dialoguebydesign

making consultation work

Wales Waste Strategy

Consultation Event
Draft report
Remove once finalised

4 June 2009
th

Penbryn, University Campus – Aberystwyth

Table of contents

INTRODUCTION 2

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 2

WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS 3

Purpose 3

Agenda 3

Ground rules 3
TOWARDS ZERO WASTE – THE POLICY AND STRATEGY CONTEXT 3

Presentation 1: Draft Wales Waste Strategy – the political, environmental and social drivers
for producing a new high-level strategy 3

Presentation 2: Towards Zero Waste – the challenges ahead and finding effective
strategies to reduce our ecological footprint through an appropriate hierarchy for waste
management 3

Task 1 - List any issues with the Draft Wales Waste Strategy, problems, concerns, areas of
agreement that the group would like to highlight 3

Yellow 3

Blue 3

Green 3

Grey 3

Black 3

TASK 2 – Group working session 3

Municipal targets 3

Financial aspects and costs 3

Public engagement 3

Waste hierarchy – reduce, reuse 3

Waste facilities 3

£ and carbon cost of rural collection 3

Regulation of collection 3

Legislation to enable delivery 3

Final Plenary Discussion 3

ANNEX 1: BIG IDEAS 3

ANNEX 2: ATTENDANCE LIST 3

-3-
INTRODUCTION

This workshop held on the 4th June 2009, was designed to give participants an opportunity to
examine, review and discuss the policy and strategy context as well as the content of
“Towards Zero Waste” a draft new, high-level Waste Strategy for Wales.

The event was designed and facilitated by Dialogue by Design Limited, a company
specialising in designing and managing participatory and consultation processes. The
workshop used plenary and small group working, this report is a transcript of the notes taken
on flipchart paper and worksheets completed by participants throughout the day. Each section
starts with an explanation of the task (in the grey box).

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

This section of the report has been compiled by the facilitators. We have grouped the issues
highlighted by participants at the meeting according to the themes of the consultation
document and the consultation questions. Full details of all contributions made by participants
in the group-working sessions and comments, questions and answers contributed during
plenary sessions can be found on later pages of this report.

Commitment to goals:

 The two generation approach is welcomed

 There is some concern over the “One Wales – One Planet” approach: what does it
really mean? Is it easily understandable and communicable? Does it go far enough?
 A more thorough, but concise explanation of ecological versus carbon footprinting is
required, and an explanation of how this ties into Life Cycle Assessment / Cost Benefit
Analyses methodology?
 There should be new protocols for dealing with waste in Wales, which relate to the
social and environmental impacts of waste
  There are issues with the timing of the strategy itself: LAs are considering new
procurement contracts now, yet the strategy will not be finalised (and actual targets
published) until next year, and not even indications of what will be in the sector plans
are available yet.
 There is some concern that the targets will not be achievable, because the evidence
base for the setting of these targets is questionable – is the data used in the modelling
accurate? Evidence gathering is not complete: e.g. compositional analysis is ongoing;
Europe is revisiting bio-waste targets, etc. Will this very consultation result in changes
to the targets?
 While stating the requirement for far greater waste avoidance / reduction / prevention /
minimising, for which there is broad agreement, much of this document focuses on
municipal waste streams. There needs to be more detail on incentivising people to
solve waste problems at the higher end of the waste hierarchy.
 There may be a problem with achieving the 70% [commercial and industrial
recycling??] target because of the [changing] composition of waste
 Elements of strategy seem too prescriptive, e.g. no room for innovative solutions to the
discrete problems of LAs, each of which face different challenges pertaining to their
geography and demography etc., and which in turn lead to varying financial and
Carbon-reduction challenges
 Need to clarify exactly what the consequences will be for those LAs, and other sectors
who do not achieve their targets

Waste reduction

 Effective public engagement is going to be central to drive waste reduction, e.g.

through school and broader educational programmes
 Changes need to be encouraged so people make less resource-intensive lifestyle
choices. Currently much of what we buy new, becomes waste sooner rather than later.
 Is there a generational divide in attitudes towards waste? E.g. war-time generations
are less profligate. Can we address this?
 As well as positive incentives, does there also need to be more legislative drivers to
moving change in the appropriate direction?
 Need to encourage the commercial sector to re-think their approach to packaging
 How can Wales influence manufacturers in the UK and in the world?
 Reuse is more efficient than recycling and public perception needs to be improved with
systems available for “outlets” e.g. car-boot sales, re-use sales, free-cycle

