National Assembly for Wales

I'm happy to go first. Yes, so are they proportionate and achievable? Yes, I believe they are. They are very ambitious, but they are achievable, so that would mean that, if they were all delivered, Wales would be one of the leading circular economies globally. As we already know, Wales is second in the world for recycling and so having an ambitious strategy really helps to focus people on delivering great outcomes.

And is that a view shared by our other panelists?

Yes, I'd agree with Keith that it is proportionate and it's achievable. I think it's interesting that we need to start looking beyond 2030 and to the gap between 2030 and 2050. I think that's where it'll get harder, but there is an opportunity to make Wales a more circular nation and, again, yes, we've just jumped to the second in the world. The ambition, obviously, is to be first, but very much focused beyond recycling, as the heading is within the document. But, yes, to look at circularity, repair and reuse and a change of mindset for all.

Sure, okay. Can I ask, then, maybe Jemma and Clarissa, are you aware—? I mean, you can respond to the initial question, but also are you aware of any interim targets that might be developed, because that is something that would maybe be amenable to some people, and whether there are or there aren't, would you like to see interim or further targets that maybe should be developed?

I think so, yes. The first thing to say is that I think the 'Beyond Recycling' strategy is, like others have said, really positive, it's really ambitious, and I remember there was a really good consultation as well between Welsh Government officials when it was first done. And we are second in the world for recycling, which is absolutely brilliant, and I don't want to take away from that achievement because I know a lot of work has been done, but I think the missing element is recycling on the go. We don't have any real recycling on-the-go infrastructure. I think there's a real disconnect between the behaviours that we have at home, which are now, for many of us, very entrenched, compared to those behaviours outside of the home, and litter is obviously just waste in the wrong place. And, for example, whilst we've seen litter decrease over the past 10 years, we have seen an increase and a change in the types of litter that are being found on the streets. So, in the past 10 years, there's been around a 44 per cent increase in fast-food litter, a 7 per cent increase in the amount of plastic bottles and drinks containers, and nearly 150 per cent increase in glass litter in the past five years. And I think that those elements of waste disposal outside of the home are a bit of a missing element at the moment and it would be really good to see that included.

We might come back to the on-the-go recycling, but do you think that the deposit-return scheme would have an impact on that?

I think it would have a massive impact, yes. There's a lot of global evidence that says that DRS reduces, not just the litter of drinks containers, but litter overall, and it would also support, obviously, that recycling outside-of-the-home infrastructure that we desperately need.

Okay. Clarissa, what would you like to add?

Just to say that, regarding the on-the-go statistics that were just mentioned, those are very real. And coming at this from a more global perspective, or at least an EU perspective, where we do a lot of our work, recent packaging regulations coming out of the EU, which will be adopted in the fall, have some very progressive elements that deal directly with on-the-go packaging, which would be worth while to know about, specifically requiring grocery stores, hotels, restaurants and cafes, where you have maybe take-away food, to offer refill options to customers, and, in addition, setting a reuse target by 2030, which requires that these establishments offer reusable packaging, if I don't have the ability to bring in my own packaging for refill. So, these are two very good initiatives to tackle that litter directly to get rid of the litter—it's a waste-prevention initiative. So, that's very interesting and worth while to look at. And I do think that, when it comes to reuse for packaging, one of the priority items, and one of the easier ones to deploy, is on take-away packaging. We are seeing pilots around the world now that are seemingly quite successful: they start with coffee cups and then they move on to salad bowls and these kinds of things. So, there is a lot of opportunity for Wales there.

On the deposit-return programme, as mentioned, DRS is the No. 1 fighter of litter. We have copious evidence that shows before and after litter results. You just need to go to the Reloop website, type in 'litter', and you'll see all of that evidence articulated, even the most recent evidence, which was gathered from Latvia, which was introduced in 2013. We've seen a dramatic decrease in litter, so that evidence is ongoing.

I do think that it is unfortunate, as our written statement has said, that Wales will be delaying the implementation of the DRS. We've run some of the numbers to have a better understanding of what the two-year delay means for Wales, and specifically, when you look at the existing rates, which are quite good—yes, you're second in the world—but they could be better. And specifically focusing, not only on the collection rates, but the quality of the material that is collected, because that is a key piece—it's not just about collecting it; it's about what you do with it at the end—of course, DRS creates an opportunity to do can-to-can recycling, bottle-to-bottle recycling. So, we looked at the results of the delay and we found that it will result in about 647 million polyethylene terephthalate plastic bottles being landfilled, littered or incinerated, and also about 332 million cans and 61 million bottles. On the can side, I did some back-of-the-napkin mathematics and that's worth about €5 million in lost revenue for Wales, so you can see that these impacts are immediate, and it's important that that deposit-return programme be introduced as soon as possible. I'll stop there.

Okay. I saw those statistics and they are very striking, I have to say. It just demonstrates graphically, doesn't it, what practical impact that delay has, and it is something that we as a committee regret, I have to say, but there we are. Okay, so would you say, then, that Wales is on track to meet the 2025 targets? Keith.

So, I think some of the targets it's on track to hit by 2025, but not all. So, thinking about the recycling target of 70 per cent, I think that's the one where everything is driving in the right direction. So, WRAP have been working with Welsh Government to support the majority of local authorities across Wales to implement the blueprint for collections. So, the latest one is, obviously, Denbighshire, which is going through the transition right now.

As a resident of Denbighshire, I should declare an interest. [Laughter.]

Yes, so we've been making sure that everyone can offer comprehensive recycling services, but that's backed up by education and enforcement and encouraging people. But that's not the only thing that needs to happen; pre-sorting at household recycling centres is also an important initiative to make sure that as little as possible goes into the residual waste collections.

The other targets are more challenging. Landfill continues to decline. So, in the first quarter of 2022-23, there were 307,000 tonnes of waste sent to landfill in Wales. That's down 13 per cent on the year before, but there's still a lot going to landfill. So, the Welsh Government have made investments in energy recovery facilities, so we've got Parc Adfer in the north, and also the energy-from-waste facility in Cardiff, so local authorities will be increasingly using that.

One of the things that I think we'll come on to is the food waste targets, so I know you've got more questions on that, but I think that will be a challenge.

Yes. I mean, the increase in the incineration with energy recovery initiatives is very significant, isn't it?

Yes.

Any concerns around that, because they generate a need for waste, to an extent, don't they?

It's about having the right capacity and having the right forecast for capacity, so, obviously, Wales has set a clear direction of travel in terms of waste reduction and waste recycling, so it's about making sure that energy from waste fills that gap, rather than having overcapacity.

So, you're confident that this is a stopgap, but not something that will just become the norm?

Yes, I think so, with that longer trajectory in the vision for Wales to become a zero-waste country.

We won't end up importing waste—

No.

—in order to keep the lights on, as it were? No, okay. Fine. Anything to add? Then we'll move on to Janet in a moment, but—

I would add one target as well, so I've got the 2022-23 figures, but the reduction in waste is still a challenge, basically, for Wales, and I think it's all very well and good aiming for targets and looking at the recycling targets and at zero waste, but we obviously need to be fully aware of the consumption piece, and, ultimately, if we reduce consumption and bring waste down on all levels—not only on household, but municipal and everything—obviously, the target, the weight, the base of the target, becomes smaller. So, I think we're not on track at the moment for the overall reduction in residual waste. On a household level, we all know what to do; we know that it's reduction of residual volumes and limiting those factors. So, as a nation, as local authorities, we kind of know what to do; it becomes harder to implement it locally, but it's all doable. So, I think it's building on those on a local level for local authorities, yes, but expanding the picture out beyond households as well, looking at municipal and looking at volumes of waste.

Sure. Okay, fine. Very, briefly, then, Clarissa and maybe Jemma, and then we'll come on to Janet.

Yes, just in terms of the reduction of residual waste, one of the strategies again deployed in Europe is what we call mixed-waste sorting, and that's the thing you do at the very end, after your deposits, after you've reused your refill, your separate collection that Wales is so successful at. There are still a lot of valuable resources in the waste and there's technology that exists today where you can literally rip open the garbage bag and sort out the valuables and the plastics, which does two things: it reduces your residual waste numbers, but it also removes some of the carbon content that is being sent to incinerators, because we do have to think about emissions from incinerators, which are carbon intensive when we burn plastics. We shouldn't really burn plastics. While these are energy emitters, for sure, they don't need that huge concentration of plastics, which is often a problem for incinerators. So, just something to think about into the future is the concept of mixed-waste sorting; it's the next frontier to get that last really, really difficult part of the waste stream that we can't seem to capture.

Sure. Okay, thank you, Clarissa. Anything to add?

Very briefly. I think the waste reduction target was always going to be a challenge. I think that there aren't many countries that have got really meaningful measures and policies in place to do this, so we are at the frontier already of trying to do this. I think that there are policies that we could consider from a consumption basis, so looking at buy-one-get-one-free offers that look at consumption, and we might come on to that later.

We may well do so now, because I'll invite Janet to come in and ask us a few questions.

Thank you, Chair. When I was growing up, there wasn't food waste—you ate everything on your plate, and that was it. What is your understanding of the progress made against the 2025 food waste target of a 50 per cent reduction in avoidable food waste? What more needs to be done to tackle avoidable food waste in Wales?

Shall we start with somebody else this time? Do you want to come in on that?

There are other policies that we can do to address consumption. I think supermarkets trying to sell excess things to consumers to make us buy more is always going to lead to excess waste. But I think Keith is probably the expert here.

WRAP published the latest figures for household food waste in Wales in March this year, for the financial year 2021-22. From 2007 to 2015, household food waste dropped by about 23 per cent across households in Wales in absolute terms, but then, after COVID, it has increased, so it's now only 5 per cent below the 2007 baseline. That means to hit the target is likely to be challenging. Obviously, 2021-22 is now a few years ago, and we think it has fallen again, but there would be a need for more effort to achieve that 50 per cent target. Actually, that effort needs to be put in place anyway, because it's the 2030 target to reduce avoidable food waste by 60 per cent.

There needs to be much more engagement with businesses on issues like reporting and measurement, there needs to be more engagement with households on the benefits of tackling food waste, but also the in-between elements, so how we work with brands and retailers to make sure everybody sees those messages at the right points—when they're buying items, when they're putting them away in the cupboards and when they're getting them out to use. There's a whole host of activity that needs ramping up if we're going to hit the 2030 target.

And then to WRAP, how are you developing a methodology to analyse and estimate food waste levels, and when might this be available?

