Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 2006 > Committee on Environment and Local Government > Report No. 03 - Recycling of Household Waste in Ireland

Tithe an Oireachtais

An Comhchoiste um Chomhshaol agus Rialtas Áitiúil

An Triú Tuarascáil

Athchúrsáil Dramhaíola Teaghlaigh in Éirinn

Meán Fomhair 2006

Houses of the Oireachtas

Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government

Third Report

Recycling of Household Waste in Ireland

September 2006

Tithe an Oireachtais

An Comhchoiste um Chomhshaol agus Rialtas Áitiúil

An Triú Tuarascáil

Athchúrsáil Dramhaíola Teaghlaigh in Éirinn

Meán Fomhair 2006

Houses of the Oireachtas

Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government

Third Report

Recycling of Household Waste in Ireland

September 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAIRMAN’S PREFACE

The Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government has a wide-ranging remit, which is clearly reflected in its work schedule. In compiling this report, I and the Committee members were anxious that the subject tackled and the subsequent findings and recommendations be resolute, but above all, be worthwhile contributions to Government policy as it directly affects the Irish population.

The recycling of household waste in Ireland is a subject which affects every person in the country. If Ireland is to reach proclaimed recycling targets and inspire lasting habits of recycling into the population, then it is not a cliche to say that work must begin at home.

The key to encouraging recycling is convenience. The findings of this report clearly indicate that people will recycle if the opportunity is open to them and if facilities are easily accessible. The challenge is not to muster support for recycling amongst householders, but to address the constraints encountered by them.

Local Authorities have a huge role to play in this. Within urban and rural groupings, the inconsistency in the results put forward by the Local Authorities that responded to the Committee’s initial call for submissions is staggering and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

As a whole, recycling figures generated by this country are improving consistently, but there remain a dissatisfying number of obvious changes that can be made, and need to be made, to allow people to involve themselves in the process of recycling their household waste.

I am delighted that the Joint Committee agreed to publish this report. It is intended that its clarity and direct presentation will necessitate these significant changes.

Seán Haughey TD

Chairman

September 2006

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government wishes to thank all of the local authorities, organisations and individuals who provided their time and valued input into the development of this Report, and in particular to those listed below, for the presentations made to the Joint Committee:

■Cork City Council;

■Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council;

■Meath County Council;

■Galway County Council;

■South Dublin County Council;

■Waterford City Council;

■Cork Environmental Forum;

■Chartered Institute of Wastes Management; and

■CRE Composting Association of Ireland.

The Joint Committee also wishes to thank ERM Ireland which was appointed to provide technical support and assistance to the Joint Committee in its evaluation and analysis of submissions made. In addition, the Joint Committee thanks the Committee Secretariat of the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas for its support throughout this process.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government has conducted a review of the current status of Household Waste Recycling in the State. Information has been gathered by a combination of written submissions and a series of oral hearings. This process involved the Local Authorities, as service providers, and other stakeholders, including users of the provided services, community groups and professional associations.

This Report provides an overview of the key findings and proposed actions arising from the review process and summarises:

•the present status of household waste recycling initiatives in relation to existing policy objectives;

•potential obstacles to further progress; and

•actions Government should consider to enable/ensure further progress in terms of current and future objectives.

Such actions include a combination of:

•new and/or strengthened policies;

•introduction of National guidelines for priority topics;

•use of education and promotional programmes; and

•provision of funding.

Local Authorities

The review of local authority service levels with regards to household waste collection and recycling revealed a number of challenges, particularly in the management of plastics, organic waste and newsprint.

Other Respondents

The review also yielded issues of concerns from organisations, community groups and individuals regarding:

•recycling services;

•packaging waste;

•organic waste;

•product design;

•planning controls;

•resource recovery centres;

•waste-to-energy; and

•market development.

It is to these topics of concern that the Joint Committee has made its recommendations for improvement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Having identified the high level of community support for, and the considerable progress made in, increasing the rate of recycling from household wastes, a clear demonstration of the final effective recovery of the collected recyclable materials is required in order to sustain the initiative. To build on progress already made, the Joint Committee recommends that the following actions be taken in the areas identified for improvement:

TOP 5 PRIORITY ACTIONS

1. Plastic Waste

Ireland has certain obligations under the Landfill Directive with regard to plastic waste. In order to meet these, the Joint Committee believes that local authorities, in conjunction with their waste service providers, should develop mechanisms to improve the clean, segregated collection of household plastic waste. This will necessarily include a community awareness programme in order to improve the quality of this waste stream, and the identification of suitable outlets for the collected material.

2. Organic Waste

Experience internationally indicates that the commercial marketing of the compost product is an essential component of a successful composting scheme and the public use of the product (in parks, gardens) can help to create product acceptance. Therefore the Joint Committee recommends that local authorities should review their current level of service provision for organic waste and evaluate the suitability of the various mechanisms available to strengthen and promote this service. This should include a review of the opportunities and constraints of at-home composting, both in urban areas and in multi-occupancy buildings. Local authorities should support at-home composting and use, as well as explore the feasibility of other organic waste management systems, (e.g. MBT or anaerobic digestion systems, including the recovery and reuse of the associated energy).

3. Recycling Services

Seeing as international experience suggests that kerbside collection of dry recyclables is the most effective mechanism for achieving the highest levels of recycling, the Joint Committee recommends that local authorities should review and, where practicable, expand the recycling services in their area, particularly the kerbside collection. The opening hours for Civic Amentity Sites (CAS) should be extended, particularly at weekends, as this is known to be the busiest periods of use. There is also a need to improve the management and maintenance of Bring Centres. It is possible that these facilities could be improved by seeking stewardship from the local community and retailers (e.g. sponsored litter bins).

4. Newsprint Industry

The Joint Committee is strongly of the view that Government promote mechanisms aimed at devolving the responsibility and cost for managing newspaper waste back onto the newspaper industry. This aim, in line with the principles of Producer Responsibility and the Packaging Waste Regulations and competition issues, could be achieved with a levy on newsprint. The option for consumers to be voluntarily removed from junk mailing lists should also be provided.

5. Packaging Waste

The Joint Committee supports the investigation of measures to improve the management of packaging waste in the context of the local Irish market. This may include a combination of:

•A minimum % recycled content for all packaging materials;

•Introducing a tax/levy on non-reusable or non-recyclable packaging;

•A refundable deposits on reusable or recyclable items,

•Banning of certain types of non-recyclable packaging; and/or

•The standardisation of packaging amongst manufacturers to facilitate greater re-use.

OTHER RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

6. Planning Controls

Government should develop National ’Green Planning Guidelines’ to assist local authorities to identify and incorporate appropriate recycling infrastructure and services in the planning permission conditions for future commercial and multi-dwelling residential developments. The Guidelines should also incorporate design considerations for single dwelling premises (e.g. suggesting that sufficient space be provided to facilitate a three-bin system). Consideration should also be given to possible mechanisms for retrofitting recycling infrastructure into existing developments.

