Friday 25th September 2009

Stage One Consultation on the Transposition of the revised Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC)

Response from the Campaign for Real Recycling to the consultation document issued jointly by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Assembly Government - 9th October 2009

1. The Campaign for Real Recycling welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation.

2. CRR is calling upon central government and local authorities to act urgently to improve the quality of materials collected for recycling in the UK.  We contend that real recycling should be about maximising the economic, environmental and social benefits of recycling for everyone, from the local council tax payer to the global re-processing industries. Our concern is that investment in collection, materials handling and sorting systems that begin by gathering a range of different materials in one bag or bin and then compacting 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 separated collections and systems that maintain the maximum economic and environmental value from secondary resources.

3. CRR Stakeholders and Supporters:

• Ardagh Glass

• Berryman Glass

• Bryson Recycling

• Centriforce Plastics

• Chase Plastics

• Cleanstream Recycling

• Community Recycling Network UK

• Community Recycling Network Scotland

• Cylch - Wales Community Recycling Network

• Friends of the Earth

• May Gurney

• Newport Wastesavers

• Novelis

• Paperchain

• Polyreco Plastics

• Recyclatex

• Straight plc

• Textile Recycling Association

• Tower Hamlets Community Recycling Consortium

More information can be found at www.realrecycling.org.uk

General Comments

4. The Campaign for Real Recycling sees the EUWFD transposition as a substantial opportunity to achieve quality recycling in the UK and could be a driver for substantial growth in the UK secondary materials economy. It could make contributions to local authority efficiency, green jobs, lower carbon impacts of recycling and long term material security for our industries.

Defra's Approach

5. The best figures in England in terms of high diversion from landfill at the best value for money are those of Somerset Waste Partnership. We note that Defra does not wish to be prescriptive to local authorities as to what collection method to deploy in pursuit of domestic recycling collections; however, we can see no reason why Defra should not advocate clearly source separation at the kerbside, not least since, as paragraph 2.63 in the consultation document says: There are particularly strong arguments for encouraging more separate collection of food waste. This can provide the greatest environmental benefits most cost effectively. The experience of CRR stakeholder Bryson Recycling, which runs kerbside sort and commingled collections side by side in Northern Ireland, makes it clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that kerbside sort is both the most cost effective and most environmentally sound method of collecting domestic recyclate. Evidence amassed last year shows that over time it produces greater diversion from landfill. This echoes findings of recent WRAP guidance to local authorities.

6. CRR has been clear for some time that as kerbside sorted diversion of dry recyclables rises, the cost per tonne falls. Although collection of food waste introduces new costs and occasions a price per tonne rise overall, the cost per tonne starts to fall again thereafter. The experience of Somerset Waste Partnership and their contractors May Gurney is now that it is more cost effective to recycle 65 to 70% than it is to remain at 35 or 40%. This is in part due to the success of the Landfill Tax, which has occasioned not just higher landfill cost but high gate fees for treatment and other end-of-pipe alternatives. Whilst these are issues about the environment and related matters, anyone in government with the latitude to indulge in joined-up thinking will see that this also goes to the heart of local authority financial issues. Government has more than one reason to urge local authorities to invest in quality.

7. In view of Defra's intention to continue to allow co-mingled collections and looking at the definitions in the revised WFD, CRR asks: how many materials, in Defra's opinion, may be collected together before each of the constituents is no longer separately collected? Regarding the Minutes Statement, it seems to CRR that this puts a clear onus on Defra to prove that co-mingled collections and MRF treatments are technically, environmentally and economically practicable and appropriate to meet the necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors. It is difficult to see how Defra could prove this. To the collectors and reprocessers of the CRR, it is daily manifest that this is simply not the case; far from it. Defra may continue to support WRAP's work to raise standards, but this frankly tortuous work by WRAP in pursuit of acceptable MRF materials has already been running for a number of years. WRAP may have found a number of limited instances of acceptable material quality from MRFs, but what WRAP has not done and in CRR's view can never do, is to increase ex-MRF material quality to a sufficient standard in meaningful quantity.

