Memorandum by the Community Recycling
Network UK (RC 43)
1. The CRN welcomes the chance to submit
written evidence to this inquiry. We are also happy to submit
oral evidence, should this be requested.
2. The Community Recycling Network UK is
a membership organisation promoting community based sustainable
waste management as a practical and effective way of tackling
the UK's growing waste problem.
3. For more information, please see our
website www.crn.org.uk
DEFINITION
4. Words are important. We understand that the
select committee's definition of refuse includes material destined
and designated for recycling. In our view the domestic wastestream
is a secondary resource and ultimately an asset stream for the
community and third sector enterprise. Recycling collections are
a quite different business from that of hauling waste.
WASTESTREAMS AND
ACTIVITIES
5. CRN members have expertise, not exhaustively,
in the following areas:
— multi-material kerbside collection
schemes,
— commercial waste collections,
— civic amenity site management,
— waste reduction, refill and re-use,
— material sorting and processing,
— education, information, marketing,
consultancy and advice,
— scrapstores and waste exchanges,
— furniture reuse and refurbishment,
— computer and electrical appliance
refurbishment,
— public and special event waste management,
— recycling banks/bring sites,
— waste auditing/analysis,
— market development for recyclables,
— SME support and development,
6. This means we have a very wide appreciation
as to what recycling collection means and entails. Apart from
the residual domestic waste in LB Ealing, which ECT Recycling
collects as part of an integrated contract, the one thing we don't
collect is refuse.
KERBSIDE COLLECTIONS
7. Our larger members provide kerbside collections
and similar services under contract to local authorities. Our
sector collects around 11% (Defra Dec05) of the domestic waste
recycled in England.
8. The community sector has historically
led the way in the development of source-separated collections
of domestic recyclables, which we have been undertaking since
the early 1980s, under various forms of agreement with many local
authorities over time. Much of the innovation which is now accepted
practice was pioneered by the third sector. The pioneers are still
at work. We offer as example the work of ECT Recycling with Somerset
Waste Partnership, where kitchen waste collections are meeting
with no small success.
9. Whilst the original motivation of the
sector is environmental, the sector has found the way ahead in
terms of efficiency in source-separation, and this is its first
choice in terms of kerbside collection mode. We have always been
able to find a market for our collected materials. The market
value of a typical basket of dry recyclables has steadily improved
since the early 90s. Informal comparisons suggest that the costs
of kerbside collection by our sector, per tonne or per household,
have been consistent and possibly fallen in real terms. Our experience
is that environmental and economic efficiency considerations lead
in the same direction, that of source-separation.
10. We have always sought to maximise the
value from the wastestream, and the best way to do that is to
separate the various materials at the earliest possible stage
and deliver them as cleanly as possible to the reprocessor. We
cannot see the point of mixing and compacting them simply to transport
them locally. We know the reprocessors will simply not want the
contaminated materials they know commingling and MRF sorting will
cause. Where sector members run commingled collections into a
MRF, this has been exclusively at the insistence of the authority.
11. There are some geographical variations.
In some cases, dry materials have been mixed in order to bring
them downstairs conveniently from blocks of flats, but without
compaction and re-sorting happens over a single conveyor belt.
Other dense urban solutions deployed have included the pedestrian
controlled vehicle (PCV), which is an electric cart drawn along
the pavement, not blocking the road or pumping out diesel fumes.
12. In the case of rural collections, there
are a number of payload/distance factors to be reckoned with.
Some sector pioneers have addressed these by instituting recycling
pavilions (SMR, N.Devon) and similar approaches which are small
bring systems whereby hamlets can bring together their dry recyclables
to a single covered point for collection. Others in Wales and
Yorkshire have used single person operated vehicles (SPOVs) where
efficiencies are achieved by careful and efficient design, such
as longer but lower vehicles and such as there being no passenger
seat, because that's where the bags of textiles are carried. All
these collections include plastic bottles.
COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY
AND METHOD
DECISIONS
13. We refer the select committee to some
of the above points regarding collection technology as developed
by the community sector.
14. No doubt the select committee will receive
specifications of all kinds of waste collection and processing
technology. The fundamental point which we would like to make
is that the technology we use is simple, effective and inexpensive.
