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

1. Integrated approach.
2. Inclusion of all wastes not just household.
3. Consistency.
4. Vision.
5. Legal; drivers – directives, to support targets.
6. To influence local plans to reflect this strategy.

1. Inflexible legislation.
2. Public buy-in/education at all levels (TV advertising).
3. Business buy-in e.g. trade bodies.
4. Taxation increasing fly-tipping.
5. Representation – lack of construction industry delegates and larger waste companies.
6. Lack of info-environment/health risks from waste sites.

1. Debate.
2. Sharing Best Practice.
3. Case studies of Best Practice (Guide).
4. To plan, based on waste data, for facilities by strategic need and finding appropriate location, by zoning.
5. Permitting – planning, include proactive – steps e.g. Look for opportunities.

1. Costs – national issues e.g. Competitiveness, taxes.
2. Late to meet legislation.
3. Anti-Europe view and EU regulation being "lost" in politics accepting legislation.
4. Nuisance from sites – perceived or real.
5. Cost constraints on local authorities/regulators preventing/hampering pro-active work.

1. Positive and dynamic approach.
2. Involvement of wide variety of stakeholders.
3. Buildings on existing initiatives (domestic recycling) and municipal waste.
4. ‘Hearts and Minds’ approach can draw in a wide variety of interests; must include education.
5. Could/should provide common approach to problems such as disposal of green waste.

1. Those generating the largest amount of waste are the most poorly represented in MRS process.
2. Timescales involved in planning processes strategic and application (and has taken a long time to get to this point).
3. Timescales for implementation.
4. Relative costs of disposal and recycling.
5. Lack of recycling infrastructure.
6. Government is slow to implement EU directives (tyres, electronics, vehicles etc).
7. Government passing the buck to local level.
8. Communication with Environment Agency (can be difficult).
9. Leadership, ownership and implementation of strategy.
10. Strategy is too introspective – needs to look outwards.
11. No incentives to change.
12. Jargon.

1. Involvement of those engaged in waste disposal – looking at their concerns.
2. Market for recycled material.
3. Derive spatial framework and criteria for locating recycling/waste facilities and minimise objection/build consensus.
4. Collective view could influence Government policy and access funding to try out alternative waste management schemes and develop infrastructure.
5. Use of landfill tax to fund initiatives.
6. Opportunity to lead good practice. Can help bring forward major projects to use waste materials e.g. Power generation coastal defence structures, building materials etc.
7. Opportunity to learn from good practices elsewhere e.g. Europe.

1. Lack of recycling infrastructure.
2. Conflict at local level delays implementation (NIMBY).
3. Must not change culture before facilities can be delivered.
4. Public resistance to change needs to be addressed by concerted and sustained effort over a long period.
5. Global issue – can this be tackled by MRS?

1. Green waste collection systems good.
2. High % of demolition waste is recycled…reduces lorry movements.
3. Opportunity to take into account construction and demolition waste in considering need - need to know more about figures.
4. Only last 25 years have we become linear…used to recycle rag and bone man, etc. Need to look at the way we consume.
5. Education at root of problem.
6. Proximity principle therefore can really make people think about their own waste if its disposal affects them i.e. no good for north east waste to go to south west of county.
7. Opportunity to get away from predict and provide.
8. Waste high, recycle low currently - we need to swap them over.

1. National leadership is needed.
2. Costs - Advantages in moving to industrial and away from residential areas, but costs a great deal to rescind/renew waste management licences.
3. Sites not getting contracts to collect waste, and then needing to extend life. Need to find other linings etc. prior to site becoming operational - delay caused.
4. Too much packaging.
5. Some issues need wider input than just Hampshire.
6. External factors i.e. government unwillingness different deadlines/constraints has potential to limit what can be achieved.
7. No clear definition of ‘recycling’ (different from reuse) i.e. 6 ways of fluorescent tubes…different outcomes.

1. Need to work out how to lobby government to change hearts and minds: issue incentives.
2. Holistic approach in here and consistency between different local authorities.
3. Subsidise small/medium size businesses to enable cutting down fly tipping allow them to use facilities. Not seen as subsidy…it helps society.
4. Cost of recycling now with consumer when it is manufacturers who produce the waste i.e. packaging. Cost could/should be borne by producer to give an incentive for reduction.
5. Good example in Nova Scotia of reusing beer bottles.

1. Illegal dumping - disappearing waste streams.
2. Silly rules at local level - i.e. can only deposit 3 bags of rubble at a time - this discourages those who wish to deposit 1 bag.
3. Uncontrolled planning.
4. Mismatch of colour glass i.e. bottles from France…how can this be dealt with in Hampshire?.

1. Involvement of local community.
2. Positive local messages.
3. Co-ordinated strategy.
4. Ground breaking pilot project.

