Partnership Logos

More from Less

 

 

Material Resources Strategy

Outputs from Workshop 4

Material Resources Strategy (MRS) Workshop 4 was held on 14th July 2004. There were two identical half day sessions - one in the morning at the Guildhall in Southampton and the second in the evening at the Castle in Winchester. The turnout was again excellent, with 125 stakeholders participating between the two events.

The workshop was used to inform stakeholders and hold discussions on two key topics:

  1. The proposed methodology for identifying a preferred solution for recycling and recovery in Hampshire; and
  2. The suggested way forward for developing the core strategy of the MRS, covering the overall MRS project plan and future information requirements.

The record of the discussions has been transcribed below.

Discussion Session 1 - The Suggested Options Appraisal Methodology

Overall Approach

  • There was overall support for the suggested appraisal methodology. However the following points were also raised:
  • Need to define objectives and targets;
  • Must have balance of 3 options: environment, social and economic;
  • Is this the approach too simplistic? Without seeing the options that will be appraised it was difficult to comment;
  • Focus needs to be on deliverability;
  • The test will be in quantifying baseline detail;
  • How will the process ‘put Hampshire on the map’? What will the benefits be for Hampshire?
  • Ambitious!

The Proposed Appraisal Methodology

The main issues raised were as follows:

  • Impact of scale and locality on the appraisal and whether a different methodology was needed at different scales e.g. did we need to separate Hampshire industry from national industry? Could we weigh the objectives differently for different areas (e.g. coastal, urban, rural)? Would the methodology be flexible enough to allow for local factors?
  • Some issues were not covered by the scope of the appraisal: sustainable design; movement of waste and alternative transport to take traffic off the roads; reducing consumption; the ‘market’ approach (need markets for materials); economic efficiency; involvement of the public; the closed loop (cradle–to–grave).
  • The importance of good communication: we needed to avoid jargon, make it understandable to the person on the street, keep the general public informed and encourage involvement.

Other comments were as follows:

  • The appraisal may oversimplify issues - some issues were more important than others.
  • The appraisal needed to be based on up-to-date data. A lot of published data was too old. It would be more beneficial to survey current facilities to get the latest information. The resource papers needed to be made available. Also, we needed to evaluate where waste from Hampshire was going then assess how to deal with it.
  • It was important to address the issue of funding. Money was needed to implement the options agreed upon but who would pay? Could have more support from central government or SEEDA. Implementation had to be cost effective.
  • The appraisal objectives were hard to relate to what the people of Hampshire would understand - where were the basic and understandable principles to show the benefit to the people of Hampshire?
  • How did we monitor and establish targets or the objectives?

Half Day Appraisal Workshop and Resource Groups

  • The overriding issue was which individuals would be responsible for the appraisal. It was generally felt that using the resource groups would be the best way forward although it was vital to ensure transparency in the process: More detailed points were as follows:
  • Expert information was valuable, but also needed to make room for inputs from non–experts;
  • Some resource group members may have their own agenda, we needed to ensure that final decisions were not subject to individual influence;
  • The statutory agencies should verify the findings of the appraisal. It could be beneficial to involve them early in the process (and work as a team), although this could inhibit ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking;
  • This was a complex process - the appraisals needed to be carefully managed, facilitated by experts with a cross section of stakeholders;
  • Using resource groups would be the best way forward as they included industry, experts and stakeholders;
  • Diversity of members already involved with MRS ensures credibility and acceptability. They may give results not thought of by experts/LAs;
  • Have measures been taken to ensure that the resource groups were representative?
  • Stakeholders should be able to feedback comments by email if they can’t attend.

Qualitative versus Quantitative Appraisal Approach

  • There was overall support for the qualitative approach of the appraisal:
  • This was the right approach to use at this strategic level;
  • Stops us being constrained into short term thinking; and
  • Ensures holistic consideration of options.
  • However quantification would be useful to provide confidence for investment in infrastructure, ensure delivery, demonstrate effects and get buy-in etc.

