Regional approaches are taken to develop waste management strategies. The environmental impacts of waste management strategies vary significantly ranging from waste prevention to disposal, and the existing waste management strategy which is being upgraded. This report provides a case study compilation of waste management strategies employed in two Task 36 countries, Ireland, an EU member state, and the U.S. The case study report considers waste management strategies, applied to tackle particular waste challenges in each location, and the technical and environmental aspects of the strategies in relation to energy valorisation within the framework of IEA Bioenergy Task 36. Each case study begins with an overview of relevant regional policies for waste management which provides context for each waste management strategy employed in the case studies.The case studies included in this compilation are:Waste-to-Energy facility (Indaver Ltd.) in Meath, Ireland: The Meath Waste-to-Energy (WtE) facility is a grate incinerator located near Duleek in County Meath. The incinerator was the first of its kind to operate in Ireland and it opened its gates in August 2011. The waste-toenergy facility has capacity to divert up to 235,000 tonnes of municipal waste from landfill per year and generates 18MW of electricity with 41.5% considered renewable due to combustion of waste of biological origin. Further environmental benefits arise as due to the avoided production of electricity generated at the average grid mix. Further, metals sent for recovery are assumed to displace the virgin production of such metals, hence the CO2emissions from production are considered to be avoided.Renewable Energy & Urban Agriculture Campus (Green Era) in Illinois: The Green Era Renewable Energy & Urban Agriculture Campus is a local hub for renewable energy generation, urban farming, and community programming and education in the AuburnGresham neighbourhood of Chicago’s South Side in Illinois. The campus’ anaerobic digester system can process approximately 80,000 tons of food waste per year. The food waste is collected from restaurants, food companies, manufacturers, and residents, providing an alternative to the current practice of landfilling and prevents 42,500 tons of CO2-equivalent emissions every year. Further social benefits arise from the community focus, for example by providing an onsite Education Center which will offer workshops and trainings across a variety of topics led by community practitioners.

Globally, significant volumes of municipal solid waste (MSW) are being generated, and are continuing to grow, while being disposed of in sub-optimal ways resulting in environmental, social and economic impacts. It is estimated that MSW generation by households will reach 3.8 billion tons by 2050 if urgent action is not taken, this is a 56% increase compared to 2020 (UNEP, 2024c). Development of sustainable MSW management strategies must be prioritised by all actors in the value chains, including municipalities and industries, to mitigate environmental impacts, leading to healthier ecosystems and reduced contributions to climate change. Developing scientifically based sustainability metrics is required to give a sound basis for decisions regarding future treatment of MSW. A proper decision framework integrating all the main aspects of sustainability (economy, environment and social) is an enabler to ensure that the developed MSW management strategies are not sub-optimised in favour of short-term solutions.The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the UN member states in 2015, are now widely used as a means of tracking progress towards the more sustainable use of natural and human resources for the betterment of global society, and have been applied widely to MSW (Elsheekh et al., 2021, Abubakar et al., 2022, Ram and Bracci, 2024). Consideration of the SDGs is essential for building sustainable and equitable societies, as they provide a framework for addressing key challenges, including waste management and its impact on environmental and social sustainability. This report focuses on the SDGs which address aspects of environmental, social, and economic sustainability, related to the important impacts relating to MSW as identified in the IEA Bioenergy Task 36 regional workshop series. This report does not consider the full 17 SDGs, rather it considers MSW from the perspective of the environmental, social and economic impacts indicated as very important by the stakeholders participating in the Task 36 regional workshop series (Murphy and Gusciute, 2024). The SDGs considered in this report are: • SDG2 – Zero Hunger• SDG6 - Clean water and sanitation• SDG7 - Affordable and clean energy• SDG9 - Industry, innovation and infrastructure• SDG10 – Reduced inequalities• SDG12 - Responsible production and consumption• SDG13 - Climate action• SDG14 – Life below water• SDG15 – Life on landEach SDG is considered for its relation to MSW, the problems posed by MSW related to the SDG and potential solutions in MSW management for each SDG

