It seems we can’t go more than a week without the national media running a story about missed collections, restrictive bin policies, householders being fined for getting recycling wrong, chips in bins, or alternate weekly collections (AWCs). But why is there so much bad press? Is it because service changes, like AWC, are poorly conceived, are about saving money and are not in the public interest? Or is it because ‘bad news’ sells papers, and AWC, if handled poorly, is bad news?

Earlier this year, Watchdog ran a feature on AWC. It concluded, “around 140 councils in the UK now collect rubbish every other week. On the week in between, they collect recycling. The idea is to encourage recycling, but not everyone's convinced. It's not only how often your rubbish is collected that's controversial. It seems any change in how it's collected matters too.”

Now, it may have been factually incorrect with regards the number of authorities practising AWC – it’s in excess of 200 – and with regards the frequency of recycling collections -- they are often weekly in AWC systems – but what it got absolutely spot on is that the debate is really about how and when your collection operates, and that it is only when there is a planned change that the issue becomes more focussed, emotional and personal.

So, what can we do to ensure that AWC is embraced as a sensible option to be considered by all, and to be trialled and evaluated by every authority across the UK?

AWC uncovered

AWC involves fortnightly collection of residual waste supported by any combination of comprehensive recycling services. Typically, it implies the collection of residual waste on week one and recyclables and organics on week two. Ideally, it should also include a weekly collection of food waste as this is the material that causes the majority of public concerns (real and perceived) – vermin, flies, smells, etc.

Such a system limits residual waste capacity whilst increasing recyclables capacity – thus encouraging residents to change their behaviour. The idea is that the costs saved by reducing waste collections can then be ploughed into improving the recyclables collections.

Although introduced in the early 1990s in sparsely-populated areas to finance new recycling schemes, it has, recently, been just as effective in delivering service improvements in urban areas. Canterbury City Council is recycling/composting 45 per cent, whilst Chorley BC (45 per cent), York (40 per cent) and Cambridge (40 per cent) have proved it works in more urban environments. The Somerset Waste Partnership has achieved a 48 per cent recycling/composting rate and a 16 per cent reduction in waste arisings since going with AWC. In fact, 19 of the top 20 authorities according 2006/07 Best Value composting and recycling data were using AWC.

Getting the basics right

When considering an AWC scheme, it is important to get the basics right. Consulting with residents about current services - what they like and what they would like to see improved - is imperative. You need to consider the following: Are you planning a trial so you can review how the service works and assess feedback? Have you got full buy-in from elected members? Are they supportive and will they help promote the change even if the media decide to ‘attack’? You also need to consider carefully the collection of plastics, cardboard and food waste, the size of the containers and how to deal with contamination, side waste and overflowing bins. What will happen on bank holidays and Christmas? Do you have an effective communications programme in place?

Bexley Council – who are rolling out an Enhanced Recycling (read: AWC) Scheme to all 77,000 properties ­– took six months to ‘sow’ the message that improvements were coming to the kerbside collection using literature, advertising and media briefings alongside a targeted door-to-door campaign. Our team spent three months talking to residents so that they knew how they would be affected. We are now revisiting all properties in the Borough to focus on households that are struggling with capacity, or are confused by the materials that can go in each bin.

It is also important to make sure you monitor the scheme’s performance – tonnages, contamination, participation, etc. If things aren’t going to plan then use your ‘contingency budget’ and act accordingly. Don’t be afraid to target communications in one struggling area. Once things are working, it’s also good to let residents know about the scheme’s success.

Facing the doubters

A number of authorities that have implemented AWC, have relented under media and public pressure. But I doubt these councils had done sufficient preparation to ensure a smooth transition to fortnightly residual collections. Had they offered enhanced provision of recycling collection frequency and/or materials? Had they been supported by a full and comprehensive communications campaign? It is unlikely in most cases.

It is about designing and delivering APPROPRIATE WASTE COLLECTION for the housing stock, geography and socio-demographics of the target area. It is about designing a system of collections that will meet targets, deliver customer satisfaction whilst encouraging them to participate fully and take ownership for their waste arisings.

Staffordshire Moorlands BC had been achieving 35 per cent recycling and composting without AWC, but the public were demanding more recycling, so the decision was made to go to AWC (with the addition of cardboard and plastics to the weekly recyclables collection). During a trial, the recycling and composting rate increased to 74 per cent, whilst participation increased from 54 to 88 per cent. So, the scheme was rolled out borough-wide and participation increased from 48 to 82 per cent, residents who considered the services to be ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ increased from 82 to 87 per cent and the recycling and composting rate reached 60 per cent. That is a win-win scenario.

At a recent Resource and Recovery Forum Conference on AWC, almost all the case studies presented agreed that the success of their scheme was down to three things – good officers driving the scheme, a sensible scheme and a significant and appropriately used communications budget.

The next step

Sustainable waste management today requires public and political acceptability, so we must be prepared to consult, engage and empower our residents. This will cost money – but it will ensure the services work efficiently, LATS fines are avoided and public/media backlash is minimised.

Many of us believe we will not reach our targets for LATS and statutory recycling rates, unless we embrace AWC. For those that continue to attack AWC, what are the alternatives? Pay as you throw or compulsory recycling perhaps, both of which are met with opposition equal to AWC and are, in many ways, harder to implement.

There will always be a variation in the design of a local AWC system – boxes or bins, commingled or source segregated. But the key thing is it must be appropriate to the housing stock, be appropriate for the residents, and have an appropriate communications campaign to support it.

Whatever the change, remember the adage ‘preparation, preparation, preparation’ and you won’t go far wrong. Research your service, consult on the design, pilot the scheme and get feedback – then you know it will work.