The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 9: COMMUNITIES

There are a number of community groups and charity shops that will accept used goods for sale and re-use. In this way, clothes, toys, books and bric-a-brac as well as larger items can be diverted from landfill sites. Newer trends such as e-bay have also promoted a culture of re-use. Conversely, falling retail prices in relation to furniture and white goods have caused a move away from repairing older items as, in many cases, there is now no economic incentive involved.

Eleven respondents from the community sector and 9 community councils responded to the consultation and, where appropriate, their comments have been reported alongside those of the other respondents.

At the consultation event, in addition to covering some of the points in the consultation document, attendees discussed the role of schools in educating children on waste awareness. Eco-schools, with active waste minimisation, have had some success in Scotland. Education in general was also discussed and attendees concluded that the Scottish Executive has a role to play in educating the public.

9.1 RE-USE AND REPAIR

The consultation asked "Do you consider more could be done to promote the re-use, repair and second-hand sector in Scotland? If so, what?" and at question 24 "Do you consider more work should be done to take a Scotland-wide over-view of the re-use of products such as furniture, paint and carpets? If so, what?"

Fifty seven respondents commented at question 23 and the key theme to emerge was the need for more information or education for consumers. Fourteen respondents felt this should include education in schools, more publicity and encouragement to re-use and recycle. One community council commented "More could be done in this area, mainly training, education and support. There is now a real lack of people in all communities who have the knowledge to repair and re-use. Finding organisations that re-use items can be hard and many people are not aware that it is possible."

Thirteen respondents, including 5 local authorities, suggested that this work would require funding, with 1 local authority commenting on the need for "additional funding to get projects off the ground and become sustainable."

While encouragement for consumers was the main theme to emerge, encouragement for those working in the re-use and repair sectors also attracted a similar level of comment. Twelve respondents (including one community sector respondent) commented that "the community sector has pioneered the reuse of furniture, appliances, carpets, paint and small household items. These organisations should be supported to increase reuse." This support included more training (cited by 9 respondents), the need for second-hand shops to be sited in main shopping areas (7 respondents), national campaigns to reduce any stigma attached to second-hand goods (4 respondents), financial help with transport costs (2 respondents), and promotion of local networks (2 respondents).

Another suggestion for re-use and repair establishments was made by 6 respondents who felt these should be situated close to civic amenity sites or that these sites be redesigned with re-use in mind.

Some charity shops are not currently allowed to resell electrical goods and 8 respondents considered that with sufficient training and quality standards this could be changed.

Concern over the cost of repair was raised by 7 respondents, with 1 local authority noting, "The fundamental problem with encouraging more re-use and repair is that it is often a difficult argument as purchasing new goods is so often just as or cheaper than getting an old item fixed. This may undermine any serious attempts to promote this sector."

Re-used items play an important role in waste prevention and 5 respondents felt they should be recognised as having diverted waste from landfill.

Six respondents felt that further research was needed to identify which of the current schemes are most effective in diverting waste.

Other comments included:

• Identify and promote a re-use strategy (4 respondents);
• Re-use is not always the best option (4 respondents);
• Have occasional kerbside collections of re-usable goods (3 respondents);
• Public sector procurement policies should encourage repair and re-use (2 respondents);
• Investigate initiatives in other countries (2 respondents);
• The need for EU re-use standards (1 respondent);
• The need for a clear definition of "re-use" (1 respondent).

Comments at the consultation event largely mirrored those above and also included calls for a more consistent message across Scotland and concerns over confusion in legislation regarding charities and community groups. Key points emerging were:

• Confusion over legislation. Legislation needs to be reviewed regarding reuse/repair to support charities, community groups (Exemptions etc);
• Reuse needs to be recognised more. Given its due weighting;
• Reuse needs more Education & Awareness to make it a more mainstream form of purchase;
• Need to be more consistent messages throughout Scotland;
• No incentives for consumers to repair;
• Repair not considered viable due to speed of changes in electrical equipment, etc. Parts not available, costs excessive.

Only 48 respondents commented at question 24 and the main theme to emerge was the need for a sustainable and national network of schemes run in partnership with the Scottish Executive, CRNS and SWAG, and that this may need initial funding. Public-social partnerships were also suggested by 4 respondents.

The need for incentives was commented on by 9 respondents at both of the questions on re-use, both for consumers in the form of tax credits or for local authorities to encourage re-use frameworks.

All of the main points raised at question 23 were reiterated at question 24. Additional key comments included the social benefits that re-use and repair can provide, with 6 respondents mentioning this benefit and a public body/ publicly-funded body highlighting the fact that "some 110 million litres of paint sit in people's sheds when they could be put to good use by charities, low income and community groups."

