In the same way that today’s cars are more fuel efficient, so councils and their public are becoming more resource efficient.

Two years ago, Resource decided to start measuring performance around the UK according to the amount of residual waste per person arising from the household. We think this is the best measure of progress towards zero waste – our preference for identifying it at an individual rather than a household level is because we feel that the closer we get to this goal, the more individual responsibility will matter.

As was the case in 2008/09, residual waste per person has reduced in 2009/10. Our estimate, based on verified figures from WasteDataFlow (WDF), is that the average person in the UK now throws away about 283 kilogrammes per year, and sends about 184 kilogrammes for recycling, composting and reuse.

It’s important to note that these figures don’t include material from civic amenity and bring sites, but we dare say the figures for household waste do include some trade waste, more so in the devolved administrations, particularly Scotland (but more on this later). It should be noted that on average councils are also reporting a fall in municipal waste arisings.

Some clear trends are emerging. Perhaps the clearest is that the separate collection of food waste (or food waste collected in conjunction with green waste) is a distinctive feature of the service provided by the local authorities with the lowest residual arisings per capita. Nine of the top 10 best performing English waste collection authorities (WCAs) in the table (see page 24) all now offer this. Similarly, as Wales continues to close the gap on England in terms of residual arisings, it looks like the Welsh Assembly Government’s commitment to this approach will pay dividends. (Indeed, even more recent data suggests that Wales may already be the UK’s pacesetter, were it not for trade waste entering the household waste stream.)

Unsurprisingly, it is also the case that many of the high performers provide alternate weekly collection (AWC) of residual waste, although evidence elsewhere suggests that the important factor may be the capacity of bins for residual versus recycling.

While most councils in general have seen a reduction in waste arisings per head, when it comes to WCAs in particular we have seen a rise in the amounts associated with some. This is because, where relevant, we have been able to include official figures for rejections at materials recovery facilities (MRFs) in our data for WCAs this year. In the case of the leading WCA, South Oxfordshire, this amounted to 2,000 tonnes – but, assuming there is no further rejection of material further down the line, then the people living in this affluent part of the world are wasting about 155 kilogrammes per year, not far behind some of the best parts of Western Europe.

Regrettably, we have not been able to include MRF rejection data for the UK League Table: although it is available for all unitary authorities, including devolved administrations, it is not as readily accessible for waste disposal authorities. However, we remain concerned about the reliability and quality of reporting about rejections from MRFs. An illustration of what we mean can be found by analysing the figures posted by the top Welsh council, Denbighshire. Not doubt the separate collection of food waste is the main key to its success, but we were concerned to find data reported for rejection from its MRF in each quarter worked out at exactly five per cent. Simply put, the figure is an estimate, rather than one derived from weighbridge data, and well below the 10 per cent level the Environment Agency recommends in its WDF guidance to councils. It should be stressed this is far from being an isolated case and we view this as an uneven playing field for local authority performance. We believe that all MRFs should be required to publish data on the tonnages and destinations of all materials leaving the facility, and be subject to random spot checks by the EA. This shouldn’t be an issue unless there are things to hide.

Turning to the anomalies in the table, Dumfries and Galloway’s place as the top UK council is misleading. At the time of going to press, this authority’s figures were still only classified as provisional and the amount sent for recycling and composting includes material sent for mechanical biological treatment (MBT), but not the amount subsequently recycled and composted. In our view, the leading UK council is the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, which operates a service consistent with the key trends already highlighted in this article.

Once again, the remote local authorities – the Isles of Scilly, Shetland Islands, Hebrides – prop up the table of UK councils. This is because all trade waste, including that resulting from tourism, is unavoidably bound into the household totals. The figure for the City of London is artificially high for a similar reason, as well as because of geographical barriers to offering residents a wider range of containers for recycling.

On the whole, progress around the UK is very encouraging – the waste and resources industry is showing that it can do more with less. Having established a commitment to zero waste, councils in the devolved administrations are gaining ground, most notably in Wales, and we expect to see the Welsh take the lead next year. Rev your engines – the race towards zero waste is well and truly on.

UK Regional Performance

UK League Table

Notes about the data

All the information presented in the tables has been drawn from local authority submissions to WasteDataFlow (WDF) between April 2009 and March 2010 and, with the exceptions of Dumfries & Galloway and Glasgow, is finalised.

To obtain a figure for residual arisings per head, a few steps were necessary. First, from National Indicator 191, we obtained the figure for total waste collected from households (C404), along with the figure for household waste sent for recycling, composting or reuse (C403). By subtracting the latter from the former, we established the amount of waste collected from households not sent for recycling, composting or reuse. Then, taking population figures in answer to Question 1 of WDF (Authority Data Pt1), we derived a figure per head.

However, it should be noted that C403, the amount sent for recycling, composting and reuse, does not tell us how much actually is recycled, composted or reused. It is possible to get a bit more accuracy in the case of waste collection authorities by adding the figure for household waste rejected to landfill and energy recovery back to the figure for residual waste. This can be identified from data for National Indicator 192, in response to Question 58 in WDF about amounts sent to MRFs and subsequent amounts rejected to landfill and energy from waste.

Although this information is readily available for English unitary authorities, as well as the devolved administrations, the complexity of extracting it for waste disposal authorities means we have
not made deductions from the UK councils in our main table.

No doubt, the information we have presented will differ from many of the headline statistics that councils choose to highlight. Crucially, the figures here are focused on data for household waste, not municipal waste. Somewhat perversely, the data councils collect for household waste includes trade waste – this is more of an issue for devolved administrations where fewer waste operators mean more trade waste is collected.

We recognise that there are weaknesses in the data presented here and welcome a debate about the best way to measure sustainable waste management.