Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Why president Xi could have an impact on kerbside collections

  • Comment

A guest briefing from LGC’s sister title, Materials Recycling World 

 It is a long way from the corridors of power in Beijing to UK doorsteps, yet decisions taken thousands of miles away about what China will and will not import may affect which container households use for recycling.

This does not, of course, happen directly – not even president Xi has pre­sumed to tell UK residents which recy­cling receptacle they should use. But it could happen indirectly as industries see the impact on them of China’s refusal to accept their material for recy­cling, then look for alternatives and launch well-resourced lobbying cam­paigns to win official backing.

The paper industry has provided an example with its ‘Our Paper’ campaign, the website of which (http://ourpaper.org) describes it as devoted to “support­ing councils in improving the quality and quantity of paper and card collected for recycling”. Its focus, in fact, is per­suading councils to collect paper and card separately from other materials to avoid the contamination that reduces the value of materials.

It is understandable that the industry should want purer materials. But set­ting up separate collections of paper and card where these are presently commingled with other materials would be a costly undertaking for coun­cils and their contractors.

‘Our Paper’ is a joint project by the Confederation of Paper Industries and WRAP and claims that moving to multi-material kerbside sorting could deliver net benefits to local authorities of up to £400m over eight years. It offers to work with councils to “help you re-evaluate the potential for separately collected paper and card to maintain the backbone of a viable, high-quality recycling collection”.

Resource Association chief executive Ray Georgeson is leading the campaign. He said ensuring the quality and quantity of paper and card for recycling has “never been more important”, pointing to the recent clampdown on contaminated materials in China and south-east Asia.

He added: “The message remains simple: paper and card recycling are the backbone of most kerbside recycling services; improving quality and quantity is good for the environment, good for council tax payers and good for British manu­facturing.”

According to ‘Our Paper’, only 3.1 million of the 7.8 million tonnes of fibre collected by the UK is reprocessed here in 27 mills. Of the rest, 61% went to China in 2017, but this route will effec­tively end in 2020 with China’s ban on post-consumer mixed paper imports.

India and Turkey and a few south-east Asian nations have taken some of the material concerned, but they too are looking to restrict poor-quality recyclates, as has already started to happen in Vietnam, Malaysia and Indo­nesia.

China’s sudden disappearance as a market for UK material has led, accord­ing to ‘Our Paper’, to a reduction in the value of mixed paper, which mainly comes from commingled sources.

But councils may be concerned about the cost of changing their collections, especially if tied to long and inflexible contracts, and doubt the willingness of residents to co-operate.

Martin Tett (Con) environment spokesman for the Local Government Association, said all councils collect paper for recy­cling but added: “Not every council area is currently able to recycle everything due to long-term contracts being held with different companies with different infrastructure.”

Lee Marshall, chief executive of the Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee, said: “Local authorities will consider material prices as a factor when they look at collection options to assess what they think will be the most cost effective method for their area.”

‘Our Paper’ has warned that if collec­tion contractors see paper as a more difficult material for economic disposal, they may not compete for new commin­gled contracts or seek to renegotiate existing ones. It also suggested that gate fees at materials recycling facilities sorting commingled material might increase as they try to sort this to meet export standards, while mixed paper judged unfit for either UK use or export might be landfilled with those costs passed to councils.

Mark Smulian, reporter

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.