8. We take this view for two main reasons. Firstly, we can see no incentives for MRF operators to do so. Their income derives primarily from the gate fees which they charge local authorities to take in the material, and only secondarily from material value. There are still enough outlets, mostly via export, for such low quality material. The second reason is simply that, during this same period when WRAP has been seeking the grail of acceptable ex-MRF material, the general quality of it, where it has been accepted by CRR stakeholders, has actually deteriorated.

9. MRFs are not producing materials of satisfactory quality. The paper doesn't generally meet PAS 105 and virtually none of the glass goes for remelt into new bottles. There are problems with aluminium post consumer feedstock and MRFs and textiles collections are simply incompatible. That WRAP will continue to be asked by Defra to seek what is not there to find or to affect the impossible in quantitative terms, seems a blind alley with no apparent logic and a poor use of Defra/WRAP budget.

10. Kerbside sort collection, relative to co-mingled/MRF collection:

• costs less per tonne to collect in whole system terms

• produces better quality material

• diverts more material from landfill as schemes mature

• feeds UK based reprocessors more than export

• has a lower carbon footprint

• meets comfortably the EUWFD separation specifications

• is a demonstrably better manifestation of the proximity principle

• contributes more to local job and wealth creation

We cannot see why Defra should want to encourage continued co-mingling. Equivocation around this being a matter for individual local authority decision is pointless. As with many other public sector services, an element of choice is generally a good thing, but it is never a substitute for quality.

11. In conclusion of this above point, Defra cannot prove that co-mingled collections and MRF treatments are technically, environmentally and economically practicable and appropriate to meet the necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors. Defra should therefore commit to a policy of phasing out MRFs, co-mingling and other collection systems features which compromise material quality by 2015 wherever possible. There are several other good reasons, some outlined in this response, why Defra should do this. Not least amongst these are the risks of legal challenge and infraction. Another is the steady closing of Far-Eastern markets for UK materials, particularly those of low quality.

Landfill Directive Compliance Falling Short

12. We are of the view that the risks of both legal challenge and the UK being judged as having failed to comply with the EUWFD are very real. As evidence of this, we cite that that proper compliance with the Landfill Directive is eluding the UK and that poor systems associated with co-mingling and single stream MRFs are the cause. We are in the middle of the first UK target year under Article 5 (2) and the reduction in landfill and production of greenhouse gases is far less than the UK Government will claim; based on its inadequate monitoring and data reporting systems. In particular, CRR is extremely concerned that many local authorities are under-reporting the quantities of biodegradable municipal waste being landfilled, leading to the UK claiming compliance with Article 5 (2) of the Landfill Directive when in fact this is not the case. We believe that a significant factor within this mis-reporting of compliance with the Directive is the non-reporting of the rejects from intermediate sorting facilities (secondary and tertiary MRFs) and from materials reprocessors.

13. Those local authorities using kerbside sort methods of recyclate collection have been able to achieve accurate reporting as well higher quality material. For example, Somerset Waste Partnership supplies 92% of its collected material to UK markets and reprocessors and publishes a register of where all of it is sent. Those authorities using co-mingled collections and MRFs may (or may not in some cases) report the direct rejects from the first MRF used, but make no report via WasteDataFlow regarding the rejected material from either subsequent MRFs or end reprocessors. This reject material may be landfilled in the UK, or could equally well be landfilled in distant countries without any of it being reported as such. This flouts flagrantly both the spirit and the letter of Article 5 (2) of the Landfill Directive.

WAG's Approach

14. The WAG approach, which might more sensibly have been set out in a separate chapter or document, is refreshing reading compared with those paragraphs which describe Defra's approach. That financial support from central to local government to develop recycling collections should depend on keeping materials separate is logical both in terms of our comments above regarding Defra's approach and of the sound implementation of the EUWFD.

Financing Domestic Recycling Collections

15. Recycling collections require a very different business model from that of waste collections, whether commercial or domestic. The value of domestic recyclables to reprocessors should, and in some cases does, go a long way toward paying for their collection, provided the handling methods preserve their quality. The local authority or the commercial client pays the rest. This is the recycling business model.

