obtain an average weight per inhabitant and per home. Due to a different number of inhabitants and homes in each group, the kilogram per inhabitant or per home per year or per week was used as the yard-stick between the groups. In theory, the start of the study was to coincide with the installation of chips on the bins. The data of 28th June was the data acquired when records were taken for characterisation of the OMR. After several weeks, it emerged that certain chips were not functioning properly. Consequently, the data presented for 5th July in table 4 is incomplete and is only provided for guidance. The end of the summer holidays seemed to be the most suitable moment to detect and solve the problems concerning the COB on the bins. Acquisition of the data was therefore only effective when all the conditions were definitively in place. Monitoring was planned for a full year in tandem with characterisation of the waste. The delays incurred in implementing monitoring of waste collected thus reduced the data acquisition period for some homes. In May 2011, analysis of the results obtained showed inconsistencies in the values recorded and clear shortcomings in the values. It emerged that several problems were the root cause. Firstly, in the beginning, only two waste collection trucks were equipped with the measuring equipment for the 3 circuits concerned. As a result, in the end, weighing was performed for 2 circuits from July onwards and for the entire sector from 20th September onwards. The following table below shows the number of homes concerned in each group. Whilst there did not appear to be a problem with the chip strictly speaking, the same could not be said for identification of the chip number with the attribution of the address. This required subsequent checking of all the chips for our panel in order to ascertain that each weight attributed to the home was in fact the actual weight recorded by the home. It was only possible to carry out such checking at the time of the OMR collection since it was necessary for the bin to be put out on the pavement.


51

As regards the reliability of the weighing equipment, the trucks experienced problems with the antenna that enabled recording of the data. Similarly, dynamic weighing can only be effective under certain conditions. As such, all the “zero” values recorded correspond to collection of the bin when the weight could not be measured. The use of equipment requires training for the waste collection personnel, as well as practice and proficiency. Even though the errors and levels of uncertainty evaluated to be 7% at the start of the study in June 2010 decreased to 3% in May 2011, the effect on our study was significant. Individual weighing each week by each home presented the advantage of precise monitoring on small, well-identified samples. The uncertainty with regard to the values obtained should be taken into account, but seems difficult (or even impossible) to evaluate. To tap a maximum amount of data and smooth over certain anomalies, the quantities are expressed in kg per inhabitant per year instead of the tonnage collected.

2. Amounts of residual household waste per inhabitant according to home group This information was obtained each week for each household in the group. These weight amounts were consolidated to provide a monthly value in order to monitor seasonal impacts. At the end of the study, it will be possible to produce an annual value per group and establish significant differences if they exist. The waste characterisation campaigns were systematically accompanied by a measured amount of waste averaged out for the number of inhabitants concerned. This procedure was maintained as part of the Miniwaste project. The results obtained are shown in the table below: Amount collected recorded via OMR during the 4 characterisation campaigns Household groups Kg/inhab./yr composition Weighing households

Composting households

Non-weighing households

Noncomposting

June

October

January

March

1-Tas

99

91

108

120

2-CI+

82

65

63

57

3-CI-

47

91

77

90

4-Tas

107

117

139

92

5-CI+

119

123

110

99

6-CI –

61

67

71

75

7-NC

148

138

154

156

The advantage of monitoring the amounts via the bins' COB was that it gave data each week and over several weeks. These weekly amounts can be globalised to obtain average amounts per month and per quarter. The amounts collected throughout the year for the panel display lower output of waste in July and August.


52

Change in amounts recorded by OMR over 1 year

quantités (enkg/hab.an)

Evolution des quantités d'OMR collectées sur une année 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 juin

juillet août sept

oct

nov

déc

1.PeseurTas temps 3.PeseurCI5.CI+NonPeseur 7.Non PeseurNon composteur

janv

févr

mars avril

mai

2.Peseur CI+ 4.Tas NonPeseur 6.CI-NonPeseur

The waste output OMR recordings vary very significantly depending on the month of the year. July and August stand out from the other months due to the lower amounts of waste produced.

Question: “The correlation with the previous study on green plant waste (not mentioned in this report) is awaited as provided for in the project proposal”. Two quantities of green waste were studied with GIS and weighed homes: the amount of green waste and composted green waste brought in waste. The overall results, explaining the interest of GIS is discussed below. 1. Simplified method

Composted green waste Quantities of composted yard waste by individual households have been determined by the weighing volunteers and the surface of garden declared by users: 0,3 à 0,5 Kg/m².an Moreover, a GIS study of the ratio between vegetal surface and total surface of plots determined that a mean coefficient of 70 % of vegetal surface can be applied to individual house plots on the Rennes territory. With the mean composting coefficient, the knowledge of the number of composting households, the knowledge of plot surface thanks to cadastral information and the use of the 70 % ratio to approximate vegetal surface, it is then easy for communities to predict the global quantity of green waste that are diverted from civic amenities or collection thanks to composting.

Green waste put in civic amenities 5 homes were regularly weighed the green waste that they put to civic amenity. These data indicate a production of 0.7 kg / m²/year. This value based on some measurements was confronted with other values for a consistency check. To check if this value of 0.7 kg / m²/year seems logical, it is possible to estimate the current situation thanks to GIS tools for comparison. Indeed, considering all contributions to recycling centres in Rennes Métropole and plant surfaces obtained by total household GIS processing, it is possible to determine the amount put to civic amenity in Kg / m²/ year which reflects the current situation (households who are practicing home composting or not) : between 1 and 1.1 Kg / m²/ year. The difference between this average value and the value of 0.7 kg/m²/year for households practicing composting seemed logical.


53

Thus, the only operating cadastre can again be sufficient to obtain an overall estimate of flows to collection centres per m² (before or after promoting composting) considering that 68% of garden plots are vegetated. 2. Advanced method Composted green waste Thanks to the weighing performed by volunteers it was able to differentiate the quantity of composted grass clippings and hedges clippings. Thus with a thorough GIS study it is possible to determine grass surfaces and hedges surfaces and to calculate the quantity of composited waste of the two types on a large territory.

Green waste put in civic amenities Overall average observed value of 1 kg / m². 1.1 year Kg / m². Annual deposits of green waste is perhaps not stable from a civic amenity to another and the use of tools spatial analysis to better assess these differences, not on a global scale but on wide zones of influence of collection centres. Indeed collection centres are supplied with the green waste by residents of multiple communes. The method that we called "Net-Drain" uses extensions Spatial Analyst and Network Analyst of SOFTWARE Arcgis ®. Modelling of access time to waste disposal facilities was conducted by assigning speeds to road types. Then the border zones of influence were delineated by mobilizing capabilities of Spatial Analyst. This division of the territory into zones of influence shows variability of accessibility to recycling centres and therefore the service provided to users because the surfaces of these areas are sometimes very different. Moreover, it must take into account a wider territory. Indeed, the civic amenities are widely open and areas that are not part of Rennes Métropole can contribute to inputs in the civic amenities managed by Rennes Métropole. Conversely, some residents of Rennes Métropole have an interest in depositing their waste in waste disposal facilities outside of Rennes Métropole territory. It is then possible, using GIS to assess the green surfaces of households in each zone of influence and to calculate the average rate of intake for each specific civic amenity. 3. Conclusion In conclusion, a simplified method and an advanced method can be proposed to allow local managers to obtained results about green waste production and destination. This approach would nevertheless have to be validated by additional data weighed and spatial analysis test on other sectors.


54

Protocol 2: Assessment of the potential of collective home-composting in terms of waste reduction and study of technical specificities (Annex 2.4/Procols/protocols2) Proposed work and provisional timetable The aims of this part of the work were to assess the quantity of organic waste diverted from collection by collective composting and to study the specific requirement s in terms of equipment and practices to ensure a god acceptability of composting by inhabitants and a good quality of the obtained compost. Indeed the key issues to assess and implement the collective composting on a territory seemed to be: •

•

• •

The knowledge of the production of food waste per year per capita in collective housing in order to dimension composting equipment and the knowledge of the real diversion rate, Data on compost quality (mainly health and odour for neighbouring), and potentially data on odour emissions and GHG emissions during composting, which requires a prior assessment of the relevance of indicators to be measured, Data on practices (listing and schedule of interventions) as well as features for the design variables (residence time, processing capacity), Evaluation of the acceptability of the operation by users on the basis of a survey.

The planed work was the following: •

Task 1: Design of a measurement method of organic waste production for collective housing o Experimental campaigns for quantification and characterization of residual waste

•

Task 2: design of a measurement method to assess the diversion of organic waste from collection by collective home composting implementation o Equipment and follow up of three collective composting sites

•

Task 3: Assessment method for composting quality (process and compost) o Equipment and follow up of the same three collective composting sites and test of new types of composting systems for catering sites

•

Task 4: Development of a sizing tool for collective composting sites o Analysis of follow up results

•

Task 5: Survey of the composting acceptability


55

The provisional timetable for this protocol is proposed below: Action 2.4.b

Deliverable products/ Milestone First Experimental characterization on waste quantification for collective housing Second Experimental characterization on waste quantification for collective housing Third Experimental characterization on waste quantification for collective housing Fourth Experimental characterization on waste quantification for collective housing

Synthesis of results Quantity assessment of the composted waste in Qualification of collective housing management and requirements requirements for existing collective composters in RM : Set up for three locations Experimental following of the composters Compost sampling and analysis for the three locations Experimental following of the composters: continuation Acceptability survey Results analysis

Synthesis

Starting date Deadline 30/06/2010

30/11/2010

28/02/2011

31/05/2011 Report and protocol draft for waste quantification in collective housing

30/06/2011

30/06/2010

31/05/2011 31/05/2011

31/05/2011 31/05/2011 31/05/2011 Report and protocol draft for composting assessment in collective housing

30/06/2011

The follow up of new systems was part of the action 3.1 but was led and analysed at the same time than work done on existing collective composting sites:


56

Action 3.1

Comparison of different type of composters in collective housing and collective catering

Deliverable products/ Milestone

Starting date

Choice of 3 collective housings ; Choice of 3 types of composters (different from the ones already used by RM) ; choice of one collective catering location and associate composter Installation of the chosen composters at the chosen locations Training of the collective housing residents and the collective catering employees to manage the new composters Assessment of the collective composting following the protocol proposed in 2.4 Results analysis

Deadline

30/11/2010 31/03/2011

30/06/2011

30/11/2012 Final report

Synthesis

31/12/2012 31/12/2012

Achieved work and results Quantification of organic waste production in collective housing In 2010, after choosing a urban area of Rennes Métropole, the required number of locations was determined to sample about 2 tons residual waste par characterization campaign. Then a random draw was realized among 2000 addresses. Finally 41 addresses were kept representing 610 flats and about 1100 inhabitants. Four campaigns of characterization and quantification of residual waste were realized: September 2010, December 2010, March 2011 and June 2011. This took into account the possible variation due to seasonal effect. Moreover, for each campaign, residual waste was sampled on Monday and Thursday as the sampling locations were collected two times per week. Quantity of waste was measured thanks to three methods: 1/determination of the average density of waste and measure of the waste volume in collected bins, 2/ weighing of the collecting truck before and after collection, 3/ use of bins equipped with weighing sensors. In terms of characterization, initial samples were divided to finally keep 50 kg and the MODECOM method was applied (see Protocol 1). The results showed an average production of waste of about 145 kg/in./year, inferior to the average of Rennes Métropole territory. It underlined the importance of determining specifically this production for collective housing. Three methods of quantification gave comparable results. Characterization results showed that organic content in residual waste was about 30 % as for individual housing. Thus if national statistics about waste composition exists, a specific characterization is not necessary.


57

Quantification of organic waste diverted from collection by collective composting Three collective composting sites of Rennes Métropole were equipped for weighing of waste put in the composting bins (2 sites in December 2010 and 1 in February 2011). Two methods of composted waste quantification were tested: 1/ a collective weighing (people were ask to put their waste in a first container that was transferred every 3 or 4 days by a volunteer who weigh all waste before putting it in the composting bin); 2/ an individual weighing (volunteers were asked to weigh their own waste before putting it in the composting bin). The first method lasted only 6 months because volunteers did not want to continue; the second method lasted 8 months. Quantity of diverted waste were about 43 kg/composting in./year through collective weighing and about 47 kg/composting in./year through individual weighing. These figures were higher than the content of organic waste in the residual waste (about 42 kg/in./year). It showed that volunteers’ behaviour in terms of organic waste is different from the average of the population. Considering that the ratio of diversion cannot be higher than the maximum of diversion in individual housing (about 75 %), a method of calculation of the diverted waste was proposed on the basis of the weighed organic waste corrected by a function of the participation ratio to collective composting. Moreover it enabled the research team to determine the necessary indicators to include in the final MINIWASTE tool (number of inhabitants par address, number of inhabitants involved in composting, quantity of organic waste produced at the considered address, etc.) Study of composting equipment, composting process and compost quality – Sizing tool (Action 2.4 and 3.1) In order to validate and/or optimize the classical practice of collective home-composting, it was chosen to compare four types of composting systems and to follow them for: kinetics of filling, temperature, odours, presence of insects , quality of composts (by sensory assessment of inhabitants and by standard analysis – see protocol 3). The four types of composting systems were: 1/ the classical vertical static composting bin; 2/a new prototype (Irstea) of vertical static composting system; 3/ a rotating system commercially available; 4/ a new prototype (Irstea) of rotating system. The 3 sites studied for organic waste quantification were equipped with the first system and followed up for fermentation and maturation composting phases between January and June 2011. A school canteen was equipped with the third system and followed up between March 2011 and December 2011. A collective restaurant was equipped with the second and fourth systems and followed up between September 2011 and January 2012. Main results of this follow up were the following: Regarding composters’ efficiency, data obtained showed that: • • •

rotating composters allow more homogeneous tendencies meaning they should also be easier to control, taking into account they augment exchanges with surrounding atmosphere, rotating composters seem have a higher potential for odour emissions, perforated rotating composter favour aeration but lead to lower temperature rise and mostly higher water evaporation, they may also favour odour emissions,


58

• • • •

the emptying of the rotating composters, especially in the marketed one is difficult given that the hatch system is not handy at all, the bio-waste in the rotating composters shape balls and thus the rotating composters are maybe inappropriate for the maturation phase, the process quality in rotating composters seems better than in static vertical composters at the beginning of the fermentation (without to know how long they are more efficiency), Visually with a filling rate of the rotating composter superior to 50%, the turning seems loss in efficiency (the manufacturer’s instructions recommend a filing rate of at most 75%).

Regarding process, data obtained showed that: •

•

• • • • • • •

Residence time in fermentation should be at least of 45 to 60 days and in our opinion total residence time (fermentation + maturation) should be at least 120 days and even 180 days, however this imposes at first that conditions in both fermentation and maturation are optimized. Moisture was a main parameter of biodegradation in fermentation and in maturation. The control of water content through the design of the equipment or the process conditions should be carefully studied (too low content in moisture when treating meal consumption wastes), low BA/OW ratio (between 10 and 20% in mass) seem sufficient in rotating composters, turning is requested during composting in vertical static composter, stirring should also be promoted, the quantitative influence of the BA/OW ratio upon composting kinetic in vertical static composters and even rotating ones should be clarified through some experiments in better, controlled conditions, a value of 6 kg/day/m2 should not be exceeded when composting meal wastes or meal preparation wastes in rotating composters, rotating composters should rather be used for the first step of fermentation and even only a part of fermentation step, a low ratio BA/OW (20%) coupled with stirring allowed to apply a kinetic of filling around 8 kg/day/m2 in static vertical composters, the impact of stirring and of the ratio BA/OW should be clearly quantified in vertical static composters.

Regarding compost quality, all the composts analysed were in agreement with French Standard NF U 44-051. However, it should be remembered that these composts were produced following controlled process conditions. More, questions still persist regards contents in lead, and copper for composts produced at the bottom of buildings and regards E. Coli and Enteroccoci contents for composts produced at collective restaurants. The reasons for the high contents should be investigated. Moreover, thanks to all knowledge acquired during the follow up, a sizing tool for composting sites was designed. This tool is included in the final MINIWASTE tool.


59

Acceptability survey A survey was proposed but it was not implemented in this form because Rennes Métropole conducted another survey including question of acceptability with much more people questioned than Irstea could have done. Self-assessment of results Aside from investigating the acceptability of composting sites, all the work reported was done. The monitoring of the three composting sites already installed in collective housing was delayed from about 4 months because of the difficulty of finding volunteers to weigh waste. A delay was also observed concerning the monitoring of new types of composters for catering sites because of some technical difficulties in building the prototype of rotating composting system. Moreover the Irstea staff time spent on this task was greater than expected. Nevertheless, the obtained results concerning quantification and diversion of waste were obtained in time to be discussed with partners during the Brno and Porto steering/technical committees and to be included in the final MINIWASTE tool. Moreover, linking work planed in action 2.4 and 3.1 enabled the research team to obtain enough data to validate the composting site sizing tool. Finally, the monitoring done on new composting systems on catering sites was the occasion to train local employees to manage composting systems. The considered sites are continuing the experiment.

Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC EC letter of the 1rst of December 2011: Question: “According to the annexes, the results concerning analysis of the odours are available, but they are not presented in the report”. All results concerning sensory assessment, which concerns partly odours, are presented in the final scientific report of Protocol 2 (Chapter 4 p 53 to 55 and Chapter 5). This report is available on the Miniwaste website Question: “The start and end dates of compost temperature monitoring should be mentioned. The results of this study should be presented. The use of these results (odour and temperature) should be explained”. As mentioned previously monitoring of composting sites were performed from January 2011 to June 2011 for the three collective housing composting sites, from March 2011 to December 2011 for the school canteen and from September 2011 to January 2012 for the other catering site. Results are presented in the scientific final report (Chapter 4 p 47 to 49). Temperature measurements helped in the understanding of the establishment of good biodegradation condition within the composting system and gave also information about the accuracy of the kinetics of waste supply. Odour results were used to validate the best feeding kinetics and the composting conditions. Question: “Many protocols have been tested. Their necessity should be explained and their assessment as well as comparison should be presented”.


60

The final scientific report exposes the different methods used especially for waste quantifications and state about the accuracy of each of them in order to advise the simplest and more reliable method for the communities’ assessment. Question: “Use and dissemination of the validated protocols should be highlighted. Will they all be integrated into the IT tool? Is creation of a guide planned?” All results and advised protocols are presented in the final scientific report of Protocol 2 that is available on the MINIWASTE website. Moreover all protocols concerning quantity, diversion assessment and sizing tool are included in the final MINIWASTE tools; finally these protocols have been presented to European partners who can use them for their own assessment of collective composting projects. Question: “Please state what the difference is between the actions planned within the scope of this task (compare the performance of different existing composter bins, etc.) and the actions performed in part C of action 3.1. with tests of prototypes”. As precise previously, work proposed in the action 2.4 and in the action 3.1 were complementary. Action 2.4 concerned already equipped composting sites from collective housing locations. Action 3.1 concerned the dissemination of collective composting to a new application (collective catering sites) with new composting systems (prototypes). However, as the methods of monitoring were the same, the work proposed in Action 2.4 and action 3.1 were realised at the same time (2011) and analysed in the same report.

Protocol 3: Assessment of the home-made composts quality (Annex 2.4/Procols/protocols3) Proposed work and provisional timetable This part of IRSTEA’s work aimed at: • Obtaining a first attempt of compost quality database, regarding to standards criteria • Investigating correlations between scientific and sensory criteria • Proposing a practical form to assess home-made compost quality, that could be used by individual composters and by municipalities To reach the previous objectives, a research program divided in three main and consecutive tasks was proposed: •

•

Task 1: Bibliographic study of physico-chemical and "sensory" parameters for composts quality assessment o A review of European standards and guidelines on composts and soil improvers o A review of existing data on home-made compost quality Task 2: Experimental research of correlations between physico-chemical and "sensory" criteria o Choice of the indicators to characterize home-made compost samples o Preparation of the home-made compost sampling campaign on Rennes Métropole territory


61

•

o Sampling and analysis campaign Task 3: Proposal and test of a practical form for compost quality assessment

The proposed timetable was the following: Action

Quality assessment of home-made composts

Deliverable products/ Milestone Starting date Bibliographic study on physico-chemical and organoleptic parameters for compost quality evaluation 01/03/2010 Set up of an evaluation grid for compost quality 01/09/2010 preparation of experimental test of the evaluation grid 01/09/2010 Experimental campaign : Test of the grid and compost sampling (20) 01/11/2010 Composts analysis and Draft of a final research of correlation evaluation grid for between physico-chemical compost 01/11/2010 and organoleptic parameters. qualification Experimental Test of the final grid (40) 01/04/2011 Report and protocol for Synthesis compost quality 01/05/2011 assessment

Deadline

31/08/2010 15/10/2010 31/10/2010

15/12/2010

31/03/2011 30/04/2011

30/06/2011

Achieved work and results Task 1: Review of data on Home-made compost quality A review of European standards and guidelines on composts and soil improvers has been performed. Moreover, existing data on home-made compost quality have been searched. Based on the most relevant references, a report has been written that presents: • • •

Which physico-chemical parameters are relevant to state on compost quality Some examples of standards General knowledge on home-made compost quality

•

Non-chemical indicators that can be used as compost quality indicators

Task 2: Experimental research of correlations between physico-chemical and "sensory" criteria Based on the review report a list of indicators was proposed to be analysed on compost samples: Physic-chemical and biological parameters: • Dry matter content: sample drying 80°C until the mass loss of the sample during 24 hours was lower than 0.5% of its weight • Organic matter: dried ground samples calcined at 550°C during 4 hours Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

62

• •

• •

•

• •

• • • • • • • • •

Impurities content: standardized method pH-value: determined on wet samples using pH Ion meter, after soaking for 24 hours without shaking at 5ºC, in just enough distilled water to produce a solution in which to place a probe Heavy metals (As, Se, Pb, Cr, Ni, Zn, Cd, Cu, Hg): standardized method Total Carbon: elementary analysis on the dried ground samples (ThermoFlash 2000 elementary analyser) based on standard methods used for soil quality and wastes characterization Total Nitrogen: elementary analysis on the dried ground samples (ThermoFlash 2000 elementary analyser) based on standard methods used for soil quality and wastes characterization Soluble Carbon: on aqueous extracts of composts by high combustion followed by infrared detection according to standards on water analysis Soluble Nitrogen: measured after mineralization of the compost extract within a strong acid medium followed by steam distillation and titrimetric determination (according to standardized analytical method N-NH4+: determined by steam distillation and titrimetric determination on nonmineralized aqueous extracts of the wastes N-NO3-; N-NO2P205: standardized methods K2O: standardized methods Salmonella: standardized methods Helminthes eggs: standardized methods PAH, PCB: standardized methods Germination tests: germination index in Petri dish, cress seeds on paper soaked with compost extract Biochemical fractionation: Van-Soest method for fibbers extraction.

"Sensory" parameters: • • • • • • •

Temperature: during fist test, choice between cold, warm, hot Moisture: fist test Odours: multiple choices in the list of the odour wheel (11 categories of odours) Presence of living organisms: multiple choices between worms, flies, midges, maggots, ants, fungi Colour: green, brown, black (to be précised) Texture: fine, crumbly, pasty, lumpy, dense Homogeneity: of colour, of texture

It was proposed to sample 60 home-made composts: 40 from individual housing and 20 from collective housing. For individual housing the panel list already composed for the quantity assessment (First protocol) was asked for sampling. A call for volunteers was also launched among Rennes Métropole employees. The sampling occurred only if no compost has been removed since at least 5 months. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

63

For collective housing, sampling sites have been chosen with Rennes Métropole: maturation bins had to be filled with compost in progress since at least 5 months. Compost were sampled in the bottom third of the compost heap or composting bin. Around 3 kg of compost were sampled (for a 300 l bin): 2.5kg for physico-chemical analysis and 0.5kg for bacterial analysis. At the occasion of each sampling, a survey form with different choices for sensory parameters was filled with the compost makers. These volunteers had also the possibility to add commentaries on the quality of their compost but also on the assessment form: adequacy of the used terms, other ways to state on the quality of their compost. We chose to realize 2 campaigns of sampling in order to test winter composts and spring/summer composts. Moreover, in order to test the assessment form, and as the sampling conditions were harder in winter, the first tested group contained less samples: • •

November-December 2010 : 14 individual composts ; 5 collective composts May-July 2011 : 25 individual composts ; 15 collective composts

A data base for compost quality was filled. For the first group of sampling, a multivariate analysis and/or PCA (principal component analysis) was used to discriminate interesting sensory indicators. Statistical analyses between all data (first and second sampling group) were also performed in order to find correlations between physico-chemical and "sensory" parameters. Main results of the physic-chemical and biological parameters are synthesized in the following tables: Dry Matter (%) Organic Matter (%DM) Organic Matter (%WM) COD total (mg O2/g DM) Total carbon (mg/g DM) Total nitrogen (mg/g DM) C/N

French Standard >30 %DM

>20 % DM

>8

Soluble COD (mgO2/gDM) Soluble carbon (mg/gDM) Soluble inorganic carbon (mg/gDM) Soluble Kjeldhal nitrogen (mg/gDM) Nitrates (mg/g DM)

Winter Spring Winter Spring Collective Mean individual Mean Individual Mean collective Mean Collective Mean 35,4 33,7 34,4 35,1 34,9

General Mean

Individual Mean

34,3

34,3

52,0

46,8

47,0

46,7

62,1

63,3

63,6

16,0

15,0

15,5

14,7

21,4

22,1

22,4

754,9

666,9

671,1

664,6

926,7

942,6

967,0

290,9

264,8

262,3

266,1

341,9

346,7

352,2

21,4

20,2

18,4

21,2

23,8

24,0

23,6

14,1

13,7

14,6

13,2

15,0

15,2

15,9

28,8

22,0

13,5

25,4

40,6

42,0

39,0

10,8

8,4

3,6

10,3

27,0

21,4

15,9

1,2

1,2

0,6

1,4

1,2

1,2

1,2 2,4

2,0

1,6

0,7

1,9

2,7

2,7

0,8

0,8

1,0

0,7

1,0

1,0

8,1

8,1

7,9

8,2

8,1

8,1

French Standard

General Mean

Individual Mean

< 3 % WM

0,7

0,6

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,8

0,8

< 3 % WM

0,8

0,7

0,7

0,7

0,9

0,9

0,9

< 3 % WM

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,5

0,5

French Standard

General Mean

Individual Mean

Viable Helminth eggs /1,5 g DM

absence

4/59

3/39

1/14

2/25

1/20

1/5

0/15

Salmonella

absence

1/59

1/39

1/14

0

0/20

0

0

pH

Total Nitrogen (% WM) Potassium (en K2O) (% MB) Phosphorus (en P2O5) (% MB)

8,2

Winter Spring Winter Spring Collective Mean individual Mean Individual Mean collective Mean Collective Mean

Winter Spring Winter Spring Collective Mean individual Mean Individual Mean collective Mean Collective Mean

For analysed chemical parameters, home-made composts were generally in line with the proposed specifications. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

64

For example, organic matter content was lower than the French specifications for soil improvers but in line with the threshold proposed by ECN. Considering heavy metals, home-made composts fulfilled strictest specifications, unless for cadmium and mercury, those are just in line with French standards. Regarding organic pollutants, home-made composts were far under the strictest specifications for PAH. Regarding pathogens, at a European level, mainly salmonella are analysed. Sampled composts were free of salmonella (except 1 sample that should be verified). Thus, on conclusion, regarding the European and Canadian guidelines, home-made composts are safe and can be used as soil improvers. Hence, global physic-chemical characteristics don’t discriminate quality among sampled composts on a standard point of view. Nevertheless, added analyses that were performed can discriminate the level of biodegradation between the studied composts: soluble chemical parameters and germination index. Concerning the sensory parameters, results obtained through the statistical analysis of the first sampling group were confirmed by the second one: • • • •

Best discriminant indicators (statistical analysis) between composts are Living forms and Odours Colour is considered as a good quality indicator but actually it doesn’t discriminate composts Heterogeneity/Homogeneity and texture are difficult to appreciate by users Visual rate of decomposition is often cited by users to assess their composts

We could not find any direct correlation between physic-chemical parameters and sensory parameters. Nevertheless we found reliable links between “age” (which is linked with extent of biodegradation) and GI (germination indices – phytotoxicity test), between GI and chemical oxygen demand and nitrogen content, between GI and living organisms and lastly between age and odours. Thus it appeared that the most discriminant sensory parameters can be linked to the extent of the compost stabilisation and also to its potential phytotoxicity. Task 3: Proposal and test of a practical form for compost quality assessment The assessment form was discussed with European partners at the occasion of the steering committee in Rennes in January 2011. It was approved by all and then used by Brno. The results of the experimental work (task 2) were all presented and discussed with partners during the steering/technical committees in Brno (September 2011) and Porto (March 2012). As it was not possible to establish correlation between physic-chemicals or biological parameters and sensory parameters, but considering that the study gave a lot of information on compost quality and answered questions about when using the compost, we proposed a final assessment sheet gathering all new knowledge about: • •

Message to disseminate about home-made compost Frequent asked question by users about compost quality and composting

This assessment sheet appeared as an attached file in the final Miniwaste tool. Self-assessment of results Concerning this last protocol, a large experimental work was done giving a good view of homemade compost quality.


65

The obtained results enabled us to propose a way to advise users on the quality of their compost and on the communication municipalities can diffuse about home-made compost quality. The results were transferred to partners through the technical/steering committees. Because of the task leader maternity leave at the beginning of the project (March to September 2010), this task was delayed. Indeed the review report was finally written in October 2010. Experimental work only began in mid-November 2010. Moreover changes occurred concerning the planed experimental work. The laboratory analysis work was much longer than planned and it was not so easy to find volunteers for sampling. Thus the second experimental campaign began only at the end of May 2011 and analysis work (laboratory + computation of all results) for this campaign was completely achieved only in November 2011. Hopefully this delay had no influence on the design of the final Miniwaste tool. Indeed, from mid-2011 it was clear that no formal correlation could appear between physic-chemical and sensory parameters and that regarding standards specifications, home-made composts did not present important problem. Thus it was rapidly decide not to include quality parameters as indicators in the tables of the final Miniwaste tool, but as an annexed document. The final report concerning this protocol was finished in May 2012 that enabled us to take in account the discussions we had with partners in Porto in March. This report is available on the Miniwaste website.

Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter from the 1st of December 2011: Question: “According to the report, during the first sampling campaign, 20 samples were collected (15 from individual homes and 5 from collective homes). According to the accompanying letter, only 14 were taken from individual homes and the report including the results in the annexes only concerns 10 samples. Please explain these inconsistencies and give a clear presentation of the campaigns conducted and the results obtained in the body of the report”. During the first sampling campaign it was planned to sample: 15 composts for individual housing and 5 for collective structures. One of the volunteer for individual housing was finally unavailable and thus we sampled only 14 composts for individual housing and 5 fours collective structures. At the date of the mid-term report, the exposed results were not completely analysed and thus an intermediate report was written that exposed only 10 results. However, the final report showed results obtained with all samples (59). Question: “Please give a clearer presentation of the work carried out on the sensory parameters. The samples described by the people interviewed must be clarified. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies between dates: the campaigns concerning the sensory parameters were carried out in April 2010 and the standard analysis took place in November 2010. They cannot be the same samples and therefore the correlations between the parameters cannot be made”. The first sampling campaign began in November 2010. As described above, during each sampling, the volunteers were asked to fill a survey (4 pages) with choices about sensory parameters: Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

66

• • • • • • •

Temperature: during fist test, choice between cold, warm, hot Moisture: first test Odours: multiple choices in the list of the odour wheel (11 categories of odours) Presence of living organisms: multiple choices between worms, flies, midges, maggots, ants, fungi Colour: green, brown, black (to be précised) Texture: fine, crumbly, pasty, lumpy, dense Homogeneity: of colour, of texture

All data collected were gathered in an excel sheet and used for statistical analysis (PCA/multivariate analysis or correlation search). On the other hand, composts samples were partly send to external laboratory (especially for biological analysis) and partly stored by freezing at the laboratory in order to optimize chemical analysis. Thus it can be possible that compost sampled in April was analysed for some parameters only a few weeks later, depending on our laboratory availability. List of deliverable products

Main deliverable products are the three scientific report available on the Miniwaste website: • •

•

Resse A. and Bioteau T, May 2012, Impact of individual home-composting on the quantities of MSW collected, 30 p Sollier C., De Guardia A., Benoist J.C. et al., July 2012, Supply of methods and data to implement, optimize, rationalize and evaluate the operations of local composting in collective homes or at collective restaurants, 103 p Tremier A., May 2012, Home-made compost quality: methods of assessment and results, 35p

Action 3 – Implementation and assessment of the waste reduction plans Action 3.1 – Implementation and assessment of the waste reduction plan by Rennes Métropole

ACHIEVEMENTS FOR ACTIONS NOT CO-FINANCED BY LIFE+

Communal composting in apartment blocks Since 2007, the company Eisenia has been working for Rennes Métropole in order to help the inhabitants involve themselves in collective composting in their neighbourhoods. Its missions are to raise awareness among inhabitants interested by collective composting and to provide support for them with regard to technical matters (the composting process, advice on use of compost, etc.). This support is brought to a close when the inhabitants are able to manage the composting sites themselves. Having come to its end in September 2010, the contract was extended by an amendment until 31st December 2010 in order to prepare the actions supported by the LIFE+ programme. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

67

Communal composting in collective catering As regards composting in public or private structures in Rennes Métropole, an agreement was in place between RM and the CIELE association until the end of 2010 for CIELE to monitor the collective catering composting sites. In 2010, 4 sites were monitored by this association (3 schools and one retirement home) as part of the agreement. Training sessions In 2010, training was provided by the CIELE association.16 sessions (8 for module 1 and 8 for module 2) were held, training 115 people, at the Taupinais eco-centre site in Rennes. The training was made up of two modules: • The 1st module (2 hrs 30) of theoretical training, including presentation of composting techniques and reclamation of green plant waste. • The 2nd module (1 hr 30) of practical training: observation of compost, problem solving, etc. These 16 sessions took place on the following dates: 09/01, 13/01, 02/02, 06/02, 06/03, 07/04, 24/04, 22/05, 05/06, 26/06, 25/09, 16/10, 13/10, 17/11, 20/11, 11/12 in 2010. Mobilisation of composting guides In 2010, RM invited the inhabitants in charge of the collective composting sites and the composting guides to 5 working meetings. Approximately 50 people attended these working meetings. The aim was to collate all the questions and collect the ideas for projects from the inhabitants. It emerged that the composting guides needed to meet within their neighbourhoods to share their experiences, questions, good practices, etc. Public conferences Denis Pépin, a specialist in sustainable gardening, held several conferences in 2010 on composting and gardening: on 25/05 in Bruz, on 24/09 and 02/10 in Cesson-Sévigné and on 07/10 in Betton (3 towns that are part of Rennes Métropole). Promotion of green plant waste reclamation As part of its policy to reduce organic waste at the source, Rennes Métropole aims to promote shredding/grinding of green plant waste by subsidising the purchase of shredders/grinders and mulching lawn-mowers: - For private individuals who form an association and purchase equipment to be shared. - For the technical services in the conurbation’s towns. This action, which was not initially present in the Rennes Métropole waste reduction plan, was incorporated into the Miniwaste project prevention actions via the amendment to the project submitted to the EC in September 2012. Only the expenditure is not recognised as expenses eligible for support from the LIFE+ programme. As part of the request for an amendment to the project, RM proposed to define 2 new achievement indicators: Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

68

Initial objectives

Objectives added

Number of grinding/shredding associations

-

14

Amount of communal grinding/shredding equipment

-

24

ACHIEVEMENTS FOR ACTIONS CO-FINANCED BY LIFE+ Initial action dates: 01/07/2010-31/12/2012 Effective action dates: as above

COMPONENT A: local waste reduction plan Methodology

Action sheets were written at the beginning of the project in order to define the Miniwaste project actions for Rennes Métropole. The final versions of these sheets (from December 2012) are appended to the report (Annex 3.1/ RM action sheets/MW Optigède sheets).

