Simon Weston, Director of Raw Materials at the Confederation of Paper Industries, delves in to the recyclate quality debate.

The sad and ultimately rapid denouement of Aylesford Newsprint at the end of February was not a shock to industry insiders. The collapse of demand for newsprint on the back of the growth of digital media meant there was always likely to be a mill casualty sooner or later.

However, let us be clear that lack of demand was not the only issue that pushed Aylesford Newsprint over the edge. Like many reprocessors of secondary materials, they were caught between, on the one hand, softening demand and on the other, the increasing cost of procuring, cleaning and preparing raw materials for processing. It is a fact that as collectors have focused on volume, ease and cost, co-mingling has gained popularity as a collection methodology. As a consequence, all of the newsprint mills in the UK have been forced to implement secondary sorting operations to secure the quality of material they require for their processes. Some have invested in capital-intensive sorting facilities for themselves; Aylesford Newsprint used lower technology picking lines.

Poor quality raw materials remain a recurrent theme for all paper mills. The presence of glass in paper for recycling is particularly galling, but plastics and metals also feature, as well as less savoury household waste. All point out that secondary sorting is now pretty much a necessity, it is a relatively recent phenomena and it adds significantly to their cost of raw materials. Critics might suggest that this is “tough”, but they are missing the point.

The real issue is that we live in a global capital market and money goes where it will make most money. So if the cost of reprocessing secondary materials is higher in the UK than in other places in Europe or Asia, that is where money will be invested and the jobs generated. Set aside the obvious lost opportunity for the British economy, lack of focus on quality brings other, more immediate risks. Perhaps most importantly for those who demote quality behind quantity and cost in the collection processes, our secondary materials have to find markets abroad and will only do so if they meet globally acceptable standards. There will always be an outlet for quality material, whereas contamination will leave collectors unable to resell valuable resources, limiting their efficient reuse in the global economy.

It will be June at the earliest before we see the first data from the new MRF Regulations Code of Practice (MRF CoP). Under the regulations, MRF operators must take samples of the mixed waste material received at their facility and measure the composition of those samples, reporting electronically to the Environment Agency (EA). Amongst other things, this could lead to a drop in recycling rates but also, hopefully, less contamination. Despite the failed judicial review which sought clarification of the government’s interpretation of “high quality”, “separate” and “TEEP”, there remains a lack of clarity about what is expected of the collection authorities.

So my hope for the new government is that it accepts the need for a more proactive approach to resource management. Let’s have a government Office of Resource Management, let’s have clarity about what constitutes high quality recycling and let’s stop knowingly contaminating our resources.

We must start helping consumers to understand why quality matters and put in place systems that support best practice and genuinely high quality outputs. Let’s stop talking simplistically about what is easiest for the public and collectors, let’s consider the real consequences to our actions and do what is best for jobs, growth and the future. Spread the word!

Find out more about the Confederation of Paper Industries.