There are two elements of that. The first is household food waste. There is already a robust methodology for monitoring and tracking household food waste. The same methodology has been applied three times already, so in 2009, 2015 and 2022. That will be required again in 2025. It doesn't just tell us about the amount of food waste, it gives us insights on what people are throwing away and their motivations for that, as well. So, there's a lot of data there that we use to inform our recommendations and actions.

The challenge is more around business. The business data, historically, has not been as good or as available. That is likely to change now with the workplace recycling regulations. We're likely to be able to see much more clearly how much food waste businesses are throwing away. But we'll be working closely with the Welsh Government this year to look at an approach to food waste measurement for Wales, with the emphasis on monitoring, and that will be a combination of issues, and factoring in data availability, the costs and robustness as well. It's definitely something that needs more work.

I'd just like to say, to support Keith on that, that we at Resource Futures undertook the waste analysis on all of the food in 2021-22. So, yes, I can confirm it's a comprehensive list, and we understand exactly what level of food is generated, from which households, down to whether it was packaged, unpackaged, whether it was meat, whether it was dairy. The list is significantly extensive there. So, there is a lot of information there. That brought about 100 kg per capita per year in terms of the tonnage, and the target is 80 kg. So, there is a lot of work to be done engaging with households.

We also undertook the waste composition across all of the Welsh authorities in 2022—two seasonal ones, and, again, looked at all local authorities across Wales. What's interesting is, invariably, there's a similar percentage of food waste in the residual waste, irrespective of the quantity of residual waste presented. Often, it sits around 20 per cent. So, you may have a tiny volume of waste, if they're on four-weekly and limited collections, but there's always a presence of food there, and that's the tricky thing. Basically, households are very good at presenting food, because across Wales they know what to do, they have that available to them, but invariably, some always ends up in the residual waste, and it's that ultimate mindset to change in householders.

But again, we're focusing on the householders, when we have such a large amount of material in the commercial system, as well. And, yes, the separated waste will bring its advantages there, but again, the commercial waste is such an unknown. There's been very little work, both in Wales and across the nations, really, on commercial waste to understand what's there and to understand what the composition of food is on a commercial scale. So, I think that's the next step, really.

Just out of interest, is there anything that shows or points to the impact that the cost-of-living crisis is having on food waste? Because you'd imagine that people would be a bit more careful in terms of what they buy and how much food they waste, for example. Or does that really not have an impact?

We undertake sampling across the UK for many local authorities and we haven't seen a significant drop in food waste over the last few years, with the cost of living. Habits tend to move to the cheaper product, but the waste doesn't stop happening.

I see. The volume of waste isn't really impacted. Clarissa, do you have anything to add to that?

Only that, of course, one of the most aggressive and effective policy mechanisms to tackle food waste and to get people to separate their food waste is a pay-as-you-throw system, whereby you have to pay for the amount of garbage that you put out. I don't know how common that is in Wales or in the UK, but it is a bit of a political bomb, obviously. But I will say that it is one of the most effective ways of getting people to do better jobs at source separating, combined with fewer collections of residual waste. Some of the most progressive communities on separate collection and waste reduction are those that pick up garbage, residual waste, half the frequency than they would separated organics and recyclables. Those are the top leaders in the world in terms of organics, because it's much easier for a resident to use that separate collection system for organics, and cheaper.

Thank you for that. We'll move on to Rhianon.

Thank you very much. Very briefly, if I may, with regard to the comments around fast food and the alignment of UK policy potentially justifying lesser environmental ambitions, does the panel think that Wales has the levers to be able to tackle big supermarkets? Because the tension there, obviously, is with regard to buying as much as we can as we walk through the door. I don't know if there's any simple comment on that, before I go back onto the deposit-return scheme.

The Welsh Government and WRAP are working together on the Courtauld commitment 2030. That's a voluntary agreement that brings together the whole food and drinks sector to tackle the issues that fall between the cracks of responsibility. We've got ambitious targets around carbon, waste and water. There are a number of actions that we're taking with the retail sector, but one of the most recent ones is around buying loose. We published some research recently that identifies that people buy too much if it's prepacked, and also they rely on dates on the packaging rather than their own eyes. We did some experiments where we showed people bananas loose, bananas in a pack and bananas in a pack with a date label on; the bananas were identical, but their opinion as to whether you could eat the banana or not was determined by the packaging and the date. So, we've been working on an ambition to reduce the packaging use on fresh, uncooked fruit and vegetables, because our research suggests that that will not only reduce food waste and reduce packaging waste, but it'll also save people money, it'll help them buy the right amount. We're very specific that that's not for all fruit and veg; it's just for the uncut.

I'm not going to pursue that line, but I think, in terms of the supermarkets, in terms of their strategies to get us to buy more, it goes way further, doesn't it, than just a few pieces of fruit. But I'm going to move on. What impact will the delay in the DRS likely have on recycling rates—we've touched upon this earlier—and the targets set out in 'Beyond Recycling'? Who would like to go first? Clarissa. 

I'm happy to. As I said, we looked at this based on the two-year delay. I think I mentioned a few numbers before. I mentioned that it's not just a number in terms of collection for recycling, it's also what that material is recycled into. The delay also could have an impact on reuse. We very much see that the future of deposit return is a slow transition to more reusable packaging, because we will be successful in getting people to understand that there's a deposit, and then they get used to this return action, and, eventually, they can start bringing back reusable bottles.

Certainly, when it comes to per unit, on a packaging level, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with single-use glass are three to four times higher than aluminium and plastic packaging. Recycling glass is a good thing, of course it is, but it just saves about 25 per cent of the energy, because the bulk of the energy associated with making glass bottles is in the furnace itself. So, if you throw in old glass, or silica sand, there's not a huge difference. Where you can really get a gain is from reusing glass bottles. So, when we think about the impact of the delay, and we think about what we can see from a deposit in the future, it's not just about collecting single-use packaging, it's about creating a new mindset and actually charting a pathway into a system where we have more reusable packaging and we can see real waste prevention.

Thank you. I don't know if there are any further comments, because we have already touched upon this. Is there anything extra on that? Are we all in agreement in terms of the impact of the delay?

I think we can make a positive from the delay, ultimately. It's causing confusion for businesses, yes, but we can take the opportunity to trial a digital DRS that works in line with our kerbside recycling systems and our separated collection that we already operate within Wales. And by doing that, we can also look at increasing the awareness with residents in terms of capturing those materials as we go now. So, yes, as Clarissa said, we're losing plastic and glass bottles and aluminium and things, but, actually, there is the opportunity in the next couple of years, while we have this delay, to actually capture them at kerbside, where we already have the infrastructure to take them.

Thank you. To what extent is the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 impacting Wales's environmental ambitions, particularly waste reduction and recycling rates, through the single-use plastic ban and deposit-return scheme scope? And can the benefits—I've touched upon this earlier—of aligning policy across UK nations justify any lesser environmental ambitions? Two slightly different questions there. If anybody wants to take a part of those, that would be useful. 

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act has been a source of frustration and confusion for everybody, but I think it's had a chilling effect on environmental policy. And whilst the principle of aligning market policies across the UK is sound in the first instance, we have seen it being used politically, which was very disappointing, because DRS was the subject of that, as you'll know, in Scotland. We also understand that it's limiting some of the elements around the single-use plastics ban, so we're seeking exemption—we had to split that into phase 2. We were quite keen to start working on phase 3 and phase 4. There's a lot of things that we could do with the Act as it was introduced. 

The main issue with it is that it brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator, and it's only interested in business interests, and I think, in Wales, we are very good—increasingly good—with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, at looking at policies in a holistic way. We look at the economics, we look at the social impacts, we look at the environmental impacts, and the internal market Act is not interested in any of those. What I think it has done is, like I said, had a chilling effect on the ambitions and what we can do.

For Keep Wales Tidy, it's been quite difficult to communicate certain policies, even around DRS, because it's not clear what powers we have around certain environmental policies, which means that our Welsh Government officials that we usually talk to, they have to speak to DEFRA, DEFRA doesn't really know—so, it's created a lot of confusion. It's very difficult to then communicate with all of our networks of volunteers and the public what is going on, and we do get asked quite a lot, specifically about deposit-return schemes, but other bits and pieces as well—banning wet wipes, for example. So, it's meant, maybe positively, that there's been a lot more joint consultations and a lot more joint efforts around environmental policy between England and Wales in particular, but I think that that has been delayed. And I think the consultation opportunities with some of those policies—.

So, to take wet wipes, the proposed ban on wet wipes containing plastic, for example, the consultation with Welsh Government officials, because we're a very small nation, tends to be really good and really positive, with the officials involved with the third sector, private sector, everyone that's impacted on that policy. You can't do that in as much of the same way when you're tied to working with UK counterparts as well, as we have been doing. So, it has meant a shift and it has created confusion. We would like to see it reviewed so that we can at least clarify environmental responsibilities between the nations, and maybe even consider other options that ensure that we can proceed with some of the more pressing environmental ambitions that we do have, and that it doesn't delay further things.

Okay. Thank you. Any other reflections, or are you all on the same page on this? Yes, I think you are. Okay. Rhianon.

So, my final question here is: how are communities, businesses and local authorities being supported to become more resource efficient, and what work is under way to develop green skills across the sectors involved?

Who wants to go on that? Yes, go on.

So, if I start with communities, really it's about understanding people's motivations and helping them to do the right thing, which we know they want to do anyway. So, one example would be the 'Be Mighty. Recycle.' campaign. So, that's Wales's largest recycling campaign. We know that 90 per cent of people recycle most of their dry items every day, but only about 78 per cent of people recycle food regularly; they've got various concerns about that. And so the focus for 'Be Mighty' over the last year has moved from being about dry recycling to focusing on food. We've had three bursts of activity over the year, because we know we could have one big campaign, one big week, but the effect of that will trail off, whereas, if we have regular bursts, it keeps an issue in people's minds, and we've developed those messages over the last year as well.

So, we've moved from just food recycling to talking about preventing food waste and recycling food at the same time, and, over a 12-month period, the engagement that we've had there has increased from about 24 per cent of people to about 36 per cent of people. And at the same time, as well as increasing the awareness, the proportion of people who said they're going to do something differently as a result of the campaign has increased from 34 per cent to 57 per cent. So, we've demonstrated that it's an effective way of engaging with people and helping them to do the right thing.

