search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
INDUSTRY NEWS


ESA report finds contracted council waste collections both more effective and more economical


THE Environmental Services Association (ESA), the voice for the UK’s resource and waste management industry, has published a report in January, produced independently by Eunomia Research and Consulting Ltd (Eunomia), investigating the effects of competition on the performance of municipal waste collection services.


The analysis, which was based on a sample of 58 similar authorities to ensure a true like-for-like comparison, found that contracted-out waste services consistently achieved higher recycling rates than in- house services. Examination of the sample of matched authorities, over a seven-year period, found that the average recycling rate for contracted out services was 50%, compared to 44% for in-house services.


Furthermore, the report concluded that those authorities which contracted out their services achieved a lower cost of service per household, per percentage point of additional recycling, than those which did not. Overall, the report found that contracted services have a 10% lower cost, per percentage point of recycling achieved, than in-house services.


 Jacob Hayler, Executive Director of the Environmental Services Association


This independent, rigorous, research clearly demonstrates that competition for municipal recycling and waste collection services drives higher recycling performance and better value for money for the public purse."


Researchers for Eunomia compared waste collection authorities on a like- for-like basis, accounting for factors such as geographical areas, dry recycling provision and consistency in provision over the previous seven years. This gave a sample of 58 authorities across England and, despite limited availability of data across the country, those local authorities with contracted services had consistently achieved higher recycling rates than in- house services. Contracted services were also found to have achieved lower rates of missed collection.


Executive Director of the Environmental Services Association, Jacob Hayler, said: “This independent, rigorous, research clearly demonstrates that competition for municipal recycling and waste collection services drives higher recycling performance and better value for money for the public purse.


“The results speak for themselves and arrive when the stakes have never been higher, since the Government’s new Resources & Waste Strategy will ultimately require local authorities to collectively increase their recycling rates by over 20 percentage points during the next decade.


“Furthermore, as producers of packaging take a greater share of the financial responsibility for waste management under this new strategy, policy-makers and service- commissioners must be responsive to their understandable desire to ensure the contributions they make are spent effectively.


“In our view, competition has an important role to play in delivering a resource-efficient circular-economy, which will both help deliver ‘better’ services at home and help British businesses more effectively compete abroad.


“We would like to thank Eunomia for applying their usual independent academic rigour and scrutiny to the production of this report – and for overcoming the challenge posed by a lack of comparable and consistent waste service cost data. On this point, the ESA believes that there is a strong case for the Government to improve revenue outturn reporting to enable local authorities to make objective decisions based on actual evidence and hard data.”


11


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