A BBC Radio 4 PM programme on Tuesday, 27 May featured a piece on recycling, with David Palmer-Jones of SITA UK and Andy Moore of the Campaign for Real Recycling. This followed an article in the Telegraph (‘Green fatigue’ behind falling recycling rate, 26 May), which reported that SITA UK’s collection data showed the proportion being recycled had been flat-lining in some areas and actually declining in many large built-up areas, especially parts of London.
SITA UK says that the fall may be symptomatic of ’green fatigue’ among households and that local authorities needed to do more to make recycling easier, such as through the use of mixed-bin (co-mingled) recycling rather than recycling being separated at source.
On the PM programme, David Palmer-Jones acknowledged that a number of factors influence recycling levels. He maintained, however, that whilst source segregated collections may suit “the leafy suburbs around Surrey, etc.”, that “mixing the right type of materials together can produce, with the sophisticated recycling centres that we have now…some fantastic product”.
Andy Moore of the Campaign for Real Recycling responded that he “hadn’t yet come across a place where it’s not possible to separate, to a reasonable degree, the four main materials which the Waste Framework Directive suggests must be recycled (separately) on January 1 (2015).”
Stuart Pohler, Recovered Paper Sector Manager at the Confederation of Paper Industries (CPI) commented:
“CPI’s position on this issue is very clear. Whilst some Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) can produce high quality materials, many cannot. Generally speaking, MRF technology and operational practices (both collection and sorting) have some real catching up to do.
“Our default position is that paper should be collected separately from other recyclable materials, particularly glass, as the means most likely to achieve the purpose of the Waste Framework Directive.
Co-mingled material should only be processed through facilities with suitable sorting capabilities that have transparent, auditable quality management systems in place and which meet the necessary standards of the reprocessors.”
Mr Pohler continued, “Co-mingling is not a form of separate collection and is only allowed as derogation in specific circumstances, when separate collection is:
• Not technically, environmentally or economically practicable;
• Not necessary to facilitate or improve recovery.
“Both Councils and private collection contractors will need to demonstrate that there is no reasonable way to carry out separate collections – e.g. from small blocks of flats, flats above shops, households with no front garden space, nor those on ‘red routes’ where collection vehicles are not permitted to stop. They should also demonstrate that separate collections would incur excessive and disproportionate costs, and that the negative environmental effects outweigh the benefits.
“Separate collection systems are seen in nearly all demographics and there are many examples of this system already both meeting and exceeding the 50% national recycling rate required by 2020.
“That the public might prefer co-mingled systems is not a reasonable enough case for implementing this system across the board.
“Councils would do well to consider SITA’s suggested approach in the context of a real threat of legal challenge. The direction of travel on recycling is clear.”