Just on that, and I know you have more to add, Carolyn Thomas can't be with us for this particular session, but she was particularly keen to ask about, and you referenced earlier, the impact COVID has had, and that people have reverted to maybe not being as effective when it comes to waste, so are you, or have you been, able to increase the effort in terms of educating and engaging with people? I know those figures are positive, but is that as a consequence of greater resource going into it and greater effort, or what accounts for that?

I'm afraid I would have to check on the resource, but certainly greater effort has gone into it.

Yes. Because Carolyn was particularly keen to see more being done now in this post-COVID era to keep people on the straight and narrow, and obviously onwards and upwards from there, really, so would you say that that is happening then? Maybe not sufficiently, but—.

Yes, I would say more effort needs to go in. So, just thinking about the targets in 'Beyond Recycling' for 2025 and then to 2030, the more ambitious the targets, the harder they are to achieve, so more effort and more resource will need to go in to get those incremental increases.

Okay. Thank you, and sorry I interjected there.

No, no. So, engaging with people, helping them do the right thing, but then working with businesses to help businesses themselves so that businesses can help households do the right thing as well. So, with businesses, the big change recently has obviously been the workplace recycling regulations, so that's very much an initiative that WRAP Cymru has worked on in partnership with Natural Resources Wales and Welsh Government as well. So, we've been delivering a series of webinars; we've been helping individual businesses. So, we know that everyone is keen to do the right thing. It might not be perfect at the start, but the direction of travel is absolutely heading in the right direction, and that is where is the big opportunities are—

But can I interrupt you?

—for increasing recycling. Sorry, go on.

Sorry. Sorry to interrupt you. I mean, you can write to the committee, I'm sure, with how you're working to develop green skills across the sector as your different organisations, but what work is ongoing with supermarkets? Because obviously we have to look across the clock face, and I'm really interested to know. The very big levers we tend to put into the 'too difficult' corner. How are we dealing with supermarkets and fast food outlets?

In terms of skills, sorry?

In terms of—. No. You can write, if you wish, on that, but in terms of how we're tackling the amount of food that is deliberately being put in front of us. How are we working with fast food outlets in terms of the extraneous amount of rubbish that is being deposited, not just by them producing it, or using it and implementing it, but by consumers dumping it? These are the two big issues that we tend to sort of skirt over. Is there anything that you can offer on that to me to satisfy my concerns around this?

Yes. So, there's—. Sorry. Does someone else want to talk?

Gwen and then Jemma.

I suppose we also need to be minded that there is a personal responsibility in this process as well. So, the supermarkets are very easy to blame, because they're up front and central and that's where we go, but actually there is an onus on responsibility, of personal responsibility, and that comes down to understanding and awareness as well, and that's where the campaigns come in and continuous engagement, really, with residents and specific demographics. So, national campaigns are good to set the tone, but, actually, on a local and demographic, on occasions there are different messages that are required. But, with that, we can see across the nation that we're all subjected to the same supermarkets, the same external environments, but different people react to it differently, and with that comes confidence and education and awareness and an understanding of what your responsibility is as a household or even as a business. Businesses are able to make decisions that reduce the amounts of waste even though they also are subjected to the same external factors. So, there is an element of responsibility that needs to be taken, and the ability to inform everybody so that they can make those decisions. So, I think we need to look in as well as out, really, on where we focus responsibilities. 

Okay. Thank you. Jemma.

Yes. Very briefly, just to say I think it's worth taking note of how much progress industry and businesses have made, particularly since David Attenborough's Blue Planet II finale, which I think was in 2017, 2018. So, there has been quite a lot of changes. There's a lot of voluntary initiatives. So, Keep Wales Tidy run litter-free zones for businesses; we've got a lot of fast food industries, a lot of the big chains, signed up to them, so they take responsibility not only for their own area but also an area that they choose to adopt. We're working with Welsh Government officials at the moment to come up with a draft code of litter for businesses. But I think one of the problems is that a lot of these things are voluntary, so they'll only do it up to a point where it doesn't affect their red line. And if our experience with the extended producer responsibility scheme is anything to go by, it's that the voluntary schemes only work so much, and the 'Beyond Recycling' strategy is only going to go so far until you need to mandate. So, I think the voluntary sector—well, all of us on the panel—are doing our utmost with businesses, fast food chains. We've come up with lots of voluntary initiatives, but, actually, sooner or later, we need to mandate it if we want real progress.

Sure. Okay, thank you. Before we come on to Janet, I don't want us just to skirt past green skills, because, obviously, having a workforce with the necessary skills is important. Is there anything you want to share with us on that front, in terms of is there enough being done to develop the skills that we need in this particular sector?

I can't speak for the broader waste management sector. I know there's a lot of things going on at a very high academic level in terms of innovation and research and development, but I think that we've always seen a circular economy, and the opportunities presented by the circular economy, as very intertwined with the foundational economy. And if you look at various initiatives through Europe, a lot of the driver for a lot of their really big circular economy initiatives or policy changes has been employment and skills, and those entry level skills, particularly when you look at repair and reuse. There's a Netherlands network of reuse hubs, where, I think, 31 regional hubs, serving 130 centres, employ 3,800 full-time people, and most of those don't have education, or they've been in long-term unemployment. So, I think, from a community level, it would be really good to see more about the skills and employment opportunities from the foundational economy perspective, and not just from environmental experts.

Okay. And it's certainly something that we can ask local government colleagues later on as well.

Yes, so, the circular economy is an economic success story in Wales. It's been growing year on year and employs a significant number of people; we can provide some more details in written evidence. But it's invisible because it's not a classic sector. So, you have to go through and assemble different codes in the standard industrial classifications to find the parts of the economy that are involved in recycling, repair, rental. Reuse is also partially visible through second-hand stores, but not really what's happening online. And then there are various circular activities that are happening as part of mainstream companies as well, which is invisible in the statistics. But it's a huge success. It's already here, it's already growing. There are areas where there is a need for more skills—so, particularly in areas like repair, being able to triage products, to understand what's gone wrong with it and can you fix it economically. So, there's a lot more that can be still be done, but it's about backing a winner, and this is absolutely a winner.

Okay. Thank you for that. We've got about 15 minutes left, and I know there are two or three other areas that we wish to cover. So, I'll come on to Janet next, and, obviously, everybody will have an opportunity to respond if needed. Janet.

Thank you, Chair. To what extent is reuse and repair being prioritised? What more needs to be done to promote and support reuse and repair, including community and national initiatives, and, of course, the infrastructure investment?

Clarissa, would you like to start on this one? There we are.

Yes, hi. So, I think one of the points I would like to make is that the reuse infrastructure—. Obviously, it depends on what we're talking about, but, certainly, when we think about packaging as an example, what we know about reusing packaging is that it can work best when it's a collective effort, which means that a variety of brands come together, they share the logistics, they share the infrastructure, they share the washing service, whatever. It has to be a shared approach. Yes, you can do it individually, but it's more costly, it's more difficult. It needs to be a collective approach. And that's one of the things where, with all the work that's happened in Europe on reuse, we know that for sure. 

So, one of the things that is coming out of extended producer responsibility, because extended producer responsibility is typically a shared approach—it's where producers come together, pool their money to have the same trucks collect door to door, to pay for processing, to sort the recyclables, et cetera—is the idea of getting a collective approach to reuse. So, it's basically expanding the scope of extended producer responsibility to include reuse. 

Now, where are we doing this? Well, in fact, it's happening in France right now, where the French Government put in law that 5 per cent of all EPR fees must be dedicated towards building a reuse infrastructure. So, basically, they're taking fees from the very brands that we know very well, whether it's Coke or Unilever or Nestlé, and they're making a special pooled fund, which is about €50 million a year, to start to build up that infrastructure. This is one thing that you can think about in terms of the future of extended producer responsibility in Wales. And I'm not talking about the existing EPR entity taking responsibility for reuse; I'm simply shedding light on the fact that it needs to be a collective responsibility. It can't be perceived as individual brands doing it on their own, and the Government has to work towards making sure that those brands are brought together. You can introduce targets, even small targets, and you can introduce a provision that says that, 'We want to have some of the money from EPR being dedicated to this initiative.' One idea.

I suppose, for me, I'm quite interested in the repair side of things, because too often, if a vacuum or an iron breaks, people just throw them away, and in the olden days—I'm giving my age away—you would just simply repair it, if it needed a fuse or something. But now, we've got those regulations where, every 12 months, you've got to have those portable appliance testing things. And I know a little reuse and repair business—well, it's not a business, it's more like a community enterprise—that has started up, and they're having real difficulties with, as I say, being able to—. Because by the time you've put PAT testing on, it's actually unfeasible—by the time you've put those costs on. Do you think we should be looking, really, at that again, maybe as a Government, and at supporting people who are qualified to change things, but may not have had the PAT test certificates, if you like?

Okay. Jemma, do you want to respond to that? What I would say is that there are queues outside Ruthin Repair Cafe every time they meet, so, that's a positive, isn't it? And they can do some of that, the PAT testing and everything as well.

Absolutely, yes, and I've got three points to make on your questions and observations, Janet. I think, firstly, the extent of repair and reuse activity in communities is absolutely phenomenal, and most of it goes under-recorded, especially if you want to include things like swap shops or school uniform initiatives in schools. There's an awful lot going on in schools that I'm sure my Eco-Schools colleagues would be happy to speak to you about. But I think it's also really important to remember that the majority of it—and thinking of Repair Cafe Wales, as a really good example, and Benthyg Cymru as well—is driven by the third sector and by volunteers hugely. So, we need to recognise that, and the funding that they need. If we see this as a long-term transition, if we see this as something that we want embedded in our communities and in our culture in the long term, and for it to become a cultural norm, the funding for those organisations that are actually delivering on repair and reuse in our communities needs to be recognised. Some sort of long-term funding option would be ideal, because we're constantly at the mercy of funding, year to year.

And the second thing to say, I think, is that there's also a kind of evolution, and I don't know whether this could form part of interim targets, but I know that the work that the Welsh Local Government Association has been doing in terms of measuring circularity in communities is possibly the next stage, because I think, increasingly, we need to know what level is going on so that we can capture all of this brilliant stuff. And every item that gets repaired is something that's not part of that residual waste and is not going to landfill. So, it's actually increasingly important to capture those things.

