Agenda item

(To receive feedback following the task and finish group held to discuss a County recycling campaign)

The Partnership was advised that a meeting had taken place, as agreed at the last meeting, between Councillor R Shore (LCC), Sean Kent (LCC), Simon Cotton (LCC), Councillor F Smith (City of Lincoln) and Steve Bird (City of Lincoln) to hold initial discussions on producing a standardised message for a county recycling strategy which could be included in a future edition of County News, which set out what should be placed in green bins, waste bins and recycling bins.

It was suggested that the group look at what items were common to all authorities and a diagram showing this was produced by Steve Bird and circulated to the Partnership.  It was commented that it had been a very successful meeting.  It was noted that the success of this campaign would rely on the co-operation and support of all members of the Partnership.

The aim of the campaign would be to increase recycling, both by ensuring that the right materials go into the right bins, and also by reducing contamination within recycling.  This would be achieved by improving the householders knowledge of what can go into the recycling bin, and how important it is for that material to be placed in there clean, as well as what the implications were for putting things in the wrong bin e.g. putting items that were not recyclable into the recycling bin.

It was suggested that the best way to achieve this would be to simplify the message across all districts and possibly to simplify the streams in the short term.  The main issue would be how this was communicated.  It was also noted that this would create the potential for savings or income generation, and it was thought that if this was the case, they should be shared by all authorities.

Members of the Partnership were provided with the opportunity to discuss the document which had been circulated and also ask questions to the officers present, and some of the points raised during discussion included the following;

·         One message to get out would be that the HWRC would accept items such as textiles, metals and electronic equipment;

·         It would also be beneficial to include information relating to the duty of care in relation to fly-tipping;

·         There was also a need for further discussion in relation to enforcement and rewards for information which led to prosecutions for fly-tipping;

·         Concerns were raised regarding the simplifying of the recycling streams as it could be seen as a backwards step.  There was a need for caution when suggesting removing materials from the recycling stream;

·         It was highlighted that the purpose of this exercise was to remove some of the confusion from the public and having a consistent message regarding what recyclable material was collected; 

·         The Partnership was advised that not many of the tetrapaks which were collected had been recycled.  It was noted that there had been a national scheme to recycle tetrapaks, however, they were difficult to recycle as they needed to be broken down into their separate parts;

·         Ultimately, the industry would drive which materials were collected for recycling;

·         There was a need to make a decision as a partnership regarding the materials which should be collected for recycling;

·         An ambition could be for the county to have its own MRF.  The quality of the product for recycling had to be high;

·         One of the biggest contaminants which needed to be removed from the recycling stream was plastic bags;

·         It was noted from the analysis that there were a lot of materials that all districts did collect;

·         In relation to public perception, it was thought that this would give out a mixed message of why material was recycled, in that these things were only recycled to make money, rather than for environmental reasons.  It was queried how it would be explained to the public that there were particular items which the authority no longer wanted to recycle;

·         It was agreed that there was a need to identify materials in relation to the contract, but a lot of recycling was collected in line with what the legislation stated;

·         It was noted that there were companies which would not recycle particular materials as in some instances it cost less to make new ones than recycle;

·         There was a need to choose what could be recycled meaningfully;

·         It was noted that the Partnership in 2006 had tried to bring uniformity to the recycling stream.  It was believed that there was a need to move on.  It was suggested that one way to do this was through reducing packaging.  It was commented that people did not create waste, they bought it;

·         Further concerns were raised regarding taking items out of the recycling mix that councils already collected;

·         There was also a need for companies to stop putting on plastic packaging labels that it was recyclable, as just because the type of plastic was recyclable did not mean that every authority had the ability to recycle it;

·         It was commented that most people did not recycle well, and there were often problems with which plastics could be recycled.  Although, people did think they were doing the right thing.  This was why there was a need to ensure there was a clear message across the county;

·         There was agreement that all districts would continue to collect paper, cardboard, plastic bottles, cans, glass and garden waste;

·         It was suggested that it would be useful for the Partnership to visit a MRF and a waste transfer station.  It was commented that some of the contamination rates were up to 30%;

·         It was commented that this was a very complicated issue, but there was some support towards moving to a waste stream that could be collected by all.  However, it should not be believed that just putting an article in county news would make a difference to what ended up at the MRF;

·         NKDC had previously run campaigns to tackle the issues of ordinary waste, such as nappies, being put into recycling bins;

·         It was queried what the financial implication of hard plastics going into the residual waste stream would be;

·         It was agreed that there was a lot of confusion regarding what was recyclable, and it was suggested that people should be advised to stick to the basics, and if that message could be got out, it would be a start;

·         Contamination was another big issue to deal with, and it was suggested that if people could not clean the tin/bottle/jar etc. before it went in the recycling then it should go in the residual waste stream;

·         It was commented that this would be a gradual process, but that overall it could increase recycling rates;

·         It was believed that a lot of people would come on board with this once they understood the message which was being delivered;

·         There were two aspects to this, the first being that anything put in the recycling should be put in clean, and secondly, that there would be a contract which would state what would and would not be recycled;

·         There were a lot of things to think about, and any changes would need to go through the due process, and it was suggested that putting any message out now could cause some problems, as a new contract would not be implemented for another 18 months – 2 years;

·         It was agreed that all partners thought it was a good idea to have a consistent message, but it was not yet agreed what that message should be.  However, it was positive that a start had been made and it was suggested that this be passed to the Officer Working Group to produce an options paper;

·         It was suggested there was a need to concentrate on what contamination meant to the districts financially, such as what the cost was, as it was thought this would be more meaningful to the public;

·         There would be a need to make some difficult decisions, and referring it to the Officer Working Group was supported;

·         It was suggested that the public be given a better description of what glass could be put in the recycling e.g. specifically bottles and jars (not broken window panes etc.);

·         There would also be a need for members to get this message back to their own councils, and get them on board with the message as well;

·         It was noted that County news was just one channel that this message could be communicated through, there were others such as websites, internal communications, social media etc.

·         It was important to emphasise that the people who would benefit from this would be the tax payers.

RESOLVED

            That this matter be referred back to the Officer Working Group to      produce an options paper to be brought back to the Lincolnshire waste         Partnership at a later date.