House of Commons - Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Sixth Report

SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT

RE -USE

71. Re-use is a means to prolong the life of resources, increase productivity and delay waste and therefore cannot be regarded as entirely separate from waste reduction. The primary driver for re-use, again, would appear to be Producer Responsibility. Waste Watch suggested that this had prompted manufacturers of 'white' goods (such as refrigerators and cookers) to support the CREATE reclamation scheme in Liverpool.[126] The British Retail Consortium also told us that the Producer Responsibility requirements for packaging had encouraged the retail sector to invest in re-usable transit packaging, which had been found to protect products "in a much better way" and thus allow product-specific packaging to be reduced. While we shall discuss the activities of the retail sector specifically in the second part of our Report (see paragraph 149) we were pleased to hear the Consortium considers there is a "real opportunity" to extend its use of such re-usable packaging even further.[127]

72. Re-use is not, however, an end in itself: the Best Practicable Environmental Option must be considered in order to ensure that durability is not being required "for durability's sake" but in order to use resources most effectively.[128] The point at which re-use is no longer the Best Practicable Environmental Option will have to be determined using relevant decision tools such as life-cycle assessment. An example might be the computer: Producer Responsibility in future is likely to encourage manufacturers to minimise waste by producing machines which can for the greater part-the screen, keyboard and disk drives-continue to function effectively if the 'chips' or memory are updated;[129] yet there will come a point when energy efficiency requirements will mean that the screen and perhaps other parts, too, will need to be replaced. The result of extending Producer Responsibility is likely to be a return to the greater use of leased equipment, rather than equipment which is owned outright by the user. There could be advantages on both sides if this occurs: the manufacturer, who is better placed to judge how efficiently a machine operates, and who will be responsible for its disposal, will retain outright ownership. The obligation of Producer Responsibility will thus be easier to fulfil. The person leasing the machine will not have to make decisions about disposal or when to opt for a newer system. Mike Childs told us that the electricals market is already moving towards this approach, which we welcome.[130]

73. Waste Watch and Walter Stahel both told us that re-use had the added advantage of creating jobs.[131] Certainly, we were impressed and heartened by the work which we witnessed at CREATE: the scheme, which was set up primarily to provide salaried training to the long-term unemployed, has successfully combined this goal with the environmental benefits of white goods refurbishment and re-use. We were delighted to hear that it is to expand and wish it every success.

74. There are a number of actions which the Government should take to ensure a more practical approach to waste reduction and material re-use. We recommend that, in considering how to enforce the Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, the Government should consider the use of penalties and incentives to encourage industrial waste minimisation. It should also campaign in Europe for the rapid extension of producer responsibility legislation to other waste streams such as electrical and electronic goods. While we accept that projects such as CREATE and Waste Watch's 'zero waste challenge' are probably best managed by local community and voluntary groups, we would like to see the Government collaborating with national organisations such as Waste Watch to provide information and best practice guidance to them. A Bill which is currently passing through Parliament seeks to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to enable local authorities to take steps to reduce the generation of household, commercial and industrial wastes in their areas. We welcome the Government's support for this measure.[132]

Material Recovery

RECYCLING

75. Recycling comes halfway down the hierarchy and is the option most readily identified by the public as a means both of disposing of, and recovering value from, waste products. It is therefore particularly disappointing that there has been so little progress since our last inquiry specifically on this subject, in 1994: then, the recycling rate stood at 5 per cent; by the most recent evidence we have (for 1995-96), it stands now at only 6.5 per cent, meaning a great deal of progress will have to be made to meet the target of 25 per cent by the year 2000.[133] The likelihood of this happening is reduced even further when one considers the recently revised figures for waste arising: since it has been established that six million tonnes more waste are being produced than had previously been thought, an additional 1.5 million tonnes will have to be recycled on top of the previously calculated five million tonnes, in order to reach the 25 per cent target by 2000. This makes a total of 6.5 million tonnes yet the most recent data show tonnages recycled are still far less than 1.5 million. The Minister described this performance as "frankly pretty pathetic" and he was right to do so.[134]