The third thing I'd say is that I'm a social housing tenant, and I think that there is a disconnect between the initiatives that are delivering this. So, they tend to be highly educated people, volunteers; they have skills, and they generally tend to have environmental drivers. Looking at things through a behavioural lens, I'm not sure that the repair and reuse activity that we have is addressing that synonymous agenda of tackling poverty. This is one of the problems, in that if you task local authorities to drive this agenda, it might not end up in those communities where, obviously, the third sector have better reach, or even RSLs and housing associations. So, at the moment, I think there's a lot we don't understand about the motivations around what drives people to engage in repair and reuse activities, and there is a difference between the socioeconomic status of those who are using them and those that need them. I think we need to develop different messages. At the moment, I think we're not asking the right questions in the right places, and that's quite a big piece of work that, hopefully, we'll be working on over the next few years.

That's a really interesting point—

And a final point, if I can—and I'm sure you'd support me on this, Chair—is a shout-out to Crest recycling, which is based here in Llandudno Junction. They do phenomenal work in terms of repairing, reusing, and they help people into employment. Their model, if rolled out across Wales, would be phenomenal, but I'm just—. I'm grateful that we have them in Llandudno Junction, so, that is Crest.

Thank you, Janet, and I do concur, you're right. A very interesting point about the drivers for repair, actually. That's something that maybe is a whole other day's inquiry, potentially, but thank you for that. Keith.

We recently published a reuse, repair and rental tracker, so, looking at people's attitudes. Broadly speaking, a third of the population in Wales regularly buy second-hand, a third repair items, and about two thirds are open to buying second-hand, and over 70 per cent are open to repair, so there's a huge appetite for this out there. There are barriers around access. About 35 per cent of people are aware of repair cafes, and about 44 per cent of people would be interested in using them in principle. So, one of the things that we're consulting on at the moment is a route-map to a universal culture of reuse and repair in Wales, looking at what the challenges are. A lot of it Jemma's just mentioned.

One of the recommendations is there about embedding life skills learning on basic repair and reuse in the education system, so people have the confidence to do some of these things themselves, or if they don't have the confidence to do it themselves, they're learning that actually it's possible, and so they then have the confidence to take it to somebody professional who could repair it as well. There's a lot that we can do with engaging with other policy makers on reuse and repair, and there's a lot, potentially, to leverage devolved powers. So, many household recycling centres across Wales have a reuse shop on site now, and that serves two purposes. First of all, it's keeping goods in use for longer, aligned with the ambition of the circular economy, but it's also providing skills and development opportunities for people, exactly as just described, giving people the opportunity to learn how to repair items. 

Okay. Thank you. Gwen.

Sorry, just to finish off. A lot of this stems—. There are amazing organisations, and we've got some, and I'm sure Paul will touch on them, in Newport and that kind of thing. There are amazing hubs that do this, but so much of it is so close to the bone in terms of finance. I guess it's how do we fund that longer term, so the opportunity is of bringing waste electrical and electronic equipment and textiles as well under EPR, and bringing that funding mechanism into place. There needs to be a greater focus on the right to repair, as well as the repairability index that they're looking at in Europe and how do we apply that here in Wales and how do we benefit from it. With funding mechanisms comes then the ability to support green skills, going forward, as well. At the moment, we are so dependent on amazing volunteers who deliver this at a local level, both at Benthyg and repair cafes.

Okay, diolch yn fawr iawn. There's a lot to chew over there, actually. Fine. We'll move on then to Delyth, and thank you for being patient.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Bore da, pawb. You were talking earlier about some of the challenges about working in a cross-border way with the internal market Act. So, the flipside of that, in terms of how working across different legislatures can be of benefit, we're aware that there's work across different nations to improve legislation and ensure a right to repair. Could you talk us through any development that you're aware of in that policy, particularly about the right to repair that's happening, either at a Welsh level or a UK level, or any other legislatures within the UK that you think we could learn from, and why you think that such an initiative would be beneficial, please?

Who wants to kick off with that one?

I can talk about it briefly, if you like. It does make sense to have UK wide, right across, when it comes to legislative responsibilities that are going to affect entire industries. The right to repair is something that we've been calling for for about 10 years. I think the important thing for us is to— . If we look at the circular economy, the European Union circular economy strategy, at the moment, we're on a par, we're taking bits of that and we're kind of matching it. It would be great to match or exceed that in all areas. I think, actually, what we might benefit from is working with the UK Government on a material-by-material basis. So, Gwen mentioned EPR for WEEE, you can have EPR for tyres; there are quite a lot of these joint initiatives that we could look at together and are much more powerful together, and we'd thoroughly support that happening. But, again, it relies on Government mandating it to happen; it's not going to happen on its own.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Okay. Janet, back to you.

Yes. This is for Keep Wales Tidy now. What has been your involvement in the development of a Welsh Government litter prevention plan for Wales? What do you hope to see in the plan? Do you have any insight as to when this might be published? And again, I have to keep saying this, when I was growing up, woe betide if we dropped an ice cream wrapper or anything. We were taught, as children, that you either—well, in those days, we used to take it home, any litter. There was less eating on the go, though, in those days, and I think that's been the dreaded curse of our society, where people are eating more food on the go and in the streets and things and then just dropping their litter.

Okay—

So, we really do need to address this and teach children, but, I've got to be honest, I'm shocked when I see adults' behaviour in the way that they just discard litter.

Very briefly then, Jemma, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Janet. The first thing to say is: isn't it really strange that we don't have a litter plan? We've got, arguably, one of the most environmentally—you know, we're leading in the UK in terms of environmental ambition, and England and Scotland are on their second iterations.

So, we have been involved in the Welsh Government litter plan. We have really focused on it being a prevention plan, not just an action plan or a strategy, so we said the focus all has to be on prevention, stopping it from occurring in the first place. We know that it looks at the broad headings of education and behaviour change, not just for children, Janet, adults too. It looks at enforcement and it also looks at waste reduction in a litter sense, and operational efficiency and cleansing, as well. 

The important part about having a prevention plan is to have a unifying framework on which local authorities and litter management bodies can unify. The disparity of approaches of local authorities—we did some research back in 2019—is a real hindrance towards public messaging. Every aspect of litter management is dealt with very, very differently, whether it's enforcement or cleansing, or communication. So, having that framework and that preventative approach, I think, is really, really important. And that's what we hope it's going to be.

We have been frustrated by the delays. I think we've been working on it for about four years now. Some of that has been down to inevitable political changes. And in our consultation response and what we've said to Welsh Government officials is what we'd like to see is a plan that can be monitored. We want to see annual progress, we don't want a plan that just kind of sits there. And we've suggested a number of preventative indicators that wouldn't be too onerous—they're either already being collected or wouldn't be too onerous to collect from the bodies involved.

From the submission of consultation responses—the published responses—we know that one of the focuses that the public like to see is enforcement. I just wanted to note a slight caution, really; it's that we've done quite a lot of research into enforcement for littering, and there doesn't seem to be that much evidence that it is particularly effective. We looked at Singapore, which is the most cited clean city because of its very high fines. But, actually, the number of repeat offenders who are getting repeat fines in Singapore seems to be growing. We looked at their cleansing budget as well, which is eye-watering. So, we would like to see a plan with targets and with monitoring, but we would urge caution around any targets around enforcement. It tends to be seen as a very easy and popular solution, and it's a complex problem, as you'll know.

It clearly is, yes; that's very interesting. Diolch yn fawr iawn. I'm afraid that the clock has beaten us, so can I thank the four of you for joining us this morning? We very much appreciate the evidence that you've given to us, in written form but also orally in this session. The committee will now break for 10 minutes. We'll reconvene promptly for 10:40, when we'll be hearing from our colleagues in local government in our next session. Diolch yn fawr iawn—thank you.

Shall I go first, Chair? Thank you. I think the key point around 'Beyond Recycling' is that it was quite a pivotal moment. Prior to that, waste strategies were just that—they were waste strategies. 'Beyond Recycling' starts to look at the circular economy, starts to look at the social and economic benefits of the circular economy, and I think that's what gets our members interested and excited. I think the difficulty is that, as an activity, repair and reuse is quite difficult to measure, and it's quite difficult to understand things like the amount of carbon avoided by that activity, because with a lot of it, I think, as an earlier witness mentioned, it's quite difficult to know what is going on, and the level of activity.

In terms of the targets that are in 'Beyond Recycling', obviously around the reduction in waste, I think we're broadly on track with that, but the key point there is it's not always within the Welsh Government or local government's gift to organise that, it's a wider economic issue. We can influence the dial on that, and there's activity to do that, but it is about wider consumption patterns, and so things like EPR and DRS will play into that, I think. In terms of landfill, significant progress has been made in relation to that, and I think the joint endeavour between authorities and the Welsh Government around energy from waste and anaerobic digestion plants has been instrumental in allowing that to happen, so I think the progress is good on that.

In terms of the recycling target—and, obviously, we're moving into the year in which 70 per cent is the target—I think the majority of councils will be there, or thereabouts. Again, I think the key thing about those targets is you shouldn't just look at the target in isolation, there has to be a process behind it, there has to be activity. And for that, there's been funding, through the sustainable waste management grant, over a number of years, which has helped incentivise activity, particularly around recycling services. But also, with the support of WRAP and LP, and the work within WLGA, authorities are supported in terms of how they look at their services, how they plan their services, the likely impact of service change—and we mentioned Denbighshire earlier—and what that will deliver. The only downside with all of that is that if you have too much of a focus on a particular target, say recycling, then it does tend to corral behaviour around delivering on that target. So, we have to be very mindful of perverse incentives.

Thank you. We have two very different authorities, don't we? We have Newport and Powys, and I'd imagine that your experiences probably contrast greatly to each other's. Is there anything you want to add?

We're probably the two extremes, aren't we, in terms of—

Yes, which is good for us, because we need to hear that. 

—the challenges that we have as an urban authority and the challenges that Ashley has of just even getting to households. So, yes, they are different.

I think, across the board, you'll see, in terms of the performance of local authorities, that there is a slight difference in performance in some of the more deprived areas. Looking at the tools that councils have used over the last decade or so, which have been around offering very frequent and very convenient doorstep collections and restricting residual collections, those are seen to be really successful, and you'll see from your papers that lots of authorities are now three or four-weekly. In Newport, we moved to three-weekly last year, which has been very successful for us. The challenge that we have as an urban authority is those levers aren't really available to you in areas of flats or HMOs and the like, because you can't put the same constraints onto that. That restrains us, to some degree, but also there are benefits as well: it's easier to arrange collections and the like. So, it's swings and roundabouts across the board.