Three respondents saw the need for a community repaint development officer and a further three felt that existing regulatory barriers should be removed.

9.2 COMMUNITY COMPOSTING

Community composting is more widely developed in other parts of the UK. Waste from households is collected or brought to a local site where a community sector organisation composts it and then provides or sells it for use locally.

Question 25 asked: "Do you could consider more could be done to promote community composting in Scotland? If so, what?"

Eleven of the 47 respondents to this question voiced agreement that more could be done to support community composting. Ten respondents, including 3 from the community sector, suggested that local authorities should instigate or provide community composting services.

"A co-ordinated programme of support, information and training tailored to the needs of the community composting sector should be developed."
Community sector

The need for clearer guidelines, requirements or regulations for handling and storing; including training on these issues was raised by 9 respondents, of whom 5 were local authorities. Problems with existing regulations such as Animal By-products or Waste Management Licensing were raised by 8 respondents who wanted to see regulatory barriers removed.

There was a feeling that these schemes would be more effective in some areas than in others and 8 respondents felt research was needed to identify the best areas for community composting schemes. Raising awareness of community schemes was seen as important by 4 respondents.

"The outputs of community composting schemes, in terms of the volume of waste recovery achieved, can be quite limited. Blanket promotion should be avoided; more work should be done to demonstrate which factors contribute to a successful scheme and communities targeted appropriately; primarily through such organisations as the Community Recycling Network for Scotland."
Local authority

Concerns were raised over the cost of community schemes and 7 respondents questioned whether they could be sustainable or whether the benefits were sufficient to justify the costs. In addition, 6 respondents stressed that schemes needed to be inexpensive for users and suggested the need for funding. Start-up grants were mentioned by 3 respondents who felt that these may be needed, for instance, for land purchase.

The potential for schemes to be promoted through new or existing campaigns was raised, with 4 respondents wanting to see some form of advertising. Four respondents felt this work could be carried out through CRNS and 3 felt that schemes should be run by paid staff rather than volunteers.

Education for consumers, and especially through schools, was seen as important by 3 respondents

Service level agreements were perceived to be useful and 4 respondents felt that local authorities needed guidelines to ensure agreements were helpful.

Community composting was seen as preferable to home-composting for some respondents, especially in urban areas. Four respondents commented on this and one from the Academic/ Professional sub-group noted, "Community composting should be developed for areas of Scotland with a high density of population where home composting is not an option. Whilst home composting should remain top of the hierarchy for composting (due to the proximity, lack of transport requirements etc) in order to enable the removal of an estimated 20% of compostable waste from municipal waste it is important that facilities are available for populations where there may not be the available space to undertake home composting." One local authority, however, commented that not all areas would want to be involved.

Measuring the effectiveness of schemes was mentioned by 4 respondents who wanted to see audits of tonnage or cost effectiveness.

Another possible area of work included food waste pilots and this was mentioned by 3 respondents.

9.3 FUNDING

Community waste groups should aim to be self-sustaining with funding either from the sale of their service or products or through service level agreements with local authorities. Waste prevention, however, is hard to measure and therefore setting funding levels is problematic. One source of funding is INCREASE, a Scottish Executive fund for community waste organisations. The consultation asked " Do you think that current community waste funding sources are designed to encourage waste prevention projects? If not, what changes do you think are required?"

Very few key themes emerged from the 39 respondents commenting on this question. The two main points raised were the need for extended funding (mentioned by 9 respondents, including 3 from the community sector) Once again, the need for consumer education and information was cited by 8 respondents, 4 of whom were local authorities.

Community waste initiatives should aim towards sustainability and 5 respondents mentioned the need for schemes to be self financing, with 4 respondents asking for extra funding for existing projects. Four respondents specifically mentioned funding from INCREASE but felt that the prerequisite estimation of tonnage prevention is seen as a barrier to any innovation or research based projects. The possibility of alternative funding, perhaps through lottery grants, was mentioned by 2 respondents and 2 respondents wanted to see start-up funding more easily accessible.

"Once this project is up and running it should become sustainable on its own in the future, and a detailed plan of how this would work would be a major part of the criteria it would have to meet before funding was supplied. Too many useful projects fall down when funding is withdrawn."
Local authority

The problem of grant applications and other bureaucracy was seen as a possible area of concern. Three respondents again stressed the need for projects to be staffed by trained or experienced employees rather than volunteers and 2 suggested that red-tape should be reduced.

Three respondents wanted to see an auditable measurement of success. Encouragement for waste prevention projects was identified as key by 4 respondents.

