1.  WYECYCLE

  WyeCycle Limited is a not for profit community business, working to protect the environment and create employment through the reduction of waste in the village of Wye, Kent.

  Formed in 1989, WyeCycle have been at the forefront of the development of community based solutions to waste. Since July 1989 we have carried out a weekly multi-material kerbside collection of recyclables. In May 1990 this was expanded to include kitchen and garden organics—the first such collection in the UK.

  Waste reduction activities include a refill scheme for plastic bottles, a twice monthly farmers market (reduced food packaging) and a monthly "Swap Day" for re-usable items. Current research work includes the development of small scale containerised composting systems, fortnightly refuse collections and direct charging for garden organic material.

  WyeCycle are members of national organisations the Community Recycling Network, Community Composting Network and Waste Watch. We are influential figures in the debate on future waste strategies for Ashford Borough Council and Kent County Council.

  On the basis of this decade of hands-on work with household waste, WyeCycle would both make general points and suggest specific micro and macro measures for implementation.

2.  GENERAL POINTS

2.1  Waste is at the centre of sustainability

  More than practically any other issue, waste can be seen as the key starting point for efforts to achieve environmental sustainability. We all produce it, and we all can (and must) be engaged in solving it. In this sense, a national waste strategy must be interwoven with a commitment to Local Agenda 21, with the LA21 process being used as a litmus test for any proposed waste policy. If a specific proposed policy, for example, is put forward as "solving" a waste problem, yet its implementation takes responsibility away from the individual or over-rides the views of the local community, then some serious questions need to be asked as to the validity of the policy.

2.2  Waste is easily solved . . .

  Compared to many of the complex environmental problems facing mankind, domestic waste in the UK can be easily solved in a relatively short space of time. A genuine commitment to the cause could see domestic waste production in the UK cut from its current level of over lt/Hh/yr to less than 100kg/Hh/yr by 2010.

2.3  . . . if we really want to

  The catch is that solving the current waste crisis involves challenging some of the principles and institutions successive recent governments have come to hold so dear. The growth of domestic waste accurately mirrors the growth of several other environmentally unsustainable phenomenons; principally:

(a)  the supermarket;

(b)  the motorway;

(c)  intensive agriculture;

(d)  international trade; and

(e)  consumerism.

  Waste, as with any environmental issue, cannot be addressed in isolation, and WyeCycle regard it as an irrefutable fact that a national sustainable waste strategy will only be achieved if we simultaneously address these related issues.

  The question of whether the Government is willing and prepared to do so must be answered before many of the specific issues raised by the Environment Sub-Committee can even be considered.

2.4  Education is important . . .

  Education and empowerment of the individual is a prerequisite to the implementation of a sustainable waste strategy. The success of many waste reduction and re-use measures depends on the participation of individual members of the public, and source-separation is essential in achieving high quality raw materials for recycling and composting programmes.

  In addition, the knock-on effects of waste reduction in terms of raised awareness amongst the general public about wider environmental issues should not be under estimated.

2.5. . . but is meaningless without legislation

  All the education in the world counts for nothing in the absence of supportive legislation. It is at best misguided and at worst deliberate complicity with the real offenders for Government to lay the blame for the throwaway society at the door of the householder.

  The dramatic, continuing rise in domestic waste in recent years is due in the main to the way in which fundamental changes have taken place, unchecked by Government, in the way in which products (principally food) are produced and distributed. These changes have been driven by a slavish adherence to the modern economic dogmas of "economies of scale" and "free trade", with the main architects of this move being the supermarkets, the road building lobby and the multi-nationals.

  The success of these changes relies implicitly on the production of domestic waste, as any move from local/regional to national/multi-national trade patterns is only economic if:

(a)  the product in question has sufficient protection to survive the journey; and

(b)  that protection follows a linear, rather than circular, route, ie it becomes the responsibility of the purchaser, rather than the producer, at the point of sale.