The report on the waste reduction actions was presented to the Rennes Métropole community council on 20/12/12 as the officially approved waste reduction plan (see deliberation forms in the annexes (Annex 3.1/RM council deliberations). COMPONENT B: Awareness-raising and mobilisation activities Overall objectives / Expected results

Initial objectives were fixed for each action on signing of the Miniwaste project. During the first half of 2011, it became apparent that these objectives could not be reached. This is why a request for an amendment was submitted to the EC in September 2012 in order to revise the quantitative objectives (see the table below) downwards without diminishing the project’s environmental impact:


69

Initial objectives

Revised objectives*

500

220

Number of homes participating in collective composting

5,000

2,200

Individual composters

5,000

5,000

Number of worm composters

30

45

Collective catering establishments

65

30

Demonstration sites

50

150

30

8

People trained

600

600

Events / conferences

100

100

Training sessions

36

36

1,100

700

6

6

Composter advisors involved

100

100

Number of cookery classes

30

0

-

14

-

24

Number of collective composting sites

Composting

Food waste

Awareness raising activities

Establishments restaurants)

participating

(social

centres,

People trained in composting techniques Training for composting guides

Number of grinding/shredding associations Shredding / mulching

Amount of equipment

communal

grinding/shredding

* objectives proposed within the scope of the request for an amendment in 2012. Overall methodology

Before the Miniwaste project, Rennes Métropole had already entered into a service provider agreement with the company Eisenia. This company was in charge of supporting inhabitants who wanted to carry out composting at the foot of apartment buildings. This agreement started in 2007 and ended in September 2010. In order to ensure the deployment of actions planned as part of the Miniwaste project, a new service provider agreement, made up of 6 parts, was entered into at the start of 2011 (Annex 3.1/CCTP Organic waste tender). The agreement had an initial length of 2 years, renewable twice for 1 year each time. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

70

Eisenia was awarded the tender for parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, whilst part 5 was awarded to Tic Ethic. Part 1 – Promotion of communal composting in apartment blocks. Part 2 – Promotion of communal composting in housing estates and neighbourhoods. Part 3 – Promotion of communal composting in collective catering. Part 4 - Support for the network of composting guides. Part 5 – Training sessions. Part 6 - Public conferences. An amendment to the previous agreement with Eisenia was made in order to ensure the transition between the previous agreement (extended until 31st December 2010) and the new agreement (which commenced in February 2011), to continue support for inhabitants regarding communal composting. During this transition period, the RM prevention team worked on updating the promotional documents by adding the LIFE logos to each of them. Furthermore, external promotional actions to publicise the involvement of Rennes Métropole in the Miniwaste project mentioning the support from the LIFE+ programme was performed for regional and national networks via seminars and conferences. As regards the promotion of individual composting, sales of 300 litre composters, which started in 1995 in Rennes Métropole, continued. The communication documents and material for these services used for the entire tender will be dealt with in the communication section. In tandem, for specific services (local outside activities, support with reducing food waste, etc.) we called on other service providers. Finally, other actions were carried out in-house by the RM prevention team. The actions in detail are presented by theme below: I – Support for composting projects at the foot of apartment blocks (part 1 of the organic waste tender) Objectives

Initial objectives

Revised objectives

350

200

Methodology

Implementation and technical monitoring of composting areas at the foot of apartment blocks include: - Gathering requests from users, condominium managers or municipalities. - Validation of the site (verification of available green space, in particular). - Presentation of the project to inhabitants and condominium managers. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

71

- Creation of the composting area in accordance with plans (see diagram below), provision and assembly of composters, supply of ground material. - Monitoring and support during a composting cycle (inauguration of the site, training of inhabitants, assistance with transfers, intervention and advice in case of problems, fencing). - Occasional intervention on sites more than a year old which do not benefit from any support. - Where applicable, removal of the composters.

Composting site monitoring form The communal composting participation charter, already enforced during the previous agreement with Eisenia, was modified to include information concerning the socio-demographic data regarding the participants. Some charters were analysed by GECE, a market research and survey consultancy and sub-contractor of Eisenia within the scope of the organic waste tender (Annex 3.1/Part 1 Foot of apartment blocks/Participation charters). In order to formalise the commitments of condominium managers, municipalities and Rennes Métropole, a ceremony for the official signing of a convention relating to the methods for developing Miniwaste project actions was organised in September 2011 during the inauguration of the 200th composting site (Annex 3.1/Part 1 Foot of apartment blocks/Agreements). This agreement mentions in particular that the creation of composting areas is undertaken by Rennes Métropole and that the municipalities/condominium managers ensure compost is supplied to the site and assist Rennes Métropole in promoting the project. The agreement sent to the municipalities concerns the communal composting sites at the foot of apartment blocks and in housing estates, as well as composting in collective catering.


72

The table below indicates the number of agreements sent out and the amount returned signed. Recipients

Number of agreements sent

Number returned

Municipalities

26

18

Condominium managers

54

8*

Collective catering establishments

10

9

(on 31/12/12)

* including 3 of the 4 social housing organisations present in Rennes Métropole. Dispatches and returns for the agreement related to the procedure for developing Miniwaste initiatives In addition to this technical support, our service provider called upon a market research and survey consultancy (GECE) in order to carry out several studies: An inventory of composting facilities at the foot of apartment blocks (comparison between March 2011 and June 2012 as well as before Miniwaste). A survey of people who have signed the participation charters before or in October 2011. A survey of all the residents on 15 sites representative of apartment blocks equipped with communal composters. Compelling communication tests to try and increase the rate of participation amongst volunteers for composting (performance of 2 different tests on 4 sites). This aspect will be detailed in the “innovative aspects” section. Finally, local communication initiatives were a significant element of the methodology used to reach the objectives. Indeed, it was observed that the informative and institutional communication used at the start of the Miniwaste project did not produce a sufficient amount of requests to install composting sites at the foot of apartment blocks. Rennes Métropole already possessed a contract with the company ACP Service for door-to-door visits by sorting ambassadors to approximately 20,000 homes per year. Waste prevention and therefore composting were already covered during these visits, but in a very succinct manner. As from late 2011, ACP Service was called upon to disseminate specific information on communal composting. A flyer about communal composting was given to each inhabitant and a poster was put up in each apartment block entrance hall (Annex 3.1/ Part 1 Foot of apartment blocks / CC promotion flyer and Annex 3.1/ Part 1 Foot of apartment blocks / Call for volunteers apartment block poster). The apartment blocks visited were selected by the housing associations and Eisenia who have good knowledge in the field. Between January and November 2012, 12,544 homes were thus visited by sorting ambassadors for a promotion action targeted on composting. Our service provider as well as the agents manning the household reclamation Freephone number observed an increase in requests during the periods the ambassadors made their visits. In tandem, one of the social housing associations put itself forward to independently carry out promotion of communal composting within the 91 apartment blocks it managed via agents in the field.


73

This promotional activity conducted directly by the housing association gave rise to many requests and consequently installations of composting areas for 36 apartment blocks managed by Archipel Habitat, between 2011 and 2012. In addition to this door-to-door on the ground promotional activity, we also wanted to set up initiatives at markets based on the theme of waste management. The main aim was to present solutions that could be implemented to reduce the production of organic waste (kitchen waste and green plant waste) by inhabitants. The objective was to increase the interest of inhabitants in organic waste prevention by setting up a compelling communication strategy. A service provider agreement was therefore signed with the ECOO association in May 2012. The first initiatives started in June 2012. The association used a small marquee in which it set up display boards on composting and sustainable management of green plant waste in order to use as a basis for discussion. The advisors also had Rennes Métropole communication material (composting guide, flyer, etc.), a composter and a worm composter at their disposition. Between June and December 2012, 3,120 people were introduced to the prevention of organic waste. ECOO also carries out sale of individual composters.

Initiatives at food markets carried out by the association Ecoo

Partners involved

The installation of composting areas at the foot of apartment blocks was only possible via a close partnership with the different players in the field, namely the condominium managers, local authorities and housing associations, but also the inhabitants, composting site advisors and composting guides.

We tried to develop a partnership with the condominium managers insofar as they have a good knowledge of the array of apartment blocks in the region and their residents. Five meetings were organised in order to present the Miniwaste project:


74

List of meetings with condominium managers Date

Subject

Present

15/11/10

Presentation of the LPP and Miniwaste to housing 3 organisations out of 4 organisations

15/12/10

Presentation of Miniwaste and the support from Eisenia

03/02/11

Presentation of the LPP and Miniwaste, presentation of 1 association and 2 the draft agreement with condominium managers and housing organisations associations

Sector manager, local agent and the tenants’ association Habitat 35

08/11/2011 Reminder of the Miniwaste objectives and support from ADO = the 4 housing Eisenia concerning installation of composting at the organisations foot of apartment blocks 05/04/12

Reminder of support from Eisenia and inventory of Sector manager, local potential sites agent and the tenants’ association Habitat 35

The four housing organisations present in the region of Rennes Métropole accepted the invitation to these meetings and it should be noted that three of these organisations actively involved themselves in the Miniwaste project. Indeed, in particular they accepted to send us a list of apartment blocks likely and able to host a composting area in order to organise door-todoor visits by the sorting ambassadors. However, the involvement of the condominium associations was unfortunately very limited, as can be seen by the low number of condominium associations in attendance at the meeting on 03/02/11. At the start of 2011, an agent from the prevention unit at Rennes Métropole’s waste reclamation department met with a contact person from each municipality in order to present the Local Prevention Programme for waste of which the Miniwaste project is part. This meeting was an opportunity to set out the Miniwaste initiatives and define possible actions with the municipalities. Development of the partnership with the municipalities also involved the signing of an agreement concerning the deployment of the Miniwaste project actions. At the end of December 2012, 18 of 26 municipalities had returned the agreement signed (only the municipalities with a composting area, either communal or for collective catering, were concerned by this agreement).

Results

Over the duration of the Miniwaste project, 183 communal composters were installed at the foot of apartment blocks, resulting in a 91.5% achievement in relation to the project objective.


75

Development in the number of composting areas installed between 2006 and 2012 120

110

100 80 60

60

44

40 20

42 31

30 16

0 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

The objectives set were not reached. However, a strong increase of requests was observed in 2012, which can be explained by reinforcement of communication on the ground as previously mentioned. Problems encountered

Monitoring of “independent” sites As regards the methodology implemented for the composting areas, it seems that the support proposed by Rennes Métropole via its service provider Eisenia was adapted to the participants’ expectations. However, it emerged that this monitoring needs to be improved on independent sites (i.e. sites which no longer benefit from technical support). Indeed, the studies conducted by GECE as well as the results of a working group with 12 composting guides showed the “old” sites need for guidance in order for them to benefit from technical support if necessary. Fly tipping of green plant waste Furthermore, one site was withdrawn from the project several months after it was set up due to fly tipping of grass cuttings in the composting area. The volunteers did not wish to continue composting and managing the grass cuttings of other people. A letter was sent to all the inhabitants on the street to inform them that grass cuttings should not be disposed of in the composting area, but no improvement of the situation was observed. This green plant waste problem also occurred on approximately 5 other sites. Posters (Annex 3.1/Part 1 Foot of apartment blocks/Specimen green plant waste poster) were put up at the composting areas to remind people of the instructions, but this still did not work. One solution could be to create an association of the users who produce green plant waste in order for Rennes Métropole to subsidise the purchase of a plant shredder/grinder or mulching lawnmower. However, it is very difficult to determine the origin of the fly tipping and therefore communicate accordingly.


76

Installation conditions for composters It is also important to note that not all requests can be successful due to different reasons. As such, over the duration of the project, 128 requests were not successful for the following reasons (Annex 3.1/ Part 1 Foot of apartment blocks / Reasons for abandoning of Part 1):

Reasons for abandoning 1. Requester withdraws 9%

14% 2. Few volunteers

30% 31%

3. Opposition of the inhabitants 4. Few green spaces

16% 5. Grouped with another site

Reinforced communication on the ground As regards communication on the ground, the results showed that it was essential and that the results would have been better were it implemented from the launch of the project. However, this action implied significant costs which were not budgeted for when setting up the project. Mobilisation of partners Finally, the most significant problem was the mobilisation of partners. In particular it was impossible to meet with all the condominium associations despite several attempts to schedule a meeting, notably with UNIS, the main group of condominium managers. The condominium associations could have been an interesting means of promoting composting at the foot of apartment blocks and could have helped to obtain more installation requests. Similarly, it would have been advantageous to be able to inform the private companies that look after the green spaces of private condominiums about the procedure for composting at the foot of apartment blocks. There are, in fact, a number of problems at certain composting areas which do not have a sufficient amount of structuring material, which is essential for smooth running of the composting process. Lastly, the mobilisation of the municipalities’ services was not consistent with the expectations of RM. The municipalities possess good knowledge of their territory as well as the users and it is important that communal composting projects can also be promoted by each municipality in Rennes Métropole, which was not the case. This various problems, in particular the mobilisation of the partners, prevented the objective of 200 composting areas installed at the foot of apartment blocks from being reached.


77

Innovative aspects

One of the plus points of Eisenia’s involvement in support with installation of composting areas at the foot of apartment blocks was its collaboration with the market research and survey consultancy GECE, which worked on the sociological aspects of composting. Four studies were carried out: - An inventory of composting sites in shared housing between March 2011 and June 2012. - A survey of 2,075 households that signed the participation charter. - Another survey of 15 representative sites in order to estimate, in particular, the actual rate of participation in the composting scheme. - Lastly, a working group with the composting guides during the guides’ day on 16th June 2012. The results of these studies enabled compelling communication tests to be developed. They will be assessed during the first quarter of 2013. The first study concerning the inventory of composting sites from March 2011 to June 2012 was aimed at providing an inventory of the sites installed and the socio-demographical characteristics of the volunteer households between March 2011 (the start date of the organic waste tender awarded to Eisenia) and June 2012. It was possible to compare, for certain parties, the results of the inventory with the last 5 years of the scheme to install composting areas at the foot of apartment blocks in Rennes Métropole as well as with the socio-demographical characteristics of the households living in the apartment blocks (INSEE 2006). The second study conducted on 2,075 households that signed the charter made it possible: To obtain information on practice of composting and the profile of the signatories. To discover the motivations for and obstacles to adoption of composting. - To analyse the methods of assistance and information aimed at users. - To propose recommendations for attractive communication instruments. The main objective of the study of 15 representative sites was to assess the actual rate of participation in communal composting. Finally, the working group with 12 composting guides helped to highlight the importance of social links in communal composting and to define the possibilities of developing and improving the support scheme offered by Rennes Métropole. The full results of these different studies are featured in the annexes (Annex 3.1/ Part 1 Foot of apartment blocks / GECE study). Here are the main findings: Profiles of participation charter signatories Average age:50 years old 60% are between 25 and 54 years old 67% are employed – 29% are retired Representation of the 15 to 24 year old age bracket is low Only 14% see themselves as advisors (5% as guides)


78

Location of composting sites – type of housing 81% of sites are located in Rennes 28% of the equipped apartment blocks are managed by a housing organisation 58% of participants are home owners Attitude to composting 89% of those surveyed cite the environment as a concern 59% cite waste 14% think that composting is beneficial for mankind 1/3 of signatories believe that their practice does not contribute much to waste reduction Reasons for participation 88% to reduce the amount of waste to be treated 86% to do something for the environment 39% to take part voluntarily in a collective initiative Information sources:

Sources of information on the composting scheme used (several answers possible)

Posters in apartment blocks

45%

Word of mouth (neighbours, friends, colleagues, family, etc.)

43%

Condominium association or housing organisation

20%

Press (Ouest-France, Rennes Métropole magazine, etc.)

18% 13%

Neighbourhood meetings Internet

6% Source: GECE -Enquête signataires 2012

Social influence 63% of signatories have neighbours who compost 38% of signatories have a family member who composts 44% declare that composting has helped them meet their neighbours more often Commitment of signatories 89% of signatories are continuing with composting


79

Profile of signatories who have stopped composting

12% of women Gende r

7% of men 13% of 30-44 year olds

Age

9% of 45-59 year olds 6% of over 75s

17% of tenants Housing status

Status

8% of owners

12% of volunteers/participants 3% of advisors/guides

Social link

6% of signatories with a strong social link 16% of signatories with a weak social link

The signatories’ extent of involvement 77% often or very often mix their output 1 out of 2 often or very often checks the state of the compost (21% rarely or never do it) 1 out of 2 rarely or never encourages his or her neighbours to compost 39% of advisors or guides do it often or very often Tenants encourage their neighbours more often than owners 1 out of 2 rarely or never takes part in transfer operations The owners are more involved than the tenants (40% against 33%) 84% of advisors and guides take part often against 25% for volunteers 66% have never received training


80

Satisfaction of the signatories Dissatisfied 5%

Neu-tral 7%

Satisfied 87%

Obstacles to composting 27% of signatories who are continuing to compost have met with difficulties 31% have been led to compost less due to these difficulties The lack of involvement of other volunteers is indicated as a problem for 51% Afterwards come the nuisances of the composter (34%) and the lack of time or knowledge (14%) The higher the responsibility of the signatory (guide), the more importance is apportioned to the lack of involvement of other signatories

Proposals from signatories to encourage them to compost again or more More information on sorting household waste More information on regular upkeep


81

These studies also gave rise to recommendations concerning the communication tools. R

New recommendations Existing recommendations to be intensified

BEFORE INSTALLATION Change the communication message: - To inform and raise awareness on the ecological impact of composting - To increase the feeling of a perceived action - To show the importance of social links without contradicting the values of independence - To modify the posters Intensify and diversify the instruments used to convey the message: - Importance of the media (newspapers, radio, etc.) and greater use of the internet - Message present in a maximum number of public places - Greater association with the image of selective sorting - Raise greater awareness among the young - Reinforce communication on the Rennes Métropole web site - Professionals broadcasting the message more

DURING INSTALLATION Encourage commitment by the inhabitants: - Create an awareness raising service -Proceed with 'foot in the door' techniques (hand out stickers, door to door visits, interviews, sponsoring, etc.) - Involve the inhabitants through a public act of commitment (signing the charter, verbal commitment during the home visits, etc.) - Introduce the feeling of freedom in the commitment procedures

AFTER INSTALLATION Avoid lassitude (drop in composting): - Encourage participation of inhabitants in meetings - Create a space and forum dedicated to the signatories - Give recognition (letters and emails of congratulation,etc.) - Encourage owners to be advisors or guides - Greater promotion of sites - Create a local service (to manage requests and carry out monitoring of quality) - Maintain rituals during transfers

These recommendations are to be supplemented by the results of compelling communication tests in order to develop the practice (Annex 3.1/ Part 1 Foot of apartment blocks/Compelling communication). Two tests will be carried out: -

A test involving sponsoring by an existing site of a new one on inauguration

-

A test using a sticker on an existing site and a new site on inauguration

The aim is to test compelling communication tools and to see if they incite more inhabitants to take up composting. These tests will be conducted in January/February 2013. In tandem with the sociological studies carried out, we tested automatic installation of composting areas on the construction of new buildings. This test was conducted at the request of a social housing organisation. The aim was to see if it is possible to incite new arrivals in a new building to start composting as soon as they arrive insofar as a composting area is installed on their arrival. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

82

The presentation and launch meetings were difficult to organise inasmuch as no inhabitants had made such a request. Even though the rate of participation was honourable (8 apartment blocks out of 26, i.e. a 31% rate of participation), it should be noted that no inhabitants came forward to be a site advisor. This shows the low level of involvement in the scheme of volunteers, because in general there are 2 or 3 advisors per site. No inhabitants were present at the inauguration, even though some organic waste was observed between the installation and inauguration. Furthermore, monitoring by our service provider showed defects in respect of composting rules: presence of plastic bags and grass cuttings, compost not mixed, etc. This did not help good degradation of the waste. This experiment was therefore not a resounding success and confirmed that a composting area cannot be put in place without a prior request from several inhabitants and without a contact person. Lastly, another innovative aspect was the installation of a communal worm-composter in Rennes city centre. Our service provider proposed this test insofar as the inhabitants were genuinely motivated to carry out composting but there was not sufficient space to install a conventional composter. The worm composter was manufactured by Eisenia. Its dimensions are as follows: width: 40 x height: 40 x length: 120. It is made up of 3 parts. The worms move horizontally in order to decompose organic waste from 6 different families. The cover and sufficiently significant volume seem to protect the worms from winter temperatures. This scheme satisfied the participants.

Communal worm-composting site in Rennes city centre II – Support for composting projects in housing estates (Part 2 of the organic waste tender) Objectives Initial objectives 150

Revised objectives 20

Methodology A service provider agreement was signed with Eisenia in order to ensure the implementation and technical monitoring of composting areas in housing estates, a new scheme set up by RM as part of the Miniwaste project. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

83

The support they provided included: - Gathering requests from users, condominium managers or municipalities. - Validation of the site (verification of available green space, in particular). - Presentation of the project to inhabitants and condominium managers where necessary. - Creation of the composting area in accordance with plans (see photo below), provision and assembly of composters, supply of ground material. - Monitoring and support during a composting cycle (inauguration of the site, training of inhabitants, assistance with transfers, intervention and advice in case of problems, fencing). - Where applicable, removal of the composters.

A communal composting area in a housing estate In addition to the support proposed for composting areas at the foot of apartment blocks, our service provider was also able to perform demonstrations of grinding/shredding equipment. This service was not provided since it was not necessary. In fact, the volunteers correctly followed the instructions concerning green plant waste and the composting areas were not saturated with green plant waste unlike certain sites at the foot of apartment blocks as mentioned in part 1. In light of the small number of requests for this part (most probably because it is a new and therefore little known initiative), people involved in community gardens wishing to carry out communal composting were given similar support to the apartment blocks. Out of the 16 sites installed by 30th November 2012, 4 are community gardens. Partners involved The installation of composting areas in housing estates required the direct mobilisation of the inhabitants, insofar as there are very few condominium management companies concerned with individual homes. The mayor’s offices are therefore a good channel for disseminating information concerning the possibility of communal composting in housing estates. Similar, local associations, in particular those that have purchased a grinder/shredder, were contacted to promote the scheme to their members. For example, in the municipality of Pacé, a site should be installed thanks to the Lombrics du Bois de Champagne association. Results Over the duration of the Miniwaste project, 16 sites were installed in housing estates, i.e. a 80% achievement rate of the objectives revised by the amendment. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

84

Problems encountered The main difficulty was mobilising the inhabitants. The local communication initiatives deployed for inhabitants of apartment blocks were carried out by drawing on the expertise of condominium managers and our service provider Eisenia. The identification of housing estates likely to host a composting area should have been conducted in cooperation with the municipalities who have good knowledge in the field. Despite the requests of Rennes Métropole to the elected representatives of the municipalities during meetings of the waste committee bureau, the waste committee as well as by letter, the mobilisation of municipalities with regard to this theme was disappointing. The low number of requests can also be explained by the lack of willingness by individual home owners to share this practice, with each family preferring to compost individually rather than communally. This reaction is a good illustration of why the communication tools need to be adapted. These tools should henceforth encourage inhabitants to modify their behaviour and no longer be simple information documents. These two difficulties, direct mobilisation of inhabitants and the necessity to change habits, go some way to explaining why we did not reach the objective set of installing 20 composting areas in housing estates. Innovative aspects The support scheme for composting in neighbourhoods and housing estates is an innovation inasmuch as it had not been proposed to the inhabitants of Rennes Métropole beforehand. It will be necessary to accentuate the communication to better inform the inhabitants of this new possibility of communal composting.

III – Support for composting projects in collective catering establishments (part 3 of the organic waste tender) Objectives Initial objectives 65


Methodology A service provider agreement was signed with Eisenia in order to ensure the implementation and technical monitoring of composting areas in collective catering establishments. The support they provided included: Phase No. 1: feasibility study Study of the technical conditions of installation (green spaces, distance to be covered to access the composters, supply of material for composting). Assessment of potential amounts. Analysis of in-house organisation (see table below). Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

85

Phase No. 2: awareness raising meeting In the presence of the personnel involved in composting. Explanation of the stakes of composting, presentation of the protocol, definition of each person’s role.

Sorting of meal preparation waste Sorting of meal leftovers Transfer of waste to composters Mixing of the compost and covering Transfer of compost material recipients Use of the compost Supply of the structural material recipient

Catering personnel X X X X

Technical services personnel

X X

Caretaker

X

Educators/te Childre External achers n company

X X

Establishment Educational s' plant beds garden

X X X X X

X

X

Possible allocation of tasks linked to operation of the composting area Phase No. 3: launch meeting With all the people involved at the composting area when the first material for composting is supplied. Phase No. 4: technical monitoring for 1 year Technical assistance, advice, possible adjustments, etc. Phase No. 5: report Submission of the operational records for the composting area (Annex 3.1/Part 3 Collective catering/Specimen development plan).

Meeting at a collective catering composting site Creation of the sites, which involves spreading a covering of ground/shredded plant matter, installing the composters and creating a space for supply of the material for composting is performed by the catering establishments, as stipulated in article 2.1 of the agreement concerning development of Miniwaste initiatives. (Annex 3.1/Part 3 Collective catering/Specimen establishment sheet & Annex 3.1/Part 3 Collective catering/Specimen development plan).


86

As regards the type of input to the composters, it is the catering establishment's choice to select from the different types of waste that can be composted: - Meal preparation waste - Meal leftovers - Meal preparation waste + meal leftovers - Raw meal leftovers

Partners involved Installation of composting areas in collective catering requires direct mobilisation of the establishment managers.15 of the 26 sites installed over the duration of the Miniwaste project were primary schools whose management was the responsibility of the municipalities' mayors. For the other sites, those in charge of the establishments (headmaster/headmistress, director, etc.) were contacted. Mobilising the partners mainly involved transmitting information to the municipalities with whom the prevention unit’s agents had met between February and May 2011. The aim of these meetings was to present the LPP and more specifically the Miniwaste project to the municipalities. The municipalities were quick to grasp the advantages in terms of possible reductions in their special levies on payments for collections and treatment of their waste. For specialised types of establishments (hostels), the primary motivation was the educational aspect that could be developed with the residents. The personnel working within the establishments can also be considered as partners insofar as without them the composting process could not be put in place. It is important to involve the personnel as far upstream in the process as possible so that composting is not deemed to be a chore in their working timetable. Training on the technical aspects but also on the advantages of composting within the scope of their everyday work is necessary in order to convince them of this approach’s benefits. The catering agents thus observed a reduction in the amount of kitchen waste following the installation of composting areas.


87

Finally, mobilisation also took place via technical committees which enabled establishments who were not yet involved in composting to exchange with sites that adopted composting practices.

Results Over the duration of the Miniwaste project, 26 communal composting areas were inaugurated at collective catering establishments and 8 projects were in the process of being validated on 31st December 2012. The type of establishments equipped can be broken down as follows:

6

Other establishments

2

Senior high schools

3

Junior high schools

15

Primary schools 0

5

10

15

Type of sites participating or that have participated in the project


88

Problems encountered Out of the 26 sites installed, four were removed. They were school canteens located in the City of Rennes. The removal of the composters is generally linked to several factors that are constraints on the practice of composting: - The type of waste composted - The amount of waste composted - The position of the composting areas - The in-house organisation of the establishments In these 4 canteens, composting concerned meal leftovers (cooked waste, in sauce form), including meat waste. It emerged that composting of meat waste can generate unpleasant odours, in particular when mixing the compost. Furthermore, the quantities to be composted, especially on two of the sites, were considerable. The experience obtained during the Miniwaste project allowed us to estimate the maximum amount of waste that can be composted using the models employed by RM (static vertical wooden composter with a maximum capacity of 1,000 litres). Our service provider evaluated the maximum limit to be 20 kg per day. School canteen Jean Zay Guillevic Moulin du Comte Cloteaux

Number of meals/day 301 181 202 155

Meal left overs (in g) 141 192 95 160

Estimate of leftovers per day (in kg) 42 35 19 25

Type and amount of waste composted at 4 establishments that have abandoned composting The 1st site was located in the centre of Rennes, near a pathway to a very busy public park. The odours generated by composting of meat waste lead to complaints from parents of the schoolchildren in particular. The composters at the 2nd site at Guillevic were placed near to windows and the entrance to the school. The odours generated by mixing also led to complaints. Lastly, the Cloteaux composting area was situated next to the math that nursery school children used to access the canteen. The location of the Moulin du Comte composting area was suitable inasmuch as there was no path used by the children or public and the composters were sufficiently far away from the offices. Finally, an important element in the success of a composting project is the in-house organisation of establishments. In the City of Rennes, the composting material is mixed by the caretakers, whereas in the other municipalities, the technical service personnel carry out this task. The mixing of composters was perceived as an extra work task, which was not included in their job description and did not correspond with their profile. Furthermore, on one site, there was a significant turnover of personnel and as a result our service provider had to train several people during the period of support. The Cloteaux site could have continued composting inasmuch as the amounts of waste to be composted and the location of the composting area were adapted, as well as the team on-site


89

being motivated. However, the City of Rennes wanted to halt the experiment in order to avoid creating a different operational method in one single canteen. Despite the discontinuation of these four sites, this experiment with school canteens in the City of Rennes was interesting insofar as it helped to highlight the necessity of thorough upstream planning and reflection with regard to certain aspects before installation of a composting area. Particular care should be taken with: - Defining the type of waste to be composted (leftovers of meals with meat/fish or without). - Assessment of potential amounts: close to 20 kg per day. - The location of the composting site. - The in-house organisation of the establishment and motivation of its personnel. The regulatory framework of this practice is to date not adapted. The composting areas are governed by departmental health regulations in the case where the amounts composted are less than 2 tonnes per day. However, these regulations do not take account of the new practice of local composting. Furthermore, meal leftovers are classed as category 3 animal by-products that may, depending on derogation, be composted on-site. The leftovers of untouched meals are considered to be kitchen and table waste which can only be composted in approved facilities. It is therefore difficult to have the personnel accept that a same type of waste (i.e. food) can have a different destination. Lastly, the compost produced must be used on the site of the establishment. This can be a problem for sites which do not have flower beds or planted areas. A meeting was organised with the Ille-et-Vilaine Direction Départementale de la Cohésion Sociale et de la Protection des Populations (departmental agency for social cohesion and protection of the population) on 5th June 2012 in order to present the support scheme for installing composting areas at collective catering establishments. The government services reminded us of these regulations’ terms and it was agreed to send them details on new projects in the future for approval. To date, no remarks have been received. Innovative aspects An interesting point was the organisation of three technical committees concerning composting in collective catering. These meetings were organised by Eisenia and Rennes Métropole. These meetings were intended for establishments already carrying out composting but also those interested in the practice and keen for more information on the support scheme. Technical committee dates 07/11/11 10/05/12

Venues Parthenay de Bretagne school canteen Bruz central kitchens

11/12/12

Betton school complex

Number of attendees 16 including 1 elected representative 24 including 1 elected representative 13 including 3 elected representatives

At each technical committee, testimonials were made by agents who had already adopted composting practices, enabling interesting exchanges between the various participants. The slides shown at the meetings are included in the annexes.(Annex 3.1/Part 3 Collective catering/Technical committee meeting minutes) Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

90

IV – Support of composting guides (Part 4 of the organic waste tender) Objectives Action

Initial objectives

Revised objectives

100

100

6

6

Composting guides involved Composting guides trained

Methodology Firstly, meetings in districts of Rennes and for residents of surrounding municipalities were organised between October 2010 and March 2011 in order to discover the needs of composting site advisors and composting guides in terms of communication tools (toolbox) for their participation and organisation of certain events and activities. In total, 6 meetings were organised, bringing together 52 people (see the attendance sheet in the annex (Annex 3.1/Part 4 Composting guides/Attendance sheet). District South East

N no. 7 and 11

Contact Marie Paule Lissilour

South West

8 and 12

Julien Fée

West

3 and 9

Mr. Bolopion et Mrs. Doxin

Municipalities

-

e-mail mplissilour @villerennes.fr [email protected] mbolopion @villerennes.fr -

Centre

1 and 2

Stéphane Lenfant

[email protected]

North West

4 and 10

Jean Charles Auffret Muriel Jourde

[email protected]

North East

5 and 6

Claude Schopp

[email protected]

Meeting date th Tuesday 30 November 2010 at 6.30 PM nd Thursday 2 December at 6.30 PM th Thursday 16 December at 6.30 PM th Monday 20 January at 6.30 PM th Thursday 17 February at 6.30 PM st

Monday 21 March at 6.30 PM

Meeting venue Blosne social centre, Belle Ile room 7 bd de Yougoslavie -35200 RENNES (Métro station: Triangle or Blosne) South West district offices meeting room, municipal centre, 81 bd Albert 1er 12 rue papu, multi-purpose room (opposite the South West district offices) HRM

Espace des deux rives – 4 allée Georges Palante

Muriel Jourde, technician Environment working group Maison du parc, avenue André Malraux

The minutes of all these meetings are included in the annex (Annex 3.1/Part 4 Composting guides/Guide meeting minutes). The main conclusions were that the composting guides needed a place to meet, a link with community gardens, dedicated training, etc. Part 4 of the organic waste tender awarded to Eisenia concerned support of the composting guides. The objective was to help the composting guides and composting site advisors to organise and participate in activities aimed at promoting communal composting.


91

The service provided by Eisenia included: - An initial meeting to define the objectives of activities and the required support. - One or more support sessions in order to help the guides develop their activities. - A closing session enabling a report of the activity to be made.

On 30/11/12, the guides and advisors had carried out 11 actions. Actions Tiens voilà l’printemps (here comes spring) Bike ride

Dates March 2011

Guides mobilised 6

May 2011 (not carried out due to a lack of participants)

4

October 2011

3

November 2011

6

December 2011 February 2012

5 5

June 2012

29

Organisation of a picnic at the foot of an apartment block

June 2012 (not carried out due to a lack of participants)

2

Participation in the Vivacités event Participation in the SERD event Reflection on creation of a guidebook on communal composting

October 2012

8

November 2012

5

November 2012

12

Activity with a housing organisation Participation in European waste reduction week Workshop on the blog Tiens voilà l’printemps (here comes spring) Guides’ day

In addition to these activities, a guides’ day was organised on 16th June 2012. Initially, only the guides were invited. Due to the low uptake of invitations, all the composting volunteers and participants in the training sessions were sent a letter of invitation. 29 guides or advisors accepted this invitation. The programme of this day included a section on presenting results: - Presentation of the Miniwaste report. - Presentation of the IRSTEA protocol on compost quality. - Presentation of the GECE study results. There was also a more practical section with two workshops to choose from: - The “How to develop communal composting” workshop with Olivier Allouard from GECE.