The vehicles most usually used for source-separated collections
are compartmentalised trucks cost typically around £40K for
the most recent model. These usually carry stillages or cages
to contain the dry recyclables, and these are lifted off and tipped
by a standard forklift truck. Typically the depot to which the
materials are taken is a bulking station where materials are held
in bays. Newspaper and glass is generally loaded loose into articulated
bulker lorries for transportation to reprocessors. Plastics and
metals are usually baled before transport. The depot and bulking
station will typically cost hundreds of thousands to build. This
is substantially less than a typical MRF, which now seem to cost
millions.
15. The wastage rate from a bulking station
is typically about ½%. We understand that wastage from MRFs
are more likely to be 15% or more. Research is needed urgently
by government or an independent agency to make an objective cost
and quality comparison between source-separated collections and
those made commingled and compacted for MRF sorting. In such comparisons
as we have been able to make, our methods would appear to cost
rather less than commingling materials for later sorting in a
MRF. More importantly, it's clear to us that our costs per tonne
will go down as diversion for recycling etc increases.
16. With source-separated collections we
can see no upper limit to the amount that it's possible to collect.
Trucks can be further adapted to cater for the smaller categories
within the domestic stream. Extra boxes can be added as the volume
grows. As long as the collection worker can see inside the box
and exercise some quality control and feedback to the householder,
material value can be maintained.
FLEXIBILITY NEEDED
17. For these reasons we are sceptical about
the need for any large or expensive waste processing technology.
Every week we read about some new plant authorities are thinking
of building or being persuaded to buy. There seems to be an assumption
that there is going to be some substantial residue that can't
be recycled. We can't share that assumption. Moreover, we see
it as dangerous, as it's based on ignorance of how much could
actually be recycled or composted. A real push to find the limits
of recycling, if there are any, has yet to be tried in the UK.
There is almost an element of the `king's new clothes' about this.
Seemingly naïve questions need to be asked. We fear that
many local authorities are in a mindset which sees a big problem,
which must therefore in turn require a large, complicated and
expensive solution.
18. This line of thinking seems also to
suggest that large MRFs are required for handling recyclable materials
recovered from the domestic waste stream. This suits the motivation
of the private sector, looking to keep labour costs minimal and
to make a return on capital. It doesn't suit the third sector,
looking to extract wealth from the waste for the benefit of the
local economy.
19. Undoubtedly many new facilities are
required, but if wastes are separated at source by the householder
there is no reason why these facilities should be especially large.
Indeed, there are arguments stemming from the proximity principle
(see paragraph 26 below) and around local and community ownership
of waste which indicate that facilities might best be kept small
and human scale. Waste is a social construct and requires social
solutions at least as much and arguably more than technical and
economic ones. Large MRFs, once installed, are likely to dictate
collection methods. These methods are likely to be enforced commingling
and suboptimal in that they may inhibit progress up the waste
hierarchy and will be inflexible to experimentation, of which
much is still to be done.
20. When looking at the letting of a twenty-five
year contract, with all its attendant commitments, and looking
back at how much has changed in waste management during the previous
twenty five years, it is clear how difficult to anticipate change
is. Therefore, no matter how much responsibility is being delegated
to a contractor, the local authority, still holding the ultimate
responsibility to its public must, as far as it is able, anticipate
change, whether this be driven by central government legislation
or by popular demand from its resident population.
21. We are concerned that local authorities
have missed out on what the community sector could provide, not
least of which would have been a degree of flexibility and adaptability
over time. A partner who also has a local and longer term stake
would make a lot of sense in this situation.
THE RIGHT
SORT OF
BUSINESS
22. As mentioned, we believe source-separated
recycling collection to be a cost-effective and competitive means
of diverting waste from landfill. We are not sure why local authorities
elect to do anything more expensive or complicated. From our perspective,
it seems that the waste industry and others saw a larger business
opportunity than really exists in local authority waste management
and recycling, as described above. This may also have been true
of government as well, with an eye on PFI opportunities. We suspect
that when it all washes down to a price per tonne paid, a large
number of local authorities will discover that they've shelled-out
well over the odds.
23. Authorities see that they have to pay
for collection services, and they are used to procuring those.