  One small but typical example of this hugely important issue: WyeCycle spent several years encouraging Wye households to purchase their soft drinks from the milkman, in one litre returnable glass bottles, alongside their returnable milk bottles. Study after study has shown such a distribution cycle to be the most environmentally sound, least wasteful option available. Overnight this system disappeared, with the milkman switching to one trip disposable plastic bottles. This move had nothing to do with public demand or a change in the cost of returnable bottles per se. It was simply that the milk supply company found, like every other firm, that it is more profitable to let the public and the environment take responsibility for their packaging than to do so themselves. Education of the public, against this background, achieves precisely nothing. Wye households—some of the most waste aware in the UK—are now forced to buy all their soft drinks in disposable containers whether they like it or not.

  The only way out of the waste maze is through legislation. Legislation that is (a) Specific and targeted, not a broad brush. (b) Rooted in environmental and social good sense, not based on short term, false economics. Such legislation will inevitably draw strong protest from the vested interests already referred to. This is the nettle the Government must grasp if any truly worthwhile achievements are to come out of a new Waste Strategy 2000.

3.  MICRO MEASURES

  WyeCycle would recommend to Government the following specific measures for implementaton, targeting individual materials.

3.1  Organic material

A.  Garden Organic Material

  A national ban on garden organic material entering the waste stream by the year 2002.

  Of all the materials entering the domestic waste stream in the UK, garden material is the one which is most easily eliminated for the biggest benefits. A national ban on this material becoming waste, ie a law stating no household shall place garden material in their dustbin, would in one fell swoop halt and reserve the current year on year increase in domestic waste arisings.

  The short timetable suggested for this ban is entirely feasible, and is necessitated by both the EU landfill Directive and the targets set in Waste Strategy 2000.

  A wide range of alternative destinations exist, all of which will have a role to play in each local authority area. These can be shown, in descending order of sustainability, through reference to a garden organic material hierarchy:

Reduction (eg leaving mowings on the lawn) — Home composting — Community composting — Kerbside collection — Delivery to CA Site

B.  Kitchen Organic Material

  Such a ban on garden material becoming waste, through its focus on education and enforcement at the household level, would have a dramatic knock-on effect in terms of promoting the source-separation of kitchen organic material.

  Whilst a similar ban on kitchen organics would be difficult to enforce, the financial, legislative and environmental pressures to reduce organic waste make the imposition of demanding targets essential. Legislation should state that each Local Authority should ensure a 50 per cent reduction in kitchen organic waste in their area by 2005, using waste analysis at 2000 as the base figure.

  It is important to note that this 50 per cent figure refers to kitchen organic material prevented from entering the waste stream, as distinct from being removed from the waste stream; ie 50 per cent at-source-separation is necessary, with post consumer mixed/dirty composting or incineration not counting towards the 50 per cent figure.

  As with garden material, a range of options can be employed in each Local Authority area:

Home composting — Community composting — Centralised composting

  Organic material, the biggest single fraction of the domestic waste stream, is uniquely placed to obey the proximity principle. Every householder or community in which they live can be a "reprocessor", thus eliminating transport costs and other environmental concerns.

  Markets should not be seen as a barrier to the composting of source-separated material; the compost produced logically and sustainably goes back to where the raw material arose, whether the flower bed or farmland.

3.2  Paper

  The following measures to be enforced by 2010, many of them sooner.

(a)  Government departments and all public sector institutions to have in place rigorous "recycled content" purchasing policies for all paper and paper products.

(b)  All paper products to be subject to a "Designed for recycling" test, a set of guidelines laid down and enforced by a Government appointed panel of experts to ensure the product can be easily recycled at the end of its useful life. There are many issues which these guidelines will need to address; toxicity of inks, plastic laminates, free samples of shampoo stuck into magazines etc, etc.

(c)  All newsprint to have an 80 per cent recycled fibre content, with lower but strict requirements for higher quality paper.

(d)  Variable VAT rates, with lower rates on high percentage recycled fibre content paper compensated for by higher rates on high percentage virgin fibre paper.

(e)  All publications to clearly state, through a nationally standardised scheme, their recycled fibre content.

(f)  All toilet paper to be produced from 100 per cent low grade post consumer waste paper, with high minimum contents for other disposable paper products.

(g)  A ban on unsolicited "junk mail".

(h)  All mail to be in paper envelopes, not plastic shrink wrap.

(i)  All "jiffy bags" to be padded with paper-based material, with a ban on plastic padding.

  There are many more examples of this specifically targeted legislation, which is entirely necessary if the current unsustainable and profligate use of the world's timber resources is to be halted.