Recycling

 Agree that there is good argument for some consistency of approach throughout
Wales, e.g. nationally uniform colour-coded collection boxes for different recyclable
domestic wastes, but there must be some flexibility and a pragmatic approach to
enable LAs to achieve as much as they can. e.g. home composting vs. collecting food
waste; co-mingling vs. kerbside collection – in Caerphilly and Ceredigion despite 80%
 and 70% take-up rates respectively, we are nowhere near achieving recycling targets,
yet before we brought in co-mingled collections, annual recycling rates were much
lower
 Are we already achieving as much as we can with recycling – secured all the quick
wins? Should we concentrate efforts elsewhere now to avoid diminishing returns on
investment?
 While there may be a steady stream of raw materials, there is wide fluctuation in
demands and prices for recyclates, how is the Welsh Assembly Government’s analysis
of these soaring reflected in the strategy?

Waste Infrastructure

 What happens if recycling and re-use and minimisation do not deliver and LAs,
constrained by Welsh Assembly Government’s strategy (30% limit) find the residual
treatment facilities aren’t adequate?
 Landfill sites for residual waste will still be necessary
 There is a long lead-in time for all waste treatment facilities, to address problems
around planning, NIMBY attitudes, long-term investment goals, PFI etc., clear targets
and goals must be set

Roles and Responsibilities

 There is not enough guidance on budgeting for these targets. Will adequate resources
be made available? Choices and different methods of dealing with waste have different
financial implications.
 Funding to help realise this strategy should be made available not only for LAs, but for
commercial and social enterprises too
 Will the market engagement, outreach, communication, raising public awareness be
centrally coordinated and funded?
 Should targets be pooled in hubs? This would be in line with Welsh Assembly
Government’s ideals of collaborative working, and also enable benefits of economies
of scale for shared facilities

WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS

Sarah Germain – Project Co-ordinator, Waste Strategy Review Branch, Welsh Assembly
Government, welcomed the assembled group and expressed the Welsh Assembly
Government’s commitment to working with participants during the day, and beyond, to enable
interested parties to gain a thorough understanding of the political and policy context and the
drivers which have prompted the introduction of this new strategy as well as it’s aims,
aspirations and targets. She encouraged participants to contribute their thoughts, concerns,
insights and encouragement today, and follow-up by answering the consultation questions
on-line. Then, the running of the day was handed over to Catrin Ellis Jones, the lead
facilitator. Catrin introduced the day and ran through the meeting objectives, the agenda and
ground rules.

Purpose

The overarching purpose of these events is to:

• help participants understand the context and drivers for development of a new high-
level strategy
• provide an opportunity for those with a wide range of interest in Wales’ Waste Strategy
to explore together the ideas, aspirations, targets and framework proposals for delivery
contained in the draft document.

Agenda

• Welcome and introductions to the day and each other

• The policy and strategy context – drivers for change? How is the strategy being
developed? How can participants input into the process?
• “Towards Zero Waste” - a summary of key features and proposed policies in the
strategy, covering: Commitment to Goals and Waste Reduction, Recycling, Waste
Infrastructure, Roles and Responsibilities
• Identifying your issues, concerns, ideas
• LUNCH
• Exploring your issues, concerns, ideas, and opportunities to resolve or achieve
improvement
• Review of the day’s deliberations
• END by 3.30pm

Ground rules

• Phones off
• Meeting report
• Informal and productive approach to learn from Welsh Assembly Government’s,
Waste Strategy Branch representatives, as well as from one another
• Focus on enhancing the draft strategy and ideas for its eventual delivery
TOWARDS ZERO WASTE – THE POLICY AND STRATEGY
CONTEXT

The welcome and introductions was followed by a scene setting presentation:

Presentation 1: Draft Wales Waste Strategy – the political, environmental and

social drivers for producing a new high-level strategy Andy Rees, Head of Waste
Strategy Branch, Welsh Assembly Government.

This was followed by a few minutes for participants to reflect and discuss this contextual
information, before a session of questions and answers.