Other Issues

  • What was the overlap with Project Integra? Project Integra deals with only some of the waste stream;
  • We needed to start recycling more commercial waste and accelerate getting commercial interests on board;
  • There was a need to look at producing a resource map for Hampshire that identifies areas of resource capture and available industry infrastructure;
  • Issues Hampshire were unable to deal with should be highlighted and an explanation given as to why they could not be addressed;
  • It would be good to know the direction of future government policy/ legislation/ regulation;
  • Were we working in conjunction with other councils in the south west/east?
  • Should government take the lead? What about change in the strategy in the future if government likes a particular strategy model? Needed to involve central government in achieving objectives at some future point;
  • What about international best practice?
  • Should be gaining experience on techniques by engaging with business in wider context than just Hampshire; and
  • Ensure LAs have their own house in order (e.g. green sourcing).

 

Discussion Session 2 - Draft Appraisal Objectives

Table 1 below sets out the stakeholders comments in respect of each of the draft appraisal objectives and details the final appraisal objectives:

Table 1 Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Environmental Objectives

        

To minimise the environmental impact of waste/resource management on air, water, soil, cultural heritage, landscape and biodiversity

Issues raised by more than one group:

The main comment was to remove the emphasis on ‘minimise’. Should aim to introduce positive side and provide opportunities to enhance the environment rather than just aiming to minimise. One group preferred ‘increase’ and ‘decrease’.

There was a lot in the objective but several issues were missing: fresh or salt water, water resource and water quality, noise (mentioned several times), light, odour, dust, climate change, energy use and production.

The objective was too long and could be sub-divided. Could separate local, national and global impacts.

Other comments:

All impacts would not be appropriate to all waste streams.

H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H, M

To minimise the overall negative environmental impact on air, water, soil, cultural heritage, climate, landscape and biodiversity

To minimise the negative impact that the resource management process would have on air, water, soil, cultural heritage, climate, landscape and biodiversity
  • Landtake
  • Extent of noise, dust, odour, air quality/emissions, CO2 emissions landscape and visual impacts on the macro-environment

 

 

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Environmental Objectives

        

To minimise effects on the amenity and health of Hampshire’s communities

Issues raised by more than one group:

Should this objective be limited to Hampshire’s community? What about materials that go outside Hampshire, including global impacts?

What was meant by ‘amenity’? (could we use ‘quality of life’ instead?).

Should aim to maximise benefits rather than minimise negative effects.

Other comments:

Was this a socio-economic issue?

This could be an aim not an objective - it was too general.

Could not really argue with this.

Was community separate from residents?

H, H, H, H, H, H, H, H M, M

To safeguard the well-being and quality of life of Hampshire’s residents by minimising the effects on the amenity and health.
  • Extent of noise, dust, odour, air quality/emissions, CO2 emissions landscape and visual impacts

 

 

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Environmental Objectives

        

To minimise the distances travelled between the source of waste/resource arisings, their management and reprocessing and encourage sustainable transport methods

Issues raised by more than one group:

Many groups questioned whether this objective was realistic as, in a market-led economy, there were limited opportunities/facilities for management and reprocessing in Hampshire and it was therefore difficult to control distances travelled;

There were several concerns about transport implications associated with waste/resource transport and the conflicts between promoting local facilities and increasing transport, most notably:

In small villages surrounded by network of narrow roads having too many waste lorries causes congestion and severe environmental impacts for local residents.

Needed to look for the most efficient routes using small vehicles on narrow lanes but may be less efficient economically, and could be more environmentally damaging.

Needed to optimise transport not minimise.

Mode of transport was important: could be better to travel longer distances by train and boat rather than lots of small local journeys by road.

Could look at using recyclable fuels for vehicles.

Constraints to setting up local facilities to reduce travel needed to be addressed. There were conflicting demands of promoting reprocessing in Hampshire: problem was that no one wants to have waste management sites nearby. Small scale processing could be a very expensive option. Having lots of small collection points would be good, with transfer sites to build up materials.

Other comments:

Has to fit in with Hampshire’s view of climate change.

What about waste regional self sufficiency.

The word ’sustainable’ was meaningless in this context, replace by ‘economic‘?

H, H, H, H, M, M, M, M, M, L

To minimise the distances travelled between the source of waste/resource arisings, their management and reprocessing and optimise sustainable transport methods
  • Extent to which self-sufficiency would be achieved
  • Distance travelled and by what mode (i.e. alternatives to road transportation)

 

 

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Any other environmental objectives?

