LAWR

WASTE COLLECTION Look on the bright side of austerity Budgets have been slashed and more cuts are on the way, but new philosophies are emerging as councils seek to achieve more with less. Let's publicise them, says Chris Oldfield. arch's LAWR carried an analysis of the Ricardo-AEA/ CIWM report into the impact of austerity on local authority waste collection and cleansing services. The headline read 'Trouble on the frontline?' and was set against stormy clouds. Though stories of the public sector financial crisis will often suggest doom and gloom, little is made of the successes being experienced when things are fiscally tough. CIWM acknowledged that some council services are being stopped, redundancies are apparent, and in many cases morale has suffered. But the study also highlighted that many successful authorities are actually thinking about the opportunities afforded by austerity. A 'do more with less' philosophy is seemingly emerging – and not before time, with councils said to be halfway through funding cuts. So what more can be done to capitalise on this progress? Effective communication is crucial. Rochdale Council's 'Right stuff. Right Bin' campaign involves waste collectors leaving a green thank you tag on bins containing the right items. Meanwhile, a red 'Wrong Bin. Wrong Stuff' label reminds households what items should go in each bin if there were mistakes. In less than two months the pilot reportedly saved £22,420 through landfill diversion. There was also a 61% contamination reduction for comingled recycling. Communication must also be relevant: as Prodware's Jason M May 2015 Local Authority Waste & Recycling 15 Chris Oldfield is managing director of Untha UK Fazackerley suggested recently, younger people are particularly more in tune with apps and social media. Councils therefore need to capitalise on technological advancements and usage habits to optimise results. Universal approach Considered communication is particularly important given that there's not a universal approach to waste collection in the UK. This seems ludicrous, especially when organisations like Wrap are working so hard to colour-code recycling messages for ease of understanding. Systems vary and so too does performance. At the Secondary Commodity Markets Conference in March, for example, delegates were reminded that Wales has a statutory 70% municipal solid waste recycling target to meet by 2025. Scotland's councils also have a 60% target by 2020. In England the comparable rate is just 50%. What's more, under the Waste Framework Directive, the EU will fine the UK government if the mandatory 2020 targets are missed. The consequence to England's local authorities is therefore minimal, other than reputational damage. This highlights how UK waste policy and policies in devolved nations do not tie up. Of course, no one wants to be restricted by unnecessary red tape. But the fear of some form of penalty is often what's needed. We cannot rely on altruistic drivers alone. The January introduction of TEEP could have been a great catalyst in this respect. But whilst Scotland has defined TEEP as mandatory separate collections of paper, plastics, metals and glass, it hasn't been defined in England. I can't help but fear that subjectivity will impede progress here, especially in relation to commercial and industrial waste. Ultimately, when people are not obligated to do something, actions often boil down to incentivisation. It would therefore be great if more thanks were given to households for the part they play in the wider recycling jigsaw. Individuals or businesses could even be financially credited for compliance. But there's also the argument that if UK waste were 'metred' like utilities, people would strive to learn more about recycling to avoid additional costs. This decision may not seem like a vote-winner, but it could be the solution the country requires. " If waste were 'me- tred' like utilities, people would strive to learn more about re- cycling to avoid addi- tional costs "

• Cover