FINAL REPORT

Recycling Grade Textiles

Collection Demonstration Projects

A report summarising the findings and learnings from three six-month local authority demonstration projects. These projects were funded by WRAP to understand viable ways of collecting recycling grade textiles.

Project code: CFR005-004 Research date: December 2013 – October 2014 Date: June 2015

WRAP’s vision is a world in which resources are used sustainably.

Our mission is to accelerate the move to a sustainable resource-efficient economy through re-inventing how we design, produce and sell products; re-thinking how we use and consume products; and re-defining what is possible through recycling and re-use.

Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk

Document reference (please use this reference when citing WRAP’s work):

[WRAP, 2015, Banbury, Recycling Grade Textiles Collection Demonstration Projects,

Prepared by LRS Consultancy]

Document reference: WRAP, 2014, Banbury, Recycling Grade Textiles Collection Demonstration Project, Prepared by LRS Consultancy

Written by: Laura Thompson and Debbie Hitchen

Front cover photography: WRAP ‘Don’t Throw Them Away’ recycling grade textile creative

While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in

connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is

accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or

suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk

3

Executive summary In 2013 WRAP invited interested parties to submit expressions of interest to establish and operate a number of six-month demonstration projects aimed at increasing the collection of recycling grade1 textiles (including clothing and non-clothing items such as curtains and bed linen) for recycling.

Three local authorities were successful with their applications and were selected as demonstration projects. The aim of each of the projects was to help determine:

the most viable way(s) to collect recycling grade textiles; if such collections result in additional textiles being diverted from the residual waste

stream; if public perception is a major barrier to the capture of recycling grade textiles; and the overall business case for separately collecting recycling grade textiles.

Collectively, the demonstration projects illustrated that weekly kerbside collections, fortnightly kerbside collections alternating with other recycling collections, and collections at Household Waste and Recycling Centres (HWRCs) are all viable ways to collect recycling grade textile materials, if proper planning and contingency are built into system design and operation.

For all three projects, it was difficult to ascertain whether materials had been diverted from the residual waste stream or from another collection method as not all available collection channels could be monitored or data obtained (including channels such as ‘donated to a friend’). However, the results on the whole show increases across all monitored channels, providing some indication that the increase in one channel is not directly related to the decrease in another and therefore can be attributed to diversion from landfill.

Regardless of the collection method, variation in the quantity collected should be planned for. This is particularly essential for kerbside collections if the collection method uses a cage that has limited capacity. Effective communication between collector/merchant and local authority for collection of the textiles is also vital to prevent storage issues at the depot or HWRC that may result in damage to the collected materials.

Results from post-trial implementation attitude surveys indicated that public perception is a barrier to the capture of recycling grade textiles. Reasons provided by residents for disposing of recycling grade textiles to the refuse bin included items being torn, worn, and damaged.

All three demonstration projects illustrated that in order to make collections viable, the revenue received by local authorities from the sale of the textiles needs to cover the costs of collection and ongoing communications. Recycling grade textiles are considered to have low financial return and may only just cover the costs of collection and will contain a higher level of waste material that requires disposal. Therefore, receiving revenue from recycling grade textiles in isolation would not be viable from any collection channel. The demonstration projects show that co-collection with re-usable textiles is necessary to fund the recycling grade collection element. Business cases should take into account the additional financial benefit of diverting the material from landfill or the disposal stream. All three demonstration projects created significant financial revenue for each local authority.

This summary report outlines the key questions local authorities may ask when considering introducing a recycling grade textiles collection service to householders, and uses the learnings from the demonstration projects to answer them.

1 ‘Recycling grade’ refers to textiles that are not suitable for re-use but could be recycled. Other terms used include rag grade and lower grade.

