More from Less

• Philosophy

• How the Material Resources Strategy was developed?
  
      - Workshop Index
        - MRS Documents
  

• Background and context

• Overview of the problem

• Visions and aims

• Increasing resource efficiency and reducing wastage

• Maximising reuse, recycling and composting

• Dealing with unavoidable waste

• Meeting the need for minerals

• Need for new infrastructure and sites

• Moving forward

• Glossary

• FAQ

• Contacts / Get Involved

• Links

The discussions at the launch focused on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the MRS approach. Comments from each discussion group were recorded and have been transcribed below.

1. Involvement of many people from different groups and sectors allows for greater ownership of the waste problem.
2. Opportunity to involve all sectors to make all knowledge available to all – including engineers, designers, house builders etc.
3. Having people from all areas of the process chain is a big advantage.
4. Having ODPM focus on Hants MRS will give us an opportunity to really move forward.

1. Will it have a real power to achieve something?
2. Lack of resources for schools to deliver.
3. Inability to be able to re-educate people.
4. Communication must be a focus to achieve change in processes.
5. Standards always rising with regards to Health and Safety, regulations and quality of materials.
6. Markets need specific standards and needs.
7. Politics – must be coherent political approach and not fight against each other.
8. Must be NON-POLITICAL!!!

1. To make this not just a talking shop but have outputs.
2. For Government to take a national perspective over how the system works.
3. To move towards personal accountability with regards to both business and public.
4. To use other materials and look at ways in which we can use different products and make it the most cost-effective option.
5. Look at real cost of current system and see if we can afford to keep using virgin aggregates etc.
6. Take on blue chip companies and introduce new laws and legislation to force the change. If big players have to do it, it will filter down through the layers of industry. Companies as examples of best practice and disseminate the information.
7. To focus on all areas of waste stream! Not just household.
8. To influence both private and public sectors.
9. To review properties of recycled materials and how we can use them what they are good for.
10. To understand the markets and to satisfy them.
11. To change EU legislation and regulation.
12. To offer simple local solutions to problems we face using group discussions as idea shops and give blue chip companies the opportunity to direct government policy.
13. Hampshire can demonstrate best practice and then be a blue print for national and international process change.

1. If it is a talking shop then this will kill process.
2. If government does not take national perspective this could bring system down.
3. Without culture change at national level we will be wasting time.
4. Cost of disposal on national level can threaten MRS if government does not appreciate the actual costs of disposal.
5. Special interest groups getting loopholes and get out clauses in legislation.
6. Threat of not realising the actual cost of what we currently do.
7. Not having all parties well represented, must get all areas involved – building industry etc.
8. Ensure we get all areas of waste stream involved and not just household waste.
9. More stringent regulations.
10. Competition from international markets.
11. Threat on markets failing if we recycle – manufacturers.
12. We must get it right.

1. Extraction and waste filling - good that they go together.
2. Planning and waste management processes should go together.
3. Project Integra has a history of working together.
4. Construction waste – opportunity to segregate large volumes for reuse and recycling.

1. Need for suitable sites.
2. Long lead in process.
3. Need for economic incentives for business.
4. NIMBY syndrome.
5. Creditability – public might not believe waste is really being recycled.
6. Changing goalposts. Sites given planning permission extentions,which loses the trust of local people.
7. Still practical problems to resolve.

1. To use financial incentives e.g. VAT relief on secondary resources.
2. Education primary, colleges and vocational training (throughout life).
3. Benefits to local community if they have a site near them, but need to involve local people from day one.
4. Good news stories like Pro-Grow - opportunities to inform.
5. Use brownfield sites and regenerate to create local jobs.
6. Plan recycling sites as part of new build in industrial parks.
7. Need to look at all aspects in a holistic way.

1. Public are apathetic.
2. Environmental impacts of any site and development e.g. noise pollution, even ‘green’ developments can damage quality of life i.e. transport impacts.
3. Legislation and regulation acting as a barrier e.g. against community composting.

1. Making a serious attempt to solve a major problem.
2. Will create a ‘united voice’ from the County Council on subjects that local communities will protest on e.g. biomass plants.
3. Consultation starts from the start.
4. MRS will help get over past planning barriers.
5. Bringing together different sectors.
6. Bring more structural approach to the dealing of construction, demolition, commercial and industrial waste.
7. Ability to stimulate market development.

