Dr. Adam Read – Director Waste Management & Resource Efficiency, AEA Presentation at Zero Waste Summit 2012, 22nd October 2012 Hilton on the Park, Melbourne

1. Delivering high diversion municipal recycling in
the UK – lessons from a 25 year journey
Dr. Adam Read – Director
Waste Management & Resource Efficiency, AEA
Zero Waste Summit 2012
A world leading
22nd October 2012 energy and climate
Hilton on the Park, Melbourne change consultancy 1

2. Presentation scope in 40 minutes
+ Personal welcome
+ Legislative drivers
+ Public engagement
+ Alternate Weekly Collections
+ Commingling & Source Segregation
+ Quality concerns
+ Key materials and changing priorities
+ Efficiency reviews and value for money
+ Political debates and public demands
+ So what about the Australian situation?
2

3. A personal welcome
3

4. My sponsor - www.aeat.co.uk
4

5. UK Governance
5

6. UK Governance
+ UK is responsible for reporting to EU
on policy progress
+ National Administrations set policy
and monitor performance
- England
- Scotland
- Wales
- Northern Ireland
+ Local Government set strategy, deliver
services and respond to local
‘demands’
- Funded by UK taxation
- Funded by local Council Tax
6
- Elected ‘members’

7. Implementation … nationally …
+ Waste Strategy for England 2007
- Waste Review 2011 (some minor revisions in priorities)
+ Scotland Zero Waste Plan 2010
+ Wales Towards Zero Waste strategy 2010
+ Northern Ireland Waste Strategy 2006 (now under review)
7

8. Recycling Targets (legislated)
Year England Scotland Wales
2013 Recycling, preparation Municipal waste
for reuse or composting recycling and
of LA waste collected composting 52%
from households: 50%
2015 Recycle or compost at 58%
least 45%
recover value from 67%
of household waste
2020 Recycle or compost at 60% 64%
least 50%
recover value from 75% of
household waste
2025 70% No more than 5% of 70%
all waste to go to landfill 8

9. Government support on collections
England • Help local communities develop fit for purpose local solutions for
collecting and dealing with household waste and work with
councils to meet households’ reasonable expectations for weekly
collections, particularly of smelly waste
Scotland • Separate collections of specific waste types, including food, to
avoid contaminating other materials, increasing reuse and
recycling opportunities and contributing to renewable energy
targets
Wales • 80% of the target for municipal waste recycling must be through
source separated collections - as opposed to the sorting of mixed
waste
9

10. Basics of UK local government
+ 353 Councils in England:
- 27 Counties = waste disposal
only
- 6 joint waste disposal
authorities in London,
Manchester, Liverpool
- 90 Unitary Authorities =waste
collection and disposal
- 236 District / Borough Councils =
waste collection only
+ 22 Councils in Wales (unitary)
+ 32 Councils in Scotland (unitary)
+ 26 in Northern Ireland (unitary) 10

11. UK Headline Figures
+ 26 M tpa of MSW (mostly from HHs)
+ £3.4 billion spent by UK Councils in 2010/11
- Third biggest service spend for local government
- Approximately £1.20 - £1.30 per week (£60 per year)
+ Rubbish collection
- The service with highest level of householder awareness!!
- Any change is a public / political / media ‘banana skin’!
+ Success story!
- 7.5% recycled, composted or reused in 1996/7
- This had risen to 42% 2010/11 and is still improving ….
+ Increasing privatisation
- Waste collection services = 55% in-house
- Waste disposal service 100% external 11

12. The UK recycling revolution
12

13. 20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
10%
0%
1991/…
1993/…
1995/…
Actual
1997/…
1999/…
2001/…
Estimated
2003/…
MSW Recycling rate progress …
2005/…
2007/…
2009/…
2011/…
2013/…
13

14. In the beginning … Landfill!
+ UK aggregates mining meant disposal to land was a realistic and
affordable option… only £15 / tonne until early 1990s!
14

15. And mass burn incinerators ….
+ In the days before pollution control …. pre 1990 EPA
15

16. Recycling arrived in the 1980s …
+ Concerns about oil prices and landfill void, coupled with growing
public interest….
16

