Memorandum by WRAP (the Waste and Resources
Action Programme) (RC 44)
INTRODUCTION
1. WRAP (the Waste & Resources Action
Programme) is a-not-for profit UK company providing recycling
and resource efficiency programmes for Defra, the Scottish Executive,
the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The organisation
was formed in 2000 to implement a number of the actions set out
in the Government White Paper Waste Strategy 2000.
2. WRAP works in partnership to encourage
and enable businesses and consumers to be more efficient in their
use of materials, and to recycle more things more often. This
helps to divert waste from landfill, reduce carbon emissions and
improve our environment.
3. WRAP operates at the top end of the waste
hierarchy, which gives priority to reducing waste at source, reusing
products and recycling materials. We have published research demonstrating
the environmental advantages of recycling over alternative disposal
based options.[34]
This research showed that the UK's recycling efforts in 2005-06
saved between 10 and 15 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent greenhouse
gases, compared with landfilling or incinerating the same materials.
This equated to taking 3.5 million cars off UK roads.
4. One of our main programme activities
is focused on supporting local authorities in the choices they
make about their waste collection and recycling systems in order
to promote waste prevention, secure diversion of waste from landfill
and achieve high levels of recycling efficiently. The programme
is funded by Defra. As well as providing direct support to local
authorities it develops and facilitates the exchange of good practice
amongst local authorities. We welcome the opportunity to contribute
to this enquiry, therefore.
BACKGROUND
5. It is easy to underestimate the scale
of the change which local authorities have faced since "Waste
Strategy 2000" set a course towards much higher recycling
levels from the very low base which existed at that time. Previously
waste systems were comparatively simple: householders put all
of their waste into a single receptacle, waste collection authorities
arranged to collect them using large compacting vehicles and transferred
the waste, typically to a landfill site or incinerator provided
through the waste disposal authority. All of this was supported
by a waste disposal industry geared up to handle bulk wastes efficiently
and regulated by the Environment Agency to control the direct
environmental impacts associated with this style of working.
6. By contrast recycling led collections
are significantly more complex to organise. They involve systems
to separate waste streams with the co-operation of the public,
acquisition of new collection infrastructure, more complex system
planning, and the identification and negotiation of contracts
for multiple outlets for the collected recyclable materials as
well as a more diverse provision for the residual wastes . These
changes pose challenges for local waste authorities under 6 main
headings:
— Communication—householders
have to understand the new systems in order to operate them. This
task is compounded when collection systems vary widely between
authorities.
— Skills—unsurprisingly, the
number of local authority waste officers with practical experience
of running recycling services was initially very limited, as was
the availability of relevant evidence of good practice for local
authority officers to draw on. There remains an absolute shortage
of experienced officers to manage the more complex systems. Training
for operatives, including in Health and Safety issues, needs to
change.
— Infrastructure—providing householders
with the appropriate mix of residual waste and recycling containers
and appropriate vehicles to service them was an early priority,
supported in some areas with Defra funding. Many local authorities
have had to adapt existing infrastructure to a new role and that
explains, in part, some of the local variations in service design.
— Information—not all authorities
have systematic information about the make up of their waste arisings
or about the propensity of different households to respond to
invitations to participate in recycling schemes This make the
design and planning of new schemes difficult and authorities may
not have the resources or the skills to monitor participation
and set out rates.
— Incentives—local authorities
have very clear incentives to make the necessary changes in the
form of statutory recycling targets, and mandatory Landfill Allowances.
The incentives for householders to play their part are more muted.
These are mainly exhortation and latterly changes in collection
systems which have the effect of limiting residual waste capacity
as recycling collections are rolled out.
— Collaboration—waste collection
has the unusual characteristic of being just about the only local
service provided to everyone in a local area. For this reason
there is a strong tradition of maintaining local control over
how the service is delivered. The demands of managing more complex
recycling services with limited funding, however, may be met more
effectively by sharing facilities and skills at county, regional
or national level, as is being recognised by a growing number
of authorities.