7. Resource Recovery Centres

The Government should evaluate international experience in the use of community resource and recovery centres. It is recommended that this be followed with a pilot scheme to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of such centres in Ireland.

8. Waste to Energy:

The Joint Committee recommends Government undertake a close evaluation of Ireland’s waste disposal needs, both as a nation as a whole, and within the existing Regional Waste Management groupings. Particular attention should be paid to the Waste Management Hierarchy, which promotes avoidance, reuse and recycling, over disposal.

9. Market Development:

The Joint Committee recommends that the Government reviews its procurement policies to assess the scope for further green sourcing and purchasing of recycled product. The development of a ’Green Consumer Guide’ for consumer and commercial use, to help educate and guide consumer choices is also advised. The Government should also consider joint funding of a number of pilot schemes, to identify, evaluate and disseminate best practice in the development and promotion of markets for recyclable materials. This should be undertaken in close consultation with, and in support of, the existing Recyclables Market Development Taskforce.

10. Product Design

The incorporation of end-of-life considerations into the design requirements of consumer products is a Europe-wide issue and a purely national-based approach is not considered viable. However, Ireland should support and, where possible, initiate appropriate actions at the EU level.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background

ERM Environmental Resources Management Ltd Ireland (ERM) was commissioned by the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government (hereafter “the Joint Committee”) to assist with the preparation of a report examining the management of household waste in Ireland.

The information compiled in this report is based on data presented to the Joint Committee by participating local authorities and other non-government interest groups. ERM did not seek to verify the data and no other independent research was undertaken. Any opinions expressed in this report are presented as reflections of the opinions of the Joint Committee and the various participants.

1.2 Objectives

The objective of the project was to assess and provide comment and advice on the content of the waste recycling programme reports and oral evidence provided to the Joint Committee.

1.3 Scope of Work

The scope of work undertaken on the project to date has included:

•Review and compilation of the initial written submissions made to the Joint Committee, by 27 local authorities and 30 non-government groups/individuals;

•Attendance at seven Committee meetings to hear presentations from nine invited participants and provide technical support to the Joint Committee as required;

•Preparation of a Progress Report, based on the written submissions received as of January 2006;

•Preparation of a supplementary questionnaire on the infrastructure and services provided for the management of household waste, for distribution to all local authorities;

•Review and compilation of data from the supplementary questionnaire from 24 participating local authorities; and

•Preparation of a draft report incorporating a review of all data received to date.

1.4 Survey Participants

The initial local authority submissions were received following a request from the Joint Committee for information relating to the management and recycling of household waste within each local authority area. Six selected local authorities were subsequently invited to make a verbal presentation to the Committee. Following from these submissions, a supplementary questionnaire was distributed to all local authorities to help complete some of the identified data-gaps. Table A.l in Annex A provides a summary of the submissions received from the local authorities.

Written submissions (letters and emails) were also received from 30 non-government interest groups and individuals, following an advertisement placed in the national newspapers inviting submissions to be made to the Joint Committee on the topic of household waste recycling. Three of the responding interest groups were subsequently invited to make a verbal presentation to the Committee. Table A.2 in Annex A provides a summary of the non-government groups and individuals who provided submissions to the Joint Committee. To maintain privacy, the full names of participating individuals have not been published.

2 SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS

2.1 Local Authority Waste Management Services

2.1.1 Overview

The submissions received from the 34 local authorities incorporate data on the recycling services provided for the whole of the Republic. Each of the respondents was requested to provide information regarding:

•number of Bring Centres, Civic Amenity Sites (CAS) and Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) in each area;

•types of waste accepted at each facility;

•hours of operation and accessibility of services;

•frequency of kerbside collection services;

•fees applied for kerbside collection, Bring Centres and Civic Amenity Sites;

•any outsourcing of recycling services; and

•any future plans to expand recycling services for household wastes.

Where the initial responses received were incomplete, the respondents were requested to fill gaps through a supplementary questionnaire. The currency and, consequentially, the value, of some of the data sets which were provided is unclear, for example:

•many of the respondents referred to fees being charged for the disposal of waste electrical and electronic items (WEEE). This charging mechanism was discontinued in July 2005, with the implementation of the WEEE Directive, (indicating that these data sets were not current); and

•the number of Bring Centres and CAS facilities reported differs noticeably from the data published in the EPA 2004 National Waste Report for a number of local authority areas.

Table 2.1 summarises key selected data, as provided by the local authorities, on the recycling rates and service provision in each local authority area.

Table 2.1 Recycling Rates and Service Provision

* % for Laois and Westmeath calculated by ERM, based on population and annual generation of 450kg/head; **for Wicklow and Wexford calculated by ERM on same basis.

2.1.2 Summary of Key Points

There is a wide variation in the scope of the recycling services offered both within and between Ireland’s various local authority areas. Variations were observed in the types of wastes collected in kerbside programmes, the frequency of the collection services and the cost of these services. It was also noted that the structure of the pricing schedules for both kerbside collection and Bring Centres varied significantly between local authorities.

Frequency of Recycling Services

Insufficient data were provided by the local authorities to allow an estimate of the overall % of all Irish households currently provided with kerbside collection of recyclables. Although, as would be expected, urban areas were generally shown to be provided with a higher service level than rural areas.

Collection frequencies vary from twice a week to once a month, with an average service level of twice per month. While the frequency of the services is shown to vary, it is unlikely that the waste generation profiles would vary in a similar manner. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that some households are required to make alternative arrangements for their recyclable materials during the interim weeks.

Cost of Recycling Services

The pricing structure for the provision of recycling services was observed to vary considerably across the local authorities. Some local authorities have adopted a flat fee per use for their kerbside recycling services (i.e. per bag or bin), while some charge only for the standard collection service, with no additional fee for the collection of recyclables. However, most have developed a two-tiered system, with the payment of a management fee as well as a fee per use or per weight. It was noted that at least one local authority has adopted a three-tiered system, with payment of a management fee, a lift fee and a fee per kilo. The flat fees ranged from €180 to €510/year per household, and the costs per bag range from €1.50 to €8.

The complexity of the pricing structures may make it difficult for residents to calculate and budget for their waste management costs. The variations also mean that residents are unlikely to be able to assess the parity and fairness of the local authorities’ services.

Insufficient data were received to allow the effective (statistically valid) comparison of the scope of the recycling services offered in each local authority area versus the cost to the community and the rates of recycling achieved.