17. London’s first recycling officer (1982)
17

18. Source segregation for target materials
+ Evolution of the ‘rag and bone man’
- main targets = paper and glass, textiles etc.
- some LAs looked @ multi-material capture in late 1980s
18

19. Return of the incinerators …
+ Closures in 1990s to meet stringent EU emissions controls….
+ Birth of new facilities as alternative to landfill …..
19

20. Recycling targets take hold ….
+ 1995 UK Government introduced a 25% recycling target for HH
waste (50% of the recyclable content)
- Acted as a spur for more innovation in collection schemes, bank siting etc.
- Part of UK Government’s ‘Making Waste Work’ Strategy
20

21. Public engagement
21

22. Increasing media attention
22

23. 23

24. Most of the people, most of the time…..
%
Good Excellent Max.
+ Recyclable % waste = 70 75 85
+ % of households served = 80 90 99
+ % of those participating = 80 95 99
+ % effectiveness = 95 95 99
+ Waste collected for recycling = 37% 61% 82%
24

25. Communication Campaign
Phase 1
Set Up Phase 2
Phase 3
Raising
Brand Setting the scene
awareness Guidance
Content Telling residents
that the new How to use the
Copy what’s arriving
scheme is on service
Design and when
its way
25

26. Increasing performance
26

27. 27

28. Recycle for London… campaigning …
28

29. 29

30. Reaching target communities
30

31. Spend now to save later….
+ Investment in good communications should not be under-
estimated
+ Critical in supporting the roll-out of new services designed to
save money
- AWC
- Food waste collections
+ Crucial in improving service efficiency
- Material quality
- Capture rates
+ Will underpin home composting and waste prevention
initiatives…
31

32. 32

33. Door-to-Door Advisors
33

34. 34

35. Campaign impacts
+ Participation increase…
- 50% on some Daventry Estates
- 49% increase in Basildon
- 30% increase in Maldon
- 10% increase across Devon County
+ Tonnage increase….
- 21% increase in Devon
- 100% in Braintree
- 19% increase in Kensington
+ Increase number of calls / visits to
website
+ More complaints
+ 5% increase in contamination 35

36. Communications cost …
+ £2 per HH is the accepted
‘norm’
+ Need to invest upfront to help
in-bed new schemes
+ Consultation over scheme
design can help avoid ‘failure’
but this takes time and effort!
+ If you have contamination
problems then talk to your
residents!!!
+ Don’t think you can save
money by dropping comms ...
YOU CAN’T! 36

37. Doing more with less ….
37

38. LA Recycling Top 16 - 1995
+ Government set an aspirational 25% target for the year 2000
Adur
Castle…
North Devon
East Devon
Torridge
Bath
Tandridge
Northampton
Milton Keynes
West Somerset
Chiltern
Mid Devon
Surrey Heath
New Forest
South Bucks
Teignbridge
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
38

39. Trends in the mid 1990s?
+ Recycling rates increased as more Councils invested in kerbside
collections
+ Initially a surge in source separated materials
- Paper
- Cans
+ Glass was encouraged to go to local ‘bring banks’
+ Some Authorities learnt lessons quickly
- A role for MRFs?
- Including glass in commingled recyclables
- Garden waste collections (charged)
39

40. But recycling in the late 1990s …
+ Was expensive…..
- Landfill was still under %£50 per tonne
- Some recycling collections were costing over £100 per tonne
+ Needed to develop more ‘efficiency’
+ Needed to get more recyclate out of the waste stream
+ Needed to reduce the residual waste collection service
- and reduce costs
+ AWC came to the fore ….
40

41. The rise of AWC
41

42. Higher recycling…how was this achieved?
+ Restriction of residual waste capacity through use of wheeled
bins (with enforced policies) or collection of limited number of
sacks
- Makes use of recycling boxes more likely (90% participation)
+ Enhancement of recycling services
- Increased dry materials; Introduction of food and / or garden waste
collections
+ Savings made by reducing refuse collection
- Reinvested into recycling services
+ Impacts
- Daventry District Council – increase in tonnage collected through ‘red &
blue box scheme’ of 45%
- Somerset Waste Partnership – increase in tonnage collected through dry
recycling service of 50% 42