1. No support from planning to set up waste transfer stations (WTS).
2. Cost and making the economics of the strategy add up.
3. Need to ensure that all industries are involved and educated.
4. Need to involve specifiers within the industry.
5. Need further analysis into the highest possible use of resources e.g. glass – road sub-base (B&Q).
6. Analysis and information on what is recycled in aggregate industry.

1. To implement optimum infrastructure within the county to make resource management economic.
2. Need for local facilities to reduce impact of haulage.
3. MRS should help get planning permission for WTSs.
4. Increase education in local communities/planners on realities of WTSs.
5. Need to involve EA to help with new regulations e.g. landfill and PPC application.
6. Business opportunity in material resource recovery and processing.
7. Change the negative image of waste.
8. To change planning policies.
9. Opportunity for integrated processing facilities with holistic approach to resource management.

1. Bad publicity.
2. Over regulation and bureaucratic regulation in EA and HCC.
3. Different bodies not working towards the same aims but towards their own agenda.
4. Council tax rises and general tax burden increases.

1. Good turnout – seems to be a willingness.
2. Resolve of the authorities.
3. Radical, fresh approach.
4. Proactive process – anticipating EU legislation.
5. Inclusive – using stakeholder representation.
6. Different organisations working together.
7. Strong grounding for municipal waste in Hampshire.
8. Co-ordinated, holistic approach.
9. Buy in from lots of organisations and authorities.
10. Recognising the need to look across departmental boundaries.
11. Builds upon existing legislation and infrastructure.
12. Could be perceived to be a key driver for change.

1. Not enough infrastructure in place to cope with waste from SME’s/schools (yet).
2. Very few actual markets for recycling items (glass, paper, aluminium etc).
3. Lack of political will.
4. Qualities of bring banks and bins for businesses/schools that put people off using them.
5. Lack of support from Central Government for new incentives.
6. Lack of direction from Central Government – e.g. The fridge problem last year. Lack of financial resources.
7. Apathy among householders for recycling (but it’s an opportunity to change).
8. Not enough pre-defined decisions made in the process yet.
9. Everyone is in business to make money – results in apathy among trade sector. (No environmental agenda).
10. Difficult to get financial backing for new technologies.

1. Opportunity to set the pace in Hampshire as we are recognised as a leader in Britain – could get us more funding!!!
2. Midland Glass – unique facility in Hampshire.
3. Joining up MRS with the whole energy market – waste as energy. (Advanced thermal treatment as opposed to incineration).
4. Potential demand for our waste in other countries (plastics, computers, tyres).
5. If we produce a viable MRS by the end of next year, we will be in a strong position to lobby Central Government.
6. Opportunity to improve our environment!
7. Opportunity for companies to make money if they take the risk.

1. Risk of 1 authority in Integra changing their political focus.
2. Health and Safety risk of sending waste/recycling to poorer countries for sorting.
3. Risk of surpassing capacity levels when new legislation comes on board.
4. Can’t change hearts and minds of some people.
5. Risk of doing nothing – maintaining status quo.
6. But also risk of doing too much too soon.
7. Risk of being too conservative in the MRS, when we could be bolder.
8. Risk of conflict between environmental sustainability and economic sustainability.
9. Planning processes.
10. Expense of anaerobic digesters – who will pay?

1. Wide consultation helps a lot. Can build on success e.g. Onyx and HCC.
2. EU directives are useful but government slow in helping implement them.

1. 20 –25% municipal waste – which is largely represented here. Only 5% Industrial representatives.
2. Too many issues addressed.
3. We need a complete picture of construction, demolition and industrial waste – how much etc.
4. Lack of government leadership in setting policy.
5. Recycling is expensive and does not pay for itself in economic terms.
6. No clear definition of problem MRS has to address. It is a disperate group of issues – will it therefore be coherent?

1. Could raise landfill tax to £35 per tonne.
2. Schools – particularly junior schools need to educate the young in recycling.
3. Reward cycles.
4. Charge 9p for each plastic bag (as in Southern Ireland).
5. HCC can make specific cost associated with MRS known.
6. Value of environment to be emphasised to the young.