4

Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Background ............................................................................................... 7 1.2 Aims and Objectives ................................................................................... 7

2.0 Collection Service ......................................................................................... 8 2.1 What are the different models for collecting recycling grade textiles? ............. 8 2.2 From the demonstration projects’ experience what volume of textiles might be collected per household per annum using each of the collection models? ................ 10 2.3 Will the volume of textiles fluctuate? What approaches could be used to manage this? ..................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Is it possible to ensure textiles are being diverted from the refuse stream/landfill rather than other collection channels such as bring banks? .............. 11 2.5 What can help to alleviate potential concerns about the impact on charities of a new textile service? ......................................................................................... 13

3.0 Material stream .......................................................................................... 13 3.1 What might the composition of the material collected be, based on the experience of the demonstration projects? ........................................................... 13 3.2 What impact does the type of sack used to collect materials have on the material stream? ................................................................................................ 14 3.3 Why is it important to protect the materials collected? ................................ 15 3.4 What is the best way to protect textile materials? ....................................... 15 3.5 How might introducing a textiles collection service impact the current waste and recycling service? ......................................................................................... 16

4.0 Public perception and communications ...................................................... 16 4.1 Is public perception a major barrier to collecting recycled grade textiles? ...... 16 4.2 What is the most effective way to communicate to householders about textile collections? ........................................................................................................ 16 4.3 What communication templates are available from WRAP to introduce a new collection service? .............................................................................................. 18

7.0 Business Case ............................................................................................. 20 7.1 What costs should be considered? ............................................................. 20 7.2 How much revenue (income) could a textile collection generate? ................. 21 7.3 What impact does composition have on revenue? ....................................... 21

9.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 22

Figures Figure 1: Underside cage on an RCV ............................................................................... 9 Figure 2: kg/hh/annum textiles by collection type ........................................................... 10 Figure 3: Monthly tonnage collected from weekly kerbside collection trial routes, split by composition ................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4: Tonnage collected in 2013 and 2014 for the trial period for the weekly kerbside collection demonstration project, split by collection channel ............................................. 12 Figure 5: Composition of material captured, by collection type ........................................ 14 Figure 6: Weekly kerbside collection sacks ..................................................................... 14 Figure 7: Compositional analysis by sack type ................................................................. 15 Figure 8: Separate recycling and re-use grade containers at HWRC site ........................... 16 Figure 9: Recycle now branded signage and additional signage for separate containers ..... 17 Figure 10: Examples of "Don't Throw Them Away" Communications ................................ 18

Tables Table 1: Overview of demonstration projects ................................................................... 8 Table 2: Percentage increase in textiles collected compared to the previous year .............. 12 Table 3: Overview of costs across the demonstration projects ......................................... 20

5

Glossary

CRA Charity Retail Association

HWRC Household Waste and Recycling Centre

LMB Lawrence M Barry & Co

RCV Recycling Collection Vehicle

Recycling Credit Claimants

Recycling credit claimants are community, charity, voluntary, and not for profit groups that collect recyclable materials and are therefore eligible for financial reward under the relevant local authority recycling and re-use credit scheme.

RORO Roll on roll off

SATCol Salvation Army Trading Company Collections

WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

WRAP Waste and Resources Action Programme

6

Acknowledgements

This report was written for WRAP by LRS Consultancy Ltd. We would like to thank the project leads, marketing team and other staff members from the demonstration project grantees; Norfolk County Council, South Holland District Council and Woking Borough Council. This report would have not been possible without the participation of textile collection project partners and other organisations: Biffa Lawrence M Barry & Co (LMB) M.E.L Norfolk Environmental Waste Services (NEWS) Sainsbury’s Salvation Army Trading Company Collections (SATCol) Special thanks go to the charity shops that also participated in the information gathering:

Norfolk County Council

Age Concern East Coast Hospice

Age UK Hunstanton Branch Legion in the Community

Arthritis Research UK Mid Norfolk Mencap

The Big C Appeal Norfolk and Norwich Scope Association

British Heart Foundation PDSA

British Red Cross RELATE

Bullock Fair Charity Shop RSPCA

Cancer Research UK SCOPE

Covex Sue Ryder Care

Daisy International Aid for Romania The Charity Shop

Dial Great Yarmouth West Norfolk MIND

South Holland District Council

Break Sense

British Heart Foundation St Barnabus Hospice Shop

Cancer Research UK Sue Ryder

Holbeach Hospice League of Friends

Woking Borough Council

Woking Hospice Mind

Oxfam Welcoming

Sue Ryder DEBRA

SCOPE Marie Curie

Woking Hospice

7

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

The WRAP report, Textile Flow and Market Development Opportunities in the UK2, highlights that the single biggest opportunity, by weight, to reduce the amount of textiles being disposed of as residual waste is to target the household waste stream. WRAP research also highlights that textiles sent for landfill/disposal may have been judged by consumers as not being fit for re-use, without considering that they may have the potential to be recycled.

