delivering high diversion municipal recycling in the uk – lessons from a 25 year journey
Post on 12-Nov-2014
745 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Delivering high diversion municipal recycling in the UK – lessons from a 25 year journey
Dr. Adam Read – DirectorWaste Management & Resource Efficiency, AEA
Zero Waste Summit 201222nd October 2012Hilton on the Park, Melbourne
A world leadingenergy and climatechange 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?
3
A personal welcome
My sponsor - www.aeat.co.uk
4
UK Governance
5
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- Elected ‘members’ 6
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
Recycling Targets (legislated)
8
Year England Scotland Wales2013 Recycling, preparation
for reuse or composting of LA waste collected
from households: 50%
Municipal waste recycling and
composting 52%
2015 Recycle or compost at least 45%
recover value from 67% of household waste
58%
2020 Recycle or compost at least 50%
recover value from 75% of household waste
60% 64%
2025 70% No more than 5% of all waste to go to landfill
70%
Government support on collections
9
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
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
The UK recycling revolution
12
MSW Recycling rate progress …
13
1991
/92
1992
/93
1993
/94
1994
/95
1995
/96
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
2009
/10
2010
/11
2011
/12
2012
/13
2013
/14
2014
/15
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Actual Estimated
In the beginning … Landfill!
+ UK aggregates mining meant disposal to land was a realistic and affordable option… only £15 / tonne until early 1990s!
14
And mass burn incinerators ….
+ In the days before pollution control …. pre 1990 EPA
15
Recycling arrived in the 1980s …
+ Concerns about oil prices and landfill void, coupled with growing public interest….
16
London’s first recycling officer (1982)
17
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
Return of the incinerators …
+ Closures in 1990s to meet stringent EU emissions controls….
+ Birth of new facilities as alternative to landfill …..
19
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
Public engagement21
Increasing media attention
22
23
Most of the people, most of the time…..
%
Good Excellent Max.
+ Recyclable % waste = 70 75 85
+ % of households served = 80 9099
+ % of those participating = 80 9599
+ % effectiveness = 95 95 99
+ Waste collected for recycling = 37% 61%82%
24
Communication Campaign
25
Phase 2
Setting the sceneTelling residentswhat’s arriving
and when
Phase 3
GuidanceHow to use the
service
Set Up
BrandContent
CopyDesign
Phase 1
Raising awareness
that the new scheme is on
its way
Increasing performance
26
27
Recycle for London… campaigning …
28
29
Reaching target communities
30
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
Door-to-Door Advisors33
34
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 contamination35
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
Doing more with less ….
37
LA Recycling Top 16 - 1995
+ Government set an aspirational 25% target for the year 2000
38
Teignbridge
South Bucks
New Forest
Surrey Heath
Mid Devon
Chiltern
West Somerset
Milton Keynes
Northampton
Tandridge
Bath
Torridge
East Devon
North Devon
Castle Morpeth
Adur
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
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
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
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%
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
Early communication is critical
45
AWC yields more recyclables!
46
AWC makes sense ….
+ Cost of collection to 1 Council (a recent client)
+ Switching saves money, allowing investment in other services (food waste for example?)
47
Baseline AWC
Annual cost of service £1,786,020 £1,447,453
Cost per tonne (average) £59 £46
% saving in switching (materials remain same)
-19%
LA Recycling Top 20 - 2000
48
Richmond-upon-
Thames
Stockport
South Bucks&
Reigate & Banstead
Test ValleyFareham
South Hams
Adur
Surrey Heath
TandridgeMid SussexNew Forest
St Ed-mundsbury
MeltonChilternLichfield
Forest Heath&
PrestonEastleighDaventry
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Commingled collections
+ Popular means of collecting recyclables …. Cheaper for collection authorities to implement …… sorting costs come downstream …
49
The commingled explosion in England!
50
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Co-mingled
Not co-mingled
Thousand tonnes
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
MRFs
+ Taking the pressure off the public …. And maximising efficiency!
52
Landfill comes under threat ….53
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
UK Landfill Tax Escalator01
.10.
96
01.0
4.97
01.0
4.98
01.0
4.99
01.0
4.00
01.0
4.01
01.0
4.02
01.0
4.03
01.0
4.04
01.0
4.05
01.0
4.06
01.0
4.07
01.0
4.08
01.0
4.09
01.0
4.10
01.0
4.11
01.0
4.12
01.0
4.13
01.0
4.14
£0
£10
£20
£30
£40
£50
£60
£70
£80
£90
Future InertStandard
Average Landfill
Gate Fee = £20/t
Average Landfill
Gate Fee = £50/t
55
When the ‘cost’
started to bite!
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
Base year 1995 2010 2013 2020
15,640,000 t 11,200,000 t 7,450,000 t 5,220,000 t
BMW landfill allowance - England
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
Food waste – new priority material
60
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
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!
62
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
050
100150
5 6 10 15 20 36 58 78 80 95137
Num
ber o
f loc
al
auth
oriti
es
Segregated Food Waste Collections
63
Over 1/3 of all LAs now offer asegregated collection (or one
commingled with green waste)
Bins & Caddies
64
Liners … costly to distribute!
65
@ the kerbside
66
WRAP trials of smaller vehicles
67
Helping the residents ….
68
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!
