Kit Strange, one of the most highly regarded figures in the resource management world, died suddenly in 2011 at the tragically young age of 56. The idea of a memorial lecture was to recognise Kit’s huge contribution to the development of the waste-to-resources agenda.

The Resource Recovery Forum (RRF) began as a loose affiliation of visionary waste (and other) professionals who came together in the early 1990s to work out how to promote the ‘resources not waste’ agenda. Kit was at the time (and remained) Editor of the Warmer Bulletin, a respected journal on sustainable resource management. He was very well connected in the resource world and offered to provide secretariat support.

With a multi-sector global membership, perhaps RRF’s greatest strength was that it was independent and not dogmatic about solutions. RRF identified gaps in research and coordinated bids to the Landfill Tax Fund when this was still a source of grant funding. It was a unique platform for information sharing, networking and organising topical conferences.

Kit would filter a vast amount of information gained from all over the world and, on a daily basis, send out summaries of interesting research, practice and innovation, ranging from the up-to-date mainstream to the very quirky.

He was in great demand as a speaker, attending no fewer than 18 international conferences in the 12 months prior to August 2011. The theme for the inaugural lecture: ‘Are we any closer to a resource-efficient world?’ was drawn from a line in one of his conference papers from 2010.

A history of waste management

In the 1990s, the end-of-pipe approach to waste management in the UK (which had prevailed in the mid-to-late 20th century) was beginning to revert to a more integrated view of how to extract value from waste. For the most part, though, waste management was largely done by local authorities and waste companies as a linear process of collect, haul, and dump due to the low cost of disposal.

Innovation in the period was often niche, for example the community sector pioneered precursors to current council kerbside collection services. Waste was broadly accepted as an operating cost to industry and not seen as an opportunity for savings or process efficiency.

Kit identified that encouraging, promoting and publicising research to inform evidenced-based decision making, innovation, and collaboration across sectors were all essential to moving the agenda forward. He would look for the links and the upside, fill the gaps, make introductions, report, share and cross-fertilise so momentum was not lost.

He argued that research is essential for competitiveness, economic growth, and support of environmental and consumer protection. Reflecting the challenges faced by the industry, he recognised that research had become increasingly complex and interdisciplinary – beyond the reach of individual consultancies, research teams or laboratories. It needed coordination, and those commissioning research needed to focus on the right and relevant questions, often focusing on specific materials, rather than waste as a homogenous entity.

The role of business

Members of the waste and resources industry listen to Copper Consultancy's John Twitchen introduce Steve Read at the Houses of Parliament

There’s still scope for innovation in the resource management field: more sophisticated recovery targets; improved collection; advanced sorting techniques; new technologies; linking up supply chains; design for disassembly; remanufacturing and reuse are all candidates.

Innovation can be driven by physical constraints (for example, limits to landfill), as well as regulation, targets, and financial instruments. But there are also ‘pull’ factors, such as competitive advantage, resource security, corporate social responsibility, and internal cost control.

The industry has a changing balance of old and new players. Streaming of resources provides more niche opportunities. New entrants and influencers often have a larger risk appetite and are prepared to invest in new technology. There is more lateral integration of links in the circular-economy loop – bypassing
some traditional steps. Big brands and retailers are now among the challengers and innovators.

Many companies are setting goals around waste avoidance and reduction: EDF Energy, commissioning the Hinkley C nuclear facility in Somerset, has set a target of 90 per cent recycling, a stretch target of zero waste to landfill, and transparency in end destinations over the 10-year construction phase; Coca-Cola Enterprises has invested in improved reprocessing capacity for rPET with ECO Plastics; Unilever has consolidated its waste management suppliers so it can compare performance between different sites and share best practice; and Marks & Spencer has explored the value of working directly with local authority partnerships in Somerset and Kent.

Such premium brands, which are among the first to position themselves in this way, don’t necessarily think this position will drive consumer decisions yet, but they demonstrate that resource innovation is deliverable if prioritised. It’s a refreshing longer-term view.

Many such companies have been motivated by the opportunities to secure high-quality feedstock for UK processors, which in turn resupply the packaging with high recycled content. We should remember that the central driver of the Waste Framework Directive is to promote high-quality recycling; the current debate within the industry and local authorities over the interpretation of ‘TEEP’ (the requirement that dry recycling should be collected separately where technically, economically, and environmentally practical) is too narrow and risks dumbing down to ‘How much contamination can we get away with?’ rather than ‘How can we drive up quality?’

The move to a resource-efficient economy

In the absence of (until recently) high levels of Landfill Tax, the ability to charge people in proportion to how much they throw away, and relatively unchallenging levels of producer responsibility, local authorities have also had to be innovative to make progress. Since the 1990s, local authorities have made the biggest gains through capacity restriction and encouragement of behavioural change. With less support for innovation (and highly politicised contrary messages) in the last few years, the impetus in England has slowed to a crawl. However, the devolved assemblies have continued to make progress (England 43, Wales 52 being the latest recycling per cent score line), with the difference arising from the level of prioritisation and support.

But the degree to which we are progressing towards a closed-loop economy is much more important than recycling percentages, and we should not underestimate the role of consumers in this. If players on the circular-economy loop collaborated on messages to people as both consumers and citizens – who are vital stakeholders – more could be achieved.

So, are we any closer to a resource-efficient world? Many questions remain, and it’s easy to be sceptical. However, resource recovery and the circular economy are now embedded concepts; those of us who dwell on the loop have a better grasp of our interdependence; more producers are now accepting responsibility for materials throughout product lifecycles; and there have been dramatic declines over the last 10 years in the amount of material going into and being consumed by the UK economy.

Despite what Kit called the ‘grinding wheels of policymaking’, and technical advancements, there is still a need for people who can spot what needs to be done, lobby and influence within and between organisations, work out how to conduct the research needed, and who should be involved. People who can see the links and build bridges between these various and often-competing influences are vital.

Kit would be disappointed if the network he created could not work out a way to keep this important agenda developing. If that is a lasting legacy, it will be in no small measure down to a Kit-like passion for solutions. Let’s keep talking and moving forwards.