Feedback Wk 1 Afternoon

What are the issues/barriers/needs/ concerns associated with MRS?

Stakeholders at MRS workshop 1 discussed the issues, barriers and concerns related to certain elements of the MRS. The record of these discussions has been transcribed below.

Feedback on ‘Engaging the process chain’

Table 1:

Awareness: need to increase awareness amongst all to do more recycling, reusing.
Collective system: simplifying and smartening the collection process. Have another look at how the recycled materials are collected and establish the best practice for recycling and separating the different materials and the complexity of different material types and how they are recycled/processed.

For business: should be the same however where are the facilities for business to take their materials. Maybe increase the household waste centres to take recycling waste from SME businesses.
Facilities, where appropriate.

Competitive collection, where appropriate.
Incentives: tax relief or legislation?
More information and analysis of what we have in terms of recycled waste.
Getting everyone to buy recycled:
- encouraging recycled materials to be the same quality where they are not already.
- changing the perception the recycled is 2^nd class or not as good.
- moving towards belief that ‘recycled’ or ‘green’ is good.
Delivery systems/Waste Management/Recycled Centres
Consider distance/scope, numbers of people/businesses in area, low employment areas and an integrated approach to the process chain.

Table 2:

Funding not always available for small scale demonstration projects an initial investigations for new technologies and specifications.
Concern that the process will be ‘all talk’ and not enough action. The MRS needs to have clout and must have tangible actions that come out of all the discussions and this process needs to speed up so people see results quick.
Where is money coming from? Need to look at pump priming to induce innovation.
Small companies are not willing to pay the price for recycling until landfill becomes uneconomic as paying makes them less competitive.
Any message that goes out to the public needs to be tailor made to the target audience.
Need to update facilities.
Specifiers/retailers need to be involved as well as professional bodies - IRCS, ICE.
Need to increase media coverage.
The 5 big supermarkets account for 40% of municipal waste - these companies need to be involved.
Need to look at packaging and the amount of waste that is produced in that stream.
Need full backing from the Government.

Table 3:

What is in it for me?
How much will it cost?
Politics?
Finding time to attend events and get involved? - With regards to SME’s.
Ensuring you have the whole process chain involved in the process.
If they are not involved - How do you identify them? How do you engage them? Why should they bother?
Must use marketing expertise to show these people that using recycled products is beneficial and cost effective.
Studies need to be done (more of them) to demonstrate you can improve the bottom line for business.
Use of the media?
- Central Government doing media campaign on waste with a helpline to give expert advice to those who need to get involved and how they can do it - Can this be done on local level?
- Provides SME’s with a resource to get information and save them from having to spend valuable time on research.
Have evening/early morning events to engage business.

Table 4:

Encouraging social responsibility
Public ignorance - difficulty in purveying message e.g. "Doomwatch".
Mixed messages.
Counter-productive legislation.
Lack of investment in infrastructure.
Needs top level commitment from all key stakeholders including businesses.

Table 5:

Material resource - production - consumption – disposal. Are the people involved and all need to change mindsets.
Each element of the chain is different – have different understandings of what is needed and what to do.
So much jargon hard to understand – language is a barrier - need to simplify.
Acronyms can be very exclusive and hard to understand.
What does ‘waste’ mean - people think it means different things
Planning process - comes up as a major barrier and causes delays.
Business - need support and guidance in dealing with planning issues. Need more education in planning issues for business.
Changes in planning guidance?
Planning and business working in partnership – use teams of people to move around offering help/advice.
Guidance to be prepared (HCC) - to help developers to prepare applications.
More creative use of planning conditions - to control development.
This whole business - recycling etc is not seen as core business. Will not move up the chain of importance - until economics are right. Need to prove its core business, or new business opportunity.
Who influences? Need to get to top people in company or shareholders also, banks don’t lend to high-risk ventures - need to be able to deliver - engage the bigger companies and get them talking to each often.
Set the example if people/companies see that money is to be made they will follow suit.
How much do people care about this?
Work further ahead than 5/10 year plans, look 50/100 years on, attitudes will change, similarly for MPs/politicians.
Cross party approval will help. If we can show that seats won’t be lost over it – we all need to see the benefits of this approach.
People don’t understand the issues - need to explain educate.
Briefing pack - to educate MPs, politicians. Keep it simple and clear.
Also, one-on-one involvement, to demonstrate to politicians, the impacts their decisions have. Shadowing of politicians.
Communication problems - are involved at all levels.
Markings on packaging - people often don’t fully understand what they mean.
Not clear - as to what should go into recycling bins. Need clearer information, at least at start, to educate people.
People will not really get involved – until they are affected in some way.
Focus on the start of the chain - design out waste - cleaner greener (not given enough weight at present) design and easier to recycle etc.
Bring different networks together to create new process chain - use incentives e.g. HCC and councils procurement; need to change the policy of ‘bring the cheapest’. Audits of potential suppliers to select the greenest, this will influence the suppliers. Lot to be done - with public sector procurement.
Treating the higher levels of strategic development e.g. EU as a barrier but are they really a barrier? We can influence what happens.

