Friends of the Earth Condemns Vale-of-Glam's change to co-mingled Recycling

Vale Faltering on Recycling Collections   – their rushed decision on short-term Switch to Non-separation threatens Long-term costs

The VoG change is based on conclusions to a shoddy unfinished report. The Council claims support from the Welsh Government, but it’s contrary to the 2011 well-based study** and neither they nor the public can see the VoG consultants' study. The Vale’s Scrutiny Committee failed to examine the issue.

The VoG officers wrote in the report to Cabinet^^ that they “have long believed” in co-mingling (s.8), say there are “drivers requiring a change to co-mingled collections” and rushed to decision before the study results are available (end of financial year) (s.14). It appears they fixed the consultants in order to avoid the earlier conclusions and criticisms of their failures.

Chief waste officer Clifford Parrish in the Council 2-page ad (in the Glamorgan Gem and the B&DN/Penarth Times in July) cited a survey of the top 30 Councils in England and Wales, but not that it was from a big operator of co-mingled systems, and failed to mention the newer Welsh Government-sponsored in-depth and independent study of Welsh authorities. Note that Mr Parrish must take the rap for the Vale’s poor performance relative to all authorities.

The VoG recycling/composting collections are faltering at 38.5% and stagnant, comparing badly with other Welsh authorities. Bridgend's recycling rate exceeds 50% (52% Oct-Dec., 51% July-Sept 2010, up from 33% in 2009), Wales is on 42% (WAG 12 Jan., 29 Mar.,2011). Anglesey and Denbighshire reached 57%. The report said the officers visited Bridgend but suppressed Bridgend’s advice and the possibility of following their example.

Places like Caerphilly (51%) and Cardiff (42%) count all material collected as ‘recycled’ despite rejects being high. Currently the figures are fiddled because all rejects are counted as industrial waste. The Vale Council wants to use this loophole (or scam), but it will soon be closed.

Rather than look at the real reasons, the Vale officers rushed*^ to change to non-separation like Cardiff, despite this being against Welsh government advice and findings on cost-effectiveness. The Welsh report** finds:

• “when optimised systems are compared for all options, kerbside sorting does appear to have the potential to offer a lower overall cost. The advantages of kerbside sorting appear to increase as recycling performance increases. These results suggest that Welsh local authorities will face a challenge in adapting collection systems that may work well now, but may become increasingly sub-optimal as recycling levels increase towards the 70% target.

** Kerbside Collection Options www.eunomia.co.uk/.../Eunomia%20Kerbside%20Collections%20Options%20Final.pdf

• Recently, WAG commissioned consultants to examine the relative merits of different dry recycling systems, making an in depth study of six Welsh 'case study' recycling schemes (two co-mingled, two with material separated into two streams at the point of collection, and two with kerbside sort.
• Their conclusions (Jan.2011) were that “kerbside sort collection... would result in lower financial cost than either co-mingled or two-stream collection (but) the difference in cost is relatively small”. Then with future increased recycling “the cost gap is much greater, with co-mingled and two-stream collection costing £25.6 million (or 22%) and £25.8 (or 22.2%) more respectively” (across Wales).

^^ VoG Cabinet Report of 6^th July 2011  Future Kerbside Recycling Collections

*^  In Sept. 2010, the overall chief Miles Punter was critical of the quality of recycled materials coming through Cardiff's system, told us that he was opposed to co-mingled collection and that any change would be at least a year off and after careful consideration.   Instead they rushed the change through in 9 months - prior to consultants reporting, failing to mention WAG's report of Jan. 2011and  with minimal consultation.