In 2013 WRAP sought expressions of interest from interested parties to establish and operate a number of six-month demonstration projects aimed at increasing the collection of recycling grade3 textiles (including clothing and non-clothing items such as curtains and bed linen) for recycling.

Three authorities were selected to run demonstration projects: Norfolk County Council, South Holland District Council and Woking Borough Council. The aim of each of the demonstration projects was to help determine:

the most viable way(s) to collect recycling grade textiles; if such collections result in additional textiles being diverted from the residual waste

stream; if public perception is a major barrier to the capture of recycling grade textiles; and the overall business case for separately collecting recycling grade textiles.

The demonstration projects build on the work carried out by WRAP in 2012/13 using survival sacks to collect textiles as part of mixed kerbside recycling collections.4

1.2 Aims and Objectives

The demonstration projects were intended to gather information on the following:

costs of delivering the service both in terms of capital and on-going operational costs; costs of initial and on-going communications; operational logistics and the resources used to deliver the service; tonnage of material collected and the tonnage of material recycled, including data on

reject rates and the composition of reject material; composition of textile materials collected (for re-use and recycling); whether material was diverted from residual waste for disposal or displaced from

another collection route (e.g. bring banks and charity collections); barriers to, and potential solutions for, the collection of recycling grade textiles

including, where possible, attitudinal data such as householder reaction to and behaviour in response to the provision of the scheme; and

end markets identified, and used, for the collected material.

This summary report outlines the key questions local authorities may ask when considering introducing a recycling grade textiles collection service, and draws on the learnings from the demonstration projects to answer them.

2 http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/uk-textile-product-flow-and-market-development-opportunities

3 ‘Recycling grade’ refers to textiles that are not suitable for re-use but could be recycled. Other terms used include rag grade and lower grade.

4 CFR001-020 Monitoring & Evaluation of Textile Survival Sack Demonstrations, February 2014

8

2.0 Collection Service

2.1 What are the different models for collecting recycling grade textiles?

The demonstration projects illustrated that collecting recycling grade textiles through weekly kerbside collections, fortnightly kerbside collections (alternating with WEEE collection), and HWRC collections of recycling grade textiles are all viable options if proper planning and contingency are built into scheme design and operation. Table 1 provides an overview of the three demonstration projects to provide the reader with an idea of the methodology, scope and operation of each.

Table 1: Overview of demonstration projects

Approach

Countywide

communications and HWRC Bring

Bank trial

Norfolk County Council

Weekly kerbside

recycling collection

South Holland District

Council

Alternate weekly

kerbside collection with WEEE

Woking Borough Council

Method

Countywide

communications promoting all

collection channels

Separate ‘high grade’ and ‘low

grade’ bring banks at two pilot HWRC

sites

Van and driver first 10

weeks

Cages on the underside of Recycling Collection

Vehicle (RCV)

Cages on the underside of RCV

Plus van and driver as back up

Collection

‘containers’ Own carrier bag/sack

Three sack types trial (mm):

Blue separate unbranded

textiles sack (390 x 440 x 1000)

Branded South Holland’s green recycling sack (400 x

735 x 940)

White Branded charity sack (390 x 440 x 1000)

Own carrier bag/sack

Households (HH)

372,100 countywide

22,102 trial catchment

5,057 (trial on five

recycling rounds) 41,000 (entire Borough)

Collection operations

Not applicable.

Tonnage data was captured from HWRC

sites across the county, including the

two trial HWRC sites.