Feedback on Establishing material recovery facilities

Table 6:

Costs. Needs to be economic. Landfill tax needs to be higher.
Specifications for secondary materials.
Secondary materials need to be reliable and consistent in quality.
Local authorities cannot apply for certain grants e.g. solar power.
Woods - problem with treated woods - resins in MDF.
Perception problems that recycled material is not as good as virgin.
Definition of ‘waste’. Once a waste difficult to market it as a product.
Vested interests.
Education that there is a problem with just landfilling.
Problem of SME’s not having sufficient time and money to separate and recycling.
SME’s don’t generate enough material of one type (Basildon cardboard case study)
Opportunity to minimise waste e.g. SME’s
Look at environmental impacts and whole life cycle.
Legislation e.g. packaging ELV.
Long term view but most people driven by short-term and profits.
Too expensive to repair items, cheaper to buy new and building professionals e.g. architects and engineers. Get developers, as part of planning process to use recycled materials.
Cost of collection (financial and environmental).
Possibility of using alternative fuels for vehicles.

Table 7:

Objectivity in selection process rather than current subjective process.
Locational issues to be resolved at an early stage in planning.
Public meetings to "launch" a proposal. Will be "uncomfortable" for proposers but will establish ground rules.
Economies of scale will drive process. No place in future for small scale ‘transfer’ station.
Greater opportunities for mechanisation and efficiency.

Table 8:

Small businesses don’t have the money to launch elaborate schemes. Scale is an issue, so once a critical mass is reached it becomes negligible in terms of cost to expand.
Incentive using recycled products. Recycled paper is quite expensive, but if more people were using it, it would come down in price.
Length of time taken to develop facilities.
Transportation costs.
Charge people for dropping litter/putting too much in their usual waste bin.
Show Project Integra/Midland glass partnership video at next seminar.

Table 9:

Legislation - landfill tax used to change mind sets
Municipal waste strategy.
Emphasis to recycle unit - not on SME.
Effect on local government.
New infrastructure to utilise materials.
Risk assessment of alternative.
Energy resource of what is left.
Comparative assessment of technologies.
Political will -
- Central - Directives Resources
- Local - Directives Resources
Timescales to "crack" problems of technology reliability.
Local authority -
Policy
- Will power
- Mindsets
International mindsets.

Table 10:

Goes to same place - landfill - if trade/domestic/illegally flytipped, just costs more to pick up fly tipping. So make it cheaper/easier for white van man to dispose of.
Planning system - very difficult to get permission due to NIMBYism.
Overall vision should be in everyone’s local plan so is accepted that developments are part of overall plan to develop infrastructure, not a local one-off development.
New developments - planners ensure all have enough space to accommodate two or more wheelie bins, composters or whatever required.
Change Best Value criteria to incorporate best sustainable value not just financial value.
Require contractors to help when tendering for contract, e.g. building gully waste plant as part of Highways contract, putting recycling infrastructure in schools as part of different contract.

Feedback on Delivery on the ground

Table 11:

‘Industrialised’ facilities/central approach v’s localised approach - one size does not fit all!
Flexible approach?
Need for baseline information - Type, Quantity of Waste, Transport Network.
Location of Facilities.
Communication/Consultation - involving local communities.
Mitigation measures - changing views/information/good neighbours.
Compliance with planning.
Importance of monitoring, planning permission, trust.
Enforcement/breach of disposal regulations.
Importance of market for recyclable material.
Cost of recycled products e.g. recycled note paper.
Environmental constraints - resignated land, New Forest.
Producer responsibility for products - provision for recycling/disposal costs.
Ensure adequate level/mix of processing plants to deal with supply.
Always demand for primary aggregates - limitations for using recycled products e.g. road surfaces.
Site acquisition.