Location and Accessibility of Recycling Facilities

Based on the responses received, the use of Bring Centres in Ireland is free to residents, and the average ratio of the number of Bring Centres per head of population is approximately 1:2,100. The lowest ratio was observed in County Wexford, with a ratio of 1: 648, and the highest was observed in County Meath, with a ratio of 1:5,200. Best practice target levels in the EU suggest a Bring Centre ratio of around 1 per 1,500 head of population and/or one Bring Centre within 1km of every household. The figures received indicate that, on average, Ireland is currently below the EU best practice target level by some 40%.

The ratio of the number of Bring Centres per km² of area ranged from 1:2.3km² in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, to 1:868 km² in County Donegal. The average, outside of Dublin City and Dun Laoghaire, was 1:89km². This equates to a Bring Centre being located, on average, within 4-5km of each resident. The implication of the locations /distances of these services on residents without access to cars should be considered. Additionally, as the majority of the Bring Centres focus primarily on the collection of glass and, to a lesser extent, cans, there is clear scope for the expansion of these services to achieve higher levels of collection and recycling of a wider range of materials. It is noted that many local authorities reported difficulties in the appropriate siting and maintenance of Bring Centres.

Local authorities should explore measures to deal with these reported difficulties, including improved management of existing centres (higher standards of cleanliness, etc) and community education.

In contrast to Bring Centres, Civic Amenity Sites (CAS) are fewer in number, ranging from one to nine locations per local authority area (with typically only two or three provided per county). They accept a much wider range of recyclable waste streams and often impose a disposal fee. At least nine local authorities indicated that the use of their CAS was totally free, while many impose a nominal gate fee of €1- €5 for recyclable materials. However, at least seven imposed more substantial fees, with some charging up to €60/load, for a car or trailer. The higher charges were generally associated with the deposition of bulky items, such as furniture, green waste and scrap metals.

Overall, it would appear that most CASs offer limited opening hours (with the exception of South Dublin), and most are typically open from 8am-4pm or 9am-5pm Monday - Friday, with some offering a half day on Saturday. Such restricted opening hours are likely to impede their use by the working public. Experience in other European states demonstrates that, not surprisingly, weekends are the most popular times, with the highest levels of attendance/use by the public.

Local authorities should seriously consider extending opening hours as this represents a cost-effective way of increasing recycling rates.

Plastic Waste

Limited services appear to be provided for the collection of plastics across most local authority areas. Only 11.5% of the Bring Centres (as reported by the respondents) accept plastics and only seven of the reported kerbside collection programmes specifically indicated that they collect plastics. A further 13 respondents indicated that they collected ’dry recyclables’, without providing details as to what waste streams were accepted. ERM is aware that many of the current dry recyclables schemes do not accept plastics for separate collection. The respondents also indicated that, as more CASs are introduced, they intend to remove any remaining plastic collection facilities at Bring Centres in those areas.

As a result of the lack of segregated collection systems, 89% of Ireland’s household plastic waste is currently disposed to landfill ⁽¹⁾. However, in spite of such a high rate of landfill disposal, Ireland imports over 48,000 tonnes of plastic waste each year, for in-country recycling. This suggests that Ireland’s internally-generated plastic waste is not currently suitable for recycling.

The local authorities, in conjunction with their waste service providers where appropriate, should develop mechanisms to address this disparity and improve the clean, segregated collection of household plastic wastes. This is considered a matter of priority in order for Ireland to meet it’s obligations under the Landfill Directive.

Organic Waste

While up to 61% of Ireland’s household waste is potentially able to be composted, the vast majority of this material (88.9%) is currently being landfilled ⁽ⁱ⁾. Of the 27 local authority respondents, only one indicated that they collected segregated wet recyclables (i.e. organic material), for composting. This is referred to as a ’brown bin’ service. An additional four local authorities were proposing ’brown bin’ collection systems for 2005/2006. (ERM is aware that some of these are likely to have commenced by the time of reporting). A further eight local authorities reported providing subsidised composting units for at-home compost systems. The cost of these units ranged from €30-€60 per bin.

The segregated collection/treatment of organic wastes is considered a top priority for Ireland. In addition to extending the existing the limited brown bin collection services where ever possible, local authorities should also work to promote the use of at-home composting systems.

Composting of organic wastes at or near the point of production will result in reduced transportation and energy costs, together with savings in landfill space. It is noted that specific infrastructure will be required to manage the composting of organic wastes in multi-occupancy dwellings and apartments.

(1) EPA National Waste Report (2004)

The following provides a summary of the oral presentations made to the Joint Committee during the course of the household waste recycling project. Copies of the full transcripts are available on the website at (http://debates.oireachtas.ie).

3.1 South Dublin County Council

3.1.1 Current Service Provision

Waste collection services within the county are typically provided on a joint venture basis, but are fully funded by the council. The main recyclable service is the ’green bin’ dry recyclable kerbside collection, which is provided to all households in the county and in the Dublin region. Waste is baled and transported to the council’s landfill at Arthurstown in County Kildare.

Council also operates a CAS at Ballymount which includes a waste electronics and electrical equipment (WEEE) reception centre. A green waste centre is also in operation in Lucan. Bring Banks have been established for the collection of certain plastic wastes. And since 2003, the council has supported a community based project (the Clondalkin Community Recycling initiative).

In 2005, 61,000 tonnes of household waste were collected in the county. This was a reduction of 3.5% on 2004 figures and is reportedly due to the introduction of the pay per use waste collection system in 2004. Recycling in the region has reportedly increased from 7% to 26% over the same time period, which has resulted in a reduction of waste diverted to landfill.

3.1.2 Future Plans

Council has developed a number of plans with regards to the management of household wastes. This includes:

•the introduction of the ’brown bin’ organic waste collection system;

•the establishment of two bio-waste facilities at Ballyogan in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown and Kilshane in the Fingal. It is hoped that the facility in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown will be in place within 18 months to 2 years. Fingal County Council is already operating a pilot system;

•continued community awareness and education strategy to promote greater reduction and recycling of waste;

•identification of new initiatives to expand the current network of Bring Banks and CAS; and

•establishment of a new materials recovery facility in Ballymount, which will allow for the collection of certain types of plastic wastes in the existing green bin scheme.

The main emphasis of the council’s waste management plan is on waste minimisation and awareness.

3.1.3 Key Challenges

One of the main challenges reported to be faced by the council is overcoming the public perception that recycling is a ’revenue generating’ or ’costless’ exercise, and subsequent funding of the recycling service. The green bin service costs Dublin local authorities around €27 million per year at the regional level. This includes the costs associated with collection, local transport, segregation, processing, overseas shipping and marketing of the waste materials.

A large proportion of the material in the green bins is comprised of newspapers and magazines. The council believes that the newspaper industry should contribute financial support to the recycling this material. It is considered that similar support should also be sought from plastics manufacturers/importers.