Q: Do you intend to show a slide with the targets?

A: They are within the strategy document.

Q: What about the future recycling of tyres?

A: Tyres are one of the priority waste streams banned from landfill. Up to market to find
another avenue. Support may be available for businesses that are able to use or recycle
tyres. Also have Green Jobs sector.

Q: How do you deal with dumped tyres?

A: Need to speak to WRAP and look at this again.

Q: Consultation process – to what extent does it take into account One Waste One Wales and
how will it be amended if fundamental changes to these strategies occur?
A: Work closely with sustainability and climate change teams and share way forward. Totally
driven by climate change and ecological footprint. Climate change strategy is still under
consultation. Prepared to change things if consultation results suggest this but it is believed
that we are close to what is needed based on the evidence.

Q: How much consultation and who has this been with to date?

A: Consultation has been undertaken with CBI, community sector, Environment Agency,
Local Authorities, Sustainable Development Commission.

• There have also been various conferences and future direction papers. Dialogue has
been ongoing since October 2007.
• Also has been a waste forum and policy gateway à rigorous checking process against
other policies and Waste Assembly Government. Scored highly in most areas except
for arts and culture.

Q: Implementation – will there be separate consultation on sector plans and if so, when?

A: Yes, early 2010. Working with stakeholders currently – proposals are radical and want to
ensure that there is understanding of this first.

Q: How will adequate resource be made available to ensure strategy is achievable?

A: Cost of treating waste used to be half of that of Europe. Strong case therefore well funded
to date, need further funding for recycling – despite cuts, think this will be available. The
Welsh Assembly Government is committed to fund dealing with residual waste. Local
authorities need to find rest of funds to deal with it (find something cheaper than £72 per
tonne of landfill).

Q: How do you seek to achieve sustainability? Is there a protocol for cross-sector work? How
will people buy-in to it?

A: Strategy lists series of indicators – can only deal with waste side but important to embed in
sustainable development. Indicators useful to measure progress. Acknowledge that there is
still a way to go and others will need to follow suit.

Q: £72 per tonne is the driver; however, there is only so much land per area, so what about
the fine of £200 per tonne if this is exceeded?
A: £200 per tonne is threat of fine. Other financial incentives are also available.

Q: When the plan is finalised is this what we’ll work from for the next 40 years?

A: Tried to future proof it and look at EU policy. Have to review every five years (rain check) –
may have to adapt to change but hopefully systems can be designed to deal with future
changes required.

Q: In glossary – is there a definition for ‘waste’ itself?

A: As defined by the Environment Agency in waste framework directive. Some case law
agrees / disagrees and WRAP has quality protocols. Issues around what constitutes reuse
and waste. Bulky waste by householder is different to if it was passed onto a charity. It
shouldn’t be regarded as waste if it is positively reused.

The questions were curtailed at this point, as they were pre-empting the content of the next
presentation:

Presentation 2: Towards Zero Waste – the challenges ahead and finding

effective strategies to reduce our ecological footprint through an appropriate
hierarchy for waste management Andy Rees, Head of Waste Strategy Branch, Welsh
Assembly Government.

This was followed by a few minutes for participants to reflect and discuss this contextual
information, before a session of questions and answers.

Q: Benefits of mixed food waste?

A: Food waste often wet therefore better to use AD rather than incineration. Also better in
terms of carbon footprinting?
Q: Route source separation – what does this mean? Will roadside collection segregation be
more bullish?

A: 80% should be source separated. Will see regarding consultation if co-mingled / mixed in
residual stream or source separated is preferred. Sector plans will be more detailed and may
be more bullish dependent on consultation outputs.

• Kerbside sort versus co-mingled.

Q: Will there be both carrots and sticks?

A: £55 million carrot this year and £72 million next year.

Q: How robust are the models being used?

A: Stockholm environmental institute

• Information on website
• Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and ecological footprinting model
• Engagement with Environment Agency to flesh out difference between two. Should be
subject to challenges.

Previous event highlighted need for education and awareness. The consultation pages outline
evidence documents. It is also important to check that they make sense and most does.

LCA using rate tool (carbon).

Q: High level approach and how does this relate to Copenhagen?

A: Ecological footprinting needs to be looked at more rather than just carbon footprinting.

