News

Sorting out recycling, a study by Sussex University told us last month, is as hard as Sudoku. To underline the point, the Daily Mail produced a version of the Japanese puzzle using a range of waste-related symbols instead of numbers.

It’s a bit of headline-grabbing fun, certainly. But comments left on the newspaper’s website brought up two serious issues around household recycling. First, they concurred with the view that the recycling process can be confusing and frustrating. Second, a majority believed councils should take responsibility for sorting waste, rather than forcing householders to do it.

Yet policy from the main political parties continues to be to encourage – or force – householders to sort out their own waste. This autumn’s Climate Change Bill includes provision for five local authorities to pilot schemes in which households could receive council tax rebates for producing less non-recyclable waste. Fines for non-recyclers could be part of such projects.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, have promised to offer cash incentives to homes to recycle, in schemes similar to US projects such as RecycleBank (see box). And, also last month, one London council, where the Liberal Democrats are the biggest party, introduced a fine of up to £1,000 for persistent non-recyclers.

A fine idea
While Daily Mail readers may balk at the idea of facing fines for non-recycling, industry stakeholders broadly agree with the concept of financial incentives.

The Local Government Association, for instance, has proposed what it terms a ‘save-as-you-throw’ scheme in which households would receive rebates on the proportion of their council tax that is spent on waste collection.

Think-tank the Green Alliance also supports incentives. Policy officer Hannah Hislop, who specialises in waste issues, says: Local councils can’t control what is in households’ waste, and don’t have many options for pushing recycling rates higher if they are denied the use of incentives to influence whether people recycle or not.

Financial incentives have their place in the package of measures, and in countries where recycling rates are very high they certainly play a role. However, any form of fine for non-recycling would have to be handled very carefully so that it isn’t seen as another stealth tax.

However, Hislop adds that retailers have an important role to play in making recycling as simple as possible by, for instance, standardising the types of plastics used in bottles.

Retailers agree that their role in reducing packaging waste is key, but the British Retail Consortium warns against imposing financial penalties on consumers who do not recycle. Spokesman Richard Dodd says that retailers prefer to encourage recycling through incentive schemes and by making the process as easy as possible for consumers; for example, through the development of a universal recycling logo or offering collection of used packaging materials.

Dodd adds that the retailers are in favour of increased standardisation of local councils’ collection facilities. There is a lot of packaging that could be recycled that isn’t, so councils have to standardise the type of materials they can recycle and further develop infrastructure, he says. A regime of penalties for not recycling is not likely to be something we’d support.

Nevertheless, evidence suggests that financial incentives work. Wrap last month released a study claiming exactly that. Meanwhile London’s Brent Council has introduced compulsory recycling, using its green box collection system. Under the scheme, persistent recycling refuseniks could end up with a £1,000 fine, although these would, a spokesman for the council insists, only be imposed as a last resort.

Early results are encouraging. In the run-up to the launch on 1 August, Brent’s recycling rates were already up year-on-year, according to the spokesman, from 611 tonnes in July 2007 to 773 tonnes in July 2008. That figure is now expected to rise further and Brent is aiming for a 10% recycling rate on all its waste by 2010.

Aside from bolstering its eco-credentials, the council’s principal motivation is the sheer cost of sending waste to landfill. Our current bill is £7m a year, and we expect that to increase to £10m a year by 2011 unless we increase our recycling rate, says the spokesman.

Packaging News readers, too, have come out in favour of financial incentives to encourage recycling, although they share the Green Alliance’s concern over fines being seen as a stealth tax. One contributor to the online Soap Box forum says: Every householder has a duty to maximise recycling. However, councils should be made to make it as easy as possible. They should not be bureaucratic or use it for extra revenue by fining people for genuine mistakes.

Another calls on councils to be transparent with the money they save from the growth of recycling: Make sure that the money recovered by the councils for recycled material is known to everyone, as it should be used to cut council tax.
Financial incentives to make us all recycle are clearly on the way, whether we like it as an industry or hate it as householders. When that happens, one thing’s for certain: we’ll all be spending more time recycling than playing Sudoku.

BANKING ON RECYCLING
• George Osborne, the Conservative shadow chancellor, has proposed introducing schemes similar to the US-based RecycleBank project. RecycleBank was set up in 2004 in Philadelphia, and now has more than 150,000 customers, with a million more on the waiting list. Under the scheme, households earn vouchers for every pound of waste that they recycle. The weight is measured by the rubbish truck, and the bin and household are identified by an RFID chip in the bin.
• The vouchers can be redeemed at a number of stores, and can earn up to $50 (£26) a month for the householders. Local authorities clearly benefit because they have to pay less for landfill; meanwhile, RecycleBank takes a share of the money saved as profit.