7. A great deal of progress has been made
since 2000. Nationally support from consumers for recycling has
increased significantly in all social groups. The leading local
authorities are reporting recycling rates well in excess of 40%
and the national recycling rate has reached 27%. The level of
skill and innovation by those leading authorities -as demonstrated
in the recent Beacon Council round- is increasing strongly. Nevertheless,
despite this progress there remains a great deal of work to be
done before the UK has recycling services meeting the best developed
country standards and having the full support of householders.
PRINCIPLES
8. It is our view that, for reasons discussed
below, there is no single "right" approach to organising
waste and recycling collections but in designing those systems
there are some central principles which local authorities should
take into account. These are directed at developing systems which
are effective in attracting participation by householders from
a base which builds on their positive engagement with recycling,
relegates the use of sanctions for non-compliance to a last resort
and delivers high quality recyclate of a standard which could
be used by UK reprocessors.
9. In our view these core principles are:
High Quality Customer Services. Delivered through:
— Simplicity—schemes should be
designed so that householders can use them easily without mastering
overly complex rules.
— Reliability—services should
be carried out on advertised days and changes to routine should
be minimised.
— Adequacy—the system must be
capable of providing the intended level of service.
— Flexibility—schemes should
recognise genuine differences in household circumstances and not
force "one size fits all" solutions.
— Effective communication—householders
need clear and repeated advice on how to use the scheme and how
to make use of flexible service options.
— Consent first, compulsion last—successful
recycling systems should maximise the positive engagement with
householders and reserve sanctions for those who despite a flexible
approach and effective communications are simply unwilling to
do what is required.
Efficient Services. Public confidence in
recycling is supported where collection systems are believed to
be efficient and costs are controlled. Delivered through:
— Good design—the chosen system
components should be appropriate to the area served—high
rise flats will need different provision to suburban housing.
— Benchmarking—as services are
developed, authorities need to systematically compare service
features and costs in order to optimise service delivery.
— Sharing skills and facilities—communications
campaigns, depots, transfer stations, sorting contracts can all
be provided more efficiently where neighbouring authorities are
able to share costs.
— Health and safety—the new services
bring new health and safety risks which must be assessed and managed.
High Quality Materials. The quality of
collected recyclate will affect both its marketability and value.
Public confidence in recycling is enhanced when there is confidence
that materials are being reused in a positive way. High quality
materials can be delivered through:
— Well structured contracts with reprocessors
and Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs). Poor contracting may
give short term benefit to authorities but create an over dependence
on export markets for recyclate which does not meet the standard
required by UK reprocessors.
— Effective communication—the
active engagement of householders will reduce the contamination
of collected materials and increase participation.
— Good scheme design—the mix
of materials collected and the method of collection will affect
the quality of the resulting recyclate. At present kerbside sort
methods are most likely to provide the best quality recyclate.
Producing high quality recyclate from co-mingled collections requires
local authorities consider the quality of the MRF services they
buy into and manage collection services to reduce contamination.
COLLECTION METHODS
10. Decisions about recycling and waste
collection services are made by the local authorities responsible
for providing those services. Decisions are made taking account
of local characteristics including geography, property types,
population profile and existing waste collection infrastructure.
The latter, in particular has been a key factor in influencing
how recycling services have evolved.
11. Local authorities tend to provide either
wheeled bins or plastic sacks for residual refuse collection which
may be either weekly, or fortnightly alternating with recycling
collections. Recycling collections are more variable, variants
include:
— Type and size of container—wheeled
bin, box or sack.
— Range of materials collected.
— Frequency of collection—weekly,
fortnightly, sometimes even monthly.
— Where the sorting of materials occur—at
the kerbside into different compartments of a vehicle ("kerbside
sort") or at a sorting facility—MRF.
12. Many local authorities also choose to
provide collection services for biowastes (garden and food wastes).
