Waste Management 34 (2014) 1561–1563

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /wasman

Editorial

Collection of recyclables does not need demagoguery

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.06.0160956-053X/� 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Fig. 1. Avoidance should be always considered as the best option in amanagement strategy.

ny waste

Nowadays, source segregation and separate collection ofvaluable waste fractions play a fundamental role in any modernmunicipal waste management strategy.

This is largely due to several well-known virtuous motivations:

– recovery of non-renewable material and energy resources,which contribute towards contrasting the impoverishmentof natural resources;

– lowering of greenhouse gas emissions as a consequence ofthe energy savings produced by recycling of secondary rawmaterials;

– minimisation of waste to be disposed off;– reduction of volume occupancy in landfills;– reduction of waste management costs;– decrease in pollutant emission occurring in the context of

traditional waste management (leachate and biogasemissions in landfilling, atmospheric emissions in thermaltreatment, etc.).

Additionally, the favourable view of separate collection ofrecyclables held by the public, particularly due to the extensivepromotion carried out by environmental organisations and greenparties, should be highlighted. Hence, a strong interest has beendisplayed by political parties in adopting this practice. Nearly allcountries, with Europe first and foremost, have passed legislationaimed at providing an incentive for this system, and establishingspecific collection targets and time frames. Some, literally applyingthe concept of ‘‘Zero waste’’, have even legislated the totalabolition, in favour of separate collection and recycling, of the finallandfilling of waste.

The positive social, political and environmental vision mayhowever run the risk of turning this system into a trend, advocat-ing the use of non-virtuous, incorrect and demagogic applications,frequently associated with romantic, or even worse, moralisticnotions. Both of which may subsequently turn against our goal ofpursuing a more sustainable waste management system, leadingit into disrepute.

Based on the numerous experiences registered throughout theworld, several aspects should be carefully considered in order toavoid these negative repercussions on the system.

These include the following:

– Separate collection should be viewed as an exclusivelytechnical instrument produced as the result of appropriatedesign and planning and establishing specific fields ofapplication; collection techniques should be defined andenvisage detailed analysis of waste quality, providing clear

indications as to recycling streams for recovered materials,with realistic material and energy balances, and timely life-cycle assessment.

The collection of poor quality materials using incorrect collec-tion techniques, transportation of the wastes over long distancesto reach recycling centres or, worse still, subsequently forwardingthe waste to landfill, is a paradoxical situation that occurs morefrequently than one would care to imagine.

– Separate collection is not therefore required to adhere tomoral teachings, but rather to principles based on a strongsense of community. A moral however is absolute, whilst asense of community is linked to the interests of the organ-ised community. In some cases, the separate collection ofpaper may be viewed as advantageous, whilst in others itmay be more beneficial to leave it in the general waste toexploit its high calorific potential, for example in a thermalwaste-to-energy facility.

– Minimisation initiatives upstream of waste productionshould always take priority over separate collection,avoiding situations similar to the one depicted in Fig. 1.

– The systems adopted and the organisation of recovery ofmaterials from waste should be aimed at maximisingextended producer responsibility, with take back pro-grammes and collections requiring minimal public involve-ment and associated with the highest possible returns in

Fig. 3. A corner in one of the most beautiful European town (photo by HowardRobinson).

1562 Editorial / Waste Management 34 (2014) 1561–1563

terms of recovery. In numerous countries, on the contrary,the organisation and costs of separate collection are cur-rently borne largely by the public system (Fig. 2). Thismay often result in higher costs and higher amount ofrejects and impurities.

– The adoption and implementation of separate collectionshould result in a clear economic gain for citizens. Quiteoften, the citizen is made to pay twice: firstly with the timedevoted to source segregation of wastes, and secondly bymeeting the increased costs of waste management. Eventhree times when considering the recycling fee includedin several product price. In Italy, according to my personalknowledge, some waste management programmes byimplementing separated collection resulted in final costsranging around 300–350 €/t, 3–4 times higher than thetraditional costs!