Have to consider ‘sustainable sourcing’ i.e. import of materials.

Aim to encourage self-sufficiency at all levels.

Improved communication was required between all departments and organisations involved in land use/spatial planning issues.

-

-

-

General comments on environmental objectives

Should aim to introduce positive side rather than just aiming to minimise.

Use ‘optimise’ rather than maximise and minimise - may need short term compromises.

It was important to work with other counties (particularly those surrounding Hampshire) to achieve these objectives.

Use of environmental checklists and environmental management approach and measurement was needed.

Were we agreeing to the methodologies alongside the objectives? Have to consider best practice at all stages.

-

-

-

 

 

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Waste Management Objectives

Two groups wanted to change title to ‘resource management objectives’

  

Resource Management Objectives

  

To minimise the amount of residual waste/resources requiring disposal (particularly by landfill)

Issues raised by more than one group:

Objective should be measurable with specific targets.

Other comments:

It was good that the wording allows for energy recovery from waste.

H, H, H, H, H, H, H, M, M

To minimise the amount of residual waste/resources requiring disposal (particularly by landfill)
  • % of resource stream categorised as "unavoidable" waste

To maximise the beneficial use of waste/resources

Comments:

The objective was bland and did not define the sort of use. It needed better explanation.

This started at the design stage and feeds through the entire process.

Appraisal should focus on this objective.

Did we need to include ‘maximise’?

We needed to look at this objective in proportion to the amount of waste produced.

Is this qualitative or quantitative? Ambiguous.

H, H, H, H, H, H, M, M

To maximise the beneficial use of waste/resources
  • % recycled
  • Extent to which recycling/reprocessing of resource stream prevents the depletion of virgin resources

 

 

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Waste Management Objectives

Two groups wanted to change title to ‘resource management objectives’

  

Resource Management Objectives

  

To maximise the extent to which government targets are met (or exceeded) for recycling and recovery and complement the progress achieved to date by Hampshire in the area of resource management

Issues raised by more than one group:

The main issue was the emphasis on targets i.e. that we were too target driven and that targets only address the symptoms not the cause of the problem and that a wider objective was therefore necessary.

Several groups wanted to simplify the objective by deleting the final section (i.e. delete ‘and complement the progress achieved to date by Hampshire in the area of resource management’).

Costs:

Should not become too focused on cost.

The costs involved in achieving targets should be communicated effectively to taxpayers.

Cost of not taking action versus cost of taking action to achieve targets should be outlined.

Other comments:

Difference in appropriateness of targets to LAs and business.

Meeting targets should be standardised for all councils.

Encourage boroughs to meet quota.

Lack of drive for commercial and industrial waste.

Need to define drivers for waste management options.

H, H, M, M, L, L, L, L, L

To maximise the extent to which quantifiable government targets are met (or exceeded) for recycling and recovery
  • % recycled
  • % recovered
  • % diverted from landfill

 

 

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Any other waste management objectives?

To minimise the amount of waste produced in the first place (e.g. unnecessary packaging).

Reduction of contaminated waste generated.

Cost of taking action versus cost of taking action to achieve targets.

-

To minimise the amount of waste produced
  • Extent to which the option discourages waste generation

General comments on waste management objectives

Issues raised by more than one group:

Need a market for materials and financial viability for waste management options.

Should start right at the beginning of a product’s lifecycle, address the process chain.

Other comments:

Should encourage people not to buy heavily packaged goods.

We have been working towards these objectives - relatively easy.

Hampshire is behind on targets for recycling municipal waste.

Importance of public acceptability of measures.

-

See additional objective under socio-economic section.

See indicators for the additional objectives under the socio-economic section.

 

 

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Socio-Economic Objectives

        

To maximise the public acceptability of the proposed methods of waste/resource management

Comments:

There was a need to change people’s mindset.

How could this objective be applied? Could it be deleted?

To what extent will it help change behaviour?

H, H, H, H, H, L

To maximise the public acceptability of the proposed methods of waste/resource management
  • Perceptions of the proposed technology

To provide opportunities for public involvement, participation and education

Issues raised by more than one group:

The main change requested was to include accessibility (to information and facilities) in this objective, for all the community.