Again approaches vary—some authorities provide garden waste
collections which may be free or charged for. Some provide mixed
garden and food waste collections, and a small but growing number
provide separate food waste collections.
13. Given the large number of variables,
there are many permutations of scheme design and combinations
of collection services. Most are being operated by some authorities
and as a result there is considerable variation in the quality
and level of service provision across the country. In general,
however, there is a lack of good quality information about what
recycling systems are most effective and in which local authority
contexts. WRAP is undertaking work to develop an evidence base
on the costs and performance of different recycling collections
schemes in different local authority areas as a basis for future
benchmarking of costs and service standards.
14. Whatever the particular variant, one
common aspect of many collection systems is the alternating of
residual refuse collections with recycling and or biowaste collections
(AWC). This system is used by around 40% of local authorities,
typically, but not exclusively authorities with relatively low
population densities. Where these systems are chosen by local
authorities that tends to be for two reasons: the overall constraint
on the capacity for residual waste is an incentive for householders
to separate recyclable material into the recycling collection.
The lower cost of the residual waste service frees resources to
fund investment in recycling services. Where such schemes are
introduced, the evidence indicates that they do result in higher
recycling rates. Typically the introduction of such systems are
controversial on introduction but where they are well designed
and executed, satisfaction surveys conducted by local authorities,
show majority support of residents and that people do find the
service convenient. Well designed and executed schemes should
demonstrate certain common features:
— When proposing changes in services,
local authorities should consult with residents and communicate
any service changes well.
— Residents should be provided with
a high quality recycling service. They must be able to recycle
at least half of their waste materials in order to compensate
for the reduction in residual waste capacity. They will need recycling
containers of sufficient size to take account of different needs
and circumstances. This may require some flexibility on the part
of the local authority.
— Introduction of any changes should
be properly supported with additional resources in order to be
able to provide those residents who require it with additional
support to help them adapt to the new services and to provide
feedback both to residents and to council officers and members.
— The design of the scheme should address
known public concerns about the new systems. So, storage of refuse
should be in secure, rigid containers to respond to concerns about
the increased risk of odour, flies and other nuisances as a result
of storing waste for up to two weeks. Householders will need simple
practical advice on wrapping and bagging waste to reduce these
risks. Research conducted on behalf of Defra indicated that provided
these simple measures to manage waste are followed, there is no
risk to public health from AWC systems.
15. Food waste. Where there is concern about
AWC systems it commonly centres on concern about the reduced frequency
of collection of food waste. Together with the pressing need to
divert biodegradable waste from landfill, this has led some authorities,
including some with support from WRAP, to trial systems for the
separate weekly collection of food waste. On the basis of research
conducted by WRAP, into approaches to collecting household bio-wastes
(garden and food waste) WRAP now suggests that separate collection
of food waste on a weekly basis should be seen as a preferred
option on environmental grounds for most local authorities. The
evidence indicates that higher capture rates of food waste are
achieved where food waste is collected weekly and refuse is collected
fortnightly. The introduction of a weekly food waste collection
service alongside an alternate week collection of refuse may be
a preferable option for authorities considering changing their
collection arrangements. Further authorities should normally:
— Avoid mixing food waste with garden
waste collections. All the waste collected in such schemes will
have to be treated by enclosed or in-vessel composting due to
the requirements of the Animal By Products Regulations. Typically
mixed collections attract a small proportion of available food
waste meaning that higher treatment costs must be paid for the
much larger garden waste fraction compared with the cost of windrow
composting.
— Provide containers to make the separation
of food waste easy for residents and to encourage them to take
part in the service.
— On cost grounds, take measures to
restrain the set-out of garden waste where kerbside collections
are provided. There is evidence that where free kerbside garden
waste collection schemes have been introduced that they have attracted
additional waste into the collection system which is expensive
to collect and process. However, such schemes are often popular
with residents and so long as the cost implications are recognised
and acceptable locally, there is no overwhelming environmental
reason for not providing such services.