3.3  Packaging

  In many ways the most complicated element of the domestic waste stream, connected as it is to several other pressing environmental problems needing simultaneous solutions.

  This complexity should be acknowledged by Government through the setting up of a Packaging forum, to bring to Government a range of measures for enforcement. This new forum should be comprised predominantly of environmentalists and others without a vested interest; the packaging industry already has an excessive influence on policy without being given more power.

  The forum should be permanent, high profile and well resourced and have wide ranging terms of reference to recommend to Government ways in which not just how to reduce packaging waste but how to ensure these measures complement the need to reduce road transport, create employment, support sustainable agriculture etc.

  The following should be the sort of measures Government would be looking for from this new Packaging forum.

(a)  Ninety per cent of milk retail sales to be in returnable, refillable bottles.

This legislation would achieve several aims:

—  Vastly reduce the mountain of waste, consumption of raw materials and taxpayers expenditure on waste disposal caused by the increasing use of disposable containers.

—  Recreate the jobs being lost through this move towards disposables.

—  Restore some sort of equilibrium between producers, retailers and consumers, through challenging the power being held over the dairy industry by the supermarkets.

—  Most importantly of all, send a clear signal to the public, retailers and producers alike that Government wishes to see a move towards more local food production and distribution systems, with the packaging used within those systems being regarded as a valuable product in itself to be conserved rather than disposed of.

  The largely homogenous nature of milk, the current existence of a refill infrastructure, and its significance as a major food item, make it a logical first target for such legislation. Enforcing such a measure would make subsequent moves to reduce disposable packaging for other liquid items acceptable and achievable.

(b)  An immediate ban of PVC packaging (to be extended over time to a total ban on PVC products).

(c)  Legislation to reduce the use of multi-material packaging eg sandwiched layers of paper/plastic/foil, and to promote single material packaging such as glass.

(d)  All plastic packaging to be clearly labelled with the type of plastic used, and designed so that the entire unit can be recycled without incompatible types of component parts having to be separated.

(e)  Plastic bottles to be designed for ease of refilling, eg wide necks, transparent materials, robust construction, with financial incentives for refillable and penalties for one-trip containers.

(f)  A ban on many specific types of plastic (egg boxes, packaging chips, fruit punnets, etc) to be replaced by paper/cardboard.

(g)  A high "recycled content" figure to be imposed for glass containers.

  Over and above specific measures such as these, the packaging forum should be continually referring to the "bigger picture" of the relationship between packaging and wider environmental issues, for instance the need to reduce "food miles" to eliminate unnecessary packaging.

3.4  Electrical Goods

  The following legislation should be implemented:

(a)  Every electrical item to be clearly labelled with the "life expectancy" of the appliance, to allow the public to assess the merits of investing in higher quality products.

(b)  "Take back" legislation, whereby the manufacturer guarantees as a condition of sale to accept the appliance back from the purchaser at the end of its life.

3.5  Household Hazardous Waste

  A strong emphasis on reduction, before implementation of recycling and safe disposal, is especially important for this component of the waste stream.

(a)  A nationwide, hard hitting publicity campaign to highlight the dangers of HHW and ways in which it can be reduced. Specific mention should be given, without bowing to the inevitable pressure from Government's friends in industry, to:

—  gardening without chemicals;

—  using fully biodegradable household cleaners;

—  promoting natural paints, timber care products.

(b)  Financial incentives (eg reduced VAT) for products meeting set environmental criteria eg low energy light bulbs, rechargeable batteries, natural paints.

(c)  Local authorities to be obliged to provide easily accessible (ie kerbside or extensive drop off) facilities for separate collection of HHW, especially sump oil and filters, paint and batteries.

3.6  Re-usable Items

  Every year in the UK, tens of millions of re-usable items are thrown away. The list is endless; furniture, white goods, doors, toys, books, clothes, crockery . . .

  To divert these materials from the waste stream, each local authority should be obliged to ensure the provision of a comprehensive "Community Scrapstore" for every 10,000 people in their area (meaning a national network of around 6,000 stores). Community Scrapstores accept and distribute re-usable items in their local area, and repair items needing professional attention. Many successful examples already exist in the community sector, and such projects provide local authorities with a highly cost effective means of reducing waste, redistributing wealth in the form of useful items, and providing employment and training.