Q: AD – what is the plan for all the compost?

A: WRAP are looking at compost markets – landscaping have a use for organic matter. Other
outlines include AD residue – if dried this could be used for fuel biomass. Preference is to get
it back to soil (P). Valuable material that we need to find a use for.
Q: Kerb-side sort à lots of money invested for new method – can the Welsh Assembly
Government bring the debate forward quickly?

A: The Welsh Assembly Government’s preferred option is kerb-side sort. Evidence is being
gathered and will be put forward shortly to minister.

Q: Impact of 70% recycling target – would investment be better spent on waste reduction?

A: In short-term the focus is on what Wales can do as do not have control over world
packaging etc. Retailers are doing more regarding packaging – might be a conference in the
future about waste minimisation.

Following these plenary discussions, the first task for groups to consider was introduced:

Task 1 - List any issues with the Draft Wales Waste Strategy, problems,
concerns, areas of agreement that the group would like to highlight

Participants were seated (according to colour coded table plans drawn up by the Welsh
Assembly Government) at five tables of 4-5 people, representing a variety of the broad range
of stakeholder interests associated with waste management. The groups were asked to follow
appropriate guidance to agree allocation of small group roles – discussion manager,
timekeeper, scribe and reporter, who would later feed back in plenary session, the group’s
key points. On some of the tables there was a participant, representing a partner organisation
that had contributed to drawing up of the draft strategy, who also has completed some
facilitation training. This participant offered to act either as discussion manager or as scribe
during this session.

Task sheets completed by the groups (denoted by different colours) are transcribed in full
below.

Yellow
 • How were the targets assessed?
• Targets are unachievable because:
• No flexibility for the technologies
• Different needs à geographical location plays a part, so do collection and disposal,
systems are different by the nature of the authority
• Stops innovation
• 70% not achievable because of composition (what is the definition of zero waste?)
• Lack of sector plans before the new strategy
• Prescriptive targets leads to increase in total Municipal Sector Waste e.g. composting
target – food waste would do the same thing
• Financial aspects not considered
• We agree on the two generation approach

Summary

• We have concerns that the targets may not be achievable and not flexible enough to
take into account geographical variations.

Blue

• Achievable target milestones

• Cost of change
• Enabling legislation e.g. use of electrical generation output from an anaerobic digestion
plant to connect to the grid.
• Cost of collection in rural areas, especially carbon cost
• Public engagement to drive waste reduction e.g. through school / education, public
bodies
• Commercial packaging
• Collection methods – source segregated at kerbside versus co-mingled bags. Has
cost implications
• Choice and method of disposal and financial implications e.g. AD

Green

• Adequate resource – achievable? – Timescales

• Protocol for Wales – social and environmental impacts – scales.
• Soaring markets? Is this covered – does it need to be?
• Understanding ecological versus carbon footprinting, how does this tie into Life Cycle
Assessment / Cost Benefit Analyses methodology?
• Should the focus be shifted onto waste avoidance / reduction / prevention /
minimising? Why focus as municipal? Incentivising…
• Waste reduction versus life style choices / changes
• Do there need to be more legislative drivers forcing change through?
 • Have the easy wins already been made? Would message be better spent elsewhere?
Diminishing returns for investment?
• One Wales, one planet – seems to be a good message – does it go far enough?
• Is there a generational gap in understanding of the issues faced? This is being
addressed? Marketing.
• Issue of communication and perception
• Data for modelling – now accurate?
• Landfill for residual wastes? Still needed
• Long lead times for all systems. Problems – planning consultants, NIMBY, long term
investment, PFT etc. Clear that targets / goals need to be agreed and set.

Grey

• Local authorities to have some consistency in material collection but the system needs
to be flexible to accommodate innovation in processing
• Waste systems – consistent level of raw material produced but wide fluctuation in
demands / prices for end ‘products’ (supply and demand).
• Reuse is more efficient than recycling and public perception needs to be improved with
systems available for ‘outlets’.
• Inconsistent interpretation of existing regulation and ongoing changes to there
regulations. Impacts on viability of treatment options. (Stable and consistent approach.)
• Funding shouldn’t just be for LA’s but for private and community enterprises too.