Another challenge faced by the council is reaching the number of Bring Bank sites required by the national service indicators. New models are needed to deal with the higher population densities which are evident in the Dublin region. In addition, the council is often requested to remove existing Bring Banks from private developments, due to problems vandalism and illegal dumping. Finding new locations for Bring Banks is becoming more difficult due to restrictions on available land and objections from local residents and businesses regarding the location of such sites.

3.2 Waterford City Council

3.2.1 Current Service Provision

Since 2003, the local authority has offered a full waste household collection service system which includes green (dry recyclables), brown (wet organic waste) and grey (residual waste) bins for the 15,000 householders within the city. Council reports that bins are not collected where people are seen to be non-compliant with the sorting requirements.

The recycling rate in the city has risen from 39% in 2003, to 48% in 2004 and 51% in 2005. A bin charging system is in place in the city. The system combines a standing management fee with a presentation charge that differentiates between recyclable (€1.50/bin) and residual waste (€7.50/bin). Old age pensioners and householders who are on long term social welfare are not subject to these charges.

The Council operates approximately 30 bring centres which accept bottles, clothes and cans. There is also a single CAS which accepts all non-hazardous wastes (and some household hazardous waste streams).

A composting facility for the collected organic waste was established in 2003. This plant is operated on a public private partnership basis whereby the council retains ownership of the plant, while Onyx Ireland in conjunction with Celtic Composting Systems operates the facility.

The council works in cooperation with the Waterford County Council in relation to the management of household waste. Green waste from the city is brought to the County Council’s material recovery facility in Dungarvan. In exchange, the County Council brings its organic waste to the City Council’s composting plant. The resulting compost is sold to the community.

3.2.2 Key Challenges

The local authority reports that illegal dumping has increased since the introduction of the bin charging system, and they believe this is a direct consequence of charging scheme. The council is in the process of identifying, visiting and serving notices on householders who are found to be illegally disposing of waste.

The local authority also reports that the region has an ongoing issue with the availability of landfill space. They also raised objections to the need for Ireland’s recyclable wastes to be sent overseas for recovery.

3.3 Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Council

3.3.1 Current Service Provision

Approximately 54% of the county is urban and 46% rural. The population is approximately 190,000 (or 66,000 households). The council works in close association with Fingal County, South Dublin County and Dublin City Councils at a regional level, for the establishment of major infrastructure and service provision.

A refuse collection service is provided directly by the local authority. The waste is baled in the county at Ballyogan and is transported to the regional landfill at Arthurstown, County Kildare. Some services are provided by contractors but are fully funded by council.

The main household waste recycling service is the green bin (dry recyclables) collection, which is provided to all households in the county by means of individual or communal green bins /bags. Council also provides this service to 110 local schools.

The council operates a network of 58 Bring banks and a CAS at Glasthule. In addition a contractor operates a CAS at Ballyogan, which also has a WEEE reception centre. The Brink Bank network includes a number of plastic recycling bring banks.

In 2005, the council introduced a pay by weight system, and collected and disposed of approximately 37,000 tonnes of household waste (a reduction of more than 40% from 2004). Recycling has reportedly increased by 13% from 2004 to 2005.

The council receives significant capital funding from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for major infrastructure such as the CAS and a number of bio-waste plants, (proposed under the plan for the Dublin region).

3.3.2 Key Challenges

As with Dublin Council, one of the main challenges reported is overcoming the perception that recycling is a revenue generating or costless exercise. The council believes that they are continually reiterating to the public that environmental benefits have an economic cost. Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Council shares the €27million cost (at a regional level) for the provision of the household waste collections services.

Another challenge faced by the council is constructing an effective and efficient system that connects the waste generation sources (homes/factories/offices/schools etc), with the industries that need the separated waste materials for the production of new products.

The council is reportedly experiencing difficulty in is providing accessible infrastructure. Achieving the number of Bring Bank sites per head of population (as required by the national service indicators) is proving to be problematic. As with Dublin City, the council reports objections from the community with regards to the siting of Bring Banks, and difficulty in maintaining the sites to a high level of cleanliness.

3.3.3 Future Plans

The plans for the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown area are shared with those of Dublin City Council at a regional level. They include:

•the introduction of the ’brown bin’ organic waste collection system;

•the establishment of two bio-waste facilities at Ballyogan in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown and Kilshane in the Fingal. It is hoped that the facility in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown will be in place within 18 months to 2 years. Fingal County Council is already operating a pilot system;

•continued community awareness and education strategy to promote greater reduction and recycling of waste;

•identification of new initiatives to expand the current network of Bring Banks and CAS; and

•establishment of a new materials recovery facility in Ballymount, which will allow for the collection of certain types of plastic wastes in the existing green bin scheme.

3.4 Cork City Council

3.4.1 Current Service Provision

The local authority reportedly collects waste from more than 85% of the city’s 44,000 households. There is one landfill site in the Cork City Council area which currently accepts 43,000 tonnes of waste each year.

A construction and demolition waste recycling facility, funded by the EU Life programme, accepted 150,000 tonnes of waste in each year from 1997 - 2002. Commercial waste was banned from the landfill by the council which resulted in a diversion of 75,000 tonnes of waste from landfill each year.

The various recycling initiatives implemented by the council have reportedly resulted in a diversion of almost 10,000 tonnes of household waste from landfill in 2005, (a recycling rate of 22%). The remaining 78%, representing 34,000 tonnes, is disposed to the Kinsale Road landfill.

The following recycling initiatives were implemented by the council:

•Fortnightly door to door collections of dry recyclables (green bin) from domestic and commercial customers (since 2004);

•normal refuse collection continues is undertaken on a weekly basis;

•Branded plastic sacks are distributed free of charge to householders in the city. The bags can be filled with paper, magazines, cardboard, drink and food cans, tetra-pak cartons, and plastic bottles and containers. On collection, the material is transported to a private facility in Glanmire (owned by Greenstar), where it is segregated, baled and sent to a number of licensed recycling facilities. Over 75% of the material collected is newspaper and cardboard, 14% is plastic, while cans make up a smaller percentage. Between 5.5% and 6% consists of residual waste which is not recyclable;

•There are 30 bring back banks are located throughout the city and 7 additional sites are proposed each year from 2004 - 2009. The sites accept glass and in some cases drink cans;

•A CAS is located at the Kinsale Road landfill where a range of recyclables (including paper, glass, cardboard, Tetra Pak cartons, metals, WEEE, waste oil and green waste) is accepted. The council proposes to install a new CAS in Mayfield by 2007 subject to the availability of funding and the granting of planning permission;

•The city and county councils operate a ’Chemcar’ collection service for domestic hazardous waste (e.g. batteries, medicines, paints, herbicides, pesticides and fluorescent tubes etc), in partnership with a number of pharmaceutical companies in Cork. There are 12 Chemcar collections throughout the year. During 2005, seven tonnes of hazardous waste was received;

•The council accepts Christmas trees for recycling every January at various locations throughout the city. In 2005, 85 tonnes were collected, shipped and composted.

