Towards Sustainable Waste Management Practice
SR(02)05 A&B
April 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Introduction

SNIFFER commissioned this research into Sustainable Waste Management Practice in the UK. This study has been undertaken jointly by ECOTEC Research and Consulting, Eunomia Research & Consulting, and MEL Research, and was completed in April 2002.

2. Objectives

The objectives of the study were to:

• highlight lessons in sustainable waste management practice of relevance to Scotland and Northern Ireland, both positive and negative, through examination of case studies; including the performance of municipal recycling and composting schemes;
• provide an overview of the instruments available to improve waste management practices and outline some of the factors which are important in ensuring successful implementation.

The study aims to provide prompts, and stimulate thinking, amongst waste managers in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

3. Approach

The study has been addressed as an international literature review and a series of case studies.

• The overview report [SR(02)05A] assesses whether there might be specific barriers to moving towards more sustainable waste management practices in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and examines some of the instruments which have been used in other countries to bring about such changes. This included a review of the behavioural factors and economic incentives considered important in successful waste management programmes. The focus of the work has been on options that are at the top end of the waste hierarchy. It therefore considers a range of schemes that seek to minimise the generation of municipal waste and increase levels of re-use, re-cycling and composting.
• The case study report [SR(02)05B] looks at specific interventions and systems in more detail. It covers a wide range of schemes including minimisation schemes (WEN, The Real Nappy Campaign), promotion schemes, composting and recycling schemes, as well as schemes dealing with household hazardous wastes.

4.Key lessons

The key lessons from the overall study are set out below.

• There are many variables that affect the behaviour of householders in respect of waste management. There is no obvious reason as to why the behaviour of householders here should be any different to that of householders in other European countries in respect of their waste management behaviour.
• Variables frequently used to explain variation in recycling performance within the UK - age, level of education, wealth, etc. - are also present in other 'more successful' countries. There is some evidence to support the view that lower-income households participate less effectively in recycling schemes though this may be a proxy for other variables.
• The levels of recycling and composting achievement in some other countries is well beyond what several organisations and individuals claim to be 'the maximum' achievable in the UK context. Potentially, the low horizon as to what can be achieved holds back performance as aspirations are lowered and enthusiasm is dimmed.
• The key factor which is likely to improve the prospects for success of a recycling scheme is convenience.
• Convenient schemes need to be supported by well-targeted information and promotion of the scheme and, preferably, there should also be incentives in place to encourage engagement in the scheme.
• An advantage that other countries have is that the presence of the schemes may be supported by the presence of mandates on householders to participate, or charging schemes, or both. This is likely to improve performance where convenient collection schemes are in place.
• Mandates, either on local authorities for minimum service provision (in respect of collection), or for householder participation, are absent in the UK at present (though there is an implied service provision in targets now present in England, and likely to be present in Wales).
• Primary legislation is interpreted as preventing the introduction of variable charging. Hence, the more successful authorities in the UK appear to be using other means at their disposal, principally the limitation of the amount of residual waste collected, to encourage householder co-operation with the scheme. This takes us back to convenience arguments. It is not only the absolute convenience of source separation which encourages engagement in the activity, but also the convenience relative to the residual waste collection which matters.

5. Positive Thinking And Developing Sustainable Waste Management

Given these key lessons, the question remains as to why waste management practice in the UK has remained rooted in a 'disposal paradigm' for so long.

Sustainable waste management practices do not spontaneously emerge in the absence of deliberate actions to develop them. Hence, the rather unsustainable nature of waste management might be explained less by 'barriers', and more by a lack of serious attempts to develop the regulatory and incentive structure required to bring forward the necessary infrastructure. Put bluntly, people will not change their behaviour in positive ways if the only form of behaviour requested of them is to 'throw rubbish in the bin'. Nor will local authorities be encouraged to pursue actions which facilitate, or support, alternative behaviours when, faced with financial constraints, collecting and landfilling waste is the cheapest option.

The challenge now facing Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as the whole of the UK, is to put in place an enabling framework in which local authorities are encouraged to design convenient schemes for source separation of materials. Ideally, there are incentives for local authorities to do this, and mechanisms designed to encourage householder participation. There must be serious attempts made to turn the hitherto slow rate of development in Scotland and Northern Ireland to the advantage of those designing collection schemes. This can only happen if attempts are made to learn from experience elsewhere and to adapt and apply these lessons to local situations as they arise in Scotland and Northern Ireland. None of this is to say that the transition to more sustainable waste management will be entirely straightforward. It would be wrong, however, to say:

• this is bound to take a long time (this is not necessarily true); or
• the choices are very difficult ones to make.

In many ways, the choices are rather simple. Furthermore, they are increasingly 'not choices' since they are implied, or may be implied, by the implementation of existing and proposed Directives which are, to a significant degree, driving the change now underway. The key now is to ensure not 'compliance for compliance sake', but that in implementing sustainable waste management systems, compliance with the various Directives now in place (and emerging) arises as a more-or-less natural consequence of the pursuit of suitable strategies.

Remaining constraints relate to budgets and to the will to change existing waste collection systems, as well as how materials arising will be dealt with after collection. Initiatives already underway seem likely to be helpful in both respects, though just how successful market development initiatives are in maintaining, or even enhancing materials prices remains to be seen. Efficient use of funds will be important.

But there is nothing to suggest that the culture of Northern Ireland and Scotland precludes the changes foreseen. On the contrary, the changes foreseen will shape culture at least as much as culture determines the manner in which the changes proceed. Commitment and well-thought-out collection strategies, designed to be convenient to users, will engender positive change.

Some pointers and ideas for further development are given in the accompanying case study document [SR(02)05B].

KEY WORDS: Waste; Resources; Waste Management; Municipal Waste; Household Waste; Waste Minimisation; Recycling; Composting; Household Hazardous Waste; Sustainable Waste Management; Source Separation; Economic Instruments; Behavioural Change; Variable Charging; Direct Charging; Deposit Refund.

Copies of these reports are available from the Foundation - SR(02)05A (Overview Report) price £35.00 and SR(02)05B (Case Study Report) price £50.00, less 20% to FWR members