92

-

The “How to activate the network of composting guides” workshop with Francis Colin from Eisenia.

A picnic lunch was proposed to allow continuation of exchanges.

The main conclusions of the workshop organised by GECE showed that the guides and site advisors need to greater appreciation of their practice and that monitoring of “independent” sites, i.e. no longer monitored by Eisenia, is necessary. It also seems that promotional material needs to be reviewed in order to make it more efficient and richer. The guides would in particular like promotional material like the communication deployed for sorting of recyclable waste. The full report on this workshop is included in the annex (Annex 3.1/Part 4 Composting guides/Guides' day - GECE workshop report). The workshop proposed by Eisenia also showed a need for recognition and appreciation of the guides and their practices. They indicated a lack of appropriate communication tools and difficulties with mobilising new arrivals. The installation of notice boards at the composting sites including a blank part on which site specific information could be disseminated was also requested. The content of the workshops and the richness of the interactions satisfied the participants. At the end of the day, an apron as well as gardening utensils were given to the guides in order to help identification during their future events. Partners involved Even though this part of the tender theoretically concerned the composting guides, we enlarged the scope to composting site advisors and participants in order to avoid restricting the number of participants and discouraging the people who do not wish to become guides. Results Taking into consideration the people involved in organising or participating in communal composting promotion activities, there are 16 active guides. The guides’ day however made it possible to bring 29 people together who were interested and active in composting and who could be considered as guides. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

93

Even if greater participation of guides in the most recent activities can be noted (Vivacité, SERD, reflection on a guidebook about communal composting), we are well below the objective of a network including 100 composting guides in the Rennes conurbation. Only two training sessions concerning the guides took place, on 26/11/11 and 27/03/12.

Problems encountered The main difficulty was mobilising the guides. Through part 4 of the organic waste tender, the RM agents in charge of prevention thought it would be possible to mobilise them, to encourage them to participate in activities in order to validate their experience and to manage to convince new people to become involved in communal composting. This task proved to be more difficult, since certain (retired) guides were not always in and around the Rennes conurbation at the time of the activities, some did not wish to get involved outside their composting site and others did not feel sufficiently at ease to explain the approach of Rennes Métropole. The blog, which was requested by the guides at the workshops that took place in 2010, was not used by them. Apart from the training given by Eisenia within the scope of support to the network of composting guides, no articles were posted by the guides on the blog. Consequently, the blog is compiled by Eisenia and Rennes Métropole, which was not the initial objective. Support for the guides must be provided over the long-term and contact with the local authorities must be encouraged. Calling upon a service provider for this support was probably not an appropriate measure.

Innovative aspects The mobilisation of the guides and advisors during the delegation’s visit worked very well, for example. This action helps to provide recognition for the guides on their sites and to provide experience on the ground.

V – Events and conferences (Part 5 of the organic waste tender) Objectives (conferences + events) Initial objectives 100


Methodology Part 5 of the organic waste tender, awarded to the company Tic Ethic, concerns the organisation of conferences on different themes of organic waste reduction and, more broadly, sustainable development. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

94

Six conferences were consequently organised and proposed to the municipalities and associations (Annex 3.1/Part 5 Events and conferences/Presentations). - Communal composting: a citizens’ initiative - Natural gardening using green plant waste - Compost and mulching in the garden: an illustration of complementarity - Fighting against food waste - Worm-composting: a solution for multi-storey housing? - Encouraging biodiversity: from the balcony to the garden The possibility of organising a conference was announced to the municipalities during the meetings that took place at the beginning of 2011. A flyer stating the theme of the conferences as well as a summary and the name of the speaker was distributed to each municipality (Annex 3.1/Part 5 Events and conferences/Conference flyer). Since few requests were received in 2011, we proposed a schedule and reply form to the municipalities in order to facilitate organisation and replies from the municipalities. Following this letter, six request forms were received. Posters were provided to the municipalities in order to announce the conferences (Annex 3.1/Part 5 Events and conferences/Conference poster). Half of the conferences were organised following requests from municipalities and half following requests from local associations. Furthermore, Rennes Métropole proposed its services to the municipalities and associations in organising events on the theme of domestic organic waste management. During these initiatives, specialist contributors could intervene for a half day or full day to man stands dedicated to solutions for reducing organic waste: composting initiatives, demonstrations of shredding/grinding and composting, etc. It was also possible to sell individual composters at these events as well as distribute promotional documents. Two service providers were mainly mobilised to carry out these activities: Eisenia, within the scope of a specific training module in part 6 of the organic waste tender, and Jean-Pierre Letellier, a consultant from “Jardins du Possible”. Jean-Pierre Letellier was called upon by Rennes Métropole for activities requiring demonstrations of equipment in particular, with Eisenia dealing with activities linked to composting only. In order to mobilise the districts of Rennes, a letter was sent to the district management teams in January 2012. The aim of this letter was to incite them, in cooperation with district associations and composting guides, to organise workshops and exhibitions on the theme of composting. No requests emanated from this proposal. The list of events in which RM participated within the scope of organic waste prevention between June 2011 and June 2012 is featured in the annex (Annex 3.1/Part 5 Events and conferences/Report on events, conferences and training). In order to reinforce local initiatives intended to raise awareness amongst the maximum number of users, Rennes Métropole entered into a service provider agreement with the association ECOO – Ecology, Economy, Cooperative (see part I-1). The aim of the initiatives is to provide information on methods for reducing production of organic waste as well as, more generally, on managing waste and sorting instructions. This tender helped to accentuate the events and awareness amongst the general public by going out to meet the inhabitants.


95

Partners involved The partners, mainly the municipalities, were mobilised by letter at the beginning of 2011 for the conferences and in June 2012 for events at markets. Results - The conferences Between March 2011 and November 2012, 23 conferences took place, making it possible to raise awareness among 705 people. Number of Municipalities Date Conference theme people made aware 02/04/11 Compost and mulching in the garden: an illustration of Vern-sur-Seiche 30 complementarity 21/04/11 Fighting against food waste: wasting less and eating 38 Rennes better L'Hermitage 06/12/11 Natural gardening using green plant waste 80 Compost and mulching in the garden: an illustration of Rennes 03/02/12 25 complementarity 28/02/12 Compost and mulching in the garden: an illustration of Vezin-le-Coquet 30 complementarity 10/03/12 Fighting against food waste: wasting less and eating Rennes 14 better Vezin-le-Coquet 27/03/12 Encouraging biodiversity: from the balcony to the garden 15 Rennes 30/03/12 Natural gardening using green plant waste 9 Bruz 05/04/12 Encouraging biodiversity: from the balcony to the garden 8 Mordelles 05/04/12 Communal composting: a citizens’ initiative 8 27/04/12 Fighting against food waste: wasting less and eating Rennes 10 better 28/04/12 Compost and mulching in the garden: an illustration of Acigné 60 complementarity Vern-sur-Seiche 05/05/12 Encouraging biodiversity: from the balcony to the garden 15 Bourgbarré 25/05/12 Natural gardening using green plant waste 60 Pacé 29/05/12 Encouraging biodiversity: from the balcony to the garden 8 05/06/12 Fighting against food waste: wasting less and eating Le Rheu 120 better Chavagne 12/06/12 Encouraging biodiversity: from the balcony to the garden 10 Thorigné28/09/12 Communal composting: a citizens’ initiative 5 Fouillard 05/10/12 Fighting against food waste: wasting less and eating Cintré 8 better Chantepie 15/10/12 Encouraging biodiversity: from the balcony to the garden Cancelled Mordelles 25/10/12 Natural gardening using green plant waste 60 Orgères 09/11/12 Natural gardening using green plant waste 50 Saint-Erblon 09/11/12 Communal composting: a citizens’ initiative 2 Chavagne 10/11/12 Natural gardening using green plant waste 40 TOTAL 25 705


96

- Events not including weekly markets Between March 2011 and November 2012, 43 events raising awareness among 1,645 people were organised at the request of municipalities, associations, schools, etc. (Annex 3.1/Part 5 Events and conferences/Report on events, conferences and training). -

Events at markets Month

Number of events

June 2012

6

Number of people made aware 140

July 2012 August 2012 Sept. 2012

5 6 18

149 141 594

Oct. 2012

13

482

Nov. 2012 Dec. 2012

18 11 77

1107 507 3120

In total, 145 conferences or events were held between April 2011 and November 2012, making it possible to raise awareness among 5,470 people. The objective was therefore reached.

Problems encountered The main difficulty was succeeding in mobilising municipalities and associations to organise the conferences. Despite a letter sent to all the municipalities at the beginning of 2012 putting forward a schedule of conferences, only six municipalities replied. Furthermore, few people came to the conferences, except when Denis Pépin, a person locally well-known, was the speaker. As regards the events organised by municipalities or associations, it is difficult to attract users to come. Reworking of the promotional tools could make it possible to attract more people to attend these sorts of events. Finally, at the weekly markets, our service provider encountered difficulties in attracting the attention of the markets’ customers when the weather conditions were not favourable. VI - Training (Part 6 of the organic waste tender) Objectives Initial objectives 36



97

Methodology Rennes Métropole called upon a service provider to carry out the training modules: this is part 6 of the organic waste tender. Six modules were proposed (Annex 3.1/Part 6 Training/Presentations): - Module 1: I want to compost - Module 2: I want to improve my composting practices - Module 3: I reclaim my green plant waste - Module 4: I make my own worm-composter - Module 5: I want to become a composting guide - Module 6: short training during events The training dates were scheduled every six months. The training was conducted at the Taupinais eco-centre site in Rennes. It was also possible to organise training on other sites, but few requests were received by Rennes Métropole: only the members of two community garden associations were trained on their own site. Training modules 1 and 2 were grouped together from the 2nd half of 2012 in order to attract more people per session and enhance the exchanges between participants. The title of module 4 will be revised for 2013:“I learn to build and use my own worm-composter” in order to inform participants that they will not leave the training session with a worm-composter. In order to assess the participants’ satisfaction, a questionnaire was completed by each participant at the end of the training. The answers showed that the participants were satisfied with the content, the alternation between theory and practice and that they learned something. In addition to this assessment, a survey was set up with the aim of monitoring the people who have participated in the training organised by Rennes Métropole. This survey was conducted by a trainee during May and June 2012 (Annex 3.1/Part 6 Training/Follow-up survey on training in 2012). With a mind on savings and preventing production of waste paper, only the people who supplied their e-mail address received the questionnaire, i.e. 109 people. The main results are as follows (the full results can be found in the annex (Annex 3.1/Part 6 Training/Results of the follow-up survey on training in 2012): - 27% of people filled in the questionnaire. - 83% of people practice individual composting. - 47% of people took training module 1:“I want to compost”. - 37% of people took module 4: “I make my own worm-composter”. - Almost 47% think that the training helped them start composting. - Almost 67% state that the training helped them to improve their composting practices. The attendance at these sessions mainly by people practising individual composting can be explained by the fact that communal composting sites are supported for one year by our service provider whereas no support has been put in place for individual composting. The inhabitants of apartment blocks therefore feel that they are already trained via the support and do not feel the need to follow further training. Partners involved To announce the organisation of the training sessions and the dates for the forthcoming six months, a flyer was sent to the municipalities, district offices and handed out at events. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

98

The training dates were also published on the blog, the Rennes Métropole web site and in the Ouest France newspaper. Results Since 2011, 38 training sessions in which 450 people were trained have been held within the scope of part 6 of the organic waste tender. 10 training sessions in which 111 people were trained were also held in 2010 as part of a previous partnership with CIELE. Problems encountered Although the number of training sessions held is above the objective set, there were a low number of participants (8 on average) at each session. One explanation could be the difficulty for users of travelling into Rennes for a 3-hour slot on a Saturday or a Wednesday. One possible solution is to reduce the training session time to 2 hours and organise training in all the municipalities in the conurbation, without waiting for requests from local associations. Innovative aspects The fact that it was possible to delocalise training sessions was an innovative aspect for Rennes Métropole. It should have enabled associations such as community gardens or environmental associations to train their members but the uptake of this opportunity was very low. We are not in a position to know whether this did not work due to a lack of communication about the scheme or due to a lack of interest.

VII – Development of individual composting Initial objectives 5,000

Revised objectives 5,000

Methodology Since 1995, Rennes Métropole has offered community residents the opportunity to purchase a 300-litre composter bin at a preferential price. Two models are offered: one wooden and one plastic. Since early 2011, residents have been able to purchase one or two composter bins. This change to the distribution method was made in order to encourage users to use one bin for their collected waste and one bin for maturation, as is the case at shared composting sites. For the duration of the Miniwaste project, the composter bin was sold for 20 Euros. The sales were organised in different ways in order to reach as many possible interested parties: - At the site of Rennes Métropole’s technical base at Montgermont, every 1st Wednesday in the month, from 14.00 to 18.00 (17.00 in August).


99

-

At a number of waste disposal plants in the area in Spring and Autumn, following a defined schedule. In 25 communities. At the initiatives at the weekly markets run by the ECOO association. At the information desk in the town hall on an occasional basis. At community initiatives on an occasional basis.

The people carrying out the sales had been trained by Rennes Métropole. Partners involved The communities are involved in selling the composter bins. However, some communities were not interested in carrying out these sales since they felt that only Rennes Métropole would have the necessary skills. In September 2011, two meetings were organised by Rennes Métropole in order to inform the communities about the changes to the conditions of sale for the individual composter bins (Annex 3.1/Individual composting/Changes to the conditions of sale). There were 27 people present, representing 16 points of sale. This meeting, which was intended for employees of communities that sell the composter bins, was used as an opportunity to present to them the Miniwaste project along with some news concerning the sales methods. The following changes were applied: - Option of purchasing one or two composter bins per family to encourage the use of one bin to collect waste and one maturation bin, - Provision of an aerator tool with the composter bin to encourage users to ferment their bin, - Change to the delivery note, - Establishment of a survey concerning individual home composting, - Presentation of a proposed charter of commitment between Rennes Métropole and the users, replaced by a charter of participation (more flexible with respect to setting up). Results Over the duration of the Miniwaste project, 3,667 composter bins were sold by Rennes Métropole and 2,128 composter bins were sold in garden centres in 2010 and 2011. Thus a total of 5,795 composter bins were purchased in the area. The objective of selling 5,000 composter bins in three years was thus achieved.


100

Map showing composter bin sales by Rennes Métropole and in garden centres during the Miniwaste project

Problems encountered Twelve communities, including the town of Rennes, did not wish to offer composter bins for sale to their residents. For some residents, the fact of having to go to the Rennes Métropole technical base in Montgermont or to a waste disposal plant on a Wednesday afternoon may represent a problem. In addition, the rate of ownership of individual composter bins is 31% across the area. The results of the evaluation survey carried out by the GECE polling company in December 2012 also show that the rate of ownership rises to 60% of the population if we consider that some people use compost heaps or composter bins purchased at garden centres. Innovative aspects One point of innovation concerning the development of individual home composting has been the setting up of a charter of participation in home composting and a survey carried out when a composter bin is bought. An intern has also carried out a follow-up survey of people who had bought a composter bin more than 6 months previously. The charter of participation (Annex 3.1/Individual composting/Charter of participation in home composting) is used to remind users of the main rules of composting and to present the mentoring arrangement available from Rennes Métropole (training, guarantee of equipment, etc.). No use has yet been made of this charter due to lack of time. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

101

The survey that residents fill in when they buy their composter bin shows: How users sort their waste in general, How they learned about composting, What are their perceptions of it, Why do they want to compost, Whether they think they need training, Whether they are willing to be contacted after a few months for follow-up. An intern was tasked with analysing 103 replies to this survey. The full results of this survey appear in the annex (Annex 3.1/Individual composting/Survey). Finally, as part of the arrangements for purchasing individual composter bins offered by Rennes Métropole, a follow-up survey was carried out in order to evaluate home composting practices and to identify the disincentives and motivations of people who are committed to this waste prevention process. 191 people, representing 41% of the initial sample, responded to the questionnaire. After analysis of the responses, it emerged that nearly 97% of the composter bins sold by Rennes Métropole are used. Nevertheless, these results should be treated with some care given that it is only the most motivated people who generally reply to surveys. 19% of them experienced problems in using the composter bins. The full results appear in the annex (Annex 3.1/Individual composting/Survey). VIII - Worm composting: Methodology We wanted to test worm composting in order to provide a solution for people who are unable to participate in individual or collective composting due to lack of space or participants. Three worm composting models of French origin were selected. The three selected models are as follows: - Plastic worm bin: EcoWorm from Vers Clair

- Wooden worm bin from Vers land

- Worm bin with plastic interior and wooden exterior from Lombric Ethic

15 worm bins of each type were tested with 45 families. To make it easier to research and follow-up participants, personnel from Rennes Métropole and the town of Rennes were asked to take part in the experiment. A few requests from highly-motivated people who had rung the “green number” of the household waste department were also included. It would have been desirable to carry out the experiment solely with people living in apartments and who are unable to participate in collective composting, but given the low take-up, the experiment was extended to people living in houses. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

102

The experiment was held in two phases: - The 1st phase from May to October 2011 - The 2nd phase from January to June 2012 Two phases were needed in order to adjust the results. There is also a set-up period needed when starting a worm bin. As a result, some families only took four weighing records over the 6month test period. The weighing record for the 2nd phase was made easier in response to feedback from families. The main problem in this type of experiment is to keep the households motivated through to the end of the experiment and to obtain the weighing records. By simplifying the record, we made the follow-up more flexible. At the end of each stage, a presentation was given to the families (on 17/11/11 and 20/09/12) (Annex 3.1/Worm composting/Presentations). Furthermore, during the 2nd phase, an interim meeting was organised so that every participant could share details of what they had done and any problems encountered. 30 families wished to retain the worm bin at the end of the experiment and two new families, who had attended a training course on worm composting, were given worm bins on loan. The all-wood models were the least robust and could not be given out again to other families after their first use. Results The table below sets out the results obtained, particularly in terms of quantities of waste diverted for worm composting during the two phases of the experiment. 1st phase 2nd phase Date May to October 2011 January to June 2012 Number of volunteer families 45 35 Number that gave up 23 5 Number that continued 22 30 Average quantity of waste 3.4 kg 2 kg diverted per family/month Estimated quantity of waste 40 24 diverted each year per household Estimated quantity of waste 15 kg 9 kg diverted each year per resident Summary for the 2 phases of the worm composting experiment It is difficult to explain the differences in the results between the two experiments. These may be due to the eating habits of the people, the season, etc. We have also seen in part I-5 that communal worm composting could work.


103

Problems encountered This experiment shows that the rate of organic waste diverted with the worm bins tested is low. Larger worm bins might be able to divert greater quantities. The returns from the families also indicate that the practice of worm composting is more stringent than that of composting. Indeed, pests such as gnats can quickly arrive if the balance between dry and wet material is not maintained. However, once the process is up and running, this practice may provide an answer to those residents who no longer wish to throw their organic waste into the dustbin, but are unable to carry out conventional composting in a green area. Another worm composting experiment was carried out in the cafeteria of Rennes Métropole. This is a place where employees come to eat the lunch they have brought with them. There is no meal preparation. Only food waste. The worm bin was thus installed in November 2010 as part of European Waste Reduction Week. A worm composting workshop led by the Worgamic association was offered to local government employees on Thursday 25 November 2010. The aim was to explain to employees how to make and look after a worm bin. After a good start, the worm bin was invaded by gnats, causing hygiene problems in this shared space. We were therefore obliged to remove the worm bin from the cafeteria, although it was passed on to another family.

IX – Reduction of food waste Methodology Our initial objective was to organise cookery courses in order to teach how to reuse food leftovers, but this was not regarded as appropriate as cookery courses are already organised by various associations in the area. Indeed, most of these deal with eco-consumerism and avoiding food waste. As a result, they are not interested in the assistance that we could provide on this theme. In January 2012, a letter was sent to all the cookery associations and to the Centres Communaux d’Action Sociale, suggesting a workshop to raise awareness of avoiding food waste for the professionals and volunteers working in the social sector. We received 3 replies, one of whom was interested. In our correspondence with various associations from the social or cookery sector, we realised that food waste had already been tackled with the eco-consumerism activities and by passing on recipes describing how to use leftovers. The term “food waste” may also have been misunderstood by some people working with low-income residents and who do not have the luxury of “wasting” food. Our third approach in terms of reducing food waste was to suggest offering help to school canteens. Since the primary schools are under local government control, we took on this target. And to follow on from the Miniwaste project, we have offered a mentoring programme for those schools that already have a composter bin in the central kitchen or school canteen. We wrote to four communities on this topic in December 2011: Rennes, Bruz, Vern-sur-Seiche and Orgères. Only Orgères wished to take up this offer of mentoring for its “Les grains d'orge” primary school. This mentoring programme, provided by the association called “de mon assiette à notre planète” (from my plate to our planet), was provided between September and December 2012. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

104

This arrangement required the involvement of a teacher (the headmaster in our case), the kitchen manager and the municipality. A class from Year 6 (CM2) consisting of 31 pupils was thus made aware of food waste via the mentoring programme described in the annex (Annex 3.1/Food waste /Wasting less and eating better). Results The main results to take from this mentoring programme are as follows (a full summary can be found in the annex (Annex 3.1/Food waste /Food waste – Summary of the mentoring programme) : - The overall waste (meal waste + excess production) dropped from 36 to 16 kg, corresponding to a reduction of over 50% between the two sets of measurements. - The waste generated from meals dropped from 24 to 12 kg, corresponding to a reduction of a half between the two sets of measurements. - Excess production dropped from 12 to 4 kg, dividing the total by 3 between the two sets of measurements. Apart from the impressive figures, it is important to note that, even though there was only a short period between the two weighing periods requiring significant work by the teacher and the children, the various participants were truly interested in working on the project. The municipality also wishes to follow this up by carrying out a monthly weighing programme in order to evaluate the effects of the mentoring over the long term (Annex 3.1/ Food waste/Smart waste). Finally, the “de mon assiette à notre planète” association has suggested to us a mentoring protocol that will allow every school that wants to work on avoiding food waste to run a similar experiment. (Annex 3.1/Food waste /Protocol for avoiding food waste). X – Reducing organic waste at source Methodology Rennes Métropole is looking to reduce the quantity of organic waste sent to waste disposal plants by private individuals and the technical services in communities. To do this, the urban community encourages the practice of shredding garden waste and use of the shredded material as mulch and for composting. Rennes Métropole subsidises those communities that purchase the material, enabling this waste to be reduced. To promote this practice and to encourage the communities to share their experiences, on 4th April 2011, Rennes Métropole organised a forum on the management of organic waste. This event was intended for elected representatives and technical staff of the communities in the area. 67 people attended this presentation which was made up of two parts (Annex 3.1/Reduction of organic waste). - Morning: The meeting concentrated on the management of organic waste - Afternoon: The exchanges were devoted to the development of composting in the catering sector. The day ended with a visit to a site. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

105

This day, which provided a great deal of feedback, showed us that the management of organic waste (green waste and kitchen waste) is a concern to the communities, who are looking for solutions that will allow them to reduce this waste. Similarly, Rennes Métropole is helping private individuals who are joining together to buy shredders and mulching mowers. Results Between 2010 and 2012, 13 shredders and 21 mulching lawnmowers were thus subsidised by Rennes Métropole for the communities, representing over 15,000 tonnes of organic waste avoided. During the Miniwaste project, 12 associations received subsidies to purchase 12 shredders and 3 mulching mowers, representing around 650 tonnes of green waste avoided. For 2013, 4 associations (including 3 new associations) have already submitted a subsidy application to purchase 4 shredders.

XI – Communication initiatives The following section discusses the communication initiatives implemented locally as part of the Miniwaste project by Rennes Métropole. XI.1 – Creation of a style guide Methodology In November 2009, Rennes Métropole signed up to a Local waste prevention programme (PLP) with ADEME (Environment and Energy Management Agency). Given the many different style guides and logos that make layout top heavy and leave increasingly less space for content, the Rennes Métropole Communication Department decided to adopt the style guide used for both the Energy Climate Plan and the PLP. As it will ensure a consistent visual message, this style guide will allow the community to guarantee consistency between the policies pursued in terms of sustainable development and will make it easier to remember the messages passed on. Where the Miniwaste project falls within the 3rd priority of the PLP devoted to flagship initiatives, the communication documents associated with it are an adaptation of the style guide created for the PLP. (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/1 - Style guide) Problems encountered The many different style guides and logos tend to overload the layout and leave less space for the content. It is therefore important to take care, when drawing up communication documents, that the message to be passed on is easily readable.


106

XI.2 –Website of the Local Prevention Programme Methodology The website for Rennes Métropole’s local waste prevention programme (http://dechets.cachange-tout.fr/) mirrors the “Je change, ça change tout!” (I’m changing, that changes everything) style guide for the Energy Climate Plan. On the other hand, the hierarchical structure of the site is specific to the local waste prevention programme, and is made up of 5 headings: -

1/. How to manage your organic waste better 2/. How to manage your bulky waste better 3/. Clever behaviour 4/. Toxic waste 5/. Waste from communities and businesses

Other modules have also been suggested:

-

-

Waste prevention (what does the PLP consist of, partners, etc.) News (notices of events or articles about specific information) Partners (a list of the PLP’s partners with links to their websites) Feedback (summaries, communication materials produced in the context of partnerships, etc.) Films (see the “Films” heading in the communication section of the final report) Toolboxes (linked to the OuVerte map produced by MCE and a section dedicated to partners: identification with a logging programme) A section for hiring reusable cups from Rennes Métropole 2 photo galleries (general public and young people) A Facebook page “Je change, ça change tout !” A Twitter page “Je change, ça change tout !”

The site will change over the coming months (March 2013) in response to the feedback from Internet users who are unable to find the information fast enough (for example: cup hire – they need to scroll down to access this information) or to give greater space to news. Problems encountered Being a webmaster is a job in itself. Coupled with the load of 2 communication plans, the site has not developed as had been envisaged during 2012.

To find a solution to the issue of getting content online, Rennes Métropole intends to launch an administrative procedure to ensure that this task is done by the service provider who hosts the site. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

107

XI.3 – Composting guides blog Methodology The household waste reclamation department (SVDM) has created a blog in order to create and unite a real network of composting guides in Rennes Métropole (http://blogducomposteur.blogspot.fr/). The aim of this blog is to provide a tool that will allow the advisers to communicate both with one another and with the general public. The blog showcases the activities of the advisers. The Calendar section, for example, allows them to inform residents of the compost collection days and let them know of the various events they are organising. The blog also provides the opportunity for feedback. Anyone may ask questions or put over their own viewpoint. The greater the participation, the more it will become a known source of information. Problems encountered It has taken a long time for the composting guides to gain their independence. This is why, in the early stage, Rennes Métropole was the only contributor to the blog. The blog was initially run by a freelance and a photographer commissioned by Rennes Métropole; then it was taken over by the advisers who made some changes (change of interface, change of background and blog colours). However, the SVDM continues to put articles and photographs online from time to time in order to keep up the momentum likely to make the blog more attractive.

Setting up such a tool requires, before it is created, the composting guides to be brought strongly on board. Indeed it is essential that the advisers are able to appreciate the level of contribution that the community expects of them. In the Rennes Métropole area, this participation has not achieved the expected targets. This lack of enthusiasm and contribution to running the blog has had to be made up for by the teams from the SVDM, and more particularly by the communication manager.

The dates of courses, lecture and the openings of new composting sites are regularly updated by the household waste reclamation department. XI.4 – Production of films Methodology In order to bring to the public’s attention its activities relating to the 5 approaches of its local waste prevention programme, Rennes Métropole has produced a series of films highlighting the projects started or run by people in the area to promote waste reduction: users, communities in the area, various associations, professionals and service providers in the community.


108

There are 2 types of film associated with the Miniwaste project: - films for the general public that present, in a general way, a topic developed around 3 case studies in order to demonstrate several practices and points of view. - e-learning / training films that are used to learn good practice by means of a detailed presentation illustrated with very specific examples. The aim of the films intended for the general public is to inform or raise awareness of a practice that is still largely unknown to those who watch them. On the other hand, the e-learning films were made for people who want to get started or improve their practices and supplement practical on-site training. The subject areas covered and partners: Composting for the general public: Stories: For individual composting – a resident from Cesson-Sévigné / for communal composting in low-rise housing – a resident of Chantepie / for composting outside apartment blocks – a resident of Rennes Composting training: Stories: Francis COLIN from SCOP Eisenia Green waste reclamation – general public: Stories: Laurent PETREMENT, Chair of the Jardins (ou)Verts association / Roland GICQUEL, environment officer at Rennes Métropole / Roland SARRELABOUT, deputy mayor of the commune of Le Rheu Green waste reclamation –training: Stories: Emmanuel SALLIOU, landscape architect at SCOP Eisenia Worm composting for the general public: Stories: For worm composting in apartments – a resident of Saint-Jacques-de-la-Landes and a resident of Rennes Worm composting training: Stories: Elise LONGELIN PERON, trainer from Eisenia Food waste: Stories: Jacqueline Le VACON from MCE / Anne-Catherine PIVARD from GRPAS / JeanJacques GUERRIER, central kitchen manager in Bruz / Loïc BASTIT from the Food bank / a resident of Maurepas The waste-free village – general public: Stories: Raphaël GAUTIER, officer for Brittany at the Au goût du jour association / Hervé LECOP, composting guide / Roland GICQUEL, environment officer at Rennes Métropole / Jean-Pierre LETELLIER from Jardins du possible / Nicolas JAFFRAY, departmental delegate from Ille et Vilaine CLCV


109

The waste-free village – young people: Stories: Sarah WROBLEWSKI from the Ecoo association / Raphaël GAUTIER, officer for Brittany at the Au goût du jour association / Olivier HASLE, PLP organiser for Rennes Métropole / Jean-Pierre LETELLIER from Jardins du possible / Les Ateliers Art terre / Year 4 pupils from the Jean Rostand school in Rennes Reading the exhaustive list of films made between December 2011 and November 2012 to promote the management of organic waste by households, we can see that many activities have been carried out across the area. By creating these films and the way they are designed, we are also highlighting the people involved in waste prevention in the Rennes Métropole area. XI.5 – Poster campaign in the urban network Methodology

•

Poster campaign organised from 5th to 19th March 2012: Reclamation of organic waste undertaken by the residents of Rennes Métropole.

In designing this campaign it was decided to reuse the photographs from articles produced over the previous year, which were aimed at promoting good habits, on a day-to-day basis, to reclaim organic waste: -

Composting outside apartment blocks Worm composting Cooking with leftovers Individual composting

This campaign was used to place residents at the very heart of the initiative. It was one way for the community to thank those who were most active and to encourage them to continue their efforts and bring these practices to the attention of other people.

•

Poster campaign organised from 12th to 26th November 2012: promoting communal composting.

To engage the general public and generate enthusiasm, Rennes Métropole ran a humorous campaign incorporating lots of images. The concept borrowed from the advertising on dating websites by showing a man and a woman beside a community composter bin. It had a catchy slogan chosen after a brainstorming session with Studio Bigot (graphic design):“Communal composting: the new dating site”. Very positive feedback was received for this campaign internally, it is planned to expand upon it in the same vein. The posters are shown in the annex. (Annex 3.1 /Communication initiatives/2-Urban network campaign).


110

Problems encountered No post-test study was carried out after the poster campaigns, which means that we cannot evaluate the feedback among the population. XI.6 – Adhesive signs on waste collection trucks Methodology Every year, Rennes Métropole runs communication campaigns on the sides of its waste collection trucks. These are associated with the flagship topics for the year as defined by ADEME or related to projects such as the European Miniwaste project. This is a communication tool that guarantees excellent visibility given that the trucks drive – at slow speeds – across the entire Rennes Métropole area. As the cost of a campaign is quite high, two or three campaigns are run each year. The messages shown alternate between waste prevention and selective sorting. Originally, visuals were used to introduce the mascot of the Household Waste Reclamation Department: the ant called Tritout (“Sort-it-All”). Then, in a break with custom, an administrative procedure was initiated so that these illustrations could be done by the caricaturist, Loïc SCHWARTZ. His task was to reach residents of the area with a new visual style. The topic of food waste was selected within the main subject area of the reclamation of organic waste. A new process is being set up for 2013. The principle behind the last poster campaign on the urban network will be recalled in order to pass the message on with humorous campaigns that integrate photographs and emphasise the “human” aspect. The media are shown in the annex. (Annex 3.1 /Communication initiatives/3-Adhesive signs on trucks). Problems encountered No post-test study was carried out after the poster campaigns, which means that we cannot evaluate the feedback among the population. XI.7 – Purchase of advertising space Methodology The purchase of advertising space or setting up partnerships to obtain such space are essential to give a project the visibility it needs. It needs a presence in a range of different communication media in order to reach different targets. The impact on the general public can sometimes be disappointing. In the “Ouest France” web campaign carried out from 19 September to Saturday 8 October 2011, the “click” rate was satisfactory, but there was little impact in terms of questions to Rennes Métropole's Green Number, increase in the sale of composter bins or additional take-up of training courses, etc. We therefore need to vary the locations and the type of media in order to reach the greatest number of people. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

111

The cost estimate is shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/4-Purchase of advertising space). Problems encountered Even though the impact is difficult to quantify due to lack of time and budget, we still need to use these spaces as this is the way to highlight the initiatives carried out in the area.

XI.8 – Promotional items Methodology It is essential to use promotional items for communication at events organised by Rennes Métropole or when out at seminars, for example. A number of practical objects were handed out as they fitted in with the local waste prevention programme, These items were selected because of the “everyday” nature of their use, ensuring that they will not be thrown away or forgotten in a cupboard: -

300 Miniwaste-Life USB sticks handed out 5,000 Miniwaste-Life bags handed out during 2011 and 2012 5,000 Miniwaste-Life lunch boxes handed out and promoted during 2011, 2012 and 2013

All of these items have been produced in Europe, apart from the PCBs in the USB sticks. Rennes Métropole was also very aware of the fact that all of these goodies had to be suitable for all age segments. By the same token, it was decided to “reward” the composting guides in the area with a gift associated with the reclamation of organic waste, so a gardening kit was created (apron, gloves, cap, trowel and rake) with the logos and addresses of the PLP and Miniwaste websites. Feedback has been very positive on the use of the goodies. Photographs of these promotional items are shown in the annex. (Annex 3.1 /Communication initiatives/5-Promotional items). Problems encountered The only small negative point relates to faults in or lack of robustness of a number of USB sticks and lunch boxes. XI.9 – Tools to raise awareness of the promotion of organic waste reclamation Methodology •

Composting guide for the general public:

This guide, which is intended for the general public (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/6Reclamation tools/Composting guide), sets out the benefits of composting over 16 pages: “Why compost?”, “How to learn to make your own compost?”, “What can I put in it?”, etc. It summarises the answers to the questions frequently asked by people.