•A community composting scheme is in operation in the Ardbhaile housing estate, Mayfield. The in-vessel composter services 150 households In addition, the council sells compost bins at a subsidised rate and to date approximately 500 bins have been sold;

•The council operates two commercial waste recycling facilities for green waste and timber waste. Both facilities operate in conjunction with a private partner, CTO Environmenta under a PPP arrangement.

3.4.2 Key Challenges

One of the key challenges reported by the council is the issue of backyard burning.

3.5 Meath County Council

3.5.1 Current Service Provision

Kerbside collection of dry recyclables has been extended to approximately 88% of the households in County Meath which avail of a waste collection service. Waste collection in the county has been privatised since 1990 and there are seven private collectors operating within the county. The council reportedly audits all operators and has undertaken joint inspections of waste transfer facilities with the EPA.

The county has provided a network of Bring Banks and CAS to support, but not curtail, the extension of kerbside recycling services to every household. The collection of household hazardous wastes is also provided yearly to private households.

The council supports a wide range of anti litter, environmental awareness and pride in place initiatives which heighten individual and community awareness of waste and litter issues.

3.5.2 Future Plans

The Waste Management Plan (1999 - 2004), contained an objective to provide kerbside collection of dry recyclables in population centres of 500 or more. The waste management strategy is current under reviewed and was recently withdrawn from public display. The council anticipates that the new plan will be completed and in place by April.

Further progress in delivering regional recycling targets for municipal waste is dependent on the following factors:

•the provision of infrastructure to deal with specific waste streams (such a organic and biodegradable wastes);

•the strengthening of enforcement powers under the waste collection permitting system;

•the deployment of additional enforcement officers to support the implementation of statutory bye laws;

•the successful roll out and implementation of a use-based charging system, which demonstrate the monetary value of recycling to the householder;

•continuation of the current national media campaign supported by environmental awareness programmes at the local level; and

•the source segregation of waste by each householder.

3.5.3 Key Challenges

Small scale illegal dumping is reportedly a problem in the rural areas of the county. The council notes that the culprits are going to greater lengths to conceal their identities, a result of more resources being put into identifying and tracking down illegal waste dumpers.

Council reports that is difficult to assess the volume of waste which is not disposed through legal channels for the following reasons:

•the growth in the number of apartment complexes which account for up to 10% of households, but just 1% to 2% of waste collectors customers, owing to the increased use of private management companies;

•the sharing of waste services by neighbours and extended families;

•the distribution of prepaid bags and tags by collectors, without formal invoicing of individual households; and

•the use of recycling facilities by householders to deal with their waste and the limited use of pre-paid bag collection services.

3.6 Galway County Council

3.6.1 Current Service Provision

Prior to the implementation of a Waste Management Plan (1999-2004) the county suffered a waste crisis. In 1998, the council experienced major problems with decreasing landfill capacity, low recycling rates and the beginnings of a sharp increase in landfill charges. The Plan addressed these issues by setting out clear targets that had to be met. From the early 1990’s waste collection was privatised and there are currently six companies operating in the county.

The council provides 94 Bring Banks and three CAS at Tuam, Ballinasloe and Clifden, and a mobile unit collects household hazardous waste on an annual basis.

Compost made from organic waste collected in the area is suitable for use as a fertiliser and the public are provided with compost free of charge.

The council developed a Waste Awareness Programme which targeted at householders, the business and commercial sector and schools. Private sector investment was ensured by encouraging private waste collection companies to develop and expand their services by purchasing additional trucks and bins, and in some cases developing picking stations.

3.6.2 Future Plans

Two additional CAS in Loughrea and south Connemara are planned for the future. The centres are an extension to the Bring Bank system and householders will be able bring items such a household hazardous waste, WEEE and scrap metal.

3.6.3 Key Challenges

More than 76% of the population resides in rural areas or towns with populations of fewer than 500 people. There are also four inhabited island off the coastline. This can make collection uneconomical for the service providers in the area and consequently some waste collectors ’cherry-pick’ their routes. There is also a poor road infrastructure in some parts of the county. The council is considering the following waste management options to improve waste collection in these rural and remote areas:

•Introduction of larger communal bins with a capacity of 1,100 litres for areas that have access difficulties; and

•the introduction of smaller feed trucks, in conjunction with waste contractors, to service areas with access difficulties.

3.7 Cré the Composting Association

Cré is the Irish Composting Association which has membership of more than 60 organisations and individuals, and includes private composters, local authorities, equipment suppliers, engineering consultancies and waste management companies. It is a non-profit association and all work is done on a voluntary basis.

Cré reports that 35% of all household waste generated is reportedly organic and is readily compostable and nearly 75% of household waste is bio-degradable. Of this, 10% of the total was recovered in 2004.

Ireland has fallen behind in its implementation of the Landfill Directive. The Directive’s targets are based on 1995 levels and the amount of permitted to be disposed to landfill falls steeply from 1995 to 2006, when the amount of landfill allowed is 75% of 1995 levels, reducing to 50% and then 35%. At this time, Ireland should be landfilling just 75% of what was landfilled in 1995. The most recent EPA figures for 2004 shows that we are 12% above the required rate. In order to meet Ireland’s future obligations under the Landfill Directive, the recovery rate for 2006 needs to be twice the recovery rate for 2004, and by 2009, we need to have three times the recovery rates for 2004. Ireland needs to respond dramatically and one as yet undeveloped option, is composting.

Ireland can address the situation by firstly eliminating the policy deficit by publishing the national bio-waste strategy. In addition, unlike other European countries, Ireland does not have a compost quality standard. Cré has been developing a compost quality standard which will encourage the public and commercial entities to use composted products.

A second mechanism is the source separation of household waste. This involves source separating organic waste into a third brown bin. Households in Galway city and county, Waterford city and county and Fingal have been provided with three bins and the compost in is sold for €3 per bag.

It is relatively simple to produce high quality compost from clean waste, but this requires public participation and satisfaction with the system. Collection can be alternated with that of the grey bin to reduce costs, although costs for brown bin collections are thereby increased. Source separation works well in urban areas, where there is high density housing, but not in all areas. It is not always possible to separate all organic waste. In such cases, mixed waste composting is playing an increasing role in bio-waste recovery rates, thereby helping to meet Ireland’s Landfill Directive targets.

Cré has encountered difficulties in the planning process. Facilities that propose to use mixed waste as a feedstock have been refused planning approval on that basis, (although composting of mixed waste would assist Ireland to meet its targets under the Landfill Directive). The requirement to completely roof the activity is expensive and does not apply in other European countries. Composting should be recognised as a favoured solution in both policy and practice.