Vehicle Type: Euro 6 RCV

Storage on vehicle: 0.5m x 0.5m x 1m compartment

on underside of RCV

Vehicle Type: Twin pack RCV (70/30 split)

Storage on vehicle:

0.75m x 0.39m x 0.35m compartment on

underside of RCV

(Figure 1)

Storage

operations

Storage of materials: 1.8m x

4.05m x 2.25m RORO container

Capacity of storage

Storage of materials:

2.44m x 6.06m x 2.59m shipping containers

Capacity of storage

container: 33m3

Storage of materials:

1.8m x 4.05m x 2.25m RORO container

Capacity of storage

container: 2 tonnes

9

Approach

Countywide

communications and HWRC Bring

Bank trial

Norfolk County Council

Weekly kerbside recycling collection

South Holland District Council

Alternate weekly kerbside collection

with WEEE

Woking Borough Council

container: 2 tonnes

Communications

Approach

County wide: social

media, NCC website,

online press, A4 poster, A5 flyer, press

advertising, event advertising, central

place advertising,

outdoor advertising, radio advertising

Trial area: A5 leaflets, A4 posters,

signage at depot,

central place advertising, online

press

A5 service leaflet, A6 reminder postcards,

contamination stickers, press release, social media,

printed press, online press,

information packs and FAQs for collection crews,

face to face resident engagement (door to door

and roadshows), radio

advertising

A5 service leaflet, launch event, radio

interview, website, social media

Partner LM Barry (LMB) Salvation Army Trading Company Ltd. (SATCoL)

LM Barry (LMB)

Flatted properties, as with most material streams, may require a more bespoke service, potentially requiring a specific collection point in the bin store area, where applicable.

Figure 1: Underside cage on an RCV fitted to collect textiles

10

2.2 From the demonstration projects’ experience what volume of textiles might be collected per household per annum using each of the collection models?

The volume of textiles collected will depend on a number of factors including the type of collection, the communications received by the householder, and the impact of those communications in influencing behaviour. Figure 2 presents the average kilogrammes (kg) collected per household (hh) per annum by collection method from the demonstration projects undertaken.

Figure 2: kg/hh/annum textiles by collection type5

The weekly kerbside collection demonstration project captured the most textile material per household. Within this, the sack with charity branding captured the highest kg per household at 6.44kg/hh/annum whereas the separate non-branded textile sack captured 5.32kg/hh/annum. The countywide communications campaign appeared to capture the least additional textiles per household per annum, however all collection channels within the county were promoted equally as the aim was to raise awareness of all the available options for donating recycling grade textiles, not solely to promote the HWRC route.

NB: These figures should be viewed with caution, particularly as the communications received by householders varied across the demonstration projects. For example, the weekly kerbside project covered a small catchment area where householders received various communications to raise awareness including information at the doorstep and were invited to take part in face to face surveys to evaluate attitudes and communications.

2.3 Will the volume of textiles fluctuate? What approaches could be used to manage this?

Fluctuations in textile donations should be accounted for when implementing a textile collection service. Peaks can occur at various points, including: the introduction of a textile collection, after communications/reminders of the service, and at certain times in the calendar year (e.g. SATCol analysis of historic collections suggests January, April and August are peak times). Accessing data from previous years or seeking advice from the collection

5 The data from the 6-month monitoring period for each trial has been aggregated up to represent a 12 month period.

11

contractor on potential peaks will help planning and building in contingency is important. Figure 3 demonstrates the monthly changes experienced by the weekly kerbside collection trial routes, split by composition, showing clear peaks in April and August.

Figure 3: Monthly tonnage collected from weekly kerbside collection trial routes, split by composition

For RCV collections with underside cages, depending on round size and time of year, the cages may not have sufficient capacity for all the textile material set out. The kerbside collection pilots used a van and driver to collect textiles in the initial peak period and were on standby for unexpected peaks. Peaks should also be considered at HWRCs or at drop-off sites to ensure that containers do not overflow as materials may become damaged if exposed to the elements. Maintaining effective communication between HWRC or depot staff and the textile collector is fundamental good practice. Textile containers at HWRCs and at depots tend to be walk-in RORO containers, which enable easy access to monitor fill levels and estimate when a collection may be necessary.

2.4 Is it possible to ensure textiles are being diverted from the refuse stream/landfill rather than other collection channels such as bring banks?

