SPMT12_002: The Market Potential and Demand for Product Re-use Appendix 2: Interviews

1

SPMT12_002: The Market Potential and Demand for Product Re-use

Appendix2: Interviews

Project no: 1859 November 2012

Resource Futures CREATE Centre, Smeaton Road, Bristol BS1 6XN Tel: 0117 930 4355 Fax: 0117 929 7283 www.resourcefutures.co.uk

2

Document details/quality control sheet

Report prepared for: Collaborative Waste, Resources and Sustainable Consumption Evidence Programme, Defra

Report prepared by: Billy Harris, Resource Futures

Checked by: Sam Reeve Operations Director [email protected]

File name: SMPT12_002_Interviews Version: 01 Status: Confidential Date: November 2012

.

Confidentiality:

The contents of this report are confidential. It contains commercially confidential information and information has not been given for public circulation.

3

Contents

1. Furniture 6 1.1 Alistair Bromhead, British Furniture Manufacturers’ Association 6 1.2 Ann Beavis, Premier Sustain 7 1.3 Daniel O'Connor, WARPit 8 1.4 Richard Ryll, Clear Environment 9 2. Large WEEE 10 2.1 Sepp Eisenreigler, RUSZ in Austria 10 2.2 Sean Feeney, Environcom 11 2.3 Andy Reade, CREATE 13 2.4 Eric Long, Comet 15 3. Small WEEE 17 3.1 Eco computers 17 3.2 Scott Butler, European Recycling Platform 19 3.3 Dr. Colin Fitzpatrick, University of Limerick 20 3.4 Corey Dehmey, R2 Solutions 21 3.5 Gary Griffiths, RDC 23 3.6 Richard Peagram, HP, speaking on behalf of ZeroWIN Initiative 24 3.7 Sarah Commes & Willie Cade, PC Rebuilders & Recyclers 26 3.8 Sean Nicholson, Microsoft UK 28 4. Textiles 30 4.1 Jane Gardner, CRUK 30 4.2 Alan Wheeler, Textiles Recycling Association 31 4.3 Matt George, Oxfam 32 4.4 Ross Barry, LMB 33 4.5 Mike Webster, TRAID 34 4.6 Paul Ozanne, Salvation Army Trading Company 36 5. Construction & Demolition 38 5.1 Thornton Kay, Salvo 38 5.2 Richard Mehmed, National Community Wood Recycling Project 45 5.3 Rebecca Owens, Recipro 47 5.4 Stuart Proud, Surplus Match 48 5.5 David Rose, Portal Power 49 5.6 Mono Sanger, Bath Stone Reclamation 50 5.7 Kate & Richard Snow, Oxford Wood Recycling 51

4

5.8 Steve Tomlin, Independent Salvage Dealer 51 5.9 Howard Button, National Federation of Demolition Contractors 52 5.10 Gilli Hobbs, BRE 54 5.11 Charlie Law, Chair of UKCG Waste Working Group, BAM Construction 56 5.12 Sharon Parsons, B&Q 58 5.13 Julian Allwood, Group Leader, Wellmet, Cambridge University 59 5.14 Bill Addis, Buro Happold 63 5.15 Bill Dunster, ZEDFactory 66 5.16 Andrew Pitman, TRADA 67 5.17 Alastair Kerr, Wood Panel Industry Federation (WPIF) 68 5.18 Peter Butt, Wood Recyclers Association 69 5.19 Sarah Burgess, Federation of Master Builders 69 5.20 Tony Hutchinson, Rural Industrial Design and Building Association 69 5.21 Mark Collinson & Malcolm Waddell, Waste and Resources Action Programme 71 5.22 Adrian Murphy, National Industrial Symbiosis Programme 72 5.23 Andrew Pears, Kotuku 72 5.24 Maxine Narburgh, Bright Green 73 5.25 Cat Fletcher, Freegle 73 5.26 Emma Hill, Why Waste / Bradford Environmental Action Trust 76 6. Miscellaneous 76 6.1 David Beale, Warwickshire Re-use Forum 76 6.2 David Roman, British Heart Foundation 78 6.3 Cristina Osoro Cangas, Charity Retail Association 81

5

1. Furniture

1.1 Alistair Bromhead, British Furniture Manufacturers’ Association Describe what BFM does It’s a trade association of British Furniture Manufacturers and represents member views and provides advice on issues such as health and safety, environment etc.

Do you have figures for the amount of furniture sold in the UK each year? The UK market has a value around £8 billion: £5billion domestic and £3billion imported.

In the current economic conditions, is the market for new furniture growing or contracting? It’s very sector specific. The buoyant areas are furniture for older people and older persons’ leisure market (e.g. cruise ships). More generally though, it’s contract furniture (e.g. coffee shops). Office furniture is doing badly though, as people are holding onto furniture longer.

Are you aware of any research on typical product lifetimes? We’ve done some work on previous research for DTI‘Zero Emissions from Furniture’.

It's clear that the industry has been making progress on environmental issues, in terms of embedded carbon and recycling.Has any progress been made on reuse or design for remanufacture? There’s very little work in this area. Orange Box and Herman Miller have been doing some workon office chairs. Due to transport and labour costs however, it tends to be high end furniture.

Do manufacturers operate takeback schemes for furniture? In theory, yes. Blue Line office furniture used to offer it but there’s not so much uptake. Generally, it does not get pushed too hard by manufacturers, due to storage costs, limited resale value etc.

One possible drawback of encouraging a reuse economy is that the environmental benefits of reuse are measured in terms of displaced new products. Does the industry perceive reuse as a threat to the established product-service model or an opportunity to develop a new model? The reuse sector has potential. Product design for remanufacture has lots of benefits, but the majority of mainstream companies are too focused on staying afloat. Take back would create a burden to them and it also has potential hygiene issues (e.g. bedding).

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? It’s hard to see how it could be done without increasing burden on companies. Manufacturers do work with companies such as Furniture Reuse Network, but it tends to be through‘informal’ relationships. Scale can be a barrier as can the clouding of main market, but generally UK companies are better placed to do this than overseas companies.

What is the potential size of this market if these barriers were addressed? There are different figure for different subsectors. Office and contract are better placed due to batch sizes. Also, the ease of capture relative to domestic.

Anything to add? Changing design from L shape to smaller rectangle. The Aeron takeback system in US is a great example of what we could be doing: creating a specific brand for remanufactured products.

6

1.2 Ann Beavis, Premier Sustain Describe what Premier Sustain does It’s a division of Premier Moves – one of largest office relocation companies based predominantly in the South East. We’re often tasked with getting rid of redundant furniture. Historically people would try to sell some, but they needed something more comprehensive, so we developed a service offering focus on reuse and prevention before recovery (i.e. based on hierarchy).

Between April 2011/12 we resold 11,000 items of furniture donated 1,900 items and remodelled/resized 800 desks.Remodelling desks is much better than paying to get rid of them. Wecan remodel a desk for £50-60, which saves on buying a new desk and disposal costs. The easiest things to sell are good-quality office chairs. If they’ve hardly been used, they can be resold at high value, or can be refurbished and resold with a five-year warranty. We’re also talking to lots of facilities managers at charities, which often have very old desks etc. And we kitted out a whole BLISS office with new furniture. This can be harder to do though, as donation demand is mostly for household goods. We also donate to charities, schools and social enterprises. Especially homeless and smaller charities. With social enterprises, it depends on what they need. We work very closely with ReStore in London.Schools often struggling for furniture, especially where teachers have offices. The resale route is through trade partners, so some is online, some is in shops and some is in showrooms. Who uses Premier Sustain service, and why? Large companies (e.g. law firms etc.) tend to use us and we do desk remodelling for ITV and Vodafone.

What challenges and difficulties have you faced? Trying to speak to the right people to tell them what we do is not easy, since there are not a lot people doing this type of work (especially remodelling).The main barrier we face is the perception of reused furniture. “Second-hand” is a stigmatized term. “Refurbished” seems to be an easier sale than second-hand. It’s good that public procurement is starting to look at reused furniture, but it’s still a barrier in terms of perception Herman Miller do well in the US, but it’s not economically sustainable to send UK Furniture back to US. So locations of manufacturing bases are a major issue. Market constrained by supply or demand? Both. Lack of economic activity means demand for everything is less. But tight budgets mean that people want second-hand things. Also, more people are considering second-hand for financial or environmental reasons.

It’s also very dependent on quality. Stuff that comes out is often cheap stuff that should never have been bought in the first place: so there’s no point in refurbishing it. Is this market growing or shrinking? Refurbished stuff is definitely growing, especially resizing.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Cheap imports (for example, you can buy an IKEA chair for £80). The quality of reused items can far exceed this, but again reuse has a negative image.

What could be done to stimulate the market? Public procurement is already trying to address this, it sends a message that reuse helps.Wider communications would also be good, focusing on quality and moving people away from cheap disposable stuff.

What is the percentage suitable for reuse? We’ve recycled about 500 tonnes of material. From clients that PS go to, reuse is around 80 per cent and saves clients about 40 per cent in cash terms.SMEs probably have much lower reusability. There does come a point, when items are really old, that it is no longer economically viable to reuse.

7

1.3 Daniel O'Connor, WARPit Describe what WARPit does. It’s an organisational redistribution network that matches staff with surplus or underused resources, with staff that requires resources. There’s an online portal that makes it easy for staff to find resources within organisations and dispose of surplus resources between organisations. This has different levels of priority, so when an item needs to be disposed of quickly, it becomes available to everyone. You can also post what you are looking for and it will be flagged when it becomes available.Plus donation, renting, loaning, selling etc.

Current level of activity (£, tonnes, items)? We probably trade between 60 and 70 items a day, across about 20 clients (in the second six months of 13 months). Clients include Perth & Kinross, Durham University and University West of England. We’ve saved around 136 tonnes of CO2e in 13 operational months and diverted about 30 tonnes of material (from furniture, WEEE, stationery, bikes) from landfill. This has avoided procurement and waste disposal costs of around £235,000.

