Select Committee on Communities and Local Government Committee Written Evidence


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.

    —  Number of containers.

    —  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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 11 October 2007