Judicial Review Could Set British Recycling Back Years, Says Biffa
16 September 2011
Waste management company, Biffa, has announced that if a judicial review rules against the Government's definition of recycling it will cost "an unnecessary fortune" and could hinder recycling in the UK
According to Pete Dickson, development director of Biffa's municipal division, the recent approval of a judicial review application by the Campaign for Real Recycling (CRR) "could set back British recycling years, confuse householders, and undermine the very real recycling achievements made by many councils".
The CRR claims that Defra has inaccurately defined commingled recycling collections, where dry materials such as paper, card, glass, cans and plastics are collected mixed together, meet the revised European Waste Framework Directive's requirement that waste streams are collected separately.
The campaign organisation says the correct interpretation is that material has to be collected separately, such as through kerbside-sort collections.
Dickson called the review the result of "the blinkered self-interest of the CRR" saying while it is CRR's right to "have its day in court", Biffa will be providing input to the Environmental Services Association's expert evidence being prepared in support of Defra's interpretation.
"But if the court rules in CRR's favour, many scores of councils may be faced with scrapping their commingled recycling schemes and spending an unnecessary fortune on implementing kerbside-separated collections, as well as dealing with increased disposal costs."
According to Dickson, that could mean millions of householders having to cope with a more complex way of recycling, rather than continuing with the simple option provided by commingling.
Quantity Vs Quality
According to Dickson, around half of all local authorities in England now use commingled recycling collections because they are proven to boost recycling rates. Rather than having a number of different boxes or sacks into which householders have to collect each material, commingling means they can just put everything into one container.
He added that commingling also offers a number of operating efficiencies for local authorities, such as fewer vehicle movements, fewer collections rounds and containers, and a safer working environment for collection crews, as well as achieving higher recycling rates.
A central CRR argument is that commingling results in the creation of lower quality recycled materials that are not fit for use by re-processors. On the subject of recyclate quality, Dickson commented: "Biffa produces high quality recycled products that are in demand by both domestic and overseas re-processors, and that achieve market leading prices."
Stating that Biffa is both a seller and purchaser of recycled commodities that have been collected by both commingled and kerbside-sort systems, he said that Biffa achieves the same market prices for these commodities, irrespective of the original collection system.
Dickson commented: "What matters is not the collection system, but how you manage your processes to ensure you meet the quality specifications of your re-processor partners."
He said the fact that long-established re-processors were now investing in new MRFs could be taken as evidence that the CRR's stance did not have widespread support amongst UK-based recyclable re-processors.
Biffa says it is in full support of commingled recycling as it is a viable and useful collection system that "must and should be an option available to local authorities. It's just that kerbside-sort is not right for many local authorities, whereas commingling is."
"Councils must have the freedom to choose the collection system that is right for their local needs, budgets, geographies and residents, be it commingling or kerbside-sort. The CRR apparently wants to take away that freedom."
Biffa claims the purpose of the European Directive was to ensure that local authorities provided comprehensive recycling services to enable maximum waste diversion and recycling.
Darrel Moore