Market development for recyclable materials is required to help Ireland meet the Landfill Directive targets, particularly for compost. This will require the introduction of a compost quality standard and a training scheme for operators. The government has established a Market Development Group, but to date, there has been minimal output. Projects and funding for market development, in general, in respect of household derived materials are required, particularly for compost. To date, grant aid has only been made available to the public sector. Private composting firms would benefit greatly from similar aid.

Cré has made a proposal to the government regarding this issue, which includes a source separation policy, the brown bin collection service and compost quality assurance. Cré is also developing a training project to help provide better operation of these facilities which in turn will help prevent composting plants impacting on the environment of local communities.

3.8 Institute of Wastes Management(IWM)

The Institute of Wastes Management raises doubts about the accuracy of much of the waste collection/recycling data being reported and the realism of some of the recycling targets that have been introduced.

The IWM believe there is a long way to go in providing suitable recycling infrastructure in Ireland, (from door to door collection facilities to Bring Bank sites and CAS). These facilities must be convenient for people to use, or they will not be accepted. There is an apparent lack of communication on the issue of what can go into a green bin. People also like to know what happens to the items they collect and the Irish regulators should be providing such information.

Paper and packing account for 30% of the material in the household waste stream. Unfortunately a local market does not exist for that material and it is not realistic to believe it can all be recovered. The IWM feels that a more realistic target is 25%. Currently only 66% of Ireland’s households participate in recycling. There are various reasons for this (e.g. people on low incomes have priorities other than recycling). This means that we only collect realistically 66% of the 25% of the packaging and paper waste, or approximately 18% in total. This means there is a further 82% of household waste which requires management. There is the potential to collect another 35% (from the organic waste stream), bringing the total potentially collected to 53%. However, there is still a long way to go to obtain the maximum potential diversion from landfill.

One of the problems the IWM recognises from comments from its members is that the figures being reported interpret the term ’recycling’ extremely generously. Recycling figures might be exaggerated by including activities that can not be categorised as true recycling (e.g. recycling may be calculated on the basis that if material did not go into landfill it must have been recycled). It would be helpful to introduce a standardised definition and calculation methods. The IWM believes that these figures should be audited and/or prepared by an independent body, as unverified figures hold limited value.

The IWM is concerned that the focus of household waste management is ’recycling’ as this is not the top priority in the waste management hierarchy. Waste minimisation, reduction and reuse are higher priorities, although there is currently little encouragement in those areas. The one area in which this is highly obvious is packaging, where there is still a huge amount of completely unnecessary material.

The IWM would like to see a substantial move towards extensions of producer responsibility. Steps in this direction have already been made under the WEEE Directive and the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive, but has been watered down due to industry lobbying. The IWM recognises that there are competition issues of concern to the manufacturing and retail sectors, which is why this sort of legislation has to be done at the EU level and above.

Over regulation is another issue of concern, as it can effect the efficient operation of recycling activities. One example is the processing of processed organic waste through composting or anaerobic digestion processes, which is being hindered by planning measures at the local authority level. The uses to which these materials are also often limited by regulations that are frequently inappropriate.

There should be a greater level of harmonisation and co-operation with the North. As long as the Border remains open, there will be significant problems in controlling waste movements. This issue is exacerbated where there are substantially different systems in place between the borders.

The IWM would like to see the proposal relating to a National Waste Authority addressed and more expansion of material recycling facilities, including kerbside collections, as well as the provision of more feedback to the public.

3.9 The Cork Environmental Forum

The forum is a local Agenda 21 organisation and a cross-sectoral umbrella group which represents approximately 950 groups and individuals. The forum started in 1995 under Cork County Council’s local agenda 21 remit and is now a fully independent, limited company.

The forum takes a partnership and participation approach to all activities, which means that it tries to find the point where approximately 85% are in agreement on a particular issue. Since 2001, the forum has developed a series of position papers that reflect the consensus position of members and associates. The forum has also been involved in local area development plans, the second stage of the county council’s development plans.

The forum runs an annual project, ’Action on Waste’, that is in its sixth year. Action on Waste is a locally based project indicative of the forum’s bottom-up approach, which encourages shoppers to think about the packaging of the food products that they buy.

The forum is disappointed that, although they represent a large number of people, their views are not taken into account on the development of county council Waste Management Plans. The forum has representatives on seven of the eleven strategic policy committees in the city and county. At all times, the forum has focussed on the three elements of sustainable development: environmental, social and economic.

The Forum would like to see a number of legislative changes in relation to waste management including:

•Zero waste policy - this policy has been successfully implemented in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US. It would involve a shift in mindset so that rather than seeing waste as a problem to be disposed of, it would be viewed as a resource. In addition, every waste stream produced in the country would have somewhere identifiable to go and if not, we would consider eliminating it as an incoming product;

•Place more emphasis on reduction and re-use under the waste management hierarchy. One key proposal would be the introduction of a packaging tax / levy, whereby there would be nil or minimal tax on the types of packaging that Ireland was trying to encourage;

•A national scheme for the introduction of reusable standardised beverage bottles;

•A review of the efficiency and usefulness of Repak; and

•More incentives for local enterprises to recycle, reuse and recover materials.

4 OTHER KEY INFORMATION SOURCES

In addition to reviewing the written and oral submissions made to the Joint Committee, a brief review of the most recently-published EPA National Waste Report and the Regional Waste Management Plans (where they were available online) was also undertaken.

4.1 EPA National Waste Report (2004)

The EPA National Waste Report (2004) provides a useful context for the consideration of the results from this review process. The report provides a comprehensive summary of information for all waste types. Of particular interest to the consideration of Household Waste Recycling are the following:

•893,248 tonnes of municipal wastes were recovered, representing 32.6% of the total waste arisings in Ireland;

•the household waste recovery rate was reported as 19.5%( 295,134 tonnes), with recovery rates for individual waste fractions ranging from around 3% for each of textiles and other metals (non-ferrous excluding aluminium) to over 59% for glass;

•there is a strong and growing, dependence on recycling infrastructure abroad for processing recyclable waste streams generated in Ireland, with UK and Spain taking over 80% of the total; and

•around a quarter of a million tonnes of household waste are estimated to be uncollected, and 80% of local authorities reported associated problems with backyard burning in their area.

The report concluded that, for Household Waste:

•there is an ongoing predicted annual increase of 2% in household waste generation;

•there is a trend away from disposal, towards recovery, with a remarkable 59% annual increase in recovered quantities;

•the composition of household waste presented for disposal is changing, with kerbside collection services for mixed dry recyclables successfully diverting a considerable volume of household waste from landfill; and

•the proportion of organic and plastic wastes arising in household waste is typically not being collected for recycling.

4.2 Summary of Regional Waste Management Plans

A summary of the key strategies identified in each of the Regional Waste Management Plans reviewed during this process is provided in Table 4.1. Of interest, it is noted that the Waste Management Plan for each region, of which there are eight, identifies the potential need for the establishment of a waste-to-energy plant, (typically incineration), to manage the residual wastes from each region.