16. WRAP is continuing with its work into
the best ways of collecting food waste and with funding from Defra
is supporting 17 local authority partners conduct food waste collection
trials during 2007-08.
17. In addition, WRAP is currently investigating
in more detail the infrastructure capacities across the three
collection elements (refuse, recyclables, organics) to explore
the relationship with overall arisings entering the waste collection
system. This work is being undertaken on behalf of Defra and is
due to report in early summer.
INFORMATION PROGRAMMES
18. Since autumn 2004 WRAP has promoted
the national Recycle Now campaign.In order to drive action at
national and local levels and encourage people to recycle. The
campaign comprises an integrated mix of TV advertising, newspaper
and radio advertising, website support including a suite of materials
that can be downloaded and used by local authorities, schools
activities and a broad based PR campaign.
19. The initial target attached to this
campaign was to generate a minimum increase of 10% in the public
perception of recycling as a "must or should do" activity.
For measurement purposes this was translated into a clear definition
of a "committed recycler", based on a selection of attitudinal
measures that were found to work effectively in the monitoring
of waste awareness campaigns in the past. Committed recyclers
are defined as those people:
— Who regard recycling as a "very/fairly
important".
— Who will recycle "even if it
requires additional effort".
— Who recycle "a lot or everything
they can".
20. A baseline measure for "committed
recyclers" was established prior to the start of the campaign
in August 2004 by way of a National Opinion Poll (NOP) tracker
survey. This established that 45% of the English population (18
years +) could be considered `committed recyclers'. Detailed and
consistent tracking surveys have been conducted on a regular basis
and by the end of 2006 the committed recycler measure had increased
to 63%. Other key outcomes are:
— The tracking survey shows 63% awareness
of the Recycle Now brand
— Eight out of 10 English local authorities
are using the brand resources downloaded from the website—representing
a considerable efficiency gain compared to the costs of funding
a large number of free standing campaigns.
— Many other partners are also now
using the brand, including leading retailers—eg on packaging,
on products made from recycled materials, on carrier bags and
on buildings.
21. In addition to the national campaign,
WRAP manages the Behaviour Change Local Fund (BCLF) which provides
funding to local authorities to support local communications campaigns.
The combination of awareness raising at a national level and linked
local communications about the services in their area has been
a powerful combination in driving up participation in recycling.
The importance of good and regular communications to householders
both reminding them of the services available and congratulating
them on what has been achieved should not be under-estimated and
local authorities should be encourage to allocate sufficient resources
for these activities.
22. Whilst measurable success can be attributed
to information campaigns concerning recycling, communications
and information campaigns around waste reduction and reuse are
much less well developed. WRAP is currently investigating the
extent to which the iconography of the Recycle Now campaign could
be extended to campaigns on waste reduction and product re-use.
Initial research suggests that knowledge (amongst the general
public in England) of the waste hierarchy ("reduce",
"reuse","recycle", "recover" and
"dispose") is low and caution is called for in using
the recycle now brand in different contexts.
23. There is some experience within local
authorities of promoting single issue waste minimisation campaigns
eg reducing direct ("junk") mail, but in many cases
the impact of these initiatives have not been measured. WRAP would
encourage local authorities to look at the make up of their household
waste and plan to tackle the large elements first. Of the total
household waste stream of over 28M tonnes around 30% comprises
garden and food waste. A further 5 M Tonnes is packaging waste
and 0.5M tonnes are disposable nappies. These are areas where
WRAP has undertaken work.
24. Home Composting. Since 2003 WRAP has
distributed 1.4 million subsidised home composting bins in England
and Scotland and provided support to new composters in how to
use them. Research undertaken by WRAP has shown that each new
composter recruited will divert on average 220kg of biodegradable
waste from landfill each year. WRAP works in partnership with
120—mainly waste disposal—authorities and offers significant
efficiency gains to those authorities by economies of scale in
the purchase of composting bins, production of marketing materials
and shared overheads.