Monitoring is key in the early months …
71
Food waste yields …
72
To recyclers in 2005/06
Council Rate SystemNorth Kesteven 51.5 AWC
Rushcliffe 49.9 AWCSouth Cambridgeshire 49.4 AWC
St Edmundsbury 48.6 AWCHuntingdonshire 48.0 AWCMelton Mowbray 47.1 AWC
Waveney 46.6 AWCForest Heath 46.1 AWCTeignbridge 45.4 AWC
Lichfield 45.4 AWC
73
Improving efficiencies….74
Co-ownership:
Collaboration:
Co-ordination:
Co-operation:
Co-existence:
All have respect and feel totally responsible
Together we work on this and manage risks
We will adjust what we do to avoid overlap
I will lend a hand when I can
You stay on your turf and I’ll stay on mine
Joint communications/marketing
Joint peripheral services
contractingCross-boundary working
Joint commodity procurementJoint best
practice sharing/trainingJ
MWMS
IESE Partnership Pyramid
75
Co-ownership:
Collaboration:
Co-ordination:
Co-operation:
Co-existence:
All have respect and feel totally responsible
Together we work on this and manage risks
We will adjust what we do to avoid overlap
I will lend a hand when I can
You stay on your turf and I’ll stay on mine
Joint communications/marketingJoint peripheral services contractingCross-boundary working
Joint commodity procurementJoint best practice sharing/trainingJMWMS
Highest efficiencies 8-15%+
Medium efficiencies 2-8%
Lower efficiencies<2%
IESE Partnership Pyramid
76
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
Clyde Valley Partnership Model
78
Complex analysis
79
Cuts make the Headlines!
80
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
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
Joint contracts …
+ Aligned service design & delivery ….
83
Co-collection of commercial waste?
+ Lets start talking about materials!- Forget source- Drive up quality- Reduce the carbon footprint- Improve fleet efficiency
84
Quality – the new king!
85
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
Out of Spec input stream….
87
Quality Supply Chain
88
Householder
Collection Crew
MRF
Reprocessor
Local Authority
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
Pushing up quality ….
90
The return of source segregation …
+ Ensures quality (reduces contamination)
+ Immediate customer feedback
91
Performance Today?
92
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
Collection systems in use …
94
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%
Progress in England
95
% reduction in MSW sent to landfill
+ HH recycling in Wales = 48% (2011-12)
- 4% increase on the previous year
+ Recycling rate for English councils 42.5%
+ Scottish Authorities = 39.8%
2001
/2
2002
/3
2003
/4
2004
/5
2005
/6
2006
/7
2007
/8
2008
/9
2009
/10
2010
/11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
England
Scotland
Wales
Re
du
cti
on
in M
SW
La
nd
fille
d (
% 0
f 2
00
1/2
le
ve
ls)
96
East Lindsey District Council
Uttlesford District Council
Mole Valley District Council
West Lindsey District Council
South Cambridgeshire District Council
Lichfield District Council
Rutland County Council
Teignbridge District Council
Cherwell District Council
Huntingdonshire District Council
Harborough District Council
Suffolk Coastal District Council
Epping Forest Borough Council
Stratford-on-Avon District Council
Staffordshire Moorlands District Council
Cotswold District Council
Bournemouth Borough Council
Surrey Heath Borough Council
South Oxfordshire District Council
Rochford District Council
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
2010-11 recycling rates – 70% in sight!
+ All bar one are ‘AWC’ …. 97
East Lindsey District Council
Uttlesford District Council
Mole Valley District Council
West Lindsey District Council
South Cambridgeshire District Council
Lichfield District Council
Rutland County Council
Teignbridge District Council
Cherwell District Council
Huntingdonshire District Council
Harborough District Council
Suffolk Coastal District Council
Epping Forest Borough Council
Stratford-on-Avon District Council
Staffordshire Moorlands District Council
Cotswold District Council
Bournemouth Borough Council
Surrey Heath Borough Council
South Oxfordshire District Council
Rochford District Council
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
2010-11 recycling rates – commingling!
+ Commingling is now definitely the norm …. 98
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
Continuing analysis …. led by WRAP!
100
Kerbside collection yields
101
Cost comparison… a ‘dark art’ ….
+ hypothetical urban authority with 100,000 households.
102
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
All about quality and end markets ….
104
KAT modelling
+ WRAP’s kerbside assessment tool- Help define efficiency- Help model new options
105
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.
Increasing focus on C&I wastes …
108
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
On street recycling ….
110
Targetting recyclables not @ home …
111
@ Newmarket High Street
112
Driving best practice ….
113
Materials are valuable ….
114
It’s all about the money (revenue)
115
DCLG weekly fund ….
116
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
AWC rules ….
+ Only 1 of 216 AWC authorities had applied to switch to ‘weekly’ residual waste collection!
118
Unofficial details ….
119
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
Will incentives save us?
121
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
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
Lunacy they cry!
124
The carbon agenda ….
+ BVPI for carbon?
+ Ranking Council’s by Carbon Footprint?
+ Differential taxation and charging schemes? 125
126
+ Should carbon metrics be used to measure recycling in England?
+ Already part of Scottish law – target materials are prioritised according to carbon savings!
Carbon in the equation ….
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
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 ….
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.
132
Summary & Lessons Learned
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?
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
137
The last slide … promise!
Dr Adam Read
Global Practice Director
Waste Management & Resource Efficiency
07968 707 239
adam.read@aeat.co.uk
www.aeat.co.uk
I will be here all day if you want to catch up over coffee?
top related