1. Strategy may not be focussed enough. Diverse areas of work. Lack of clarity of what we are trying to achieve. Not singling out minerals.
2. Government-led legislation needed. National policy not apparent. Limited amount of influence because of national/international policy.
3. Relating to this – why should minerals as a primary resource be singled out – should be all primary resources to avoid confusion.

1. Structured strategy to approach and influence the national government.
2. To give confidence to the markets for waste industry.
3. Philosophy of waste management – a means of setting out this long-term philosophy.

1. Supply of minerals falling in Hants.
2. Changing legislation could be a threat to the MRS.
3. Problems of the planning process. – MRS may slow planning process up (specifically the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review).

1. Networking – people.
2. Partnership working.
3. Raising awareness.
4. Improved understanding of processes.
5. Influencing decision-makers.
6. Possibility of external funding.

1. Cost.
2. Lack of financial incentive.
3. Government control not local control.
4. Under representation of private sector.
5. Public sector isn’t communicating and listening to waste contractors.
6. Time taken to implement policy/obtain licences.
7. Isolation from community planning process.

1. Joint influence of community.
2. Public sector/private sector economies of scale.
3. Influence manufacturers/buying public/packaging.
4. Public sector green procurement.
5. Innovation – pilot studies.
6. Develop fast – tracking with regulatory agencies.

1. Human resources – attracting labour.
2. Locked into long term contracts.
3. Failure due to lack of engagement.
4. Views and ‘can’t do’ attitude of environment agency.

1. INTEGRA is a unique starting block (pool of knowledge).
2. Industry can handle more waste (recycling) if given the ‘freedom’ and trust (incentives) to do so.
3. Promoting new technologies (incineration).
4. The ability to get concepts into physical reality.

1. Need wider representative from industry (5% of today’s delegates are from industry) - why is industry not here? - How do we get them involved.
2. Culture, getting householders to sort waste by category.
3. Too many parties involved with their own agendas.
4. The diverse range of waste collection methods/processes between authorities (bags/bins).
5. Short term views of politicians (short-term commitment).

1. Education (training in the need for recycling).
2. Minimise the impact on council tax payers (change behaviour and reduce costs).
3. Promoting the use of recycled materials in industry (e.g. hardcore).
4. Working with regulatory authorities.
5. Deal more effectively locally with waste generation/disposal (sharing transfer stations, incinerators).
6. Planning the transport of waste (Intermodal)
7. Industry sectors finding out what is required e.g. where is the market for transport of waste by rail?

1. Current restrictions
2. Environment Agency (licence costs for exempt sites).
3. Waste volume (for industry) might not be sufficient to warrant involvement in new technology for recycling.
4. Cheap aggregate on our doorstep…why recycle when it is freely available.
5. Lack of funding for this process.
6. Resistance to incinerators.
7. Planning/regulatory issues.

1. Logical.
2. Holistic - addressing supply chain.
3. Some delivery tools exist.
4. Involves stakeholders.
5. Raising issue on agenda of government.
6. HCC has tools at disposal - can influence type of investment in Hants and behaviour of businesses.
7. Integration of policies (land use and other) including procurement.

1. Difficult to engage some stakeholders.
2. Broad strategy - difficult to engage as not specific.
3. MRS may not be meaningful at operational level - business and public may not understand.
4. EU directives set timescale and priorities that can’t be influenced.
5. Definition of ‘Waste’ and regulation prevents recycling and investment.
6. Culture change will not occur without fiscal incentives - balance of carrot and sticks.
7. Cannot change global economy and supply chains.
8. Does strategy encompass other resources?

1. Extend remit and integrate policies to encourage and require use of recycled materials - use conditions to influence use in development especially large scale - but needs enforcement.
2. Provide source of information - bring together legislation v data.
3. Challenge standard definitions (MSW, Commercial and Industrial) and co-manage e.g. school waste closed as C&I.
4. Resource parks to co-locate facilities.
5. Link new facilities to new housing and economic development - be imaginative.
6. Need to shorten time between conception and delivery.

1. Will consultation lead to delivery and make a difference.
2. Need to plan for ‘need’ - limited to MSW traditionally.
3. Need to ensure that policies do not push facilities out of county (esp Commercial and industrial) - danger of being ‘pioneer’.
4. Cost/Finance - council tax increases?
5. Long term plan - political landscape will change over time.
6. Need alternative to disposal for business and positive presentation/marketing.

1. Integration of resources and wastes.
2. Present systems are working and facilitating change.
3. Driving re-balance in use of resources.

1. Costs to start process.
2. Mindset of people.
3. Complexity of changing production cycles.

1. Rethinking manufacturing to make efficient use of everything.
2. Ensure that transportation is sustainable.
3. To review planning policy to enforce recycling of materials during development.
4. To create cycle of waste avoidance, recycling, re-manufacturing and markets for these.
5. To lead by example.