43. Not always popular ….
43

44. Making AWC a success …
+ For any AWC system to succeed it
requires
- the backing of the elected council members
- an effective communication and education
campaign
- and the collection of additional recyclables
materials (such as garden waste)
+ To assist local authorities in their
decision making WRAP have published
guidance on implementing AWC
- offers step by step information on
introducing AWC and includes criteria for the
local authority to help them decide whether
AWC is the right option for them
44

45. Early communication is critical
45

46. AWC yields more recyclables!
46

47. AWC makes sense ….
+ Cost of collection to 1 Council (a recent client)
+ Switching saves money, allowing investment in other services
(food waste for example?)
Baseline AWC
Annual cost of service £1,786,020 £1,447,453
Cost per tonne (average) £59 £46
% saving in switching -19%
(materials remain same)
47

48. LA Recycling Top 20 - 2000
Daventry
Eastleigh
Preston
Forest Heath&
Lichfield
Chiltern
Melton
St Edmundsbury
New Forest
Mid Sussex
Tandridge
Surrey Heath
Adur
South Hams
Fareham
Test Valley
Reigate & Banstead
South Bucks&
Stockport
Richmond-upon-Thames
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
48

49. Commingled collections
+ Popular means of collecting recyclables …. Cheaper for collection
authorities to implement …… sorting costs come downstream …
49

50. The commingled explosion in England!
Thousand tonnes
5000
4500
4000 Co-mingled
3500 Not co-mingled
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
50

51. The benefits of commingled …
+ Allow more materials to be collected @ the kerb
- Glass
- Plastics
+ Speed of collection enhanced, so great collection efficiencies
+ Easier for the public to use
- Improves participation
- Improves effectives
- Contamination issues can be ‘sorted’ at the MRF
51

52. MRFs
+ Taking the pressure off the public …. And maximising efficiency!
52

53. Landfill comes under threat ….
53

54. Landfill Tax
+ The landfill tax first came into effect on October 1st 1996
+ The initial rate was £7 per tonne for normal ("active") waste, and
£2 per tonne for inert waste
+ Since 1999, the active waste tax has been increasing annually
(the so-called landfill tax "escalator")
- intention is add transparency (and cost!) to the future price of landfilling
waste, so that alternative options become economically favourable
- current rate of increase is £8 per tonne per year
- certainty has encouraged ‘changed behaviour’
+ Since April 2011, the tax on landfilling active waste has been £56
per tonne = major impact on decision-makers!
- set to continue to increase to £80 per tonne in 2014/15
54

55. UK Landfill Tax Escalator
£90
£80 When the Average
‘cost’ Landfill
£70
started to Gate Fee =
£60 bite! £50/t
£50
£40 Standard
Inert
£30 Average
Landfill
£20 Gate Fee =
£20/t
£10
£0
01.10.96
01.04.97
01.04.98
01.04.99
01.04.00
01.04.01
01.04.03
01.04.04
01.04.05
01.04.06
01.04.07
01.04.08
01.04.09
01.04.10
01.04.11
01.04.12
01.04.13
01.04.14
01.04.02
55

56. Landfill Directive – everything changed!
+ Scaling back of organic material to landfills compared to 1995 …
56

57. The EU Landfill Directive
+ EU Landfill Directive – address landfill’s environmental impacts
- BMW reductions required to mitigate fugitive CH4 emissions
- Pre-treatment of landfilled materials
- Landfill waste acceptance criteria (WACs)
- Landfill design, operation, completion and closure requirements
+ BMW Landfill targets for the UK
- 75% of 1995 level by 2010
- 50% of 1995 level by 2013
- 35% of 1995 level by 2020
BMW landfill allowance - England
Base year 1995 2010 2013 2020
15,640,000 t 11,200,000 t 7,450,000 t 5,220,000 t
57

58. The result …..
+ Increasing attention in food waste
collections
+ Greater emphasis on organic material
capture @ the kerbside
- Paper
- Cardboard
- Textiles
+ Need for more processing capacity to cope
with new feed stocks
+ Need to get the message across to ‘people’
about food waste segregation
- and prevention!
58

