How do we measure success?
The drive to meet weight based targets could well point to the well publicised issue of contamination in recycling. Whereas recycling targets should be ambitious, maybe the metrics regarding quality need to be addressed. Quality is key to the recycling industry. Many schemes produce good quality material, but when it is low quality this can lead to extensive and costly sorting by reprocessors before the material can be recycled.
At the Co-op we measure success of recyclability at product level rather than by weight. So we have a target to get to 80% of our products being easy to recyclable by 2020. This is more aligned to what the customers actually see in store.
The recycling metrics at the moment are measured in weight, which does result in some slightly perverse incentives to collect the heavier recycled materials (ie wet grass clippings). We would like to see a move to measures which encourage the recycling industry to target materials that have the most intrinsic environmental value or scarcity (ie plastics, aluminium or rare earth metals) rather than chasing volume and weight. The point about newspapers is an interesting one - because it shifts the type of materials that need capturing and recycling. In the future, we'll need to incentivise the recycling of computers, tablets and the materials that make them rather than newspapers.
How do we give waste a better image?
A couple of interesting questions from twitter about the not-so-good image of the waste and recycling sector:
#askGSB bin, waste, trashcan, garbage all have negative connotations that suggest the material is no longer of value...
— dwiss (@yourdwiss) January 19, 2017
#askgsb: We need to involve the #creativecommunity to turn around image of #recycling, #reuse etc, its appeal needs a #makeover
— #UpcycledHomes (@UpcycledHomes) January 19, 2017
Our panel guests agreed on the need to try and change this:
I completely agree that plastic packaging waste is seen as a negative, whereas in reality it is a highly valuable and local resource that UK manufacturers need to put back into making more products. It makes economic sense that we use UK resources for UK manufacture and avoid using unnecessary virgin materials.
Yes! Definitely got thoughts on this one. That's our whole aim at Remade, instead of blaiming people for wasting too much, encouraging people to see the benefits of reuse and repair. Repair creates 10 times as many jobs as recycling, and we help folk learn and share skills, connect in the community, make friends at our community repair centre and make creative use of stuff that would otherwise go to landfill. Put simply - it makes people feel good.
When I shared this article I wrote about creating a network of community repair centres in the UK it got thousands of shares and positive comments. This is our big vision:
Internally, at least, we've stopped referring to the materials we collect as waste - we refer to "resources", which is exactly what these materials are, even the stuff in our black bins. We need consistency of communication from all stakeholders (particularly Government) to reinforce that this material isn't waste.
Updated
Is recycling morally acceptable?
One reader has pointed out that recycling uses fossil fuels to transport and melt the plastics and that its effectiveness is very very low. In addition, they add, many plastic items are excluded from this process and end up in the waters and the oceans.
They asked the panel guests: Isn’t the most effective solution to stop producing plastic packaging on such a devastating scale and denounce profiteering from plastic from the production to the recycling stage?
Guardian contributor I think the moral question should be linked to current patterns of consumption, is it morally acceptable to consume in the way we currently do? In this age of consumption the circular economy is key, if want to go on consuming the way we do we need to work with stakeholders across the entire value chain to ensure that materials we use become the raw material for new products in the future.
This question has many parts to it! Is recycling enough. Is it effective. And what happens when it doesn't work. I'd say it's important, but needs to be seen as part of a truly ambitious zero waste strategy. What got me hooked on waste was working in Nepal for a year and creating less than a dustbin of rubbish in my household as we refilled all our containers, fixed all our stuff, and got our vegetables, milk and eggs straight from the market / cows and chickens! It showed me how much further we could go in the UK.
The amount of energy and carbon used by packaging is circa 6% of the total carbon footprint of food and drink. So packaging plays a valuable role in protecting that food and most importantly avoiding food waste. The benefit of using plastic packaging is that it is both light weight and efficient. It also allows a consumer to see the product that they are buying - an important factor for many people when choosing chilled, fresh meat and produce items.
In defence of plastics, Iain Ferguson, environment manager at Coop says:
Plastic is a very valuable material for producing packaging. Without it we would have much more food waste and higher environmental impact. There are good WRAP reports showing the value of plastic packaging in reducing food waste.
David from Suez agreed:
Plastic is used because it has many desirable properties as packaging. We are hopeful that technological advances will lead to other materials having similar properties without the same environmental impact - such as transparent cellulose (paper) - which could be captured within existing paper recycling streams.
Updated
Is Amazon the big new problem?
Tim Hutchinson, director of Outpace, a packaging design consultancy asks:
Why don’t Retailers make more use of Reusable packaging? Nearly all delivery companies and Couriers are under so much pressure to deliver their goods they don’t have time to wait for the empty packaging. We all know the likes of Amazon put tremendous pressure on their delivery contractors to deliver the often ‘over packaged’ products. This is increasing the amount of single use packaging that may or may not be recycled.
Although many couriered products generated through e-commerce are packaged in recyclable, rather than re-usable packaging, they are generally packaged in good quality card that can be very easily recycled and turned into new packaging, as long as the material is properly recycled by the consumer (ie taken to a recycling bank or put out for kerbside recycling). Greater use of reusable packaging is an option, but means that the packaging has to be returned at the time and point of delivery, which can be problematic.