Who uses WARPit, and why? Local authorities and those in the university sector use us most. About 80 per cent of Tyne and Wear LAs are using WARPit. The main motivation seems to be mainly cost savings rather than environmental reasons. Different boxes are ticked for different people. So, for example, if a council signs up to WARPit, all the local schools get it for free. Social enterprises also get it for free. This can help keep items in use through renting out etc. The most popular items are cartridges, lever arch files, filing cabinets and operators chairs.

What's the WARPit / Sunderland CC thing on the website? Each client gets their own portal and can customise it to make it their own. We find it helps get people on board. Sunderland CC have been using it the longest (13 months).

What challenges and difficulties have you faced? Talking to the right people. As it ticks so many boxes, it can be hard finding who the best person to talk to is.We started out selling as a waste management tool but it took twomonths to realise it's a procurement tool (which changes people you need to talk to).Awareness is also a big issue, as waste managers are end-of- pipe.Also, people tend to think WARPit is a clearance firm or a glorified email system, but miss the management system factors.

Other issues are the fact that the market is constrained by supply or demand. Demand is driven by efficiency savings. Material is being thrown away because it’s too hard to redistribute, but that is a problem with matching up, not with lack of demand. People need a tool to bring supply and demand together. Is this market growing or shrinking? It’s expanding and taking advantage of new technology.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Space and convenience. But this becomes less of a barrier the bigger the network gets.Speed of turnover is also important, so for example, when contractors are doing refurbishment: they don't want the furniture, so they get the skip in. There needs to be more joined up thinking within organisations. The definition of waste and perceived liability issues arealso major issues. This is usually based on misinterpretation of regulations.The NHS has also been very hard to break into. As have University hospitals, but that can be done through the University angle.

What could be done to overcome barriers? The FR market has not changed much in 15 years. This is a market that is going to grow very quickly. I think there should be reuse area at HWRCs.

How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? Huge. Take Freecycle, people know the issue and know it's a good idea. Everyone knows about it, but it has not been used because the system is clunky. There’s a big potential market for collaborative consumption.

Other examples of innovation or best practice?

8

Neighbourgoods in US showed that people are ready to share. England is leading the way though: we tried to bring WARPit to the US and Australia, but there was not much passion. Other good examples include Ecomodo, a social enterprise that facilitates lending, of items, skills, time etc. and a charity called Sharing Economy. Also, People Who Share.

1.4 Richard Ryll, Clear Environment Describe what Clear Environment does It’s a complete sustainable office clearance that specialises in second-hand furniture sales. We sell about 50 per cent furniture to retail clients (end users or introducers such as architects); 30 per cent to trade clients (wholesale) and about 20 per cent is recycled or donated. Charitable donations account for around five per cent and furniture recycling, 15 per cent.

We also send zero waste to landfill so for example, we separate out the wood and metal for recycling. It costs £60-80 per tonne to recycle dirty wood, which is cheaper than landfill (offsets labour cost).

Current level of activity (£, tonnes, items) It costs around £10 per unit to be brought into store and prepared. Each items gets sold for around £20, with retail clients around £60. Storage units are about £60. We sell about 1,500 desks, chairs and pedestals per annum. Assuming it’s about 100kg a set, that's 150 tonnes per annum. Do storage units (e.g. filing cabinets etc., and soft seating).

Who uses Clear Environment service, and why? Our clients are mainly architects and designers, PM companies, fit-out contractors, facilities management providers and new furniture dealers and manufacturers (product takeback). A lot more people are becoming interested in what happens to old products.

You can sometimes get money back if the products good. In most cases, the client gets a rebate on clearance cost. But there have been cases where clients are paid to take the furniture.

What challenges and difficulties have you faced? The biggest hurdle is identifying the right type of furniture. In the past, people used to sit at 1.8x1.8m corner desks, but these are too big for modern offices (monitors and CPUs were smaller and space was cheaper). The market has changed. Old furniture is over-engineered and does not normally allow for cost effective modification, but more modern furniture is simpler and more modular, so will become easier. Modular cradle- to-cradle design has become the norm and it allows, for example, changing of colours on furniture (change of corporate colours).Condition is not a major issue as it is almost always good enough to reuse.

Market constrained by supply or demand? Good product goes, but too big furniture or something in the wrong style does not shift. It varies by product.

Is the market growing or shrinking? Growing. More companies are downsizing, with products less than five or ten years old. There are also more saleable products coming onto the market.A lot of government bodies have very large furniture, that can't pass on.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? I can't really think of any. But it’s up to us to educate people. But we need to be careful – we do not want to alienate new manufacturers who don't like the selling of second hand product.

But it’s not caused too many problems, because of different market niches. Takethe car industry, some people will always buy new, it’s a different market: a second hand BMW does not complete with a new one. Second hand Herman Miller is competing with IKEA, not HM.But do have to walk a fine line to keep manufacturers onside.

Does this pose a cap on size of market?

9

No, it poses a cap on how big Clear Environment can get. The second hand market is often very unprofessional and service levels can be very poor.

What could be done to stimulate the market? Raising landfill tax and giving the Environment Agency prosecution powers over fly tipping and illegal disposal operations, making it harder to dump stuff. But developing demand side is down to the commercial sector.

Anything you'd like to add? Since the government tightened on waste processes as part of Construction, Design and Management (CDM), every fit-out company has to report on what it was doing. Overnight, material started being separated which worked wonders. Also, Morgan-Lovell is a great example on sustainability and the Site Waste Management Plans make a level playing field.

2. Large WEEE

2.1 Sepp Eisenreigler, RUSZ in Austria

RUSZ is an independent non-profit operation in Austria that repairs, services and sells appliances. How much NEW product is sold in Austria each year? Around 500,000 washing machines, 250,000 dishwashers and 150,000 cookers.

What is the carbon impact of producing a new item (i.e. CO2 emissions)? Are there any lifecycle assessment type studies the interviewee is aware of? The info is not up-to-date (2006-10). In Germany, the information on Computers is that CO2 emissions are ten times the weight of the product itself. For LDA it’s five times and furniture, two times.

What is the average technical lifetime of a new item? For low-quality items it’s 2.5 years from new. Average quality items it’s 4.5 year from new and higher quality can be up to 10 years plus.

What percentage of discarded items are reusable as discarded, and what proportion are potentially reusable with refurbishment? For Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), currently it’s 2-3 per cent, but potentially 30 per cent. RUSZ sees 8000 units per annum

What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Five years for average to high quality goods.

How many jobs does RUSZ employ? 19 employees and two placements

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? The Ministry has supported round-table discussions over the last two years to develop reuse opportunities and policy in response to the EC’s Waste Framework Directive and reuse of WEEE. Opportunities and pressure are placed within Municipalities but not through Commerce (such as retail takeback). Retail Takeback is the largest collection route for WEEE but it is all shredded and recycled - there’s no reuse.

Take washing machines: consumers are persuaded to buy a new machine because of, for example, the spin- cycle. A new washer can go faster (1600rpm) instead of sticking with a 1200 rpm spin. Is new really better?

There are also problems with scale of repair and testing but this can be remedied through timers, bearings, supports/shock absorbersetc..For example, a bearing lifespan could be dramatically extended if the number of washer drum supports was increased. There’s a build in obsolescence.

10

So, the main barrier is that the legislation has not be executed and the fact that there is little regulation. The Waste Hierarchy is not being implemented and there’s certainly no pressure on Business to comply. There needs to be environmental tax reform and Austria should place its own revenue tax on reused goods.

What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Firstly, real enforcement of waste framework requirements.Also, a review of the cessation of waste to benefit reusers.Employment taxes should be reduced for “green” jobs there should be an Increase in tax on products and services that utilise virgin resources and incentives to improve product durability and quality.

Municipal provinces could set up reuse centres and there could be a Quality Assurance Scheme for Reusers. Also, use the Media to tell the story of the non-support for reuse and lack of co-operation by commerce thus raising the profile of social and environmental profit through reuse.

How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? The low income demand for RUSZ services could be 150,000 people/transactions (18x growth) and 30,000 from Green Consumers (new).

Is the market expanding or contracting? It’s increasing but it’s still too low. The green consumer market is opening up through students.

What recent social / economic / policy developments have had an impact on reuse? The Austrian Ministry has altered social and employment provisions and state programmes recently that mean long term unemployed must have “quick” training. There are also less employment schemes that we’re used to and so we’ve lost contracts. Training can be lengthy and provide useful qualifications, but the current programmes want quick fixes and low skill placements.Therefore employment impact of reuse is diminishing in Austria, while the provision of goods to low-income people is greatly increasing.

Anything to add? EU legislation is not enough. People must lobby at National Level to ensure the correct introduction of Directives and social enterprises need back up of academic research and reviewed data to ensure evidence of sector impacts and value.

In regards to RUSZ, we’re opening new shops in prime locations and also in areas of deprivation and developing regional plans for new good practice reuse outlets and operations.

2.2 Sean Feeney, Environcom Environcom is an independent electrical re-use and recycling specialist of waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE) based in the UK.

How many people doesEnvironcom employ? 225 people

What is the carbon impact of producing a new item (i.e. CO2 emissions)? Are there any lifecycle assessment type studies the interviewee is aware of? There are 20 tonnes less carbon taken up in a reuse washing machine than a new one.

What is the average technical lifetime of a new item? fiveyears min - 10 years max

How much becomes waste each year (please separate municipal and commercial waste stream if possible)? 1.2million tonnes is total potential WEEE market in UK, however capture rate is less and actual WEEE supplies are currently around 450,000 tonnes per annum (separation unknown).

What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? Fiveyears.