The fundamental aim of any textile collection service is to divert textiles of all grades from the refuse stream rather than displacing the material from other collection channels (e.g. from charity shops to bring sites). It is difficult to ascertain whether textile collection services introduced by local authorities are successful in diverting material solely from the residual waste stream as not all collection channels can be monitored (e.g. cash for clothes, car boot sales and other informal methods of textile re-use). However, local authorities should monitor those collection routes where data can be more easily obtained, such as HWRCs, bring banks and recycling credit claimants6, to track the impact of their textiles 6 Recycling credit claimants are community, charity, voluntary, and not for profit groups that collect recyclable materials and are therefore eligible for financial reward under the relevant local authority recycling and re-use credit scheme. Recycling credit claimant data may only be available at the end of the year as some claimants submit one claim on an annual basis rather than every time they have a collection.

12

service. The three demonstration projects monitored these channels where possible and data gathered indicated that they did capture material that may have otherwise been disposed of. Figure 4 illustrates the tonnage by collection channel for the weekly kerbside textile collection. This graph compares tonnage for the six month trial period in 2014 to tonnage collected in the same six months in 2013.

Figure 4: Weekly kerbside collection demonstration project: tonnages by collection channel in the

trial period in 2014 compared to the tonnages collected in the same six month period in the previous year

Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. outlines the percentage increase across all

demonstration projects, again for the six month trial period in 2014 compared to the same period in

the previous year. Whilst there was some drop in tonnage, the overall uplift in material collected suggests that textiles were diverted from the refuse stream.

Table 2: Percentage increase in textiles collected compared to the same period in the previous year

Demonstration project

Kerbside/ Trial site

HWRC Bring Bank

Voluntary Groups

Overall

Countywide 36% 13% 0.4% 1.6% 5%

Weekly Kerbside 100% 10% 16% 79% 100%

Fortnightly kerbside

100% 13% 5% n/a 12%

13

2.5 What can help to alleviate potential concerns about the impact on charities of a new textile service?

Textile donation and sales can be vital to a charity’s business strategy and there may be concerns that a new service will compete for feedstock and impact negatively on a charity’s revenue streams. Whilst not all charity shops accept recycling grade textiles, the Charity Retail Association (CRA) has provided guidance on the donation of clothing that is out of fashion or damaged, suggesting that these items can still raise vital funds for charity shops.7

Promoting charity shops as outlets for textiles is important when communicating a new textile collection service or when raising awareness of existing channels for donating used textiles. All communications developed for the demonstration projects promoted charity shops as collection channels for textile materials. Engaging local charity shops prior to the launch of a new textile service can demonstrate to charity shops that the intention is to increase awareness and divert more textiles from landfill. This process also allows for any comments, concerns or queries charity shops may have to be discussed, and creates an opportunity to provide charity shops with promotional materials they may wish to display.

No complaints were received from any charity shops operating within the demonstration project areas during the trials.

3.0 Material stream

3.1 What might the composition of the material collected be, based on the experience of the demonstration projects?

The composition of material collected will depend on what textiles are being targeted and how the service is communicated. Composition analysis can help determine whether the target materials are being captured, and hence inferences can be made about the value of these textiles.

As demonstrated in Figure 5, large disparities were experienced in the capture of textiles suitable for re-use and recycling, or disposal across the demonstration projects. For example, the percentage of re-use grade collected ranged from 36% to 78%, whilst recycling grade ranged from 3% to 34%. Waste also varied significantly across the three projects and was particularly prominent in the HWRC collections, accounting for a fifth of the material captured by weight. Whilst HWRCs appear to capture lower quality textile materials and higher amounts of waste, particularly when compared to other methods, the HWRC demonstration project still yielded around 80% of material that generated income, and therefore 20% of material incurred a disposal cost. The impact of composition on revenue can be further understood in section 5.0.

7 According to the CRA almost all charity shops which sell clothing have an arrangement with a textile recycler, who buys any unsold items from them, including bed linen and curtains. Such goods will then be recycled, or exported and sold overseas. For more details: http://www.charityretail.org.uk/donating-to-charity-shops/

14

Figure 5: Composition of material captured, by collection type

3.2 What impact does the type of sack used to collect materials have on the material stream?

The demonstration project that tested the three sack types (shown in Figure 6) found the white charity branded sack captured the highest amount of material per household, whilst the blue unbranded textile sack captured the lowest amount of material per household. All three sacks captured a similar proportion of recycling grade and re-use grade material. The white charity branded sack captured the smallest proportion of waste (3%), whilst double the amount of waste by composition was captured by the blue unbranded textile sacks (6%) and almost triple (8%) by the South Holland’s green recycling sack.

