Kerbside collectors wondering how to obtain the highest quality material for the least amount of money finally have clear guidance; a new leaflet from the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), ‘Choosing the Right Recycling Collection System’, concludes that sorting household recycling at the kerbside is the best and cheapest option in most cases.

WRAP has been researching the issue for the past three years and as the debate between source-separators and comminglers becomes ever fiercer, the organisation thought it time to offer some advice. Referring to the report, WRAP CEO Liz Goodwin said: “Our evidence shows that in the vast majority of cases, sorting materials for recycling at the kerbside is the best option. It provides the highest quality and means materials can be used in the best end uses from an environmental and economic perspective... Commingled collections should only be used where no other system would work.”

The significance of having high-quality recyclables was driven home by the recent crash in material prices: Those collectors who had good quality material were able to continue selling whilst those with lower quality recyclables were sometimes forced to stockpile. Perhaps even more alarmingly, though the UK produces enough recyclables to easily supply domestic reprocessors, it exports a large amount of low-quality material for recycling, leaving some UK reprocessors with no option but to import high-quality material. Goodwin continued: “It cannot be right that we cannot provide enough recycled materials of the right quality in the UK and that we are looking to other countries to supply them instead.”

While the report comes out strongly in favour of kerbside sorting systems, WRAP’s leaflet, launched this June, maintains there are circumstances in which two-stream commingling and even single-stream commingling may be better options, although two-stream is preferable as it prevents some contamination by keeping card separate from glass, for example. The report concludes: “Single stream commingled collections may be appropriate in circumstances where the other options are impractical. These might be the densest urban areas… or for high density flats, transient areas and multi-occupied properties.”

Possibily the most unexpected finding in the report was that sorting at the kerbside is more cost-effective than sorting at a MRF. The leaflet says the price discrepancy “reflects the effect of MRF gate fees and the opportunity for kerbside sort collections to sell materials direct to reprocessors”.

Unsurprisingly, WRAP’s research has proved somewhat controversial, leaving some vindicated and others angered. Organisations such as Waste Watch, Community Recycling Network Scotland and the Welsh Assembly Government greeted the report with pleasure. Mal Williams, Chair of the Campaign for Real Recycling, said: “We welcome this guidance and are pleased that WRAP has taken this lead… It explains how the pursuit of quality and value for money go hand in hand, as kerbside sort collections produce better recyclates and cost less.”

Representatives from waste management companies and MRFs have been less impressed, on the other hand. The Recycling Association, which includes major MRF operators Veolia, Viridor, Greenstar UK and SITA UK, said the report “lacks credibility” and called for it to be withdrawn.