59. The UK waste sector responds ….
+ Diverted over 9 M tonnes of MSW from landfill since 2000
+ Capture organics for treatment
- Around 110 authorities now provide a food waste collection service
- Serving ~22% of English households
+ Capture recyclables to meet recycling targets
- Increased recycling from 11.2% to 42%
- Collected an additional 6.5M tonnes of materials
- 173 authorities now collect 5 or more dry recyclables at kerbside
+ Prevent waste if possible
- Average waste per person has reduced by 72kg since 2006/07
- Down to 281kg/person
+ Deliver services more efficiently!
- Joint working / Partnerships 59

60. Food waste – new priority material
60

61. Why food waste?
+ Increasing national pressure concerning GHGs
+ The need to reduce ‘emissions’ @ landfill sites
+ Increasing attention on the value of composts and digestates in
agriculture
- Risings costs of other fertilisers
+ 30% of the residual bin still being ignored by recycling schemes
- 1-2 kg per week is being captured!
+ Increasing worry about fossil fuel costs
+ The Renewable Energy agenda and the rise of AD …
61

62. Organic waste collections
+ c. 3.9mt of food & garden waste was collected by LA’s during
2007/08
- Garden waste: 1.8mt from CA sites & 1.4mt from kerbside
- Food and garden waste: 435kt from kerbside
- Food waste (source-segregated): 14kt
+ The number of local authorities collecting food waste grew
by 44% between 2008 and 2009 alone!
Number of local
150 137
95
authorities
100 78 80
58
50 20 36
5 6 10 15
0
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
62

63. Segregated Food Waste Collections
Over 1/3 of all LAs now offer a
segregated collection (or one
commingled with green waste)
63

64. Bins & Caddies
64

65. Liners … costly to distribute!
65

66. @ the kerbside
66

67. WRAP trials of smaller vehicles
67

68. Helping the residents ….
68

69. Enforcement
+ Critical to control contamination …
+ Would your political leaders support this?
69

70. How do Residents React?
+ One offs?
+ Feedback to HH’s?
+ Repeat Offenders?
+ Harder line tactics?
+ Messaging …..
+ Critical!
70

71. Monitoring is key in the early months …
71

72. Food waste yields …
72

73. To recyclers in 2005/06
Council Rate System
North Kesteven 51.5 AWC
Rushcliffe 49.9 AWC
South Cambridgeshire 49.4 AWC
St Edmundsbury 48.6 AWC
Huntingdonshire 48.0 AWC
Melton Mowbray 47.1 AWC
Waveney 46.6 AWC
Forest Heath 46.1 AWC
Teignbridge 45.4 AWC
Lichfield 45.4 AWC
73

74. Improving efficiencies….
74

75. IESE Partnership Pyramid
All have respect and feel totally
Co-ownership:
responsible
Joint core
services &
strategy
Collaboration: Together we work on this and
manage risks
Joint
communications/marketing
Co-ordination: We will adjustperipheral services avoid
Joint what we do to
contracting
overlap
Cross-boundary working
Co-operation:
I will lend a hand procurement
Joint commodity when I can
Joint best practice sharing/training
Co-existence: You stay on your turf and I’ll stay on
JMWMS
mine 75

76. IESE Partnership Pyramid
All have respect and feel totally
Co-ownership: Highest efficiencies
responsible
8-15%+
Joint core
services &
strategy
Collaboration: Together we work on this and
manage risks
Joint
Medium efficiencies
communications/marketing
Co-ordination: We will adjustperipheral services avoid
Joint what we do to
2-8%
contracting
overlap
Cross-boundary working
Co-operation: Lower
I will lend aefficiencies
hand when I can
Joint commodity procurement
<2%
Joint best practice sharing/training
Co-existence: You stay on yourJMWMS I’ll stay on
turf and
mine 76

77. Efficiencies Programme
+ The Mayor’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy has a four-
year programme (2011-2015) to identify and implement
efficiencies in municipal waste management in London
- £4.6 million budget over 4 years
+ Themes
- Joint Procurement for equipment (economies of scale)
- Explore opportunities to jointly market recyclate
- Framework contract for waste & recycling collection, street cleaning etc.
- Re-use and Recycling Sites support & funds (targetting C&I waste)
- Efficiency reviews of waste related services (consultant led)
- Service Sharing (London-wide or local partnerships)
- Best Practice Tools (twinning, mentoring and a brokerage service)
- Model Specifications and Contracts (output specifications)
77