I'd say, looking across all of Wales, you'll see in the last few years there's not been a great movement in the performance, but the focus was taken off a little bit due to COVID. Also there have been concerns about the impact of DRS and EPR and what that means to configure systems. So, I think there has been some delays in some of those service changes. It feels to me—I concur with Craig—that probably around half, or maybe a few more, will meet the actual 70 per cent. Wales as a whole will probably just be a little bit short, but not far. But the targets themselves have really driven authority behaviour, and I think it's indisputable that Wales is a real success story in this area of local government working with national Government to deliver these targets.

Thank you. Yes, Powys is a very different place to Newport. The biggest challenge we face is logistics and trying to pick up waste from 60,000 properties in a very big area. I always say, when driving down here, the vast majority of my journey—I live in the middle of Powys—was in Powys, so it just shows the scale of what we're up against as varying different authorities.

I think with the targets set in 'Beyond Recycling', the clue's in the title, isn't it, 'Beyond Recycling'. It's been very much in the past that we've all been chasing targets, so everyone looks for the heavy stuff, because that gets you over the line. But I think what now has worked quite well is the collaborative working between local authorities, with the Welsh Government, with WRAP, with Local Partnerships, all these people working together to get to these targets, and they are very, very challenging. The 70 per cent one that we're now on to is—. I'll be absolutely honest, I'm not quite sure we're going to be quite there in Powys; we won't be very far behind. But it's how we work with our partners to make those small changes, because all the low-hanging fruit has gone, it really has.

We're looking at getting that last bit out of the residual waste, and I think it was mentioned earlier that there's still a lot of food and other recyclables in that residual waste. So, it is there, but it's how we just get to that next step, which, I think, working together in terms of the publicity that WRAP do, the support we get from the Welsh Government, which is a lot in terms of local authorities—. I did work in England till about 15 years ago, and the difference is quite striking, coming over the border. It is a lot easier, I think, with fewer authorities. Clearly, it is much easier to work together.

I'm going off topic, but a good example was in COVID, when we all came together with the Welsh Government and managed to keep going throughout the entire thing, keeping those recycling levels high. So, yes, they're very challenging. It's good that it's recognising that it is 'Beyond Recycling', because that's not the be-all and end-all; we've got to look higher up the waste hierarchy. So I think, yes, it's challenging and it certainly focuses minds in local authorities. I don't think there's a single authority that isn't trying very, very hard to get there. So, if they don't, it won't be for the want of trying.

Thank you—really useful opening remarks there. I did ask earlier about whether there'd be benefit in interim targets, above what already we have in place. Do you have any thoughts about that? Because if targets do drive behaviour, then would interim targets not help, in that respect?

Obviously, the interim targets have helped and we've all moved up slowly along those lines. I think the challenge now is what's left beyond the 70 per cent. Looking at Newport's composition, for example, half of that currently doesn't have a market or is unrecyclable, and 25 per cent of that is food waste. Wales has a really good performance on food waste; it's comparable to anywhere around, so a real success story. But still we've got to get across that barrier to get that last bit of food waste off, and then can local authorities control that 50 per cent that's left, that doesn't have a market? It feels like we're moving more into a territory where actually some of the levers are other players and actors. As Ashley said, we've got all the heavy stuff out, we've got really high capture rates of glass, paper, cans, all the dry recyclables, but with what's left now, we won't be able to do this alone; it'll be a much wider mix of players.

That's an interesting point. Thank you. We'll move on to Janet.

Good morning. Is Wales on track to meet the 2025 targets set out in 'Beyond Recycling', and what are the main challenges for local authorities in meeting statutory recycling targets?

Shall I start on that?

Yes, please.

I think, as we've kind of indicated, I think we're broadly on track. There will be some authorities who probably fall a little bit short. I think part of that is, as Paul intimated, around COVID. I think some of the investment and service change that we would expect to have come into place have been delayed, so there's some delay around that.

I think the feedback from authorities is, in terms of the progress in recycling percentages, once you've dealt with the low-hanging fruit, you are getting into areas where it's becoming more and more difficult for each percentage of performance that you improve. So, I think some of the challenges are—and, again, as Paul set out—what is left for us to target, is there a market for it, and how do we actually influence people's behaviours? Because, again, in the first session, I think the whole issue of segmentation and different people's behaviours and motivations come into this. So, something that we're very aware of is getting the right message to the right person in the right way is really important with all of this to try and hit those different behaviours and activity, but, clearly, that is more difficult and more costly than a leaflet to every household, which is typically what would have been done 10, 15 years ago.

Can I just ask on the back of that how effective a stick is Welsh Government fines for not meeting targets?

I think it has been quite effective, but that's because it's actually been quite a soft stick, in that the fines are there and they know there's a backstop, but I think what's been welcomed is actually a much more collaborative approach, to say to a local authority who's missed the targets, 'Right, how have you done that, and what can we do to help?', and that has been the approach across the board generally, and I think that has been welcomed. So, the WLGA and WRAP have supported councils that have just been short to look at how they can help, how they can change the services, and some of it is around timing. So, it seems pointless to fine an authority if they've got a plan and it's just a matter of timing, but it does act as a—

And you're taking money away from the actual implementation.

Yes, exactly; it's coming away from cash-strapped services. So, I think as a soft stick it's much more welcome than a firm backstop. 

Okay. Fine. Ashley.

A few issues I would raise there, really, in terms of the challenges to get there. One is budgets, which we have to mention, because, whilst we do get a lot of financial support from the Welsh Government it doesn't cover our complete service, and, as a waste manager, I'm up against people in social services, highways, potholes—it's just as big an issue to people—and they're all crying out for funding. Now, this does mean that we have to make difficult decisions like, for example, in Powys, we've had to put up the price for garden waste collections. We've had to close, in the past, the household waste recycling centre. We're looking at doing other restrictions now, just because we've got to, whilst maintaining that recycling rate, actually still balance our budgets. So, if we were, for example—we haven't—but if we were to double the price for garden waste, would we lost half our customers, and then that tonnage? But we have to balance that out. So, that's a major issue.

Another is political will on a very local level, because, when we look at doing less frequent residual collections, they're never very popular with the electorate, although more popular than you might imagine, but there's always a very vocal minority that think it's just impossible to do, and of course all the politicians have got to come together to agree that, and I'm talking on a local level there.

But one of the biggest things that we're up against is getting the infrastructure in place, and this is both on the macro level in terms of where material goes, but also in terms of what councils can do with the material they collect. The good old days of waste management, where you just had a yard and a few bays and everything went there, just doesn't happen anymore; we're having to look at all of our transfer facilities to spend an awful lot of money to get them up to speed just to get through the NRW permitting regime, which is there for a very good reason, of course, but it does add a massive challenge for local authorities, both in terms of having the facilities available, but also the capital to develop them, but, again, working with Welsh Government in terms of putting bids in for that capital so that we can do that. So, they are very aware of the problems we've got, but it is a long-term thing as well, because we've just been through the process with an NRW permit, and it took four years to get one. Now, that's a long time, and we could have missed another target by then.

Indeed, that is a long time. Okay, thank you very much for that. Okay, we'll move on, then, to Rhianon.

Thank you very much, Chair. How are local authorities involved in work to update the collections blueprint, and what would you like to see in that updated blueprint to help local authorities achieve those recycling targets?

Okay. If I'll pick that up first, it's our understanding that it is very early in the process of redrafting the blueprint. I think there's been certainly one external meeting with stakeholders that we were involved with. And, really, at this point, what Welsh Government are talking about is a two-stage process. So, the first stage is the fact that the blueprint hasn't been updated for a number of years. So, the world has moved on, technology has moved on, and the materials that we deal with have moved on. So, the first iteration is around looking at what is out there, what is good practice, trying to capture that within the blueprint, and the evidence that sits behind that. So, for example, we've provided information about all 22 local authorities and their current services, and how they're configured and how they approach that. So, that's been factored into what the blueprint will be doing. 

In terms of future iterations, what we understand is, clearly, it has to go beyond the recycling service or the waste service. So, we're starting to talk about what infrastructure do we need for 'Beyond Recycling' for the circular economy. So, again, 18 out of 22 local authorities have a reuse shop, for example. So, it's that kind of initiative that shows how we are supporting the circular economy that needs to be factored into the future iterations of the blueprint. And related to that there will be some discussion and conversations about targets—even if they're indicative—in relation to repair and reuse, so that we understand the volume of activity and how we increase the volume of that activity, because, otherwise, we're just doing things because we think they're good things. We need to have a better structure and a business plan behind it, and that activity, I think, as intimated earlier, has to be sustainable, in terms of what it delivers and how it delivers it. 

And is there an expectation in terms of when this is going to be published? What is your cognisance of that?

I think part of the issue is, because extended producer responsibility and the deposit-return scheme aren't fully clarified yet, there's still a lot of work ongoing, and they will probably have fairly fundamental impacts upon aspects of waste services. So, I would imagine that it will be in tandem with, particularly, the roll-out of extended producer responsibility.

So, another consequence of or another impact of the delay of the DRS, for example, would be that maybe this would be later than anticipated.

It would, but I would say that the work to go to improve services is still ongoing—

Sure. It's not something that you just conjure up anyway. Yes, okay.  

I was just going to add that I think the uncertainty, or understanding of the impact of EPR and DRS, and, then, probably, how we handle film in the collection element of the collections blueprint, those are going to be the three biggest challenges. And it's very difficult to know the make-up of the waste streams you will be collecting. I doubt we would be moving away from wanting weekly separated collections, but it's what that feels and looks like. But I also concur with Craig—I think much more of it now needs to be around those other waste systems, particularly around reuse, and you touched on it in the earlier session. There's a lot of room to improve there, and that's in line with the spirit of the 'Beyond Recycling' approach. And so, yes, how we progress on reuse as well, I think, will be really important. 

Okay, thank you. 

And we've touched upon the delay to implementing EPR. What are your views on the panel in regard to the impacts of that delay? And then, also, if you could just discuss your understanding of the role of local authorities within EPR, and what is your understanding around that role. Obviously, it's not there yet, so it's more of a finger in the wind, but what is your first impression? I don't know if you want me to go over that again, because it was quite a long—.

What do you anticipate your role being?