Table 4.1 Summary of Local Authority Plans with Regards to Household Waste Recycling

5 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 KEY DRIVERS AND CHALLENGES

Based on the review of written submissions and the oral presentations, a number of key challenges emerge which local authorities face in seeking to achieve yet higher rates of recycling and sustainable use of recyclable product(s). These were reported to include:

•resistance to acceptance of new Bring Centres in local communities due to perceived noise and housekeeping issues;

•difficulties in maintaining acceptable standards of cleanliness at Bring Centres;

•a lack of collection and/or recycling services for some key waste streams, most notable plastics, newsprint and organic wastes;

•absence of locally-accessible markets for recycled products, for example, compost;

•difficulties in influencing private collection contractors in relation to route selection and content of service, including collection of recyclables, where long-term contracts are in place under limiting contract terms;

•the need to establish treatment/disposal facilities for residual waste fractions, even after maximising material recovery, (e.g. thermal treatment); and

•for some rural counties, the cost of servicing remote communities.

In contrast, budgetary constraints were not cited as currently being a major limiting factor and securing support for recycling amongst householders was not a major concern. However, in common with other countries, if it cannot be demonstrated to householders that their efforts are resulting in true recovery of material values, then support and commitment to recycling initiatives could wane. The Race Against Waste has clearly yielded results and efforts need to be maintained going forward.

Considerable progress has been made in increasing the rates of recycling from household wastes, although levels vary quite significantly across the Country. In general, there appears to be a high level of community support. However, this needs to be matched by a clear demonstration of the final effective recovery of the collected recyclable materials in order for this commitment to be sustained.

5.2 RESPONSE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES

The review of service levels with household waste collection and recycling indicated a wide range in the nature and parity of the current level of service provision, including notable variations in the types of services offered, the associated charging mechanisms and the levels of recycling being achieved. A summary of the key indicators is provided as follows:

•Levels of recycling of household waste range from 10% to 57% among the 15 local authorities for which this information was provided. This compares to current national targets (to meet EU requirements) of 35% of the municipal waste stream by 2013 (which includes commercial waste streams);

•The percentage of the households receiving a kerbside collection service ranged from 0% to 100%, with an average of 71% from those that responded;

•The percentages of households receiving kerbside collection of dry recyclables or a ’green bin’ service also ranging from 0% to 100%, with an average of 61% for those that responded. Additionally, one local authority indicated they had commenced trial collections of organic or ’brown bin’ wastes;

•The collection frequencies for those authorities providing kerbside collections ranged from twice per week to once per month, with once a week being the average service;

•The charging mechanisms adopted for these services included the use of annual management fees, charging per bin/bag, charging by weight or, in some cases, a combination of these elements. Annual management charges range from €180 to €510 per household, with costs per bag ranging from €1.50 to €8;

•There are wide variations in the accessibility of waste reception facilities, (i.e. Bring Centres and CAS) across the counties. Whilst the extremes of the level of provision are reflective of city versus county authorities, there are still significant variations within each of the city and county groupings. Overall, Bring Centre provisions range from 1 per 679 to 1 per 5,277 head of population and 1 per 2.3km² to 1 per 868 km². The average across the responding authorities is approximately 1: 2,100 population for Bring Banks, which compares to best practice target levels of one Bring Bank per 1,500 population, or a Bring Bank within 1 km of all households;

•CAS provision ranges from 1 per 12.8 to 1 per 247.5 per 1,000 head of population and 1:50 to 1:24,304 per km².

While it is evident that significant progress is being made in the management of household waste, a number of key issues remain to be addressed. This includes improvements in the management of plastics, organic waste and newsprint as summarised below.

Plastic Waste

Limited services are provided for the collection/reception of plastic wastes across most local authority areas. This was attributed to a lack of sorting infrastructure, poor quality waste streams, and a lack of cost effective markets.

As a result, 89% of Ireland’s household plastic waste is disposed to landfill (ref: EPA 2004 National Waste Report). However, at the same time, 48,000 tonnes of plastic waste are imported annually for in-country recycling, suggesting that internally-generated household plastic waste is not of a suitable quality for recycling.

Local authorities, in conjunction with their waste service providers, should develop mechanisms to improve the clean, segregated collection of household plastic waste. This will necessarily include a community awareness program in order to improve the quality of this waste stream, and the identification of suitable outlets for the collected material.

Organic Waste

Whilst up to 61% of Ireland’s household waste is, potentially able to be composted, the vast majority of this waste stream (around 89%) is currently being landfilled (ref: EPA National Waste Report 2004).

Of the Local Authority respondents, at the time of the survey only one indicated they offered an established service for the collection of segregated wet recyclables (organics) for composting, (“brown bin” service). A further four authorities reported that such a scheme was planned to be introduced in FY06, some of which may now be in place. In addition, eight local authorities provide subsidised composting units for at-home use.

Increasing the fraction of organic waste which is collected and recycled from the household waste stream is essential in order for Ireland to meet the national target of diverting 50% of all municipal waste from landfill, by 2013 (under the Landfill Directive).

Local authorities should review their current provisions in this area and evaluate the suitability of the various mechanisms available. It is most likely that a combination of mechanisms will be required, including kerbside collection, community-based centres and at-home composting systems. Once again, the identification of stable, long-term markets for this material will be essential to ensure the success of any recycling initiatives.

Additionally, in order to assure a high quality, useable product, it is considered that national guidelines in the production, minimum quality standards and use of the composted material are required.

Newsprint

Paper /cardboard represents 20% of the total household waste stream and is the second largest fraction after organic wastes. At the present time, around 34% of this waste is recovered for recycling, with the remainder being disposed to landfill. The local authorities indicate that a significant proportion of this is comprised of newsprint and promotional materials (i.e. junk mail). At the present time, there are no producer responsibilities for the management of the paper waste stream, although it is notably similar to the packaging waste stream, for which producer responsibilities do exist.

The Joint Committee is strongly of the view that Government promote and enhance additional mechanisms aimed at devolving responsibility and cost for managing newspaper waste back onto the newspaper industry. This aim, in line with the principles of Producer Responsibility and the Packaging Waste Regulations and competition issues, could be achieved with a levy on newsprint.

5.3 OTHER RESPONDENTS

The organisations, community groups and individuals who responded to the Joint Committee’s request for input raised a number of concerns. It is noted that while the respondents represented a significant cross section of the Ireland’s population, the nature of the concerns/aspirations expressed was broadly similar. It is also notable that nearly half of the responses received were from the Cork area, suggesting a particularly high level of community interest and awareness and, potentially, participation in waste matters in the local area.