Figure 6: Weekly kerbside collection sacks

15

Figure 7: Composition of materials by sack type (by weight)

Whilst only a third of the households received a charity branded sack, all households were aware a charity partner was involved in the trial as SATCoL was named and logo included in all communications. It is possible that this resulted in a higher donation of re-use grade clothing compared to the other demonstration projects.

If an authority is providing sacks to householders, it is essential that they are of sufficient quality to withstand the collection process. A split sack can compromise the quality of materials. Where the authority is not providing sacks, but rather asking householders to use their own carrier bags, it should be expected that a variety may be received and there is a risk that some may not be sufficiently robust to protect the contents. Communication is important to ensuring care is taken when presenting materials for collection.

3.3 Why is it important to protect the materials collected?

Maintaining the quality of materials is vital to creating the greatest value in terms of revenue and reduced environmental impact.8 Textiles of both recycling and re-use grade may become waste if items become too damaged, notably via exposure to moisture. Furthermore, soiled and paint or oil stained materials should not be accepted as these may affect the quality of other textile materials. Textiles may also become damaged or soiled if they are not presented separately to other materials being collected, such as paper, card, plastic packaging, etc. which may contain food and drink residues.

3.4 What is the best way to protect textile materials?

Protecting textiles from damage should be considered when deciding how and where they should be presented for collection. Communication materials should advise householders to tie bags or sacks securely to prevent subjecting the materials to moisture, and should explain what textiles are not accepted (e.g. paint or oil stained materials). Operational elements such as timely collection of containers through effective communications between depot and textile collector is also vital to keeping materials dry. Figure 8 shows the recycling and re-use grade containers at one of the HWRC sites, the recycling container is closed for collection.

8 In line with the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan (SCAP) clothing footprint calculator, the re-use of material has greater carbon, water and waste savings benefits than recycling material as re-use assumes displacement of the need to purchase a new garment which has a higher environmental impact.

Unbranded textile sacks South Holland’s green recycling sack Charity branded sack

16

Figure 8: Separate recycling and re-use grade containers at HWRC

3.5 How might introducing a textiles collection service impact the current waste and recycling service?

Introducing a textile collection service, depending on the method of collection, may impact the waste and recycling service. Positive impacts include reducing textile contamination of other recycling streams, including any sorting difficulties this can present at the receiving MRF, and lower refuse disposal costs (if diverted from the refuse waste stream). Negative impacts can include reducing the efficiency of collection crews if materials are presented incorrectly, and contamination of other recyclables through behaviour that is inconsistent with instruction (e.g. placing textiles in with mixed recycling streams). One of the demonstration projects found stickers were effective in clarifying collection requirements where householders were placing textiles in the mixed stream rather than presenting them separately.

4.0 Public perception and communications

4.1 Is public perception a major barrier to collecting recycled grade textiles?

Attitudinal surveys carried out by the demonstration projects indicated that textiles placed in the refuse for disposal may have been judged by householders to not be suitable for re-use, without considering that they may have the potential to be recycled. Fundamental to changing this behaviour is raising awareness through clear messaging about what can and cannot be accepted. Reasons provided for disposal in the refuse bin were items being torn, worn, damaged and dirty, or believing no one else would want the items also featured heavily in the post-trial implementation surveys. These responses indicate that there is scope for further awareness-raising amongst householders in the trial areas if the services continue.

4.2 What is the most effective way to communicate to householders about textile collections?

Communications tend to be dependent upon what a local authority deems to be its best methods for reaching its target audiences given available budgets. Local authorities can reduce the costs of new communications by using existing channels that are covered by

17

other budgets, are free or require staff input only.9 Learnings from the demonstration projects included:

HWRC signage: the ‘recycle now’ branded signage used at the HWRC pilot sites for both re-use and recycling grade banks was considered less effective as the recycle now symbol and colouring used is the same for both re-use and recycling (see Figure 9). Whilst the description of what textiles were accepted was listed, this requires members of the public to take the time to study the signage. To enhance the recycle now signage, additional signage was placed at the sites to help members of the public understand what types of textiles could be accepted.