Black

• Targets – achievability and consequences of not meeting

o Clear and consequences of LA not meeting. Are they going to be statutory?
• Residual waste – what happens if the 30% is undeliverable and the facilities can’t
cope?
o Are the targets achievable? Compositional analysis is ongoing. Risk therefore
that targets might be wrong. LAs believe targets are unachievable based on
evidence to date. Cart before horse?
o Residual waste. What happens if recycling and reuse and minimisation do not
deliver and LAs then find the residual treatment facilities too small within Welsh
Assembly Government constraints. 30% limit.
o Communication and education of the public. Spend a lot of time in Wales doing
the ‘nice’ promotion. More realistic, focused messages for public. I.e. need for
treatment facilities. Responsible and aware.
• Reduce reuse – communication and public education to reduce demand for new
items. Also to get public to understand effects of their purchases and waste
stream.
o Targets could change within Welsh Assembly Government strategies still in
consultation stage.
o Europe will revisit biowaste targets.
o When sector plans come into consultation e.g. kerbside sort could be statutory,
but LA’s are considering procuring other methods now.
 o Reuse and reduce – marketing. Lifestyle items. How’s Wales going to influence
manufacturers in UK and world?

During the plenary feedback session which followed, the lead facilitator invited groups to
contribute the key points they thought most worthy of examination together during this
meeting. These were listed (in the order fed-back) as:

• Municipal targets
• Aspirational
• Consequences for not achieving them
• Achievability
• Geographical variations

• Financial aspects and costs

• Resources
• Will costs be prohibitive to achieving costs
• Implications dependent on collection method
• Waste in standard rate, fluctuations in market stream
• Funding should be available more widely than local authorities
o Research
o Commerce
o Community

• Public engagement
• Capture market through national campaigns
• National campaigns relate to waste facilities (more realism required)

• Waste hierarchy – reduce, reuse

• Should there be a shift to reduction and reuse of municipal waste
• Life choices
• Waste hierarchy and timescales – is there a conflict?

• Waste facilities
• Encourage people to build waste facilities
• What will happen in 2050 to these facilities?
• Targets and capping on Efw (if targets are not achieved then have to go to landfill)
• £ and carbon cost of rural collection
 • Regulation of collection

• Consistency of awareness amongst local authorities

o Micro and macro management of waste management

• Look at this in terms of sustainable development
• Prosperity and growth
• Supply and demand

• Legislation to enable delivery

• E.g. for grid connection

During the lunch break, participants were asked to sign up for the topics listed above, which
were displayed on a wall of the room. Participants were then able to select a topic which they
felt was particularly useful to discuss today, with other interested parties.

Note: Topics examined in detail by the self selected groups are denoted by ü

Topics which no participants eventually chose to discuss, are denoted by o

Task sheets completed by the groups are transcribed in full below within tables.

Additional points discussed on each topic, by everyone during the final plenary, are outlined
beneath the tables.

TASK 2 – Group working session

Municipal targets

Issue / problem / weakness with current Opportunity / idea for resolving the issue
draft Wales Waste Strategy
• Are they statutory / indicative / • Tell us… preferred option would
aspirational? be aspirational with no
• If statutory what are the consequences
 consequences of non- • Needs to be clearly defined
achievement?
• Efw cap: 30% (24/25) will this be
reduced in the longer term?
• Are they achievable? Specifically
food waste

• Should this take into account the

• Possible prescriptive collection
methods
• No position statement on pay as
you throw
results of the compositional
analysis? Justification of the
targets??*
• Need local solutions; one size
does not fit all!
• Needs to be brought in / led by
the Welsh Assembly Government
not local authority given the
power… needs to be a statutory
duty costs etc…
• Need guiding principles now

• Targets determined before sector

plans produced??!! Are they
achievable
• Geographical variations
• No pooling of targets
• This should influence the setting
of targets
• Should targets be ‘pooled’ in
hubs? (Welsh Assembly
Government promoting hubs and
collaborative working)
• This needs to be made clear in
the consultation on sector plans.

• Sector plans – will this include

resources that are linked to
achievement of targets
* Background pages on the website show the justification on the evidence:

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/epq/waste_recycling/zerowastebackgroun
d/evidence/?lang=en

• Participation relies on people’s goodwill à consider what influence they can bring to
power.
 • Caerphilly (80%) and Ceredigion (70%) participation rates and not near recycling target
yet. These rates are since co-mingled has been brought in. Before this the rates were
much lower.
• Targets appear to be produced before the sector plans.
• No pooling of targets geographically even though local authorities are being asked to
work together.