112

Rennes Métropole has purchased the rights to use this guide, which was produced by the Maison de la Consommation et de l’Environnement (MCE). It is often preferable to buy the usage rights where existing tools have been identified as effective, rather than to start producing new documents. To harmonise all the documents from Rennes Métropole associated with composting, the “Life” and “Miniwaste” logos were added, then the style guides for the PLP and the Miniwaste project were applied to create a consistent message to be passed on by Rennes Métropole and to ensure greater visibility among the public. The communication documents, particularly those produced on printed media become obsolete very quickly. Trends and technical developments evolve rapidly, so the communication officer must be constantly looking out to maximise the longevity of his/her documentation. Changes have been made to the composting guide for the general public for reasons of form, rather than content. A few negative points were identified, the main ones being: too much text, not enough illustrations, monotonous colours, text too condensed. These points no longer met the criteria for a document intended for the general public, and were more suitable for targeting professionals or experts in this field. Rather than monitoring these aspects constantly, developing a network will enable us to find out about the latest tools. For this reason, Rennes Métropole signed another agreement with the Conseil Général of Deux-Sèvres (79) in order to obtain a guide that meets our target. We started to distribute this guide in November 2012, so we have not yet received feedback from the general public. •

“Réduire ses déchets organiques” (Reducing your organic waste) brochure:

This 4-page brochure (in A5 format) (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/6-Reclamation tools/Organic waste brochure) intended for the general public briefly summarises the various initiatives set up by Rennes Métropole to reclaim organic waste. It presents the individual composting, communal composting, courses and even grants to purchase shredders and mulching lawnmowers. Contact points at Rennes Métropole and the Rennes Métropole Green Number are shown for every question. This document is handed out at the Rennes Métropole Information Office, at town halls and during events such as the sale of composter bin at markets or local functions. Since the project started, the brochure cover page has been reworked several times to ensure that the general public does not have a feeling of “déjà vu”. In 2012, the style guide for the Local Waste Prevention programme (PLP) was thus combined with the Miniwaste guide. The content remains the same, however. •

Practical binder and fact sheets to promote the purchase of equipment to reclaim organic waste by associations:

To encourage the reclamation of green waste, Rennes Métropole subsidises the purchase of shredders and recycling mowers for residents who join together to form an association. The aim of this initiative is partly to pool the purchase and use of equipment and partly to promote the Miniwaste project. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

113

For some people it may appear complicated to create an association in order to obtain a grant, so a communication kit was designed to simplify the administrative procedures. This takes the form of a cardboard binder with 3 pockets to hold the data sheets. The people then simply have to complete the forms and send them to the address shown. Stickers based on the Miniwaste style guide, on a transparent or white background, have also been created to customise these folders, which are handed out at certain events (such as courses on the reclamation of organic waste). The following data sheets currently exist: -

How to create and manage a shredder association in the RM area Articles of association under the law of 1901 Model bylaws for an association Charter for use of equipment Request to borrow / hire equipment from the association Disclaimer Annual activity report for the sustainable management of organic waste

The data sheets are shown in the annexes (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/6-Reclamation tools/assoc. data sheets).

•

Composting exhibition for the general public:

This exhibition (which takes the form of 6 boards) intended for the general public is set up at events associated with sustainable development (gardening fair, plant swaps, neighbourhood parties) and on the composter bin sale stands at the markets. The boards intentionally have detailed content so that a presenter is not essential. Problems encountered This composting exhibition took a very large amount of time to produce. Indeed, the needs of some conflicted with the wishes of others… A document was designed on the basis of a brief from an engineer, a technician, the household waste reclamation department (SVDM) of Rennes Métropole, and many more. The content was then sent out in a Word document. The problem then was to establish the right balance between the information to be passed on and the means of doing this. In general, the text provided was too long. The information had to be summarised and an attempt made to translate it visually so that it would be understood by as many people as possible. It was also necessary to give clarity to the document, particularly with respect to the boards used at an exhibition. The time taken for revision by the various validation layers was generally longer than initially specified in the retro-planning. From a “communication” viewpoint, these boards ought to be summarised even further, but the SVDM was unable to reduce the amount of information that needed to be passed on. The visual of the exhibition is shown in the annex. (Annex 3.1 /Communication initiatives/6Reclamation tools/Expo_compostage_GP). Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

114

•

“La valorisation des déchets verts” (Green waste reclamation) exhibition:

Following on from the composting exhibition, an exhibition on the reclamation of green waste was also created. The 2 exhibitions, which are designed on the same principle, meet the following basic questions: -

How do I reclaim my garden waste? How do I do this on a daily basis? How do I assess how I am doing? What do I do if I have problems? What can Rennes Métropole do to help me? Etc.

These exhibitions are available as rigid boards (material: Dibon material sheet) and in a flexible format (material: banners with eyelets). To prevent the content from becoming obsolete too quickly, the emphasis has been placed on presenting the main principles. The background always shows the same central ideas: encouraging take-up, highlighting the benefits of reclaiming organic waste and dispelling the prejudices surrounding these activities. This led to the choice of focussing specifically on the problems encountered when starting to carry out these activities, and thus not getting stuck on any one question. The visual of the exhibition is shown in the annex. (Annex 3.1 /Communication initiatives/6Reclamation tools/Expo_DV). •

Course brochure:

Rennes Métropole organises free courses on various topics with several skill levels in order to support those residents who want to get hands-on with their management of organic waste. A brochure setting out these courses is given out in the town halls of the area, at the Rennes Métropole Information Office and can also be looked up on the websites for Miniwaste and the Rennes Métropole Local Waste Prevention Programme. Only the table of course dates is updated internally (twice per year), while the rest of the document cannot be modified. This avoids the need for a graphic designer. In fact, the platform at the graphic design studio on which the communication documents are stored allows some documents to be modified internally using previously-defined areas. In this case this means the data in the table. The brochure is shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/6-Reclamation tools/ PlaquetteFormation). Problems encountered The only problem identified is the use of the same cover page. Potential readers may think that it is always the same document. To resolve this, we intend to add a module that can be modified via the platform and indicate the semester to which the brochure corresponds.


115

•

Programme of talks:

Rennes Métropole also offers talks and lectures:

o A 4-page A5 leaflet has been sent out to the town halls of the area and to associations to tell them about the talks that have been organised. The document details the content of the talks and also contains a brief biography of the speakers. o A poster has been produced listing the subjects of these talks together with the name of the organiser. The organiser can fill in the following fields by hand: -

date place description of the subject

The poster and the leaflet are shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/6Reclamation tools/Programme of talks).

•

“Hum! Extra tes restes!” guide:

To support the project of the Groupe Rennais de Pédagogie et d'Animation Sociale (GRPAS), Rennes Métropole has provided the layout and will be responsible for promoting the “Hum! Extra tes restes!” guide. This tool, which is both educational and playful, brings together the practical data sheets and the recipe sheets to help local residents to reduce their kitchen waste and promote the initiatives to reduce food waste. The partners in this project agreed on a distribution of labour by separating the substance (the meaning) from the form (the style). Specifically, GRPAS was employed to compose all the texts with the children from the Maurepas district. Although the SVDM communication officer coordinated the layout aspects, the actual work was subcontracted to a graphic design studio. For the layout, several design proposals were submitted to GRPAS. The partners agreed on the final selection together. • • •

64-page guide Printed on recycled paper Metal spiral-bound (so that it will stand up)

For this type of project to succeed, it needs everyone involved to join together to encourage adherence and commitment. With respect to how the guide is to be distributed, the emphasis was placed on downloading from the Internet. The guide is thus accessible on several websites. Only 5,000 paper copies were printed in order to remain consistent with the waste reduction policy. The guide is shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/6-Reclamation tools/ Extratesrestes guide).


116

Problems encountered There were no real problems in this area since the objective was achieved: the book was edited. It should be noted, however, that the first proposal for the graphics from the RM service provider (Studio Bigot) was much more hard-hitting and original. This layout associated with the title “Extra tes restes!”. It had a comic book reference showing an invasion of dishes acting as spaceships! GRPAS preferred a very plain and more institutional layout, however. XI.10 –Tools to raise awareness of the promotion of communal composting Methodology •

Poster promoting communal composting.

This A3 size poster, which was produced at the request of the Rennes Métropole service provider, is displayed in the lobbies of apartment blocks or made available to housing and condominium associations to promote communal composting, particularly the setting up of composting sites. The aim of this initiative was to reach apartment residents with a few key phrases and encourage them to start composting. The poster is shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/7- Communal composting tools /AffCompColl). •

Poster promoting communal composting.

This flyer is handed out to residents of shared buildings to supplement the A3 poster. It is circulated either by the Rennes Métropole service provider tasked with promoting composting in the area or by the housing and condominium associations. To reinforce the partnerships with these promoters, the flyers were customised with their logos. It is indeed essential to encourage the people in the area who help with setting up communal composting areas. The document recognises the contributions of the local people: 2 reference people from a communal composting area located in Rennes were shown in the foreground of the photograph to illustrate that these activities are accessible to everyone and, at the same time, to encourage volunteering. The key stages of composting are illustrated by photographs so as to bring specific elements to the attention of people who are just discovering this activity and thus to try to eliminate the prejudices that are sometimes brought out by communal composting. The document has been regularly updated to include comments from users, our service provider, Rennes Métropole technicians, etc. As part of the Miniwaste project, Rennes Métropole has set up an extended mentoring scheme, including the installation of composter bins and development of the composting area. However, this could not work without the involvement of a certain number of residents. Here, again, the document has developed in response to comments from users, service providers, Rennes Métropole technicians, etc., to give a better result.


117

The flyer is shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/7- Communal composting tools /Flyer). •

Poster promoting communal composting in apartment building lobbies:

To build upon the previous document, this poster, which was put up in the shared areas of apartment buildings after the flyer had gone out, allows residents to register to start composting. Two ways of working were tested: -

One had a form allowing people to register for the programme. The other provided contact details of the person with whom to register for the programme. The form is a potentially very useful tool, but only under certain conditions. Indeed, some people are hesitant at having to write their names down. To be effective, this attractive communication tool must go hand in hand with direct contact with the residents or must be used when a few people have already crossed the threshold to “stand out from the crowd”.

Given that the flyer summarises the key stages of the procedure to follow in order to benefit from a communal composting site, it was decided that its content should be repeated on the poster. This also allows residents to make the link between the flyer they receive in their mailbox and the poster displayed in their apartment building lobby. The poster is shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/7- Communal composting tools /Apartment block poster). •

“Je composte, ça change tout !” (I compost; that changes everything!) sticker:

Following the principle of the “Stop Pub” (No junk mail) sticker, a sticker was created to promote communal composting. The purpose of this sticker is to help composting activities by simplifying the input instructions. The various types of waste that can be added to the composter bin are listed at the top of the sticker. The bottom part describes how to add this waste. This quick reference guide ensures better use of the composter bin for a better result! It also makes the Miniwaste project more visible and familiarises users with the project’s style guide. At first, it was only given to people who bought a composter bin through Rennes Métropole. It is also available on stands or at events associated with the reclamation of organic waste. As we were aware of the difficulty involving residents of shared buildings, the idea was to give them out to those residents who sign the “charter of participation in communal composting”.


118

The objective was to have the sticker attached at the top of most of the mailboxes in the shared building and thus encourage the more stubborn residents to use their apartment block’s shared composter bin. At present it is still too soon to identify any change in behaviour. The sticker is shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/7- Communal composting tools /AdhésifJeComposte). •

Charters of participation:

It is not always easy to encourage residents to join in with a participative process, particularly voluntarily. And if this initiative is to be a long-term action, it proves to be even more complex. Indeed, the turnover in shared housing makes the management of composting areas even more of a problem. For a site to remain in use, it needs the residents to be involved, which is why it is a good idea to have one or more fixed points of contact who drive the group dynamic. The users are therefore invited to sign a charter of participation so that those residents who asked for the installation of a composting area assume responsibility and to define the commitments of everyone. Another objective is to prevent people dropping out! The charter is shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/7- Communal composting tools /Communal composting charter).

•

Signage on communal composter bins:

The following signs (Annex 3.1/Communication initiative s/7-Communal composting tools/Communal composting signage) have been attached to the composter bins outside apartment blocks and on residential estates. These signs have developed over the course of the Miniwaste project. They have been improved in response to feedback from composter bin users and from the service provider responsible for setting up and monitoring the composting sites. This feedback is essential. Developing a communication tool based on the feedback from the ground will enable us to better meet the users’ expectations. The next change to the programme will be to add illustrations. Problems encountered But. However… It may be tempting to reuse illustrations from another medium to save time, but this may prove to be counter-productive. Rennes Métropole has tried this already: certain visuals which had been reused on occasion resulted in misunderstandings, which may lead to mistakes when composting. This point highlights the importance of testing a communication tool before launching it and, in particular, of having a very varied validation panel.


119

And attempting to respond to every request from users runs the risk of needing to create a new document every time. Creating parts of the document that can be modified makes it possible to remain consistent with the style guide while still being able to customise the documents and meet ad hoc requests (such as ad hoc information associated with the life of the composting area, etc.). •

Green waste bin sticker

The aim of this sticker is to simplify composting activities in the little actions of everyday life. It starts by listing the various types of waste that can be added to the composter bin, and then describes how it should be prepared. This tool is in reality simply a memo to ensure better use of the composter bin for better results. It also familiarises users with the Miniwaste style guide and thus makes the project more visible. The sticker is shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/7- Communal composting tools /Green waste bin sticker). ***** The documents associated with communal composting listed above have been made available to the housing associations. They are also used by sorting ambassadors. XI.11 – Awareness raising tools for stands, initiatives and local events Methodology •

Stand banners:

In addition to the various documents and media mentioned above, banners have also been created for dressing the stands used to promote the reclamation of organic waste. In order to use the feedback received from Rennes Métropole technicians and service providers on the ground, a summary was drawn up of the elements most frequently requested by users. Apart from the fact that they dress the stands, these banners provide a “summary” of the important elements. The Ecoo association played an important role in summarising the content; this association is in direct contact with the residents of the area on stands at markets or events. The aim in creating these banners was to reach out to passers-by and encourage them to ask questions of the people manning the stand. The content is highly summarised so, to obtain more information, people need either to read the “composting and organic waste” exhibitions or ask the person manning the stand. The feedback from presenters from the Ecoo association is highly positive, both in terms of making contact with the public and with respect to the aesthetic quality of the banner. One not insignificant advantage is that this banner protects the presenters from the cold when the stand is set up in a draft.


120

The visual of the banner is shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/8Communal composting tools /Banners). XI.12 – Events for the general public Methodology The Miniwaste project has been presented at many different events: sales of composter bins at the markets, plant swaps, opening of the 100th composting site outside an apartment block, opening of the 1st composting site on a residential estate, Sustainable Development Week, Waste Reduction Week, 2012 Viva-Cités metropolitan event, final Miniwaste conference, etc. The tools set up for these events range from the 5m x 5m tent dressed (with printed banners) in the colours of the Miniwaste project for selling composter bins at markets through to media coverage (sending a press pack to the media) when composting sites are opened. At events for the general public, the staging and logistics are set up for the occasion. The 2 most important events of the year are Sustainable Development Week and European Waste Reduction Week (EWRD). Rennes Métropole is responsible for all the organisation: logistics, staging, organisation of workshops, demonstrations, talks, etc. The year 2012 was marked by two other important events:

-

Viva-Cité(s): An opportunity to share and receive information about public projects and policies held from 29 September to 7 October 2012. An area of 50m² was dedicated to sustainable development, and more precisely to the Local Waste Prevention Programme and the Energy Climate Plan. Every day workshops were organised on waste prevention and were regarded as a great success. The “reclamation of organic waste” day presented by the RM composting guides was also successful, finishing at 19.00, rather than 13.00. This week served to highlight the various skills of the SVDM to the general public and local activists. Footfall in the community space and the high take-up of the workshops were very positive. This shows the interest there is on this topic if it is presented in a targeted and dynamic way, hence the decision to organise workshops, rather than talks. The added-value was provided by: - the staging: which allowed people to immerse themselves in an interactive and participative universe - the workshops: where the public were able to make specific tools which they could then take home.

-

The final Miniwaste conference: The summing up session of the Miniwaste project took place over two days at the Rennes Métropole town hall (on 20 and 21 November 2012). The conference was split between plenary sessions and workshops, and was used to present the initiatives undertaken during the Miniwaste project along with the associated (IT and communication) tools. A special stage set was designed for the building’s ground floor to illustrate the scope of the project. This conformed to the Miniwaste style guide. Over 120 people attended this high spot, which still allowed time for sharing experiences in lounges set up in the building’s halls and at mealtimes (which showcased local products and efforts to reduce food waste). The feedback from the satisfaction questionnaire showed that people were very satisfied!


121

All the documents relating to the final conference can be found in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/9-Events/Final conference). XI.13- Demonstration boards Methodology - Communication component: Following the setting up of a composting area outside an apartment block or on a residential estate, a board has been designed to inform the residents about the space and how it works. There are several benefits to this board: -

It signposts the location of the composting site (2 metres high) It highlights the benefit of reclaiming organic waste It explains the instructions to ensure that the site works well It provides contacts for any questions or problems It promotes the Miniwaste project by showcasing the style guide

Size of the visual: 1000mm x 800mm Printed on adhesive paper or Dibon material board - Technical component: As requested by the contacts for the composting sites and by the composting guides, we have worked to set up demonstration boards on the communal composting sites in apartment blocks and residential estates. We initially planned to set up 3 boards on 50 composting sites. Taking account of the requests from residents, it seemed a better idea to install 1 board on 150 sites. A tender document was thus published at E-megalisbretagne.org on 14/03/2012. The final date for return of the dossiers was 5 April 2012 at 12.00. Rennes Métropole received 4 bids within the specified period as follows: • Bid no. 1: EMERAUDE ID association • Bid no. 2: CAP OUEST Signalétique (company) • Bid no. 3: DL System (company) • Bid no. 4: GV Signaletic (company) The bid from Cap Ouest was accepted in September 2012. The visual of the boards is shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/10Demonstration boards). Problems encountered The significant workload for the project team in setting up the prevention initiatives prevented the initial schedule from being achieved for this initiative, namely to install 50 demonstration boards by 31/12/2010.


122

We were unable to launch the consultation before early 2012, and there was also an additional delay in analysing the bids as the service was not assigned until 6 months after the bids were received. A more detailed analysis of the conditions for setting up the boards in the public areas in the immediate vicinity of the composter bins showed that this installation work required agreement from the community service following the submission of a declaration of intent to start work on the boards, which represented an additional delay. This regulatory procedure led Rennes Métropole to abandon the project as it would have been impossible to install the boards before 31.12.2012, i.e. before the end of the project. However it is still important to install these boards, and this will be looked into in 2013. XI.7 - Visits from external delegations Since the start of the project, and particularly since 2011, RM’s prevention team has been regularly contacted by other French communities, asking them to present our process concerning composting outside apartment blocks. At each meeting, we inform the community about Rennes Métropole’s involvement in the Miniwaste project, we organise a visit to a composting site and we give them the leaflet. We have been visited by 11 delegations since the project started. We also presented the arrangements internally to officers from departments of Rennes Métropole and the City of Rennes on 23 October 2012.

IPALLE Metz Métropole Le Grand Chalon Caen Saintes SMICTOM Fougères VAL-ECO BLOIS Pau Région Ile De France CASE école supérieure de commerce (étudiants étrangers) Conférence interne politique interne Rennes Métropole

Nb de personnes accueillies 4 3 1 25 6 26 9 7 22 13 40 27

total

183

Nom

Date de visite 14/09/2011 16/02/2011 16/02/2011 28/02/2011 19/05/2011 17/05/2011 21/06/2011 30et31/08/2011 29/03/2012 25/04/2012 14/06/2012 23/10/2012

Visits from delegations

Annex 3.1/Communication initiatives/11-Visit shows the slide presentation used at these meetings. COMPONENT C: Project follow-up

Composter bin follow-up by Irstea As an extension of the protocol defined in initiative 2.4 with the follow-up of 3 composter bins already installed in Rennes Métropole, (Cleunay, Alma, Rouerie), another 4 composter bins were tested (which means that 7 were monitored in total). Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

123

During the test, the aim of the follow-up was to describe how they can be used and their performance (processing capacity, rise in temperature, composting time).4 types of composter bin were tested in the canteens. The different types of composter bin are presented in the annex(Annex 3.1/Component C/IRSTEA/Alternative composter bins) with some photographs: 1- Vertical static model (2 prototypes) in Bruz and Le Rheu (INRA) 2- Rotary model sold by Joraform under the name JK400 (2 composter bins) at Le Rheu (school) 3- Rotary model designed by Irstea as a prototype with holes allowing extraction during rotation at Le Rheu (INRA) 1) Manual rotary composter bin 2 models were tested. One, which has recently appeared on the market, is claimed to have increased processing capacity of the order of 4-5 tonnes/year, and could therefore be envisaged for communal composting. It is definitively a model resulting from the one developed for individual use, particularly in the USA and Northern Europe. The second, according to patent no. US4042219, is a perforated rotary drum potentially allowing better aeration and extraction of the compost through the perforations without special manual operations. 2) Multi-compartment static vertical composter bin This is derived from the traditional principle on sale, and is an update of the models already produced (but not necessarily sold), potentially allowing an increased processing capacity. This is another robust system in terms of solidity, ergonomics and aeration. It was designed in conjunction with the company Emeraude, and has a modular structure which makes it easier to remove material for use. This was an innovation and was the subject of patent application no. FR1158495 on 23/09/2011. The product is now on the market. The following were definitively tested: 2 rotary composter bins available on the market (JK400), one prototype perforated rotary composter bin and 1 multi-compartment vertical static composter bin. A second multi-compartment composter bin was manufactured as part of the Miniwaste project at the Orgère site, but was not followed up by IRSTEA. Indeed it was taken over by Rennes Métropole and EISEINIA after the installation started up on account of recommendations associated with the equipment made by IRSTEA. For the other equipment listed above, a management and follow-up protocol for these alternative composter bins has been drawn up as per the document in the annex.(Annex 3.1/Component C/IRSTEA/Protocol). Follow-up of service providers The services provided by the companies Eisenia, Tic Ethic, Ecoo and ACP are followed up monthly via an updated progress report setting out the monitored indicators defined in the corresponding service contracts. For Eisenia and Tic Ethic, an activity report (see one such activity report in the annex(Annex 3.1/Component C/Service providers/Sample annual report batch 1) is sent to RM every month, reporting on the service provider’s activities (visits to composting sites, call-outs, current projects, etc). For external presentations (Ecoo, Jardins du Possible) at communal events, an evaluation form is completed by the presenter in order to monitor the number of people whose awareness was raised, the number of documents handed out, etc. A satisfaction questionnaire is also sent to the


124

organising community to obtain feedback on the presentation (Annex 3.1/Component C/Service providers/Questionnaire). Follow-up of presentations A computer file is created for every event in which Rennes Métropole is called upon to participate. This consists of: -

Evaluation form for the service provider Satisfaction questionnaire for the organising structure Photographs, if applicable Press articles, if applicable

A sample event report is shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Component C/Presentation). Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Answers to the letter of 29 March 2011: Question: “The LIFE logo does not appear on the minutes of meetings. This point must be improved. The same applies to the composting poster. The expenditure for this item is not eligible.” The LIFE logo has been added to all the minutes of meetings. Question: “Please clearly explain what Eisenia was commissioned to do from 1 September 2010 to 31 December 2010, and provide a copy of the signed contract for this period showing the activities of the LIFE project.” From 22/09/2007 to 21/09/2010, Rennes Métropole was in a contract with the company Eisenia, which was responsible for promoting composting activities in shared housing in Rennes Métropole. The aim of amendment no. 3 was to extend the contract until 31/12/10 to allow Rennes Métropole to best define its needs for the next tender. A final amendment, number 4, was used to define the payment methods and the amounts needed to settle the contract, given that some services had already started and had to continue beyond the end of the contract, or to 31/12/2010. The two amendments are shown in the annex (Annex 3.1/Organic waste contract/Amendments). From September to December 2010, Eisenia’s task was to raise awareness and support the residents in the composting projects outside apartment blocks. We presented the Miniwaste project to Eisenia when the project was launched in March 2010. When the amendment extending the contract to the end of 2010 was signed, we asked Eisenia to explain to the residents that their support was part of the Miniwaste project, supported by the Life+ programme. Question: “Under this initiative 3.1, you refer to participation as conferences in Lorient (25/03/2010), Nantes (20/05/2010) and Ipalle (August 2010, no PowerPoint file sent). I feel that they are not associated with initiative 3.1. I also note that the LIFE logo only appears on 2 pages and that these presentations are not directly linked to the project. The associated expenses are therefore not eligible.”


125

The participation at the conferences at which we presented RM’s initiatives as part of the Miniwaste project was associated with initiative 4.7 for distribution of the results. We note your comment: We are not showing as eligible expenses the costs associated with our attendance at the following conferences: - Lorient on 25/03/2010 - Nantes on 20/05/2010 - for the Belgian delegation from Ipalle visiting Rennes Métropole On the other hand, we are surprised to learn that we are required to show the Life logo on every presentation slide for the expenses to be eligible. These presentations were created at the request of the conference organisers and, since 2010, we have presented our investment in the Miniwaste project, which demonstrates that these presentations fit in well with the project communication. We have shown the Life logo and the financial support from the European Commission in each of the presentations that followed the 3 listed above. Question: “Please specify the number and cost of the selected worm bins and electrical composter bins, and their impact on the budget.” 15 x 3 or 45 worm bins were purchased for the experiment. The costs are broken down as follows:

Cost of worm bin in € ex. VAT/unit Lombric Ethic Vers Land Vers-Clair

91 65 63.90

Cost of worms per family in € ex. VAT/unit 28 15 25

Training in € ex VAT

Total €.inc. VAT

250 250 350

2,450.01 1,646 2,013.47

We have not bought any electric composter bins.

Letter from CE December 1th 2011 Question: “Please show how completion of this task is progressing in relation to the proposal and the waste reduction plan. The information should be presented in fact sheet format (action sheets for the plan) for easier interpretation.” All the action sheets for the biowaste prevention measures deployed are included in the annex--. They summarise the objectives and the outcomes with regard to the objectives. Question: “Conferences. Please provide the presentations used in the conferences organised by TicEthic.” The presentations are included in the annex (Annex 3.1/Batch 5 Events and conferences/Presentations) with the exception of the presentation on worm composting, which did not take place. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

126

Question: “Communal composting on residential estates. Please specify the problems encountered. Please specify what measures are being envisaged so that this action can take place.” Regarding composting on residential estates, the main problem is lack of demand. We have reinforced our communication around this kind of action, in particular via a letter sent to all the communities in the Rennes urban area in February 2012, presenting the results of the first two years of the Miniwaste project. We had intended to work with the different local councils on how to reach the residential estates by taking on an intern in the Miniwaste project, but this did not happen. Question: “Communal composting on residential estates. Please specify the start dates for each of the 10 sites listed in the report.” The dates for the onset of the first 10 collective catering composting sites are as follows: Reference

Name of site

Start-up date

CE 01 CE 02 CE 03 CE 06 CE 07 CE 09 CE 10 CE 11 CE 12 CE 13

Jean-Zay School- Rennes Guillevic School- Rennes Moulin-du-Comte School- Rennes Cloteaux School- Rennes School canteen - Parthenay-de-Bretagne School canteen- Nouvoitou School canteen - Orgères ADAPEI Les Estuaires - Thorigné-Fouillard Lycée Pierre Mendès-France - Rennes Collège & Lycée Immaculée-Jean-Paul II

03/02/11 10/02/11 24/03/11 17/03/11 21/03/11 11/04/11 29/11/11 04/04/11 06/10/11 06/12/11

Question: “Training for the general public. It is not very clear how the actions have actually been implemented. On the one hand you mention that all the sessions have taken place at the Taupinais Ecocentre, but other venues are listed in the overall table of training sessions. Could you please explain ?” The training sessions take place at the Taupinais Ecocentre. However, other sessions can also take place for instance in the family gardens. Finally, module 6 in the biowaste market training package involves short sessions organised during other local community events taking place in a number of places other than La Taupinais. Question: Interactive web site. The proposal promised:“a huge interactive website with a lot of technical and practical information”. The blog set up does not reflect that objective. However, if it seems more appropriate, all the expected technical information can be displayed on your MINIWASTE web site.” The aim of the blog is not to offer all the technical and practical information relating to composting. Its aim is to facilitate exchanges between the composting guides and to carry local news announcements. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

127

We have, however, used the Miniwaste site to make various communication support documents and practical information on the project available to the general public. Question: “Number of cookery classes. Please specify which actions you intend to implement instead of the cookery classes in order to achieve the food waste reduction objectives (see also 3.2). “ The local associations we interviewed already offer cookery classes including food waste reduction principles. We therefore redirected this preventative action towards the schools and offered support to two schools in the urban area which have already implemented composting, so as to remain in tune with the different organic waste reduction objectives (Cf Food waste section). Question: “Communication actions. The list of events promoting composting is not provided for 2011. The 2010 list does not systematically include the number of persons present. Please add this data whenever possible.” The list of events for 2010, 2011 and 2012 is shown in the appendices (Annex 3.1/Package 5 Events and conferences/Assessment) including whenever possible the attendance. Question: “Special information sessions in schools were planned in the proposal but are not mentioned in your report. Please clarify this point.” Schools are not one of our main targets. However, when composters are installed in school canteens, they can be used for learning activities if teachers want to use them for that purpose. Schools may also have educational composters on their premises. These are then counted as individual composters as they have been purchased by the school and are not for communal use. We have clearly separated educational activities from those designed to actually reduce waste. Question: “Sub-section C/ the composter efficiency monitoring results are not clearly presented. This regular monitoring activity should be clearly highlighted in your next reports.” This point has been clarified in section C described above. Replies to the letter dated 26th September 2012 Question: “Conferences: Presentation documents for the conferences organised by TicEthic should be supplied along with programmes and pictures”. The presentations, the programme and photos of the conferences are in the appendices (Annex 3.1/Package 5 Events and conferences/Presentations). “Awareness-raising action: Please provide a full list of the events where composting has been presented, including the number of people present.” The list of composting awareness-raising events is in the appendices (Annex 3.1/Package 5 Events and conferences/Assessment).


128

Question: “Many communication materials have been created. Please provide a full list, including: quantity produced, quantity distributed, target audiences and events where the materials were distributed.

Promotional documents

Films on organic waste reclamation Rennes Métropole street posters Rennes City Council Street Posters Collection trucks Promotional items: Miniwaste-Life Bag Promotional items: Memory sticks

Promotional items: After-school snack box

Promotional items: Gardening Kit

Composting guide for the general public 2010 Edition 2012 Edition (November 2012)

Quantity produced

Quantity distributed

Target

Venues where distributed

9

9

General public

95

95

General public

PLP site + Rennes Métropole service providers + teachers + Participants in training sessions + display screens at Rennes Métropole Council Offices Rennes Métropole councils

125

125

General public

Rennes urban area

40

40

General public

5,000

4,960

300

280

5,000

4,000

Rennes Métropole area SERD 2011, Sustainable devt week 2011, VivaCité(s), SERD 2012, Final Miniwaste Conference La Taupinais CentreTraining session venues, seminars, meetings, etc. Some classes that visited the “Changing habits” exhibition, The Friday school sessions at SERD 2012, distributed by the Rennes Youth Information Centre

50

3,000 10,000

44

3,000 7,000

General public

Training session participants

Schools

Rennes Métropole composting guide + service providers

General public


Composter advisors’ discussion day Information desk at Rennes Métropole City Hall, organic waste reclamation stand, gardening exhibitions, events (SERD, SD Week, Viva-Cité(s), Tam-tam, …), in-house events (Plant swop, Colibri, …), …

129

“Réduire ses déchets organiques” (Reducing your organic waste) brochure: Dossier + subsidy request forms addressed to associations

650

1,000 kits

4 sets of tarps Composting exhibition

1 set on Dibon material

650

350 kits

General public

Citizens wishing to set up an association

4 sets of tarps 1 set on Dibon material

General public

“Garden waste” exhibition

3

3

General public

“Training” leaflet

3,000

2,900

General public


Information desk at Rennes Métropole City Hall, organic waste reclamation stand, gardening exhibitions, events (SERD, SD Week, Viva-Cité(s), Tam-tam, …), in-house events (Plant swop, Colibri, …), … Distribution by Miniwaste technician 1 set with the Eisenia Cooperative Society 1 set with the Ecoo association 3 sets with Rennes Métropole (2 tarps + 1 Dibon material), gardening exhibitions, events (SERD, SD Week, Viva-Cité(s), Tam-tam, …), in-house events (Plant swop, Colibri, …) and available on-line on PLP site 1 set with the Eisenia Cooperative Society 1 set with the Ecoo association 1 set with Rennes Métropole gardening exhibitions, events (SERD, SD Week, Viva-Cité(s), Tam-tam, …), in-house events (Plant swop, Colibri, …) and available on-line on PLP site Information desk at Rennes Métropole City Hall, organic waste reclamation stand, gardening exhibitions, events (SERD, SD Week, Viva-Cité(s), Tam-tam, …), in-house events (Plant swop, Colibri, …)

130

“Conference” programme “Conference” posters

“Hum Extra tes restes !” guide

540

420

General public

280

250

General public

5,000

4,500 (distribution 1er quarter 2013)

General public, teachers, students

Poster promoting communal composting

182

182

Apartment dwellers, landlords/ agents

Poster promoting communal composting

2,450 (blank) 500 for each landlord/agent (x 6)

2,450 500 x 6

Apartment dwellers, landlords/ agents

725

Apartment dwellers landlords / agents

3,500

Apartment dwellers landlords / agents

Poster promoting communal composting in apartment block lobbies “Je composte, ça change tout !” (I compost; that changes everything!) sticker Individual composting charter Collective composting charter Communal composter signs Green waste bin sticker Stand tarpaulins

725

5,000

Persons purchasing a composter via Rennes Métropole Apartment dwellers Apartment dwellers

2,000

1,430

3,000

2,700

1,500

1,400

5,000

2,700

General public

1 set of 4 tarps

1 set of 4 tarps

General public


Miniwaste site, PLP site and press release, and council platform City halls, local community halls, etc. City halls, local community halls, etc. Display online on PLP web site + Miniwaste, in City Halls, libraries and local game libraries (in progress) Information desk at Rennes Métropole City Hall, organic waste reclamation stand, gardening exhibitions, events (SERD, SD Week, Viva-Cité(s), Tam-tam, …), in-house events (Plant swop, Colibri, …), Miniwaste site, PLP site Distributed in letter boxes in the Rennes Métropole area

Apartment block lobbies and residences

Distributed in letter boxes in the Rennes Métropole area

Distributed by the Scop Eisenia cooperative Distributed by the Scop Eisenia cooperative Distributed by the Scop Eisenia cooperative Distributed by Rennes Métropole team Distributed by the Ecoo association

131

Demonstration panels

10 stickers for old panels

10 stickers for old panels

Apartment dwellers

Stickers put on old panels on collective composting sites

Question: “Please clarify the number of people trained: On page 4 in the report, it is mentioned that 320 people in total were trained. On page 17, you mention that 233 new participants have been trained since June 2011. Please revise the total and provide the final figure.” A total of 424 persons have been trained in the course of the Miniwaste project (310 under package 6 - the bio-waste market - in 2011 and 2012, plus 114 by the CIELE in 2010). Question: “The summary of responses to the satisfaction survey completed by participants in the individual composting scheme is still missing.” The summary is provided in the appendices (Annex 3.1/Individual composting /Survey). Question: “Please specify the number of trained volunteer composting guides who are still active. Are any willing to continue in a medium-term/long-term perspective?” On our estimate, there are 16 trained and active composting guides (i.e. who were involved in promoting shared composting). We noticed more commitment on the part of the advisors towards the end of the Miniwaste project. Getting the advisors to network is a long-term undertaking which will need to be continued well beyond the Miniwaste project in order to consolidate the network. Question: “Please specify what kind of participants attended the technical committee meeting organised on 10th May 2012. Please provide photographs of the event.” The collective catering composting technical committees involved councillors, technical service staff from the different councils, catering staff and heads of schools and other managers. The photos of the 10th May and 11th December 2012 committees are in the annexes (Annex 3.1/Package 3 Collective catering/Photos CTRC).