So, obviously, I think we welcome extended producer responsibility, particularly as another source of funding, and that funding being more closely aligned with the producers responsible for the waste in the first place. So, it aligns with the polluter-pays principle. So, the delay has been unfortunate. We'd like to see that out. I think, again, the impact of that is going to take a bit of time before it make its way back to the producers in terms of design. Hopefully, that will encourage reuse, but there are sometimes unintended consequences. A lot of the weight-based targets around packaging have actually led to lighter weight packaging that is less recyclable. So, you know, the business will report, 'Okay, we've a 25 per cent reduction in the weight of our packaging,' which is great, but now you can't recycle it. So, you've got to be careful with some of those incentives. I think the concern from local government is around how the payment mechanism is going to work, the transparency of that. Myself, I've had some involvement in some of the testing of that, and I do think there's a risk that it's overly complex. We've got a method of distributing funding for local authorities in Wales currently, and we've generated what could be quite an onerous administrative task for local authorities to prove, and again some potential perverse incentives. So, if a local authority is collecting refuse weekly—we've discussed widely why that has a negative impact on recycling—they could be paid more for that. And so, you mitigate some of the environment policy. It doesn't seem totally aligned. But the principle of extended producer responsibility is welcome, as is potentially the extra money.

Before, Rhianon, you come back, Ashley, did you want to add anything on the blueprint or EPR as well?

On the blueprint, it was purely about the infrastructure again, in terms of, if all these other things are added in, that is—and I know it's coming down to real basics here—another bay in a transfer station, which you may not be able to fit in terms of fire prevention management plans and permits and that kind of thing. But it's good that local government and, I know, WLGA have all been involved with this, but in terms of involving the wider local authorities as well, in terms of what they're doing and what they need, which I think Welsh Government have got a pretty good handle on, because of us working with the officers in Welsh Government, so I think they're aware of what's happening there.

Okay, thank you. Sorry, Rhianon.

So, I think in terms of—. No, no, that's fine. In terms of—. You mentioned contradictory tensions or perverse impacts in terms of the design. What has your involvement as the WLGA been in the EPR scheme? And I'm presuming, within the time context that we have, that those could be ironed out, in terms of contradictory pushes and pulls within it.

Yes. With Welsh Government's backing, the WLGA are on the scheme administrator steering group. That's the body that is producer and local authorities and DEFRA, Welsh Government and the devolved administrations coming together to try and plan how EPR will work. Without getting into a lot of the detail, there are some issues there. One is around the modulated fees that producers will pay. They haven't been published yet, so we're not sure how that will drive producer behaviour, and, picking up Paul's point, it means that we don't know what will be coming through in future waste streams, so that's a difficulty. Authorities will be paid on the basis of efficient services. Now, that in itself is a whole debate, and the producers are pushing back on what is efficient, but that is primarily being done on the basis of modelled costs across the UK, where authorities will be put into certain groupings based on deprivation and rurality. And then, within those groupings, they will be paid on their residual frequency and their kerbside recycling method. So, I think that's Paul's point of if you currently have weekly residual, which is more expensive, you'll be paid what that costs, so you can see how that almost is factoring in a perverse outcome.

So, really for us, it's what happens after year 1 and year 2 and year 3 on how that efficiency element is understood and how it's rewarded. I know, again, in discussions with Welsh Government, that they are very keen to explore whether that can reward higher rates of recycling in some shape or form, and I think there are some difficulties in terms of how the statutory instrument is drafted that will enable that. And the second element of it is around effectiveness. So, this is where an assessment of the effectiveness of the service is made, and the scheme administrator can reduce the payment to the authority by up to 20 per cent. But prior to that there will be a dialogue that will develop improvement actions to improve the service to make it efficient. So, I think there are a couple of things there. One is that the scheme administrator, at least initially, will be part of DEFRA. So, you will have DEFRA discussing with local government in Wales their services, their effectiveness and what they’re delivering. Now, Welsh Government will be very central to that conversation, but that is an issue that some of our members are picking up.

And then the second issue is, what is the definition of 'effectiveness'? And we don’t know that yet. It is likely to be around the amount of packaging that is actually recycled. But until we see that measure, we don’t know. So, we’re likely to see Welsh authorities grouped together, and what we would think are very different authorities, but they will be getting the same payment through the EPR. And we would imagine that most Welsh authorities would do very well on the effectiveness, but there isn’t a reward element to it, there's only a negative, so if you’re not meeting that, then it gets reduced.

And the final point—sorry, to labour the point—is that those improvement actions are likely to be targeted at those authorities that are poor performers and what we don’t know is what element of EPR funding will go towards those poor performers to increase their performance. And I think, from a Welsh Government and a WLGA point of view, there is a slight frustration that we’ve invested millions in services across Wales—we’ve got very good services—and we wouldn’t want a perverse outcome that, because you haven’t bothered with your waste services for a number of years, suddenly you get additional funding to enable you to improve those services.

Yes, okay, there's a lot there. Thank you for that—that's really, really useful. Okay, we'll move on to Janet, then.

Thank you. To what extent are local authorities prioritising the use of sustainable low-carbon materials in construction and following a sustainable materials procurement hierarchy?

I'd say that it's an area that is fast developing. I feel that it’s where recycling was a decade or so ago and is on catch up. I think in terms of sustainability impacts, there’s a lot of improvement on net zero in operation, but not so much focus has been on the embedded carbon in construction materials themselves. So, we’re still seeing the vast majority of public sector buildings being built out of steel, not so much out of wood, and even where that steel is reused or recycled steel, I think there’s a long way to go on that.

The public sector, more widely—the procurement route is a good tool into that, and it has been effective in driving some other behaviours, but I think we’ve got a long way to go. It’s probably worth pointing out—. So, in terms of—. If you think of the school building programme, that’s a big one that local government is heavily involved in—the sustainable communities for learning programme, I think it’s called now; it’s called something different every week—Welsh Government recognise the additional costs of making those buildings energy efficient and they apply a premium that was in addition to the original funding criteria for local authorities. So, local authorities can crack on knowing that those costs are going to be picked up. What I don’t think has made its way into funding formulas for grants, and in terms of how we deliver, is that embedded carbon, and that’s where we need to make a shift now.

Interesting, okay—

Sorry, just very briefly, there's obviously an awful lot of work in terms of procurement and supporting procurement, and within the WLGA, there is a Welsh Government funded programme around climate change, which is supporting authorities to move towards net zero by 2030, and there are four elements within that. One is land use, the second is procurement, the third is buildings and the fourth is fleet. So, it's looking at each of those areas and looking at what the opportunities are. And there has been additional procurement advice developed for authorities around how they can consider carbon in terms of the procurement process. So, I think, as Paul intimated, it's a journey and a journey that we need to move quickly and more rapidly on, but there is work ongoing to try and support that.

And the last point is, again, around procurement, the development of social value in terms of understanding procurement. So, we have the social value portal, and in Wales there's a range, a menu of different attributes that you can seek from procurement, so that is looking to move beyond the point of procurement to the actual management and life of that building or asset or entity and having a measure for that. So, those 46 measures have been amended for a Welsh context to reflect the well-being of future generations Act. So, it’s again another resource that authorities can use and apply to procurement to enable them to look at it through a slightly different lens, because, clearly, the most economic economically advantageous tender, which is what we used to do in the past, doesn’t get you to the point of understanding what the building is, how you use it, the embedded carbon and more importantly, perhaps, how you deconstruct that building at the end of life, because you can build that into the design process, and there are clever tools that enable you to basically have a map of the building and different materials and what you may be able to get out of that building, but that’s very important that that’s done at the beginning, because if you come to the building at the end of life, typically, it’s very difficult to know what’s in there and how to deal with it.

Okay. Thank you much. Thank you. Delyth.

I want to ask you firstly, please, about the effect of regulatory requirements and changes to the types of materials that are being processed. How able to adapt would you say local authorities are to that, building on top of what you've already said, and do you feel that local authorities have been given adequate time and support to prepare for the effects of regulatory changes, please?

Shall I make a start on that?

Yes, sure.

If anyone wants to jump in, feel free. I think there are a range of issues there, and I think I’d probably use a couple of examples in relation to that. One is the issue around persistent organic pollutants, particularly in soft furnishings, and what we saw there was emerging evidence that EA and NRW were putting together in terms of the harmful impact of what essentially were fire retardant chemicals in soft furnishings that were used in past years. Now, the difficulty is, for the local authority, getting those soft furnishings into the waste stream. You then are faced with the problem of how to deal with it. And what NRW naturally do as the regulator is start to issue regulatory position statements telling us what we can and can’t do with that material. So, for example, with that example, there are issues about how you collect the material and not have cross-contamination with other items on the vehicle, so there's impact on bulky waste; there’s what you do with it at the depot and how you store it and make sure that nothing leaches out into the immediate environment; there are issues about if it’s damaged, it can only go to energy from waste, and we’re lucky that Trident Park and Parc Adfer are both licensed to deal with this material, but you basically, have to break up that sofa, or whatever it is before it goes, and you have to do that under certain conditions so that the workforce are safe. So, the issue is all of that came in fairly rapidly. And you saw the situation—I think it was Cambridgeshire in England who brought in—. They stopped bulky waste collections because they quite simply didn’t have a means of dealing with this, so that’s really problematic.

So, another example would be carpets, and, again, the position around carpets has changed fairly recently. Shredded carpets can’t be used in an equestrian setting, so what that means is there’s not really a market now for carpets because of, again, the materials that are in there and the chemicals that are in there. And I think a number of authorities have recently gone to a procurement to try and find an outlet for carpets, and they basically had nobody bidding for that opportunity. So, as an authority, you’re collecting carpets, you have no means of recycling them, so the only outlet there is probably energy from waste. That impacts on your costs and it impacts on your ability to meet targets. It’s a regulatory change that was beyond the remit of the authority to be able to do anything about.

Now, just on that front—sorry to labour the point—we have instigated regional meetings with NRW and the Cabinet lead Members, and that’s based on the corporate joint committee structure, so there are four of them and they will be regular meetings. And the idea of that is to enable NRW to be telling us about these things more in advance, so we see the pipeline of issues, and we’re able to both feed back what the possible implications of them are, and to have an understanding of how we might respond to it. A good example is around wood waste, for example, and NRW came to us and said, 'Well, we're thinking that you might need to separate out different types of wood waste at HWRCs.' So, we came back and said, 'Well, here are the number of HWRCs, here are the issues around why we can't do that very easily or there's an additional cost.' Effectively, you would have to have a member of staff policing those skips permanently to tell people where to put the material. So, it's that kind of dialogue that we need to be having at an earlier stage that impacts dramatically on local services.

Before Delyth comes back on that, just to welcome Carolyn Thomas, who joins us.

Thank you.