78. Clyde Valley Partnership Model
78

79. Complex analysis
79

80. Cuts make the Headlines!
80

81. Scope for change?
+ In the next 7 years over 130 authorities will be going out to
market to procure a new waste collection scheme
+ This is an opportunity for a strong Government ‘steer’
- WAG have linked funding to the delivery of source segregated
collections
- Their evidence base suggests this is cheaper and more
environmentally beneficial
- Will DEFRA do something similar? No it is a LOCAL issue!
+ There is a great deal of scope for standardisation and joint
working to save money without reducing the quality of
services on offer
- We must stop trying to be unique and look at what offers value for
money and effective delivery!
81

82. Partnership Efficiency Gains?
+ Somerset Waste Partnership = £1.5m per annum
+ Shropshire Waste Partnership = £1.1m per annum
+ Work in Progress
- Example 1: £2.1m per annum in avoided costs against “do
nothing” scenario
- Example 2: Service savings over 09/10 – 19/20 = £15m
- Example 3: Service savings over 09/10 – 17/18 = £10m
(collection only)
+ Do you think your authority is inefficient?
- They didn’t’ either! Until they took a closer look!
82

83. Joint contracts …
+ Aligned service design & delivery ….
83

84. Co-collection of commercial waste?
+ Lets start talking about
materials!
- Forget source
- Drive up quality
- Reduce the carbon footprint
- Improve fleet efficiency
84

85. Quality – the new king!
85

86. Quality …
+ Is about consistently delivering materials to the marketplace that
are
- effectively separated to meet customer requirements
- compliant with national regulations and policies….
- at a cost that is acceptable
86

87. Out of Spec input stream….
87

88. Quality Supply Chain
Local
Authority
88

89. Since 2010 things have changed …
+ Increasing concerns about quality from the end markets
+ Less guarantees from Chinese & Indian reprocessors
+ Returned loads from Indonesia and Brazil
+ EA has clamped down on ‘waste’ exports
+ UK and EU reprocessors continually setting the ‘bar’ higher in
terms of quality and consistency
+ Needs additional investment at MRF
+ Needs more than 1 cycle @ MRF
+ Now looking at evolution of service provision …..
89

90. Pushing up quality ….
90

91. The return of source segregation …
+ Ensures quality (reduces contamination)
+ Immediate customer feedback
91

92. Performance Today?
92

93. Waste service provision TODAY
+ Frequency of residual waste collection
- 63% collect fortnightly or less frequently
+ Type of recycling collection
- 62% offer a form of co-mingling (single or two stream)
- The rest offer a separate collection / kerbside sort
+ Best council collection performance (2010/11)
- Rochford District Council @ 66% recycle, compost, reuse
- worst performance now @ 14%
93

94. Collection systems in use …
England Wales Scotland UK
Kerbside sort 42% 50% 47% 42%
Co-mingled 43% 27% 34% 44%
Co-mingled plus textiles 2% 0% 0% 2%
Two stream 19% 23% 31% 19%
Two stream plus textiles 4% 5% 3% 4%
Other 2% 9% 6% 2%
Single material 2% 0% 19% 3%
No scheme 0% 0% 3% 0%
94

95. Progress in England
95

96. % reduction in MSW sent to landfill
+ HH recycling in 1.2
Reduction in MSW Landfilled (% 0f 2001/2
Wales = 48% (2011-12) England
1 Scotland
- 4% increase on the
previous year Wales
0.8
levels)
+ Recycling rate for 0.6
English councils
0.4
42.5%
0.2
+ Scottish Authorities 0
= 39.8%
96

97. 2010-11 recycling rates – 70% in sight!
Rochford District Council
South Oxfordshire District Council
Surrey Heath Borough Council
Bournemouth Borough Council
Cotswold District Council
Staffordshire Moorlands District…
Stratford-on-Avon District Council
Epping Forest Borough Council
Suffolk Coastal District Council
Harborough District Council
Huntingdonshire District Council
Cherwell District Council
Teignbridge District Council
Rutland County Council
Lichfield District Council
South Cambridgeshire District…
West Lindsey District Council
Mole Valley District Council
Uttlesford District Council
East Lindsey District Council
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
+ All bar one are ‘AWC’ …. 97

