Quality versus Quantity - Is one better than the other? Ian Halson - Business Development Manager Local Authorities

Smurfit Kappa Recycling UK?  What is SKR’s stake in the Quality v Quantity debate?  The quality of our feedstock (recovered fibre) is paramount to us……  …..and to our customers, the packaging converters (box makers)  …..and to their customers – you!  Our customers expect and demand increasingly higher quality.  We cannot compromise on quality!

What’s the challenge?  Local Authorities tend to want uncomplicated inexpensive/value for money collection schemes yielding maximum tonnages.  End Users want clean uncontaminated quality materials.  Quality can cost. Who defines quality, who pays and how?

What is quality?  It’s subjective, it means different things to different people  ‘The degree of excellence of a thing’  Adherence to, and exceeding of, standards and specifications  Materials that meet reprocessor and end market requirements

Why do we need quality?  Sustainability: quality essential for whole supply chain  Value: premium ‘products’ = premium prices  Minimum wastage: avoids the hidden costs  Concerns: poor quality material to UK reprocessors. alternative = pulling in imports  Exports: markets changing and demanding higher quality

Why do we need quantity?  Targets – recycling rates, diversion rates  Incentives – financial rewards, beacon status, service level agreements  Penalties – landfill tax, LATS, charge capping  Public expectations – to ‘compensate’ for awc, to be able to participate  Pride – to be ‘top of the table’

Collection methods  Kerbside sort – source segregated  Kerbside bulking – commingled  Bring banks – material specific (eg bottle banks) -- mixed materials (eg packaging banks)  HWRC – both source segregated and commingled  Collection methods driven by facilities available

The ‘pros’ of source segregation  Do not have to build a MRF, not capital intensive, can set a scheme up very easily  Quality materials, very low contamination, ability to check container contents  Produces good quality raw material, ensuring preferred supplier status  More secure and sustainable outlets. Materials income stream

The ‘cons’ of source segregation  May be more expensive to collect  Limit to the range of materials collected  Boxes and bags do not look as neat as a wheeled bin  Needs more householder effort

The pros of commingled:  Cheaper collection costs, uses existing equipment  Quantity – pulls in high tonnages  Message simple to residents – just put all the recyclables in the one bin. Fill and forget.  Usually somebody else worries about the sale of the materials (The MRF operator – indirectly the Council)

The cons of commingled:  Contamination and residues, less intrinsic material value. Often a gate fee.  Difficult to enforce  Capital intensive infrastructure (someone pays for the mrf )  Debatable sustainability of markets  Less ‘front end’ costs but more ‘final end’ costs

A few thoughts to leave you with……..  Recyclate is a resource with value, not a waste with cost  “Never mind the quality, feel the width” ?!?!  Collection isn’t recycling. If it isn’t reprocessed it isn’t recycled  If it’s not mixed to begin with, why mix it just to separate it again?  Rubbish in = Rubbish out

CONCLUSIONS - Quality V Quantity  Both measures have their relative advantages and disadvantages for different parties  Both systems will probably converge towards each other (eg. dual stream, triple stream or similar systems)  Collectors, processors, and end-users all share this challenge and need to work together for mutual solutions  We are all in the quality business! Draw your own conclusions

The End  Questions? Comments? Opinions?  We can help….. Sustainable Responsible Recycling from