Friday 25th July 2008
Incentive schemes will cause fly-tipping into bottom of co-mingling wheelies, warns CRR
Household waste incentives schemes may result in worse value for money in areas where single stream co-mingled collection systems are in place, the Campaign for Real Recycling warns today, with a likely location for fly-tipping of rubbish being the bottom of the household’s wheelie bin, covered by recyclables.
Defra’s consultation on guidance notes for local authority waste incentive pilot schemes closes today.
The CRR believes that problems are likely develop in areas with a co-mingled collection, where households might attempt to reduce their rubbish collection charges by placing rubbish in recycling bins, increasing the contamination problems already facing material recycling facilities and reprocessors. A recent WRAP report discovered that MRFs may typically take in 14% non-target tonnage through single-stream, co-mingled collections.
Mal Williams, CEO of Cylch and CRR Chair, added: “Defra is rightly concerned about fly-tipping of rubbish as a consequence of householder incentive schemes. But it is not looking into one of the most likely locations for that fly-tipping, namely at the bottom of the co-mingled wheelie bin, under the recyclables. Even a small minority of householders dumping this way could easily negate local authority efforts toward material quality.”
“Financial incentives to encourage recycling will help increase capture rates, but collection systems where kerbside operatives are unable to operate any form of quality control prior to loading materials onto the vehicle will surely collect more rubbish.” said Brian Head of Berryman Glass. “We had to abandon a similar free glass collection from commercial premises for the same reasons; contamination from the expensive rubbish bin. Combining householder incentives with co-mingled collections is simply asking for trouble, doubly so if compaction is also involved.”
“Householder incentives need to be part of an integrated approach that accounts for both quantity and quality”, summarised Andy Doran of Novelis. “Applied to co-mingled collections, it will mean more tonnage into the MRF, so the authority will pay more in gate fees, but without a proportional increase in recycling diversion. With MRF rejection rates already at 9%, a Wastedataflow figure which we should consider a minimum, this is a serious value for money question. In what other area of local authority expenditure, or industry at large, would such inefficiency be tolerated?”
Information for Editors:
1. The Campaign for Real Recycling wants central government and local authorities to act urgently to improve the quality of materials collected for recycling in the UK. Real recycling is about maximising the economic, environmental and social benefits of recycling for everyone, from the local council tax payer to the global re-processing industry. Our concern is that collection systems that gather a range of different materials in one bag or bin and then compact them could permanently undermine the environmental and financial benefits of recycling. Our campaign aims to influence local authority policy and practice, and build consensus within the UK of the economic and environmental importance of highly separated collections.
2. Campaign for Real Recycling supporters:
|