The importance of education as the first step in changing mindsets/behaviour needed to be reflected.

Other comments:

Life long learning needed to be included in the education element.

A sense of ownership of the waste problem needed to be fostered.

How would this objective be achieved?

H, H, H, H, M, M

To provide opportunities for public involvement, participation and education
  • Extent of opportunities for public involvement and education surrounding sustainable waste management practises

 

 

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Socio-Economic Objectives

        

To assist in creating appropriate economic growth and employment by addressing the needs of business and the waste/resource management industry and encouraging competitiveness

Comments:

Was there a market for the resource streams?

Sustainability needed to be included in this objective.

Objective needed simplifying.

What about social enterprise, public sector etc? i.e. was not just ‘business’.

Add ‘employees’ i.e. ‘needs of business, employees and the waste/resource management industry’.

H, H, H, H, H, M

To assist in creating appropriate/sustainable economic growth and employment by addressing the needs of business, employees and the waste/resource management industry and encouraging competitiveness
  • Number of jobs likely to be created/sustained
  • Extent to which the option promotes competitiveness (particularly within the resource management industry)

 

 

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Socio-Economic Objectives

        

To reduce social exclusion and close the gap between the most disadvantaged and the rest by encouraging community involvement and participation

Issues raised by more than one group:

Several groups suggested scrapping this objective as it was felt to be meaningless, irrelevant or simly inserted for political correctness. It was also commented that the objective was a nice idea but aspirational rather than practical.

Two groups wanted to change the wording to make the objective more positive i.e. ‘to increase social inclusion’.

Affluent people produce more waste (thus needed to change ‘disadvantaged’ to ‘advantaged’?!)

Other comments:

This was already covered by the other objectives.

Needed to target those groups where awareness raising was most necessary.

The objective could include accessibility (for disabled people).

Could send out a leaflet to households showing then how to sort waste.

Sustainability needed to be included & needed to have an appraisal of the financial viability of the options and whether markets exist.

H, M, L, L, L, L

To maximise social inclusion and close the gap between the most disadvantaged and the rest by encouraging community involvement and participation
  • Extent to which the option provides opportunities for all communities to contribute towards resource management in Hampshire

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Any other socio economic objectives?

There needed to be a change in behaviour i.e. an objective about changing people’s lifestyles.

Needed to get the message from the home into people’s workplaces.

-

To maximise the utilisation of existing markets and/or the facilitation of economic development opportunities to ensure that recycled/reprocessed material resources are required once produced
  • Extent to which the option may stimulate markets

General comments on socio economic objectives

Issues raised by more than one group:

Could we split social from economic objectives?

Other comments:

More than just cost - think about long term sustainability - could use BATNEEC (best available technology not entailing excessive cost) to appraise cost effectiveness and encourage realism.

Public involvement and consumer responsibility should be high priorities - we needed to get the public on board to achieve the objectives.

Needed to maximise public acceptance.

Parish councils should be used as a mechanism for communication.

It was frustrating for the public that all potentially recyclable materials could not be included in recycling collections.

H

    

 

 

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Operational Objectives

        

To consider the increased level of participation required by waste/resource producers

Issues raised by more than one group:

Many stakeholders wanted to strengthen this objective e.g. replace ‘consider’ with ‘encourage’, ‘promote’ or ‘increase the level of participation’.

How could we increase participation? Need incentives for those who can’t be bothered, encourage individual companies to participate, may need drastic measures.

Other comments

Achievement of this objective may involve dialogue with multinational and other producers.

Concentrate on what could be achieved locally.

Must include commercial interests.

H, H, H, H, M

To maximise the levels of participation required by all waste/resource producers
  • To consider the increased level of waste capture required / participation by waste producers

 

 

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Operational Objectives

        

To minimise the financial burden of waste/resource management on the public and on businesses (i.e. costs of collection, management and disposal, including any materials and energy revenues)

Issues raised by more than one group:

Many stakeholders wanted to replace the word ‘minimise’ in this objective i.e. to ‘optimise’, ‘stop increasing’ or ‘maximise the cost effectiveness’.

Debate about the focus on costs/financial burden:

The definition of cost was important – needed to consider costs in their widest sense e.g. secondary costs of environmental impacts.