3.7.   Nappies

  Disposable nappies now make up over 4 per cent of the domestic waste stream, and represent a massive waste of natural resources, a landfill pollutant, and a danger to human health.

  A major national education campaign, and a tax on disposables to provide funding for subsidised provision of re-usables, are necessary to encourage a switch to re-usable nappies.

  In addition to the tens of millions of pounds saved on both purchasing and disposal costs, a national switch back to re-usables would create thousands of jobs in nappy laundering services for those parents who do not wish to wash their own.

4.  MACRO MEASURES

  To support the specific actions called for to deal with targeted waste streams, Government should implement the following to push waste management as a whole towards sustainability.

4.1  Disposal tax

(a)  The Landfill Tax must be broadened to become a disposal tax. There is no environmental logic whatsoever to justify the taxation of landfill and not of incineration. The householder needs to understand clearly and simply that if they place an item into the mixed waste stream (their dustbin) it will be taxed, irrespective of its end destination.


(b)  Waste Disposal is too cheap. The disposal tax should increase year on year by at least £2/t.

4.2  Waste Collection/Disposal

(a)  The current division of collection (District Council) and disposal (County Council) leads to constant confusion, contradiction and passing of the buck. Given that any move towards sustainable waste management will lead to less emphasis on disposal and more on collection and pre-collection, both functions should be brought under the control of district councils (as already happens in the case of unitary authorities). Such an increase in local responsibility fits in well with the requirements of Local Agenda 21.


(b)  Waste collection contracts should contain a £/t element in the same way as disposal contracts do, rather than the current flat rate system. This is essential if collection savings are to be made through the achievement of waste reduction targets, and would allow for the payment of collection credits to encourage further recycling/composting.

(c)  With the exception of separated garden organics, Government should forget any ideas it has about direct charging. The main reasons for this are:

—  Millions of households in the UK use communal bin areas, making direct charging impossible to administer.

—  The cost of implementation and enforcement would be massive.

—  There are major socio-economic factors (eg large, poor families) to consider.

—  Nobody gets up in the morning and thinks "I must produce some waste today". As previously stressed the waste crisis is due in the main to industry and Government, not the individual who, in many instances, is powerless to act (Ref 2.5).

—  Fly-tipping may well increase.

  Instead . . .

(d)  Government should provide local authorities with clear guidance on how to integrate intensive kerbside collections of source-separated recyclables/compostables with reduced frequency refuse collections. Fortnightly, rather than weekly, refuse collections would free up the money necessary to sustaining intensive recycling/composting programmes, and avoid many of the problems associated with direct charging.

(e)  Local authorities should be encouraged to be totally flexible in their tendering and contractual arrangements, to allow community groups to provide recycling/composting services other than those of the "Yes, we will do everything over the whole Borough" variety. Enabling the community sector to flourish in the provision of services in geographically distinct areas and specialised activities will produce many more benefits in terms of education, employment, community development and cost effectiveness than simply allowing the commercial sector to handle everything ever will.

4.3  Recycling Credits

  These should be made mandatory to third party community groups, as they are to district councils. (Implementation of 4.2a would, of course, turn "third parties" into "second parties", so making the credits system easier to administer).

4.4  Landfill (Disposal) Tax Credits Scheme

  Government must ensure that a set, high percentage of available money is allocated to category C waste projects. At present the majority of this money is going to other categories, regarded as "safe and friendly" by landfill operators, and is thus doing nothing to remove waste from landfill. The Entrust criteria of "avoiding duplication" should be withdrawn; surely the one thing we need is duplication of waste reduction projects.

4.5  Planning/Licensing

  It is no exaggeration to say that it is currently as difficult to get permission to start a community composting scheme as it is to build a landfill site/incinerator.

  Planning authorities and the Environment Agency need to be given clear instruction to encourage waste reduction/re-use/recycling/composting operations, and not to subject them to the restrictive and expensive regulations that should rightly apply to disposal facilities.

5.  CONCLUSION

  The time for procrastination and pilot projects is over. We know what needs to be done, how to do it and how to pay for it. We also know who the winners and losers need to be, which only leaves Government to decide whether it really does want to achieve sustainable waste management or not.

September 2000