11

What percentage of discarded items are reusable as discarded, and what proportion are potentially reusable with refurbishment? All WEEE needs testing. Cooling has 40 per cent reuse, LDAs 25 per cent reuse, Display: TVs 20 per cent, flat screens 30 per cent reuse. Small WEEE could be 25-30 per cent, but for economic reasons it’s 10 per cent reuse. What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Another five years

How much material is handled by Environcom? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole? There are about 75-80,000 tonnes per year incoming stock and we reuse 15 per cent of the number of units. We are the largest commercial reuser in the UK.

What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? 80 per cent of washers go to UK charities (BHF, Scope etc.) and 20 per cent go to central Europe. 40 per cent of cooling goes to UK charities, with 60 per cent to Africa. African people can more easily wash by hand than cool by hand. Despite power cuts, it’s still better for tem to have a fridge even if it’s only on six hours a day. African customers don’t want frost-free fridges because the build up of ice is perceived as helping keep things cool during power cuts.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? The main issue is supply of items for reuse, due to not keeping the quality of the items from household to reuser. For example, often in taking the product out of the home, bits are broken off or lost or not gathered together (e.g. remote control and mountings for TVs), then in transit they are further damaged, then again at HWRCs.

Recycling has to be done to part-fund the reuse activity, which limits the expansion of our reuse activity. There needs to be more economic incentive to separate and process for reuse over recycling. This was a missed opportunity in the re-cast of the WEEE Directive, not including a reuse target.

Also, the WEEE Code of Practice is generally, and sometimes quite specifically, ignored, as there is no policing of it. Compliance Schemes (PCSs) generally fly foul of doing what is required (as they are dominated by manufacturers) and put up procurement barriers to smaller reusers getting involved in WEEE contract bidding as they need a large turnover etc. Whereas this is a low-risk activity that needs less stringent criteria. The lobby from PCSs (and their manufacturer members) is very powerful – stopping all reuse interest to keep the new market buoyant – which is distorting policy decisions.

There’s still a consumer attitude to reusing WEEE, as many still perceive them as being sold through dodgy WEEE dealers and old style ads in newspapers, and will break easily with no support. Whereas now many reusers (community sector and Environcom) supply good refurbished products with guarantees. Consumers don’t think twice about buying a second hand car or house – we need to bring that same shift to WEEE (and other) products. However saying that, if we get enough good supply of reuse onto the market, attitudes would easily change so this is not the biggest barrier – supply of stock for reuse is. What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Emphasising and valuing the social benefits of reuse could help make reuse more important than recycling. Also, putting in reuse targets as separate to recycling targets.

Incentivising retailers and HWRCs to reuse product over recycling would also be good – and get them to provide proper weather-proof takeback points instead of (often high-drop) skips and use sack trolleys to transport around instead of dragging items. LAs could include reuse in their contracts with PCSs.We’re currently working with WRAP and Argos and Dixons to look at this currently.

PAS 141 is doing wonders for reuse activity – it would be great to implement a “handling WEEE on site and in transit (including reuse)” PAS 141 type standard. Then a series of audits for PCS (Environcom are audited 40+ times a year) according to either a Code of Practice or above new PAS 141.

12

How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? I can’t see the end to the size of it if these issues were addressed. Are any new markets in the process of opening up, and if so what are Environcom doing to exploit them? Ebay and Freecycle are considered helpful to the reuse market in general as they make reuse normal, and also offer reusers another outlet (online) to pass on items.

Anything to add? We’re setting up a small WEEE takeback scheme with charities and retailers in the autumn. We’re hoping to encourage more charities to reuse small WEEE – the 25-30 per cent that can be just tested, minor repair, cleaned and re-sold.

2.3 Andy Reade, CREATE What is your experience in the reuse sector? I have a waste management degree and have been involved with a number of waste streams and the FRN. I specifically focused on reuse from a management/procurement approach and was originally a tech manager at Hoover/Candy for 12 years, then a field engineer. Working at CREATE was my first crossover into reuse/third sector. CREATE’s original model was to use white goods as a vehicle to train people for re- insertion; the model worked for 16 years.

CREATE managed reuse workshops, operations at AATF and helped set up some reuse organisations (Bright House in Belfast, in Liverpool prison, Risley prison, Whitleside).

What was CREATE’s business model? It was launched 16 years ago, long before the WEEE Directive, at a time when people paid CREATE to remove waste. The local waste authorities used to look for local solutions (pre-WEEE Directive) and CREATE focused on white goods as they were considered to have more residual value than other types of EEE such as cameras, for example.

CREATE sold lots of equipment to landlords, social housing organisations, or student housing. Four years ago, CREATE was processing 3500 appliances a week in terms of sorting, either reusing or recycling; selling 2000 of reused items per week. CREATE previously had people visiting from all over the world and trying to replicate their model

What factors contributed to CREATE’s closure? Due to the way elements were stipulated in the WEEE Directive, national collection contracts were put in place, which went over the head of local reuse organisations (collection done by large recycling organisations). This means that EEE products are entering at a lower portion of the waste hierarchy.

This system reduces collection and treatment costs (due to larger volumes) but bypasses reuse and selling EEE products to reuse organisations kills the system. In this system it’s far easier for recyclers to get hold of EEE by any means and shred it.

Recyclers methods of handling waste products is an issue (as they reduce the possibility for reuse) but because reuse wasn’t built into the 1st stage WEEE Directive, this has caused a problem with the reuse sector; by the time the recast comes through, a number of reuse actors will have disappeared.

Also, the way goods are manufactured are not necessarily in line with prevention and reuse principles; there are many bad practice examples of throw-away products and manufacturers have no interest in reuse. Producer compliance schemes are the big boy’s club of manufacturers; they try to spend as little money as possible on collection and disposal and hence rely on recyclers.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Getting hold of raw materials. There was never an issue with demand; the biggest issue was getting reused EEE products into the shop as soon as possible. The problem was in terms of getting inputs for the reuse process.

13

With scrap metal prices going up due to China’s industrial revolution, the pricing model for CREATE’s reuse operations switched; it had to pay £12/appliance. Washing machines used to be repairable by the removal of the tub and the refitting of the bearings; but those types of parts are no longer built for reuse.

Similarly carbon brushes in the equipment motor used to be an easy repair; now motors are riveted together. There is a real problem with Ecodesign and dismantling

What solutions exist to addressing current barriers to EEE reuse? There is potential for local partnerships between recyclers and reuse organisations. For example in Manchester, through PFI, a 25-year waste management contract was awarded to Viridor. They collected and smashed EEE products through household recycling centres and they saw a partnership with CREATE for reuse as a good PR opportunity.

Everything that comes out of the skip costs them money. In this case CREATE was collecting EEE products from six household waste centres and achieving a 60 per cent reuse rate. Two filters were applied to select products for reuse: 1) the greeter at the gate had a manual on what was scrap versus reusable; 2) the driver did a second sort on the cage of EEE products, left behind the scrap and took the reusable goods to CREATE.

Reused products from CREATE were sold back into communities where reused products where needed and despite the fact that CREATE was a mile away from the mall, the business was successful selling products to low-income families.

What is the future of the EEE reuse market in the UK? The market is there for reuse. However, there’s no new blood coming into the industry and no new training, so skills are being lost. There is potential for the creation of new organisations and systems following on the WEEE recast, but it may be there’s no infrastructure left.

The WEEE recast was too little too late; the recast includes increased reuse/recycling rate (80-85 per cent). The five per cent for reuse which could have been handled by CREATE has been given back to the recyclers.

If you have the product in hand you can decide what to do with it; but it needs to filter through reuse. Potential exists for local reuse organisations to align reuse with larger recyclers at AATF sites.

How many people were employed at CREATE? CREATE had 120 staff; 35 of these were full time, the rest were on training contracts through the Future Jobs Fund.When the conservative government cancelled this re-insertion programme, CREATE lost people. What new markets exist in relation to EEE reuse? It’s quite likely that new markets will develop with the further usage of the PAS 141 reuse specification; it could become a full blown European standard. One of the key issues is market pressure and increasing competitive pricing (e.g. Galaxy tablet for £200) and there is a massive export market for these types of goods.

What was the background of the development of PAS 141? The Environment Agency (EA) was x-raying containers for shipment abroad as it is forbidden to send waste to non-OECD countries. The shipper insisted the shipment was products, but the EA maintained that it was waste; so a tool was needed to classify what was in the shipment containers. PAS 141 describes a process which EEE needs to go through in order to cease to be waste and to be considered a commodity. Those reuse operations which are prepared to comply with PAS 141 can play off a huge export market.

What is the typical lifespan of EEE products? When white goods were first received at the end of the their first life, typically they were already three to five- years old. The goal was to sell models even if their first lifetime was longer than 3-5 years; for example, typically dryers were older and could still sell as the design has remained the same.

14

All products sold by CREATE had a 12 month guarantee; CREATE had engineers on the road for this. Often products having gone through a second lifetime with CREATE, will come back into CREATE via bulky waste collection; all products sold by CREATE are labelled with a barcode.

Electric cookers also have a longer first lifetime since people hold onto them longer; they have a lower failure rate than washing machines and are often built into kitchen spaces.

What innovation are you seeing in the EEE reuse sector? There’s a lot of IT reuse with computers and laptops. Remploy have a good system and RDC is doing some good stuff; Gary Griffiths, tech guy, Eielan Coleman at Brighton House, Belfast, Grantham, Envirocon.There are other reuse organisations that are fairly small; but there are less and less, unless they’re taken a commercial angle (like B2B). In terms of the third sector, there’s the SOFA Project,which is downstairs from the FRN in Bristol.

What was the economic model behind CREATE? In the original model, CREATE was given money for the removal of EEE products; CREATE was not paying to obtain products. A small profit was made on the white goods, but with the cost of refurbishments, this was limited. The main revenue stream for CREATE was training contracts for adults; white goods repair served as a means to do this.