Should not focus on financial burden, should highlight current costs and how waste management could be different to reduce costs and maximise benefits.

Should not necessarily drive down cost - should not necessarily go for cheapest option.

Society is too price driven, was it vital to focus on costs?

Needed to look at current costs of dealing with waste compared to new options.

Need to concentrate on long term sustainability.

Other comments:

Cost burden needed to be transferred to polluters;

Costs were a political issue - councils needed to operate as efficiently as possible.

Scrap the objective?

H, H, H, M, M, M

To maximise the cost effectiveness of waste/resource management on the public and on businesses (i.e. costs of collection, management and disposal, including any materials and energy revenues)
  • Costs of collection management and disposal, including any materials and energy revenues
  • Likelihood of implementation taking account of the maturity of the proposed technology, current markets etc.
  • The amount of new waste management infrastructure required

 

 

Table 1 cont Stakeholder Comments in Respect of the Draft Options Appraisal Objectives

Draft Appraisal Objectives

Stakeholder Comments

Ranking (H, M or L)

Final Appraisal Objectives

Indicators

Any other operational objectives?

Many stakeholders wanted an objective that included markets e.g. creating new markets, using existing markets and finding alternatives.

Needed to identify legislative and duty of care responsibilities.

H

See additional objective under socio-economic section.

See indicators for the additional objectives under the socio-economic section.

General comments on the operational objectives

Cost needed to reflect deliverability. Also needed to include production and the whole process chain.

Most companies did not have an individual responsible for waste management, nor clear data available to benchmark and set targets against.

-

-

-

 

 

Table 1 Stakeholders Comments on the Draft Appraisal Objectives

Overall Comments about the Draft Appraisal Objectives

Issues raised by more than one group:

  • The main overall issue related to whether the objectives were deliverable (and what would need to be done to implement the strategy on the ground)?
  • Some people questioned whether the objectives could really all be described as such i.e. should be read as criteria not as objectives, should divide into aims (broad) and objectives (specific).

Other comments:

  • Are we having indicators for each objective?
  • Should the objectives be grouped differently to highlight their application to the whole process chain, rather than separating waste management?
  • Although the overall need to quantity progress is understandable, focusing on figures is not always welcome.

Prioritisation of Appraisal Objectives

Several groups felt unable to prioritise the objectives as all were important.

Other comments:

  • How to we balance high priorities that may conflict?
  • The objectives need to be prioritised in a way that can be realistic and objectives balanced against each other.
  • Operational objectives were felt to be slightly less important. Notwithstanding this, operational objectives should come first in the sequence as they were necessary before anything else could be achieved.
  • Waste management objectives were more important.
  • The overall objective should be to minimise consumption.

Discussion Session 3 - Comments on the Suggested Way Forward

Issue 1 - The MRS Project Plan:

Overall Issues about the Way Forward

There was overall endorsement for the suggested way forward for the MRS process. However, key issues raised were as follows:

  • Several people commented on the need for more information on the different aspects of the programme.
  • Information was needed from all resource groups, including quantitative information.
  • There was a general consensus that offline working groups were an adequate means of meeting the overall objectives.
  • A sequential approach to producing the MRS – policies and then sites - was endorsed.
  • A wider understanding of processes within Local Authorities was needed by stakeholders.

Arriving at a Preferred Option

The proposed method of arriving at a preferred option for the MRS was discussed. The main issue to arise was the need for transparency in the method i.e. the reasons for adoption or rejection of all objectives and options.

Timescale

Many stakeholders made comment on whether the overall timings set out in the project plan were realistic. Although generally agreed, the following key points were made:

  • There may not be enough time to get all the information necessary for implementation of the project plan.
  • Timings were very tight and concentrated at certain periods of the plan.
  • Stakeholders could be swept along and feel at the end that they did not really contribute to the process.
  • How much of a constraint to timing are the existing contracts in determining how waste is collected and disposed of?
  • Did the councils have the resources to meet the deadline?
  • Was it too optimistic to seek to resolve site selection issues within 3 months - this was deemed controversial and too specific for quick resolution.
  • The timescale for involving the public was felt to be especially tight. Time needed to be made for feedback.