And to thank Rhianon Passmore, who was substitute for you. I believe maybe Rhianon is leaving the meeting now as well. Carolyn, of course, has previous experience, very much hands-on, from when she was a member of Flintshire council, with a very relevant portfolio to our discussion today. So, welcome. Sorry, back to you, Delyth.

Diolch. Thank you very much. Welcome back, Carolyn. I wanted to ask you next about upskilling prevention and reuse. Now, Craig, you've already mentioned the use of reuse shops, and, Paul, you touched on the importance of promoting this as well. So, on top of what you've said, would anyone like to add anything further, please, on the role that local authorities have in promoting these behaviour changes?

I think, as outlined in your report pack, there are a lot of really good success stories from across local authorities and in partnership, particularly, with the third sector, that we can point to. The reality of it, if you look at the waste stream, though, is despite all the brilliant work, we've only scratched the surface, and we do need quite a cultural shift. People often say, 'Oh, yes, we will. I'm really keen to use second hand', or 'I am open to using this, that and the other.' The reality on the ground is less so.

I think the problem that you've got is both cost and convenience. It's so easy, I can click a button on my phone, and Amazon will deliver me a replacement tomorrow, I don't have to go outside my house or take a pair of trousers down to a shop. We're quite lucky in Newport in that we've got some good facilities. It's that convenience barrier and also the relative cost is—. I had my washing machine repaired a couple of weeks ago, that was nearly £200, and that's fine, but the relative benefit for that—you can see why people don't do that.

If you look wider across reuse and repair, it's actually a relatively modern phenomenon, this consumption of stuff and quick replacing. You go back 40 or 50 years ago—I've got small children, the youngest is still in nappies, she's wearing reusable nappies, but she's pretty much the only one in her nursery, but disposable nappies have only been around 40 years. Now, I look at my residual waste stream in Newport, and 10 per cent of it is disposable nappies. So, changing that culture I think is going to be as big a barrier, if not a bigger barrier than the infrastructure. We need the two things to match to get that use.

Ashley.

I think local authorities have quite a big part to play in that in terms of their awareness and promoting the waste hierarchy, because reuse is clearly above—well, avoid at all is at the top, but then reuse. So, it is something that we try and do before we go on to the recycling side of things. We do try and provide these at the HWRCs; it seems a logical thing to put a reuse shop at HWRCs, and have it somewhere near the entrance where people can drop things off before they even get to any of the recycling and disposal skips. The problem with that is space on the sites, and this is a real challenge for local authorities. If you've got a huge site and no limits, that's fine, you can have a separate area for the reuse shop, because people do really like them, and they will come to the site purely for that reason. But that does mean, if you've got a small site, no-one else can actually get in to use it. So, sometimes, it works better where things are collected on site and then taken to an alternative shop at a different site. But one of the biggest things with that, though, is that behaviour change of having it there so that people can see it, even if they don't use it.

Something else that has been done by a number of local authorities in the south is a reuse directory or a repair directory, which is online, so, say you've got your washing machine or whatever, you can look and see where there are people locally who can actually repair that. I think it's something that local authorities do have a quite a bit of involvement in. It is very much led by the third sector, and they often work with local authorities on the site, so you will actually have a third sector organisation operating that site within the local authority site, which works very well in terms of a partnership. They have much more of the expertise to do it than the local authorities themselves or private contractors.

Thank you very much for that. Finally from me, could you please talk me through what your opinion would be about the need to—? What would your view be, then, on introducing legislation to ensure that the separated key recyclables are banned from energy recovery or from landfill?

Shall I pick that up? I think we've had previous legislation that does much the same in relation to municipal waste and certain elements of that are around biodegradable waste. The issue that we've always had is that, clearly, it is very difficult to know what is in people's black bags and we're not in a position to be able to interrogate that, although I think the City and County of Swansea did some work on actually looking at what was potentially in people's black bags and trying to engage the public on that side. So, I think, from our point of view, it's really more about the messaging to the public that this material shouldn't be in your black bag, it should be elsewhere and there are easier ways of dealing with a lot of this material. And therefore, it's around communication and engagement, rather than a big stick to hit a householder with, because they've got one item in their black bag. So, I think it is useful but the practical process of implementation is such that it's very difficult to move beyond that engagement and communication side of things.

Yes, it's about the messaging. I'll just use the example of the recent workplace regulations, which everyone will be familiar with, coming into play. Prior to that, it was that businesses should recycle, they know it's a good thing to do, they're encouraged softly, softly. And now, we've had the rules where they must recycle and they're not allowed to put it in there. So, in our collections in the last two months, we've seen a near tripling of the amount of recycling we've been getting from businesses. But again, practically, we don't know what's in their residual wheeled bins, we're not climbing in there looking for a can at the bottom—at least, I don't think we are—because that isn't practical. But it is that messaging, that resetting of the tone that I think does help and has a role to play in the broader strategy.

I'd agree with that. Also, we can't look through every bit of waste, that's just an impossibility, but we can contribute to that through reducing the residual waste that we will collect, so whether that's fortnightly, three-weekly, four-weekly, a restricted amount that can be put out. Because at the end of the day, if people haven't got that capacity, they've got to remove that material. This is one of the biggest drivers in terms of getting recycling up. They're not going to start putting a load of wood, which is banned, into a bin if they can't fit it in. So, at that point, they're going to have to take it to an alternative facility, such as the household waste recycling centres, where it can be recycled.

We also have, at HWRCs, black bag sorting—well, some authorities have black bag sorting on the gate, so they will make people go through that black bag so that they recycle everything that they can. In Powys, we actually just turn them away and say, 'Don't come back until it's sorted'. And after a while, people just know that that's what they have to do and it's absolutely fine. There, you have some control over what is banned from landfill or incineration, but at the end of the day, you're never going to know what's in the bottom of that wheeled bin. And the same applies, as Paul said, to the workplace recycling regs.

But the intention is there, and I think that's one of the most important things with these regulations. We're never going to—. Well, I hope NRW won't fine us for having a bottle top in a residual bin. I mean, they technically could. But I think it's working with the various partners to try and just get the recycling—that's what the intention of it is. And I think it's the same with the bans. It's never going to be that easy to implement, but there are a lot of measures that we can take to get there, I think.

Thank you.

Thank you. Can I, at this point, welcome Joyce Watson, as well? We'll get a microphone to you in a moment, once we can. Carolyn, did you want to come in on any issues? I know Janet would like to come in with one further question, and I'm sure you have a couple of things that you would like to raise. 

Yes. Do you want to ask Janet first?

No, let's come to you first and then we'll come to Janet to conclude.

Can I give my apologies? Joyce and I had to sub at another meeting, and I really wanted to talk in this today, so thank you for letting me speak. If you've covered anything already, let me know.

I don't know if you've touched on the value of kerbside sort as opposed to co-mingled. The blueprint is kerbside sorted, so could you just comment on that?

To try to get targets increased, the messaging—. Is WRAP looking, and the Welsh Government, at going back to messaging? Because post COVID I know some local authorities are struggling again to get their targets back up. So, your thoughts on getting that messaging back out again now to get people recycling, post COVID.

Regarding the deposit-return scheme, I believe, in the trial, many people put it in the kerbside sort boxes. Is that adding extra processes for you, collecting it as local authorities, to go through what's got a barcode on? You're having to go through whatever's in your stream there that has been collected, and they're going to have to find that barcode. Is that adding a lot of extra processes for you? And—

Let's respond to those three first, and then we'll come back.

Okay, sorry.

It's okay. We've got 15 minutes; we've got enough time.

Just to pick up on messaging, I think there's always more that can be done. I'm not convinced that's wholly the reason why, if you see over those COVID years, perhaps, that performance has flatlined. I think we touched on earlier that the eyes and the management at the council were otherwise focused. It's not that we're all just thinking about waste all of the time, although some of us may be. Really, in terms of the big changes that are needed to increase recycling, they probably didn't happen for about two years, and then you're restarting that.

There's also a bit of a natural decline. I think we touched on earlier the lightweighting of materials. We've actually seen packaging reduce in weight and recyclability. So, if you do nothing, it does tend to drift down a bit. Also, in terms of composition, if you just look at 10 years ago, there was almost twice as much paper in the waste stream than there is now. Councils can be recycling as effectively as they were now, but that will knock a little bit off performance. So, I think it's probably a combination of all of those factors, rather than just messaging, but, obviously, messaging does help as well.

I'll make a quick comment on the blueprint; Craig probably has more to say on it. In terms of kerbside versus co-mingled, there are still some authorities that are doing co-mingled and swear by it, and are getting very high recycling rates from it. I think with the blueprint and the kerbside collections, we are getting a good-quality material, which we are able to sell, which does offset the costs of collecting it. So, it's something we're doing in Powys, and I think one of the things that people say is, 'If you do it in a rural area like Powys, you can do it anywhere'. It does have its challenges, and we have collection points in rural areas and things like that, but it has upped the quality of the material, which we're then able to sell.

That brings me on to the next point about the DRS. From a local authority waste management point of view, DRS in Wales, I think, will have a limited impact. There is the litter side of it, and I accept that, but in terms of what people are already doing at the kerbside, they're already recycling. We're getting the vast majority of this material at the kerbside. Adding in the layer of having to take that material back to a central point is an inconvenience, I feel, for a lot of people, which is why, when the opportunity to do the digital DRS trial came up, I was quite happy to host it in Powys. We did it in Brecon, and it wasn't an exact trial of a deposit-return scheme, because it was on the basis of a reward, because we couldn't charge upfront. In this case, there was a whole team, and they weren't from the council, they were from the Digital DRS Alliance, who were actually stickering literally millions of bottles with these codes, which were then scanned.

In terms of the inconvenience for the householder, yes, you had to go 'bleep' here and 'bleep' on your box, because there were two different codes, and then there was an element of trust that you had, then, recycled, because the thought was that you weren't going to bleep it there and there, and then throw it over a hedge—why would you? There was some, actually, sampling done that proved that those materials did go through that process. So, in terms of the householder, yes, it's an added inconvenience there, but is it any more so than having to take that back to the supermarket? Again, it depends on how much you produce of your cans, your bottles and the like. But we come around every week and we collect it from your doorstep. People do that; why would they want the inconvenience of having to take it back? So, I think a digital scheme can work as well as a return scheme with the DRS.