1. Government dictates but not mechanisms to enable it to happen.
2. Delivery may not be feasible.
3. NIMBYism for facilities (for re-manufacture)

1. Proactive - forefront of Waste Management moving forward.
2. Approach attempting to be ‘inclusive’.
3. Attempts to re-examine all process chains.
4. Involves all ‘Planning’ departments in strategy.

1. Bottom up rather than top down still stuck in a mind set - municipal management.
2. May not engage the SME’s that are needed in the process - not invited to workshops?
3. Rigid adherence to ‘proximity principle’ is a weakness.

1. Engage commercial sector in partnerships to include the entire waste stream. Realistic approach.
2. To include SME’s in MRS process - 95% of businesses are SME’s - produce 5% of waste?
3. To stimulate markets for packaging waste - examine issue in more detail.
4. To bring ‘Envirowise’ and the like into the equation.
5. Export opportunities for new businesses dealing with secondary material.

1. Small business views and problems not included in strategy.

1. Thoroughly agreed to in principle.
2. Could bring a strategic view.
3. No alternatives, considering government directives etc.
4. If views on resources are focused can benefit understanding.
5. Tried and trusted approach.

1. Lack of awareness for the public.
2. Lack of instruction.
3. Need education for engineers on materials used in products.
4. Vehicle for spreading message not sufficient from local government.
5. Lack of government direction for industry.
6. Lack of economic measures.
7. What is MRS? Message needs to be clear on aims, objectives etc.
8. Community Strategy may not help the process.

1. Interest from industry.
2. HNRI project ability for outreach.
3. Raise awareness.
4. Manufacturing business.

1. Apathy.
2. Political cycle of issue.
3. Getting over involved in public attitudes to recycled goods before implementing scheme.
4. Communication to individuals in ‘lower levels’ of chain.

1. Education across the board.
2. Use waste materials for new products – development.
3. Promotes wider environmental sustainability issues.
4. Makes good sense – able to get peoples interest.
5. Ease pressure for need of landfill and land sites.
6. Encourage primary segregation of materials therefore reduce vermin and gets materials to reprocessors.
7. Maximise bulk by bringing some materials together.

1. Needs to be sustainable in terms of economics.
2. Time required to implement strategies
3. Cost (always will be) included with recycling.
4. Need more sites for segregation of materials – costly.
5. No incentives for reuse/recycling – no fiscal/financial incentives.
6. Landuse for MRF’s – not wanted on doorstep.
7. Cross contamination.
8. No life-cycle analysis for recycled products.

1. Make system work economically.
2. To integrate/combine thinking.
3. Best value initiative.
4. To stimulate market demand for recycled materials.
5. Employment.
6. Businesses develop life cycle testing.
7. Tax relief for recycled materials.
8. Primary aggregates levy to work alongside recycling opportunities.

1. No market demand.
2. Assurance needed that reused materials meet market standard.
3. General unwillingness to take risks.
4. British standards required.
5. Conflict – Sustainable solution – cheaper solution.

1. That a strategy is being developed and people are engaged with it.
2. Gives an opportunity for a variety of stakeholders to be involved.
3. Attaching the issues at source, especially through land use planning, means that the issues are dealt with at the beginning of the process.
4. Facilitating existing processes e.g. Project Integra, and partners and building on the existing good practice.
5. Engaging people in the process.
6. Finding the commercial opportunities for Business/Industry - How do you get this off the ground?

1. Not enough focus on the commercial waste.
2. No joined up approach between councils in relation to recycling.
3. Inconsistency -/- Councils/authorities for recycling.
4. Not all stakeholders engaged - Business.
5. Material resource centre - cost implications of these – who is going to pay.
6. The ‘holding pattern’ whilst we get MRS up and running.
7. Infrastructure could lag behind the increases in recycling practices - does this need to go external? - need to engage with external to discuss.

1. Engagement with local medic? And community groups at early stages of projects to avoid negative attitudes.
2. Common data across sectors - organisation responsible for strategy - Environment - licence - industry.
3. Creating the business case/cost benefits for changing attitudes.
4. Sharing/dissemination of best practice - benefits/cost savings etc.
5. Procurement strategies.
6. Giving stakeholders the opportunity to influence government and us.
7. Give business/industry a voice and listen to their issues/problems.

1. Negative PR.
2. Not involving business.
3. Strategy becomes too big and complex that it becomes watered down and empty.
4. Need to ensure there are quick wins.
5. Good as an idea but… needs delivering!

  Top of page 

 MRS
Homepage

Table 16

Table 19

Table 20

Table 21

Table 22

Table 23

Table 25

Table 28

Table 29

Table 30

Table 31

Table 32