98. 2010-11 recycling rates – commingling!
Rochford District Council
South Oxfordshire District Council
Surrey Heath Borough Council
Bournemouth Borough Council
Cotswold District Council
Staffordshire Moorlands District…
Stratford-on-Avon District Council
Epping Forest Borough Council
Suffolk Coastal District Council
Harborough District Council
Huntingdonshire District Council
Cherwell District Council
Teignbridge District Council
Rutland County Council
Lichfield District Council
South Cambridgeshire District Council
West Lindsey District Council
Mole Valley District Council
Uttlesford District Council
East Lindsey District Council
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
+ Commingling is now definitely the norm …. 98

99. Top 30 ‘dry’ authorities in 2010/11
+ all but 2 of the top 30 authorities collect all or most of their
materials co-mingled. …. touching 300 kgs/hh/year
99

100. Continuing analysis …. led by WRAP!
100

101. Kerbside collection yields
101

102. Cost comparison… a ‘dark art’ ….
+ hypothetical urban authority with 100,000 households.
102

103. The rise of dual stream…
+ The ‘hybrid’ collection system
+ Commingled
- Mixed plastics & cans go to a MRF
- Paper kept separate with textiles
+ Remove glass
- Collect as a separate bin / bring banks
+ Separate food waste (to AD)
- Or mixed with garden waste (AD / IVC)
+ Rationale
- Glass contaminates paper and textiles
- Glass can damage MRF
- Ensures you don’t all foul of HSE (glass
= heavy and noisy) 103

104. All about quality and end markets ….
104

105. KAT modelling
+ WRAP’s kerbside assessment tool
- Help define efficiency
- Help model new options
105

106. The Current Big Debates…
106

107. Recycling Policy Innovations
+ Key trends:
- Segregated feedstocks
- High quality outputs
- Commercial waste and trade waste service delivery
+ Zero Waste Regulations, Scotland: potential to affect policy in
the UK
- Segregated collections
- Landfill bans are expected for wood and food
+ LAs encouraged to take part in the market for trade waste, have
to be competitive and service focused
+ Co-mingled recycling will not be outlawed, but issues of quality
are a high priority and will influence future decision-making
+ Partnerships, service alignment, service frameworks etc. 107

108. Increasing focus on C&I wastes …
108

109. New WRAP guidance
+ Focused on how sites can be
developed by a range of
parties to target C&I
recyclables
- Developed by AEA
+ Headlines include …..
- Successful schemes in
operation
- Charging systems can work
- Awareness raising and
engagement are key
- Target the right materials
makes sense
- Learn from the mistakes of
others …. 109

110. On street recycling ….
110

111. Targetting recyclables not @ home …
111

112. @ Newmarket High Street
112

113. Driving best practice ….
113

114. Materials are valuable ….
114

115. It’s all about the money (revenue)
115

116. DCLG weekly fund ….
116

117. Weekly or fortnightly
+ Various research indicates
householder preferences
- 9% want to return to weekly
+ Costs for weekly collection
= significantly higher
+ DCLG £250m fund for
weekly collection –
announces successful
Councils in late October ….
117

118. AWC rules ….
+ Only 1 of 216 AWC authorities had applied to switch to ‘weekly’
residual waste collection!
118

119. Unofficial details ….
119

120. Standardisation of services?
+ Recent IPSOS MORI survey
+ 70% of residents would favour a consistent recycling service
- Without variations in materials, frequency and container type
+ So can all authorities adapt existing ‘winning’ scheme
design?
+ Perhaps authorities could go out and buy the same service
together – save even more money!
120

121. Will incentives save us?
121

122. Do incentives drive higher recycling?
+ Some evidence to date (little) – US experiences say yes!
+ Incentives can help improve ‘poor performing’ areas
+ Concern - rewarding those already committed?
122

