Celtic Recycling Blog | Recovery & recycling of heavy electrical equipment

The government should consider giving councils more powers to charge for waste and recycling services and to fine residents for failing to recycle as part of its review of waste policy of England, according to local authority recycling officers.

In its response to the government’s call for evidence for the review, which ended last week (October 7), the Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee (LARAC), said it believed that local authorities were generally best placed to decide how to deliver waste services in their area, which it claimed fitted well with the government’s localism agenda

Giving councils powers to fine residents for failing to recycle was among the measures suggested by LARAC

But, it warned that a combination of reduced targets for individual councils, financial constraints and the separation of waste from carbon drivers could reduce recycling service provision.

“Unless these issues are addressed by the government, ‘localism’ without appropriate drivers will reduce the incentive for some communities to increase recycling,” LARAC said.

The issue of how councils can improve their recycling performance in the current economic climate and how the waste review will impact on this is set to be one of the key topics addressed at next month’s LARAC Conference and Celebration Awards, which are being held in Liverpool on November 3 and 4.

Writing to the body’s members this week, LARAC chair Joy Blizzard said: “There is little sign that life in the public sector is going to get any easier, which is why the entire focus of LARAC 2010 is how to deliver recycling in the most efficient way possible.”

Powers

In its response to the review, LARAC said that, among the new powers government should consider for councils were to be able to make charges for waste management and recycling services, which it claimed would make the decision on charges “locally democratically accountable”.

It also highlighted the role that additional powers could play in achieving the waste review’s aim of minimising illegal waste activity, claiming that: “To fully embrace a zero waste concept suitable sanctions are needed against those that continue to undermine LA’s and local communities recycling efforts.”

“In this respect, additional powers would be welcomed that encourage recycling, perhaps for use of the fixed penalty scheme for failure to recycle, or to place correct materials in the correct bins.

“Local authorities would use these powers only as a last resort, however,” it added.

LARAC said that, in this area, the government should also give councils new powers to “sequester” revenues from enforcement actions, alongside a general increase in penalties for environmental crime.

Incentives

In its response, LARAC also advocated that the government should take an approach to incentives for recycling which would reflect its philosophy of localism.

It claimed that, in light of this, “local authorities are best placed to respond to local needs, perceptions and opportunities, and should be given powers to respond to these, including powers to choose what incentives are most appropriate for their communities”.

The coalition has been a strong supporter of the ‘carrot’ rather than the ‘stick’ approach for incentives, endorsing the US-devised recycling rewards scheme RecycleBank (see letsrecycle.com story), while also proposing to remove councils’ ability to run ‘pay-as-you-throw’ schemes (see letsrecycle.com story).

LARAC gave qualified support for the government’s approach, stating that: “In general LARAC support the concept of ‘rewards’ as a motivational tool but recognises that they do not incentivise everyone. There is also a danger that such schemes may become incentives for people to consume more.”

The association has already expessed its concern over the government’s apparent support for one scheme ahead of alternative ways of encouraging recycling (see letsrecycle.com story)

Concerns

Among the areas of concern or in need of action that LARAC also highlighted in its response were:

• To define ‘zero waste’ fully to avoid confusion with ‘zero waste to landfill’ – LARAC said the term ‘working towards zero waste’ would be more appropriate;
• The need for further measures to encourage investment in waste treatment and recycling as PFI comes to an end;
• Support for using skills and knowledge from private sector organisations and local communities to undertake roles traditionally carried out by public sector bodies – such as incentivising groups to bring fly-tippers to justice;
• Changing licencing for civic amenity sites to encourage their use for trade waste as well;
• Ensuring that any voluntary producer responsibility deals are monitored and reviewed to make sure they are not compromised by ‘freeriders’;
• Removing regulatory barriers to re-use and developing re-use networks;
• Making sure waste policy is “more closely aligned” with policies on health promotions and social exclusion – such as a link between healthy eating and food waste reduction.

LARAC’s response also sees it echo concerns raised by other local authority figures about the effect that a move away from alternate weekly collections could have on both council costs and recycling rates (see letsrecycle.com story).

When the government published the terms of reference for the waste review in July 2010, it said it would work with councils to increase the “frequency and quality” of collections (see letsrecycle.com story).

But, in its response, LARAC warned that “any imposed move away from systems such as AWC, back to traditional weekly residual waste collections would not only raise significant budget pressures at a time where reducing the fiscal deficit is a key priority, but would also go against the localism agenda and could only have a detrimental effect on waste minimisation and recycling rates.”

The government is set to publish the first results of the waste review next spring.