fertiliser prices are directly linked to the spot price of oil, which will only continue to increase – and, therefore, cause food prices to rise as well. This means that local authorities will be able to generate revenue (or at least save on gate fees) from the sale of digestate, and that there is a strong moral case for ensuring that there are renewable fertilisers which will help keep food affordable.
Source segregation also brings wider benefits to resource management. By taking the organic fraction out of waste streams, other materials such as cardboard, plastic and glass are left cleaner and less contaminated, which makes it easier for them to be recycled. Source segregation is an important part of ensuring that we extract maximum value from all resources, not just organics.
The Campaign for Real Recycling, involving leading materials re-processors, Friends of the Earth and others, has also been working in this area. They warn that co- mingled collections “could permanently undermine the environmental and financial benefits of recycling”, but that “source separated collection systems... produce materials that can be reprocessed, usually in the UK, creating value and benefits for everyone”. They also emphasise that the “improved price for materials collected can be used to offset collection costs.”
Where introduced, source segregation has clearly had a positive effect on attitudes to, and levels of, recycling. For example, in 2008 the London Borough of Bexley switched from weekly refuse and fortnightly recycling collections to weekly recycling with comingled food and garden waste and mixed recyclables collected separately. They saw a 20% drop – 18,000t – in residual waste for disposal in the first year, with 5,000t more organic waste and 5,000t
more recyclables collected. Their collection costs were unchanged, but they saved £820,000 on disposal costs in the first year alone and over £1m in the second year. From their 220,000 residents there were only around 20 complaints.
The Government is hesitant about even suggesting that Local Authorities should follow examples such as this, much less dictating that they should do. However, the need for higher recycling rates and quality digestate products, as well as for renewable sources of gas, mean that source segregating our waste should be seen as a matter of strategic importance to the UK.
This view is shared by many of the major businesses in the waste management sector. Tom Drury, Chief Executive of Shanks Group, said following the publication of the Waste Review that they want to see Government take action to bring in “separate collections of specific waste types, particularly food, to increase opportunities to recycle rather than landfill, and contribute to renewable energy targets. We support the comments made by the Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association (ADBA) highlighting the lack of recognition in the Review of the importance of source-segregating food waste, allowing easier recycling of products from other materials such as plastics and creating a quality fertiliser from AD which will help decarbonise food production.”
The momentum behind arguments for making the most of our resources is growing. The Government needs to stop worrying about pictures of ‘slop buckets’ on the front page of tabloid newspapers, and ensure that the UK can maximise value from recyclable materials by segregating them at source.
ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY MAGAZINE |143|
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192