However:

  • Given the constraints the timescale was felt to be acceptable.
  • Having meetings close together would maintain momentum and keep people engaged. It was particularly felt to be important to build upon the enormous amount of enthusiasm that had been generated in respect of the MRS.

Community Involvement

A large amount of the third discussion session focussed on the opportunities for community involvement within the MRS project plan.

  • Several groups commented that public involvement was too late in the process and could therefore jeopardise the MRS project plan. More community engagement and contact was needed now. Community workshops could affect the project plan, the timetable assumes that the process will take the community along with it. Some stakeholders felt that having just 4 community workshop opportunities at the beginning of the process would be insufficient, that engagement should be ongoing and that as such, the project plan did not sufficiently cover positive public engagement.
  • Stakeholders debated how best to involve the community and engage people in the MRS. It was mentioned that the general public were perhaps only interested in proposals for specific waste sites in their local area. Nimbyism was an issue that needed to be dealt with. Ways to positively and proactively engage the general public needed to be identified so that the ‘usual suspects‘ were not the only ones attending public consultations. It was felt important that everyone had the opportunity for involvement. Specific ideas included:
  • Using existing mechanisms of involvement and communication e.g. local action groups, Community Associations;
  • Using Citizens’ Panels, online technology and focus groups;
  • Involving people with radical ideas and strong views and representatives from powerful groups;
  • Using Councillors who were democratically elected to represent the public;
  • Having a widely available video of what was happening in Hampshire at the moment, to include existing facilities, possible problems and solutions;
  • Using workshops as it was a less confrontational method of involvement;
  • A standard PowerPoint presentation as a resource for ‘outreach’;
  • Development of a ‘fantasy waste management ‘ game and put it on the internet; and
  • Engage at a local level, going into areas rather than having centralised meetings.
  • Also debated was whether we were trying only to inform people or whether we wanted real participation to get people’s views, and whether there was enough time for the latter. It was noted however, that it could be difficult to involve people who had not been involved in the MRS before.
  • It was important that information was imparted in a non–political and impartial manner.

Integration with Statutory Obligations and Other Strategies

Stakeholders discussed how the MRS could be integrated with the statutory obligations of the councils to produce a minerals and waste development framework (MWDF). They also discussed links between the MRS and other strategies.

  • Many stakeholders had questions about the relationship between the MRS and the MWDF and said that more clarity is needed. In particular, we need to be clear upon what are the statutory/unmoveable points of the MRS programme and identify areas of flexibility, including areas where progress can begin immediately. Other issues were:
  • What is the timescale for integration of the MRS with the MWDF?
  • What are the statutory responsibilities for waste, planning matters etc?
  • Need clarity in content of new planning legislation;
  • Don’t like ‘Waste’ being in the title of the MWDF;
  • The MRS addresses all aspects of waste not just municipal waste; and
  • Area Location Plans should be considered as part of LDF process?
  • The relationship between the site identification process of the MRS and other strategies was commented on several times, including links to the proposals maps and the municipal waste management strategy.
  • It was felt important that the MRS links in with other strategies, initiatives and guidelines, and that these actual and potential links are made clear e.g. with Community Strategies, the Regional Spatial Strategy, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Best Practicable Environmental Option, SEERA work, London strategies.

Business/Commercial Issues

Issues to do with business and the importance of addressing economic development came up several times during discussion:

  • How do we get from preferred option to delivery as the ground and attendance of waste companies?
  • Importance of developing partnerships for commercial and industrial waste producers and collectors and development of national/local markets for the resources streams;
  • Need to address the challenge of reaching SMEs;
  • Investigate new economic markets for disposal options; and
  • Financial constraints must come into it and who will pay for the infrastructure for recycling and processing options.

Issue 2 - Unavoidable Waste:

Type and Level of Information Required

Table 2 below sets out details of the types of information requested by the stakeholders on the management of unavoidable waste:

Table 2 Stakeholder Information Requirements on Unavoidable Waste Management

Type of information

Number of groups who mentioned issue (approximate)

Objective information on all available technologies so that we can make informed decisions (including small scale options)

10

What exactly is unavoidable waste? Need technical details. What is it and where does it come from?