Over the duration of the IEA Bioenergy triennium 2022 to 2024, a consortium of IEA Bioenergy Tasks – 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44 and 45 – collaborated on an inter-task project called Synergies of green hydrogen and biobased value chains deployment. Hydrogen is a very crosscutting topic and the strategic inter-task project is a collaborative effort of the IEA Bioenergy TCP Tasks and also in collaboration with the Hydrogen TCP. The objective of the project was to identify and assess technologies for producing hydrogen from biomass as well as synergies in the deployment of green hydrogen and biobased value chains that can enhance the use of biobased value chains in the energy system. The descriptions of technologies and concepts - including 1) technology readiness and economic fundamentals and 2) climate effects and role in the energy system - are done through case studies. This serves to increase visibility and share state-of-the-art knowledge of promising applications. The report on hand looks into types of technologies for producing biohydrogen and their respective technology readiness level. It summarizes the findings of the work package 2 “Case studies on hydrogen from biomass” and provides a synthesized view on promising biomass technologies, major drivers and barriers for their deployment, and measures to overcome potential barriers. The considered case studies and their respective findings show that, there are various activities and projects in different parts of the world that look into the production of biomass-based hydrogen. The project developers mainly come from the fuel industry. Early stage concepts and their development is driven by research. All the presented production concepts are still under development and none of them has reached commercialization. The presented concepts are in the TRL level range of 4-7 and many of them show the “weakest link” in complete integrated operation for hydrogen production. For consistently evaluating the status of development a methodological framework has been developed addressing the TRL of key process components: feedstock handling, conversion processes, upgrading, and integrated operation. Each component is given a weight based on its relative importance in the overall technology resulting in an overall weighted average of technology development. 

With regards to the techno-economic performance of the different biohydrogen pathways first results show that biohydrogen production prices are competitive with production prices for power-based hydrogen. From a system perspective several of the biomass-based hydrogen production concepts also generate additional value-added commodities such as biochar, biocarbon, biomethane etc. This adds flexibility, resilience and likely also improved economic performance. Many of the concepts also generate a stream of CO2, what opens for opportunities to obtain negative CO2-emissions. Hence, biohydrogen can add to the portfolio of renewable hydrogen provision while at the same time allowing for additional energy and climate system services as carbon capture and storage. This makes it a relevant concept for further consideration within scenarios for reaching climate-neutrality.

The use of AI and digital tools will have an impact on the waste and energy sector. When applied to waste sorting, advance sorted technologies should allow to increase the type and number of materials that can be separated, improve quality, optimize process in terms of efficiency, time,and costs; but they will also reduce the need for humans (manual sorting) in this work environment as they will turn into mostly automatized processes, having a positive impact on social aspects. The use of cutting-edge technology results in a double environmental positive effect: (i) material is recovered to be sent to recycling preventing the extraction of virgin material/new resources; (ii) some of the material recovered escapes from being landfilled or incinerated and avoiding incineration of recyclable waste fractions such as fossil-derived plastics leads to a mitigation of the CO2 emissions from the WtE plants limiting this pathway to unrecyclable fractions.This report is a compilation of case studies highlighting the use of new technologies in the waste management industry for increasing material recovery of recyclable waste fractions that otherwise might go to energy recovery or be landfilled. The material sorted contributes to reach the recycling targets set by, for instance, EU. The cases included in this compilation are: SITE ZERO (Svensk Plaståtervinning i Motola AB): The smart sorting technology in Site Zero, a state-of-the-art plastic sorting plant in Sweden, aims to realize a circular economy for plastic packaging. It has the capacity to receive all the plastic packaging generated by the Swedish households; and sorts mixed plastic packaging from households into 12 different fractions. The novelty of this plant relies on the combination of different technologies.AMP ONE Cleveland (AMP): This facility is a showcase for the use of AI-powered sortation to increase recycling rates and economically recover recyclables in the USA. It sorts all traditional recyclable products (i.e. HDPE, PP), but also sorts custom streams such as bales by colour and opacity, pyrolysis feedstock, and methanolysis feedstock.