Figure 9: Recycle now branded signage and additional signage for separate containers

Leaflets: as with all communications, language barriers need to be considered. Less text and information in languages appropriate for the target audience need to be considered.

Radio advertising: this was considered an effective way to raise awareness. Continuous promotions: use of council services for reminding householders about the

service when speaking to them on phone, in person and via email etc. was considered an effective way to drive the right behaviour, and word of mouth as householders speak to each other/see their neighbours presenting textiles is believed to sustain good behaviours.

9 Further information on communications can be found in the WRAP guidance on indicative costs of communications: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/2013%2004%2012%20Indicative%20Cost%20Guide_Revision%202%20FINAL%20with%20correct%20footers.pdf

18

4.3 What communication templates are available from WRAP to introduce a new collection service?

In December 2013, WRAP developed and tested four different communication concepts designed to encourage the recycling and re-use of textiles. The preferred concept “Don’t Throw Them Away” can be used by local authorities to introduce the textiles collection service. Materials can be accessed at the WRAP Resource Library10: http://partners.wrap.org.uk/

For the demonstration projects, the “Don’t Throw Them Away” graphic was localised to fit each demonstration project. Figure 10 provides two examples, a poster for countywide communications to raise awareness of textile collection points, and an A5 leaflet provided as part of the alternate weekly collection.

Figure 10: Examples of "Don't Throw Them Away" Communications

Countywide campaign: A5 flyer

10 The Resource Library website includes photographs, artwork, print and digital materials, guidelines and case studies from

WRAP’s campaigns and brands to support local authority communication with consumers.

19

Alternate weekly collection with WEEE: A5 leaflet

Front: Back:

Inside:

20

7.0 Business Case

7.1 What costs should be considered?

There are four main cost areas that will need to be considered, depending upon the collection method used: costs of capital items, operational costs, communications costs, and depending on the reprocessor, there may be an additional cost for transferring the collected textiles from the depot or HWRC to the reprocessor/textile merchant. Indicative costs from the demonstration projects are provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Overview of costs across the demonstration projects

Item Description Indicative Cost (ex staff time)

Capital items

Container Provided free of charge by reprocessor £0.00

Signage Two signs (recycling and re-use signage at HWRC)

£350.00

RCV compartments 3 x compartments at £400 each £1,200

Operational costs

Sacks 15,000 sacks ~£1675

Staff training Guidance and/or training for HWRC staff, collection staff, depot staff, customers services may be required

£0.00 - £50.00

Rental of container 6 month rental £550

Driver and van 8 weeks £5,400

Communications costs

The cost of communications will depend upon what a local authority deems to be appropriate for reaching its target audiences and the budget that it has available. Utilising existing communications channels may not incur any additional costs but may require staff time.11

Cost Posters, flyers, leaflets, newspaper adverts, radio advertising, outdoor space advertising (e.g. billboards), reminder postcards, stickers, etc. Indicative printing and distribution costs of a four page A5 leaflet are below.

Countywide HWRC campaign - 66% overall costs; weekly kerbside - 30% of overall costs; alternate weekly kerbside - 50% of overall cost of project spent on communications.

Instructional leaflet Design and print of A5 leaflet, 41,000 copies

£1,765

Leaflet hand distribution Hand distribution of leaflet to 41,000 properties

£2,665

11 Further information on communications can be found in the WRAP guidance on indicative costs of communications: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/2013%2004%2012%20Indicative%20Cost%20Guide_Revision%202%20FINAL%20with%20correct%20footers.pdf

21

Item Description Indicative Cost (ex staff time)

Free Social media, website, online communications, e-courier messages, digital central place advertising such as library plasma screens, door-to-door communications by existing staff

Textile collections

Collection of textiles (re-use and recycling grade)

Collection and processing of textiles from separate bins at two pilot HWRCs

£3,500

Collection of textiles (re-use and recycling grade)

Collection from depot of kerbside collected materials. Reprocessor may collect RORO containers at no charge

£0.00

7.2 How much revenue (income) could a textile collection generate?

Income generated through the sale of re-usable or recyclable textiles will tend to be paid on a price per tonne basis. The price paid per tonne will in turn be influenced by current market conditions and an assessment of the potential composition of the material by buyers. Textile prices are inextricably linked to the commercial and social situations in major export markets. 2014 saw a decline in the price of textiles for the first time in 10 years, largely attributed to the political situation in Ukraine and the Ebola outbreak in Africa. Monitoring textile prices and the broader trends within the sector is good practice when planning and running a service to collect textiles.