1. Council Tax restraints will inhibit HCC’s ability to implement recycling.
2. Difficulty in getting behavioural change.
3. Adversarial political points lead to a focus on economic points.

1. EU legislation programme established until 2020 – opportunity to establish.
2. Public will support what is done.
3. Leadership opportunity for Hampshire – reputational benefits.
4. Major manufacturers are doing things but these are not related to local agenda.
5. If MRS could influence government.
6. Hants involve/influence specification of recycled materials.

1. Public unaware of issues.
2. Not representative of everyone.
3. Public need educating and understanding of issues.
4. Injection into philosophy – raise public awareness.
5. Where do people fit into this?
6. People switched off when businesses offered solutions.
7. Tesco’s/Sainsburys could change habits – fear of losing business.
8. Lack of prioritisation.
9. Focus on areas where there is most impact.
10. Public unaware of statutory powers.
11. Lack of communication – no driver/understanding of information.
12. Too cheap.

1. To draw in other parties.
2. Focus on more achievable projects/ initiatives.
3. Approach from a more achievable angle.
4. Financial advantage if taken at early stage.
5. To focus on integrating waste into long-term planning.
6. Opportunity exists to extend long-term targets.
7. Opportunity for partnership/major company working.
8. Opportunity to create incentives for commercial waste.
9. Knock on effect to businesses if householders are encouraged.
10. Opportunity to involve companies to help develop landfill tax.

1. May be overtaken by SEERA and fear of change.
2. Suitable for Hampshire not national.
3. Spiralling consumer aspirations.
4. Cost threat to individuals.
5. Government may take it away.
6. Possibility of failure having spent a lot of money/resources.
7. Failure to get message across that waste is a resource.

1. Change from waste to resource commodity
2. Liked holistic approach.
3. Cradle to grave approach.
4. What are each of the organisations doing…….specifics.
5. Customers deliver. Demand and supply - e.g. composting.
6. Attempting to be an encompassing "approach".
7. Target good.
8. Targeting specific organisations e.g. NHS, not just the obvious.
9. Would landfill tax be a long-term approach.

1. Focussing on obvious organisations.
2. Public must be on side.
3. Lots of listening, need way to show how it will work.
4. The facilities are just not good in some areas.
5. Public still don’t know the facts e.g. amount of landfills.
6. Weaknesses - municipal is easy, commerce is difficult.
7. Business in isolation.
8. Businesses have a bottom line.
9. If higher costs - perhaps we could push business to think about packaging.
10. No targets in agriculture.
11. When is waste a waste! Or resource!
12. Different businesses have different clout in influencing government.

1. Potential through approach to lobby for change.
2. Public education.
3. Comparing with other councils.
4. Council was slow but now they are improving.
5. More advertising.
6. Interrogate it in TV.
7. Kids to pick it up.
8. Expand developments through planning process i.e. x tonnage for say municipal and household (Resource Parks).

1. Proximity principle - what is used in Hampshire and what is imported?
2. Every time you try to stimulate something EU dominate.
3. Requirement for legislative action to transfer waste to resource.

1. Democratic approach, good, inclusive, covers wide range of stakeholders.
2. Clear vision.
3. Momentum of commitment.
4. Reputation of key partners is good – ability to influence policy.
5. Embraces non-household waste (which makes up 90% of landfill waste).

1. Very few key industry players are involved.
2. No proven standards yet for the novel recycled products (e.g. Building materials).
3. It is still cheapest to use landfill/
4. The key factor is cost – people tend to default to cheapest method of disposal.
5. Absence of direct and appropriate fiscal measures on manufacturers and retailers.

1. Make MP’s aware of the project.
2. Should result in new approached – proactive approach.
3. Chance to lead in UK.
4. To create new markets for recycled materials (eg. Resource parks).
5. Could specify targets for use of recycled building materials for public building projects.
6. Opportunity to recycle materials for high-grade rather than low-grade uses. Eg roads (necessary to replace primary materials).
7. Project funding from EU? (eg. Framework 6).
8. Research into new technologies.