According to the UN Environment Program, approximately 1.052 billion tonnes of food are wasted annually, equivalent to about one third of all food produced for consumption (1). Food waste is an issue that poses societal, economic, and environmental impacts. Worldwide, efforts and initiatives are being developed and implemented to reduce food waste. There is a specific Sustainable Development Goal relating to food waste, UN SDG 12.3; “By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses” (2).Food Loss and Waste (FLW) occurs at each stage of the supply chain, including primary production, processing, at retailers, within the food service industry, and in households. Food loss refers to a decrease in the mass or quality of food before it reaches the consumer. Food waste typically refers to food that humans did not ultimately consume and that is discarded.It is crucial to understand where food is wasted and how much is wasted along the supply chain to devise interventions to reduce wastage and quantify baselines and progress towards SDG 12.3. Major sources of food loss in the supply chain include; harvest losses, storage losses, processing losses and distribution losses. Further, the generation of food waste is closely tied to the efficiency of the supply chain. Waste occurs for several reasons, including; procurement issues, limited market access for small farmers, quality standards and penalties and market system changes. The food system is a major contributor to environmental impacts, including producing significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Food production requires extensive resources such as land, fertiliser, water etc. As food is wasted along the supply chain, it results in environmental impacts as all upstream activities and resources used in production are wasted. Furthermore, FLW causes water pollution and nitrogen loss. The environmental impacts of different waste management options for municipal food waste, includingavoidance, composting, anaerobic digestion (AD) and incineration have been considered using Life cycle assessment (LCA). An avoidance strategy for wasted food showed the best environmental performance, while AD resulted in the lowest environmental impact for unavoidable food residues and minimal food waste. Current treatment methods are suboptimal, including landfilling, incineration, composting and anaerobic digestion, each of which has environmental impacts. Food waste contains valuable materials, such ascarbohydrates, lipids and amino acids, and it is a promising feedstock for producing valueadded chemicals and fuels. It is important to characterise food waste to identify optimal valorisation routes, extracting higher value from food waste while reducing impacts.The consumption stage is the final stage in the food supply chain where individuals or households purchase, prepare, and consume the food products. In 2019, 17% of the total food available to consumers was wasted. The dynamics impacting consumer attitudes and behaviours regarding food waste are a complex mix of socio-economic, social, psychological, situational and demographic factors. Campaigns which focus on social norms and behaviours of others and educational campaigns aimed at improving consumers’ knowledge and skills in cooking and food storage have been recommended to tackle food waste. In addition to food waste generated from food which ends up in a bin, waste from food packaging and water scarcity also amplify the overall environmental, social and economic impacts of food waste.

För att nå uppsatta nationella klimatmål behöver avfalls- och energisektorn minska klimatutsläppen från energiåtervinningen av avfall som idag står för omkring 75 procent av de totala klimatutsläppen från el- och fjärrvärmesektorn. Restavfall från hushåll och liknande verksamheter står för drygt 30 procent av de totala avfallsmängderna som idag går till energiåtervinning i Sverige. En betydande andel av hushållens restavfall utgörs av plastförpackningar som står för de största klimatutsläppen vid energiåtervinning. Därutöver förekommer andra avfallsslag i vilka plast utgör ett av flera material som exempelvis pappersförpackningar som ofta innehåller en vätskebarriär i plast samt blöjor och andra sanitetsprodukter. Fossilt kol som bidrar till klimatpåverkan vid energiåtervinning av restavfall förekommer också i material som man inte uppfattar som plaster, till exempel konstläder, syntetiska textilier och