However, this needs care, as the economics are changing. The advent
of recycling presents a different opportunity which local authorities
have been very slow to grasp. If the service is undertaken in
an efficiently, it will yield an income stream which will offset
the costs in a substantial way. This needs the authority to think
like a business, which is not part of its culture. On the other
hand, the business acumen required is basic stuff and the obstacle
arguably more about mindset than skill; the brain power required
is already there.
FURTHER RATIONALE
FOR SOURCE
SEPARATION
24. Our sector believes that householder-separated
collections of recyclables, as described above, with kerbside
sorting onto the truck, is the right way forward for domestic
recycling. There are a number of reasons for this, ones unlikely
to prove popular with Daily Mail readers:
25. The Polluter Pays Principle: as the
originator of domestic waste, the householder should do their
utmost to action its reassignment as a resource. Until a fuller
advent of variable charging, this taking of responsibility and
some small trouble to sort their discards for kerbside collection
at regular intervals is the very least they can do.
26. The Proximity Principle: since the household
is the point of both arising and discard, as much processing as
possible should be done on the spot. Again, the minimum is surely
sorting materials for collection.
27. Recycling Economics: is surely axiomatic
in achieving good economy that the householder, under the cosh
of the above obligations or as willing volunteer, should pre-sort
the waste as far as possible. This can only be beneficial from
a business perspective. It reduces later sorting costs and obviates
the need for large capital expenditure by the local authority
or contractor.
28. Quality of Material: demand for material
is high generally but the trend is toward higher quality, especially
where the recyclate has high embodied energy. This reflects energy
resources in the Far East but this will also be the result of
any effective global carbon policies in the future.
29. Higher Diversion and Reduction: as we
drive up the waste hierarchy, reduction of packaging waste and
other dry recyclables will depend on the householder making purchasing
and other choices. Nothing will inform or galvanise these choices
as well as that awareness of packaging excesses which comes from
every one us having to sort our own waste weekly and to a high
standard. Thus reduction and minimisation, although at the top
of the hierarchy, are actually most easily accessed and delivered
via practical activity by the householder, a major instance and
opportunity being sorting for kerbside collections.
30. The community sector believes that the
householder should be treated as an intelligent human being, capable
of complex consumer and moral choices. The householder certainly
exercises that level of sophistication of thinking in the supermarket.
Those charged with designing systems should look at how to guide
the householder in their choices, and not try to make the system
idiot-proof, as in some do. Stages further up the hierarchy will
need intelligence on the part of the householder so, if local
authorities intend to go there, and we think they must, they should
cultivate it from the outset.
THOUGHTS ON
INFORMATION AND
EDUCATION OF
THE HOUSEHOLDER
31. As well as being a physical problem
confronting local authorities, waste is also a social construction
characteristic of modern society. Similarly, domestic or municipal
waste exists as a social problem as well as a physical entity,
and it requires social as well as physical, mechanical and economic
solutions. The concept of Zero Waste is one such line of thinking.
Local authority attitude to its public and its perception of the
capability of that public are of paramount importance and should
be the starting point of any programme addressing domestic waste,
and it should go well beyond the leaflet that goes out with the
kerbside box.
32. As mentioned in paragraph 30 above,
we generally hold that the public needs to be treated as intelligent
human beings, capable of relatively complex moral and political
choices, in which they can and should be guided. The public generally
asks that the procedure for recycling their household waste be
made simple. This result is not an unexpected one; no-one wants
their life made more difficult. However, they can and will make
intelligent choices when required to do so.
33. The public wants to recycle. They want
to do the right thing environmentally. For many if not most people,
their household waste stream is the most visible and immediate
manifestation of their personal impact on the environment. Both
consciousness and conscience are at play. Surveys have shown a
high percentage of people would make the effort, given a suitable
facility and infrastructure. Indeed, in local surveys, the willingness
and desire of the public to do this has taken some local authorities
by surprise. Householders have a grasp of the issues and in general
a desire to understand them better.
34. The public should take responsibility
for their waste, but it's neither a corporate or commercial entity,
and therefore not easily subject to behaviour change through economic
instrumentation. Part of the essence of community recycling is
to move that which is beyond the mechanical command of the contractor/partner
or the authority. The moving parts of the machine are management,
the trucks and operatives, and then beyond them the public and
the community. Investments in these latter two, who have so much
more physical power to move and sort than the former, are often
left to afterthought or worse, seen as a liability. However, our
view is that community engagement should start from this very
perspective and DCLG could help local authorities by looking specifically
at this area.