9

Strategic overview of the problem faced and volumes of waste produced

5

Existing capacity for dealing with waste in Hampshire (e.g. capacity of incinerators, life span of landfill sites)

4

Information relating to individuals to bring the issue home to people, practical examples (e.g. costs to each household of waste)

4

Emerging technologies

4

Financial implications of the different options

3

Environmental impacts

3

More information on construction and secondary aggregates (e.g. comparison of costs for recycling and extraction)

3

Legislative requirements for the different options

3

Government requirements (e.g. minerals, London’s waste, planning policy)

2

Health impacts

2

Lifecycle analyses for the different technologies and products

2

 

Type of information

Number of groups who mentioned issue (approximate)

Advantages/disadvantages of incineration and landfill

1

What resources are available to different sectors/areas?

1

Legislative guidelines on composting

1

What will avoidable waste look like in the future once we have recycled/recovered what we call through MRS?

1

Volumes and the number/size of sites needed for each of the options

1

Contracts for existing waste management facilities (how much of constraint are the existing contracts in determining how waste is collected and disposed of?)

1

Future demands and changes and their impact on facilities

1

Records for how much and what waste is being produced (fixed sites submit a waste return, however non–fixed sites are not recorded)

1

Hampshire context

1

Waste that can potentially be recycled but which is not included in household recycling collections

1

How to deal with commercial waste

1

Product design and links to recycling

1

International progress i.e. what is happening in other countries

1

Definition of residual versus unavoidable waste

1

Punch points from speech by government minister

1

Energy from waste

1

 

Types of information required included: volumes, statistics, arisings, emissions, impacts, costs, processes, outputs etc.

How Data Should be Provided

  • A key message was that information given to stakeholders should be unbiased. We needed to show that all options have been considered and explain the rationale for choosing the preferred options, with factual information provided. Information needed to be consistent.
  • The second key message was that information provided should be direct, easy to understand and with minimum jargon. There was support for using fewer words and more pictures. Practical examples could also be used to illustrate key points. However we also needed to be careful not to ‘dumb-down’.
  • Stakeholders made the following comments about how information should be provided at the MRS workshops:
  • Information provided sufficiently in advance to give stakeholders time to think and disseminate the information if necessary;
  • Presentation boards/table exhibits to stimulate ideas;
  • Briefing notes and short presentations;
  • A whole day on unavailable waste solutions and minerals?
  • Objective expert presentation;
  • FAQ’s and more opportunities for Q&A;
  • Send to stakeholders what we want to get out of each workshop;
  • The meetings are not long enough; and
  • Distribute MRS newsletters more widely.
  • Stakeholders were keen to see the resource group papers. They wanted to see non-technical summaries of the key points, perhaps with full briefings on the website.
  • Issue executive summaries prior to the workshops. Don’t present them if but allow people to ask questions of the experts (there could be a panel of experts at the front);
  • Rely on the experts to produce executive summaries and key points from the technical papers;
  • Non-technical information in paper to stakeholders with website links;
  • Information sheets giving practical examples; and
  • Technical briefings at workshops and on Website –email alerts.
  • There was widespread support for the MRS website, to provide both detailed information that could not be included in the workshops and general communication about the MRS for a wider audience. Information proposed for inclusion on the website included: background to the MRS, technical briefings, factual information, video presentation, links to other websites. However was important to remember that not all stakeholders had access to the internet.
  • Stakeholders also suggested giving stakeholders the opportunity to make site visits to waste facilities, perhaps with a virtual tour on the internet, and having a glossary of existing technologies that can be regularly updated to keep people updated.
  • Discussion also covered how to market the MRS to the general public. Ideas included: a newsletter/supplement in ‘Hampshire Now’; making information available in public buildings (e.g. libraries) or supermarkets; using the media; making good use of the Project Integra communications group.

Stakeholders Request for Information on Specific Technologies/Issues

A request for information on the following technologies/unavoidable waste issues was specifically mentioned: anaerobic digestion, autoclaving, biofuels, composting, fly ash, food waste disposal, gasification, incineration, MBT invessel composting, MBT kitchen organics, mixed waste technologies, and plastics/PVC recycling (why do we only recycle some plastics?).

 

uparrow  Top of page