76. These figures, of course, represent a very varied degree of performance by local authorities, ranging from only 2-3 per cent in some areas to the "upper twenties" in others.[135] The Minister pointed out that, while the high performers are at present exceptional, performances exceeding 25 per cent will have to become far more frequent if this national target is to be gained as an average of composite performance.[136] That this may be possible was demonstrated by Friends of the Earth, Ecologika (an environmental consultancy) and the London Planning Advisory Committee who pointed to activities in other parts of Europe, the United States and Canada which have increased re-use and recycling rates to between 50 per cent and 70 per cent. These witnesses argued that, with fundamental changes to current waste management practice, a similar performance may be possible within a few years in London at least.[137]

77. Mike Childs, in expressing his vision of the future, was not unrealistic: he told us that "The mechanisms do need to be in place" if these very high rates are to be achieved; progress towards the target might have been much greater if the mechanisms had been introduced earlier.[138] These mechanisms can be looked at under three main groupings: collection, reprocessing and sale.

Collection

78. At first sight it would appear that there is a considerable degree of activity in collecting recyclables as banks for the collection of paper, glass, cans, plastic and even clothing, shoes, books and carrier bags are now commonplace. Such banks are known as 'bring sites' and require voluntary activity on the part of the waste holder to make the journey to the bank rather than putting the recyclable materials in the household waste bin. Many have now been established, in line with the recommendation of Making Waste Work, in frequently-visited locations such as local authority and supermarket car parks, thus reducing the degree of additional effort required of waste holders in order to recycle their materials.[139] That-in our experience-the banks are often full would initially appear to suggest that these banks have had a degree of success in encouraging recycling.

79. Yet bring sites have not been wholly successful. Although they perform a valuable service, they do produce a degree of disamenity for those living nearby. We have heard anecdotal reports of noise disturbance from glass dropping into the banks and breaking; paper banks are vulnerable to arson attacks; where banks are not emptied, surplus materials can pile up on the ground around them; and when bottle banks are emptied, small shards of glass may be dropped around the area. These are all fundamentally issues of site management and planning, yet they are likely to have an impact upon the success of any local strategy: most householders, knowing that the banks are frequently full, will probably consider themselves to be doing the community a better service by putting recyclables into the household dustbin than by taking them to the bring site and leaving them on the pavement.

80. The former Government set a number of lesser targets for the provision of new collection facilities over the period 1995-2000.[140] These included:

the establishment of 20,000 glass bottle banks by 2000 (from a base line of 17,651 in 1994);
2,018 plastic bottle collection banks by 1997 (from 1,600 in 1995);
514,000 properties to have 'kerbside' collection of plastics by 1997 (from 320,000 in 1994);
15 plastic bottle sorting and baling facilities by 1997;
8,000 collection sites for plastic vending cups by 2000 (from 1,790 in 1994); and
a doubling of paper banks from 6,350 in 1994 to 13,000 in 1996.

On 7 April this year, the Under-Secretary of State provided the Government's assessment of progress towards these targets in 1995-96. It is singularly unimpressive. We were unable to match the data provided for glass bottle banks against that provided in Making Waste Work; there were apparently 442 fewer plastic bottle banks than had been provided in the previous year and 6 fewer paper banks; for kerbside collection of plastics and the provision of vending cup collection sites and sorting and baling facilities, we learned in each case that there is "no central data" or "no figures are available".[141]

81. While we are sceptical about the value of these targets-which appear to place a wholly misguided emphasis upon the number of banks rather than the quantities of material gathered in them-it again seems extraordinary to us that, having set the targets, the DETR should apparently take so little care over its collection and presentation of data that comparisons of performance cannot be made. The Minister noted the need for local authorities to be motivated to increase recycling,[142] yet to us this failure demonstrates a lack of commitment to the targets within Government. It can hardly be perceived as any incentive to local authorities to persevere with the promotion of recycling given the financial and practical difficulties they face in doing so. If local authorities are to be held accountable for the success of the UK's recycling strategy there must be real incentives for them to take action and sufficient resources available for them to do so. The knowledge that activity is being monitored should provide one such incentive. Therefore the Government must find some means to measure improvement on a consistent basis or it will leave itself open to allegations of unfairness and lack of accountability.