MINIWASTE FOLLOW-ON INITIATIVES

The following will continue: Packages 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the bio-waste market will be continued throughout 2013 in order to further develop communal apartment block and residential estate composting as well as collective catering composting. The sorting ambassadors will again be at work promoting communal composting and cooperation will be sought with local councils to identify areas where residential estate composting sites could be implemented. With regard to collective catering facilities, an awareness-raising letter will be sent to Homes for the Elderly and to school canteens that are not yet equipped with composters. We also intend to develop a joint action with the District Council, who are responsible for secondary schools, to introduce bio-waste composting and other food waste reduction measures. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

132

The training sessions will also be continued and we will try to raise interest in local councils and associations in the organisation of local training sessions. The display panels that we were not able to install during the lifetime of the Miniwaste project will be installed during the first half of 2013. The awareness-raising initiatives organised on weekly local markets by the ECOO association will continue at least until May 2013. The following will be discontinued: Package 4 of the bio-waste market involving support for the composting guides will not be continued. This type of support does not seem to be effective as shown by the very small number of advisors who benefited from this kind of support. Networking will be run by waste prevention officers from the waste reclamation department so as to keep in close contact with the advisors and better respond to their needs. Package 5 of the bio-waste market: Conferences will also be discontinued. Conferences on the theme of domestic garden and food waste management can always be organised by Rennes Métropole, but we will give priority to local speakers with a good knowledge of the local community. The worm composting experience has shown that one needs to tread carefully in this kind of practice. Rennes Métropole does not intend to sell worm composting systems. This type of practice will only be promoted via the training sessions on: “How to build and use my own worm composting system”. The following will be developed: Food waste reduction initiatives will be continued. On the basis of the successful Orgères school canteen initiative, we would like to help other schools to “reduce waste and promote healthy eating at school”. We hope to raise interest in a greater number of schools and to link this initiative with the implementation of bio-waste composting installations. We intend to develop actions relating to garden waste reduction in particular through awareness-raising campaigns focusing on waste collection centres and garden waste platforms. The following are still under discussion… Certain recommendations by the GECE consultants and survey organisation on communication media. Given the high possession rates for individual composters, we are still debating the best sales policy to adopt. We wonder whether it would not be better to focus on new residential housing estates and apartments, offering composters to new occupants as soon as they move in. The issues of free composters and compulsory training before purchasing a composter are still under discussion.


133

Action 3.2 – Implementation and assessment of the waste minimisation plan in Brno Initial action dates: 01/04/2010 – 31/12/2012 Effective action dates: as above

The pilot home composting project in Brno focuses on minimising organic waste in the municipal district of Brno-Žebětín. As part of the pilot project, individual composting is introduced and after the end of the project it will be implemented across the whole city. The demonstration plan in the municipal district of Brno-Žebětín focuses on involving residents living in individual and collective housing as well as institutions like primary school and kindergarten. Component A: Organic waste minimisation plan A binding document for the City of Brno determining the directions and objectives of waste management is the Waste Management Plan of the City of Brno approved at Brno City Assembly session no. Z4/032 held on 28/02/2006. The document is valid until 31/12/2014. An annex to the Waste Management Plan relating to the implementation and sustainability of the MINIWASTE project has been adopted at Brno City Assembly session no. Z5/037 held on 07/09/2010. This document proposes under target No. 3.2.6 – Reduction in the volume of mixed municipal waste by the share of biologically degradable compostable components suitable for home composting by 30 kg/person/year in households involved in home composting and the distribution of 1,500 pcs of composting bins in the city as of 31/12/2014 by introducing measure no. 3.3.9 – Support of domestic and community composting (purchase of domestic and large-size composting bins for community composting). The objectives of the Waste Management Plan of the City of Brno comply with the objectives of the MINIWASTE project, envisaging the distribution of 3,000 pcs of individual composting bins, the establishment of 120 community composting sites, involvement of 50 entities and trainings of people and experts on composting techniques five years after the project completion. Before the expiry of the validity of the Waste Management Plan (31/12/2014), the City of Brno must approve, by law, a new Plan which will follow up on the existing Plan so as to meet the sustainability targets of the MINIWASTE project.


134

Volume of mixed municipal waste reduced by the share of biologically degradable compostable components suitable for home composting Target identifier

C6

Target

Reduction in the volume of mixed municipal waste by the share of biologically degradable compostable components suitable for home composting

Target values

Indicator

-

Volume of mixed municipal waste reduced by the share of biologically degradable compostable components suitable for home composting related to people involved in the home composting – reduction of 30 kg/person/year on average. - 350 pcs of composting bins as of 31.12.2012, 1,500 pcs composting bins as of 31.12.2014 Number of composting bins used in the city, number of people using composting bins

Source of data

Record keeping of the distributed composting bins

Measure

C6

The share of biologically degradable compostable components (hereunder „BRKS“) in mixed municipal waste (hereunder the „MMW“) for a major share in the MMW. Based on analyses conducted by SAKO Brno, a.s between 2000 – 2009, the weight proportion of BRKS ranges between approx. 18 – 35% depending on the season and the sampled site. As part of the MINIWASTE project, MMW analyses were conducted in May 2010 in the municipal district of v Brno-Žebětín and the total weight proportion of BRKS totalled 32.34%, of which 17.11% kitchen waste and 15.23% - garden waste. This is a significant share of MMW and its reduction will have an impact on costs associated with the collection and further handling of the MMW. In 2009, a total of 72,219 t of mixed municipal waste was collected in the city of Brno (hereunder „MMW“). Given the considered number of residents of 380,000, the MMW production per capita/ year is approx. 190 kg. Thus, a person produces, given the average content of biologically degradable compostable components in the municipal waste of 25% per year, approx. 47.5 kg of these components. In the whole city, this concerns approx. 18,050 t of waste a year which must be disposed of in dustbins, transported to incineration plant and then incinerated. As regards the hierarchy and waste management method, the provisions of § 9a (1)(a) of Act No. 185/2001 Sb., on Waste (hereunder the „Act“) stipulate as the utmost duty to prevent from the waste production. The act addresses the waste prevention under § 10 stipulating that everyone should prevent from waste production and restrict its quantity. Thus the implementation of measures resulting in the restriction in the production of biologically degradable compostable components mixed municipal waste is in line with the law and there is also a clear element of costs savings related to the produced waste handling.


135

Support of domestic and community composting Name of measure Target fulfilment Time schedule Responsibility Financing

Costs (CZK)

Support of domestic and community composting O6 Continuouslysince 1.1.2011 Environmentaldepartment MMB - as part of the „Home composting pilot project in Žebětín“ 50% city budget, 50% EU grant - outside the pilot project 50% city budget, 50% composting bin users The price of the home composting bin 1,600 CZK incl. VAT – the city’s cost according to the composting bin grant amount. The price of large-size composting bins up to 2,600 CZK incl. VAT – the city’s cost according to the composting bin grant amount.

In accordance with target C6 Reduction in the volume of mixed municipal waste by the share of biologically degradable compostable components suitable for home composting, the Statutory City of Brno will exercise activities as part of the international projectMINIWASTE and after its completion (after 2012) in order to meet this target. This will mainly concern the following: - As part of awareness raising campaigns in the field of waste management (printed information brochures, websites, newspapers, borough bulletins, outdoor awareness raising campaigns), the city will promote measures to minimise compostable components of municipal waste, i.e. domestic and community composting, including food wasting - Questionnaire surveys (printed questionnaires, questionnaires in newspapers or bulletins or on the website) to determine the interest in composting bins - support of the purchase of domestic and community composting bins (sale of subsidised composting bins) - operation of demonstration sites with examples of composting in waste sorting centres The costs of implementing the measures will consist mainly of funds intended for the purchase of composting bins, because the awareness raising will have a form of awareness raising campaigns in the field of waste management and use will also be made of local press, local bulletins the city’s website. The price of home composting bins is on average up to 1,600 CZK / pc, including VAT and largesize community composting bins cost up to 2,600 CZK / pc, including VAT. The total cost incurred by the city depends on the number of distributed composting bins and the amount of city’s subsidy. When the city covers 50% of the cost, the city’s costs will total up to 800 CZK / domestic composter and up to 2,600 CZK /community composting bin (2 composting bins at one point), which is about up to 1,252 thousand CZK. Funds amounting to 1 140 thousand CZK have been earmarked for the purchase of composting bins in relation to measures of O6 Waste Management Plan of City of Brno for the year 2013. Users’ training in proper composting practice will be carried out before handing over the composting bins to the citizens.


136

Component B: Public awareness raising and awareness raising campaigns •

Website

The website was launched in January 2011 and ever since is continuously updated. It contains the information on composting, monitoring results, information on activities and results of the MINIWASTE project and includes an option to send queries etc. Discussion forum is available in the section Articles. (Annex 3.2/Annex 1 )

Screenshot of the website •

Organised “green“ events

In the course of the project, we organised awareness raising campaigns aimed to familiarise the stakeholders with the MINIWASTE project and the composting, the use of organic waste as a raw material suitable for composting and the use of the resulting compost. "Green" events took place directly in the municipal district of Brno-Žebětín on the occasion of annual cultural events (Wenceslas feast organised by the municipal district - September 2010, fruit and vegetable exhibition organised by Retired People's Club - October 2010, 2011, 2012, April 2011) in order to ensure public participation. A total of 9 events were organised. During 2010 – 2012, a total of 9 demonstration events were organised for school in order to raise pupils' awareness of the issue of managing biodegradable waste and the possibility of on-site composting. According to the project, three "green" events for the public were to be organised along with 3 demonstration events for the school each year. In 2010, three "green" events took place on 25/9/2010, 23/10/2010 and 24/10/2010 attended by a total of 360 people. In 2011, four "green" public events were held on 16/04/2011, 17/04/2011, 22/10/2011 and 23/10/2011 and were attended by a total of 320 people. In 2012, two "green" events were organised for the public on 20/10/2012 and 21/10/2012 and were attended by 70 people. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

137

Eight "green" events were organised in cooperation with the Retired People's Club, as part of the exhibitions at the Catholic House in Žebětín organised by this club. During the event, an information kiosk with a composting bin was provided, with examples of compost and input materials. The residents were provided with the information on the MINIWASTE project, on composting and the residents were also offered composting handbooks. In 2011, 4 events were organised, compared to the expected number of 3 events per year as an extra use of the exhibition in April was made. The reason was to increase public awareness of the project during and after the project in 2012. For this reason, two events were organised in 2012. There were 2 demonstration events organised for the school in 2010 (25/10/2010 – a total of 120 children), 4 in 2011 (16/06/2011, 24/10/11 - a total of 200 children) and 3 in 2012 (15/06/2012, 22/10/2012 - a total of 200 children). Contrary to the expected timetable, i.e. the arrangement of three demonstration events a year, two events were organised in 2010, four events were organised in 2011, and three events took place in 2012. The duration of one demonstration event was 2 hours. (Annex 3.2/Annex 2 and 3).

Example of demonstration event for school

•

Cooking classes, trainings

The project included five cooking courses aimed at preventing food waste, economical shopping and handling of food leftovers. Two of these courses were organised in cooperation with the Mothers’ and Retired People's Club. Primary school in Žebětín provided rooms for the training (fully equipped kitchen). The cooking courses and training sessions for general public were organised on the same days. After the cooking course, the residents were trained on the proper composting methods. The cooking classes took place on 23/10/2012, 30/10/2012, 13/11/2012, 27/11/2012 and 04/12/2012. Classes were attended by 64 people and training sessions by 68 people (compared to expectation of 100 in the project). (Annex 3.2/Annex 4 and 5 )


138

Example of training session •

5 demonstration sites

Five demonstration sites in waste sorting centres were established in Brno, in the municipal districts of Brno-Žebětín, Brno-Sever, Brno-Černovice, Brno-Slatina and Brno-Ořešín. The demonstration sites are located around the city and will serve to promote composting and provide sample composting sites for the following periods. At the demonstration site Pod Kopcem in the district of Brno-Žebětín, two composting bins were distributed, i.e. K700 and K390, the other four demonstration sites were each equipped with one composting bins K700. In total, the demonstration sites were provided with 6 pcs of composting bins. Employees in these waste sorting centres were trained in composting methods. (Annex 3.2/Annex6 )

Demonstration site •

Composting masters trainings

Due to the fact that waste sorting centres are used as demonstration sites, the waste sorting centre operators were trained in proper composting methods and as part of the training they gained a general knowledge on biologically degradable waste, composting methods and techniques and the subsequent use of compost. The trained staff also received composting handbooks. The waste sorting centres operator training took place on 5th November 2012 in the conference room of Brno incineration plant and a total of 36 people were trained (the project expected 10 composting masters). (Annex 3.2/Annex 7)


139

Example of composting masters trainings •

Distribution of awareness raising documents, composting handbooks and CDs

The distribution of composting bins was accompanied by the distribution of home composting handbooks to the users. The handbooks were also distributed during the awareness raising "green" events. In total, 500 home composting handbooks were distributed. This handbook contains brief information about the MINIWASTE project and detailed information about composting so that the users can obtain the proper composting practice. The handbook describes the composting process, input materials, composting mistakes and compost applications. The handbook also describes the home composting options, i.e. the so-called “cold” composting, “hot” composting of larger volumes of raw materials on piles (fenced), vermicomposting and community composting. The operators of the demonstration sites received composting handbooks dealing with the composting methods on a wider scale (including composting in composting plants etc.). This composting handbooks were also made available on CDs for be used by composting masters and general public interested in composting. All households in the municipal district of Brno-Žebětín received information leaflets on the MINIWASTE project entitled "we bring bio-waste back to life." The information leaflet was distributed in a number of 1,400 copies in June 2012, in the local periodical "Žebětínský zpravodaj". The information leaflet provided brief information about the MINIWASTE project and home composting. Thus, all households in Žebětín were informed about the MINIWASTE project. (Annex 3.2/Annex 8,9 and 10)

Example of awareness raising document (Home composting handbook) Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

140

Component C: Monitoring tasks •

Mixed municipal waste analyses

As part of the project, a total of 32 mixed municipal waste analyses were to be conducted, aimed at determining the share compostable waste and other usable water components, and timed in a way reflecting seasonal influences. Following discussions with Cemagref and the lead partner of the project, it was determined that the number of analyses /32/ is redundant in terms of the information it provides and the number of analyses was reduced to 18 analyses. The timing of these reduced analyses was fixed to reflect seasonal influences. In 2010, 4 baseline analyses of waste from individual and collective housing were performed. In 2011-2012, a total of 14 analyses were made, of which 8 analyses worked with samples from houses equipped by the composting bins and 6 analyses focused on houses without composting bins in order to monitor the differences in the amount of biologically degradable waste occurring in mixed municipal waste. The total weight of waste brought for the analyses averaged around 600 kg, quartering was used to obtain samples weighing about 200 kg, which was then sorted to individual fractions (smaller than 8 mm, 8-20 mm, 20-40 mm, greater than 40 mm ). Fractions smaller than 8 mm and 8 mm to 20 mm were not sorted but only weighted. Analyses were conducted outdoors at the waste sorting centre in Žebětín. (Annex 3.2/Annex 11, 12 and 13 ) 4 input analyses were conducted in 2010 (in May, July, September, and December). The percentage of kitchen waste content in the mixed municipal waste varied from 13.1 to 20.2%. The percentage of garden waste content in the mixed municipal waste varied from 7.18 to 26.2%. The percentage of kitchen and garden waste content in the mixed municipal waste varied from 24.99 to 42.43%. 14 analyses were conducted in years 2011 to 2012, i.e. in the period when composting bins were distributed in the city district area, 8 out of that were carried out in real estates with composting bins and 6 in real estates without composting bins. Kitchen waste The percentage of kitchen waste content in the mixed municipal waste of real estates with composting bins varied from 9.22 to 37.9 %. The percentage of kitchen waste content in the mixed municipal waste of real estates without composting bins varied from 17.9 to 31.9%. It was not possible to track any dependence of the kitchen waste production on the season of its origin during the year. Garden waste The percentage of garden waste content in the mixed municipal waste of real estates with composting bins varied from 0 to 34.7%. Its share was higher in the vegetation period. The percentage of garden waste content in the mixed municipal waste of real estates without composting bins varied from 2.49 to 5.94%. Its share was higher in the vegetation period. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

141

The percentage of kitchen and garden waste contents in the mixed municipal waste of real estates with composting bins varied from 18.5 to 46%. The percentage of kitchen and garden waste contents in the mixed municipal waste of real estates without composting bins varied from 22.7 to 35.1%. It is evident from the analyses presented that the content of garden waste in the mixed municipal waste was significantly lower than the content of kitchen waste. As far as the extrapolation of waste analyses results and determination of percentage or of quantity of organic waste removed from the mixed municipal waste was concerned, it was not possible to determine the percentage of organic waste minimising unambiguously neither for the kitchen nor for the garden waste.

Example of waste caracterisation •

Compostable waste weighing

As part of the project it was proposed that 20 households would be equipped with a scale, which will ensure the compostable waste quantity monitoring. In spite of awareness raising during the project, we did not manage to enrol 20 volunteers, who would weigh and keep record of compostable materials disposed of in composting bins voluntarily meaning that the relevant data of waste volume disposed of in composting bins could not be acquired. It does not influence the budget in any way, since no funds were allocated for purchasing scales in the project. •

Compost quality checks

The process of composting and the compost quality in the project had a form of visual checks of the compost (odours, moisture content, structure ...).


142

A total of 131 checks were performed (checks in the households, in the primary school and the nursery school in Žebětín), being 3 checks of composting bins K700 and 128 checks of composting bins type K390 (as expected in the project). As part of the checks, the users of the composting bins were again informed on the composting methods and good practice. The results of the checks can be summarised as follows: • -

-

62% of the users composted already before receiving the composting bin (composting on a pile) 89% of the composting bins were located on unpaved surfaces, 11% of the composting bins were located on hardstands kitchen and garden waste is disposed of in the composting bins by 67% of the users, garden waste only is disposed of in the bins by 32% of users and kitchen waste only is disposed of in the bins by 1% of the users the capacity of the composting bin is considered sufficient by 75% of the users and insufficient by 25% of the users 94% of the users dispose of the waste in the composting bins in layers, and possibly mix it, use soil layers, sprinkle the compost with water and combine these steps when looking into the composting bin from the top, the share of kitchen waste is obvious when looking into the composting bin from the bottom hole for compost extraction, the following is identified: • 96% of the compost has a pleasant (earthy, humus) smell • 4% of the compost is ill-smelling (faecal, ammonia) • 76% of the compost is brown or dark brown • 51% of the compost disintegrates when pressed in the hand • 54% of the respondents have extracted some compost and use the compost in the gardens (93%) or in greenhouse or flower pots.

It can thus be concluded that the quality of compost is good and the compost can be used directly at the point of its origin. (Annex 3.2/Annex14 ) •

Distribution of the composting bins

The distribution of composting bins was launched in October 2010, following the first awareness raising event on 25th September 2010. The distribution of the composting bins to the residents was going on at the waste sorting centre in Žebětín. Together with the composting bins the home composting handbooks were distributed and potential questions were answered by the operators of the waste sorting centre. Composting bins were provided to the residents for free. Attachment no. 15 also shows the progress of composting bin distribution at the time of the project execution. We managed to establish a total of 355 individual composting sites, 4 community composting sites (the project considered 3 sites) and involve 3 entities (the project expected 2 entities), 2 primary schools (primary school Žebětín, primary school Pramínek) and 1 kindergarten (kindergarten Žabka). Each community composting site (residential houses with gardens in Žebětín) is provided with 1 composter type K700, due to the space limits (the project expected 2 composting bins at one point). Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

143

K700 composting bins that were not used in places of community composting due to the above mentioned reason were used in schools, places of individual composting and at demonstration sites. All composting bins are marked with the logo of the MINIWASTE project grant programme and the symbol of the city of Brno. (Annex 3.2/Annex 15 and 16 )

Composting bins of Brno Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter dated September 27 2012: Question: “Please improve the presentation of communication actions in the report itself. Every led action must be presented in detail and its impact has to be analyzed in comparison with the initial proposal.” Targets set are always given in the project evaluation part of the final report. Results and comparisons with targets and with the initial proposal are given in the text. Question: “Please supply the detail of the contents of the CD. The use of this CD must be better explained.” The CD contains composting handbooks, i.e. a handbook for staffs of demonstration sites and a home composting handbook because no other materials solving composting matters were elaborated in the scope of the project that could be placed on the CD. CDs are available at demonstration sites and will be handed over to people interested in composting matters. Question: “Please specify how you plan to estimate the achievement of the initial objectives of the project, and in particular, the following objective " 70% of the population of Brno-Zebetin is aware of the different ways to reduce organic waste " This target was assessed at the end of 2012 in a way of an empiric survey carried out by means of a questionnaire and a direct questioning of citizens of municipal district Brno-Žebětín with the aim to find out their awareness and attitudes to composting matters and their experience with awareness raising in the scope of the MINIWASTE project. A public opinion survey was conducted in December 2012, in the scope of which 371 respondents selected at random were contacted. The survey was conducted in the form of interviews between professionally trained interviewers and respondents. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

144

The results are summarised in Attachment no. 19 - Final report, public opinion survey, pilot home composting project in the municipal district of Brno-Žebětín, MINIWASTE. The survey focused also on determining the level of awareness of the home composting project. The results of the survey show that 81.4% of the population are aware of the home composting project and methods of organic waste reduction. Question: “Please supply a synthesis of the supplied answers to the questionnaire. “ As part of Žebětínský zpravodaj, questionnaires concerning the MINIWASTE project were distributed in February 2012 to all households in Žebětín. Questionnaires were distributed to 1600 households and 45 citizens responded to them. Results of the questionnaire survey are given in the Attachment – Evaluation of Questionnaires. Summary of results: 41 persons separate and compost the bio-waste, 32 persons use plastic composting bins, 17 persons compost on a pile or have a wooden composting bin, 39 persons are aware of MINIWASTE project, the biggest source of information about MINIWASTE project is the local periodical called “Žebětínský zpravodaj” – 26 persons in total. Persons, who have plastic composting bins (32 persons) and are involved in the pilot project of home composting, responded to the questionnaire mostly (32 persons). Question: “Please detail the results of the waste analyses.” 18 analyses of mixed municipal waste specimen were carried out in total. 10 out of that were carried out in real estates without composting bins and 8 were carried out in real estates with composting bins. Parts by weight proportion in percentages of individual components of municipal waste were monitored in these analyses. As far as biologically degradable components of municipal waste are concerned, the share of kitchen waste, garden waste, and of animal origin was monitored. 4 input analyses were conducted in 2010 (in May, July, September, and December). The percentage of kitchen waste content in the mixed municipal waste varied from 13.1 to 20.2%. The percentage of garden waste content in the mixed municipal waste varied from 7.18 to 26.2%. The percentage of kitchen and garden waste content in the mixed municipal waste varied from 24.99 to 42.43%. 14 analyses were implemented in years 2011 to 2012, i.e. in the period when composting bins were distributed in the city district area, out of that 8 were conducted in real estates with composting bins and 6 in real estates without composting bins. The percentage of kitchen waste content in the mixed municipal waste of real estates with composting bins varied from 9.22 to 37.9 %. The percentage of kitchen waste content in the mixed municipal waste of real estates without composting bins varied from 17.9 to 31.9%. It was not possible to track any dependence of the kitchen waste production on the season of its origin during the year. The percentage of garden waste content in the mixed municipal waste of real estates with composting bins varied from 0 to 34.7%. Its share was higher in the vegetation period. The percentage of garden waste content in the mixed municipal waste of real estates without composting bins varied from 2.49 to 5.94%. Its share was higher in the vegetation period. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

145

The percentage of kitchen and garden waste contents in the mixed municipal waste of real estates with composting bins varied from 18.5 to 46%. The percentage of kitchen and garden waste contents in the mixed municipal waste of real estates without composting bins varied from 22.7 to 35.1%. It is evident from the analyses presented that the content of garden waste in the mixed municipal waste was significantly lower than the content of kitchen waste. As far as the extrapolation of waste analyses results and determination of percentage or of quantity of organic waste removed from the mixed municipal waste is concerned, it was not possible to determine the percentage of organic waste minimising unambiguously neither in case of the kitchen waste nor of the garden waste. Letter dated December 01 2011: Question:” Please improve the presentation of the actions undertaken. Each activity undertaken must be explained and illustrated. The results obtained must be set out and compared to the original objectives (from the initial proposal and the waste reduction plan).” Targets set are always given in the project evaluation part of the final report. Results and comparisons with targets and with the initial proposal are given in the text. Question:”The plan was for your website to present an array of technical and practical information. This does not appear to have been followed through on. Please rectify. Please also include the MINIWASTE brochure” MINIWASTE brochures are placed on websites and pieces of information about the project (events, waste analyses etc.) are supplemented continuously. Question:” Please send me a copy of the CD-Rom and a hardcopy of the guide.” The CD copy has been sent. A CD guide was not elaborated on the ground of the CD content. Question:” Please describe how this CD has been used and tell me who has received the issues produced. Please specify how many copies of the brochure are to be published.” The CD contains composting handbooks, i.e. a handbook for staffs of demonstration sites and a home composting handbook because no other materials solving composting matters were elaborated in the scope of the project that could be placed on the CD. CDs are available at demonstration sites and will be handed over to people interested in composting matters. Question:” You mention that demonstration sites will be set up in the city’s waste centres. Please specify the type of waste that will be brought there and by whom. Does it involve food waste? How will the demonstration be conducted? Who is the target public?”


146

Demonstration sites will be established in waste collection centres of Brno City. Waste collection centres are places, where the town citizens can dispose of bulky, hazardous and utilizable components of municipal waste. Large capacity containers for greenery waste are placed in all waste collection centres, the contents of which are removed to a composting plant. There are 39 waste collection centres in the territory of Brno City in total, out of which 5 waste collection centres have been selected as demonstration sites. It is intended to shown by locating demonstration sites in waste collection centres that there are other ways of using compostable materials than their central collection as a waste. A K 700 plastic composting bin is placed at each demonstration site (there are two composting bins – K700 and K390 placed in the collection centre Žebětín) and composting handbooks and CDs are available here, too. Staff of waste collection centre has been trained in the composting technique. Composting bins located at demonstration sites cannot be used for the disposal of citizens’ waste because of their size (content of 700 litres), they are specimens of a composting bin and composting bin content as means of home composting only. A green waste and a kitchen waste will be composted in the composting bins. Citizens of Brno City are the target group. The staff will provide information about composting as required by visitors of waste collection centres (demonstration sites). Composting handbooks may be handed out and composting bins and compost shown here. Question:” I notice that in the photos provided the composter is on asphalt and does not appear to be operational. Please explain.” A composting bin may be placed also on a consolidated surface. The composting process proceeds in the same way as in a composting bin on a unconsolidated surface, the bottom layer only is deprived of effects of animals (e.g. of earthworms), which may reduce the efficiency. The composting bin in the waste collection centres in Žebětín was placed on the consolidated surface at the beginning because the unconsolidated surface is in the corner the waste collection centre, which would limit the composting bin visibility. After the notice of the Commission, it was moved on the unconsolidated green surface next to the building of the waste collection centre staff. Question:” Please describe the difficulties encountered in setting up the collective composting sites and the solutions to be applied to achieve the initial objectives.” Setting up 5 sites of community composting was the initial target. The target was modified to 3 sites of community composting in the course of the project. We managed to set up 4 sites of community composting in total next to residential houses in Žebětín. Placing composting bins was a problem because of the size of adjacent outside spaces of residential houses (gardens). It was not possible to place 2 composting bins, so that one larger K700 composting bin had to be placed. Question:”You say that the cooking lessons will not be provided owing to budgetary shortfalls. Please assess the impact of this on the project’s objectives» Cooking courses were held in October to December 2012. 5 courses took place in total. Funds saved due to reducing the number of analyses were used for carrying out cooking courses. Question:” The monitoring of the waste of the 20 volunteer households has been abandoned. Please evaluate the impact of this on the project’s budget and objectives.” Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

147

It concerns the weighing of compostable materials disposed of in composting bins. In spite of awareness raising during the project, we did not manage to enrol 20 volunteers, who would weigh and keep record of compostable materials disposed of in composting bins voluntarily meaning that the relevant data of waste volume disposed of in composting bins could not be acquired. It has to be added, however, that in case of persons weighing waste disposed of in composting bins a certain “project” morale (meaning disposing all compostable materials arisen in composting bins) can be expected, which cannot be assumed in case of other people. Generalizing values acquired in this way to all composting bins users would misrepresent project results (it is similar as in case of analyses results, from which the percentage of diversion of compostable components from the municipal waste cannot be determined unambiguously). It does not influence the budget in any way, since no funds were allocated for purchasing scales in the project. Question:” Please explain how you intend to assess attainment of the project’s initial objectives, in particular the following objective: “70% of the population of Brno-Zebetin is aware of the different ways to reduce waste". This target was assessed at the end of 2012 in a way of empiric survey carried out by means of a questionnaire and a direct questioning of citizens of municipal district Brno-Žebětín with the aim to find out their awareness and attitudes to composting matters and their experience with awareness raising in the scope of the MINIWASTE project. A public opinion survey was conducted in December 2012, in the scope which 371 respondents selected at random were contacted. The survey was conducted in the form of interviews between professionally trained interviewers and respondents. The results are summarised in Attachment no. 19 - Final Report, public opinion survey, pilot home composting project in the municipal district of Brno-Žebětín, MINIWASTE. The survey also focused on determining the level of awareness of the home composting project. The results of the survey show that 81.4% of the population are aware of the home composting project and methods of organic waste reduction. Letter dated March 29 2011: Question:” The website provided by the city of Brno is not an interactive site as intended. A discussion forum or blog should be added” The discussion forum was added to websites in July 2011, to the section Articles namely. Question:” please provide the "flyers" distributed during the "green events" as well as programs, reports, ... and photos showing these events » Photographs from “green events” are contained in the Attachment No. 2 of Final Report. Leaflets distributed at green events in 2010 and 2011 are contained in the Attachment No. 22 – Leaflets distributed at green events. A home composting handbook - Attachment No. 9 of Final Report was distributed at “green events” in 2012. Reports on “green events” are given in the annex (Annex 3.2/Attashment No. 2)


148

Question:”Please clarify whether the 5 points demonstrations are precisely identified and equipped two composters » The equipment of project demonstration sites is not determined in any way. Five demonstration sites were established in Brno (abbreviated as “SSO”), in the municipal district of Brno-Žebětín (SSO Pod Kopcem), Brno-Sever (SSO Jana Svobody), Brno-Černovice (Peace SSO), Brno-Slatina (SSO Zemanova) and Brno-Ořešín (SSO Drozdí). The demonstration sites are spread in the entire territory of the city and will serve to promote composting and as sample composting sites for the following periods for the purpose of project sustainability. At the demonstration site SSO Pod Kopcem in the district of Brno-Žebětín, two composting bins were distributed, i.e. K700 and K390, each of the other four demonstration sites was equipped with one composting bins K700. In total, the demonstration sites were provided with 6 pcs of composting bins. The staffs of waste collection centres were trained in the composting method. Question:” About reducing the number of analyzes and the proposed method, I noticed inconsistencies with the original proposal. The latter refers to a total of 62 analyzes before and after implemented composting while you propose to reduce from 32 to 16 analyzes. Please clarify.” 32 analyses of mixed municipal waste were initially proposed in the project. 18 analyses were carried out as a result of agreed on project changes, out of that 4 input analyses were done in 2010 and 16 analyses in total in 2011 – 2012, out of that 8 analyses were implemented in houses with composting bins and 6 analyses in houses without composting bins. Analyses were carried out with regard to time in such a way so as to monitor the deviations in the annual production of biologically degradable waste. The reduction of analyses number has no impact on project results because they include all seasons from the viewpoint of biologically degradable waste production (of green waste production above all), as has been mentioned already. As far as budget impact is concerned, unexhausted funds were used for other project activities.


149

Action 3.3 – Implementation and assessment of the waste minimisation plan in Lipor Initial action dates: 01/04/2010 – 31/12/2012 Effective action dates: as above

Component A: organic waste minimization plan Accomplishments LIPOR wrote a Minimization Plan which indicates the objectives, the content of actions and the indicators of progress (Annex 3.3/Annex 1 Minimization Plan). This plan was updated during the project, until a final version at the end of the project. The goal of this plan was to help LIPOR achieve the Miniwaste minimization goals at its region. Minimization Plan

Component B: Awareness-raising and community involvement actions Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

150

Horta da Formiga The biowaste prevention has been for LIPOR a strategic goal. In this scope, LIPOR created Horta da Formiga in 2002. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter March and december 2011 Question: "Please adjust the figures cited in your report with the Excel file named "project objective monitoring" and please specify how you will assess whether the initial project objectives have been achieved". According to the EC question in the letter of March 2011 and December 2011 about the difference between Miniwaste and LIPOR’s previous projects (Life and outside Life) and has explained in the progress report, Horta da Formiga is a structure created in LIPOR’s facilities. In 2002, Horta da Formiga had a training room and specific demonstration areas: composting bins area and vegetable garden (Annex 3.3/Annex 2 Horta da Formiga Photos). The main goal in 2002 was to promote the organic waste valorisation and the value of the product produced - compost. To reach the goal, we organized visits and hands-on composting courses and organic farming (in 2002 we organized 5 courses with a total of 72 participations). Due to the strategy of LIPOR, which aims to increase the awareness of the population to the biowaste problem, preventing organic waste production, but also good farming practices, healthier food and contact with nature, this facility has become more developed in terms of Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

151

physical structures, but also as an ecosystem, since all the farm is cultivated using organic farming practices. Thus the evolution of the farm has been occurring at the same time that activities developed are being improved and adapted in order to achieve our goal but also to answer to the people needs (different type of courses – organic orchard, bee-keeping, pruning, and others). At the moment, Horta da Formiga is a structure with a training room with a kitchen, an area with more than 15 demonstration composting bins, wormcomposters, a kitchen garden, an area with more than 50 species of herbs, and orchard and an animal area (Annex 3.3). It is a demonstration farm that leads and influences others to a behaviour change. Terra à Terra was a project that aimed to train, support and distribute composting bins in our associated municipalities, promoting the effective composting practice at the houses with garden. With LIFE + Miniwaste Project, it was possible for LIPOR to develop a strategy more active, reflective and adapted to the actual reality and the population needs. In general, it was possible to: • • • • • •

Have a Miniwaste team (4 voluntary composting masters and other LIPOR’s technicians) working to achieve the goals of Miniwaste activities; Elaborate more communication materials – specific to the local realities; Organize more trainings and informing sessions in LIPOR or locally; Do continuous intense field work, which allowed the direct contact with the population, the support to the participants and the monitoring of the projects; Identification of partners and continuous contact with them (stores, shoppings, local authorities, municipalities and others), helping them to implement composting projects; Have available resources and equipment that otherwise wouldn’t be available.

