WASTE & RECYCLING
CENTRAL TARGETS
MAY HINDER WIDER
WASTE MANAGEMENT
OBJECTIVES
R
educing levels of waste and
Government priorities can drive local waste
disposing of it in
environmentally acceptable partnerships towards the achievement of
ways are significant issues
facing policymakers. And, as
central targets and efficiency savings rather
in other areas of public
than wider sustainable waste management
service delivery, partnership working is a
now a key component in waste
objectives, a study funded by the Economic
management with partnerships between
local authorities and between the public,
and Social Research Council shows.
private and community waste sectors
involved in efforts to develop more improve recycling rates even though this of trust, transparency, respect and
sustainable systems. can increase the overall amount of waste communication were all necessary for
The research, conducted by a team collected. By contrast, community sector partnerships to succeed.
led by Jim Frederickson at The Open representatives can have difficulties in Tensions arose from the objectives of
University, examined the different types of engaging local authorities support for partnerships competing with those of
partnership operating in the waste projects to reuse furniture because re-use individual partners. The research doubts
management sector. It shows how activities did not contribute to recycling whether partnerships formed primarily to
regulatory and economic pressures targets.” access central government funding, and
imposed by central government can lead Large-scale centralised facilities - such without having developed a shared history
to local waste partnerships prioritising as those developed under the Private and sense of trust, would be successful at
short-term targets. Finance Initiative (PFI) - may appear to be joint working.
The major challenge in contemporary a desirable way of meeting statutory One of the most common factors
waste management, the research obligations but, comments the research, limiting the scope of partnerships was lack
suggests, is to address demand patterns this approach raises concerns for the of executive powers. Decision-making
by reducing levels of waste throughout the long-term. There is a risk, say the processes could be cumbersome and lead
supply chain and managing the waste that researchers, that large-scale contracts can to duplication, with no repercussions for
is produced more sustainably. European “lock authorities into particular partners who failed to deliver. Some
Union legislation is imposing progressively technologies and processes and in doing partnerships were seeking to address this
tighter restrictions on the amount of so stifle innovation.” by evolving into statutory single waste
municipal waste that can dumped in The researchers found evidence of authorities, although the options for doing
landfill sites, and authorities face relationships between local authorities and so are constrained under current
individual recycling and composing their service providers changing from a legislation. However since the research
targets. As a result of the Government’s contract culture to a partnership one. They was carried out there are proposed
2004 Gershon efficiency review, local also found innovative, flexible and locally- changes to the current legislation that will
authorities are also expected to produce based collection methods emerging make it easier for partnerships to become
about £300 million of efficiency savings through partnerships between local single waste authorities.
on waste services by 2007-08. authorities and community sector Partnerships are not necessarily
Although most waste partnerships organisations. aligned with local governance structures
seek to reduce disposal of waste in landfill When successful, partnership working and, warn the researchers, can therefore
sites by increasing recycling and can facilitate learning and understanding lead to more centralised solutions and
composting there is far more limited of different partners’ perspectives. work against local governance. Efficiencies
promotion of sustainable practices such as Fredrickson, comments, “This has enabled associated with streamlining and
waste reduction and reuse of discarded local authorities to improve recycling and centralising decision-making needed to be
items – areas where there are not yet composting in ways which it would have balanced against potential loss of
statutory targets. been difficult to achieve in isolation”. sovereignty and local accountability.
Commenting on the research The research findings suggest,
Frederickson said: “Performance targets however, that “partnership working is For further information contact:
can lead to perverse outcomes. The rarely straightforward and can be fraught Mr Jim Frederickson Tel: 01908 653387,
introduction of free garden waste with difficulties and tensions.” Emotional email: j.frederickson@open.ac.uk
collections is an example of what can be, commitment, shared vision, agreed Dr Rachel Slater Tel: 01908 658537,
a relatively easy gain in meeting targets to objectives, development and maintenance email: r.slater@open.ac.uk
20|
SUSTAINABLE FM | OCTOBER 2007
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52