82. In any event, it would appear that bring sites alone are unlikely to result in the achievement of the 25 per cent target; for if this were likely, the current rate of recycling would be higher than it is. An alternative, already mentioned briefly, is the 'kerbside', or doorstep, collection of recyclables as part of the local authority's household waste collection service. In so far as this is a matter for local authorities to determine, it is discussed in greater detail in our later section on local authority responsibilities (see paragraph 202). However, it does have advantages in encouraging recycling. The paper provided to us by Ecologika noted that the most significant is that of "householder convenience":[143] while still required to separate out recyclables as they would were the materials to be taken to bring sites, householders are not required to make any additional journeys. This enables those who are not able to make those journeys to participate in recycling, and also encourages the participation of those who choose not to make those journeys. Ray Georgeson of Waste Watch told us that a recent survey the organisation commissioned through NOP discovered that:

"... where no kerbside [collection] exists something like six out of seven householders will be willing to participate ... That level of support stretches across all the social classes. Our sense is there is strong public support for such a move".[144]

Hampshire Waste Services told us that the implementation of kerbside collections for recyclables had played a key role in increasing recycling rates across the county, and Manchester City Council said that it was looking to increase its poor recycling rate by adopting a similar scheme.[145] The Government clearly expects that this will have a role to play in future recycling strategies and it would appear to us that the 'convenience' factor is likely to be significant in encouraging widespread household participation in recycling.

83. A note of caution must however be expressed. Where bring sites are already successfully in operation there is a danger of recycling efforts being duplicated, or dissipated by kerbside collection. It will entail a more expensive and elaborate collection service for the local authority. Nor, in spite of the enthusiasm with which many local authorities are currently adopting a kerbside strategy, will it provide the answer in all cases: for rural authorities responsible for collecting waste from widely scattered households, it may be better to continue to rely upon bring sites, coupled with a strong education strategy.

84. It is in respect of the difficulties encountered by rural authorities that the focus upon the 25 per cent target as being a national, rather than local, target becomes particularly pertinent. We received intriguing evidence from a group called the Urban Mines company which suggested that urban areas, with their high outputs of waste, may be treated as 'mines' of material which may be recovered at fairly low cost;[146] the evidence of Friends of the Earth and others concerning the feasibility of high recycling levels in London tends to back this view that cities will have a particularly prominent role to play in gathering materials for reprocessing.

Recycling credits

85. It is important that the role of voluntary organisations in recycling should not be ignored, since it was these groups which first perceived the value of recycling, and which have over many years played a key role in stressing the value of commonly perceived 'wastes' such as newspapers and aluminium foil. Groups such as the Community Recycling Network and Harrow Friends of the Earth have written to us to complain that they have been experiencing difficulty in obtaining recycling credits from their local authorities in recognition of the work they have carried out.[147]

86. Recycling credits were introduced under section 52 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. When a tonne of waste is recovered for recycling, the local waste disposal authority saves the cost of disposing of that tonne of waste. Through the recycling credit scheme, the saving must be passed on to the waste collection authority, and potentially to the individual or group doing the recycling as an incentive to further activity: the Community Recycling Network described the credits as "vital to the existence" of many of their projects.[148] Yet at present, while such credits must be passed to waste collection authorities, the passing of them to third parties such as voluntary organisations remains discretionary and some local authorities, in the words of Harrow Friends of the Earth, are "parsimonious" in their allocation of them.[149]

87. We received useful evidence on this point from the Paper Federation of Great Britain. This organisation, too, "believes that recycling efforts are often inhibited by the restrictive payment policies of some local authorities".[150] It therefore looked back to the additional guidance provided to local authorities on use of the credits, in Department of the Environment Circular 4/92. There, it found in paragraph 14 that:

"...the Secretary of State takes the view that there should be a presumption in favour of paying such credits unless there are good reasons for not doing so".

We believe that the new Government should reiterate the presumption in favour of paying recycling credits to third parties, and should require local authorities to make public their reasons for not doing so if that should be their intention. However, it would be inappropriate to issue recycling credits to third parties for materials which are subject to kerbside collection in the area.

Reprocessing

88. Collection is only the first step in the recycling process: once gathered together, the materials are passed from the waste collection authority (the district or unitary authority) to the contractor employed by the waste disposal authority (the county or unitary authority). On our visit to Hampshire we visited a large Materials Recovery Facility (known as a MRF or 'murf') where recyclable materials collected from across the county are manually sorted into separate streams-paper, cardboard, plastic-and then graded according to quality. The sorted materials are then sent to reprocessors such as paper mills to be turned into new products.[151] The plant is known as a 'clean', as opposed to a 'dirty', MRF since it only accepts materials that have been separated at source from the general household waste stream.