Horta da Formiga An effective change in people’s mind towards biowaste management had a development using different communication channels and tools.


152

LIPOR gained experience and knowledge but most important progressed using several methodologies, increasing the possible success towards our goal, but specially the reinforcement of the population to the responsibility of the citizens to the biowaste prevention.

Miniwaste Team (Voluntary Masters) Accomplishments Inhabitants directly or indirectly addressed by the awareness The general goal of this action was to raise the awareness of the population to the biowaste problem. Since 2010, the population was more actively and persistently informed about Miniwaste and some of its activities using different communication tools. The different communication tools were used in two approaches: direct and indirect contact. In the direct contact, the followingtoolswereused: -

hands-on training courses; animations on organic waste reduction; door to door contact (occasionally); stands in parks and fairs; emailings; promotion in services (restaurants, buildings administrators); visits to demonstration sites.


153

Direct contact tools (examples) The indirect contact includes promotion in: -

the media (TV, radio, newspapers and magazines); seminars and conferences; short documentaries on organic waste reduction (practical short films); websites; facebook; posters; stands (exhibitions).

Indirect contact tools (examples)


154

Due to the need to have continuous and permanent promotion of the organic waste problem, some specific communication tools, such as e-marketing, news at Horta da Formiga website (www.hortadaformiga.com), posters and flyers, facebook communication and stands were preferred tools and optimized in terms of frequency of use. With this type of tools we were able to increase the frequency and the specificity of the awareness-raising initiatives and therefore have a higher potential success rate. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Question: “Not many communication materials seem to have been created. I would encourage you to produce the planned materials as soon as possible so they can be used to implement actions during the project”. According to the EC question in the letter December 2011 about the production of few communication materials created, LIPOR produced a diversity of communication materials but they were designed, developed and produced internally in order to optimize the specific characteristics of the materials. Nevertheless, the Miniwaste reference was always made (Annex 3.3/Annex 3). With different promotional materials (posters, flyers, panels) LIPOR was able to communicate different concepts, using different “languages and schemes”, answering to the public target specificities and doubts, seeking the success of the action to be implemented. These promotional campaigns were developed and produced by the Masters team (Annex 3.3/Annex 3).

Promoting materials (examples) Having the flexibility to “design” a specific promotion according to the target population and the specific location LIPOR was able to reach more population. Nevertheless, a general leaflet was produced.


155

General leaflet This general flyer has a campaign slogan “Home Composting. Give Life to this Ideia” and was used in the different activities of the composting promotion. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter December 2011 Question: “Not many communication materials seem to have been created. I would encourage you to produce the planned materials as soon as possible so they can be used to implement actions during the project”. According to the EC question in the letter December 2011 about the quantity of brochures produced (100.000) this leaflet was available in places such as: - Lipor facilities (Lipor’s building receptions: Horta da Formiga, Composting Plant and Main Building; In 2012 we received 12.000 participants in the visits organized to the different facilities); - Parque Aventura of Lipor (52.000 visitors between 2011 e 2012); - Lipor’s Region Municipalities; - Lipor’s Region Local Authorities; - Project partners (supermarkets, shoppings, stores, schools, universities); - Stands; - Letterbox of the door-to-door contat; - Home composting courses. Each and every time the composting masters were doing field work, we were always making available in our partners these flyers – for the users/clients/students and others to become aware of this promotion. If a specific activity was scheduled, the masters would stick specific information at the general flyer, making it original.


156

General leaflet stickers (examples) The advantage was that the flyer would become more desirable. For example, the clients of a supermarket if they saw the general flyer with a composting course date information it would be wanted - they would take it home not to forget the activity they wish to participate. This would increase the success of the promotion. The major aspects that conduct to the communication material success are: -

Appealing image; Diversity; Flexibility of information (what is important in one partner is not for the other); Specific and clear information. The Miniwaste flyer in Portuguese was available for download at the website www.hortadaformiga.com(at the moment it is available at http://www.lipor.pt/pt/educacaoambiental/horta-da-formiga/terra-a-terra/miniwaste-projeto-life/). •

Horta da Formiga website

Since 2010, Horta da Formiga website has received 167.290 visits – no target defined (Annex 3.3/Annex 4). It is also verified that an increasing number of visits occurred during the Miniwaste Project. Year

Number of visits

Increase

2010

54.657

2011

55.306

+ 649 visits than 2010

2012

57.327

+ 2.000 visits than 2011

Total

167.290

This is an indicator of the impact we caused during 3 years in the population that replied searching for our website and looking up for more information about our activities. Most important is the fact that 72% are new visitors. This reflects the continuous promotion of Miniwaste actions, the field work of the masters team, and the continuous contact with the partners that brought more people to the organic waste cause. The number of visits between 2010 and 2012 represents 67% of the total visits to the website from 2005 until 2012.


157

In the 2011 Client Satisfaction Report (made by an external company), 87% have visited the website of Horta da Formiga. Another relevant indicator that shows the impact our project has been having in our clients. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Question: "The Hortadaformiga web site does not clearly highlight the MINIWASTE project. Moreover, the information available on the project is out of date. Please improve this point." According to the EC question in the letter March 2011 about the Horta da Formiga website not showing clearly the Miniwaste Project, Horta da Formiga website was created in 2005 and has an antique website structure, which made difficult to promote Miniwaste specific actions and its connections (related news, material, information). Thus, most of the information needed to be publicized as news’ content and the material available at the “Downloads” link. This website structure represented in fact a restriction in the easy of communicating and reaching the website visitors. With the new LIPOR’s website we expect to improve the communication with a link at the Horta da Formiga page (http://www.lipor.pt/pt/educacao-ambiental/horta-daformiga/terra-a-terra/miniwaste-projeto-life/) •

Facebook (Terra à Terra and Lipor)

Facebook is a modern communication tool. The necessary continuous promotion in Terra à Terra and Lipor Facebook allowed to have almost daily updates in the activities or initiatives being developed, using a modern communication tool and searching for other targets (Annex 3.3/Annex 5). This tool allowed communicating different activities using images, which enriches the message – no target defined.

Facebook publications (examples) Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

158

•

Emarketing

The e.News of Lipor is an emarketing created to publicize weekly the activities of LIPOR.

Enews nº 52 – December 2012 The population was informed about Miniwaste and some of its activities using Lipor e-marketing (more than 18.000 email addresses receive Lipor’s Portuguese version). We have publicized Miniwaste news (courses, stands, prevention activities and others) in 79 e-marketing mails since 2010 – Miniwaste target 60 emarketings (Annex 3.3/Annex 6 Awareness control E-marketing).

•

Year

Number of E.news

2010

4

2011

33

2012

42

Total

79

Media

LIPOR promoted the project widely, including to the Media, searching for their interest. However, when we have the Media interested in our projects, they publicize voluntarily some specific actions or the information they want, not referring specifically to Miniwaste and LIFE + support, which reduces the valid media coverage.


159

Since 2010 and until 2012, with Miniwaste or Life reference (valid notices), we have been promoted in 6 media adds (Annex 3.3/Annex 7) and in 2 reportages at 2 channels of the national television – no target defined (Annex 3.3/Annex 8). The promotion at the national television had an incredible impact at a national level, with people calling to LIPOR or looking up for more information at the websites and Facebook. •

Events

The awareness raising actions and activities of the Miniwaste project were promoted in a transversal way using the media, facebook and websites, but also using specific events such as seminars, conferences, demonstrations, panels and others. The actions of Miniwaste were promoted in 55 events during 3 years – Miniwaste target 35 events (Annex 3.3/Annex 9). Year

Number of Events

2010

6

2011

12

2012

37

Total

55

The increasing number of events throughout the project is a spontaneous effect of the increasing contact with the partners and field work. We underline the promotion made voluntarily by our partners, which represents the importance that our partners give to the project. We highlight that probably our partners promoted some actions in their own communication supports, and some campaigns might be not accounted due to LIPOR’s lack of knowledge.

Events (examples)


160

•

Films

LIPOR created 4 documentaries – Miniwaste target 4 films – about biowaste concepts and the goal was to produce short films documenting specific information in a very concrete, practical and simple way. The documentaries focused on 3 themes: composting, organic farming and food waste. -

-

-

Composting: 2 documentaries were made focusing on composting. One, about home composting, had the objectives of defining composting, explaining the process, advantages and how to do it; the other one about community composting had the goal to raise the awareness of the population to the easiness and the advantages of a community composting site, giving examples of people who implemented it. Organic farming: 1 documentary about organic farming intends to promote the advantage of compost use and the impact of biological techniques in farming and food production. Food waste: 1 documentary was made about the food waste production and the use of food leftovers as a way to prevent food waste. Giving the example of 3 creative recipes, LIPOR showed how food leftovers can be used as ingredients in other meals.

The films can used in some specific LIPOR’s activities (visits, courses, others…) and they are available at the LIPOR website (video gallery http://www.lipor.pt/pt/galerias_videos/index.php?id=48 ) and at the LIPOR’s youtube page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxvLhpczBMM (composting Portuguese version; 7.096 views) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D75Eh61_1g (composting English version; 258 views) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2F7TrH9bUY (Organic farming Portuguese version; 1.195 views) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc1WbcOgNZ4 (Food waste Portuguese; 40 views published in december 2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkY3M86IynQ (community composting Portuguese version; 18 views - published in december 2012) This represents an easy way to demonstrate and explain the advantages of composting, draw the attention to the food waste problem and good farming practices to the population that is not able to come to our activities or participate in our actions. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter March 2011 Question: "The video produced by LIPOR does not comply with article 13 of the Common Provisions. The expenditure for this item is not eligible." According to the EC question in the letter March 2011 about the videos failing the article 13 of the Common Provisions, the videos have the Miniwaste and Life Logos at the end of the film and the information of “Co-financed by Life+ Miniwaste”. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

161

•

Stands

One of the most significant factors of Miniwaste was the field work of the maters team. The direct contact with the population and different partners, companies, schools, institutions, local authorities, stores and others, was a key factor to increase the promotion of Miniwaste within these partners and their users, promoting the biowaste prevention in a more transversal way, reaching others targets such as students, clients, users and finally the general population. The stands were another tool to promote the project within the partner’s specific public. The Miniwaste team organized, prepared and implemented 2 stand’s structures, one simpler and the other more complete. These stands were organized according to the local conditions and its objectives.

Simpler stand structure The simpler stand structure can be used to raise the awareness of the population to the organic waste prevention through composting.

Complete stand structure


162

The complete stand structure is more advanced and well prepared to promote biowaste prevention practices – food waste reduction, valorisation through composting, organic farming, and sustainable green areas. Since 2010 we have organized 52 stands in our partners – Miniwaste target 45 stands (Annex 3.3/Annex 10).

Stands (examples) •

Inhabitants directly or indirectly addressed by the awareness

With the diverse communication developed and the different activities implemented, LIPOR intended to get the attention of the population to the biowaste problem – Miniwaste target 50% of the population directly or indirectly addressed by the awareness. In order to evaluate this, LIPOR conducted a survey to assess the level of knowledge of the general population about the activities and projects of Horta da Formiga in the scope of Miniwaste (composting courses, cooking workshop, organic farming). The survey was active during almost 1 month (22/10/2012 – 25/11/2012) in 2 ways: -

-

4 questions on an online survey that was sent to our contacts using the enews, the courses contact list, partners list, voluntary composting masters, LIPOR’s employers… We asked them to answer and forward the survey to families, friends and others; 1 question at the Facebook.


163

Horta da Formiga Survey – Email sent We received 425 answers to the online survey and 97% of the people indicated to know what is composting and 90% affirmed to have heard about our activities. Considering the Facebook question, around 76% of the people indicated to have heard about our activities. We can conclude that the Miniwaste project and its activities were well promoted. In the Facebook question, we also highlight some comments of the users about how the activities are interesting and important (Annex 3.3/Annex 11). In fact this result is consistent with the masters team perception that “in 2010, when we organized stands, people came to us asking what that equipment was, and now people know what is it for and know what is composting” and also because we recognize that “since 2011/2012 gardening stores are publicizing more frequently the composting bins selling, that in 2010 was uncommon; now people look for composting bins, thus they know what they are for”. This shows that the population is becoming more aware of these concepts (Annex 3.3). Component B: Active participation The general goal of this action was to raise the awareness of the population to the biowaste problem, leading them to an active participation. Since 2010, LIPOR worked to drive the population. All the activities promoted were implemented, consistently assessed and developed. The 4 master’s team allowed having an intensive field work contacting with the population and the local entities.


164

The internal weekly team meetings allowed planning the work, evaluating what has been done, the difficulties encountered, searching for news methodologies and adapting the procedures, in order to achieve all the targets. The monthly reports of the masters, permitted to have monthly analysis of the work developed.

Weekly planning (example of plan and conclusion) Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter March 2011 Question: “The awareness-raising actions undertaken are not sufficiently detailed. Please submit a table (updated with each report) describing for each activity, the date, theme, venue, number and type of persons trained, etc. Please also supply the supporting documents used and photographs of the sessions”. According to the EC question in the letter March 2011 about the awareness raising activities not being detailed, in this report, in each of the actions we explain what was done and in the appendix is the information about dates, activities and more specific information. LetterDecember 2011 Question: “the MINIWASTE brochure cannot be downloaded: please make sure this problem is solved”. According to the EC question in the letter December 2011, all the materials distributed in the training sessions can be found in the appendix.


165

•

Collective composting sites

The goal of this action was to promote and implement community composting sites. The biggest difficulties encountered during Miniwaste were: -

Porto region has lack of green areas; Difficulties to have 1 person responsible per each site; Problems related with authorisation to implement a composting site in building’s common areas; Lack of awareness of the population of its responsibility of preventing biowaste.

With Miniwaste and the 4 masters team - doing daily field work promoting the project to the population, searching for new partnerships and organizing courses locally - it was possible to concentrate efforts in community composting and how to increase the awareness, overcoming these obstacles. In all activities, we raised the awareness in universities, buildings, institutions, grouped housing, and others that could themselves represent a channel to implement a community site. We promoted to those who lived in buildings with garden, or work in a company with garden, or have no garden but could do composting with some neighbours, the advantages of composting and the production of a natural fertilizer. In these cases we encouraged to the possibility of organizing explanations sessions, meetings or courses locally, allowing reaching all the interested ones and helping to clarify all the doubts (Annex 3.3/Annex 3).

Flyer used for building awareness (example) One of the goals of the community composting film was to use it in the composting courses or other relevant activities, showing people giving their example about the implementation of the site and thus persuading others. With Miniwaste we created, implemented and maintained 75 community composting sites – Miniwaste target 50 sites (Annex 3.3/Annex 12). Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

166

Type of site

Number of Composting sites

Lipor’s Kitchen garden

11

Buildings or Grouped Housing

44

Institutions/Companies

20

Total

75

This action demanded a lot of monitoring and support visits, in order to keep the motivation of the participants and reducing the possibility of giving up. All of the community sites have permanent assistance. Each participant of the community composting site received training, a bio bucket to separate the kitchen waste and information material, as the home composting flyer and the PowerPoint presentation of the composting course (Annex 3.3/Annex 13). Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter March 2011 Question: "On the basis of the photographs and documents provided in annex 19, the LIFE logo is not sufficiently visible. The logo is not visible on the supporting documents used for the classes, on the flyers, or on the stands… Please improve this point." According to the EC question in the letter March 2011 about the lack of the logo in the presentation, we use it at least in the last page of the presentation, but all the materials produced have at least one reference to the European project.

Composting Flyer and Bio bucket Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

167

Community composting Sites Since 2010 until 2012, we organized 386 hands-on 3 hour composting courses. Additionally we also organized 180 short trainings for a total of 329 participations (Annex 3.3/Annex 15). These short trainings were created in order to offer a practical course at the moment we contacted with the participant. We realized that some people had restrictions in terms of schedule to participate in our courses, and to engage them we created this activity. They occurred in special occasions (stands for example). They last around 1 hour, are very practical and with direct contact with 1 participant or a small group. The advantage is that we explain the process more basically and at the moment that we are in contact with them. Each of these activities are registered in a courses database (Annex 3.3/Annex 16). Most of the courses are made locally at the partners of the project, with specific promoting tools, increasing the success of the awareness, involving the partners and increasing the possibility to have more community sites.

Course organized with DECO Partner (Portuguese Association for Consumer protection) and specific promotion materials The demonstration sites, 10 were created – Miniwaste target 10 sites (Annex 3.3/Annex 12). The selection was made in order to have demonstration sites in the Municipalities of Lipor, at different institutions and thus different public target to become aware of Miniwaste. A board was developed and produced by the masters team and has the Miniwaste information. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

168

Demonstration sites •

People trained in composting

The goal of this action was to promote the information and education of the population to the composting, the advantages of this process and the value of the compost. Since 2010 until 2012, we organized 386 hands-on 3 hour composting courses. Additionally we also organized 180 short trainings for a total of 329 participants, considering individual or collective composting (Annex 3.3/Annex 15). At the moment more than 11.177 participants – Miniwaste target 10.400 participants – have received Lipor’s training: 11.034 in hands-on home composting and 134 in wormcomposting. Most of the courses are organized by the masters at the partners of the project. Miniwaste allowed us to promote more courses with no cost to the participants and to reach more inhabitants, involving the local entities. The courses have a theoretical part, followed by a practical demonstration. Each trainee receives the home composting flyer and the PowerPoint presentation of the composting course (Annex 3.3/Annex 13). If they have doubts about the process, Miniwaste or other specific themes, they can afterwards contact the masters or Lipor’s technicians using the general contacts of Lipor (telephone or email), the masters email [email protected] or websites (previously Horta da Fomriga, at the moment www.lipor.pt). Additionally, the Online Group of Horta da Formiga https://groups.google.com/forum/#!aboutgroup/hortadaformiga with 429 members, restricted to Horta da Formiga trainees is a forum that allows the members to help each other’s about composting and organic farming: 1350 messages were exchanged during 3 years (2010-2012).


169

Online group The aspects of these trainings that LIPOR highlights and considers relevant are: -

-

Free courses – the fact that the course has no cost motivates different people to participate; we have participants that wish to learn, others learn more, some wish to implement, others already practice but have some doubts… Practical courses – people can see the demonstration and experiment themselves the process, see the compost…; Local courses – we can reach other publics; Flexibility – The courses must be adapted according to the target (example is the short trainings created); Demonstration area – in the case of Horta da Formiga courses, people can see in Horta da Formiga more than 15 models of composting bins, which can help them choose the better model, some of them have no cost because they are made reusing materials; Support available (people with doubts can contact the masters).

•

Implement individual composting bins

-

The goal of this action was to promote and implement home composting. The biggest difficulties encountered during Miniwaste were: -

Porto region has lack of green areas; Lack of awareness of the population of its responsibility of preventing biowaste; Lack of active participation.

It was essential to do continuous efforts in order to increase the population commitment to the composting, its advantages and active participation.


170

However, with Miniwaste and the organization of stands and more courses at Horta da Formiga or locally - the different communication materials produced and communication channels available, we were able to promote the individual composting more actively at the composting courses, the contact with local partners and the field work. The participants, after attending the composting course and receiving the home composting flyer and the PowerPoint presentation of the composting course they received a bio bucket to separate the kitchen waste and a free composting bin. Indeed, this action was potentiated during 2010/2011 because until 2011 (the beginning) Lipor had for distribution free composting bins that helped engaging people in home composting, changing slowly the behaviour of the population. All the same, LIPOR continued on the awareness raising of the population, motivating the participants of the different composting courses to install their own composting bin (pile, commercial equipment or composting bin made reusing material - wood, net, or others). LIPOR identified “private” composting bins using 3 different ways: - When the participants themselves contacted Lipor informing they have implemented a composting process (Lipor registered in a database and would visit and monitor if necessary); - During the monitoring visits to the participants of the project (Lipor would register if other composters were installed); - By invitation - masters invited people to inform LIPOR if they have any private composting bin, having thus available freely monitoring visits to help and support them.

Email invitation to the composting courses participants (to know if they have bought and implemented a composting bin)


171

Different “particular” composting bins identified and registered Until 2012, we have distributed and implemented 6666 composting bins – Miniwaste target 6500 composters. Each of these composters are registered in a project database (Annex 3.3/Annex 17). The monitoring visits are available for all the participants with a composting bin offered by Lipor and also private composting bins. LIPOR wanted to train, educate, monitor and support every citizen that lives in Lipor Municipalities and practices home composting. The aspects that LIPOR highlights and considers relevant are: -

-

•

Different communication channels – with a diversity of tools (website, stands, demonstration areas) it was possible to raise the awareness and inform the population, in some cases elucidating about the process; Free training - the process, the problem solving and the doubts of the participant are reduced when the participant has training; Free monitoring - this allows to control the process, evaluating the biggest difficulties, but also to reduce the participant’s possibility of giving up. Free equipment (in the case of territories where there is a lack of awareness): in a pilot phase or start-up of a composting project, the delivery of equipment (composters, information, bucket) is an incentive for the population. Participating collective structures

The goal of this action was to promote the biowaste prevention to the population, engaging the local institutions. In effect, the success of the implementation of Miniwaste actions depended on the involvement of local partners. The contact with different partners, promoting composting and its advantages allowed the increasing of the aware of their responsibility in treating the organic waste they produce through composting, increasing the biodiversity in these locations and the contact with nature of the people involved. At the same time, educating these partners we educated others, because they are themselves spreaders of these good practices. However, a lot of field work was required to contact new partners and also to maintain the support to the existing partnerships. Until 2012, a total of 319 entities were involved – Miniwaste target 270. Most of them (76%) were active participants in composting (having composting in institutions, schools or community sites). Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

172

Active Partners (examples)

Promoter Partners (examples) The active entities are registered in the project database (Annex 3.3/Annex 18). The others that have been participating actively in promoting the organic waste problem and easy and sustainable solutions, promoting local composting courses or awareness raising initiatives are registered in a document (Annex 3.3/Annex 19). All the partners have permanent support, flexibility toschedule initiatives and specific awareness raising material - for example specific flyers produced by masters (Annex 3.3/Annex 3). The aspects that LIPOR highlights and considers relevant are:


173

-

-

-

•

Specific publicizing materials – the production of specific communication materials allows to reach the specific public and also to promote the involvement of the partner which enhances the partner’s image; Flexibility of activities – to engage the partners and its clients, users, students, or employers, the activities must be designed to reach also the partners intentions and objectives, increasing the success of the activities developed; Constant support and monitoring – the partners must have available support to engage them and maintain them motivated. Apartment composters

The goal of this action was to promote the biowaste prevention at the apartments. The biggest difficulties encountered during Miniwaste were: -

Lack of awareness of the population of its responsibility of preventing biowaste; Lack of knowledge of an available process/equipment for apartments (biowastevalorisation through wormcomposters, for example); Nonexistence of efficient models available in Portugal.

To develop this action and better choose the equipment, LIPOR firstly decided to evaluate an electric model. The Naturmill composter (model previous to the actual XE model) was being used in Horta da Formiga kitchen (when cooking courses occurred). But some problems were detected and was decided to develop a test in a family house with continuous kitchen waste deposition conditions (during 1 month). It was concluded that the problem of that equipment was not related with the previous punctual use, because smells, jams and excess of moisture continued to occur even with daily observation and monitoring. We considered that it did not achieve LIPOR’s required performance (Annex 3.3/Annex 20). After this test, it was decided to evaluate a more recent model, but it was difficult to find a European provider of a more recent model during 2011. As a result, and since LIPOR intended to promote and implement apartment composting, we decided to implement this action using wormcomposters - models suitable for houses with no garden. In order to assess a pilot project of this action and one model, Lipor decided to implement a wormcomposting bin (model Can-o-worms) in a participant apartment, providing training and monitoring of the process (Annex 3.3/Annex 21).


174

Wormcomposting Pilot Test After 1 month implementation, the results showed that the model was good, the participant was motivated and considered wormcomposting a process easy to maintain. (Annex 3.3). After this experience and a general assessment of different models of wormcomposters available at the market and prices versus technical characteristics, LIPOR chose a model.

Wormcafe - wormcomposter At the same time, in order to promote wormcomposting to people who live in apartment or don’t have garden, we produced a wormcomposting information document to be available for download at the Horta da Formiga website (Annex 3.3/Annex 23). This document was afterwards edited and designed by a volunteer composting master (Annex 3.3/Annex 24) – available at the moment at WWW.LIPOR.PT(http://www.lipor.pt/pt/bibliotecas/).


175

Wormcomposting Flyer In February 2012 we also made a survey (Annex 3.3/Annex 25) to evaluate the interest of the population in wormcomposting. We received 445 answers and we highlight that 74% already heard about wormcomposting and 23% would like to implement a wormcomposter(Annex 3.3/Annex 26). After the pilot experience and the model choosing, having into consideration the people that responded to the survey and other interested ones, we selected 100 possible participants to receive the equipment and that live in house with no garden. The participants had to: -

Receive a first visit to evaluate the conditions (live in 8 Municipalities, have no garden, have space for the wormcomposter,); Sign a commitment assuring the participation in the project, having an active process, weighting and allowing the monitoring (Annex 3.3/Annex 27); Receive training in wormcomposting.


176

Until 2012, a total of 102 wormcomposters were implemented (100 distributed in the frame of Miniwaste and 2 particular ones) – Miniwaste target 100. All of the participants received free training, the wormcomposting flyer, the wormcomposting presentation (Annex 3.3/Annex 28), a wormcomposter and a bio bucket. All of the participants are registered in a database and will be monitored (Annex 3.3/Annex 48). At the same time we organized two courses for the general population and people interested in the process. The teacher of the 1st course was a professor of a university that practices and studies the process and is a volunteer composting master. The course was exclusive to Lipor’s employers and volunteer composting masters (invitation).

1st Wormcomposting Course The other one was for the general population (during the 2012 European Week for the Waste Reduction) interested in the theme. The courses were free, have a theoretical and practical part (demonstration) and last around 3 hours. Until 2012, we organized 6 wormcomposting courses for a total of 143 people. The aspects that LIPOR highlights and considers relevant are: -

-

•

Free training – the process, the problem solving and the doubts of the participant are reduced when the participant has training; Free monitoring – this allows to control the process, evaluating the biggest difficulties, but also to reduce the participant’s possibility of giving up. Free equipment (in the case of territories where there is a lack of awareness) – in a pilot phase or start-up of a wormcomposting project, the delivery of equipment (wormcomposters, information, bucket) is an incentive for the population. Analysis of the best model – in our project we realised that people would have problems with the excess of moisture, so the wormcomposter should have the liquid collection. On the other hand, the participants are interested in the compost tea and thus they may use it. Persons trained for reducing food waste

The goal of this action was to promote the information and education of the population to the problem of food waste, the impacts and the solutions to reduce food waste. The biggest problems encountered during Miniwaste were: -

Lack of awareness of the population of its responsibility of preventing food waste;


177

-

Lack of knowledge of the impact of food waste generation and also the costs reduction.

The 1st strategy to reach the population was with the organization of cooking classes. But due to these difficulties people that are not aware of the food waste problem didn’t register to the cookery classes we offer. In 2010 we have cancelled 3 cookery classes due to the lack of registrations. So to counteract this, besides continuing with the cooking courses, we started to present other types of cooking activities in order to promote this concept and make people aware of the food waste impact and easy solutions to reduce it, for example by promoting shorter cooking courses, cooking leftovers through demonstrations or food waste lectures (theme sessions). With Miniwaste, we organized 31 cooking courses, 5 presentation and 16 demonstrations (Annex 3.3/Annex 40), Type of activity

Number of activities

Cooking Course

31

Presentation

5

Cooking demonstration

16

Cooking courses Each participant of the cooking courses receives documentation, for example the recipes using leftovers (Annex 3.3/Annex 29).


178

The cooking demonstration can be organized locally, for examples in parks or fairs, and allowed people to see easy techniques to reduce food waste, for example cooking leftovers.

Cooking demonstration Each participant of the cooking demonstration workshops receives a flyer with 3 recipes (Annex 3.3/Annex 31) or other awareness raising material such as a bookmark (Annex 3.3/Annex 32). The goal was to increase the interest of the participant, encouraging seeking more information about food waste or the activities available, such as the cooking courses.

Bookmark distributed in a leftovers lunch (volunteer masters Lunch)


179

The demonstration workshops and the cooking courses were organized in Lipor or locally in any partner interested in promoting the reduction of food waste and can be organized for a specific group for example of that partner. The demonstration workshops are free. Since they were in an informal environment, people are more motivated to learn about this theme, but specially spread this information to others (Annex 3.3/Annex 8). Additionally since February 2012 we started to include information about food waste in the composting courses, in order to engage these participants in the food waste problem since they are already involved in the valorization of biowaste through composting (Annex 3.3/Annex 14). The presentation includes general information about the quantities of food waste produced and how to reduce it with simple tips: stocks management/shopping, correct food conservation, preparing food, weekly planning of meals, using leftovers as ingredients for others meals and “dose certa” - the right portion.

Food waste information (awareness raising) Lectures about food waste were also available for any food waste awareness raising initiative, for example in the European Week for the Waste Reduction. We have educated and sensitized 3.712 people – Miniwaste target 2.800. With these activities we have promoted among the population the ways to reduce the generation of food waste when going shopping, then when storage and conserving the food, when cooking and at last when eating (balanced meals). At the same time, we have some documents (recipes using leftovers, food conservation guide) available at the Horta da Formiga website, at the moment at Lipor’s website http://www.lipor.pt/pt/bibliotecas/ (Annex 3.3/Annex 30). Simultaneously, at the stands organization, we called the attention for the food waste problem placing a dish with the ideal food proportions in a meal, a small flyer promoting the courses and ideas to use food leftovers.


180

Food waste awareness at the stands The aspects that LIPOR highlights and considers relevant are: -

Free demonstrations: alert the population for the waste problem; Local cooking courses or demonstrations: reach other targets; Available information material: simple and clear information to allow people to start implementing small changes in the daily-life.

•

Participating restaurants

The goal of this action was to promote the food waste production at the restaurants and the information and education of the population involved. The biggest problems encountered during Miniwaste were: -

Lack of awareness of the population of its responsibility of preventing food waste; Lack of knowledge of the impact of food waste generation and also the costs reduction; Required resources for the project implementation; Crisis in Portugal with increasing taxes for the services, which makes difficult for the restaurant to think about these themes and have voluntary and active participation.

Dose Certa Project requires availability of material, human resources and time necessary to its correct implementation an evaluation. This project includes several steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Registration in the project; Dose Certacommitment signature (Annex 3.3/Annex46) ; Initial diagnosis; Training (LIPOR in partnership with Portuguese Nutritionists Association); Final diagnosis (Characterization/Quantification); Dose Certa certificate delivery; Monitoring/Support.


181

The biggest constraints are the fact that the assessment/characterization is quantified in several flows (storage>waste, cooking>waste, client>waste), the training must involve the entire restaurant’s team, after the training the subsequent implementation of Dose Certa Menu (or Menus validated by the nutritionist’s association) and good practices, monitoring of the restaurant practices, all developed with Lipor’s internal resources. Until 2012 we have 4 catering establishments involved in the project – Miniwaste target 5 restaurants. 2 restaurants have Dose Certa Project implemented and are being monitored to see if they have any doubts, which are the difficulties and others (the support is constant along the year). In addition and as an effort for reducing food waste, this project was extended to other targets, such as school canteens (with proper management) and company’s providers of food services. We implemented this project in one school canteen (with proper management). The project was all implemented and the certificate was delivered.

News at Website The results show that the food waste reduction was of 38% (Annex 3.3/Annex 47) We started to implement this project in one canteen (pilot project) managed by a company providers of food services, located at one residence for elderly. The chronogram was defined and the first quantification of the food waste generated in the several flows (1st monitoring phase) was made. The first analysis allowed to verify that 1.654 meals were served during 7 days with a waste of 0,20€/meal, which means that around 20 tonnes of food waste are potentially generated and 17.248€ might be through away in 1 year. The training is scheduled during February 2013. Due to fact that the project has different steps and requires the engagement of the restaurants teams, the target couldn’t be achieved. Nevertheless, the project will continue and to engage the catering establishments we expect to:


182

-

•

Promote actively the project and the establishments that already have the Dose Certa, distinguishing them from the others; To overcome some doubts that the establishments might have, schedule local meetings to explain all the process; Engage a larger workgroup in this action in order to increase the potential number of participating establishments; Make available theme sessions (workshops) or information material for the clients of the participating establishments. Composting masters involved

The goal of this action was to promote the awareness raising, training and active participation of volunteer composting masters. The biggest difficulties encountered during Miniwaste were: -

Lack of awareness of the population of its responsibility of preventing biowaste; Citizens do not have voluntary active participation, especially in the themes related with the environment.

Citizens don’t have voluntary active participation in society. It is possible to educate and train composting masters, but for them to be actively in the society afterwards it is a difficult task. LIPOR organized one composting masters course at the end of 2010 for a total of 26 registrations (Annex 3.3/Annex 44)Only 11 concluded the course. The conclusion implied the participation in all the modules and the organization of a practical activity, which could be the promotion among the family or friends, registrations for the composting courses or implementation of community or home composting, among others. Most of the participants attended the modules but didn’t do the practical activity.

Composting masters course To counteract this, Lipor decided to choose already active persons - volunteer composting masters. The selection was made according to their actual voluntary capability to promote the composting process, its advantages, the food waste problem, raise the awareness of the Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

183

population to these good practices and ability to lead others to the necessary behavioural change. We selected among the teachers that are responsible for composting projects in the schools or for biowaste good practices projects, people responsible for community sites, people that have active participation in associations or others that voluntary accept the challenge. When we chose the volunteers, we invited them to sign a commitment (Annex 3.3/Annex 36) and to be a part of the voluntary masters group (See appendix 37 Voluntary masters rules). 108 voluntary composting masters signed the commitment – Miniwaste target 100 (Annex 3.3/Annex 41). To motivate these volunteers we organized different activities during 2012 and we invited them to participate freely. Activity Lunch using leftovers – Food waste awareness raising

1st Masters Reunion

Cooking demonstrations – Using Leftovers (2 editions: Parque Aventura and Marshopping)


184

1st wormcomposting course

The first voluntary masters reunion took place in LIPOR. It was a success. All the participants had the possibility to change ideas. A survey was sent to all the masters that signed the commitment (Annex 3.3/Annex 38). Some of the results are very motivating (Annex 3.3/Annex 39): How did you meet the project? 35% met the project through LIPOR, which is a reflex of the field work and direct contact. 22% met the project over the internet, a representative tool in the promotion strategy. 21% met the project by known people (mouth-to-mouth). This shows the importance of the direct contact with the population and partners, such as institutions, encouraging the spread of information, and a continuous promotion over the internet. How do you disseminate? In fact the spread of information occurs mainly in the direct contact.