25. Food Waste Reduction. Research by WRAP
has shown that around a third of all the food bought in the UK
is not eaten but is disposed of for a variety of reasons. This
poses a significant challenge to the waste management systems
and Landfill Directive targets. It is also a significant climate
change issue with the embodied carbon in the edible part of wasted
food being estimated as equivalent to taking one in five cars
off the road. WRAP is preparing a campaign for launch in the autumn
to raise awareness of food waste and of simple measures which
could be taken to reduce it. It is also working with major retailers
to identify actions, including packaging innovation, which could
reduce food wastage.
26. Packaging minimisation. Packaging from
groceries alone is estimated at 5M Tonnes a year. Much of that
packaging of course performs a necessary function but there are
significant opportunities to reduce the total weight of packaging
sent for disposal by a mixture of reduced material content and
closed loop recycling. To this end WRAP has sponsored the Courtauld
Commitment, a voluntary agreement involving more than 90% by market
share of the UK market and many of their leading suppliers with
the objective of halting the growth in packaging waste by 2008
and establishing an absolute reduction by 2010. Following the
Commitment a number of the leading retailers have now announced
specific reduction targets of up to 25% in their packaging.
27. Real Nappies. Some 500 K Tonnes of disposable
nappies a year are sent to landfill. Although they are not as
significant in total as some other components of the waste stream,
nappies do pose problems for collection systems because they are
concentrated in households with young children where they can
take up a large proportion of the space in the residual waste
bin. For that reason many councils choose to make additional provision
available to families with children in nappies. Modern real—washable—nappies
are an alternative to disposables which lessen waste problems
and a number of local authorities take the view that it is economic
to offer significant subsidies to parents who are prepared to
use them. Schemes of this sort and promotion of modern reusable
nappy options by the Real Nappy Campaign run by WRAP did succeed
in avoiding some 26,000 tonnes of waste nappies during the two
years to April 2006. WRAP is in the process of transferring the
Campaign to a new company with a broader membership of key stakeholders.
JOINT WORKING
28. The issue of joint working between local
authorities, and in particular between waste disposal authorities
(WDAs) and the waste collection authorities (WCAs) in their geographical
area (in two-tier areas of England), is an important one in this
context. Most of the work in this area has been developed by Defra
and DCLG,[35]
including the announcement on 22 January of proposals to introduce
powers (in the Local Government Bill) allowing the creation of
joint waste authorities.[36]
29. The Regional Centres of Excellence,[37]
established by ODPM/DCLG in 2003, have also produced relevant
guidance and case studies, illustrating successful examples of
joint working.
30. In broad terms, WRAP has not undertaken
any projects specifically looking at the impact of joint working.
However, some of our work with local authorities is relevant to
a discussion of the benefits of joint working. Two programmes
in particular—the local element of the Recycle Now awareness
campaign, and the home composting programme—have demonstrated
the economies of scale that can be realised through the central
provision of resources which large numbers of local authorities
can draw upon.
31. There are also team working benefits
to be obtained from joint working. A consortium of local authorities
should be able to apply more resources to the waste agenda than
each individual authority working on its own. Also, co-operation
between authorities can help to address skills gaps in individual
teams. This can be particularly helpful in smaller authorities
where it may be difficult to resource a full team directly. WRAP
is increasingly being asked to advise groups of authorities interested
in exploring common approaches to service delivery.
32. However, if joint working is to deliver
efficiency savings, authorities must be prepared to give up some
of their autonomy. For example, if a consortium of authorities
procures identical bins, there are likely to be cost savings due
to the economies of scale. However, if each authority reserves
the right to specify the type, size and colour of the bins used
in their area, these savings are unlikely to materialise in practice.
33. In two tier areas in England it is particularly
important for a holistic view of the waste treatment system to
be taken. If WCAs and WDAs make decisions in isolation, based
solely on the practicalities and economics of local waste collection
and disposal options respectively, it is less likely that this
will lead to an efficient system overall than if they make decisions
based on the whole system.