Mixed waste processing

89. The alternative to source separation of waste, as it takes place in kerbside or 'bring' collections of recyclable materials, is for the entire contents of the household dustbin to be taken to a 'dirty' MRF for separation into recyclable and non-recyclable elements. This practice is not common in the UK at present and we therefore received little evidence upon it; two comments we did receive from Exeter Friends of the Earth and Incpen expressed concern that the sorting of such wastes, which might include items such as pet litter and syringes, would be deeply unpleasant for those charged with carrying out the task, if not a threat to their health.[152] Taking a business view, Hampshire Waste Services told us that the company had chosen not to operate a 'dirty' MRF because the likelihood of cross-contamination of the waste streams was considered too great.[153]

90. Keith Riley of Hampshire Waste Services emphasised to us the importance of achieving a high quality in the materials recovered for reprocessing. He said that the county's recycling strategy is based upon key contracts for recycled paper, which have provided the financial security for the company to invest in expensive facilities such as the MRF. In order to fulfil these contracts, the company has to ensure that it provides the paper processing companies with high quality waste papers, such as are found in the supplements of weekend newspapers: in order to ensure that the paper is in a sufficiently good condition, it has been found to be necessary to keep the paper separate from potential contaminants such as food and glass throughout its life; in other words, it should never go into the same bin as kitchen waste within the individual household. The problem with contamination is that it can increase the economic and energy costs of cleaning the product ready for re-use, beyond the point which is both economically and environmentally sensible.[154]

91. Hampshire Waste Services has taken what might appear as a radical step in deciding not to accept glass within the same 'kerbside' collections as paper. This is in order to eliminate the risk of contamination of its most valuable waste stream should the glass shatter during collection, and the company claims to have gained public support for its move.[155] We were told that these decisions-not to accept mixed wastes at the MRF, and not to accept glass-were primarily business decisions, reflecting the demands of the market in relation to recycled materials. While we shall discuss the state of the markets in more detail beginning in paragraph 94, it appears probable that for the near future the requirement of the markets for high quality recyclables will necessitate the continued use of source separated waste processing. However we would expect mixed waste processing to be implemented increasingly if the technology can be proven.

Locating reprocessing facilities

92. Once the materials have been sorted and graded, they must be taken to reprocessing facilities. Fundamentally, it was agreed that recycling will not represent the Best Practicable Environmental Option if "you have to lug stuff from Aberdeen to Kent" in order for it to be re-processed.[156] Yet Hampshire Waste Services told us that the company is having to send its materials over very long distances because there are no appropriate facilities nearby at present.[157] Therefore, it was argued, if recycling is to play a greater part in a future strategy there is a need for more reprocessing facilities to be built around the country in order to reduce the distances over which materials must be carried. The Paper Federation also argued that the establishment of further paper mills within the UK would help to stimulate demand for recycled paper if the product should be found to be more economical than imported virgin or recycled paper.

93. Ray Georgeson of Waste Watch suggested that there was the potential for small paper mills to be built close to every city, with facilities for aluminium and glass reprocessing developed on a regional basis.[158] Friends of the Earth highlighted the social benefits which would be derived through job creation and economic growth by the establishment of such facilities.[159] The difficulty in establishing them would be the cost: for example, a new 100,000 tonne paper mill might require an investment of £100 million. Bryan Bateman, the Chairman of the Paper Federation, told us that this level of investment is not possible within the paper industry at the present time because the market for recycled paper is not sufficiently stable for investors to be sure of recovering this large initial sum.[160] As we shall continue to discuss in the following paragraphs, the guarantee of a healthy and stable UK market for UK-produced recycled products will be essential in encouraging the development of a recycling infrastructure.

Sale

94. Throughout this section we have been looking at what some witnesses, such as the British Retail Consortium, have described as the 'push' and 'pull' factors which enable recycling to take place.[161] The 'push factors' are those, such as the Landfill Tax or kerbside collection, which encourage diversion of materials into the recycling stream; 'pull factors' are those such as the establishment of a greater number of reprocessing facilities, which ensure the processes have a successful outcome. The guarantee of a market for the materials is the final, essential, 'pull factor'.