1. Central Government may ignore what we do.
2. Inability to fund acceptable uses for waste materials eg. Construction materials.
3. Difficulty in exciting the key stakeholders – what’s in it for them? (Cost benefit).
4. Bureaucracy could put off private sector.
5. Over regulation could lead to fly-tipping and distortion of markets.

1. Encouraging.
2. Linking of all materials.
3. Focusing on cause as opposed to effects.
4. Awareness that it is everybody’s problem.
5. Society change recognised.
6. Trail blazing.
7. Good representation at workshop.

1. NIMBY.
2. Only Hampshire based.
3. Large waste producers influenced by central government.
4. Transportation overlooked?
5. Exporting and importing the problem.
6. Lack of political champion.
7. How can we link with adjoining countries?
8. Gaps in representation.
9. Don’t forget reduce and re-use.
10. Need to support/not ignore current initiatives e.g. Charity shops.
11. How do you separate into material streams?

1. Ownership of problem.
2. Educating: Children/businesses/industry/agriculture – all waste producers.
3. Transport levy (true cost of transport).
4. Learn from other sectors e.g. water industry.
5. Learn from other countries.
6. Opportunity to link in with other strategies.
7. Find quick wins.

1. Ownership of problem.
2. Only Hampshire based.
3. Access/co-ordination of research.
4. Separating into streams may increase transport.
5. Government to be facilitator not instigator.

1. Young people – use keenest to increase awareness.
2. Availability to public of recycling facilities.
3. Government performance indicators.
4. Integration and co-ordination of all difficult elements.
5. Cost of landfill tax.
6. Regulations.
7. Combination of waste and land use plan makes planning process easier for finding new sites.
8. Pressure from Europe use of best practice.
9. Economics will force issue.
10. Centralised solution through Chineham incinerator.

1. Unclear what ‘waste’ encompasses.
2. Suitable locations for carrying out waste recycling and waste-water treatment.
3. Government sticks and carrots not sufficient.
4. More expensive to recycle?
5. What is true cost – what does it mean in commercial terms to businesses – Audit.
6. Not in interest of waste management companies to get customers to reduce waste.
7. Difficulty in getting message of reduce and reuse across.
8. Not many SME’s represented in stakeholder group and waste manufacturing companies.
9. Impact on transport.
10. Education of engineers to include recycled materials in specifications, government regulations preclude use in some circumstances need to change regulations.
11. How to raise profile
12. Storage space.

1. Improve level of waste manufacturing and recycling.
2. Energy.
3. Initiative to encourage people to recycle e.g. Plastic bags in Southern Ireland.
4. Potential to get businesses to carry out waste manufacturing plan by making planning conditions on new applications.
5. Research needed into markets.
6. New business opportunities.
7. Opportunity to influence press.

1. NIMBYS.
2. Public lost confidence in terms of Health and Safety assurances.
3. Complexity of issue.
4. Unknown territory.
5. Different approaches by each local authority.
6. Undermined by imports from outside EU that don’t make same regulations.
7. Negative press looking for bad stories rather than good.
8. User inertia? Gets more difficult to convert more people.

1. Philosophy is laudable, particularly the objective of engaging a wide range of stakeholders.
2. Recognises the need to have a waste management strategy linked to planning/political regime.
3. Has the opportunity to influence the waste chain.

1. Does not involve producers of waste e.g. Supermarkets. They should be one of the stakeholders in the process.
2. Does not deliver any economic incentives to recycle/reduce waste.
3. Currently Hants are working in isolation of central government. No concrete support from government.
4. Need to communicate in clear and simple terms to people (public) not in the waste/government industry.

1. MRS has potential to improve communication between all interested groups and clarify problems with waste disposal.
2. Can set an example to others to reduce/recycle waste e.g. manufacturing industry.
3. To change planning process to enable strategy to be delivered through political process.
4. To influence government thinking/policy and implement current policy.
5. Harmonise collection across County in municipal waste stream.
6. Allowed municipal waste issues to be broadened into industrial waste issues.

1. Public opposition and reluctance to embrace changes and have facilities in their area.
2. Ability of planning regime to deliver infrastructure/means of implementing strategy e.g. incinerators.

  Top of page 

 MRS
Hompage

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15