CREATE was not relying on the products making money; the remanufacturing and revenues from white goods sales was essentially cost neutral and with the shift in the economics of the operation, CREATE found itself in a position where it couldn’t afford to fire or hire anyone; the operation was stuck.

CREATE had 35 full time staff; the rest were on training contracts. At their high point, CREATE was bringing in 3500 appliances per week and selling 2000 lbs/week. The money from scrap recycling helped fund operational elements such as transport and logistics while products for reuse were set aside and sent to workshops.

A VAT quirk exists, such that if products are donated, you don’t pay VAT. If we had excess quantity, CREATE “donated” machines to other reuse organisations for £10 to cover the basic costs. In Northern Ireland, organisations were paying £12/machine to get hold of white goods. However, when to get your hands on white goods you need to pay £17/machine, the model is no longer viable. The reuse figure at CREATE was 60 per cent.

How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? The market and the demand is there for the EEE reuse to expand

2.4 Eric Long, Comet What lead to the launch of an EEE reuse programme at Comet? A majority of the large EEE products (e.g. washing machines, TVs, etc.) sold are delivered to consumers. This also drives a considerable amount of “waste” product, as new machines often replace older machines. Initially there was no mechanism to get rid of such waste as the Council saw it as a cost problem. But as large volumes of sales drive large volumes of waste products, Eric started the EEE reuse programme in 2006, which had been started with a previous organisation who was later bought out by Sims.

How much NEW product is sold in England each year? Comet sales per year is around £1.4 billion; collection and reuse has remained consistent in relation to sales since the creation of the reuse programme in 2006

What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? Most laundry equipment is collected at the five-year mark, as these types of machines contain mechanical parts that wear and have a high failure rate; typically they need to be repaired. For refrigeration machines, equipment is collected with an average age of seven years. TVs can have as long as a ten year lifecycle; old CRT units have closer to a five or six year lifecycle.

15

What percentage of discarded items are reusable as discarded, and what proportion are potentially reusable with refurbishment? Currently of 135,000 refrigeration products 22 per cent are sold for reuse; this is an increasing trend and Sims is seeking to hit a 40 per cent reuse target. Of the 244,000 laundry products, such as washing machines, dishwashers and dryers, reuse is at 12 per cent. For the 18,000 TVs, the reuse rate is five per cent.

How much is handled by Comet? On average since the programme was started approximately 400,000 units have been collected per year (approximately 20,000 tonnes/year). In 2006 480,000 units were collected In 2008 293,000 units were collected In 2009 440,000 units were collected (World Cup year) In 2010, 424,000 units were collected In 2011, 400,000 units were collected On average since the programme was started approximately 400,000 units have been collected per year (approximately 20,000 tonnes/year). Sales per year is around £1.4 billion; collection and reuse has remained consistent in relation to sales. In World Cup or Eurocup years there can be a spike because of additional sales and collection of TVs.

Record any information on typical transport, storage and maintenance activities etc. Old products are picked up from consumers on delivery of a new machineand the packaging for the new machine is used for transporting the old one. Once products arrive back at the home delivery platform, Sims collects “waste” products on a daily basis.

In sorting centres, Sims examines products to see if they can be reused or have reached end of life. For resale of equipment, Sims has a partnership with the British Heart Foundation and other charities. If products can’t be reused they’re broken into components and sold back to factories; nearly all material is recycled.

On their reception, Sims grades products based on their condition (scrap versus possible use), and checks for physical appearance (e.g. doors banged up) and engineers check the functionality of the machine.

Charities are always in the market for products and buy from Sims. There are also small retailers which will come in and collect large volumes from Sims.

How many people does the programme employ? Directly there isjustme. However, a number of people are involved indirectly; for example, 500 drivers. Comet partners with Sims for the programme and their contract was just renewed for another threeyears. Not a lot of infrastructure is needed for such a reuse programme, as long as there is an existing delivery or pick up service. Smaller companies could have issues with this as they can send products via the Royal Mail service or an external courier, but often this is expensive (£8/9) and such providers will not do unpacking or reuse logistics elements.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Price points for EEE products drives a lot of which products are coming in for reuse and the maltreatment of EEE products during collection at end of life can reduce possibilities for reuse. EEE can also be collected through civic amenity sites but in order for products to be reusable they need to be in something protected rather than just an open skip. Arranging collection directly with the consumer seems to be the best way to get hold of the product without exposing it to the elements and thereby maximising its chances for reuse.

Also, if consumers bring in products themselves there can be issues with handling; for example people may not be aware that you can’t lay down fridges. Cardboard and plastics around the equipment need to be kept dry; wet packaging can be even worse than being left outside for a potentially reusable product.

What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? There needs to be more incentive for customers, like there is with used cars, but with manufacturers participation (to encourage collection and reuse).Sims tries to maximise product reuse, but its dependant on the market. For example, if a 32-inch TV is being sold for £200 and a 20-inch for under £100, these price points drive non-reuse of such products, because you won’t be able to sell the reused product at a price which could compete, unless there’s a culture of changing TVs frequently. 16

How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? Potential is high; charities are demanding more products and there is a higher demand for LCD TVs than able to collect. As consumers move from CRT units to LCD units there may be additional possibility for TV reuse.

How do Comet’s repair service offerings tie into the reuse programme? Comet is currently closing down their white goods repair service, but keeping their brown goods repairs service in-house. Non-repairable items are sent from Comet’s repair service unit to Sims for recycling via the same path which the potentially reusable machines collected from consumers follow. If products to be repaired are still at home, then Comet arranges for a replacement and the product also enters into the same cycle

Are any types of new markets opening up in relation to EEE reuse? Some Comet locations collect mobile phones. The recast of the WEEE Directive may require the collection of more small domestic appliances such as kettles, steamers, etc.This would force more collection by producers; if this version of the recast goes through Comet will be putting containers for these types of EEE in stores.

Lots of organisations are looking for the best way to do this; if there’s a large retail park for example one container could be set up at the entry to the area. However, the disadvantage is that one product will be stacked on another, which means reuse potential will be lower. Comet is considering offering to collect such products at the same time do product delivery for larger EEE, as this presents the best chance of reuse.

However, some small EEE is not attractive for reuse; for example is there a demand to reuse toaster? They only cost £10 new. The ticket price of a replacement product is the key issue. Regardless, it’s better to have high collection as this drives more material reuse, even if not always product reuse

3. Small WEEE

3.1 Eco computers Product: ICT mainly, some comments on small WEEE

What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? Three years if business to business (B2B) IT, five years if business to consumer (B2C) IT.

What percentage of discarded items is reusable as discarded, and what proportion is potentially reusable with refurbishment? B2B IT has 90 per cent reuse, rest recycled while B2C IT has 60 per cent reuse, rest recycled. All PCs have to have some refurbishment, even if just data wiping – and this has to happen if reuse, recycling or waste. Many peripherals can be reused without refurbishment.

How much is handled by Eco computers? Ecocomputers reused 250 tonnes in the last year.

What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? Our work is on digital inclusion – so we target getting computers to low-income people. Our main clients are Housing Associations (who buy for their residents) and (the government) Work Programme providers who buy them for their clients. We also sell about 10 per cent directly to the public through the libraries that we run.

What is the average lifetime of a reused item? 2.5 years. Although this is highly dependent on how they are treated – often people who have not previously had a PC or been online much, are apt to press more buttons without knowing and open the doorway for viruses. We try to offer support to ensure that first time users look after their reuse items, and this extends their second life.

17

What is the carbon impact of collecting or preparing items for reuse? Toprocess 250 tonnes a year we need 1000 sq ft storage plus 1000 sq ft workshops and one or two vans.

How many jobs does the Eco computer provide? Eco computers has10 staff and 120 volunteers.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Financially, the barriers are digital inclusion customers/housing associations having funding to pay for items. And Eco computers only breaks even – it does not make money – therefore to expand it needs grants/loans and more staff capacity to secure contracts/find more premises, recruit more staff set up system.

Supply and demand are not barriers in this sector as it is virtually untapped so far. Housing associations are queuing up to work with Eco computers. For Eco having a robust stock control and POS (point of sales) system that tracks everything and tells staff what is required and when. We are looking to find £10,000 to fund a system.

Interestingly people are often surprised by how smart second hand PCs are – some are just off top of the range. Digital inclusion customers are almost always impressed. But how can we get this message out – that you won’t get a lump of a PC just because it’s second hand? The average Joe tends also to be very happy with quality and price compared to new as you can get a smart reused computer for £95 from Eco computers.

One way they encourage people to get their own is through the libraries – people can come in for 1hr free internet/pc use – and we offer them reused computers.

Broadband access is also an issue as many people (especially those on low incomes) don’t have landlines any more, just mobiles. And you need a landline for Broadband. BT has the monopoly on landlines and is costs £120 to get a new line put in and the standing charge of around £12 per month plus a broadband charge on top of that. There are NO community deals from BT – no ‘free installation for unemployed’. Main way people find a job is by email and internet – so this is excluding these people from adequate job hunting/the market further.

What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? More joint working with other third sector organisations in terms of co-selling stock, accessing the same clients and finding and taking on joint premises plus encouraging partnerships with private companies under their Corporate social responsibility.

Getting retailers to set aside 10 per cent of their floor space for a reuse section would be great and expanding marketing/publicity around reuse but also around the local social benefits – to appeal to people’s sense of local responsibility. Educating the public about social enterprises in general and reuse in particular.

Local authorities are still silo working – environment and community departments do not coordinate. If they did and were more proactive, they could get some great benefits from joining up their work on a local level. Local Government should also make sure there are small WEEE collection points (that are re-use friendly – NOT the drop banks) at all local government offices.

Also, break up BT’s monopoly on landlines or get BT to offer community deals – such as free installation to over six months unemployed and no standing charge (could block all landline calls if they want too). Also, they could offer a subsidised community WIFI deal to housing associations for their tenants (often called Wi-Max which has area coverage with large transmitters).

