Waste not want not - States Assembly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Recommendation 16: WRAP should take forward four measures to reduce waste volumes through an extension of home composting; promotion of the reuse of nappies; joint initiatives with the major supermarkets to reduce packaging; and support for R&D. Priority 2: expanding recycling and composting infrastructure 7.7 Without the necessary infrastructure, a shift to more recycling and composting will <strong>not</strong> be delivered. Figure 16 sets out the key elements of the infrastructure needed for increased recycling and composting. Figure 16: infrastructure for recycling and composting Collection infrastructure Sorting/ bulking Reprocessing Secondary Resource Market Kerbside collections Civic amenity sites Bring banks Bulking stations Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs) E.g. Composting E.g. Secondary smelting and refining mills E.g. Pulp mills 7.8 The development of collection infrastructure has been relatively slow because of cost and the added challenge of encouraging people to participate. Provision of kerbside collections has grown from 20% of households in 1995/96 to 52% in 2000/01. Box 27 summarises the current situation. Outside the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in Portsmouth – photo courtesy of Hampshire County Council/Onyx Inside the Material Recycling Facility (MRF) in Huddersfield (part of the Kirklees Energy and Materials Recycling Park) – photo courtesy of Kirklees Metropolitan Council A recycling bring site – photo courtesy of Hartlepool Borough Council STRATEGIC INVESTMENT MEASURES 89
Box 27: current collection infrastructure for municipal waste Kerbside collections – 52% of local authorities have some kind of kerbside collection for recyclables. These are very varied e.g. collecting paper only or a mixed collection of paper, cans and glass or bulky items only. These types of collection are the most expensive, but also the most convenient for households. During the period of growth in kerbside collections, there has been a shift away from paper only collections towards multi-material schemes. Currently only 8% of households receive organic waste collections. Civic amenity (CA) sites – 1.2 million tonnes of waste are collected through CA sites. The current network of civic amenity sites achieves variable recycling rates. The average is 22% although best practice sites have achieved much higher rates (Essex 53%, Hampshire 51%). Bring banks – 0.7 million tonnes of waste, mainly paper and glass is collected from bring sites. The current density of provision is 1:1,170 households – below that in Belgium (1:400) and Germany (1:800). The Audit Commission recommended in 1997 that good practice should involve the provision of one bring bank for every 750 households. J. Parfitt (2002) WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 90 What’s needed? 7.9 Two investment programmes are needed: 1. a WRAP-led programme of advice to local authorities on the expansion of kerbside collection. There should be particular emphasis on supporting the roll-out of organic waste collections where current provision is low; and 2. a corresponding expansion of markets for compost. The objectives of the programmes would be to: ● ● ● ● expand collection infrastructure to provide simple and convenient facilities and to enable critical capacities to be reached and economies of scale to be achieved; increase participation and bring about behavioural change; develop recyclate markets focusing more attention on organic wastes; and develop secondary materials markets to stabilise prices and encourage private sector investment. 7.10 Details of the two proposed programmes are set out in Figure 17. 125 Spending Review 2002 What could they achieve? 7.11 The aims are to achieve a step change in the overall levels and quality of composting in England: ● ● to produce an additional 1 million tonnes per annum of compost produced from new local authority organics collections by 2006. This should add 3.5% to the average household recycling/composting rate; and expand the market for compost in the landscaping, horticultural and agricultural sectors to 1 million tonnes by 2006. 7.12 The estimated cost of the programmes is £45 million over 3 years. The programmes could be run by WRAP, building on their current role in developing markets for compost and drawing on their extensive expertise. 7.13 This would contribute towards meeting DEFRA’s PSA target of 25% recycling and composting of household waste that can<strong>not</strong> be composted at home by 2005/6. 125
Page 1 and 2:
Waste not, Want not A strategy for
Page 3 and 4:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 2
Page 5 and 6:
The report shows clearly that a dif
Page 7 and 8:
Key points (continued) The aim of p
Page 9 and 10:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 8 There are sev
Page 11 and 12:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 10 The second p
Page 13 and 14:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 12 that cause e
Page 15 and 16:
● 50% of households carrying out
Page 17 and 18:
Box 1: Tackling waste in the devolv
Page 19 and 20:
● Chapter 3 describes why tacklin
Page 21 and 22:
Box 2: Types of waste: (continued)
Page 23 and 24:
authority makes arrangements to rec
Page 25 and 26:
Box 3: Instruments used in other co
Page 27 and 28:
There are sound economic and enviro
Page 29 and 30:
Current policies are failing to tac
Page 31 and 32:
● setting up the Waste and Resour
Page 33 and 34:
4. BARRIERS TO MORE SUSTAINABLE WAS
Page 35 and 36:
4.7 As well as DTI and DEFRA, the E
Page 37 and 38:
that only 7% of the public identify
Page 39 and 40: Box 6: Common waste ‘myths’…
Page 41 and 42: ● time series data on the costs o
Page 43 and 44: Summary (continued) ● funding for
Page 45 and 46: Figure 7: A more detailed version o
Page 47 and 48: Box 8: Roles and Responsibilities (
Page 49 and 50: Having set out the principles and t
Page 51 and 52: ● ● ● options open and reduce
Page 53 and 54: ● ● ● ● reducing the rate o
Page 55 and 56: Box 11: Scenario 1 - Do nothing - h
Page 57 and 58: Box 13: Scenario 3 - Doing even bet
Page 59 and 60: Reform of the economic and regulato
Page 61 and 62: Box 15: An example of incentives to
Page 63 and 64: Box 17: Measures to tackle fly-tipp
Page 65 and 66: Box 18: The UK Producer Responsibil
Page 67 and 68: Option (a): developing markets for
Page 69 and 70: Building regulations 6.26 One of th
Page 71 and 72: minimisation targets for office was
Page 73 and 74: Recommendation 9: DEFRA together wi
Page 75 and 76: Figure 12: Landfill tax rates and p
Page 77 and 78: 6.53 Lessons from the introduction
Page 79 and 80: management strategy in reducing was
Page 81 and 82: Box 26: Department of Health eviden
Page 83 and 84: 7. CHAPTER STRATEGIC HEADINGS INVES
Page 85 and 86: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 14: Four
Page 87 and 88: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 14: Four
Page 89: What could a reduction in waste gro
Page 93 and 94: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 17: Two
Page 95 and 96: Industry: what’s needed? 7.19 Sin
Page 97 and 98: Priority 4: improving the research
Page 99 and 100: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 18: Summ
Page 101 and 102: 8. Funding and Delivery Summary Spe
Page 103 and 104: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 102 Pressures f
Page 105 and 106: scheme to tackle priority areas for
Page 107 and 108: Figure 19: A new framework for the
Page 109 and 110: will be required and then translate
Page 111 and 112: Recommendation 31: DEFRA and ODPM s
Page 113 and 114: Recommendation 34: ODPM and DEFRA s
Page 115 and 116: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 114 2. Strategi
Page 117 and 118: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Summary of key
Page 119 and 120: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Recommendation
Page 141 and 142:
ANNEX A. THE ROLE OF THE STRATEGY U
Page 143 and 144:
Lester Hicks - ODPM, senior officia
Page 145 and 146:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT The conclusions
Page 147 and 148:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 146 3. Commerci
Page 149 and 150:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Annex C: Summar
Page 151 and 152:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Annex C: Summar
Page 153 and 154:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 152 Community s
Page 155 and 156:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 154 Licensed si
Page 157 and 158:
Waste Strategy 2000 - Government vi
show all

Waste not want not - States Assembly

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?