Should recycling be compulsory?
Millions now put their recycling out on a regular basis, reflected in a four-fold increase in the UK recycling rate over the last ten years. But this encouraging picture is tempered by a significant minority who do not recycle.
The increase in the number of people recycling in the last decade has marked a major shift in this country's social attitudes and behaviour towards the environment. The Waste and Resources Action Programme has measured the number of claimed committed recyclers in the UK at 61%, and even this figure may be over-optimistic.
Non-recyclers are a growing headache for local authorities seeking to wring ever higher levels of tonnage from their recycling schemes while operating within tight budgets. As participation increases, authorities are looking for new cost-effective ways to encourage their more resistant residents to start recycling.
One approach is to make recycling compulsory, which can be done under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act (1990). Although the exact method can vary between councils, it generally means monitoring kerbside recycling schemes and ultimately prosecuting those who do not recycle. At the time of writing, compulsory recycling schemes are used in several London Boroughs and more are planning to introduce similar systems. Interestingly, so far no one has been prosecuted yet.
Supporters of this approach point to impressive results - a recent pilot in Hammersmith and Fulham showed an increase in participation from 77% to 88% and Barnet saw a 28% increase in recycling tonnage. Others dismiss the notion of compulsory recycling, suggesting that it is unnecessarily confrontational and crude and ignores the quantity or quality of what is recycled. After all, someone recycling one newspaper every few weeks would fall into the same category as a keen recycler.
At Waste Watch we believe that compulsory recycling can persuade stubborn non-recyclers to change their ways. That said, great care must be taken on how and when it is introduced.
Recycling is, to put it simply, a good thing. It is a way for people to improve their environment and should be recognised for the good news story that it is. If done well, it can foster and rejuvenate a sense of connection between individuals, their community and their surroundings. The majority of the population, once a well-run scheme is put into place and they understand why and how they should recycle, are enthusiastic participants.
We recommend that local authorities communicate clearly and positively with residents about recycling, even around contentious issues such as compulsory recycling. When a recycling scheme has matured, initial operational problems are solved and comprehensive coverage is achieved, then a compulsory element could be introduced as a final push to target stubborn non-recyclers. Even then, a process of targeted education and assistance must be available to non-recyclers to encourage them to participate with prosecution only being used as a last resort.
Evidence from recent Waste Watch projects suggests there is widespread public support for compulsory recycling. Nonetheless, threatening the majority with prosecution unless they recycle from the outset will not engender the goodwill needed to reach and then maintain high participation rates.
When this point has been reached, recycling will be considered the norm by the majority. Compulsory recycling will help cement this step change in public attitudes. But once this has happened further measures, such as limiting amounts of residual waste or introducing pay-as-you-throw, should be considered to help the public on their journey to the top of the waste hierarchy.