185

Why did you decide to join composting? The fact that the equipment is free motivates but it is not the main reason for implementing composting. The fact that 56% implements composting for environmental protection is a result of the information work developed by Lipor. People start to understand the impact of the biowaste generation.

Additionally, 33% of the masters say that they have promoted the project to more than 11 people (between 11 and 30 people). According to their experience, the ideal target to sensitize for these problems is the adults or children with less than 10 years old. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC According to the EC letter September 2012 about the number of masters active, because they were selected as being already active volunteer persons, we consider them all active, despite they don’t participate in all the activities that LIPOR promotes for them. The aspects that LIPOR highlights and considers relevant are: -

Free activities: the fact that the volunteers can learn more, allows them to become more interested; Selection of people that already do the promotion voluntarily and invite them to participate or give feedback, instead of “rigid and mandatory” participation. Component C: monitoring tasks

The goal of this action was to promote the monitoring of the composting projects. The biggest difficulties encountered during Miniwaste were: Rotation of the responsible person of the composting process, which complicates the access to the real information about how the process is going, the quantities sent to the composter, doubts and others… -

The fact that the visits are at a specific moment, sometimes creates “instability” in the data collected – it might not be the reflex of the all period since the composting is implemented.


186

LIPOR has different databases to controls the courses, dates, participants and also composting bins distributed and the monitoring visits (Annex 3.3/Annex 45). Regarding the monitoring to the composting participants (home and community composting), LIPOR uses an internal survey that evaluates garden characteristics, the composting process and difficulties. In each visit we fill in a monitoring sheet. In 2012 this sheet has been slightly improved according to some conclusions evaluated during the protocols study (Annex 3.3/Annex 42). More than 3525 visits were made until 2012. Year

Number of visits

% of the total

2007-2009

1421

40%

2010

391

11%

2011

1001

28%

2012

714

20%

Total

3527

We highlight that the visits organized during Miniwaste represent 60% of the total monitoring organized which reflects the commitment and the effort of the Miniwaste team to support the participants that have implemented composting. Note that all the community composting site and participants have permanent assistance. Considering the most recent visits (more recent data) of the participants monitoring we highlight in a global evaluation that:

• • •

90% have the composter located in a good location (accessible, on a plain terrain, ideally under a deciduous tree, near a water source); 99% produces biowaste for the composting process (the other 1% have low quantity of biowaste for the composting bin because they use it to feed the animals or they don’t eat at home); 51% have produced and applied the compost- considering the answers that we have at the moment to the question of the new sheet about the quality of compost, if they have produce compost, 63% has good quality compost (visual evaluation considering humidity, heterogeneity, smell);


187

•

69% have no doubts – this is a result of the participation in the training for the equipment delivery. 30% have few doubts. Normally the doubts are all about the same problems that happen during the process (excess of moisture, when to mix, when is the compost ready, what do I do when I have flies or mosquitos). In fact this is in accordance with the voluntary composting masters survey. To the question about what kind of feedback from people who implemented composting do they have, 47% refer it is a positive feedback. 36% of the answers are related with the major difficulties encountered, such as the doubts during the implementation of the project (13%), the fly presence (8%).

Since each participant has a bio bucket of Horta da Formiga, in Autumn 2011 and Spring 2012, we organized seasonal monitoring to evaluate the weight of this bucket filled with kitchen biowaste. We concluded that a Horta da Formiga bucket weigts full in average around 1,591 kg. This allows determining the amount of kitchen waste sent to composting with the indicator controlled in the monitoring visits (number of buckets put in the composting bins per week). In a global analysis, the participants visited report a production of an average of 5,14 buckets per week of kitchen waste. This represents around 425 kg of kitchen waste/year per composting bin. Considering the additional green waste, we estimate that at least 475 kg of biowaste/year per composting bin is valorised through the composting process. An average of 4 people uses 1 composting bin. Analysing the community sites monitoring, the participants report a production of an average of 12,8 buckets per week of kitchen waste. This represents around 1062 kg of kitchen waste/year per site. We estimate that at least 65 kg of biowaste/ year per person is valorised through the community composting process.

Type of composting

Average nº of composters

Nº people

Potential reduction of biowaste per person

Individual housing (or similar)

1/family

4/family

119 kg/year

Community sites

2/site

16/site

65kg/year

Considering wormcomposting, and the monitoring made at the pilot phase (the wormcomposters are at the moment being monitored and the first data is still not available), the potential of reduction is of 122kg/year per wormcomposter considering a family of 3 people (around 40kg/person.year). The aspects that LIPOR highlights and considers relevant are: -

The support is essential to monitor the process and to support the participants; Effort to select 1 responsible person per composting project at each institution – like in the community sites in order to minimize the struggle to have the real information about the process.


188

Action 3.4 – Guidelines for EU local councils on how to minimize organic waste

The methodological guide is in the annex. (Annex 3.4)


189

Action 4 - Communication on the project Action 4.1 – Project web site (Lead partner: ACR +) Initial action dates: 01/04/2010 – 31/12/2012 Effective action dates: as above

Objectives

A specific website for the project was to be developed (at the latest 6 months after the start of the project), in order to present the project, its partners and outputs. A “static” section of the website was planned to be dedicated to the description of the LIFE+-project, including full details of its objectives, actions, progress and results. This section was to be complemented with a “dynamic” section presenting news about the project’s progress and other relevant issues (on bio-waste prevention for instance). The website was to be filled in with the different communication tools foreseen and the project deliverables (dematerialization). The “static” section will exist in all partners’ languages while the “dynamic” parts of the website will be developed mainly in two languages (French and English, the news being published alternatively in one language or the other). Methodology

The technical development, hosting and layout of the website were to be outsourced under the control of Rennes Metropole. This site will include general information on the Miniwaste project (as described in the above paragraph), as well as links to each partner's webpages on the local implementation of the Miniwaste project. The general content was to be developed and updated by ACR+ acting as a webmaster, with input from RM and all partners. ACR+ would carry out the updates in French and English. Additional information on the project progress would be presented on each partner website. Results

The multilingual website: http://www.miniwaste.eu has been launched at the end of June 2010. It was designed by RM’s subcontractor VERSIO in accordance with the project’s graphic charter. It embodies the main window on the project and includes a static part (in French, English, Portuguese and Czech) presenting the project, the partnership, the objectives, and a dynamic part in French or English consisting of a News section (on the homepage) where interested people and stakeholders can leave comments. Moreover, the website contains a multimedia section and a section including all the relevant documents (technical reports, etc.).


190

RM and ACR+ have been working together as administrators of the website on its structure and its content, while the partners translated the pages into their languages. Website management manual (Annex 4.1/Annex 1).

Screenshot from the Miniwaste website homepage

The Miniwaste site map is the following: •

•

The project o Presentation o Objectives o Project Results The partners o Rennes Métropole


191

o o o o •

Brno ACR+ Lipor Irstea

Tools Best Practices Protocoles Miniwaste tool Medias / Events o Final Conference o Brno 2011 o Brussels 2010 o Kick off 2010 o Videos o o o

•

• • • •

Site map Legal notice Contact Subscribe newsletter

Most of the pages have been foreseen as static pages, but concretely many of them have been modified during the project, in order to reflect the project’s progress. Between the launch of the website and 31 December 2012, 147 news articles have been published on the Miniwaste website: 28 articles between end June 2010 and 11 May 2011, and 119 articles between 12 May 2011 and 31 December 2012. This shows an increase in the publication of articles, in order to attract the interest of users and also to increase the traffic on the static pages, because most of the articles include at least one link to the rest of the Miniwaste website. These articles are related to Miniwaste activities, partners’ activities (information provided by the partners) in the field of bio-waste and other relevant information on bio-waste. A ‘documents’ section gathers European documents (Miniwaste brochure, Layman’s report, inventory of good practices, etc.) and communication material specific to each partner (e.g. participation charter to community composting for individuals, etc.). Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC EC letterfrom 1/12/2011 Question: "As requested during the visit, please include a “results” page (where you can regularly update a summary of the results achieved to date) and a "Contacts" page on the project web site”. As requested in EC letter from 1/12/2011, a contact page is present on the website. Moreover, direct emails have been added on each partner’s page.


192

Pictures: Screenshots from the Miniwaste website (left: all pages; right: RM page)

Also as requested in EC letter from 1/12/2011, a page presenting the results of the project has been added to the website. This page includes in particular the Miniwaste synthesis report that presents details about the results obtained by each partner on its territory, in order to meet the request of EC letter from 27/9/2012. Some statistics on visits to the website are included (Annex 4.1/Annex 2 and 3). In order to add visibility on the web to the Miniwaste website, a Wikipedia article has been created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniwaste). Whenever possible, the URL of Miniwaste website is attached to any information related to Miniwaste (articles, leaflets, etc.). Considering that few results and outputs of the project were available to be disseminated on the Miniwaste website until mid-project, ACR+ has seen that the objective of a monthly average of 1500 visits was unlikely to be reached, despite the growing number of visits every month. Therefore, it has been proposed to amend this objective and reduce it to an average of 750 visits per month. In parallel, in order to increase the traffic on the website, ACR+ increased the number of newsletters from 5 to 6 and created a new dissemination tool, the Miniwaste Watch – a monthly newsline including links to articles published on the Miniwaste website that has been sent since end of April 2012 to the people registered to the Miniwastenewsletter. In order to increase the number of visits, ACR+ also increased the number of news articles published in the news section (from about 1 per month in 2010 to about 1 per week in 2011 and 1-2 per week in 2012) and included links to the Miniwaste website when possible in other websites (Prewaste, EWWR, etc.) and in Wikipedia. Thanks to the measures implemented by ACR+, this new target has been largely reached (average number of visits of 1,312 visits/month). The partners are also in charge of disseminating information on Miniwaste via their local websites: • • •

Rennes Metropole: http://blogducomposteur.blogspot.com/ Brno: http://www.miniwaste.cz/ LIPOR: http://www.hortadaformiga.com/gb/main.cfm/

These local websites are mentioned on the partners’ pages.


193


The implementation of the task is not as simple as it should be because of the involvement of 3 entities: RM, ACR+ and Versio. Even if ACR+ is in charge of the task, RM is deeply involved as RM is responsible for the public tender with Versio. Modifications of the ‘static’ pages took time since any modification needed to be translated in all languages of the website. The objective established in the project’s specifications (1500 visits/month) had to be revised since it did not seem to be realistic. The Miniwaste project and its target audience are quite specific and therefore the objective should be in line with this specificity. Moreover, it is to be noted that the local websites of the partners dragged a part of the target audience. A new objective of 750 visits/month seemed more appropriate and reachable on the long term. This new objective was part of the amendment to the project prepared by RM. Thanks to the measures implemented by ACR+ (increased number of news with internal links, Miniwaste Watch), this new target has been successfully reached (average number of visits of 1,312 visits/month).

Action 4.2 – Layman’s report and communication tools (Lead partner: RM) Initial action dates: 01/04/2010 – 31/12/2012 Effective action dates: as above

Objectives

Different communication tools were to be developed, as well as technical documents presenting the outcomes of the project: -

-

-

A leaflet presenting the project and elaborated in all partners’ languages (French, Czech, and Portuguese) plus English An electronic newsletter presenting the progress and results of the project to be published (in English and French) and mailed out to partners’ contacts and people registered on the website. It was proposed to issue 5 editions of the newsletter but this number has been increased to 6. At the end of the project, a “layman’s report” (8-10 pages) presenting the project results was to be produced and disseminated to the general public and different target groups in all partners’ languages + English. a final report of the project was to present the results of the different actions for a specialized audience as well as some conclusions and recommendations for transferability at European level (in EN and FR).


194

Methodology

Communication tools: the design and production (includingtranslation English-French) of the leaflet, newsletter and layman's report was to be outsourced under the control of Rennes Metropole. The content was to be developed by ACR+. Translation to Czech and Portuguese was to be outsourced under the control of BRNO and LIPOR (respectively). Technical documents: during the meeting they had on 27 April 2010, ACR+ and Rennes Métropole agreed that ACR+ will be in charge of providing the content in English of the leaflet, the layman's report and the articles for the newsletter. RM was to ensure translation of the layman’s report, drafting the content of the final report and the general coordination and responsibility for this action. Results

Newsletters: The newsletter was sent by email. The possibility to subscribe to the newsletter is available from the website. Each subscriber has the possibility to ask to be removed from the dissemination list. ACR+ drafted the content of each newsletter in English and sent it to Rennes Métropole for translation in French and design of the layout from a module of the website (see annexe), except for the last 2 issues (November 2012 and December 2012) that were also translated by ACR+. Each newsletter in French and in English is sent by e-mail and is available on the website where there is the possibility to subscribe to it. The latest issue of the newsletter is accessible from the website homepage. All issues of the newsletter are accessible on the Miniwaste website in HTML format from the ‘subscription/archive’ page (http://www.miniwaste.eu/subscribenewsletter.html), in order to answer to an EC comment in a letter from 29/3/2011 mentioning that the newsletters were only temporarily present on the website. In order to be attractive, and starting from the 3rd issue, it has been decided to send a summarized version of the newsletter with links to the full articles online.


195

Miniwaste Newsletter – May 2012, English, mail version

Miniwaste Newsletter – May 2012, English, web version (full articles)

Each issue of the newsletter included: •

at least one article presenting the project and its progress on the various actions of the project


196

• • •

an article focusing on one partner (except the 6th issue sent in December 2012, because the Miniwaste partnership only gathers 5 partners) an agenda of the upcoming events a frame at the end of the newsletter explaining what is Miniwaste and mentioning the support from the LIFE+ programme (except in the first issue, because this information was already mentioned in the first article of the newsletter)

Originally, only 5 issues were foreseen in the project application form. However, in order to increase the number of visits on the Miniwaste website and to increase the dissemination of the Miniwaste outputs, an additional newsletter was published at the end of the project, after the final conference. The newsletters have been sent as follows: - n°1: 23/08/2010 - n°2: 09/02/2011 - n°3: 21/12/2011 - n°4: 11/05/2012 - n°5: 14/11/2012 (also translated by ACR+) - n°6: 13/12/2012 (also translated by ACR+) The first newsletter was to be sent to a list of contacts of waste prevention actors provided by ACR+ (including 96 ACR+ members and 650 representatives of public authorities in Europe), since the website was not published for enough time to build a list of subscribers to the newsletter. The following issues were sent to the same list plus the people who subscribed to the newsletter on the website. On 31 December 2012, 1176 people were registered on the website’s mailing database (including the people who received the first issue) and receive the Miniwaste newsletter. As was requested in EC letter from 29/3/2011, the list of recipients isannexed to this report (Annex 4.2/Newsletters). Miniwaste Watch: In order to increase the number of visits on the Miniwaste website, a monthly mailing gathering the most recent articles has been sent since March 2012 to the people registered to the Miniwaste newsletter (8 emailing sent in 2012 – Annex 4.2/Miniwaste watch). This monthly newsline, called “Miniwaste Watch”, gathers an average of 10 articles. Though not foreseen in the project application form, this Miniwaste Watch provided an increased visibility to the Miniwaste website and helped to effectively increase the number of visits. The Miniwaste Watch will continue to be sent, but less frequently, during the year following the end of the project, according to the following proposed calendar: January 2013 (already sent), March 2013, June 2013, December 2013. This is mentioned in the after-LIFE communication plan.


197

Screenshot of emailing, Miniwaste Watch, November 2012

Leaflet: The structure and content of the leaflet was drafted in English and in French by ACR+ and the translation in Portuguese and Czech have been implemented by LIPOR and Brno. The layout of the leaflet has been implemented by RM’s sub-contractor Bigot. The electronic version of the leaflet was published on the Miniwaste website (English, Czech, French and Portuguese versions). According to the EC letter from 27/9/2012, it has been verified that all versions are accessible from the ‘documents’ section of the website. The leaflet has been printed by RM in French and in English versions that have been disseminated during various events, amongst which: • an international workshop on waste prevention organised in Brussels on 28 March 2011 in the framework of the Pre-waste project, altogether with the awards ceremony of the European Week for Waste Reduction 2010 • theGreen Week 2011 in Brussels, focusing on waste and resources, and where ACR+ had an exhibition stand • the Miniwaste intermediate conference in Brno on 13 September 2011 • the 2011 ACR+ international conference and general assembly on 27 October 2011 in Genoa • the Pre-waste project final conference on 7-8 November 2012in Brussels, altogether with the 2012 ACR+ international conference and general assembly • the Miniwaste final conference on 20-21 November 2012 in Rennes Annex 4.2/leaflet


198

Layman’s report: The layman’s report is a 20-page document providing details on the project, its objectives, partners and results in an attractive way. The structure and content of the layman’s report was drafted in English by ACR+. A temporary layout was also prepared by ACR+, in order to be sure to have the report ready to be disseminated during the final conference. The final layout has been implemented by RM’s subcontractor Bigot.

Miniwaste Layman’s report, ACR+ layout

Miniwaste Layman’s report, ACR+ layout


199

The layman’s report provides detail about the project and its results throughout the following sections: • •

• •

Presentation of the Project & Partners Project Outputs o Organic Waste Minimisation Guidance o The Inventory of Good Practices o The Protocols o The Miniwaste Web tool The Demonstration Actions Communicating the Project

The layman’s report has been published on the Miniwaste website (‘documents’ section and ‘results of the project’ page). The layman’s report will be sent to the recipients of the Miniwaste newsletter through the Miniwaste Watch in March 2013. Annex 4.2/Layman’s report Problems encountered

The first publication of the newsletter was planned to be released in April 2010, but the partners agreed to postpone it to August 2010, since there was not enough information to draft the newsletter. Some problems appeared with the layout of the newsletter from the 1st issue of the newsletter and the sub-contractor was not able to fix them. However, these layout problems didn’t seem to affect all recipients of the newsletter and did not prevent from accessing the newsletter’s content. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter dated March 29 2011 "Please provide the list of persons or organisations receiving the newsletter (as requested in my letter dated 22/12/2010).” The list of addressees is provided in the annex (Annex 4.2/miniwaste_subscribers_mailing list). “Please provide a paper version of the newsletters as they can only be downloaded temporarily on your web site.” Letter dated September 26 2012 “Please make sure that the project leaflet can be downloaded from the project web site. Please specify the number of copies of the leaflet that have been produced and distributed.” Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

200

The project leaflet can be downloaded from the web site home page in the "documents" folder.http://www.miniwaste.eu/mediastore/11/16577_1_FR_original.pdf 6,000 copies of the brochure have been printed. It has been distributed at the conferences that partners have taken part in and at local events. All the copies have been handed out.

Action 4.3 – Display panels (Lead partner: RM) Initial action dates: 01/10/2010 – 31/12/2012 Effective action dates: as above

Objectives

This action aims to set up new display panels describing the project in strategic locations in busy places to promote the actions undertaken by the partners within the framework of the project. The number of display panels is as follows: 10 in Rennes (RM + Irstea), 2 in Brno, 10 in Porto, 1 in Brussels (ACR+). Methodology

The content of the display panels has been drafted by RM in cooperation with the partners. The type of support has been chosen according to the purpose of the panels: they have been placed in locations where they will be seen by the greatest number of people. The display panels are therefore as light as possible so they can easily be moved from one place to another: this is why kakemono type panels were chosen. They will therefore only stay in the same place for a few months. Brno has therefore decided to produce 5 more panels to disseminate information on the project in waste disposal sites. Locations in Rennes Métropole: Cesson-Sévigné cultural centre Rennes Waste Disposal Site Champs Manceaux Social Centre Betton Town Hall Vern-sur-Seiche Town Hall Mordelles Town Hall Chartres de Bretagne Town Bruz Town Hall Urban planning department, SaintJacques de la Lande IRSTEA

Locations in Porto

Location in Brno

ACR locations

Maia JF Gemunde

SSO PodKapcem

Near the composter near the building

Povoa de Varzim

SSO Jana Svobody

Jardiland

Peace SSO

CM Matosinhos CM Porto

SSO Zemanova SSO Zemanova

CM Maia Liport HF Lipor CVO LiporEd.admin

Pictures of these kakemonos are shown in the annex to the report (Annex 4.3). Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

201

As planned in the project proposal, these panels will remain in place for up to 5 years after the end of the project. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter dated September 26 2012 “Please provide photographs of the LIFE display panels installed on the site.” The photographs are in the annex to the report. Letter dated December 1 2011 “Please install the LIFE display panels as soon as possible on the main project sites. They must be visible by the greatest number of people. Please provide photographs of the panels already installed and indicate their location.” Same reply as previously

Action 4.4 – Organisation of the half-way conference (Lead partner: Brno) Objectives

An intermediate conference hosted on 13th September 2011 in Brno was aimed to present the progress of the project: this seminar was mainly to target experts in the field of waste prevention from inside and outside the project. It aimed at exchanging on the problems encountered, the solutions and benefit from the analysis of external experts and inspiration from case studies from other contexts. Brno hosted an international conference on bio-waste prevention. Venue: Administrative and training centre, Cejl 73, Brno. The conference was organised by the MINIWASTE project team at Brno City Municipality. This international event was attended by the project leader Communauté d’agglomération Rennes Métropole and the representatives of associated entities – The Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling and sustainable Resource management – ACR+, Serviço Intermunicipalizado de Gestão de Resíduos do Grande Porto – LIPOR and Centre National du Machinisme Agricole, du Génie Rural, des Eaux et des Forêts – UR GERE Unité de Recherche Gestion environnementale et traitement biologique des déchets. Besides the representatives of the stakeholders in the MINIWASTE project, the invitation to present the current views of bio-waste management in the Czech Republic was also accepted by the representatives of the Ministry of Environment and the Union of Towns and Municipalities of the Czech Republic. Practical examples of bio-waste management were presented by Polish guests from Poznan and the representatives of ODAS


202

Methodology

Brno was in charge of the local logistics, with help of the coordinating partner: room, catering, speakers travel, documents, translation, etc. ACR+ supported Brno for the organisation of the Intermediate Conference (definition of programme, contact with speakers, promotion, support in organisation, international dissemination). Results

The Brno intermediate conference took place on 12-13 September 2011 before an audience of 60 people. The conference programme was divided as follows: Section 1: Challenges in bio-waste prevention at the European and national levels Section 2: Actions within MINIWASTE project at local level Section 3: The potential and impact of bio-waste prevention measures – assessment and monitoring tools Section 4: Good practices and innovative approaches towards bio-waste prevention and reduction (Annex 4.4/Annex 1) ACR+ contributed to the programme of the conference and suggested/contacted some speakers. ACR+ contributed to the animation of the conference by making 2 presentations, on a European overview of the issue of bio-waste in Europe and a presentation of smart gardening and smart cooking issues (Annex 4.4/Annex 2) ACR+ also advertised about the event as follows: • 2 articles on the Miniwaste website (18/3/2011, 21/7/2011) (see online) 3 articles in the ACR+ Update (a newsletter sent to all ACR+contacts,approximately7,000 recipients in 2011): spring 2011 (5/5/2011), summer 2011 (8/9/2011), winter 2011-2012 (20/12/2011) (Annex 4.4/Annex 3) • 1 direct emailing to ACR+ members (20/7/2011) (Annex 4.4)2 articles in Miniwaste newsletter n°2 (09/02/2011) and n°3(21/12/2011) (see online)

Action 4.5 – Organisation of the final conference (Lead partner: RM) Initial action dates: 01/04/2010 – 31/12/2012 Effective action dates: as above

Objectives

The final conference aims to present the results of the Miniwaste project and the recommendations produced. This will: • Encourage exchanges about organic waste management types • Raise awareness among European communities about organic waste reduction • Promote the measures implemented and results achieved under the Miniwaste project • Promote the project web site


203

150 participants were expected to attend this event, 25% of which were from outside France. Methodology

Rennes Métropole chose to farm out this event to an outside service provider who could take responsibility for scene setting and logistics. A call for tenders was therefore published on June 18 2012. The dBO Conseil company was awarded the contract. The agenda was drawn up in consultation with the project partners. It was decided to hold the event over 1.5 days and to organise plenary sessions during which speakers from outside the consortium could share their own experience.4 workshops (2 of which could be chosen by each participant) were also organised so as to present the instruments developed by the partners in various areas of organic waste prevention. RM called on speakers and chairpersons from a number of French and European local councils as well as waste management and prevention experts. Each partner also presented a summary of the actions undertaken and instruments developed. The event was scheduled during the European waste reduction week, on November 20 and 21 2012. In order to involve as many people as possible in the event, ACR+ produced a number of different communication supports using a variety of media: - a “save the date” via the 2012 newsline - the October 2012 newsletter - the news section on the Miniwaste web site - via the partners' local, regional and national networks Participants were able to register via the Miniwaste web site by completing a form which enabled the organisers to produce a registration list and confirm registrations. Registering was possible on-site until the very day of the event. Numbers attending the conference were as follows: - Day 1:129 enrolled - Day 2:144 enrolled Results

The ground floor of Rennes Métropole City Hall was organised into several areas: - Registration, - Cloakroom, - South Hall reserved for the partners’ display materials, - North Hall reserved for catering,


204

Photographic view of the ground floor organisation

The plenary sessions took place in the council chambers, which can seat up to 300 people. The workshops were held in the other ground floor rooms. Interpreting was provided throughout the proceedings to ensure that the conference would be truly bilingual in French and English.

Photograph of a plenary On arrival, participants were given a Miniwaste badge and bag by the conference hostesses, containing: -a memory stick bearing the Life logo and containing the conference presentations -a Rennes Métropole note pad and pencil -a food waste prevention notebookfor the “Hum ! Extra tes restes” campaign -the conference programme and synthesis report (Layman’s report) in each participant's language.


205

Attendance was as follows: • Day 1:86% of those enrolled, i.e. 112 out of 129. • Day 2:91% of those enrolled, i.e. 131 out of 144.

•

International participants • International participants enrolled:17, i.e. 10% of total participants • International participants actually present:12, i.e. 9% of total attendance

•

Good attendance by Rennes Métropole employees • 36 enrolled • 34 participants

The event was definitely a success, both in terms of the quality of the debates and in terms of participation. However, international attendance was disappointing. Organising the conference during the waste reduction week was a somewhat risky choice given the number of activities that waste prevention staff were likely to be involved in during that annual initiative. The impact of the event can be measured by the number of visits to the web site in the days following the conference. Nearly 20 people completed the Miniwaste software application downloading form following the conference. The full report on the conference drawn up by dBO Conseil is included in the annex (Annex 4.5/Miniwaste - Report). ACR+ also advertised about the event as follows: • 4 articles on the Miniwastewebsite (6/8/2012, 3/10/2012, 5/11/2012, 26/11/2012) (see online) • 1 article on the ACR+ website (23/11/2012) (see online) • 1 article on Pre-waste website, managed by ACR+ (23/11/2012) (see online) • 3 articles in the Miniwaste newsletter n°4 (11/05/2012), n°5 (14/11/2012), n°6 (13/12/2012) (see online) • 2 direct emails to all contacts registered to the Miniwaste newsletter and some experts in the field of bio-waste (17/10/2012, 5/11/2012(Annex 4.5/Actions ACR+). • 1 direct email (‘last reminder’) to all ACR+ contacts (approximately 12,000 recipients) (14/11/2012)(Annex 4.5/Actions ACR+). • 1 press release to 1,387 European press contacts (23/11/2012)(Annex 4.5/Actions ACR+). • 3 articles in ACR+ Update (a newsletter sent to all ACR+contacts,approximately12,000 recipients in 2012): spring 2012 (24/5/2012), summer-autumn 2012 (16/10/2012), winter 2012-2013 (28/1/2013) (Annex 4.5/Actions ACR+). • 2 articles in the ACR+ newsline (sent to ACR+ members) (21/5/2012, 24/10/2012) (Annex 4.5/Actions ACR+). • 1 message posted on 3 LinkedIn groups related to waste management and prevention (October 2012) (Annex 4.5/Actions ACR+).


206

Action 4.6 – Dissemination in the media (Lead partner: ACR +) Initial action dates: 01/01/2010 - 31/12/2012 Effective action dates: as above

Objectives The project advancement was to be promoted through continuous media work. Methodology The project advancement and the above mentioned documents will be promoted namely through: regular mailings to partners’ contacts; regular mailing to ACR+ contacts network (around 6000 contacts); regular press releases to European environment media (400 contacts) and to local media, articles in ACR+ magazine Warmer Bulletin (Bi-Monthly Journal on Waste and Resources with 1,000 subscribers - policy-makers, decision-takers, academics and others in more than thirty countries). The scientific publications of the Cemagref in scientific and technical newspaper will give additional media coverage to the Miniwaste project. Results This action has been undertaken during the whole project’s duration, and involved in particular close cooperation between Rennes Metropole and ACR+. Internally, the project team of Rennes Metropole met the press department of RM, in order to organise this action. Mailings: ACR+ issued the following mailings: •

• • • •

4 press releases to the European specialised press – about 470 contacts (04/08/2010, 17/02/2011, 08/06/2012 and 23/11/2012)– 2 additional press releases are foreseen, on the webtool when it is available online and on the Miniwastemethodologywhen it is available online (Annex4.6/ACR+) 3 mailings to ACR+ members, via the ACR+ Newsline (21/02/2011, 21/5/2012, 24/10/2012)(Annex4.6/ACR+) 2 other emails to ACR+ members (20/7/2011, 20/7/2012)(Annex4.6/ACR+) 3 article in the ACR+ Update in 2011 – about 7,000 contacts in 2011(all ACR+ contacts, including ACR+ members, press contacts and others) (05/05/2011)(Annex4.6/ACR+) 3 article in the ACR+ Update in 2012 – about 12,000 contacts in 2012(all ACR+ contacts, including ACR+ members, press contacts and others)(Annex4.6/ACR+)

Media coverage: The following articles mentioning or focusing on Miniwaste were monitored: • 26 web articles published by organisations outside the Miniwaste partnership(Annex4.6/ACR+) • 3 web articles published on the ACR+ website (11/2/2011, 24/7/2012, 23/11/2012) (see online) • 2 mentions in the FNE newsletter, the French federation of environmental associations(Annex4.6/ACR+) Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

207

• •

2 articles in the ACR+ magazine Warmer Bulletin(Annex4.6/ACR+) 3 links from the websites of other European projects related to waste prevention (Annex4.6/ACR+)

Problems encountered The Warmer Bulletin magazine stopped due to the death of its editor in chief in 2011. Therefore, ACR+ was not able to fulfil the objective of 4 articles published in this publication. Annex 4.6 (Monitoring of miniwaste communication) contains a table summarizing Miniwaste communication initiatives and a file containing all the press articles (Annex 4.6 - Press).

Action 4.7 – Participation in workshops, seminars and conferences (Lead partner: RM) Initial action dates: 01/07/2011 – 31/12/2012 Effective action dates: 06/2010-31/12/2012

Objectives

The objective of this action was to promote the project among the partners’ national and European networks by speaking at events (workshops, seminars, conferences, etc.) organised around the theme of waste prevention. Project presentation panels are also provided to back up partner presentations in these events. Methodology

All the partners were on the look out throughout the project for relevant events where the project outcomes and deliverables could be presented in Europe. Acr+ designed the panel contents and illustrations. In June 2011, they devised the graphics for the English and French versions. Results

Attendance at the local and national events was in line with the expectations. Attendance at European events was in line with our objectives (107%) (Annex 4.6/monitoring of miniwaste communication). European/international events: • • • • •

General Assembly of the Atlantic Arc Cities (Rennes, 17/06/2010) International conference about organic waste (Mendel University, Brno, 22-24/09/2010) General Assembly of ACR+ (Paris, 17/09/2010) AGRA conference (Brussels, 02/12/2010) TAIEX conference "Advocating for a better policy of waste management" (Brussels, 0104/02/2011)


208

• • • • • • • • • • •

International conference “Impact New European Waste Framework Directive” (Rotterdam, 15/02/2011) Public Hearing “Green local authority best practices” (European Parliament, Brussels, 16/03/2011) Solid Waste Management Forum (Vienna, 17-18/03/2011) Conference in Poznan (06-07/05/11) Green Cook Steering Committee (Brussels, 17-18/05/2011). Green Week – ACR+ held a stand during the Green Week in Brussels, from 24 to 27 May 2011, which was a good opportunity to present Miniwaste (more than 3000 visitors are expected) ACR+ General Assembly “Waste prevention: how to prepare, design, communicate, implement, and monitor a waste prevention programme” (Genoa, 27/10/2011) Eurocities Environment Forum - “Waste management for resource efficiency in cities” (Brussels, 01/03/2012) European Commission’s Study Tour on Waste Management (Brussels, 28/03/2012) International Eco-Forum ‘Save the planet’ (Sofia, 30 March 2012) Study Tour on waste management (Brussels, 29/11/2012)

Irstea organised an international conference on organic resources and waste management in June 2012 in Rennes (ORBIT2012). 260 researchers, operators or decisions makers participates to this conference. The results of the Miniwaste project were presented through 3 oral communications. Moreover, 3 papers documents are inside the proceedings of the event (Annex 4.7/events). National events: • • • • •

Symposium IDEAL (Lorient, 25/03/2010) Pre-waste conference on waste prevention in Romania “Overview of waste prevention at European level” (Bucharest, 14/10/2011) Achieving 2020 Zero Waste (Birmingham, 29/6/2012) Annual national conference on waste "Assises nationales de la prévention et de la gestion des déchets" (Paris, 3/7/2012) Preparation seminar for the European Week for Waste Reduction in Spain (Madrid, 2/10/2012)

Expert audience events: • • • •

• •

Preparation seminar of the EWWR (Porto, 06/2010) Lunchtime seminar on waste prevention, in the framework of the European Week for Waste Reduction (Brussels, 23/11/2010) Green Cook Steering Committee meeting (Brussels, 18/05/2011) Waste prevention trainings for the Ceppefed (6 trainings implemented in the Walloon region, Belgium, during which ACR+ presented Miniwaste and some waste prevention good practices, Tournai October 2011, Namur December 2011, Nivelle December 2011, Liège January 2012, Mons January 2012, Namur February 2012) Pre-waste training on waste prevention monitoring (Malta, 24/10/2012) ACR+ webinar on waste prevention good practices (Brussels, 29/1/2013)

The presentations of all these events are in annex(Annex 4.7/events). Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

209

Presentation boards: ACR+ proposed the content for the presentation boards in English that has been developed as a support tool for events. As a follow-up of the various events, and as an answer to EC letter from 29/3/2011, a table is annexed mentioning the various events where Miniwaste was presented.(Annex 4.6/monitoring of miniwaste communication).

Participation to workshops, seminars, conferences 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Local/ Regional

Specialised EU/ International audience National

Objectives achieved in terms of attendance at Workshops, conferences, etc. using different scales Attendance at local events was well above the objectives. At the end of June 2011, 13 kakemonos had been produced: - 10 in French - 1 in English - 1 in Czech - 1 in Portuguese Lipor, Brno and Acr each received their own kakemono to promote the project in symposia and seminars.


210

Half-way conference in Brno – September 2011

Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter dated March 29 2011 “Please clarify the starting date for this action. The actual date mentioned in your report is not in sync with the actual implementation.” The initial action date is identical to that indicated in the project proposal. In actual fact, the Miniwaste project was presented to the public as early as June 2010.