How big is the potential market for the product if the major barriers were removed? Could easily expand ten times in just twoyears.

Is the market expanding or contracting? Expanding – Eco computers have five drop off points currently. If we had 50 we could be reusing that amount (which we hope to in two years’ time). Our main barrier to reuse would then be processing capacity.

Are any new markets in the process of opening up?

18

Tablets and ipads are currently harder to re-use because engineers are not yet up to speed on refurbishing them – however this shouldn’t take them long. In the future, i.e. around 10 years from now, there could be a technical barrier which is if we move to “slim clients”. These are server-run computer system – so that staff in an organisation don’t have desktops/laptops, but just plug into a terminal (screen, keyboard, mouse). This will obviously then affect the supply of PCs onto the market – however is will tend to just affect B2C supply. Also if computers get cheaper and cheaper to make, and faster turnarounds between upgrades, we could see PCs go the way of small WEEE where it is more economical to buy new than fix/take on a reuse item. However, computers have such as fast turnaround (two to three years and people are upgrading) that the reuse market is far from saturation at the moment.

What recent social / economic / policy developments have had an impact on WEEE reuse? The re-cast of the WEEE directive in 2014 will affect things as B2B WEEE will be part of the WEEE system too and therefore evidence prices will be able to be raised and this will affect the market – unknown how but likely to be a positive change.

How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? The re-use market could expand exponentially if these steps were put in place. At least for the next 10 years as it is (i.e. before massive technological change).

Anything to add? Around 25 per cent of small WEEE can be reused without repair – just by testing and cleaning. Eco computers already has collection points within some libraries which are collecting large amounts of stock. To be tested, cleaned and sorted before being sold through the libraries.

3.2 Scott Butler, European Recycling Platform Describe what ERP does European Recycling Platform is a WEEE and batteries compliance scheme, across 13 countries. It works on behalf of number of producers.

How much NEW product is sold in England each year? Households buy roughly one million tonnes of EEE.

What is the average technical lifetime of a new item? We’ve recently done a LA assessment, but it’s not published yet.

How much becomes waste each year (please separate municipal and commercial waste stream if possible)? About 450,000 tonnes. About 40 per cent return rate to AATFs.Return rate for high metal items is low, and some going in with light iron.

How much is handled by the European Recycling Platform? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole? ERP handles directly 90,000 tonnes per annum in the UK and across Europe, about twomillion tonnes since 2007. In your recent CIWM article you made mention of reuse targets. Have you given thought as to how these might be implemented? Recast considered a five per cent reuse target across the board – but it’s not favourable because it’s a blunt instrument. The challenge is to make the target simple but reflective of differences. The UK has put reuse on the same rung of the ladder as recycling and this is a step in the right direction.

Quality standards also need to be high – equivalent to recycling. The argument against sales based collection target encourages you get WEEE back, not to keep it going. Could a target encourage target encourage goods to be reused that should not be?

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector?

19

As soon as things become waste it open whole bunch of legislative issues. Incentive to say it’s a donation which makes it hard to track / regulate.

Third sector organisations can also struggle to jump through hoops imposed by high standards (even though they are doing good work) and need a more flexible system. PAS 141 is a step in the right direction.

Consistency of suppliers who provide service also need a standard.In WEEE environment, there is a lot of uncertainty over access to material (schemes with few producers who collect a lot to trade) and there is too much attention on system rather than outcomes. A lack of a link between producers and waste does not help. Also, in some areas the domestic market for secondary products is not good.

What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? For the UK, the WEEE recast is an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between schemes and access to waste. It would result in more control over access to suppliers and improvement of quality, plus more accountability to WEEE manufacturers.

The development of PAS 141 would also help. WEEElabex European standards for treatment to create a level playing field.Plus Senelec should be elements of reuse within that. These would provide a pan-European standard.

How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? It’s impossible to answer as it’s driven by broader economics. There are definite opportunities in combination of austerity and environmental consciousness, and combined with standards, the environment looks healthy. But some areas have huge innovation and new product push. Nobody wants a Nokia anymore.But white goods and flat panel TVs have big potential.

3.3 Dr. Colin Fitzpatrick, University of Limerick What is your experience in the EEE reuse sector? I’m involved with StEP(Solving the E-waste Problem), a network of refurbishers, compliance schemes, regulators, producer/retail associations

What quantities of EEE equipment are being reused in the UK? There’s a fairly good amount of reuse in the UK and a good amount of market information. In terms of Eurostat reporting on reuse rates, the UK is among the best. In Ireland, the reuse sector is grey; there is no formal reuse. The UK and Belgium are role models in the EU-27 for EEE reuse good practices.

Attitudes towards reuse can be culturally different, in Belgium and the UK, reuse is allowed to count for WEEE targets, which means there is competition between recycling and reuse in terms of target achievement and quantities. Reuse in the UK for EEE is around 5-10 per cent.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Mainly, access to equipment in terms of getting it from consumers and into the reuse scheme.STeP recently interviewed 28 organisations on the barriers they experienced in relation to EEE reuse; this resulted in a list of 12 or 13 different barriers that were then ranked and scored. Some of the key barriers mentioned in the study are: lack of incentives and legislation, difficult access to WEEE which is high quality and low cost, bad reuse practices and existence of grey sector for computer reuse, non-alignment between public and private collection of products.

Cost is not the issue for EEE reuse, access is.From a cultural standpoint, people are very willing to buy reused; for example a Euro-barometer study illustrated the willingness to buy reused products was very high. In the study, clothing reuse was considered one of the less attractive areas for reuse; however, clothing reuse is huge and EEE reuse is even larger than this.

In Illinois, USA, last year, a system was put in place for encouraging product reuse and those treatment options with better environmental and social results (higher up the waste hierarchy). In the system put in place in Illinois, if EEE products are refurbished their weight for WEEE targets counts as double, and if they are

20

donated to school or educational institutions, their weight is counted as triple. Ewaste is a newer issue in the US.

What can be done to overcome current barriers to EEE reuse? Standards are important. Quality and reliability as well as control of product quality are the top success factors for EEE reuse. Standards can alleviate manufacturer concerns in relation to their brand image and their lack of control over reuse units and serve as quality control, like a label. They also open up access.

What are future directions for the EEE reuse market? The market is expanding. With the financial crisis there has been a drop in income and an increasing focus on reuse. The market and available consumers are not a problem. In Belgium for example, consumers are waiting for the truck to arrive. There may be natural limits to the EEE reuse system, for example five, seven or ten per cent. It’s possible that the market could max out because of issues related to lifecycle and potential perverse impacts.

Computers are a dynamic technology but have levelled out in terms of advancements; for example Windows 7 has lower hardware requirements than Vista (same for Windows 8). Also, now all services are online, the computer is simply a portal to somewhere else; Facebook isn’t going to be any faster or slower based on the technical specifications of your computer, it’s your internet connect that matters.

What is the typical lifetime of EEE products? There isn’t a lot of concrete data on this; one study exists on computer hard drives, but it had a small sample and found very low use time for units. In the study, one-sixth of computers were used for 1000 hours or less, there was a big spike of low usage and then a very long tail.

What innovations are you seeing in the EEE reuse sector? The sale of services rather than products.With services, the physical part of the unit can be reused over several consumers.

In Belgium, there is a quality label and brand for EEE reuse, which has been built up over 10 years. EEE reuse also ties into the social economy, which is an added benefit.The market is enormous and should look inwards for solutions

3.4 Corey Dehmey, R2 Solutions What is your experience in the reuse sector? I’ve a background in technology and standards and I got involved with EEE reuse five years ago based on some project work. I sold 350,000 PCs to a client and had to take back the old equipment. I currently work as a consultant helping clients in the industry with certification

What exactly do the R2 standards cover? R2 standards identify industry best practice, serve to distinguish companies from the rest of the market and help consumers identify companies using best practices. Areas covered by the standards include environmental protection, data destruction, tracking and refurbishment practices.

Currently there is a committee working on the revision of the standards, which will further increase quality control. The standards involve checking that devices have a market for reuse, then they go through tests for functionally; the higher the quality of the reuse, the longer the lifetime

What guidance do the standards provide in terms of reuse versus recycling? There is a technical evaluation of the equipment to assess if it is damaged and if there’s a viable location for its resale. The refurbishment process starts with a triage/sorting step. US State laws are starting to require certifications for companies to process electronics and a big advance was made last year when the US government began to require certification of all their contractors which process EEE.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector?

21

The key issues are logistics costs and labour costs. Logistics costs because the further you ship the product, the more expensive it becomes and revenues are reduced. Labour is an important cost and lots of export occurs because of this.

Who are the actors in the market for EEE reuse in the USA? In the USA, most equipment being reused is from the commercial world which has a two to three year refresh cycle. For consumer EEE lifetimes are longer, so there’s little reuse.

There are a couple of larger players in this area and a whole industry of small players; ranging from the treatment of a few hundred machines up to many thousand. EEE reuse can be a local low cost alternative for schools and in relation to charitable work. Recyclers achieve 95 per cent recycling or try to find reuse value, however if collection takes place via recyclers, often the machines are not handled well and there’s no technical capacity for reuse.

What social or cultural barriers exist to EEE reuse? There’s a divide between people who want the latest and the greatest versus those that can’t afford it. There aren’t cost barriers to EEE reuse. At the parts level, there’s a huge market; it’s hard to say if parts are reused or new. There is also, however, the cultural influence of Apple (can’t update or fix, need to replace); there’s a lot of this with smaller devices. The desktop market is dwindling; PDAs and other more mobile products are on the rise.

Which EEE items are most commonly reused? Laptops represent the largest market because they are traded more frequently. Globally, cell phones are huge; units are sent abroad where the credit industry is not established (in other countries get a phone, then a plan). Blackberries are on the descent in the US, but are on the rise abroad.