INTEGRATED CONTRACTS
35. We feel that our sector has been left
out in recent procurement rounds by authorities, especially where
these have been bundled together in an `integrated' long term
contract, where even the largest third sector organisations could
not reasonably be expected to compete. `Integrated' contracts
sound like a clever move but in our view are a dim and lazy idea.
Bundling together a number of different skills and disciplines,
not least waste management and recycling, and requiring competence
from the same contractor across the board isn't likely to generate
optimal results.
PROCUREMENT
36. There has been much talk in the past
regarding authorities setting the right conditions to procure
from third sector providers, particularly in their own area. Whilst
this has been encouraging and has been pursued actively by some
DCLG officials, it has not translated in our view into much of
substance. In our view it needs more political will both from
central government and local authorities. DCLG should engage with
the Office of the Third Sector on this. This is an efficiency
issue as much as a political one. Local authorities could make
far better use of the community/social economy sector. It starts
with provision of a vision. We have plenty. Does government?
LOCAL ECONOMY
ISSUES
37. This follows on from the above point.
It's not mentioned with the select committee's brief on this occasion
but since it has oversight of these issues, they are worthy of
mention and of relevance here. Our sector is trying to produce
wealth from the waste stream for the local economy, mostly in
the form of meaningful jobs within more-than-profit, triple-bottom-line
companies which will ensure that the wealth is retained in the
local economy as much as possible, and not simply exported, like
the waste. We set out to plug the "leaky bucket" and
make the rash assumption that the local authority should and will
value this. Local economic development types who understand the
concepts and language around this kind of undertaking certainly
value it, but our experience is that too few local authorities
are joined-up enough to make the connection and see policies through
to implementation.
VARIABLE CHARGING
38. Generally speaking, we are in favour
of variable charging. It is an appropriate manifestation of the
polluter pays principle, which will motivate some individuals
to do the right thing, as mentioned above. We can see how both
weight-based and uplift-based systems might work with source-separated
collections and would urge those authorities to experiment. However,
we are concerned that authorities with commingled collections
will find that less fastidious householders will take advantage
and throw material from the residual bin into the mixed recyclables.
These are generally collected in a wheelie bin, with no real possibility
of quality control by the operative. The extra material, wanted
or not, will go through the MRF. This will very probably mean
even more contaminated outputs, and less value for money for the
authority.
PLASTICS COLLECTIONS
39. Many of our members undertake collections
of plastic bottles. There is no small planning and some expense
involved in adding plastic to the materials list. However, it
is clear that the public very much wants to recycle their plastic.
It has been noted time and again that the effect of adding plastic
increases householder interest in recycling and the efficiency
of collection thereafter increases in cost terms. Study of this
effect is needed.
FOOD WASTE
AND ALTERNATE
WEEKLY COLLECTIONS
40. A few of our members are involved in
kitchen waste collections. After a range of dry recyclables have
been removed, generally including plastic bottles, the next logical
step is to remove food waste. Once that is happening, having removed
around half of the domestic waste by weight, efficiency dictates
a decrease the frequency of the residual waste collections. In
our view, there has been no reduction of service, it is simply
that the format of the service has changed.
MEASUREMENT OF
TONNAGE
41. We favour a fundamental change in measurement
from diverted tonnage by whatever method to simply measuring what
each authority landfills or disposes of by other means and dividing
that by the number of households in the LA area. This would save
on a lot of arguments and confusion. DCLG and Defra should look
at this.
GARDEN WASTE
42. Wheelie bin collections of garden waste
are worth a mention here. It is unclear how many local authorities
are claiming this tonnage as domestic diversion, but it's important
to note that garden waste is generally speaking an additional
arising, occasioned by the offer of collection. Had the offer
not been made, most of the arisings would have stayed in the garden.
The increase in per household arisings as a result averages up
to 180kg/hh (Eunomia 2002).
43. Quite a number of green waste collections
started with Defra grants to the authority, generally to purchase
the wheelie bins. The collections proved popular and the authorities
have felt obliged to continue long after any grant support expired.
It can be readily understood why they are popular, but they shouldn't
count toward diversion. They are very poor use of local authority
money, increase carbon footprint for no good reason and run contrary
to the proximity principle and home composting would have been
the obvious solution.
| 