16. The standard waste collection business model is that the local authority pays for the whole service, based on a per household, per uplift or per tonne rate, and if the authority wants it sorted, it pays some more. The MRF operator makes a profit from complicating a service which could be much simpler. The council tax payer shoulders the full burden.

17. The more motivated local authorities know that whilst they are unlikely to make an overall profit on their domestic recycling collections, with an application of basic business acumen on their part and maintenance of material quality, they can recoup a substantial portion the costs of the collections. Other authorities do not appear to know this or have put themselves in positions where they cannot realise material value. The difference in the net costs between these two groups of local authorities is not inconsiderable. They are highlighted in a WAG report, undertaken by consultants RPS during 2007*. There is no reason to suppose that these figures are not also representative of the situation in England. Indeed, similar results were modelled by WRAP in 2008*.

*Survey of Funding of Municipal Waste Management Kerbside Collection in Wales

Welsh Assembly Government 9th August 2007

*Kerbside Recycling: Indicative Costs and Performance WRAP 16th June 08

18. Some authorities, locked into long MRF contracts at fixed prices, are paying up to twice as much as others who are seeing per tonne costs fall through improving material values and efficiencies generated by collectors and reprocessors who are sharing the benefits of those values. This leaves Defra with a clear and obvious policy choice: to support the UK reprocessing industry through availability of better quality feedstock, which will in turn support local authority recycling costs through material value, as against simply continuing to allow council tax payers to pay more than they need for the service they receive. This transposition of the EUWFD presents Defra with a new opportunity to achieve greater value for money in recycling and local authority finance.

Responses to Selected Consultation Questions

Question 6: Do you agree with the proposed approach to implementing the requirements of Article 11(1) on separate collections? Please provide reasons for your answer including, if possible, the costs and benefits of your preferred approach.

19. CRR is happy with the WAG approach, but not that of Defra, which we believe falls short on proof that it will provide what is required under the Directive. Please see paragraphs 7 to 13 above.

20. We believe the costs of our preferred approach, kerbside sort, to be substantially less, in some cases half as much, than co-mingled/MRF-based services. We believe the benefits to be lower carbon, material security, greater diversion from landfill and potentially more jobs.

Question 7: Do you consider that:-

1. There are any measures that are technically, environmentally and economically practicable and appropriate to take in England and Wales, on the separate collection of household, commercial or industrial waste to meet the necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors? Please give reasons for your answer; and

1. Yes. CRR is of the view that only kerbside sort and other separation at source collection methods will achieve the necessary quality standards for all domestic materials. This view is based on our direct experience. Please see particularly paragraphs 6, 10 and 13 above.

(b) If yes, which measures do you think should be introduced to achieve this?

22. Defra should set a clear policy position in favour of kerbside sorted collections and should look to set mandatory quality standards for most domestic recyclable materials at a future date. This might start by prohibiting glass cullet from being used as roadfill, as is the case in the rest of the EU (except Ireland).

Question 8: Do you consider that:-

1. It will be technically, environmentally and economically practicable to set up by 2015, in England and Wales, separate collection for paper, metal, plastic and glass which is classified as household, commercial or industrial waste: Please give reasons for your answer; and

1. Yes, certainly. It may be that local authority contractual obligations may make it difficult to end completely all co-mingled collections and the use of single stream MRFs by that date. However, it will surely be possible to incentivise material quality such that local authorities will be in negotiation with contractors to change collection system by then. A good start would be to make local authorities much more clearly aware of the difference in value for money achieved by different collection systems. WRAP has done significant research already, but almost no resources have been put into making sure local authorities are aware of the relevant figures and what they mean for them.

(b) If yes, which measures do you think should be introduced to achieve this?

24. Defra will need to provide strategy and leadership in this. It would do well to start by examining WAG thinking on this.

Question 9: Do you agree with the proposed approach to implementing the recycling target for household and similar waste required by Article 11(2)(a)? Please provide reasons for your answer including, if possible, the benefits or otherwise of your preferred approach.