Which EEE items are least commonly reused? CRT monitors are unsuitable for reuse because they are obsolete and for LCDs, typically consumers hold onto them so long that no value remains. Printers are difficult to reuse as they’re very inexpensive on the front end and can easily be damaged in shipment. Desktops can also be difficult to reuse because they’re obsolete very quickly

What is the size of the market for EEE reuse in the US? Approximately 10 per cent of products are reused.

Where is the average EEE reuse lifetime? EEE reuse can add at least two or three years to the product lifetime. In the short term (next 5-10 years) there’s going to be an extension of EEE product lifetimes due to cloud computing. There is a trend of buying services; for example Google docs is a cloud-based service.

However, selling via a service model is a short-term trend; in the longer term there will be move towards smartphones and tablets. There will most likely be convergence into one device, such as the ultrabooks (thin light weight laptops) and phones will probably remain the primary device but will take more of a laptop form.

As devices are smaller, the weight measuring for recycling will be less meaningful, because products will be lighter weight. In the States there is earlier turnover in the cell phone market, since companies offer a free upgrade every two years; this leads to move reusable devices.

Are there any potentially negative environmental impacts of EEE reuse? Logistics and the movement of the devices can contribute to pollution. Markets where these are sold (abroad in poorer countries) don’t necessarily have an EoL treatment structure; product lifespans can also vary based on local conditions.

What innovations have you seen in the EEE reuse sector? It’s still pretty basic in terms of how the devices are handled. With smaller products there’s a risk with data destruction of not all the information being erased. Typically, companies are doing their job well; they have sophisticated inventory systems where products can be scanned to see if they have value on the reuse market in order to assess demand.

22

3.5 Gary Griffiths, RDC What is your experience in the reuse sector? I spent 20 years at British Telecomm as a buyer for managed waste and recycling contracts and then left for Scotland and focused on the reuse and recycling of telecommunications equipment. RDC is the largest computer reuse facility, based in Essex and was set up by 3 guys in1992, now there are 300 employees.

Revamping machines and reselling machines is the focus of the business, and computers handled are predominantly from the business sector.I’m also involved with an advisory body on WEEE and electronics products, which sits under the business innovation branch of the government

How does RDC work? RDC tests equipment to ensure quality and consumer confidence, using PAS 141 and independent testing. These involve independent bodies and include labelling and identification by equipment.

The Basel Convention indicates in its correspondence guidelines that testing should be undertaken on equipment for export, but it doesn’t specify which type of testing so RDC keeps a record for each piece of equipment which is processed.

What quantities of computer equipment does RDC handle? RDC represents one fifth or one sixth of the market share for computer reuse and recycling and RDC has supplied 120 lbs of computers of 10 years; all activities at RDC are self-funded.

In 2011, RDC was able to take 360 tonnes of equipment from waste for reuse and over the same period, 1683 tonnes of computer equipment were sent for recycling. Total collection of “waste” EEE was just over 2000 tonnes in 2011. Therefore, RDC achieves an 18 per cent reusability rate.

What is the typical lifetime of a computer? A lifetime of a computer depends on the manufacturer, but typically runs from 7 -11 years. Computer lifetimes were previously shorter because of software changes such as Windows 7, Vista, etc.However, the quantity of RAM can be retrofitted for older equipment to fit with specifications of newer applications.

Typically incoming equipment has a three to five year first lifetime and can be refurbished and returned to users. There’s a 20-year old Apple computer which sold for over £20,000.RDC has the possibility to directly install Microsoft software on reused computers, meaning they’re plug and play.

How would you define the concept of lifetime for electronics equipment? As long as the equipment is used for its original purpose, it doesn’t matter how many owners it passes through,it’s still part of a lifetime. Once the equipment moves to recycling, it’s lifecycle is over.

RDC are paramedics, not gravediggers, they always try to reuse components or sell into recycling. Computers ready for reuse typically have been already used for a period of three or four years; this lifetime is then extended to 7-11 years through reuse. Lifetimes for printers are shorter; typically incoming products for reuse have been used for three to five years.Printer lifetimes can be doubled if they’re properly maintained in terms of checking the cartridges, cleaning, etc.

Laptops have a typical lifetime of five to seven years since they’re carried. The more times laptops are used, the higher possibility they will come back with elements missing; for example matching power supplies (in terms of the transformer connection to the unit, not just the plug), is a problem.

The key factor for reuse is treatment by the former user. The reuse model allows computers to be deployed for one or two year periods after their original lifetime (could be multiple reuse lifetimes).

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? The lack of quality standards means buyers can be reluctant to buy reused. PAS 141 provides some type of standards and can help put barriers on digital dumping of equipment that was never properly tested, in Brazil or Egypt. Also, in cases where a company is concerned about potential leaks of confidential data, destructive recycling is preferred over reuse.

23

Some people argue older computers are less energy efficient; however UNU did a study on the impact of computers on the environment in 2003, which showed that 75 per cent of energy use and environmental impacts for computers were related to the product phase. Reuse allows the avoidance of new equipment production.

There is a concern that reuse will undermine the normal computer market; e.g. concerns by HP that reused HP computers do not well represent the HP brand.

How big is the potential market if the major barriers were removed? The market overseas is huge; RDC has experienced a 240 per cent increase in sales overseas over the past five years. The reuse sector is a potential growth area; potential involvement of up to 2000-3000 people in the sector

What are current trends in the computer reuse sector? Export sales for RDC have tripled in the past three years, largely due to emerging economies which want access to technology, but can’t buy new products (the UN supports Africa in this area).

There are income possibilities of reusing computers; companies and users are more interested in the financial angle than the CSR element, but fines can be incurred if not all data is destructed.

What are future trends and directions for the computer reuse sector? We’ll see further application of standards, like PAS 141in the UK or R2 in the US, responsible recycling guidelines and tracking of equipment. There’ll also be more work on the E-steward responsible action network (downstream action) and on the UN project on how to get electronics good to African countries. Although article 1 of the WEEE recast focuses on reuse; earlier drafts had one per cent reuse target but RDC achieves 18 per cent reuse, so the reuse potential is there.

Specialists metals are also causing a problem because there are finite supplies, which are controlled by countries like China; urban mining can be a source material. Then, there are more mobiles and tablets, which have flash memory, making it more difficult to guarantee data is removed.

How many people are employed in the computer reuse sector? RDC has 300 employees but more broadly there are lots of social enterprises, around 300 organisations in the UK, with approximately 1200-1500 people involved in the reuse of EEE (e.g. white goods). There are 12 organisations for computer reuse; size-wise these range from 70 employees down to a couple dozen employees

What types of social attitudinal barriers have you run across in the computer reuse sector? It’s a misconception that people don’t want to use reused electronics products. Consumers want to have confidence in the functionality of the reused products, with, for example, a warranty or a money-back guarantee. Consumers can also now sell their own used products online. RDC works with charity shops; the shops collect the computer products, RDC refurbishes and sells them, and the money is sent back to the charity organisation.

What innovations and examples of best practice are you seeing in the sector? A UK charity organisation which had call centres in India had their UK-based computers refurbished and sent to schools in the community around the Indian call centre.

3.6 Richard Peagram, HP, speaking on behalf of ZeroWIN Initiative What is your experience in the reuse sector? I’m currently finishing up my current role at HP where I’ve been for the past five years. I specialise in project management research for compliance and in waste electronics and producer responsibility. Now I’m involved with TowardsZero Waste in Industrial Networks (ZeroWIN) where reuse is a topic that comes up quite a lot.

What quantities of computer equipment are reused?

24

The business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer(B2C) streams are completely different and have very different waste with different lifespans. B2B computer reuse is a very competitive industry; the European Commission thinks there is no B2B reuse, but it’s simply because it’s a private industry.

The key issue is the time needed to get a computer to be a saleable product: business tend to feel the need to have unit to market in 20 minutes, otherwise, it’s sent to scrap. The key factor is if someone wants to buy the potentially reusable product

What is the average technical lifetime of a new item? If a computer is truly in the waste stream, typically it’s seven or eight years old; continued reuse is dependent on the potential revenue from another reuse of the machine.

What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? Consumers typically use computers for three to four years. In the financial sector computers are changed every two years; this is great for reuse because it’s a consistent stream of similar equipment. In the public sector for example, units are changed every seven years, which is less conducive to reuse.

What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Seven to eight years

How many are employed by the sector as a whole? There are 200-400 organisations; the top four or five are quite large with several million employees and then another 200 are small, just a couple of guys.ZeroWin is putting out a deliverable on the size of the sector.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Economic factors are the key barrier to computer reuse. Access can also be an issue, since EEE is highly dispersed.

Also, It’s logistically hard to get waste electronics back. In terms of the technical possibility of reusing the EEE collected, it’s worth doing it for the revenues. At HP however, there’s no actual reuse, just research. It’s also hard to track how many hours a computer has been used; although this could make a different in terms of the shape it’s in.

What are current and future trends in the computer reuse sector? There has been an increase in people collecting EEE equipment for reuse because of the economic crisis. People want extra cash and the materials market is high; all this means there’s increased competition in terms of which equipment is selected. It’s possible the market for computer reuse is at its saturation point

What to do you see as being the future role of standards in the computer reuse sector? HP is aware of PAS 141 and I’m keen on standards and producer responsibility; we need the right things to happen to these. There should be treatment standards and extended responsibility down the supply chain. The problem is smaller operations which don’t have quality standards; e.g. two guys working out of a garage.

Are any new markets in the process of opening up in relation to computer reuse? Where items are going to be sold is the key factor; the market is very reactive. Buyers’ reasoning changes on a daily basis

Have you seen any social or attitudinal barriers to the reuse of computer equipment? It’s dependant on the market and what consumers are willing to buy. If it’s £300 for a new laptop versus £250 for a reuse laptop, what are people willing to buy?

