EU report calls for clarity on separate collections

The report put together in 2015 by German consultancy BiPRO and the Copenhagen Resource Institute analysed the separate collection schemes in operation in each of the EU’s 28 capital cities.

Among the findings, the report advocates the introduction of mandatory separate collection systems for material streams such as paper, as well as a mandatory separate collection of bio-waste, as these ‘usually result in high municipal waste recycling levels’.

Paper is identified as the material to be collected separately as a first priority, followed then by glass and metal.

With regards to paper, the report states: “Paper co-mingled [sic] with other waste streams (in particular glass, but also metal and plastic) cross contamination is higher than for paper/cardboard collected as one stream in a separate bin (cross-contamination between 5 and 20% compared to 1% in single stream collection) yielding in lower quality material and less potential for recycling into new paper.”

Collection

The report also notes that plastic and metal collected together does not usually lead to sorting difficulties, adding that the “co-mingled approach can work, but the collected material can be sorted to produce clean fractions only if there is very little unwanted contamination”.

It adds that the trend in recycling markets is likely to be towards requiring higher quality materials – which are typically derived from sorting systems with a greater level of separation.

Elsewhere, the report also calls for national governments to provide ‘clear definitions of what is meant by separate collection in the national legislation’ as well as to define ‘what is meant by high quality standards’.

The comments are of particular relevance to the UK, with the government having had to go to court to defend its interpretation of the Waste Framework Directive over the application of separate collections and whether commingled collections can be permissible (see letsrecycle.com story).

Judicial Review

The case hinged on the interpretation of articles 10 & 11 of the Directive – and its subsequent transposition into UK law under the Waste (England & Wales) Regulations. Articles 10 & 11 stated that Member States must take “measures to promote high quality recycling and, to this end, set up collections of waste where technically, environmentally and economically practicable [TEEP] and appropriate to meet the necessary quality standards for the relevant recycling sectors.”

Ultimately, a ruling by Mr Justice Hickinbottom, following a court case in early 2013 stated that commingling could be permissible if separate collection is not TEEP or necessary to promote high quality recycling (see letsrecycle.com story).

TEEP

However, the saga did not end with the court ruling, with local authorities then having to demonstrate that they had met the TEEP requirements, without the aid of guidance from government on what constitutes separate collections. In some cases this has led to costly ‘TEEP assessments’ having been carried out on behalf of local authorities by consultants.

A report published last week by the Environment Agency suggested that the majority of councils in England have assessed their compliance with the law, with most opting not to alter their service in light of having done so (see letsrecycle.com story). The report also confirmed that the majority of the recyclable material collected in England is done so via commingling, ‘and is likely to remain so’.