Back in the heady days of ’90s recycling and waste management, around one-third of the 51 local authority waste partnerships active in England today were formed. These partnerships came together to share resources, improve performance and proudly proffer joint strategies and communication campaigns. The noughties saw the formation of the majority of today’s waste partnerships, and then... the economy took a nosedive. No longer were waste partnerships borne of a simple exploration of joint service improvement and knowledge-pooling; slashing budgets and money-saving were the frantically underlined activities at the top of the to-do list. Waste partnerships took on a new meaning.

“Essentially, they can make savings. That’s the bottom line”, says Dr Jane Beasley, Chartered Wastes Manager at Beasley Associates Ltd. “Even the smallest savings from sharing procurement can be significant. We’re seeing a lot more pairings happening as smaller waste collection authorities can’t make the same scale of efficiency savings without doing so – at least not without making drastic cuts.”

Indeed, the focus of waste partnerships has moved firmly onto the financial. When Beasley Associates undertook research into efficiencies in waste partnerships for a presentation at the LARAC conference in 2010, it was found that of all active partnerships in England, only one (Somerset) was able to actually quantify its savings (£1.5 million). Now, however, increasing numbers of authorities are able to demonstrate savings, such is the agenda of waste partnerships in light of budget cuts. Lichfield District Council and Tamworth Borough Council, for example, joined forces in 2010 and in addition to ticking improved rates and service boxes, were able to report a saving of £750,000 – a not insignificant sum. Indeed, Beasley reveals that some partnerships are estimating savings of up to £12 million.

“If two authorities come together and do a joint collection, for example, you’ll have one head of waste, one set of back-room staff and your crews are reduced”, says Beasley. “You’re talking lower salary costs, lower vehicle and vehicle maintenance costs and long-term savings in future procurement.” However, this can be a sensitive issue for the local authority officers employed to find these savings. “There’s the risk that they might find themselves in a position where they’re actually talking themselves, or their colleagues, out of a job. But it’s those types of savings that make
a difference.”

Getting decisions made at a local authority level is no quick job, and so partnerships benefitting from dedicated staff are often more likely to do well and see tangible progress. “They often rely on an individual driving things forward. If it’s half of someone’s job, or activities in this area are carried out for time-in-lieu, it can be a slow old process”, says Beasley. “Having someone to lead it – maybe a partnership manager employed specifically for the purpose – is crucial.” However, partnerships without dedicated staff can still show high levels of achievement, provided, as Beasley says, “there’s at least one person who’s really behind the partnership, pushing things forward and stimulating dialogue”.

Surprisingly, a lot of successful waste partnerships are forged on little more than ‘an understanding’ between parties. “There are some partnerships that operate very loosely, and are happy to do so, because they trust one another implicitly”, says Beasley. For others though, especially partnerships formed on the back of PFIs, there is a level of rigidity in their governance. “There has to be a safety net for members if financial dealings are involved, so someone can’t just pull out at the last minute. And of course, there are other factors to consider: what happens to the partnership at the end of the PFI, or how often does the focus of the partnership need to be revisited?” However, Beasley is keen to note that these concerns do not form the crux of partnership success. “Certainly what we’ve found in our research into governance is that it’s not the be-all and end-all. It’s the level of commitment from members and depth of collective vision that make the difference.”

Inevitably, however, there can be barriers to progress, especially when it comes to the nitty-gritty. “You can get people running around in circles on inter-authority agreements that haven’t been signed for years while they’re working out what’s happening to the small print”, admits Beasley. “Or they get really wrapped up in getting wording right or are afraid of signing things. A number of the partnerships we spoke to said that life was more challenging in a two-tier arrangement, but just having a clear consensus and commitment to the end goal can help.”

Steve Read, Managing Director of Somerset Waste Partnership, agrees. “There is a wide-scale fear of losing control by signing away your responsibilities to what might be perceived as a more distant organisation”, he says. “But it doesn’t have to be that way, provided it is a genuinely shared governance model which doesn’t weight things in favour of one party.” However, he notes that keeping an eye on the end goal is vital. “Most of our barriers have come by not all the partners being financially able to move at the same speed, but the process we have for business planning and consulting on and setting clear objectives helps to keep the big picture in view”, he says. “Overcoming barriers always involves a lot of diplomacy and effective teamwork by the directors, staff and advisors. It always involves keeping an eye on the big picture of what we are trying to achieve.”

There are alternatives to local authority partnerships, however. Partnering with a third-sector organisation can bring just as many tangible benefits, and often has the advantage of avoiding some of the bureaucratic stumbling blocks mentioned above. Local authorities choosing to invest in a third-sector partnership are able to achieve social responsibility targets, too, as many organisations focus on training young or long-term unemployed people (see Newport Wastesaver’s case study over the page, on page 20). The bulk of partnerships involving third-sector organisations, however, do not involve general kerbside collections, but are focused on niche markets like furniture reuse. Such partnerships can be challenging to maintain because each party will have different values, objectives and structures (which is not as much a feature for partnerships between authorities). Also there are often asymmetric power relations as one tends to be giving finance to the other.

Partnerships needn’t always take the traditional two-party composition of two local authorities or a local authority and a community group. There are only around 30 local authorities in the UK not currently part of a waste partnership – as Beasley says, it’s becoming the ‘normal approach’, but many established partnerships are branching out, forming sub-partnerships or even cross-border partnerships. “We are seeing clusters and pairs forming. It may well be that several partnerships join forces (see Richmondshire and Hambleton’s case study on page 21), but perhaps not all of the members will wholly buy into the end goal, so pairs and clusters go off and do their own thing. It’s the groups that have the confidence to do this that are achieving.” Similarly, there are instances of single partnership parties forming sub-partnerships with authorities in a different region, which is often done on the back of a strong business case. “They’re going to be a success because they’re forming relationships with a business-minded approach”, says Beasley. “There will be a strong driver behind this kind of partnership – one that surpasses any kind of geographical boundary, and stands to put all parties concerned in an advantageous position.”

Ultimately, there’s no ‘one-size-fits-all’ mould for waste partnerships; indeed the two case studies over the next two pages highlight just how variable they can be. But they are providing an increasingly feasible solution to ever-tightening budgets, provided, of course, that they’re active and stimulated by members with a mutual appetite for an end result. As Beasley notes: “There are a few partnerships that trot along not doing very much, and they’re not achieving their full potential.”