The bigger players in the computer reuse market process 10,000 laptops and want them to have a standard profile in terms of the number of years, their arrival in a constant stream, etc.Small companies are probably more likely to take on reused machines whichare a useful commodity, it’s not a technical or feasibility issue.

What types of improvements do you envisage which could overcome the current barriers in the computer reuse sector?

25

Consumers are a non-interested party, so education can always help as it’s the consumer that makes the decision. It’s hard for the consumer to make a decision between reuse and recycling, it’s up to equipment manufacturers to present reuse and recycling as an option for EEE products and communicate on this issue.

What innovations and examples of best practice are you seeing in the sector? All the players in the computer reuse market seem to be doing pretty well but RDC and Sims have very high standards. HP has a new asset recovery/reuse programme which permits managed use of B2B IT assets.

3.7 Sarah Commes & Willie Cade, PC Rebuilders & Recyclers What is PCRR’s business model? PCRR is a Microsoft Authorised Refurbisher (MAR); there are 75 larger organisations in this programme and 5000 smaller organisations. It was founded officially 12 years ago, but it started 15 years ago in Cade’s basement and has grown to be one of the largest refurbishers in the world.

PCRR accepts all unwanted equipment both commercial and consumer; if it can’t be reused, it’s sent for recycling. Equipment is brought in and tested and PCRR enables a refresh of the image back to factory settings, which addresses the two year limit on images and allows for longer lifetimes. We work on a cost recovery basis.

Machines refurbished by PCRR have a threeyear hardware warranty: only oneother refurbisher offers this type of warranty. PCRR is now also involved with organising an international computer refurbishment summit annually in the US, sponsored by Microsoft and Dell. Four mini summits also take place all over the world. We’re also involved with the international trade board and with R2 certification and Cade is on the UN Committee for Reuse (PACE).

How many employees does PCRR have? PCRR has 30 full-time employees

What is the average technical lifetime of a new item? The total lifetime can be around eight or ten years at the end of life with consumers; it depends on the wear and tear on the equipment. Technically, It’s more accurate to talk in terms of hours of usage, and a quarter of machines coming in have been used less than 500 hours. There’s not a high correlation between age and usage.

Design specifications for computers typically allow for around 50,000 hours of usage, which equals to three or four years of hard use but computer hardware can last up to 16 years, whereas typically software images last two years.

Typically desktops last longer than laptops because there’s less physical handling. Laptops are also more likely to have heat issues, which can be a problem with integrated circuits; plus laptops have smaller and more proprietary parts.

What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? The first lifecycle of a PC is around three to four years.

What quantities of PCs are being reused? Typically 90 per cent of commercial machines can be refurbished since they’re often on three, four or at most five-year leases. PCRR achieves a 60 per cent reuse rate.

How is EEE handling and reuse different in the US from Europe or other regions? Legally everything is based on state mandates; about 50 per cent of States have legislation. There is a confusion between end of life versus end of use; this difference is often not made which seems to be environmental laziness.

There’s a programme in place in Illinois which allows refurbished computers to count double their weight in relation to targets and three times if the machines are then placed in schools.In the US, WEEE is only IT

26

equipment-focused, whereas in Europe WEEE indicates anything with a plug. For example in the States, fridges do not count as WEEE. Therefore numbers don’t translate very easily when considering lbs/capita; numbers are showing 25 per cent in the US.

What trends are you seeing in the PC reuse sector? With the new processor formats (dual/quad core), we’re reaching an upper limit clock speed; it currently isn’t physical possible to go over threeGHz. The previous de facto standard was clock speed in terms of $/GHz in clock speed; this has now broken down and it’s less clear what the open market is charging on this.

For equipment that is 6, 12 and 18 months old this is a negative trend and measuring quality of refurbishment is very 'hodge podge'.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? The key issue is social; people need to be educated on what refurbishment means and that specifications for reused computers can be workable even if they’re not the latest technology. The key question is “what do you need the system for?”In a school setting for example where the machines will be used for some word processing and internet-browsing, organisations could be better off to buy three refurbished computers for $900 or less, rather than a single new computer for $900.

There are already one billion computer users on the planet; there are another one billion which are right behind them economically, and refurbished equipment can address price barriers for this population.

There is also an issue with shipping end of life products from developing countries to those countries which do have appropriate treatment facilities. The Basel convention doesn’t work for both ways; the mechanism in place simply doesn’t address this, so a whole new system and approach is needed.

There are recycling companies which would be interested in setting up operations in developing countries, but there simply isn’t enough demand to outweigh the large investments needed. Relative to overall usage, there isn’t that much equipment in developing countries.

Another issue with reuse is consumer perceptions, which are not based on the true functionality of the machine; for example PCRR gets back CRT monitors which work, but they can’t be sold because of consumer perceptions.

Also, the market for reused products is often abroad; transfrontier shipment needs to be facilitated and there is a confusion between end of life versus end of use; this difference is often not made which seems to be environmental laziness

What steps can be taken to get past barriers to PC reuse? A way to assess quality is needed, such as the LEED standard for building. R2 focuses on material recovery, not quite as much quality and PAS 141 is a general refurbishment process, which is too general for the work PCRR does. A standard on PC refurbishment in relation to quality is needed.

What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? A recent game changer has been new operating systems which are smaller in size than previous generations. With cloud computing the focus is on the experience, you don’t care about the product; the experience is application driven. A standard on PC refurbishment in relation to quality is needed; this may be on its way.

How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? There has been very significant growth in PC refurbishment and reuse; a 93 per cent increase year over year recently. However, the process is still in its infancy; PCRR expects to see continued dramatic growth and will be curious to see where numbers end up.

What innovations are you seeing the PC reuse sector? There’s an innovative organisation in Canada focusing schools; Computers for Schools. In the US there’s a similar system but it’s not as good because equipment is taken directly from the government and given to schools without any support or refurbishment.

27

3.8 Sean Nicholson, Microsoft UK What is your experience in the reuse sector? I’m based in the UK and oversee programmes for refurbishment and reuse. The focus of the Microsoft programme is offering software products. I’m also on the R2 tech advisory committee, and work with refurbishers, the UN and NGOs on issues related to reuse. I’ve previously done recycling and environmentally-friendly design, from a lifecycle perspective.

How many people does Microsoft employ? There are over 4,000 people with operations in 80 or 90 countries.In the PC reuse sector there are at most 500 organisations involved and lots of small organisations.

In the UK there are 20 or 30 big players in this area; directly there could be a few thousand people involved, indirectly a lot more, especially in relation to export.

What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? Microsoft commissioned some research from Dartmouth on the worldwide PC market; 20 per cent of the in- store base comes out in any given year. Of this, 45 per cent is reused and 55 per cent goes into storage (not necessary recycled), though this seems to be declining and increasingly feeding into reuse and recycling.

Of the 45% of PCs which are reused, less than half go through organisations working in the PC sector. The rest pass through the informal reuse sector, such as e-Bay.

Over 50 million PCs worldwide will be entering the formal market for reuse this year, but there are a large amount of PCs which are like dark matter; there’s no data for tracking.

What is the average technical lifetime of a new item? In terms of how it is modelled out, computers are expected to work for seven years.

What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? Often two to four years would be the first lifetime but these lifetimes can be extended in less developed markets. Lifetimes have been extended in the current economy.

What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Typically three of four years for a PC’s second lifetime.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Standards are an issue; until there is a decent quality standard, people are going to avoid refurbished and reused products.

Legal regulations can also be a barrier to reuse; environmental versus technical aspects and informal recycling can often block the creation of more formal reuse and recycling programmes and reduce the economic efficiency of reuse/recycling.

Education around reuse is also very poor; for example informing consumers about getting new equipment which is recyclable, knowing how to reuse products, thinking about carbon impact of EEE production. Very portable devices are a threat to reuse/recycling.

What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? There needs to be a multi-country solution for EEE reuse. Linking takeback and monetary compensation is a great business opportunity and there is an economic opportunity in developing countries for disassembly, recycling and components sale.

What is the typical route for reuse of PCs? When the machine leaves the user, often it passes through a chain of brokers. Machines could go to recyclers, dumps, or pass through brokers who sell machines onto resellers; the PC reuse market is a

28

worldwide eco-system. For example.a UK organisation could buy units in the United States and have them sent to Bulgaria for reuse.

Potential motivations for sending PCs for reuse/recycling are data security concerns, potential for financial returns, environmental concerns and CSR considerations (e.g. donating old machines to a charity).

What role can standards play in PC reuse? Standards for PC reuse are beginning to emerge; for example e-Stewards and WEEE Link. However standards depend country to country and OEMs are typically trying to get a handle on a whole reuse/recycling area or region, rather than just a country. OEMs are very worried by reputational issues and potential financial costs from legal concerns in terms of EEE reuse but there is however a general consensus that something needs to be done.

In the US, e-Stewardship was put in place for the US government last year; this means contractors need to try to reuse government equipment within the government or give them to an educational institution (ties into access issue). In the US there is lots going on around WEEE; in the EU there’s WEEE Link and in the UK there are some initiatives, for example PAS 141.

For Microsoft there is no existing global standard which fits their needs; current standards only address environmental risk, not taking a business disposal perspective or considering data and return on investment. The key issue is how can you bring all of this together into a multi-national standard?

What current trends exist in the PC reuse market? With the development of data farms and the move to cloud computing there is a whole issue of how servers are going to be handled and disposed of; this is potentially concerning, although not so much in the UK.

Another trend is the consumerism of IT: workers want to use their home devices at work. This creates more diversity of devices and less control of disposal, as the machine is in possession of the worker.

What future trends may emerge in the PC reuse market? EPEAT.net which was originally in the US, is now in Europe. It was set up to identify devices that are eco- friendly and easy to recycle and this certification is needed to be able to sell to the US government.