123. Just last week ….
+ Green Points are proving
popular in LB Bexley
- Small trial targeting 1 of the
poorest estates
+ Still concerns about the
impact this could have
over a larger area
+ More worries about the
level of incentive required
to make ‘a significant
difference’
+ Most of the sector remain
undecided!
123

124. Lunacy they cry!
124

125. The carbon agenda ….
+ BVPI for carbon?
+ Ranking Council’s by Carbon Footprint?
+ Differential taxation and charging schemes? 125

126. Carbon in the equation ….
+ Should carbon metrics be used to measure recycling in England?
+ Already part of Scottish law – target materials are prioritised
according to carbon savings! 126

127. WRATE - LCA for Waste Management
+ WRATE is the English and Welsh Environment Agency’s “Waste
and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment”
+ Streamlined LCA tool for waste management only
+ For municipal waste only
+ A standardised and transparent model (150+ default data sets)
+ Used to investigate the most significant stages in waste
management
127

128. Suitability for Australian market
128

129. It’s better down-under ….
+ Segregation and collection logistics are similar, but …
+ UK urban centres are more compact
+ In Australia:
- Larger houses and gardens (more green waste)
- More space for the many receptacles (more convenient to
segregate)
- Less multiple occupancy dwellings
- Low levels of transience due to isolation and immigration laws
- Less income disparity and living conditions and less variation in
behaviour
+ You guys have it easy!!
+ You should be teaching us a thing or two …. 129

130. Different Drivers
+ European legislation (such as WFD and LFD) is the overarching
driver of waste targets in the UK
- Nothing similar in Australia
+ The UK has to meet wider European targets or it faces hefty fines
- There is no such impetus in Australia
- Limits the motivation to implement new technologies.
+ Significant focus given to particular waste streams through EU
Directives (food, cars, batteries, WEEE, etc.)
- Get transposed into English law.
+ Responsibility for waste is more devolved than in the UK
+ Are the public driving change……
+ We had escalating landfill costs and taxation – it hurts!
130

131. WRAP helped steer the ship
+ Waste & Resources Action Programme
- an arms length delivery body set up by UK Government
- remits in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England
+ National communications campaigns
- library of materials to use locally
+ LA advisory service
- support councils when rolling out AWC, undertaking service reviews, and
embarking on procurement (now supporting joint working)
+ Stacks of research into best practice
- performance, yields, impacts etc.
131

132. Summary & Lessons Learned
132

133. Changing UK landscape
+ UK progress has been forced
- EU Landfill Directive
- Increasing energy prices and decreasing landfill void
- Public demand
+ Government has set ‘statutory targets since 2000
+ Major success factor has been the Landfill Tax
+ Government policy has become aligned in the last 2 years
+ Best practice exists, but each authority makes it’s own decision!
+ Rapid recycling expansion has plateaued – we have covered all
the low hanging fruit
- Focus is now on hard to reach groups, high rise, difficult materials (mixed
plastics etc.)
133

134. Future policies to enhance recycling?
+ 70% target for all UK (not just Scotland and Wales)
+ MRF protocols for contamination
+ Government funding aligned with clear policy
- Scotland and Wales want kerbside sort (not MRFs)
+ Landfill bans for target materials
+ Segregated collections of key waste streams for all organisations
- paper, card, metals, glass & plastic)
+ Local reprocessing to harness materials / value
- Drive economic growth in target UK regions
+ EfW ban on recyclable materials?
134

135. So where will we (UK) be in 2020?
+ 70% UK average recycling rate
- Top Authorities will be hitting 80%
+ Full roll-out of food waste collections
+ Increasing attention on waste prevention @ home
+ Rapid expansion of ROTG systems
+ Upturn in Local Authorities targetting ‘compatible’ C&I wastes
+ More joint working
- Joint decision-making / Joint service design / Standardisation
+ Increasing concern about quality of materials
- Emphasis on enforcement @ the kerb
- Calls for more source segregation
+ Improving data sets to inform decisions (best practice) 135

136. 136

137. The last slide … promise!
I will be here all day if you
want to catch up over coffee?
Dr Adam Read
Global Practice Director
Waste Management & Resource
Efficiency
07968 707 239
adam.read@aeat.co.uk
www.aeat.co.uk
137