Financial aspects and costs

Issue / problem / weakness with current Opportunity / idea for resolving the issue
draft Wales Waste Strategy
• Without the sector plans we do
not know what infrastructure is
required or cost
• Only talk about treatment costs –
so what about collection, market
engagement, communication and
transport costs? How will this be
funded?
• Need to account for the
financial costs to the waste
industry as a result of the new
targets
• No increase in proposed funding
to correspond with inflation.
• Waste growth strategy – depends
on feedstocks
• Impact on lending for waste
industry
• Targets are so severe that will
impact on competition
• Concern about delay until 2010
for plans.
• Need strong leadership to
implement / ownership
• On costs – planning,
infrastructure
• Can we have outline of sector
plans for consideration, before
strategy concluded
• Need benchmarks for each type
of operation if methods of working
are prescribed – this should be
funding.
• Assembly needs resources to
meet the targets and budgets to
assist if variable impact heavily or
unforeseen changes
• Clear, strong leadership to enable
long-term planning
• Long term investment by Welsh
Assembly Government, local
authorities do not have the
financial capacity to deliver the
strategy – service costs
elsewhere. Clear information
regarding penalties.
• We need direction NOW
regarding collection strategies. If
the Welsh Assembly Government
is going to prescribe a particular
collection method LA’s need to
know to enable planning and
funding to make it happen.
• Welsh Assembly Government
to demonstrate understanding
how budgets will be
determined. What is the Welsh
Assembly Government’s
business case to meet these
targets – public private
funding?
• Large scale waste facilities
 benefit from economies of scale.

• How will budgets be determined – public or private?

• What does meeting the targets mean to various groups? Surely targets will dictate the
technologies used. How much does the Welsh Assembly Government think it will cost
and what are other authority’s thoughts?
• Rising baseline à additional £80 million to achieve the 70% target by 2020 – applicable
to all consortia
• Funding being provided for AD / residuals across authorities
• Every technology comes at different cost therefore how do you predict the overall cost?
• Could authorities therefore choose cheaper option – local authority could provide
additional funding but overall needs to be sustainable
• Cabinet doesn’t usually sign up to funding beyond 3 years so this is an exception.
• Communication à information needs to be circulated.
• Lots of other costs i.e. increase public engagement and communication à Who will pay
for this? Without sector plans, do not know detail to provide estimates.
• Debates are ongoing – funding for waste campaigning has increased and more
support is becoming available to support local authorities and increase funding for
research through WRAP.
• Does the Welsh Assembly Government want fewer and larger facilities? Economies of
scale come into play – consider the community benefits. Smaller plants no more
acceptable to community – are they willing to pay the economy of scale?
• Level of engagement is varied
• Waste management plans and gaps in funding à funding is dependent on Treasury
and impending election.

Public engagement

Issue / problem / weakness with current Opportunity / idea for resolving the issue
draft Wales Waste Strategy
• Non-standard of provisions and
recycling facilities
• Public perception ‘landfill is bad,
recycling is better’
• Extensive and unnecessary
packaging
• Standardisation: colour
coordination of bins and bags for
various recycling “products”
• Educate public that re-use is even
better still. Such as ‘Car boot
sales’ or ‘re-use sale’
• Local production, local farming
and retail farmer’s markets / food
miles
• Do we need strawberries all year
round?
• Consumer consumption,
challenging the need. Customer
need or supermarket driven?
• Wasted money on rubbish
campaigns e.g. ‘Are you green or
are you mean’
• Public perception of
manufacturing process
• Statistics and figures too
complex for general public to
understand
• Meeting the 70% target of
recycling
• Fly-tipping, disposal of items into
other people’s land
• WEEE regulations, hazardous
waste
• Identify more effective ways to
interact with the public.
‘Interaction, not PR’.
• If you know where it has come
from and how it’s been made
• Simply terms for public use e.g.
‘Swansea throws away enough
rubbish to fill the Millennium
stadium’
• Provide more incentive for public
to recycle e.g. ‘no-claims’
discount, reduction in council tax,
vouchers etc.
• Bring sites ‘recycling centre’.
Recycling credits / benefits from
recycling
• Reusing instead of recycling, for
example computers become
outdated and are not reused.
• Provide public service rather than
profit driven.