95. In its previous Report, the former Committee highlighted what may happen if the 'pull factor' is not put into place: in the early 1990s the German government introduced legislation which required recycling of large quantities of waste materials through a system known as Duales System Deutschland (DSD). Legislation is a strong 'push factor' but without a market guarantee to balance it, the inevitable happened. The country found itself with large stockpiles of recycled materials for which there was no buyer. The price of these products fell as the

international market was flooded; the UK's recycling industry was badly damaged; and many of the products ended by being incinerated or landfilled, the energy used in recycling them wasted.[162]

96. Comments about the need for market stability for recycled materials were widespread. Martin Nesbit of the DETR agreed that industry will need to be confident both of supply and sale in order to invest in new mills and other facilities for reprocessing recycled materials;[163] David Boyd of UK Waste told us that the ability to guarantee a market determines what his company chooses to recycle;[164] Aspinwall & Company identified the need for an economic incentive to use recycled materials in preference to cheap, virgin products.[165] Their comments were echoed by the Local Authority Waste Disposal Contractors Association, the Urban Mines Company, the Onyx Environment Group and Incpen.[166]

97. Traditionally, the international market for recycled materials such as paper has been prone to severe fluctuations, to the point where David Beal of Recycle UK (a subsidiary of UK Waste) told us that recycling centres have had to be closed down "because the price of newspaper and cardboard has gone from £100 [per tonne] to virtually zero and there is nothing you can do".[167] We were told that to some extent prices have stabilised.[168] Yet there remains a problem of lack of demand for recycled products which must be addressed if recycling is to increase. It is a problem which can be looked at in two ways: firstly, uses need to be found for the products created;[169] and secondly, that products must be created for which there are uses.[170] In addressing the second point the requirement for quality is likely to be a prime consideration while for the former, the British Retail Consortium perceived a role for Government in stimulating research into the potential uses for recycled materials.[171]

98. Creating some degree of market stability is unlikely to be an easy task; if it were, it would have happened by now. The former Government trusted to the market to stimulate demand, but it has only done so up to a point. The current level of recycling-6.5 per cent-reflects market conditions but it does not reflect the requirements of a sustainable society.[172] If the Government wishes to see recycling increased for any effective purpose and to any significant degree, it will now have to think very seriously about intervening more directly in the marketplace.

99. There are a number of things which Government can do. It can challenge the perception that recycled products are inferior by using them itself and telling industry what products it would use if industry produced them.[173] It can increase the Landfill Tax in order to 'push' more material into the system. It can encourage investment in local reprocessing facilities through programmes such as the Private Finance Initiative and can assist authorities in establishing long term material supply contracts with reprocessors. It can seek voluntary agreements within industry to use more recycled materials. The Minister has expressed his commitment to these tasks,[174] which we welcome, yet all of these activities may not be enough. A number of other initiatives have been suggested by witnesses to our inquiry including the establishment of legislation determining minimum recycled content for certain products;[175] the reduction of VAT upon recycled products, to stimulate demand;[176] revising national product specifications which currently work against the incorporation of recycled materials;[177] and the establishment of a tax upon virgin materials which would make the cost of recycled materials more comparable.[178]

100. We have concluded that, as the Minister said, the establishment of a stable market is the key to success in a future recycling strategy. Without a market it may be possible to increase markedly the materials being recycled, but it will not be possible to find a beneficial after-use for them. If such a use is not found, all the efforts of local authorities, voluntary groups, individuals and industry will have been wasted as they were in Germany. We have been heartened by the evident goodwill of witnesses towards recycling. We look to the Government to build upon this goodwill by intervening in the market to secure stability and a successful strategy. Local government must also play a part by the operation of green procurement policies. In other policy areas this Government has demonstrated that it is not afraid to tackle difficult problems; we would expect it to demonstrate the same degree of active commitment in addressing this one.

126 Q266 Back

127 Q365 Back

128 Q272 Back

129 Q734 Back

130 Q268 Back

131 Q266, 723 Back

132 Waste Minimisation Bill [Bill 97] Back

133 Recycling, Environment Committee Second Report 1993-94 HC 63-I; also Q854. A figure of 7.5 % recycling is quoted for 1996-97 in the Government consultation paper Less waste more value (published 9 June 1998) Back

134 Q854 Back

135 Q138, see also Q613 Back

136 Q861 Back

137 Q289, Ev p 173 Towards a London Waste Strategy - Overview Environment Agency/LPAC October 1997 Back