INFRASTRUCTURE DECISIONS
34. The need to consider collection and
treatment/disposal holistically becomes more critical when considering
the contracting of services. A collection system ill-matched to
treatment or disposal facilities (and vice versa) is unlikely
to deliver economies or efficient operations. Issues of efficiency
should be at the heart of all contract structures. However, these
need to recognise that collection contracts operate on much shorter
timescales of 5-10 years (seven years being the typical lifespan
of a collection vehicle); whilst treatment infrastructure requires
a pay back period of 12-18 years, or longer for highly capital
intensive plant (such as energy from waste facilities).
35. This mismatch in timescales needs to
be addressed well in advance of the procurement process. It requires
appropriate sizing of treatment facilities taking account of the
factors likely to influence future waste arisings and the quantity
of residual waste requiring treatment/disposal, and flexibility
in contract terms. This has been hampered in some of the highly
integrated PFI contracts and by their exclusive focus on municipal
waste.
36. WRAP therefore welcomes the recent changes
to the PFI criteria to include consideration of commercial wastes
and to re-focus the award of PFI credits to contracts for residual
waste treatment facilities (as opposed to more integrated contracts
that also provide for collection/recycling infrastructure). This
greatly increases the potential for flexibility within contract
structures and for waste management services to be delivered through
multiple contracts. This flexibility should help overcome a common
criticism of long term contracts, particularly where they over
specified the total capacity required for treatment/disposal facilities
and secured funding against future guarantees of gate fees for
the municipal waste stream. Those sorts of agreements undermined
longer term waste reduction and recycling activities.
37. More flexible infrastructure contracts
should mean that facilities are developed not only for municipal
waste but all wastes generated in a local authority area, as is
common practice in much of Europe. Progress with household waste
reduction and recycling activities would not be constrained and
would free up capacity within a treatment facility for non-municipal
wastes. The more holistic management of municipal and commercial
wastes was proposed in consultations on the forthcoming Waste
Strategy, driven in part by the increased landfill tax escalator
announced in the recent Budget, and as required by planning guidance,
PPS 10.
FINANCING
38. The Lyons Review makes a case for local
authorities to have a power to charge separately for waste collection
services. Evidence from Europe and elsewhere supports the theoretical
proposition that direct charging for residual waste collection
can increase separation of waste for recycling and reduce total
waste arisings. In the general context of the government's approach
to Local Government and the freedoms and flexibilities agenda,
WRAP supports the principle of authorities having the ability
to choose to introduce charging for residual waste collections.
39. However, it will be essential for any
charging schemes to be well designed and implemented and, before
individual authorities take the decision to introduce charging,
it will be important for them to consider overseas experience
and how far that experience can translate directly into a UK context.
In principle, direct charging could support both weekly and alternate
weekly collections of residual waste. It will be essential, however,
for any authority planning to introduce direct charging for residual
waste collections to consult and communicate widely with their
residents and to retain public confidence in recycling by offering
good quality recycling services, as defined above, so that residents
have a genuine alternative to paying the direct charge.
40. Although WRAP has not so far done any
direct work on charging schemes, it does seem that it will also
be essential to show that the practical arrangements for determining
charges, issuing bills and controlling administrative costs have
been carefully thought through. Any schemes would need to anticipate
the handling of difficult cases: what allowance should be made
for large families, families with children in nappies or individuals
with special needs? Would any element of cross subsidy for special
need groups be allowed?
41. Much public discussion of the variable
charging option has focused on weight based charging, but it is
worth noting that many continental schemes are effectively volume
based. Householders pay different amounts according to the size
or number of residual waste bins they use or they buy official
sacks and choose how many to use each week. Such schemes are potentially
easier to operate than weight based ones which would require regular
weighing and detailed record keeping for individual households.
They also offer simple accounting and charging arrangements which
help to keep down the overhead costs of schemes.