gummi. Idag har vi stor kunskap om avfallssammansättningen i hushållens restavfall eftersom kommuner på regelbunden basis genomför plockanalyser på avfallet. Dock är kunskapen idag begränsad vad gäller klimatpåverkan från restavfallets ingående avfallsfraktioner. Detta med hänsyn tagen till att olika plaster släpper ut olika mycket koldioxid beroende på faktorer såsom polymertyp, innehåll av smuts och vätska, typ av fyllmedel och andel plast i den aktuella avfallsfraktionen. Det har gjorts projekt i vilka man uppskattat klimatpåverkan från olika avfallsfraktioner i hushållens restavfall. Gemensamt för dessa rapporter är att schabloner använts eller antaganden gjorts kring materialsammansättningen för flera avfallsfraktioner för att uppskatta klimatpåverkan samt att data över klimatpåverkan i vissa fall är aggregerad där summan av flera underliggande avfallsfraktioner redovisas. Därutöver finns det också kunskapsluckor kring förekomsten av vilka olämpliga ämnen som olika avfallsfraktioner i restavfallet innehåller. Olämpliga ämnen är sådana ämnen som finns på kandidatförteckningen eller kan vara ämnen som på annat sätt kan försvåra materialåtervinningen. Sammantaget bidrar detta till osäkerheter kring potentialen för olika åtgärder som exempelvis ökade och förbättrade källsorteringsmöjligheter, eftersortering, kemisk återvinning samt CCU och CCS, för att minska klimatpåverkan från energiåtervinning av hushållens restavfall. Syftet med projektet är att ge en ökad förståelse för vilken klimatpåverkan ingående avfallsfraktioner i hushållens restavfall har. Detta genom att analysera avfallsfraktioner innehållande plast med avseende på bl.a. andelen fossilt respektive biogent kol, polymertyp samt innehåll av ämnen på kandidatlistan och annat oönskat material. Baserat på erhållna resultat kan följande slutsatser från projektet dras: • Hårdplastförpackningar och mjukplastförpackningar vilka omfattas av producentansvar står för 35–43 procent av de fossila koldioxidutsläppen vid förbränning av hushållens restavfall. • Fraktionen Övrig plast, som består av plast som inte faller under något producentansvar, utgör 12–17 procent av de fossila koldioxidutsläppen vid förbränning av hushållens restavfall. Denna avfallsfraktion innehåller ämnen på kandidatlistan vilka kan vara ett hinder vid materialåtervinning. • Fraktionen Övrigt brännbart står för 11–12 procent av de fossila koldioxidutsläppen vid förbränning av hushållens restavfall och innehåller ämnen på kandidatlistan (ftalater) vilket kan vara ett hinder vid materialåtervinning. Övrigt brännbart innehåller material som exempelvis leksaker, gummihandskar, hår, skor, mattor m.m. • Blöjor bidrar till 6–9 procent av de totala fossila koldioxidutsläppen vid förbränning av hushållens restavfall. Blöjor och sanitetsprodukter omfattas inte av producentansvar och består av många olika sorters material. • Textilier utgör 3–8 procent av de fossila koldioxidutsläppen vid förbränning av hushållens restavfall och av dessa textilier är omkring en tredjedel återanvändningsbara kläder, vilka det idag finns insamlingssystem för. Några olämpliga ämnen som försvårar materialåtervinning kunde inte identifieras. Från och med 2025 kommer kommunerna samla in uppkommet textilavfall separat. • Tillsammans med fraktionen Blöjor kommer avfallsfraktionerna Övrig plast och Övrigt brännbart att stå för de största fossila koldioxidutsläppen från energiåtervinning av hushållens restavfall när fastighetsnära insamling av förpackningar är på plats. Något producentansvar förekommer idag inte för dessa avfallsfraktioner och förekommande material är svåra att materialåtervinna då det innehåller många olika sorters polymerer. • En jämförelse av klimatpåverkan från avfallsfraktioner i hushållens restavfall gentemot tidigare studier är svårt att göra. En anledning till denna slutsats är att tidigare studier redovisar aggregerade data över klimatpåverkan innehållande flera avfallsfraktioner som var och en bidrar till klimatpåverkan vid förbränning. En annan orsak är skillnader i restavfallets avfallssammansättning mellan studier. Utifrån resultatet som baseras på faktiska mätningar för respektive avfallsslag, finns nu data från samtliga ingående restavfallsfraktioner i hushållens restavfall som bidrar till klimatpåverkan i samband med förbränning. Detta gör det möjligt att uppskatta klimatpåverkan från restavfallet och potentialen i olika klimatåtgärder utifrån olika kommuners specifika avfallssammansättning.

