UK recycling rates are stagnating, China has closed its borders to mixed papers and plastics, and there is widespread confusion around what can be recycled in the home. The current stresses could have been side-stepped if the UK focused on quality, writes Peter Clayson of DS Smith Recycling.
A recent IPSOS MORI poll found that while 7 out of 8 adults are at least “fairly concerned” about the impact of plastic and packaging on the environment, only 14% of respondents were prepared to pay more council tax to help improve the range of materials that could be recycled. Shortly after the poll was published, Suffolk Council publicised an annual loss of £550,000 due to residents putting their recycling in the wrong bins.
Residents are expressing their concerns, but those concerns aren’t turning into action. Is it because we have made recycling too confusing for residents and consumers?
Despite residents’ apparent confusion, there is still an appetite for recycling. A recent British Science Association poll might have found that only 33% of respondents said that they are prepared to check if an item is recyclable or not before putting it in the bin, and that none of the 2,000 people polled were able to correctly answer every question about what materials were recyclable – yet 80% of the respondents confirmed their belief that recycling makes a difference. To me that suggests that we want to do the right thing, but we need better guidance.
WRAP’s Framework for Greater Consistency for Household Recycling in England was launched to great acclaim, but is yet to have significant impact on national or local governments. Indeed, news of Northampton’s ten-year contract for commingled recycling and Milton Keynes’ investment in incineration seem to suggest we have some work to do on understanding the benefits of collecting quality material for recycling.
It is no wonder that recycling rates are struggling – or that our biggest export market has imposed stringent limitations on the quality of material they will take. A United Kingdom of quality in recycling could have offset some of those challenges.
Nationwide consistency in separate collections – food collected separately, paper and cardboard segregated from other dry recyclables – would solve these problems in one stroke,
- eliminating householder confusion.
- simplifying communications with residents on what is and isn’t recyclable.
- improving the quality of materials sent for recycling.
- boosting recycling rates.
Building on these benefits, putting quality at the heart of the recycling agenda can help improve the financial implications for councils, will give reprocessors a greater incentive to buy local authority material, and will drive up the national recycling rate.
If we had prioritised the quality of material for recycling – if we had a consistent programme of separate collection of recyclables across the UK – China could have taken a different view of our exports, and councils would not be losing money to their residents’ confusion.