25. CRR is not sure how Defra can claim any sort of accordance with the waste hierarchy when it has no target in this respect. However, CRR has stakeholders representing all these materials and we have no objection to targets being combined across materials. One key to achieving this is to seek and maintain quality in all these materials and secure the stability which quality markets will bring.

Question 10 (England only): Given the LAWRRD model scenarios above, do you agree with the Government's preferred "no further measures" approach? Please give reasons for your answer.

26. It seems disappointingly unambitious when compared with the WAG approach. Defra should be considering how to affect behavioural change toward greater diversion and movement up the waste hierarchy.

Question 11 (England only): If you think the Government should look to introduce additional measures to ensure that the recycling target of 50% for household and similar wastes is reached by 2020, do you have views about what these additional measures should be? If so, please specify and give reasons for your answer.

27. As with our previous answer, Defra should be considering how to affect behavioural change toward greater diversion and movement up the waste hierarchy. Where is the leadership and vision from government?

Question 12 (England only): Do you have views about targeting any additional measures on specific materials? If so, please specify which materials you consider are high priority and give reasons for your answer.

28. Glass arising from MRFs can only be used as a low grade replacement aggregate which has a negative, if not zero, benefit in terms of CO2 savings. If, as is being predicted, the targets under the EU's Packaging Waste Regulations become carbon based rather than purely weight based, as is now the case, the UK will have no chance of achieving such targets. Glass which is of sufficiently high quality to be remelted into new bottles and jars where the CO2 saving is 314kg/tonne of glass melted needs to be collected either separately at the kerbside or through bring systems.

Question 13 (Wales only): Do you think that Wales' approach will meet the requirements of Article 11(2)(a) of the revised WFD? Please give reasons for your answer.

29. The approach taken by WAG should meet and surpass the requirements. CRR congratulates WAG on its ambition, vision and imagination.

Question 16: Do you agree that the UK is currently self-sufficient in installations for the recovery of mixed municipal waste from private households etc? If not, please (i) explain your reasons and (ii) the steps you consider need to be taken by the UK to achieve self-sufficiency in relation to such installations.

30. Investment in waste disposal facilities could well work against recycling. In order to plan that this does not occur, it seems important to know the maximum possible percentage of material recovery and what is in fact likely. It seems strange to CRR that so few officials and politicians appear at all curious about such projections before multi-million pound waste facilities are built that we may not even need. If, for example, local authorities were to follow closely the lead set by Somerset Waste Partnership, indicative figures suggest that the UK would have treatment and other disposal facilities standing idle within ten years. CRR believes that it is time to stop investing in waste disposal infrastructure and invest heavily in waste reduction and high quality recycling, and to consider how strategic investment could assist those working further up the hierarchy.

Question 19: Do you agree that sufficient measures are already being taken in England and Wales to encourage bio-waste treatment etc as envisaged in Article 22? If not, please (i) explain your reasons and (ii) the measures you consider need to be taken in England and Wales to encourage bio-waste treatment etc as envisaged in Article 22?

31. More should be done to improve the quality of compost and in particular to reinforce and comply with PAS100.

Question 20: What revisions do you consider Defra/WAG should make to the existing arrangements for waste management plans to transpose the requirements of Articles 28(1), (2) and (3)(a)-(e) of the revised WFD? Please give reasons for your answer.

32. Defra should make adjustments to strategy accordingly, as WAG has already done.

Question 25: Do you consider that the costs and benefits of the transposition and implementation of the provisions of the revised WFD that are the subject to the Stage One consultation exercise have been accurately assessed in the initial Impact Assessment at Annex 3 (page 71) to the consultation paper? If not, please provide whatever evidence you can to enable a more accurate assessment to be made in the Impact Assessment that will form part of the Stage Two consultation exercise.

33. As mentioned at the beginning, there are benefits in terms of contributions to local authority efficiency, green jobs, lowering carbon impacts of recycling and long term material security. These appear not to have beem taken into account within the Impact Assessment.