The key theme emerging from the consultation event was the SWF will no longer be ring-fenced after 2007-08 therefore there is a possibility that funds may disappear into other budgets. Suggestions for ways in which local authorities could spend their money for waste prevention included education, home composting, community composting, unwanted mail campaigns, waste exchange, reuse and libraries.

9.4 RECYCLING CREDITS

Local authorities can pay recycling credits to organisations recycling waste. The Community Recycling Network for Scotland is at present trying to establish to what extent this power is being used. The Scottish Ministers could compel local authorities to pay credits and the consultation asked "Do co nsultees consider that recycling credits should be made mandatory? If so, why?" and Question 28: "Do consultees consider that recycling credits should be extended to re-use and/or waste prevention?"

Nineteen out of the 48 respondents answering question 27 felt that recycling credits should not be mandatory and this included 14 local authorities. Eight respondents felt they should be mandatory, with 4 suggesting that this would reward and encourage voluntary or charity-based schemes.

Among those voicing disagreement, concern was expressed by 5 respondents that this would divert money from other, possibly more effective, schemes. Four respondents, including 3 local authorities, felt that this proposal would lead to local authorities losing part of their budgets. One local authority noted, "If recycling credits were made mandatory then local authorities would effectively be losing control of part of their budget. Although we could not support this in principle, we also believe that local authorities are best placed to decide how to encourage recycling in their communities." Five respondents voiced the opinion that local authorities should decide this issue and that, in fact, some already offer this incentive.

Four respondents wanted to see service level agreements or some other formalised agreement with local authorities and this included 3 respondents from the community sector. However, 3 respondents felt that there was too much bureaucracy involved in such a scheme.

The need for set criteria or accreditation was raised by 4 respondents and a further 4 mentioned the need for set targets and consistency.

Suggestions for specific recipients of credits included charity or community groups and 6 respondents felt credits should be mandatory for these organisations.

On the question of credits being extended to re-use or waste prevention projects, 15 of the 45 respondents commenting voiced disagreement with this suggestion, including 9 local authorities. Fourteen had specific concerns that monitoring such schemes would be costly and difficult, especially in measuring the amount of waste prevented. Three respondents felt there was a need for set criteria, standards or targets.

"We agree with the 2002 Strategy Unit report 'Waste Not, Want Not' that the recycling credits scheme should be amended to better reflect the entire set of options within the waste hierarchy which can lead to a diversion of waste from disposal, and the relative priority of those options. We would support the extension of credit payments to all household waste re-used. The value of re-use credits would need to be determined through local negotiation."
Other public body / publicly-funded body

Thirteen respondents voiced their agreement to question 28, with 5 believing this would benefit both organisations and local authorities. Three respondents wanted to see support for initiatives based on merit.

In addition to the points raised in the consultation responses, those attending the consultation event gave specific examples for an options system which could include free access to equipment, free accommodation and price per tonne. They also mentioned the need for a Scottish version of the 'Recycle Now' Campaign to help raise awareness.

A number of themes emerged from the consultation event and these included:

• Should be reuse credits as well as recycling credits;
• Recycling credits should be mandatory;
• Should be some rewards for any/all reuse/waste prevention;
• Options system (free access to equipment, £/tonne, free accommodation);
• Beneficial to consumers and LA's to work with communities/charities (this will cost less than dealing with costs for bulky uplifts and costs of dealing with fly tipping);
• Guidance should be issued to LA's on recycling/reuse credits;
• Simple standard messages for sustainability (e.g. 5 key points);
• Scottish version of the 'Recycle Now' Campaign is required to generate public interest;
• Hard to get funding for Education & Awareness projects;
• Community groups are the main deliverer in Education & Awareness, so there is a need to improve funding to allow them to do so;
• Communities will link to community group's message better than LA's;
• Local level - peer support/pressure;
• Large projects tend to be one-hit, no sustaining message.

In summary,

• There was a general view that more could be done to take a Scotland-wide overview of the re-use of products such as furniture, paint and carpets, although many cited a need for more information or education for consumers and encouragement for those working in the re-use and repair sector. That said, there were also comments that it can be difficult to persuade consumers to consider re-use or repair for some low cost items. There were also suggestions for a sustainable and national network of schemes and the social benefit that this can bring to Scotland.
• The concept of community composting was supported by some consultees, although views were that this would work better in some communities than others.
• Views on whether current community waste funding sources are designed to encourage waste prevention projects were limited.
• A greater number of consultees supported making recycling credits non mandatory than mandatory. Alternatives suggested including giving local authorities decision making powers on this issue or development of service level agreements. There was also less support for extending recycling credits to re-use and / or waste prevention.

« Previous | Contents | Next »