There’s nothing like a good row over rubbish collections to get Middle England’s blood boiling. Stories of penalty notices, court summons and even jail sentences for waste and recycling-related offences prompt reactionary opinion as local authorities and residents meet head-on in the battle of the bins. Against this tempestuous background, councils must meet increasingly stringent targets by convincing householders to recycle and compost more. In reality, of course, changing behaviour involves both sticks and carrots. Yet, somehow, the sticks always receive more attention.Take the much-publicised Pay-As-You-Throw methods. Under PAYT schemes, which use high-tech, yet controversial Chip ’n’ Bin methods, you pay a variable rate in proportion to the amount of rubbish you throw out: Recycle more and you will have less to pay; throw out more and you’ll face a mounting bill. So far, PAYT schemes haven’t taken off in the UK, although research conducted across Europe shows they can be very effective. A study conducted in the Czech Republic found that municipalities running PAYT schemes produced 22 per cent less waste than in their non-PAYT counterparts. By penalising those who produce more waste and rewarding those who recycle or compost, PAYT has the potential to transform behaviour – if the price is right. However, an alternative approach involves the compulsory recycling scheme, where householders can be fined for failing to recycle.Compulsory recycling is most prominent in the capital, where six London boroughs, including Harrow, Waltham Forest and Hammersmith and Fulham now have schemes in place. Down in Barnet, compulsory recycling was introduced as part of a pilot in April 2004 and then extended borough-wide in March 2005. The first year of the scheme saw a 28 per cent increase in the tonnage collected and Councillor Andrew Harper, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, is pleased with what has been achieved. “We started the scheme because, although we had made some progress with recycling, it had become rather static and we were getting some challenging targets from government,” he says. “We decided we needed a step-change to get more residents’ engagement.”The success of the scheme lies in both long- and short-term monitoring of recycling collections. Fines for persistent non-recyclers can be up to £1,000, although the council says that the first approach is always to help the public by resolving any difficulties with collections.“If take-up in a particular area isn’t that great, we’ll look at why that might be,” says Harper. “We’ll send a letter round to residents saying that we’ve noticed that participation in the scheme is fairly low in their area and ask them if there’s anything that we can do to help them.” Since last November, plastic bottles and cardboard were added to a list of items including mobile phones, car and household batteries and engine oil, as well as more traditional materials like glass and paper. Adding plastics and cardboard increased the amount of material collected by as much as a third and, although some of this was down to residents stockpiling these materials prior to the new rules, collection did not significantly tail-off in subsequent months. The council believes the publicity surrounding the inclusion of plastics and cardboard has boosted the profile of the scheme, resulting in higher participation. Barnet’s example has been closely followed by Brent, which started a compulsory recycling scheme in August last year. “Recycling advisers accompany collection crews and monitor individual household participation over three-week periods,” according to a spokesperson. “Non-recyclers are those who have not presented a green box in a three-week cycle. The advisers then visit these households to persuade them to participate.”Like Barnet, Brent householders face a maximum fine of £1,000 and, although it’s early days, initial signs are promising as eight additional collection rounds have already been introduced to cope with the demand. In Hackney, too, results are said to be encouraging – compulsory recycling was brought in across the borough in March 2007 and collection figures from April to June 2007 show a 32.25 per cent tonnage increase, compared to the same period during 2006. Hackney’s scheme, where paper, cans and glass are the compulsory materials, involves using two five-week monitoring periods. Residents who don’t participate in the first monitoring period are given a yellow warning, which then becomes a red warning if they do not participate in the second monitoring period. Targeted door-knocking and liaison efforts follow to persuade residents to participate. As in the other boroughs, so far, at least, no one has been prosecuted.“Making recycling compulsory was not introduced as a punitive measure for not recycling, but to raise awareness of the council’s recycling services and to get those residents who currently do not make use of the green box to do so,” according to a Hackney council spokesperson. “Prosecution will only be pursued as a last resort where residents deliberately and persistently fail to participate in the scheme. Any money arising from fines that may be imposed by the Magistrates Court in the future for not recycling will be retained by the same court.”Such examples show that ‘sticks’ can be both effective and politically acceptable. However, not everyone is convinced. Last year, under the new Climate Change Act, Defra made £1.5 million available for five local authorities to design and run their own pilot projects to trial financial incentive schemes for recycling. Although the ideas behind the pilots were welcomed by waste campaigners and the Local Government Association (LGA), no authorities took up on the offer by its January 2009 deadline. This lack of enthusiasm can be partly attributed to the political unpopularity of schemes perceived to impose financial penalties on residents – particularly during the current economic crisis. However, the LGA’s Paul Bettison believes results could be different if residents can be persuaded that PAYT could save them money. “I think the fact that nobody took it up was largely due to the frenzy that some of the tabloid press had stirred up,” he says. “Councils have to be very cautious before they start messing with things as fundamental as bin collections. I think that, for a lot of people, the idea of signing up to something that’s going to penalise you if you do bad things is unappealing. But, conversely, the idea of signing up to something where you pay less if you do good things can be quite attractive.”Dr Adam Read, Knowledge Leader in Waste and Resource Efficiency at the consultancy firm AEA, agrees: “Chip ‘n’ Bin as a concept is a good one but the delivery is a concern because of the politics,” he says. “In places like the Netherlands and Belgium people are a lot more used to it, but here, people tend to have the attitude of ‘I pay my council tax, why should I pay more?’ Many are not willing to enter that political agenda and, with the current financial crisis, now is probably one of the worst times to try and do it. To make this work, you need a strong steer from central government including education and awareness raising for the public. At the moment, I don‘t think any one council would feel comfortable going out on a limb and introducing such measures.”The question remains, however: Do we have a choice? With recycling targets and climate change causing increasing concern for the public and private sector alike, difficult decisions must be made and it seems unlikely that incentives alone will have the desired effect. Sticks, it seems, are here to stay.