The South African National Energy Development Institute (SANEDI), in partnership with the DSI/NRF/CSIR South African Research Chair in Waste and Climate Change at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, has developed a Waste-to-Energy Roadmap for South Africa to contribute to the country’s Just Energy Transition with the aim to map the potential for insertion of waste to energy technology in South African municipalities. The South African Waste-to-Energy Roadmap identifies relevant technologies for the effective recovery of waste into biogas and energy, while mapping barriers and drivers for potential uptake at local level (Nell and Trois, 2022). One important element of the WtE Roadmap is a WtE Policy Review document (including institutional barriers and drivers) and detailed mapping of the policy and regulatory frameworks pertaining available WtE technologies for the treatment and valorisation of MSW in South Africa. The development of a WtE Roadmap supports the South African Government in delivering an economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic that is green, clean, resilient and inclusive based on the following research question:“How can South Africa transition to a sustainable smart energy system, implementing WtE as a resource, and how can different WtE solutions co-exist with other renewable energy technologies in a renewable South African energy system?”.There is global outreach to implement mitigation measures to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses (GHG) emitted into the atmosphere and stabilize the impacts of climate change. Waste management in the South African context is an emerging sector with increasing emphasis placed on the development and application of integrated waste management strategies (Trois and Jagath, 2011). South Africa has recently adopted the Waste Hierarchy, through the National Waste Management Strategy and is progressively implementing policies aimed at maximizing the valorisation of waste as a resources, such as the Extended Producer Responsibility EPR and the Carbon Tax (Trois et al, 2022 (Task 36 Report); Roberts (Task 36 Report)) The National Waste Management Strategy (DFFE, 2018) drives the diversion of waste from landfills, the valorisation of waste as a resource, and assists South African municipalities in dealing with landfill airspace constraints. Over 70% of South Africa’s waste goes to landfill resulting in loss of resources to the economy (DFFE, 2018), and social (human health) and environmental impacts, however, Municipalities face challenges in delivering services and diverting waste from landfills (Kissoon and Trois, 2022). In the absence of full cost accounting, alternative waste treatment typically appears more expensive than landfilling thus creating a lock in.At the same time, South Africa is seeing a large-scale shift to low-carbon energy supplies and solutions with associated changes in infrastructure requirements and the way utilities provide energy services while continuing the drive for universal energy access for all South Africans with a particular focus on energy poverty and poverty alleviation initiatives in the country. The waste sector in South Africa contributes to >4.3% of the national GHG emissions (NIR, 2017). However, the nexus waste, climate change and renewable energy provision is not explicitly explored or addressed in current policies at national and/or local level, thus delaying the achievement of the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in matter of implementing and rolling out projects towards the adaptation and mitigation of climate change from the waste sector.There is a need to investigate how different WtE solutions can be integrated in the South African energy system and play together with a national sustainable energy transition that not 3only reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but also improves security of supply and assists in an overall sustainable development for South Africa and similar emerging economies. The South African Waste to Energy Roadmap explores the following aspects of WtE development:1) The current state of the art for WtE technologies (including considerations on their appropriateness for the South African context), and their potential role in the energy system;2) The development of an energy system analysis and how it can assist in providing a renewable and secure energy supply for the country;3) Key contributions to the sustainable development of the South African energy system and WtE sector, with particular focus on policy and institutional frameworks; 4) The development of an implementation plan and policy/institutional framework for the insertion of WtE technologies in South African Municipalities.There is a need to develop decision-making tools for Municipalities to decide on the best Waste to Energy strategy that would achieve sustained waste reduction, resource recovery, carbon emissions reduction and job-creation. On the other hand, it is also necessary to facilitate the insertion and localisation of these WtE Technologies by analysing sustainable renewable energy systems on an hourly basis, by ensuring energy balance and assessing security of supply. These elements are crucial both in a South African context but also on a wider global level. Thus, in the development of the SA WtE Roadmap, the SARChI Chair Waste and Climate Change engaged with Task 36 of the IEA Bioenergy to compile a comprehensive Policy Review Report that compares barriers and drivers relevant to South Africa, with the policy frameworks and lessons learnt from the other member-countries of Task 36 (United States of America, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Italy and Norway).