Resource Futures

1. Resource Futures • Waste Action Forum • 26 September 2012

2. The current state of play with legislation on separate/co-mingled collections and related issues Phillip Ward Chair

3. What’s it all about? • There is a legal dispute going on • But the real arguments are: • Philosophical • Commercial • Time related • The outcome could have practical implications for local authorities, waste companies and reprocessors.

4. The Philosophical • Are we treating waste or recovering resources? • Everyone is saying the right thing - but Source separated The argument is about the route to take The context is where we are coming from Co-mingled

5. Contamination vs Quality Domestic Low quality feed stock causes problems for reprocessors

6. Contamination vs Quality Export Markets Poorly sorted waste may be illegal and marginal in export markets and undermine public confidence in recycling at home.

7. The Commercial Argument £ • The commercial questions • How is the increased value shared across the chain? • Who puts the most in and who gets the most out? • For the national economy – which is the most efficient route? • Which keeps the most material in the UK for domestic producers? High value Low value

8. The Legal These issues are not just debated in the UK EU Commission and Parliament have been debating them for years In 2008 they came to the view that separate collections were the way forward and passed the revised Waste Framework Directive

9. The Waste Framework Directive DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 November 2008 Article 10 Recovery 1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste undergoes recovery operations, in accordance with Articles 4 [waste hierarchy] and 13 [protect human health and the environment]. 2. Where necessary to comply with paragraph 1 and to facilitate or improve recovery, waste shall be collected separately if technically, environmentally and economically practicable and shall not be mixed with other waste or other material with different properties.

10. Article 11 Re-use and recycling 1. Member States shall take measures, as appropriate, to promote the re-use of products and preparing for re-use activities, notably by encouraging the establishment and support of re-use and repair networks, the use of economic instruments, procurement criteria, quantitative objectives or other measures. Member States shall take measures to promote high quality recycling and, to this end, shall set up separate collections of waste where technically, environmentally and economically practicable and appropriate to meet the necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors. Subject to Article 10(2), [202050% reuse/recycling rate for municipal waste]by 2015 separate collection shall be set upfor at least the following: paper, metal, plastic and glass.

11. Motivation EU law is written like continental laws not UK ones – the preamble is important “This Directive should help move the EU closer to a ‘recycling society’, seeking to avoid waste generation and to use waste as a resource. In particular, the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme calls for measures aimed at ensuring the source separation, collection and recycling of priority waste streams. In line with that objective and as a means to facilitating or improving its recovery potential, waste should be separately collected if technically, environmentally and economically practicable, before undergoing recovery operations that deliver the best overall environmental outcome……………”

12. English Position • Never really on board with mandatory separate collection. • Thought they had a deal with the Commission • Minutes Statement – “Separate collection includes co-mingled collection for later separation” • Seem to be focused on preserving co-mingled collections as a main stream option • Relying on Commission Guidance – co-mingling OK if subsequent separation can achieve high quality recycling similar to that from source separation

13. Commission Guidance

14. The Legal Dispute • First attempt to transpose into E&W regs included a provision –”for the avoidance of doubt separate collection includes co-mingled” • Prompted a group of reprocessors to seek a judicial review. • December 2011 – government accepted they were wrong and asked for a 6 month delay while they re-consulted. • Second draft of the regulations tried some fancy footwork with the drafting

15. Article 11 Re-use and recycling 1. Member States shall take measures, as appropriate, to promote the re-use of products and preparing for re-use activities, notably by encouraging the establishment and support of re-use and repair networks, the use of economic instruments, procurement criteria, quantitative objectives or other measures. Member States shall take measures to promote high quality recycling and, to this end, shall set up separate collections of waste where technically, environmentally and economically practicable and necessary to meet the appropriate quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors. Subject to Article 10(2), [202050% reuse/recycling rate for municipal waste]by 2015 separate collection shall be set upfor at least the following: paper, metal, plastic and glass.

16. The Legal Dispute • Second attempt also failed on legal grounds • After a further delay a third version appeared – late- in July with the assertion this would draw a line under the legal dispute. It hasn’t yet

17. The Missing Bit of the Picture How the Government will ensure that co-mingling produces equivalent quality to separate collections. Before the reshuffle we were told to expect revised Environmental Permitting Regulations which would have enforced on all MRF’s a standard code of practice covering the measurement of waste coming in and recyclate going out. Not appeared yet Not expected to require any particular standard only that it is measured. That is a key point of continuing disagreement with reprocessors.

18. England is not the UK The story is different in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland Wales is covered by the English Regulations but the Welsh Government has made it clear that it has a strong preference for separate collections. Scotland has its own regulations which push strongly towards separate collections while recognising the “equivalent quality” possibility Northern Ireland followed the English approach and initially included a provision saying that co-mingled is a form of separate collection. They are now revoking that provision.

19. The Waste Hierarchy Article 4 sets hierarchy as a mandatory priority order for dealing with waste Can depart from it if justified by lifecycle thinking eg food waste to AD or contaminated wood to EfW Defra revising the guidance (due end of the year) but it will interact with separate collections issue EfW – The WFD also creates rules for the thermal efficiency of EfW plants. Only plants which achieve the R1 formula count as recovery operations – the rest count as disposal.

20. Timing Directive 2008 – Transposition late and incomplete. Deadline for separate collections 2015 Not possible now to make a wholesale switch without enormous costs. Part of the reason why the LGA is concerned not to limit co-mingled options Industry has invested in MRFs and don’t want to see that wasted by a sudden change of direction Reprocessing sector is short of good quality material – wont invest if they can’t get the feedstock UK businesses reporting shortage of materials is a significant issue for them

21. Implications for Local Authorities If you let a new collection contract you will be very unwise not to include separate collection in the tender If you include co-mingled collections in the tender you will need to show that you have considered whether the sorting option offered will produce recycling of an equivalent quality – not just that the MRF is permitted You will need to show that your decisions take account of the waste hierarchy – eg glass going to remelt or aggregate – which means that you will have to take an interest in the end destination of your material. If using EfWyou will need to consider whether the plant is a recovery or a disposal operation