Alison Kemp, Technical Director at Wardell Armstrong looks a the deposit return scheme (DRS) and asks: will it kill council recycling schemes?
We are being consulted on the future of our approach to waste management. Over the last few months, I have listened to and learned from a wide spectrum of industry players at various points in the supply chain and engaged with discussions regarding our transition to a more circular model.
Against the backdrop of my recent work with local authority clients looking to optimise their collection and processing abilities, it is clear that there are some challenging aspects to be discussed ahead of making some very big decisions.
The overarching objectives of the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) are sound, with the intention to aid increasing recycling rates, improvement in the quality of those recyclate streams, reducing litter and encouraging more proactive engagement across the supply chain through to the public / consumers.
Against the backdrop of my recent work with local authority clients looking to optimise their collection and processing abilities, it is clear that there are some challenging aspects to be discussed ahead of making some very big decisions.
If well considered and effectively implemented, I am sure that it will deliver on some if not all of these objectives. However, when I think about the bigger picture of our overall drive towards reducing resource dependency, promotion of reuse, repair and remanufacture and driving down our carbon emissions, the concept of DRS and its ability to integrate and complement the existing recycling collection and processing infrastructure raises some questions.
Traditional models of waste collection, treatment and marketing are no longer meeting our wider environmental objectives. A more holistic approach that allows us to reconsider how to get best value from the materials that councils are obligated to collect, whilst also building in resilience, flexibility and an ability to not only achieve recycling targets but to also contribute to carbon and sustainable development goals is required.
There is currently interest from councils in investing further in advanced recycling facilities to aid their progression towards achieving these ambitions. These projects require much investment, and a guarantee that the input streams will remain available.
Any new scheme such as DRS will therefore need to be carefully designed to ensure integration with the existing and planned collection / processing systems and ideally, to complement those.
The challenges
In addition to the general logistical challenges of setting up a complex and widespread scheme that is accessible to all, user friendly and clear in its requirements of all parties in the chain, some more specific questions present themselves.
If DRS is as successful as forecast, what will be the impact of taking high quality recyclate out of the kerbside scheme? By cherry picking the high quality recyclate at the DRS scheme, the kerbside system is likely to notice a significant impact in the tonnage as well as the overall quality of the recyclate collected at the kerbside and therefore revenue streams and achievement of targets.
Is DRS flexible enough?
Where DRS is focused on specific material streams, could that stifle innovation in new packaging material types, just as we are trying to encourage producer responsibility and a more circular approach to product and packaging design?
Are there risks that by targeting some but not all materials through the DRS system, producers might switch to using non-DRS impacted packaging, for example much harder to recycle pouches and tetrapak? The system also needs to be flexible to changing consumer habits, market conditions, new product and material streams.
Other options
Might there be better value alternatives that build on the existing great work being undertaken by councils in collecting recyclate, for example further incentives to encourage separate collections to a higher standard, build on the discussion around greater consistency and standardising messaging, retain some level of local decision making and consider options for disincentivising consumers to put waste in the residual bin.
Next steps
DRS, in any form, will require significant investment, and trials and data gathering to ensure that we are fully informed ahead of decision making have suffered delays due to covid. This presents a real risk that we might end up going down the route of implementing an extensive new set of rules and infrastructure without extracting the best value from it.
This also risks undermining the benefits of the existing arrangements, the ability to invest in and enhance those, and restricting our ability to deliver on our circular economy ambitions.
It is important that whatever approach is taken going forward towards our goal of achieving a more effective and efficient waste management system, that all parties are engaged, work collaboratively, and most importantly, that the public are on board.
It will be interesting to see how the scheme works as it is rolled out in Scotland, but based on my discussions to date, assuming the scheme is successful, it appears that the rest of the UK might be advised to follow the same approach, to avoid the risk of confusion, incompatibility, fragmentation of markets and challenges to further investment.
It is important that whatever approach is taken going forward towards our goal of achieving a more effective and efficient waste management system, that all parties are engaged, work collaboratively, and most importantly, that the public are on board.
Without that, no system is likely to achieve the ambitious targets that we, as a sector, are setting ourselves. For the public to be on board, there needs to be a clear demonstration that the approach is well tested, robust, effective and will deliver value for money.
