T
here’s nothing like a good row over rubbish collections to get Middle England’s blood boiling. Stories of penalty notices, court summons and even jail sentences for waste and recycling related offences prompt reactionary opinion. A s local authorities and residents meet head on for the battle of the bins, councils must meet increasingly stringent targets by convincing householders to recycle and compost more. In reality, of course, changing behaviour involves both sticks and carrots. Yet, somehow, the sticks always receive more attention.
Take the much-publicised Pay-As-You-Throw methods. Under PAYT schemes, which use high-tech, yet controversial Chip ’n’ Bin methods, you pay a variable rate in proportion to the amount of rubbish you throw out: Recycle more and you will have less to pay; throw out more and you’ll face a mounting bill.
By penalising those who produce more waste and rewarding those who recycle or compost, PAYT has the potential to transform behaviour – if the price is right. However, an alternative approach involves the compulsory recycling scheme, where householders can be fined for failing to recycle.
Compulsory recycling is most prominent in the capital, where six London boroughs now have schemes in place. In Barnet, compulsory recycling was introduced as part of a pilot in April 2004 and in the first year of the scheme saw a 28 per cent increase in the tonnage collected and Councillor Andrew Harper, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, is pleased with what has been achieved. “We started the scheme because, although we had made some progress with recycling, it had become rather static and we were getting some challenging targets from government,” he says. “We decided we needed a step-change to get more residents’ engagement.”
The success of the scheme lies in both long- and short-term monitoring of recycling collections. Fines for persistent non-recyclers can be up to £1,000, although the council says that the first approach is always to help the public by resolving any difficulties with collections.
“If take-up in a particular area isn’t that great, we’ll look at why that might be,” says Harper. “We’ll send a letter round to residents saying that we’ve noticed that participation in the scheme is fairly low in their area and ask them if there’s anything that we can do to help them.”
Barnet’s example has been closely followed by Brent, which started a compulsory recycling scheme in August last year. “Recycling advisers accompany collection crews and monitor individual household participation over three-week periods,” according to a spokesperson. “Non-recyclers are those who have not presented a green box in a three-week cycle. The advisers then visit these households to persuade them to participate.”
Like Barnet, Brent householders face a maximum fine of £1,000 and although it’s early days, initial signs are promising, as eight additional collection rounds have already been introduced to cope with the demand.
Such examples show that ‘sticks’ can be both effective and politically acceptable. However, not everyone is convinced. Last year, under the new Climate Change Act, Defra made £1.5 million available for five local authorities to design and run their own pilot projects to trial financial incentive schemes for recycling. Although the ideas behind the pilots were welcomed by waste campaigners and the Local Government Association (LGA), no authorities took up on the offer by its January 2009 deadline.
This lack of enthusiasm can be partly attributed to the political unpopularity of schemes perceived to impose financial penalties on residents – particularly during the current economic crisis. The LGA’s Paul Bettison believes results could be different if residents can be persuaded that PAYT could save them money. “I think the fact that nobody took it up was largely due to the frenzy that some of the tabloid press had stirred up,” he says. “Councils have to be very cautious before they start messing with things as fundamental as bin collections. I think that, for a lot of people, the idea of signing up to something that’s going to penalise you if you do bad things is unappealing. But, conversely, the idea of signing up to something where you pay less if you do good things can be quite attractive.”
The full article detailing pay-as-you-throw schemes and residential fines and incentives is available to subscribers. Click here to find out more