In terms of the impact on our crews, it's absolutely nothing, and that was something I was very keen to say. We can't have our people at the kerbside having to scan every bottle; it just wasn't going to work. There was very little impact on them. So, from a local authority waste management point of view, it didn't really impact on our service at all; it will then just go to our transfer station. And not only that, but we will get the income for that material, and that's one of the big issues around DRS. That's going to take a big wodge of income from local authorities, and potentially affect their recycling level. So, I think the digital scheme was a success. It's still a lot of work to do—and I know industry aren't so keen on it, because of the fact of having to get these individual QR codes on all these various containers. But from a local authority point of view, that worked very well, I think. 

Before I invite Craig, Joyce, you wanted to make a comment. And then we'll come to Craig, then we'll come back to you, and then we'll come on to Janet for the last question.

I wanted to link on-the-go recycling into that question.

Just another thing that might affect your value of what's recycled, and that's the waste bins you put out for the general public. What results are you seeing from those that have changed those to clearly marked, clearly defined recyclables and general rubbish?

We're talking about on-the-go stuff like public bins.

I'm particularly interested in this because I represent an area that has a high percentage of tourists, and we have to put extra bins out because of that. So, I'm just wondering whether that's impacting. Because it will count towards your final figure of what's recycled and what's not recycled.

Can we—? Well, go on, then, if you wish. I just wondered, because that takes us to a slightly different area we can discuss, if we can maybe capture from Craig a response to Carolyn first, and then we'll address the question about the on-the-go. 

Just very briefly, obviously, materials markets are very volatile, and what really matters is the quality of the recyclate that you're offering to the market. As Ashley says, there are different ways of getting there. The kerbside sort typically does produce very good-quality material that you can get a better price for.

The only thing I was going to mention is, going back to packaging EPR, there will be a calculation for netting off your income from recyclate. So, they will take an average cost, or income, and attribute that to the number of tonnes of recycling that you have that's packaging EPR. So, if you've got really good-quality material, which you're getting a higher price for than that standard price, then you get better income. So, again, we're hopeful, in the Welsh context, that that might benefit us.

Right. On we go. 

Just talking from personal experience in Powys, we have been putting out these dual bins where we just normally had the one litter bin. So, you do have the one side—. And we tend to have cans and plastics, because that's one of the main things that is out for on-the-go recycling. It's difficult to manage the quality of what goes into them. Of course, we don't generally have too many dog waste bins now, because we just combine them, because it all goes into the same place, and it's actually better for our crews to empty them with the general residual waste, but, of course, then, that'll end up in with the other bins. There's a big push on awareness with that, but, again, you're looking at, when it's tourists, of course, it's not just your own residents, who are much easier to get to, you've got to get that much bigger picture. So, it is a challenge, and we do try and recycle what we can, but it is limited in terms of the contamination of those particular bins.

I think that experience is reflected across the country. We get a lot of people who've tried on-the-go bins, but contamination has often overwhelmed those schemes, and even very successful schemes struggle with high levels of contamination.

Wherever I go, they're all different. Is there no discussion happening about maybe an element of consistency nationally, across Wales particularly, so that at least wherever I am I know the drill?

Can I come in on that? Again, under packaging EPR, there would be an element for binned litter. So, there would be payments to authorities around that, and there is very likely to be a discussion around what level of service is expected for those payments. I'd imagine that that will form part of that discussion: you're receiving these payments from producers, therefore there's an expectation that there'd be a certain level of service. The only issue there is, obviously, there's quite a lot of infrastructure that's out there, and it will take quite a while to move towards a more consistent approach.

Can I—?

Very briefly, because we've only got five minutes left, and I know Janet is being very patient.

Sorry. It was just regarding the on-the-go recycling. I think that's why DRS would come forward and be in its element, and do more good, because many people already are doing kerbside sorting, and it's not of benefit. But when you come to a place like Cardiff and you see more rubbish around than in north Wales, where many people are, you know, putting it in the kerbside—. So, I think that's something that needs to be built on, really, and I think that's why. But do you agree—it's been paused and there'll be a four-nation approach—with the DRS, that we need to work together in a four-nation approach?

I think consistency across Wales should probably be helpful. It doesn't feel like we're going in that direction currently, does it, so—.

Yes. Okay.

There we are. Great. Okay. Thank you very much. Right, Janet—I've built you up now for a long time, so—. [Laughter.]

What more needs to be done to ensure a just transition to a truly circular economy?

Right, okay. So, this is your final opportunity, really, to tell us what really needs to be done.

I think a lot of things we've touched on already, certainly around that I think reuse needs to be probably front and centre of some of that, because there's real opportunity for addressing poverty within that, and I don't think we've done that yet. I think there was a question earlier, wasn't there: has the cost-of-living impact affected food waste? Well, it doesn't seem to have, so we've got all these great reuse, we've got all these environmental, levers that should be actually helping poverty, but don't seem to be, so perhaps aligning that more. Equally, we touched on green skills, so there's a significant role in upskilling people in new skills, or, should I say, old skills that are now needed again to get there. In terms of the overall 2050 targets as well, we touched on earlier that we still have—. Half our waste report of what's left doesn't have a market, so there's a huge opportunity there for investment, innovation and jobs within that.

What kind of things are we talking about there, then?

Well, you're talking a lot around really bad multi-layer packaging that you can't—you know, it's made of—. This goes back to that light weight issue before: okay, you're now a lot lighter, because you haven't got a glass bottle, but you've got some multi-layer packaging that no-one can do anything with, a few issues like that.

Okay. Thank you. Ashley.

I think it's finding the markets for all these materials, because we so want to get to zero waste, but's that's only possible if there's something to do with the materials that are actually collected, and then looking at it as part of the whole carbon impact of it all, because, again, it's going back to 'Beyond Recycling', which is exactly what it should be, because recycling isn't necessarily the best way of dealing with it; you can stop it being produced in the first place, or whatever you need to do with it. And I think EPR will have an impact on this as well, in terms of what is actually put on the market. As Paul says, a Tetra Pak might be lighter than a glass bottle, but it's a damn sight harder to recycle, and I think this has to be taken into account, and all the various almost like green washing. I think it's industry knowing what they need to do in terms of, okay, you can't use single-use plastics anymore, so they give you wooden forks. Well, that's not really the answer, is it? So, it's actually going back to the reuse element again. And just to quickly touch on the workplace recycling regulations—which of course not only affects us as waste collectors, it affects us as producers—so, we've all got our county halls, and it's actually driven our kitchens, our canteens, to stop giving out disposable items and actually go back to proper plates and knives and forks. And that's the direction we need to go in, not just saying, 'Oh, well, we don't bother with plastic, but it's wood instead', but it's still disposable.

Okay. Final word to you, then, Craig.

Yes, sorry. It was just to reference a report that we've undertaken with Miller Consultants, which is looking at circularity on a community level—and, hopefully, that will come round to the committee members—and the rationale for that was: what do communities understand about a circular economy and what are the opportunities and issues that they need to address as a community. We saw quite a lot about resilience within communities in terms of COVID, and what we were trying to do there was engage with communities around an issue that can seem quite abstract, that can not seem quite clear as to what the interventions are, what should we be doing, what should we be prioritising. So, we worked with three communities across Wales—and you have the report for the community up in Gwynedd—and the idea was: first, raise awareness about circularity, so that people understand what it is and why it's a good thing, and, linking back to earlier comments about it tends to be the foundational economy, it tends to be nested within those communities, it's jobs in those communities, so it's a good thing from that point of view. We've tried to look at the data that's available around circularity on a community level, so that starts to tell you where the current provision is, what is working well in that community, what the opportunities for growth may be, where do we need to intervene to actually help things. Because certainly, from a public sector point of view, we can help the process but we certainly can't fundamentally change the economy of Wales—that has to be driven by other processes. And that engagement with the public, so they understand—. It's the age-old problem, 'Why are we recycling?', well, we're doing it to drive jobs in local communities that deliver back to those communities. So, I think that's a fundamental issue, that we need to always think about the circular economy in terms of people's understanding and engagement with it, because otherwise it can get fairly esoteric fairly quickly.

Excellent. Can I thank the three of you for the very valuable evidence that you've shared with us today? We're very, very grateful and it will be pretty central to the work that we do on this as a committee, so diolch yn fawr iawn.

The committee will now break for 10 minutes, and we'll reconvene, ready to start again, at 11:50, when we'll be hearing from the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you.

Good morning, both. I just want to know about your views on the targets set out in 'Beyond Recycling', and whether you think they're proportionate and achievable.

Well, the targets are there. They're bold. They're far pushing beyond anything else that we see in the UK, and they have definitely driven the agenda of not only recycling, but to go beyond recycling, and we're seeing great initiatives across Wales, in numerous sectors across the public—great social enterprises coming up. So, it's a fantastic driver for positive change, but we're only one year away from hitting the first set of objectives. Are they achievable? It's tough, if we're honest. 

Well, we want you to be honest. We want you to share your views.

It's tough. It's going to be very, very close. But let's not—. If people achieve it, some authorities achieve it—fantastic. I think everybody's going to be there or thereabouts. And it's about having a clear road map of how we're then going to move on beyond next year's targets in a positive way, in a clear way and an achievable way, which—and I'm sure it will be picked up with other evidence panels as well—after a lot of work has been done, how are we going to get those extra bits of recycling? How are we going to encourage the circular economy through reuse? That is becoming more and more challenging, for a complex of issues—some of those we've mentioned in our written evidence to the panel. So, it's great, it's fantastic, but it's tough. But we're definitely on the right road. I don't know if you want to add anything. 

Yes, I think, just to echo that, as we're getting near, obviously, the 70 per cent recycling target in particular, we're starting to realise that a lot of what you would call the low-hanging fruit we've done, and that last little 2 per cent or 3 per cent are proving quite hard to achieve, and especially in the climate that you've heard about in the previous session with local authority budgets and what have you. So, it's going to be tough to get there. I think the ambition, though, has been good. So, the ambition that was set out quite early has enabled us to get really close to them, and has given us a chance of achieving them in the first place. So, I think that aspect of having that target a long time ago, as it were, and the steps to get there, I think, has given us a fighting chance of getting to it. 

I think, in the longer term, obviously, something like zero waste is going to be, again, an extremely challenging target to achieve. But, again, it's something that we should look towards. So, as an institution, our vision statement is 'a world beyond waste', which seems a bit daft for an institution that's got 'waste' in its title. But what we mean by that is we want a world where we're looking at resources rather than waste, and, to us, that's what zero waste is about. So, you start managing resources to keep them in economic use, rather than thinking of waste as waste, or resources as waste.