– Waste collection should be carried out taking into accountthe town planning aspects of the locality, using collectiontechniques and systems that respect the architecturalurban profile (Fig. 3).

– Separate collection should always be viewed in the frame-work of an integrated waste management system ratherthan as an alternative to other systems used in waste treat-ment and disposal. Slogans such as ‘‘Yes to source segrega-tion and separate collection, no to landfills andincinerators!’’ are frequently heard, but may lead to gro-tesque situations. Take the case of Naples for example.Whilst the public ‘‘experience’’ separate collection, tons ofwaste are sent daily from Naples to the incinerators of sev-eral European cities.

– The aims and results of separate collection should be laidout in a clear and transparent manner. How many membersof the public are aware that, due to impurities and not recy-clable plastics a significant proportion (often exceeding50%) of plastics collected by separate collection is subse-quently disposed of in incinerators that they were tryingto avoid by carrying out source segregation? How manyknow that the majority of items of used clothing collectedby a series of humanitarian organisations are not sent tothe needy, but are recycled to obtain new commercialproducts.

Fig. 2. Source segregation and separate collection enables a shift from the linearlogic of ‘‘Take, make, waste’’ to a circular waste economy. On the left a descriptionof the traditional public organisation. On the right the illustration of an organisationbased on maximising reuse and involving extended producer responsibility (takeback programmes, ‘‘dual collection’’ organised by the producers). Dashed linesrepresent the amount of residues (rejects & impurities) originated by the twosystems.

– Calculations of separate collection should be carried out onthe amount of materials effectively recycled rather than onthe quantity of materials collected. Frequently, ‘‘political’’calculations are made, which tend to report data relatingto recycling as a percentage of the materials collected, byreadjusting the numerator and the denominator in the frac-tion between materials collected and wastes produced(Cossu, 2009), and completely overlooking the impuritiesand non-recyclable fractions present in the materials col-lected. In this way, the ‘‘virtuous’’ communities flourishand boast that they ‘‘recycle’’ up to 90% of waste generated.

– Separate collection systems focusing on the quality ratherthan quantity of materials collected should be privileged.Collecting less may result in recovering more! As an exam-ple, by using the indication ‘‘Newspapers and Journals’’ onpaper collection bins, as adopted in several French towns,a better source of material is collected compared to thatobtained from a bin indicating merely ‘‘Paper’’.

– Fake or demagogic separate collections that discredit thesystem and hinder collaboration by the public should bepenalised, or even made punishable by law. The examplesillustrated in Fig. 4 are far from uncommon: bins of sourcesegregated materials collected together and mixed in thelorry, waste containers that collect source segregated mate-rial in a single plastic bag or in unidentifiable bags of thesame colour.

Fig. 4. Examples of demagogic collection of waste: bins of source segregatedmaterials collected together and mixed in the lorry, waste containers that collectsource segregated material in a single plastic bag or in unidentifiable bags of thesame colour. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, thereader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 5. An alternative option for saving trees.

Editorial / Waste Management 34 (2014) 1561–1563 1563

– Mandatory public awareness campaigns should use appro-priate information techniques aimed at creating anincreased sense of community in the public, and avoidingthe use of frivolous misleading messages that may result,particularly in the younger generations, in the creation offalse and scarcely educational myths. A striking example

is provided by the widely abused slogan: ‘‘Recycle paperand save a tree!’’ In the Amazon rain forest trees are notfelled to produce paper. The production of paper fromplants is seen today as a routine agricultural cycle. Fastgrowing, cellulose-rich plants are cultivated in the sameway as vegetables are cultivated. Alternatively, to ensureconsistency, we would need to resort to slogans such as:‘‘Save the tomatoes – don’t eat salad!’’

Moreover, if all our efforts to safeguard the environment werefocused on saving trees, we could even envisage use of the sloganillustrated in Fig. 5.

I somewhat doubt however that the beavers would welcomethis initiative!

Reference

Cossu, R., 2009. Percentages. Waste Manag. 29 (8), 2225–2226.

Raffaello CossuUniversity of Padova, Italy

E-mail address: raffaello.cossu@unipd.it