was criticised for including figures that to do too much’. NWR 2016 ‘try Generation concept needs greater focus and unpicking. Several consultees were confused by different totals (with/without fly ash and hazardous waste). More sophisticated reporting of waste generation, including different streams Boomerang Alliance argued for discussion on in the context of waste ‘unknowns’ and accounting for unknowns generation. Resource Futures noted that waste generation and management are typically monitored and reported separately in other national waste reports. NWR 2016 was criticised for including figures that to do too much’. ‘try More sophisticated reporting of recycled amounts, including normalisation to Prompted by states & territories, the consultants recognise that NWR 2016 reported account for whether the reported amounts of each material type are: inconsistent recycling data (see Table 4). collected Recycling concept greater focus and unpicking, including discussion on processed removal of contaminants stockpiling, contaminants, mass losses, etc. outputs available for sale We will need to ask the states and territories, for each material type, which is the product moved offsite appropriate category. Directly suggested by several consultees. More detail on recyclable fates and markets including exports vs on-shore Can use export data. Will also need to talk to industry. processing Budget impost approx. $5k. NWR 2016 was criticised for including figures that to do too much’. ‘try Some readers were confused by the NWR 2016 distinction between reporting of More sophisticated reporting of energy-from-waste, including portion from waste to disposal and to landfill. landfill, portion from other processes, energy from biomass that’s not in-scope waste, calorific values by material type Need to clarify and contextualise the sources of energy from Calorific values requested by one consultee. NWR 2016 was criticised for including figures that to do too much’. ‘try More sophisticated reporting of waste disposal, including quantities to landfill Need to unpick the distinction between to landfill’ and disposed’, ‘waste ‘waste and other infrastructure, and reallocation to energy-from-waste which confused some readers and consultees. More detail requested by several consultees, particularly in relation to food waste. More detailed reporting of waste materials to the level of type, to the extent States and territories unconcerned by proposal to report landfill composition with data is available more granularity. Will need to emphasise higher levels of uncertainty.
More sophisticated reporting of waste generation, including different streams and accounting for unknowns NWR 2016 was criticised for including figures that ‘try to do too much’. Generation concept needs greater focus and unpicking. Several consultees were confused by different totals (with/without fly ash and hazardous waste). Boomerang Alliance argued for discussion on ‘unknowns’ in the context of waste generation. Resource Futures noted that waste generation and management are typically monitored and reported separately in other national waste reports. More sophisticated reporting of recycled amounts, including normalisation to account for whether the reported amounts of each material type are: collected processed removal of contaminants outputs available for sale product moved offsite NWR 2016 was criticised for including figures that ‘try to do too much’. Prompted by states & territories, the consultants recognise that NWR 2016 reported inconsistent recycling data (see Table 4). Recycling concept greater focus and unpicking, including discussion on stockpiling, contaminants, mass losses, etc. We will need to ask the states and territories, for each material type, which is the appropriate category. More detail on recyclable fates and markets including exports vs on-shore processing Directly suggested by several consultees. Can use export data. Will also need to talk to industry. Budget impost approx. $5k. More sophisticated reporting of energy-from-waste, including portion from landfill, portion from other processes, energy from biomass that’s not in-scope waste, calorific values by material type NWR 2016 was criticised for including figures that ‘try to do too much’. Some readers were confused by the NWR 2016 distinction between reporting of waste to disposal and to landfill. Need to clarify and contextualise the sources of energy from Calorific values requested by one consultee. More sophisticated reporting of waste disposal, including quantities to landfill and other infrastructure, and reallocation to energy-from-waste NWR 2016 was criticised for including figures that ‘try to do too much’. Need to unpick the distinction between ‘waste to landfill’ and ‘waste disposed’, which confused some readers and consultees. More detailed reporting of waste materials to the level of type, to the extent data is available More detail requested by several consultees, particularly in relation to food waste. States and territories unconcerned by proposal to report landfill composition with more granularity. Will need to emphasise higher levels of uncertainty.