Table 12:

Mutual understanding of aspirations, concerns, requirements.
Could mean too many things to too many people
Need for targets to drive outputs - need to take people along/gain support if aiming to exceed statutory targets.
Cost - Who pays for delivery? Especially if including all waste streams.
Difficulty in gaining planning permission - ‘Hysteria’ about waste facilities leading to objections.
Education and PR needed to address ‘Hysteria’ and objections - needed by public and private sector.
County procurement and specifying can help stimulate markets and demonstrate use. (Local and Central Government buy 40% 1º aggregate s much potential).
Negotiation on planning can encourage use of 2º aggregates in new build.
Large integrated sites/resource parks vs smaller distributed sites?
Sites - Start with safeguarding established sites/uses.
Economics and proximity principle limit distance material can be transported smaller more distributed facilities spreads risk (if business fails).
Different strategies/approaches for different materials - waste streams needed?
Need to consider/identify where end market for material is.
Need to demonstrate that benefits the cost (financial, environmental).
Business opportunities through recycled materials use.
Need consistent kerbside collection (Standard of service and material collected).

Table 13:

Uncertainty over the new process - LDF system!
Lack of knowledge.
Linking district local plans with County and Unitary plans.
How is the process going to deal with site specific issues?
Resourcing and information available/costs etc. - encourage e.g. Environment Agency, English Nature, Government Agencies to be involved earlier in the process.
What is waste? - Education and terminology on what is and isn’t a waste.
Different sites for different recycling purposes.
Might not be looking at sites on a comparative basis.
Piecemeal approach will avoid difficult decisions being made.
Spread of decisions/correct decisions.
Need a greater depth of public consultation from early stages.
Need certainty in policies and MRS - is this possible?
Need strategic steer into site specific issues - what is county responsibility what is district responsibility?
Keep engagement going with organisations such as Southern Water.
Conflict - waste functions carried out on an area identified for example as employment park.

Table 14:

Decent data - do we have enough data to show any progress.
Need for a champion and someone to lead it.
Persuading stakeholders to buy into the proposals even it they are not the cheapest option.
Cost/benefit.
Legacy for the future.
Where does best practice come into it.
Best Value - quality of product against cost.
What are/will be the boundaries/confinements of MRS ‘How much does it include’.
Need to make sure achievable boundaries are set.
Focus on the main issues.
Can Hampshire County Council do things that other counties aren’t able to due to resources.
Are they prepared to go against popular opinion/way of doing things.
Will they lead the way for others to follow.
Making sure the framework encompasses the 3 elements of sustainabilities.
Communicating the issues to local people.
Finding the problems to start with and encompassing them into the initial costs.
Trying to obtain a consensus - in reality never a 100% consensus.
Is the planning process too long.
Lessons to be learnt from previous minerals planning.
The time it takes to implement plans/strategies.

Table 15:

Public attitudes to large centralised facilities.
Term ‘waste’ not helpful.
No one solution large and small needed depending in circumstances.
Process waste on site rather than transport especially industrial and construction
Agricultural waste - what is it - how is it dealt with - is it a problem.
Fiscal reasons needed to make happen.
Local plans should be encouraging sustainable development with CHP and water recycling, maximising energy efficiency. Enforcement of BRE. SEEDA sustainability checklist - Insurers don’t want to take risk of 12 year HBC guarantee.
Lack of developers involved in process.
Legislation not in place.
Finding sites acquiring planning permission.
Conflict between housing or waste facilities on ‘industrial sites prompted by PPG3.
Design of handling facilities to minimise environmental problems.
Consider best places in relation to transport.
Involvement of public from very beginning makes planning process easier to build up trust and create ownership.
Lack of uniformed approach between planners, development, regulators and consultants.
Need to make public aware of what happens to their waste - what are the knock on effects especially to toxic wastes.
Have to be able to guarantee future availability of waste products to ensure it is safe to make investment.