Guardian contributor I think producers also need to start thinking about the needs of the e-commerce supply chain and the suitable packaging required. Many products are packaged to survive the traditional retail environment in which precautions like tamper prove packaging are an issue. I think for e-commerce products the required packaging could be simplified in some cases. Nespresso comes to mind as they use very simple e-commerce packaging that would not be suitable on the retail shelf.
Iain Ferguson, environment manager at Coop adds that while reusable packaging is great for some applications, it is hard for food.
To be viable generally it has to fulfil three criteria: Easy for the customer. Cheaper for the customer. And financially viable for the retailer.
Updated
Who collects our food waste?
One of our readers, Caroline, has asked why separate collections of food waste has not been made mandatory in England?
Local authorities, under austerity, are having to make really tough decisions about what to fund and what to cut. Politically, forcing the introduction of additional services in the current climate may be unpalatable. However, at SUEZ, we have very much been lobbying for mandatory separate food collection because we believe it would have a positive impact on both recycling rates and recycling quality. However, there are areas in the UK (mainly dense urban areas) where separate food waste collections would not be feasible.
Although Clare Usher from WRAP has just emailed to say:
Just watching the live Q&A and to put the food waste collections in context, just wanted to let you know that 52% of local authorities in England provide a food waste collection (either separate food or mixed in with garden waste), which means around 44% of households have a service.
Updated
Is a tax on packaging a good idea?
The idea for a packaging tax has been around for a long time. Over 15 years - I remember a debate in the House of Lords about it and it's a shame it's not moved on. I think it's a very good idea - a simple proposition that could shift consumer and producer responsibility at once. By incentivising producers to package less, the consumer benefits too as paying for less materials.
Guardian contributor Extended producer responsibility will continue to play an important role, however I would like to a shift in the focus from end of life to product design. If we can work with producers to use more recycled material in their products and packaging this will drive a great demand and stimulate the market
I agree that the packaging tax that we have in place has made everyone in the industry more aware of designing more efficiently. However, this is not the only tool that can be used. Downweighting and simplifying packaging has been going on for over a decade within the industry. It makes good economic sense and packaging innovation has meant that we can maintain the right level of protection to avoid food waste. We have reduced the weight of our meat trays from 20g of plastic in 2012 to only 13g in 2017 without any reduction in the performance of the product.
As we’ve seen, the national recycling rate is stalling and, with overall waste volumes rising through population increase and economic growth, we are likely to see it decline further. We believe that there are several instruments which could help to reverse this emerging trend of stagnation, such as (as previously mentioned) Extended producer responsibility (EPR), “Pay-as-you-throw” (or Save-as-you-recycle), deposit return schemes and VAT tax policy to encourage greater use of recycled materials and re-use.
Updated
Why is Wales so good at recycling?
In answer to why recycling rates are higher in Wales than rest of UK, the panel said:
Wales has long had very ambitious policies around waste and recycling and has backed this up with investment into their materials collection systems. Scotland are another nation that have and continue to have ambitious strategies. This demonstrates how an ambitious long-term view and investment in the right areas can reap rewards.
Wales has achieved a household recycling rate above 60% by ring-fencing local authority recycling budgets and developing innovative ways to collect recyclable materials from homes. Wales is leading the way for the UK and demonstrating that strong leadership can inspire and deliver positive changes in recycling performance. This is principally an issue of both funding and political will.
There is a simplicity in the approach used by the Welsh government for recycling, supported by clear communications to the households. This has led to less confusion about what to recycle, where to recycle and when. Easier for people to understand and get involved.
Guardian contributor I agree that politically the targets are clearer, however I am sure there are also infrastructure factors at play too. I also wonder what proportion of the Scottish and Wales results comes from garden and green waste.
Updated
Are consumers interested in reducing packaging and waste? On the evidence of this story’s popularity the answer is a yes.
It’s been read by more than a quarter of a million people so far and spiked interest from across the supply chain, including this tweet from Keith Weed, chief marketing officer at Unilever:
Laser-etched avocado anyone? This is an ingenious approach to reducing packaging.https://t.co/Xfd0kMwUd1
— Keith Weed (@keithweed) January 16, 2017
Updated
What we'll be discussing
Recycling rates in the UK have been stalling over the past five years. Government figures published in December show that the recycling rate in England actually fell from 44.8% in 2014 to 43.9% in 2015.
This debate will explore potential solutions: how can producers and consumers be incentivised to recycle more? Would a tax on the manufacturers of packaging, for example, encourage better design? Do local authorities need clearer guidelines to prevent confusion among consumers?
Join us and our panel of experts in the comments section of this page on Thursday 19 January at 1-2pm (GMT) to discuss.
Updated
The panel guests
- Helene Roberts, innovation director, LINPAC
- Chris Baker, european general manager, TerraCycle
- David Palmer Jones, CEO of SUEZ recycling and recovery UK
- Sophie Unwin, director, Remade in Edinburgh
- Iain Ferguson, environment manager, Coop
- Steve Morgan, technical manager, Recoup
Updated
How to join and ask a question
Make sure you’re a registered user of the Guardian and join us in the comments section below, which will open on the day of the live chat.
You can send questions for the panel in advance by emailing tom.levitt@theguardian.com or tweeting @GuardianSustBiz using the hashtag #AskGSB
Updated
We need to start measuring waste prevention - not just recycling. Reuse targets would be a good start for this. We do our impact figures at Remade based on the number of people we teach to fix things and how many items won't be bought, that otherwise would be. We want to see a shift to a much more dematerialised economy with a growth in skills and services, rather than consummption and disposal.