The following key issues were raised by the respondents and are summarised below:

•Recycling Services;

•Packaging Waste;

•Organic Waste;

•Product Design;

•Planning Controls;

•Resource Recovery Centres;

•Waste-to-Energy; and

•Market Development.

Recycling Services

Overall, the current level of recycling services was reported to be insufficient to meet community needs. In particular:

•The kerbside collection of dry recyclables is too limited in coverage and too infrequent to meet demand. This has consequences in that potentially recyclable materials are being disposed as general waste;

•The range of wastes currently permitted in the recycling bins is not adequate, in particular, the community is seeking more extensive collection services for plastics, organics and glass;

•The costs for these services is considered too high, they are sometimes difficult to estimate and inequalities in the cost per service across the local authorities were noted;

•The opening hours of CASs were too restrictive, as other than Saturday mornings, most are not open outside of normal working hours; and

•There is a perceived lack of maintenance and cleanliness of Bring Centres, which is a disincentive to use and barrier to locating new facilities.

The local authorities should review and consider the expansion of their household waste services, especially kerbside collection of dry recyclables, and ideally organic wastes. Experience, in Ireland and elsewhere, suggests this is a key mechanism in achieving the highest levels of recycling.

The opening hours at CAS should be extended where practicable, particularly at the weekends, as these are known to be the busiest periods in similar European facilities.

In addition, improvements are required in the monitoring and management of Bring Centres. The Joint Committee requests the Minister for the Environment to actively and systematically enhance the operations of Bring Centres. A practical example would include local authorities endorsing the sponsorships of Bring Centres.

Packaging Waste

The majority of respondents considered that additional Government intervention was required to improve the management of packaging waste. The suggestions raised included:

•Requiring a minimum % recycled content for all packaging materials;

•Introducing a tax/levy on non-reusable or non-recyclable packaging;

•The reintroduction of refundable deposits on reusable or recyclable items,

•Banning of certain types of non-recyclable packaging; and

•The standardisation of packaging amongst manufacturers to facilitate greater reuse.

The Joint Committee supports additional investigation into the feasibility of these recommendations, in the context of the local Irish market.

It was also suggested that the full cost of recycling should lie with the packaging material manufacturer. While it was recognised that the Waste Packaging Directive had made considerable in-roads in this area, it was felt that the structure of the Repak scheme allowed some manufacturers, typically retail outlets, to sidestep most of their producer responsibilities.

As indicated previously, concerns were also raised regarding the lack of producer responsibility in the newsprint industry, for the cost of recycling of discarded newspapers and magazines, and the proliferation of unwanted advertising materials. To help address these issues, it is recommended that Government consider additional cost transfer mechanisms, in line with the PRO/Packaging Waste Regulations. This should, inter alia, consider issues surrounding competition and import/export.

Organic Waste

It was noted that there was a very high level of support for the expansion of services for the recycling/composting of household organic wastes. This included a high level of awareness regarding the nature of the technology available, the value of the final product and a desire to have access to the final products. Of note, there was a strong desire to prohibit the use of in-sink macerators as these are considered to divert valuable materials from the recycling stream.

As indicated previously, the Joint Committee supports and encourages local authorities to introduce measures to increase and promote both the composting of organic material and the use of the final product. Experience internationally suggests that commercial marketing of the compost product is an essential component of a successful composting scheme.

It is also considered important that the local authorities investigate a range of options for the reuse of organic materials outside of composting. This may include processes such as MBT and anaerobic digestion systems, with the associated energy recovery.

Planning Controls

The respondents noted that, while kerbside collection of recyclables was available for the majority of single-dwelling-based households, it was often not available in multi-dwelling residential premises (i.e. blocks of units). The provision of recycling services in such areas is typically the responsibility of the building management company, rather than local authority or a contract waste company. It was also noted that these services, where provided, were often not of the same standard as that provided by the local authority.

In addition, many residential and commercial premises are not designed with the occupants’ waste management needs in mind. For example, few houses or units would have sufficient space for a three-bin waste system, and few multi-dwelling premises allow for communal-based recycling schemes.

The introduction of national guidelines and, where feasible, the introduction of mandatory minimum requirements, are recommended in the planning process with regards to the provision of suitable waste management infrastructure. Examples may include the mandatory provision of segregated communal collection bins in apartment complexes; community-based composting facilities; and the inclusion of Bring Centres in the planning permission conditions for certain types of developments (e.g. at shopping centres, schools, residential units etc), over a certain size.

Resource Recovery

The was strong support for community-based Resource Recovery Centres, with an emphasis on the repair, exchange and sale of items for reuse, rather than just having ’drop-off centres for recyclable materials.

The respondents also encouraged the establishment of point-of-sale return systems, such as that recently established for waste electronics, for a wider range of consumer goods (e.g. furniture, medicines, newsprint etc).

The Joint Committee recommend that Government evaluate international experience and success in the implementation of such initiatives, and consider the introduction of a pilot scheme in Ireland.

Waste-to-Energy

Te respondents were widely against the introduction of waste-to-energy schemes which involved incineration in Ireland. In addition to the concerns regarding health, it was believed that the establishment of an incinerator would divert potentially recyclable materials away from recycling/reuse.

It was also noted that every Regional Waste Management Plan (of which there are eight local authority groupings), identified the potential need for an incinerator for the treatment of residual wastes.

The Joint Committee recommends the close evaluation of Ireland’s waste disposal needs, both as a nation as a whole, and within the existing Regional Waste Management groupings. Particular attention should be paid to the Waste Management Hierarchy, which promotes avoidance, reuse and recycling, over disposal.

Market Development

The respondents recognised that, in order to increase Ireland’s rate of recycling, it was vital to develop local recycling industries and markets for reuse. It was widely held that government support and, potentially, financial incentives, would be required in this endeavour.

Several respondents referenced the considerable lost opportunity and the unsustainable nature of continuing to export more than 90% of Ireland’s recovered materials for recycling abroad. Some quoted the job creation estimates from the Clean Technology Centre, that 30 jobs are created per 10,000 tonnes of waste recycled.

The Joint Committee recommend that a review of Government procurement policies be undertaken, to assess the scope for further green sourcing and purchasing of recycled product. The development of a ’Green Guide’ for consumer and commercial use, to help educate and guide consumer choices is also suggested. The Government may also consider joint funding of a number of pilot schemes, to identify, evaluate and disseminate best practice in the development and promotion of markets for recyclable materials. This work should be undertaken in close consultation with, and in support of, the existing Recyclables Market Development Taskforce.

Product Design

The respondents indicated a strong need for regulatory intervention to extend the design life of consumer products and to incorporate end-of-life considerations (such as the dismantling and recycling of the component parts) at the design stage.

While this is considered to be more of a European/global issue, the Joint Committee supports the initiation of actions at EU level to introduce more stringent life-cycle producer responsibilities into the design of consumer products.