The project, which was proposed by the Campaign for Real Recycling (CRR), comes as a result of last year's introduction of carbon-related indicators for waste management within the Best Value Performance Indicators for local authorities (see letsrecycle.com story).
CRR believes WRAP has a key role to play, with its understanding of life-cycle issues and recycling research in general
Mal Williams, CRR
Explaining the motivation behind the project, Mal Williams, the chairman of the CRR, said: “In the case of recycling and related activities, such information as is available to help local authorities in assessing their carbon footprints appears somewhat piecemeal and there is a clear need for new, joined-up guidance.
“CRR believes WRAP has a key role to play, with its understanding of life-cycle issues and recycling research in general,” he added.
Collections
Despite the link-up for this project, a spokeswoman for the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) acknowledged that the Defra-funded body did not always see eye-to-see with CRR, which has repeatedly criticised commingled collections in the past (see letsrecycle.com story).
“We may not always agree with CRR on tactics,” she told letsrecycle.com. “However, we do share their concern about improving the quality of recyclates whether they are collected through commingled collections or kerbside sort and we share their interest in trying to find the best environmental outcome from the recycling process.”
In the past, the two organisations have appeared to draw differing conclusions on the merits of the two collection methods, with a WRAP report published in June claiming kerbside source-segregation was more cost effective than commingling collections and sorting them at a materials recycling facility (see letsrecycle.com story).
Advice
The spokeswoman said WRAP saw the study as a “useful idea”, explaining that a number of local authorities had been asking for advice on the point because of the new national indicators which look at operational carbon.
She said: “Our other work on collections has focused on how to increase capture rates and reduce operational costs,” she said. “We know that some authorities are concerned about the implications for their carbon emissions from, for example, having more vehicles on the road.
“But we need to know what the net carbon emissions are when the benefit of additional recycling is taken into account. We also need to know whether different collection arrangements affect the net carbon footprint and if so by how much, so we hope this study will help provide some clarity on this,” she added.
Funding
WRAP also confirmed that funding for the project had not yet been agreed, and the exact roles of WRAP and CRR were yet to be defined.
However, she did reveal that, for funding, “at this stage we envisage an application to Defra's Waste Evidence Programme”.
The decision to undertake the research was well-received by Lee Marshall, chairman of the Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee, who said: “LARAC would welcome any research that helps inform the decisions that local authorities make.”
“The carbon footprint of a service is an important consideration that sites alongside others such as the stability of the scheme for the local area, cost and local reprocessing opportunities,” he added.
Reaction
Reaction to the announcement of the research project came from Richard Cutts, director of recycling firm and MRF operator Community Waste, which published an independent study in July 2008 examining the carbon benefits of both commingled and source-separated collections (see letsrecycle.com story).
While he welcomed the decision to research the issue of carbon impacts of collection methods, Mr Cutts called into question why the project did not appear to involve all parts of the industry, adding that “I feel it needs to be inclusive”.
The Community Waste study concluded that commingled collections had a smaller carbon footprint than source-separated, and came just weeks after a separate study of recycling in the London borough of Camden came to the conclusion that, in fact, commingled collections had a larger carbon footprint than the kerbside-sorted alternative (see letsrecycle.com story).
Register for free to comment