“Only 2 of the 6 conference presentations are provided. Please always provide all the presentations. Moreover, as previously mentioned, the presentation made in Lorient is not directly related to the project (only 2 pages out of 15 are on the project). The expenditure for this item is not eligible.” The presentations are in the annex to the report. (Annex 4.7/events) “Please provide a table specifying the date and title of the conference, the size of the event, number of participants, type of audience targeted, type of communication supports used and feedback relative to the project.” The table is presented in the annex (Annex 4.6/monitoring of miniwaste communication). Letter dated December 1 2011 “As previously mentioned, please improve the presentation of this task (cf. letter dated March 29 2011).” The presentation of the action has been improved. “I have noted that no travel expenses relating to project presentations at conferences have been entered”. Please note that expenses can be considered eligible if related to specific presentations devoted to the project or directly related to project themes (e.g. establishing contacts).”


211

Travel expenditure is detailed in the annexes to the financial section of this report.

Letter dated September 26 2012 “Please specify whether the presentation panels which were to be designed for conferences have been produced and please provide photographs if any." The kakemonos were produced in June 2011. The corresponding pictures are in annexes. Action 5 –After-LIFE communication plan

The After-Life communication plan is in Annexe 5.

5.2

Assessment of results.

5.2.1

Miniwaste project assessment in Rennes Métropole

Objectives

The actions undertaken by Rennes Métropole under the Miniwaste project Aimed to: - assess how aware ordinary individuals were of how much waste they produced; - assess the awareness and perception of the actions undertaken under the Miniwaste project: record users’ reactions to the measures implemented under the Miniwaste project:(development of composting at the foot of apartment buildings and in residential estates, subsidies for plant shredders and mulching mowers to encourage mulching, training sessions and public talks, communication initiatives via guides and exhibitions, etc.) Assessing users’ satisfaction levels regarding the different actions implemented under the Miniwaste project and identifying the strong and weak points in each area; - understanding the opinions voiced by users and the reluctances or obstacles to be overcome, in order to find the right approaches to users that Rennes Métropole can implement for future actions and communication; - assessing user practices and behaviour in terms of kitchen and garden waste management. The aim is to assess how users apprehend different everyday gestures such as food waste prevention, composting and mulching and to determine how often these gestures are implemented; - identifying citizens' needs, expectations and suggestions. The problems and difficulties encountered by citizens in this area on a day to day basis will be identified….. The survey will aim to assess all the actions undertaken by Rennes Métropole under the Miniwaste project, based on the results of the opinion poll conducted on a representative sample of the population of Rennes Métropole. This work will serve as the basis for future surveys, as all the parameters and processes must be reusable. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

212

Methodology

A consultation was launched on August 9 2012 with the aim of choosing a service provider to carry out the survey and make recommendations. The final date for the reception of offers was September 6 2012 at 12h00. Rennes Métropole received three offers within the deadline: two by surface mail and one by email on e-megalisabretagne.org:

- Offer n°1: the GECE company - offer n°2: the GSA company The GECE company was awarded the contract. In order to cover all the questions to be answered through the survey, GECE devised a questionnaire of around 80 questions (see below), which was then approved by Rennes Métropole: Themes

Questions

Type of housing Garden or no garden Filter questions and others

Size of garden How long respondent has lived in current "commune" Building size

Kitchen waste management / reduction

Everyday waste management/reduction actions Personal commitment to waste management/reduction Kitchen waste management Representation Perception Practice and interest Frequency of practice Type of composter used

Composting

Composter origin Compost maintenance Compost use Motivations for composting Problems encountered when composting Obstacles encountered


213

Implementation of communal composters Action monitoring

Sale of 20 Euro composters Free training Events, talks, exhibitions Garden waste management

Garden waste

Awareness of plant shredding and mulching mowers Use of plant shredders and mulching mowers Problems when using plant shredders and mulching mowers

Action monitoring

Financial aid to support plant shredders and mulching mowers/kits purchase Gender Age Marital status

Social and demographic profile

Profession Socio-economic category Size of household Nb of children under 15 Local authority type

600 questionnaires were treated by phone with Rennes Métropole inhabitants in December 2012. The sample was processed so as to be entirely representative of the overall target population. The results obtained were compared with previous surveys which enabled some of the results to be compared with the situation before the start of the Miniwaste project. Results

The main results are as follows. The full report can be found in the annex (Annex 5/Assessment of actions). Most common environmentally-friendly gestures: - Selective waste management (96%) - Food waste limitation (95%) - Use of reusable bags (95%) Least common environmentally-friendly gestures: - Refusal of advertising in letter boxes (39%) - Use of eco-refills (36%) - Use of recyclable paper (32%) Strong personal commitment to waste management/reduction (identification>highlighting>perceived action capacity) Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

214

Most kitchen waste still thrown in bin Most often composted types of kitchen waste: - Rotten or spoiled fruit or vegetables (33%) -Peelings (31%) Vegetable garden waste is spontaneously composted (72%). Other garden waste is generally taken to the tip or deposited at collection points.

COMPOSTING PRACTICE RATES Almost 1/3 of the inhabitants of Rennes Métropole say they compost their waste. 60% of those who live in private houses use composting (against 44% in 2008 according to a survey carried out by TMO, i.e. a rise of 16 percentage points) and 54% use an individual composter. In 2008, 30% of households in private housing were equipped with a composter.

The Miniwaste project has had a positive impact on composting practice rates and on the % of households equipped with individual composters.

The pratice of composting Série1; Non, et cela ne m'intéresse pas; 25%; 26%

Around 78 000 households et 174 000 inhabitants

National average: 34% Série1; Oui; 32%; 32%

Around 58 000 households et 130 000 inhabitants

Série1; Non, mais cela m'intéresse; 43%; 43%

OBSTACLES TO WASTE COMPOSTING The main obstacle to the practice of composting is due to lack of equipment. 68% of those who do not practice composting but would be interested in doing so and 46% of those who are not interested in composting mention lack of equipment as being the main obstacle. The second reason given is lack of space in the respondent’s dwelling. AWARENESS OF THE RM COMPOSTING INITIATIVE Nearly 4 out of 10 inhabitants of Rennes Métropole are aware of the communal composters installed by their local council in residential estates and near apartment buildings i.e. a very positive increase of 17 percentage points since 2008 (TMO).


215

Similarly, 4 out of 10 of those inhabitants who have a garden are aware that Rennes Métropole offers individual composters for sale at the attractive unitary price of €20. Most of these inhabitants became aware of the action between early 2010 and 2011. The Miniwaste project has had a positive impact on the inhabitants’ awareness of the support initiative for individual and collective composting. Using the survey criteria, GECE was able to define three typical profiles: - Composting “practitioners”, - Those who are “interested” - Those who are “not interested” On the basis of the survey results and analyses of our communication channels deployed during the Miniwaste project, GECE drew up recommendations for communication and awarenessraising initiatives: • Increase the number of communal composters installed near apartment buildings by: - Extending the installation criteria - Continuing door to door canvassing by "composting ambassadors" on likely sites for communal composters - Taking into account different geographical factors - Identifying all the apartment buildings which could be equipped with communal composters - Implementing initiatives on communal composting sites before installing the composter and following the installation to make sure the initiative is followed up - Recognising individual practice and participation - Continuing the awareness-raising work undertaken among local partners and stakeholders • Increase the number of communal composters installed on residential estates by: - Identifying the needs of these citizens in terms of composting practice - Promoting composter installation in the new development areas (ZAC) in cooperation with local councils and urban planners. • Increase the number of individual composters by: - Continuing to distribute composters while offering regular training sessions - Improving existing practices - Linking composting with organic gardening practices GECE also made recommendations on how to enhance communication on our training initiatives, public talks, local events, web sites and other communication channels. All these recommendations were discussed in the waste prevention department and with the councillors responsible for waste management in order to draw up a communication strategy for the next few years.


216

The Miniwaste project has revealed the strong points and the weaknesses of the awarenessraising initiatives implemented throughout the 3 years of the project. A sustainable grass-roots communication policy, better recognition awarded to participants and closer partner cooperation are the pre-requisites for success in convincing even more local people to take up organic waste prevention.

5.2.2

Miniwaste project assessment in Lipor

Objectives

The Miniwaste project 2010-2012, allowed LIPOR to develop its biowaste prevention strategy. From the 3-years’ experience, the best actions and methodologies can and will be maintained in order to continue the awareness raising of the population, promoting the active participation: practical courses, demonstrations, explanation sessions, partnerships with the local authorities, involvement of the population, monitoring and support. The main goals will continue to focus on home and community composting (on site prevention), food waste reduction, good farming practices and natural garden (sustainable green areas). LIPOR believes that one of the most important successes of this project was the increase of knowledge of the population about composting – people now know what is composting and a composting bin – and the information about the reduction of food waste. The change of habits is naturally occurring, result of the Miniwaste efforts and different approaches developed. The main threats to the accomplishments of a future plan are the fact that Portugal is in crisis, which might reduce the interest of people for environmental problems, when social questions arise. This influences the behaviour of the population and also its active participation and voluntary contribution. Nevertheless, Miniwaste is a project that can be reproduced in any area, because it had different partners with different realities and solutions, and all of the actions implemented and strategies can be adapted in any country. Analysis of long-term benefits

The composting bins implemented and with active process, correspond to a potential of reduction of more than 3000 tons/ year of biowaste. The diversion from the energy recovery to on site composting avoids the emission of 540 ton CO2eq/year. The positive impacts of these projects must be promoted and revealed at an European scale, allowing globally reflexion and leading to the action and participation.


217

5.2.3

Miniwaste project assessment in Brno

Objectives

Expected outputs: 70% of residents living in the municipal district of Brno-Žebětín will realise various methods of organic waste reduction Methodology

All households s (1,400) in the municipal district of Brno-Žebětín received a local periodical "Žebětínský zpravodaj" in February 2012 with a questionnaire concerning the MINIWASTE project in order to identify public awareness of the project. The residents could deliver the completed questionnaire to a mailbox at the municipal district office of Brno-Žebětín by the end of March 2012. The questionnaires were completed by a total of 45 people. 5 winners received prizes from the city of Brno on 6th June 2012. The questionnaire was also available on the website. In total, we received 13 responses to a questionnaire through the website. Summary of results: 41 persons separate and compost the bio-waste, 32 persons use plastic composting bins, 17 persons compost on a pile or have a wooden composting bin, 39 persons are aware of MINIWASTE project, the major source of information about MINIWASTE project is the local periodical called “Žebětínský zpravodaj” – 26 persons in total. Persons having plastic composting bins (32 persons) responded to the questionnaire mostly. Results of questionnaire survey are shown in Attachment No. 20 – Evaluation of questionnaires (Annex 5/Brno/Questionnaire) All households (1,400) in the municipal district of Brno-Žebětín received information leaflets on the MINIWASTE project entitled "we bring bio-waste back to life." The information leaflet was distributed in a number of 1,400 copies in June 2012, in the local periodical "Žebětínský zpravodaj". The information leaflet provided brief information about the MINIWASTE project and home composting. Thus, all households in Žebětín were informed about the MINIWASTE project. Results

In December 2012, a public opinion survey was conducted and a total of 371 respondents were contacted. The survey was conducted in the form of face-to-face interviews between professionally trained interviewers and respondents. The results are summarised in Attachment no. 19 - Final Report, public opinion survey, pilot home composting project in the municipal district of Brno-Žebětín, MINIWASTE. The survey also focused on determining the level of awareness of the home composting project. The results of the survey show that 81.4% of the population is aware of the home composting project and methods of organic waste reduction. (Annex 5/Brno/Final report)


218

•

Composting activities - distributing 350 individual composting bins, setting up 3 sites of community composting, involving 30 persons in community composting, involvement of 1 entity, setting up 5 demonstration sites

We managed to establish a total of 355 individual composting sites, 4 community composting sites (the project considered 3 sites) and involve 3 entities (the project expected 1 entity - a total of 5 composting bins were placed here), and 2 primary schools (primary school Žebětín, primary school Pramínek) and 1 kindergarten (kindergarten Žabka). Each community composting site (residential houses with gardens in Žebětín) is provided with 1 composter type K700, due to the space limits (the project expected 2 composting bins at one point). 40 persons are involved in the project in places of community composting (composting bins users). Demonstration sites were established in waste sorting centres in Brno. Waste sorting centres are places, where the town citizens can dispose of bulky, hazardous and utilizable components of municipal waste. Large capacity containers for greenery waste are placed in all waste sorting centres, the contents of which are removed to a composting plant. There are 39 waste sorting centres in the territory of Brno City in total, out of which 5 waste sorting centres have been selected as demonstration sites. By locating demonstration sites in waste sorting centres it is intended to show that there are other ways of using compostable materials than their disposal as mixed municipal waste (in standard bins for residual waste). A K 700 plastic composting bin is placed at each demonstration site (there are two composting bins – K700 and K390 placed in the sorting centre Žebětín) and composting handbooks and CDs are also available here. Staff of waste sorting centre has been trained in the composting techniques. Composting bins located at demonstration sites cannot be used for the disposal of citizens’ waste because of their size (content of 700 litres), they are specimens of a composting bin and composting bin content as means of home composting only. A green waste and a kitchen waste will be composted in the composting bins. This measure intends to provide service to the citizens of Brno. The staff provides information about composting as required by visitors of waste sorting centres (demonstration sites). Composting handbooks may be handed out and composting bins and compost shown here. • Activities against food wasting – participation of 2 entities, training of 30 persons 2 entities participated in activities against food wasting, namely Mothers’ Club and Retired People’s Club. The primary school Žebětín cooperated with the City of Brno on the implementation of citizens’ trainings focusing on composting technique as well as on cooking courses focusing on food wasting (eco-cooking). Trainings were conducted in the premises of Žebětín School using its kitchen as a teaching room. Participants of cooking courses were acquainted with possibilities and ways of minimising kitchen waste. 64 persons in total participated in 5 cooking courses. •

Activities in the area of training, awareness – 9 events and conferences, 10 trainings, 100 persons trained, 10 “composing masters” trained, 5 courses of ecological cooking 9 awareness raising “green” events and 1 conference were conducted. 5 trainings (courses) focusing on good composting practice were conducted, too. 68 citizens in total participated in trainings. 36 staff members of waste sorting centres were trained in the scope of “composing masters” trainings. Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

219

The awareness raising as a way of composting promotion will be implemented thus in the scope of operations of waste sorting centres. 5 courses of ecological cooking were also implemented. All the above mentioned activities have been fulfilled with the exception of citizens’ trainings and the number of persons trained. The reason why 5 trainings only were held was the fact that with the participation of 20 persons the target of training 100 persons would be fulfilled. Not even 20 people participated in individual trainings, however, in spite of efforts of City of Brno and the municipal district office of Brno-Žebětín (addressing hobby groups in Žebětín). •

A total of 52 tons of organic waste are removed from the residual waste collection annually thanks to composting. The project proposed to evaluate the amount of waste removed from residual waste collection by extrapolating waste analyses of the above-mentioned number of participants and by weighing the composted waste in 20 households. The weighing was not conducted because we did not manage to motivate any volunteers. It was possible to apply results of analyses only to determine the removal of organic waste. It was not possible to document the removal of biologically degradable waste unambiguously by extrapolating results of comparisons of analyses of real estates with composting bins and of real estates without composting bins as presented in the Attachment No. 12 – Table of summary of mixed municipal waste analyses results implemented in same periods of real estates with composting bins and of real estates without composting bins. Calculation of compostable waste amount removed from the mixed municipal waste: -

Production of mixed municipal waste 304.14 kg person/year (data from 2011)

-

The percentage of garden and kitchen waste content in the mixed municipal waste in Žebětín (an average of 10 analyses of real estates without composting bins in the period 2010 to 2012) 31.43 %

-

Number of persons taking part in composting 355 individual composting bins, 3 persons in a household for one composting bin 4 community composting bins, 10 persons for one community composting bin 355 x 3 + 4 x 10 = 1105 persons

-

Production of the mixed municipal waste of persons taking part in composting 1105 x 304.14 = 336.075 kg = 336 tons/years

-

Amount of compostable waste (garden and kitchen waste) in the mixed municipal waste of persons taking part in composting 336 x 0.3143 = 105.60 tons/years

-

Amount of compostable waste (garden and kitchen waste) removed from the mixed municipal waste – it is assumed that 50% compostable waste is composted only 105.60 x 0.50 = 52.80 tons/years

• Quality of compost arisen The process of composting and compost quality was proposed in the project to be in checked visually (odours, moisture content, structure ...). Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

220

In accordance with the project, a total of 131 checks were performed (checks at households, primary school and nursery school in Žebětín). The results of the checks can be summarised as follows: -

when looking into the composting bin from the bottom hole for compost extraction, the following is identified: • 96% of the compost has a pleasant (earthy, humus) smell • 4% of the compost is ill-smelling (faecal, ammonia) • 76% of the compost is brown or dark brown • 51% of the compost disintegrates when pressed in the hand In conclusion, it may be stated that the quality of the compost is good and the compost can be used right at the point of its origin. (Annex 3.2/Annex 14) Conclusion

Composting activities: •

Community composting sites, individual composting bins, residents involved in community composting Within the pilot composting project, the composting bins were distributed free of charge to the residents. Distribution of all composting bins was achieved in the end of the project, i. e. in December 2012, two and half years after the start of their distribution. Distribution of composting bins was carried out directly in the place of their use, i. e. the waste sorting centre in Brno-Žebětín, so the residents were spared of excessive transits to the composters’ distribution points and were able to pick the composting bins up any time during the opening hours of the waste sorting centre (from Tuesday to Saturday). We managed to create 355 individual composting sites, 4 sites of community composting in residential houses with 40 residents involved in community composting. The objectives of the project, i.e. establishment of 350 individual home composting bins and 3 places community composting sites (in the original project proposal 5 community composting sites) have been achieved.

•

Entities involved in composting A total of 3 entities have been involved in the project (the project expected 1 entity): 2 primary schools (primary school Žebětín and primary school Pramínek) and 1 kindergarten (kindergarten Žabka) – 4 pieces of K 700 and 1 piece of K390 composting bins were placed there. A total of 5 composting bins were handed over to the participating entities. Otherwise, the project involved 2 entities – interest groups – Mothers’ Club and Retired People’s Club The objective of the project, i. e. involvement of 1 entity, has been achieved.

•

Number of persons trained in the proper composting methods 5 training sessions focused on proper composting methods were carried out within the project.


221

Not even 20 people participated in individual trainings, in spite of the efforts of Brno City Municipality and the Municipal District Office of Brno-Žebětín (addressing interest groups in Žebětín). The objective, i. e. 100 persons trained in the proper composting methods has not been achieved. •

Involvement of experts - “Composting masters” Due to the fact that waste sorting centres are used as demonstration sites, the waste sorting centre operators were trained in proper composting methods and as part of the training they gained a general knowledge of biologically degradable waste, composting methods and techniques and the subsequent use of compost. The trained staff also received composting handbooks. A total of 36 people, waste sorting centre operators, were trained within the “composting masters’ trainings” The objective of the project, i. e. training of 10 composting masters, has been achieved.

Activities against food waste: •

Participation of entities in the activities against food wasting A total of 2 entities have participated in activities against food wasting, namely the primary school Žebětín and the nursery school in Žebětín. The primary school Žebětín cooperated with the City of Brno at the implementation of citizens’ trainings focusing on composting technique as well as of cooking courses focusing on food wasting (ecological cooking). The objective of the project, i. e. participation of 2 entities, has been achieved.

•

Residents trained in food waste reduction Trainings were conducted in premises of school Žebětín using its kitchen as a teaching room. Participants of cooking courses were acquainted with possibilities and ways of minimising kitchen waste. 64 persons in total participated in 5 cooking courses. The objective of the project, i. e. training of 30 persons, has been achieved.

Reduction of the amount of waste •

The project proposed to evaluate the amount of waste removed from residual waste sorting by extrapolating waste analyses and monitoring protocols. The weighing was not conducted because we did not manage to volunteers to carry out this activity. It was not possible to document the removal of biologically degradable waste unambiguously by extrapolating results of comparisons of analyses of real estates with composting bins and of real estates without composting bins. The amount of compostable waste removed from the mixed municipal waste was determined by calculation based on the average production of mixed municipal waste per capita in Žebětín in 2011 (304.14 kg person/year), percentage of garden and kitchen waste content in the mixed municipal waste (determined from analyses -31.43 %) and number of persons taking part in composting (1105 persons).


222

The calculation based on the results of analyses determined that the residents composted about 50 % of compostable waste. Calculation showed that the amount of compostable waste removed from the mixed municipal waste was of 52.80 tons of waste per year. The objective of the project, i. e. reduction of the amount of waste of 52.1 tons has been achieved. Improvement of the quality of compost: In accordance with the project a total of 131 checks were performed. Within the checks.the involved users received training in good composting practice. Among other findings, the checks of the compost from the bottom hole designated for compost extraction revealed that 96% of the compost has a pleasant (earthy, humus) smell, 76% of the compost is brown or dark brown, 51% of the compost disintegrates when pressed in the hand and only 4% of the compost is ill-smelling (faecal, ammonia). A pleasant finding is that 62% of surveyed people composted the compostable waste in piles. The objective of the project, ie the fact that 80% of composters show good quality of compost has been achieved. 5.2.4

Miniwaste project assessment for IRSTEA

Project implementation

With its participation in the MINIWASTE project, Irstea’s research team validates a lot of methods to assess composting actions and pursued its work about home-composting began in 2008 with the ECCOVAL project. All the announced work was achieved but limits were observed concerning the possibility to work with volunteers. Indeed it can be difficult to find volunteers who accept to be involved along several months. Moreover, as volunteers are often very motivated people, results obtained thanks to them can be over-estimated. Nevertheless, as these limits were evaluated and solutions were proposed, results of the project propose reliable methods to communities to assess their composting project. Proposedmethods are innovative, in terms of: • • •

Assessment tools, with the use of GIS data, Proposed technologies: with the development of composting prototypes, of sizing tool for composting projects, Delivered data: data about compost quality are scarce in the literature.

These results are very interesting and they prepare future work. Indeed assessment of the environmental impact of home composting, in terms of emissions, was not included in the project and it should be a continuation of the research and assessment work.


223

Transferability

The results of Irstea in the MINIWASTE project have been transferred to: •

•

•

Collectivities and general public through the scientific reports that are available on the MINIWASTE website, through the MINIWASTE conferences (Brno and Rennes), through journal articles (example: Ouest-France in June 2012, Science Ouest in December 2012), Industrial partner through the transfer of the prototype of the vertical composting system to a society that sell composting bins to collectivities and that will develop the prototype. Scientific sphere through communications given during the ORBIT2012 international conference in Rennes (two oral communications: Resse et al. and Sollier et al.) and an article that will be published in September 2013 in the journal TSM (Techniques Sciences et Méthodes – Ed ASTEE)

Networking

The MINIWASTE project comforted the partnership between Rennes Metropole and Irstea and opened a new collaboration with LIPOR, Brno and ACR+that could be of interest for future projects. 5.3

Outside LIFE

Summarise the different actions that took place outside the framework LIFE project (i.e. not financed by LIFE) but that are complementary to the project and have added to its impact (if applicable). 5.4

Outputindicators

All “Outputs indicators”tables are available in annex “Outputs indicators”. VI.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

6.1

Summary of expenditure per action

Please fill in the following additional table (recommended). When compiling the information please refer to Form B of the proposal: Action number and name Action 1 "Project Management and Monitoring" Action 2 "Set up a waste management structure and computerized tool" Action 3 "Implementation and assessment of the waste minimisation" Action 4 "Dissemination action" Action 5 "After life communication plan"

Foreseencosts (euros)

Projected final cost (euros)

297 065

315 733.23

431 690

384 292.26

1 072 154

1 647 053.17

312 890

190 127.58

0

0


224

6.2

Financial forms

Expenditure for each project partner is summarized in the financial tables in the annex (Annex “Financial statements/financial form”). 6.3

Composter sales

Under the individual composting initiative, inhabitants can purchase individual composters from Rennes Métropole. Rennes Métropole buys these composters from the same supplier as the communal composters installed on composting sites at the foot of apartment buildings, in different neighbourhoods or in collective catering establishments. Individual composters are sold for a unit price of€20. The note included in the annex (Annex “Financial statements”/composter note) details the number of composters sold and the sums thus accrued to Rennes Métropole. Answers to questions raised in the previous letters from the EC Letter dated June 22 2011 Question: “Checks on the financial supporting documents have revealed that several pay slips for several associated beneficiaries are missing. May I remind you that article 6 of the general provisions states that all supporting documentation for expenditure, (including pay slips) must be kept by the coordinator. Please remind your associate beneficiaries of this point and request them to forward the required documentation.” With the exception of BRNO, all the partners have provided pay slips in support of staff cost claims. AUDIT RESPONSE: Question: “VAT: Some of your associate beneficiaries seem to be having difficulty in providing the VAT exemption certificate. Please forward to them the contact details for the external monitoring teams for their country, who will be able to tell them how to proceed.” All those partners who are VAT exempt have supplied exemption certificates. Letter dated December 1 2011 General comments Question: “I noted that some of the documents were incorrectly completed, in particular the “consolidated cost statement” and the “financial statement of the participants”. This was discussed during the October 2011 visit. Please present the corrected documents with the final report.” This point has been corrected.


225

Question: “Please make sure that all the columns of the tables have been completed. The date of payment in particular must be completed for all items of expenditure. If not, these items will be considered ineligible.” This point has been corrected. Question: “Regarding expenses with or without VAT, please make sure that both columns are completed: If the costs are declared free of VAT, the same sum should appear in both columns.” This point has been corrected.

VAT declaration Question: “The certificate supplied by the City of Brno appears to be self-declaratory. For VAT to be considered eligible, the certificate must be provided by the relevant tax office (article 30 of the Common Provisions). Pending this certificate, the VAT declared by this partner is suspended (categories involved “external assistance” and “equipment / other costs”).” On reducing the number of analyzes and the proposed new method, I noticed inconsistencies with the original proposal. The latter refers to a total of 62 analyzes before and after implemented composting while you propose to reduce from 32 to 16 analyzes. Please clarify and if applicable, the impact on outcomes and on budget. This point has been justified. Staff costs Question: “The same number of annual working hours is declared for all the staff working for one beneficiary. May I remind you that this figure should indicate the actual number of hours worked. Please refer to the Commission note dated December 8 2010. This must be confirmed or updated in the final report.” For each of the partners for whom the number of annual hours worked is the same for each member of staff (Rennes Métropole and Irstea), the calculation is as follows: - Rennes Métropole: Number of days in the year (365) – number of week-end days (104) – Bank Holidays (7 in 2010, 2011 and 2012) – annual leave (28.5) = 225.5 days, or 1,578 hours. (Annex “Financial statements”/Staff costs) - IRSTEA: Each staff member works 1,607 hours per year, i.e. 3.80 hours per half day. (Annex“Financial statements”/Staff costs) Question: The “time unit” column has not been correctly filled in by Brno and the CEMAGREF. This may only contain hours, days or months.”

-

BRNO: This point has been corrected. CEMAGREF (Irstea): The basic unit is the half-day (0.5 day).

Question: “The CEMAGREF must describe the precise role played by each person working for the project.” Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

226

In the financial table, the action reference numbers have been added in front of the name of each person, showing in which actions they have been involved. Question: “Please specify why City of Brno employees have spent so little time implementing the project actions.” Only one position was budgeted for in the initial budget (administrative project manager), which was to be shared between two employees: one responsible for technical implementation and one in charge of the administrative and financial aspects. In actual fact, several employees worked on the project, and costs and working time were not declared for two of these: i.e. the technical staff responsible for implementing the actions. Question: “Please forward a copy of the supporting document for staff costs provided by the City of Brno so we can assess whether it is acceptable or not. This document must also be available during the LIFE Unit representative’s visit.” A document was presented during the EC’s representatives’ visit, a copy of which is included in the annex (Annex “Financial Statements”/Staff Costs). KPMG (responsible for the financial audit in partnership with SIRIUS) made the following comment on the fact that pay slips had not been provided for BRNO:

“As regards your request, pay slips are indeed the safest and most appropriate form of documentation for staff costs. Ideally, they should therefore have been provided. However, what we do have, for each staff member and for each period of expenditure, is an extract, for each relevant period, of the City Hall’s accounting and pay management system, showing all the pay data for each employee (hours worked, gross salary, bonus payments, employer contributions, employee contributions), and the employee’s details (identity, address,bank account details). We consider these items sufficient documentation. As regards proof of payment, however, all we have is an undated statement by the employee, on non-headed paper, stating that the salary had been paid, without mention of the actual amount. The document is therefore clearly inadequate. What is required is a dated statement by a City of Brno official, certifying that the salary on the one hand and the employer contributions on the other have been paid, and specifying the corresponding amounts as they appear in the pay system extract.”

Question: “I noted that Ms Céline Sollier is declared as being a permanent Rennes Métropole employee for the period from 1/1/2010 to 30/11/2010, yet she then appears in the CEMAGREF partner staff sheet for December 2010, as a temporary employee. Please provide a short explanation for this.” Pending the recruitment of a permanent employee, Ms Céline Sollier was employed by Rennes Métropole on a temporary basis (cf. the invoices for the relevant staff costs from “CDG 35” which employs Ms Sollier and provides her services on detachment to local councils). Ms Sollier was then employed on a temporary contract basis by CEMAGREF.


227

Travel costs Rennes Question: “The number and date of certain invoices are not mentioned; the expenditure is therefore currently ineligible.” A sum of € 4,007.06 is deducted from the eligible costs. Could you please also explain why all the items were paid on the same day?” The number and date of the invoices that were not provided in the half-way report will be specified in the final report. Travel expenses are generally paid by each employee and then refunded later with the employee's salary. The payment date indicated is the date of payment of the employee’s salary for the month in which the reimbursement was made. LIPOR Question: “The items of expenditure entitled “car rental” were explained during the visit and are therefore acceptable, however, in the case of these costs, either the invoice number or the date are missing. The related costs are temporarily suspended (€ 3,795.40).” This point has been corrected. CEMAGREF: Question: “The SIG 2010 Conference is not mentioned in task 4. Please explain the purpose of this journey. Pending an explanation, a sum of € 212.75 is ineligible.” The aim of this travel item was to study the impact of the SIG on the decision-making process in the area of household garden waste management, and in particular on the promotion of individual composting practices. BRNO Question: “Only the column showing costs including VAT has been completed. Please also indicate the costs excluding VAT. This point was discussed during the October 2011 visit.” This point has been corrected. External assistance Rennes Question: “Please specify what expenditure items n° 10 (print run, brochures entitled "garden composting made easy"and n° 11 (Composting guide update) refer to. They are not described in the technical report. You must provide a copy of the corresponding documents.” Item n°10: This item has been deleted. Item n°11: A copy of the composting guide without layout is included in the annex (Annex “Financial statements/External assistance”). Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

228

Question: “Please explain expenditure item n° 14 “Waste Tip Bungalow Graphic Design” and its link with the project.” This item concerns the designing of a graphic display based on the Miniwaste idea and designed for display on waste tip reception buildings. BRNO Question: “The description of the service is not sufficiently detailed. Such phrases as “analyses according to the contract XXX” or “campaign according to the contract XXX” are not satisfactory. Please improve the description and show a clear link to project actions.” This point has been corrected. Question: “VAT is not eligible as the statement provided does not comply with the Common Provisions. The corresponding amount is deducted from the budget: 2,838,18 €.” This point has been corrected. LIPOR Question: “The description of the services is not clear and needs to be improved.” This point has been corrected (cf. Annex“Financial Statements”/External Assistance/ Monitoring technicians justification). Question: “Please check whether the expenditure declared for “monitoring technicians” comes under article 25.2 regarding sub-contracting with individuals, in which case it could be considered as staff costs and re-categorized in the final report. Otherwise, please draft a note explaining this expenditure (selection of service provider, type of service, invoicing mode) and present examples of invoices.” A note can be found in the annex (cf. Annex“Financial Statements”/External Assistance/ Monitoring technicians justification). Equipment Question: “The expenditure presented by BRNO was supposed to come under “Other costs”: please transfer the items under this category. It does not come under “equipment” given the low unit cost: this was verified during the October 2011 visit.” This point has been corrected. Consumables Rennes Question: “Please explain expenditure item n° 8 “Provision of items for masters”. This purchase is not described in the technical report.” Miniwaste project final report LIFE08ENV/F/000486–31st March 2013

229

This refers to a gift (Aprons, caps, spades and forks) to master composters. Other costs BRNO Question: “Costs relating to VAT for a total of €2,334.32 are presently ineligible.” This point has been corrected. LIPOR Question: “Lipor enters publishing costs for 100,000 brochures. Please provide the mailing list for so many brochures”. The mailing list is included in the report (Point 3.3) Letter dated February 1 2013 Staff costs Question: “I noted in the documents examined during the visit that some of your associate beneficiaries did not mention their working time outside the LIFE project on their time-sheets (on the “other activities” line). Please provide for each beneficiary a detailed explanation of the calculation used for the unit costs declared for each of the persons working on the project.” The associate beneficiaries who did not mention their working time outside the LIFE project on their time-sheets have corrected this point. All the time-sheets are now correctly completed. Cf. in the annex: Staff cost calculation files for Rennes Métropole, ACR+, LIPOR and IRSTEA. Travel and subsistence Question: “Please explain how travel and subsistence expenses have been reimbursed for each beneficiary. Please also provide examples of expense claims forms used.”

-

-

-

Rennes Métropole: Travel expenses (not including train or air tickets: which are paid directly by Rennes Métropole on invoices from the travel agent) are paid for by each member of staff. Members of staff are then reimbursed on presentation of the original supporting documents and a detailed claims form. Staff members are reimbursed along with their salary. ACR+: Travel expenses are paid for by staff members and reimbursed by the association (cf. documents for proof of payment). P. Micheaux-Naudet uses a credit card in the name of the association to avoid having to advance certain kinds of expenses. IRSTEA: Travel expenses (train or air tickets) are paid by IRSTEA on the basis of invoices. Other expenses are paid by staff and reimbursed by bank transfer.


230

VII.

ANNEXES

(See CD-DVD annexed to the report)


231

MINIWASTE Bringing bio-waste back to life

The aim of the three-year (2009-2012) project was to show that it is possible to significantly reduce the amount of organic waste at source in a mastered and sustainable way, and to efficiently monitor waste reduction actions. The first target objective was the implementation of demonstration projects in Rennes Métropole, Brno and Lipor The project’s second objective consisted in developing a comprehensive system of organic waste prevention for local and regional authorities. The components of the system are: Guidance for European municipalities on how to minimise organic waste An inventory of European good bio-waste prevention practices Scientific procedures (‘protocols’) to assess the quantity of composted waste and the quality of the compost produced A computerised tool to assess and monitor the efficiency of bio-waste prevention actions Finally, Miniwaste’s third objective was to make the project and its results known to an audience as wide as possible (‘dissemination’), and to provide guidance to European authorities confronted with great amounts of organic matter in their residual waste.


232

Contacts:

Nathalie GAILLARD [email protected]

Ana LOPES [email protected]

Martina SEMANOVA [email protected]

Philippe MICHEAUX [email protected]

Anne TREMIER [email protected]


233