Prices per tonne for materials from textile banks during the period that the three demonstration projects were running12 ranged from £260 - £370 per tonne. Across all three demonstration projects, the quantity of textiles collected was considered by each authority to generate sufficient income to cover the costs of the trials, before any savings from diverting material from landfill are taken into consideration.

7.3 What impact does composition have on revenue?

There is a large disparity in prices paid for textiles for re-use and textiles for recycling. Any increase in the proportion that is suitable for recycling could decrease the price paid per tonne. This is because the value of recycling grade textiles reportedly just covers collection costs, and end markets are currently limited. If a local authority introduces recycling grade textiles to their re-usable textiles collections it is possible that the merchants will reflect this in the price they pay. Whilst price per tonne may decrease, the overall tonnage collected may increase. The net income could therefore decrease or increase depending on the total tonnage collected.

12 http://www.letsrecycle.com/prices/textiles/

22

9.0 Conclusions Recycling grade textile collection options:

The demonstration projects illustrated that weekly and fortnightly kerbside collections alongside the collection of other recyclable materials and HWRC collections of recycling grade textiles can be viable options if appropriate planning and contingency are built into system design and operation.

Weekly kerbside collections generated the greatest quantity of textile material collected per household (6kg/HH/annum); however, this trial was accompanied by a comprehensive communications campaign including door-to-door communications and radio advertising. Over 75% of the material collected was re-use grade.

Recycling grade textiles are considered to have lower financial return and may only just cover the costs of collection. Therefore, receiving revenue from recycling grade textiles in isolation would not be viable from any collection channel. This is especially the case where waste arisings also increase and therefore a disposal cost is incurred. Therefore co-collection with re-usable textiles is necessary to being able to fund the recycling grade collection element.

Regardless of the collection method, peaks should be accounted for. This is particularly essential for kerbside collections if the collection method uses a cage that has limited capacity. Allowing for peaks through planning and contingency plans is essential for collection, and effective communication between collector and local authority staff for collection of the material is also vital to prevent storage issues at the depot or HWRC that may result in material damage.

Whether such collections result in additional textiles being diverted from the residual waste stream

It is difficult to ascertain whether materials have been diverted from the residual waste stream or from another collection method as not all available collection channels for textiles could be monitored or data obtained (including channels such as ‘donated to a friend’). However, the results on the whole show increases across all monitored channels, providing some indication that the increase in one channel is not directly related to the decrease in another and therefore can be attributed to diversion of more textiles from landfill.

A concern is that textiles could be diverted from charity shops resulting in less stock and hence income. Promoting charity shops as collection channels for re-use and recycling grade textiles is important when communicating a textile collection service or when raising awareness of existing channels for passing on or disposing of used textiles.

Whether public perception is a major barrier to the capture of recycling grade textiles

Feedback from the demonstration projects indicates that public perception is a barrier to the capture of recycling grade textiles; reasons provided for disposal to the refuse bin being torn, worn, damaged, etc. The responses indicated that there is scope for continuing awareness communications amongst householders.

The overall business case for separately collecting recycling grade textiles

All three demonstration projects generated income for each local authority. To make collections viable, the revenue received by local authorities needs to cover the costs of collection and ongoing communications. Collecting only recycling grade textiles generate lower financial return for the local authority as this is not profitable for the textile reprocessor. The demonstration projects indicated that the co-collection of re-use and recycling grade textiles makes the collections financially viable.

Business cases should take into account the additional financial benefit of diverting the material from disposal. If diverting from landfill, typically this would result in £100 per tonne saving (i.e. landfill tax plus gate fee).

www.wrap.org.uk/textiles