42. Experience from other public utilities
is that issuing bills to householders based on individual usage
and enforcing payment can be both expensive and contentious. In
the context of a direct weight based charge for waste collection,
strategies which restrict the amount of billing and collection
would seem most likely to be attractive. For example, a scheme
which offered a rebate from the following year's Council Tax bill
to reflect reduced residual waste might be both simple and welcome
to householders.
43. Local authorities do already charge
for a significant number of services but none of them are "universal"
services like waste collection. This will raise new questions,
which should not be underestimated, and it is likely that local
authorities would proceed cautiously in devising and implementing
any charging arrangements. It would be in local authorities' interest
for there to be collaboration between authorities to consider
practical problems and solutions before introducing any schemes
and for there to be initially a limited number of schemes which
are properly monitored and evaluated. WRAP would be happy to support
local authorities in this process.
44. Trade Waste. WRAP is currently managing
some 40 trials of trade waste/recycling services for SME's, the
experience from these suggests that the services available for
recycling for SME's, the structure of charges and the level of
motivation are all very different. In our judgement it is very
hard to draw conclusions from this experience which would be applicable
to the question of charging for residual domestic waste collections.
Our work does identify a number of significant opportunities to
expand and improve recycling services in this sector and it suggests
that SME's will be prepare to pay a reasonable fee for a good
quality recycling service.
OTHER ISSUES
45. The range of materials collected by
local authorities for recycling is very variable but is tending
to converge around a broadly standard set at the kerb side. Typically
these include paper, cardboard, metal cans, plastic bottles. Glass
is collected at both kerbside and at bottle banks. Authorities
are even more variable in what is collected at Household Waste
Recycling Centres or Civic Amenity sites. Consumers find this
variation confusing. They are also confused by the detailed rules
applying to different materials—sometimes envelopes are
accepted—but not window envelopes or some plastics polymers
may be accepted but not others.
46. This variability in collected materials
is of concern too, to the retailers who would like to be able
to include guidance on recycling on their packaging and who would
like a wider range of packaging materials to be accepted as recyclable.
There is more to recyclability than collection systems. It is
necessary to have facilities capable of sorting more recyclable
materials, reprocessors able to make use of the materials and
a sustainable market for them to be used in products for which
there is a demand. This market development activity is a core
activity for WRAP. This means that one issue for local waste collection
systems in the future will be the expansion of and convergence
in the numbers of materials collected for recycling. This move
will in turn impact on the types of collection system used and
the infrastructure required to service it.
CONCLUSION
47. Local waste collection systems have
developed rapidly in the last six years but systems remain in
transition with some authorities much further advanced than others.
Further development of systems will be required if the Government's
targets for future recycling rates are to be achieved.
48. Future developments of systems should
take account of the principles proposed in this paper, especially
the principle of providing high quality services to householders
and of proper consultation and communication on proposed changes
to collection systems. For environmental and customer satisfaction
reasons, particular attention should be given to developing separate
weekly collections of food waste.
49. Local authorities should continue to
be free to choose the collection system which best meets the needs
of their local areas but in doing so should recognise the degree
of public concern about the detailed variation in services provided
in adjacent local authority areas. For this reason and the others
identified above a greater degree of collaboration and sharing
of services between authorities should be encouraged.
50. Should the Government legislate to give
local authorities the power of variable charging for residual
waste, any decision to implement a scheme should be taken by individual
authorities and be carefully considered and initially tested in
a limited number of areas.
51. WRAP intends to continue its role of
identifying and disseminating good practice in all aspects of
local recycling collections and providing specific and targeted
advice to individual local authorities on request.
34 Environmental benefits of recycling: an international
review of life cycle comparisons for key materials in the UK recycling
sector, WRAP, May 2006. Available for download from: www.wrap.org.uk/wrap-corporate/about-wrap/environmental.html. Back
35
Background information can be found at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/localauth/partnerwork. Back
36
See www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/localauth/partnerwork/jwa.htm. Back
37
See www.rcoe.gov.uk Back
| 