• Waste authorities should be put

into public ownership /
management

• Non-standardised provision of collection across unitary authority

• A standard system of colour-coding bins and bags suggests one size does fit all which
may not be true.
• Reuse education is required to show that there something between recycling and
landfill
• Consider seasonal availability of food i.e. currently have salads throughout the year,
surely this is not necessary
• Should not waste tax payer’s money on campaigning and PR à need to interact with
them rather than preach to them.
• Allow people to relate to statistics and figures
• Will we meet recycling targets à need bonuses, incentives, vouchers, and credits.
More carrots and less sticks is key for public
 • Fly-tipping – particularly of items that cannot be included in kerb-side collection
• Regulating hazardous waste – tends to be end of life recycling rather than reuse e.g.
computers – increase where appropriate --? In built obsolescence needs to be
addressed.
• Need to know what public think and what they want – ask about separation of waste à
some scope for standardisation.

Waste hierarchy – reduce, reuse

Issue / problem / weakness with current Opportunity / idea for resolving the
draft Wales Waste Strategy issue
• Promote hierarchy • Promote minimisation for the
o Prevention consumer and retailer. Do you
o Minimisation need that item? Do you need
o Reuse that packaging?
o Recycling • Educate public to understand
• There’s too much emphasis on difference between recycling and
the 4 , recycling
th reuse. Need to decide whether
• Life choices are critical repair is viable
• Promote reuse, delayed
purchase, so buy new energy
efficient one, when the old one
packs up and isn’t repairable, not
earlier.

• Recycling should be at the top of the lower half of the hierarchy

• Some confusion amongst the public about what reuse is.
• Some emphasis on reuse of electrical goods
• Agree with repair and reuse – use within close loop system rather than shipping off to
less developed countries à need for solutions to come from ICT.

Waste facilities

Issue / problem / weakness with current Opportunity / idea for resolving the issue
draft Wales Waste Strategy
• Over reliance on large scale
waste management facilities e.g.
CHP
• The sector plan is not developed
at this moment in time
• Cross sector working
• Identify potential local schemes,
where applicable identify local
users of energy and heat e.g.
registration scheme
• Opportunity for speedy and
transparent development of the
sector plan
• Developing symbiotic
relationships i.e. food, energy
and waste

• Lack of development for recyclate
markets
• Public sector involvement in
developing local markets
• Development of new markets,
penalties for non compliance
• Public sector should be
exemplars in developing local
markets for the recycled
products.
• More consistency in advice /
regulation

• Lack of consistency of EA advice

• Sector plans are required for waste plan to enable comment à opportunity for
expedient development of this.
• Cross-sector working might result in clear thinking.
• Develop a clear market and penalty for non-compliance
• Public sector procurement power à if the market is there people will do it.
• EA voice needs to be consistent à same advice and enforcement nationally would help
with this.

£ and carbon cost of rural collection

Issue / problem / weakness with current Opportunity / idea for resolving the issue
draft Wales Waste Strategy
• Stipulation of separate food • Do not be prescriptive
waste collection – extra vehicles
(£ and C)
• One size does not fit all!
• Do not be prescriptive on
collection methods
• Pooling of targets
• Information / benchmarking on
waste collection – miles per ton.
Regulation of collection

Issue / problem / weakness with current Opportunity / idea for resolving the issue
draft Wales Waste Strategy
• Inconsistency across LA’s
• Educate the public so they can
understand e.g. comingling
versus blue boxes. Make sure
that decisions are based on
proper information. Develop more
local facilities for collecting
materials, so economic to recycle
OR do we need different targets
for different LA’s e.g. taking
 account of what’s (not) cost
effective
• Money back bottles. Post
magazines without cellophane
wrapper – just address label and
bit of tape.
Legislation to enable delivery

Issue / problem / weakness with current Opportunity / idea for resolving the issue
draft Wales Waste Strategy
• Renewable Obligation
Certificates (ROC’s) are only
available for electricity
• Permitting requirements
• They should be available for gas
production
• This is improving, need to be
more rational with decision
making, need to be more user
friendly. Advertise the waste
protocols. Work with WRAP more
closely

• More people available for • Expand producer / responsibility

enforcement legislation
• More legislation to require • Consider ‘pay as you throw’
businesses / retailers to reduce legislation
waste / recycle

• Permitting grants – needs more rational decision making between local authorities, the
Environment Agency and the Welsh Assembly Government
• More on the ground help and monitoring is required à the Environment Agency have
talked now it the time for the stick.
• With regards to ‘pay as you throw’ separation is cheaper than throw all together.

Final Plenary Discussion

Following the group working sessions, each table fed back their key points (as listed above
under each of the tables). The facilitator also asked if they wanted to make any final points,
share significant insights or ask any final questions before the meeting ended.
References to background information on website are outlined below:

Evidence base

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/epq/waste_recycling/zerowastebackground
/evidence/?lang=en

 Kerbside recycling in Wales – Summary report

 Kerbside recycling in Wales: Indicative financial costs
 Kerbside recycling in Wales: Environmental costs
 A review of the collection of waste textiles from households in Wales
 An assessment of waste data for the Waste Strategy Review
 Assessment of the relative polluting effects of garden waste bonfires and the collection
of garden wastes for centralised composting
 Ecological footprint impact of the Welsh waste strategy
 Direct and variable charging for residual waste from householders
 Environmental life cycle assessment of waste management options for priority waste
materials
 Future directions for municipal waste management in Wales – Proposed targets and
actions
 Future recycling and landfill diversion targets for Wales
 Scoping new municipal waste targets for Wales
 Collection and disposal of UVO for use as a vehicle fuel: Final report

Appraisals and assessments

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/epq/waste_recycling/zerowastebackground
/appraisals/?lang=en

 The Sustainability Appraisal of the Wales Waste Strategy: Sustainability Appraisal

Report - Non-Technical Summary
 The Sustainability Appraisal of the Wales Waste Strategy: Sustainability Appraisal
Report
 Sustainability Appraisal Annex A: Review of Policy Plans and Programmes
 Sustainability Appraisal Annex B: Environmental, Economic and Social Baseline
 Health impact assessment
 Habitats regulations assessment report
 Annex A: Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites
We would reiterate our encouragement that, having deliberated and examined the strategy in
some detail today, you will go on to take part in the online consultation. Thank-you.

ANNEX 1: BIG IDEAS

Participants were invited, after registration and during breaks to add their own ideas to a
“Wall of Big Ideas” to help Wales meet its waste reduction targets. Here are the ideas
contributed by participants attending the consultation event in Aberystwyth:

 Change the rules, so that waste that cannot be recycled is sent back to the
manufacturer – to encourage responsible and intelligent design
 Producer responsibility and free take back on tyres and gas bottles
 Improve manufacturing technology – no recycling required
 Have a far more profound input in the school curriculum, and get homes and schools
working together
 Read the relevant chapters in “Sustainable Energy – without all the hot air”, by David
JC MacKay (it’s available as free download http://www.withouthotair.com/)
 Adopt common template for all to report.

ANNEX 2: ATTENDANCE LIST

Name Organisation
Gareth Lewis Environment Agency
Beverley Hodgett Central Wales Waste Strategy
Bleddyn Jones Ceredigion County Council
Allison Cann CRAFT
Ray Quant Ceredigion County Council
Ruth Bridgewood CRAFT
David Pearce Dyfed Powys Police
Arwel Pierce Cyngor Gwynedd
Phil Marks Cylch
Emyr Jones The Planning Inspectorate
Daniel John Pembrokeshire CC
Richard Matthews IBERS Aberyswyth University
Andy Rees Welsh Assembly Government
Jason Baldwin Covanta Energy Ltd
Tim Williams Aberystwyth University
Steve Davies Ceredigion CC
Sarah Germain Welsh Assembly Government
Hayley Evans Caerphilly County Borough Council
Stephen Penny Flintshire CC
Julie Taylor Welsh Assembly Government
Alex Welnitschuk Forestry Commission
Dr John Scullion IBERS Aberyswyth University
Louise Pedreschi Flintshire CC
Adam Margetts theARCproject
Martin Peters the ARCproject