There is greater visibility for consumer takeback programmes; for example some supermarkets are starting to offer EEE takeback/exchange programmes (e.g. Sainsbury) With cloud computing devices continuing to multiply, data centres will increase and reuse could be coupled with cloud services.

How is transboundary waste legislation a barrier to computer reuse? CRTs in a developing country at the end of life represent a value, but also a high environmental risk. Equipment can be disassembled but cannot be processed and a permit is needed for shipping; this is relatively well understood in Europe.

But outside of the OECD countries, where can you get your equipment sent to? Essentially it comes down to getting it where it’s easiest to ship, even if it wouldn’t be handled properly.

Large OEMs want a single centre for all reuse as shipment from Africa to the EU is hard. Shipping working devices to Africa is no problem, but getting the waste back to EU for end of life treatment and recycling is problematic; efficiencies are not being achieved. People want to handle the equipment in country, but it’s an issue of scale.

Some basic recycling, aluminium, for example can take place in-country, but typically more complex components such as leaded glass or circuit boards cannot be done in country

What innovations are you seeing in the PC reuse sector? There’s a move to smaller computers, but with larger computers upgrades are easier. With tablets and Android products, upgrading of product specifications is on the decline. With the mobile phone market, products are largely going abroad; some reused phones are kept in country if they’re deemed ‘cool’ enough.

29

In-country use of mobiles is a trend that’s going to expand and consumerisation of IT is going to continue as is the movement towards the cloud.

What examples of best practices are you familiar with in the PC reuse sector? In terms of best practice, in Canada there’s a programme sponsored by the government, in partnership with a number of NGOs which refurbish PCs and sends them to schools; so one in five PCs in schools are reused. They also provide skills and education as well as increasing accessibility to technology. Canada invests seven million a year in the programme, so the market is different because of this sponsorship.

4. Textiles

4.1 Jane Gardner, CRUK Describe Carpet Recycling UK It is a not for profit membership association with 71 members and nine carpet reuse organisations. It has been operating since 2008 and has 12 core funding members.

How much becomes waste each year (please separate municipal and commercial waste stream if possible)? 81 per cent of carpet comes from the municipal waste stream and 19 per cent is from commercial sources. However carpet tiles are nearly all of commercial origin.

What is the average technical lifetime of a new item? The technical lifetime of carpet is 15 to 20 years, depending on type.

What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? The average age of disposal is seven years.

What percentage of discarded items are reusable as discarded? One per cent is reused.

What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? 49 per cent of carpet diverted is recycled or reused. Of this only one per cent is reused. The rest goes to EfW.

What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Probably about five to 10 years.

What is the carbon impact and cost of collecting or preparing items for reuse? It is best done in batch loads. It is not significantly different to the carbon impact of sending items to landfill.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? The main barrier is awareness as the outlets are available. The challenges have been the logistics, and the fact that there is only a marginal difference in cost between reuse and landfill.

What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Awareness could be raisedamong residents, clients and facilities management companies. The capacity to capture has increased in the last few years.

How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? There are approximately 55 million carpet tiles out there in the UK. 30 million square metres are sold each year. They have the highest reuse potential, as they are modular. At the moment only one per cent of carpet tiles are reused.

Do you think voluntary producer responsibility or legislative approach would be most effective? A voluntary system such as that put in place by Carpet Recycling UK is more likely to be effective on the short term.

30

What do you think of a potential landfill ban on textiles, including carpets? It is better to set targets for industry to improve diversion and continue the landfill tax escalator past 2014. However, within a reasonable timescale (five to seven years) to allow for new infrastructure it could achieve good results.

How much of a difference has the new two tier waste carrier regulations made? Not much yet, but expect a beneficial impact.

4.2 Alan Wheeler, Textiles Recycling Association Do you know how many organisations are part of the Textile Recycling Association in the UK? Internationally?What is Recyclatex? The Textile Recycling Association (TRA) has about 55 members, which represent about 70 per cent of the established (for longer than 5 years) trade. Recyclatex is a trading subsidiary which negotiates contracts.

How are they spread across the membership categories: small, medium, large, international, service and charity? There are over 20 large members. They are pretty evenly spread but there will be a shift towards fewer categories in next couple of years: smaller companies do not necessarily earn less and big ones do not necessarily earn more.

How many people are employed by TRA members? About 2000 people are employed by TRA members, which represents about 70 per cent of the established (for longer than five years) trade. Employment has decreased in the past few years as it is cheaper to sort in Eastern Europe. Employment is quite seasonal and the busiest period is in the months after Christmas.

What are the main pathways for textiles? They are different for textiles in the wider sense, but for clothes the main pathways are charity shops, textile banks and door-to-door collections. About 55 per cent is exported for reuse, 40 per cent is recycled and five per cent is waste.

What percentage of discarded items are reusable? About 55 to 60 per cent are reusable as discarded.

How many tonnes (or other unit) of textiles did TRA members handle last year? The whole industry in the UK handled about 550,000 tonnes in 2010.

How many tonnes were sent overseas? 55 to 60 per cent is exported for reuse, mainly to Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania and Sub-Saharan Africa.

What proportion of what is exported will be reused? If the clothes have been pre-sorted in the UK, 100 per cent of what is exported will be reused. If the clothes have been exported for sorting overseas, the reuse rates will be at similar levels to the UK (55 per cent reused, 40 per cent recycled and five per cent waste).

What percentage is sent for recycling? About 40 per cent. Mattress fillings, shoddy, blankets, heat and sound insulation and car inside linings are recycled.

How much is discarded (not suitable for reuse or recycling)? About five per cent is waste.

What was the financial value from textiles sales in the UK? Textiles collected door to door are worth £700 per tonne. Those from textiles banks are worth less (£300 per tonne) due to contamination. Charity rags sell for £60 per tonne.

31

What proportion of direct donation is reused in the UK? Only about 20 to 50 per cent of what is donated is reused in the UK through charity shop sales.

What are the main sources of textiles (e.g. kerbside collection, bring bank, direct donation etc.)? About 30 per cent of textiles is collected door to door, 30 per cent comes from bring banks and 40 per cent comes from direct donations.

Do you know the split between clothing and non-clothing textiles collected? About 90 per cent is clothing and 10 per cent is non-clothing.

In your opinion, is the textiles market constrained primarily by demand or supply? Demand has outstripped supply for the last eight years or so. This has led to lots of competition and the proliferation of bogus collectors. Some of these are paying up to 80p per kilo, which raises questions.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Not enough clothes are being diverted for reuse. If the textile reuse industry were to double collections overnight, there would be no problem selling these textiles, although quality and profit may be affected.

What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Changing the design process.

How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? The African market will remain buoyant for a long time, as will that of Eastern Europefor at least a further 10 years.

How is the advent of cheap clothing affecting reuse and quality? About seven or eight years ago, there was an influx of cheap import lower quality clothing from Asia. This is not the case anymore, so cheap clothing is not affecting reuse quality. The fact that cheap new clothing is the same price or cheaper than second hand clothing is an issue though.

4.3 Matt George, Oxfam How many Oxfam charity shops are there in the UK? There are about 700 Oxfam charity shops. Oxfam has been going since 1948. There are 13 global affiliates, but the UK is the biggest.

How many people are employed by Oxfam shops? We have 1250 paid (managers, deputy managers and Wastesaver) staff, of which 70 are at Wastesaver (a sorting facility).

How many volunteers does Oxfam have? We have about 22000 volunteers.

How much money do the shops raise for the charity? Oxfam shops bring in £80 million revenue (of which £58 million is from textiles) and£25.8 million profit. Wastesaver has £6.5 million turnover and £3.1 million profit.

How many tonnes (or other unit) of textiles did Oxfam charity shops sell in the UK last year? We are hoping to achieve 11 to 12,000 tonnes this year.

How many tonnes (or other unit) of textiles did Oxfam festival shops sell in the UK last year? They made only 1/500th of the total revenue. They made £250,000 in sales. The average price per garment was £3.80. Over 22 tonnes, or 65,000 garments, were sold.

How many were discarded (not suitable for reuse or recycling)?

32

Eight per cent goes to EfW. We are looking to reduce this to three per cent in next few years through extra materials being recycled such as nylons.

What was the financial value from Oxfam textiles sales in the UK? Wastesavers raised £6.5 million, and sales of clothing in Oxfam shops raised £28.9 million.

What was the financial value from textiles exports? This was about £6 million.

What was the financial value from textiles recycling? This was £300,000 to 400,000. We actually lose money on some recyclate grades.

What are the main sources of textiles (e.g. kerbside collection, bring bank, direct donation etc.)? About 50 per cent comes from bring bank and the other 50 per cent comes from direct donation. We do not do door-to-door or kerbside collection. We have a deal with Sainsbury’s to put textile banks in all their carparks.

Do you know the split between clothing and non-clothing textiles sold by charity shops? 51 per centis women’s clothing, 23 per cent is accessories, 16 per centis men’s clothing, seven per centis children’s clothing and three per cent is linen. We earn the most profit on leather shoes and accessories, vintage clothes and high fashion labels.

In your opinion, is the textiles market constrained primarily by demand or supply? Supply! Even if everyone in the UK threw away all the clothes they didn't wear, there would still be demand.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Behavioural change and making people realise the value of reusing textiles. We also need to develop recyclates.

What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Investment from industry could overcome these barriers. We are also looking into nylon recycling and yarn remanufacture(we hope to start in the next six months). Oxfam is working with M&S on yarn remanufacture, from wool and cashmere.

How many tonnes of small electrical goods did Oxfam sell through charity shops in the UK last year? This forms a very small part of the business, but we are looking to develop it further.

What are the major barriers to further development of the charity shop electricals market? These are mostly PAT testing and the public’s awareness.

4.4 Ross Barry, LMB How many sites do you have and where are these located? All our sites are London based. We started in 1985.

How many people are employed by LMB Group? LMB Group employs about 100 people. This has been slightly reduced recently.

How many schools are involved in Shoe Friends? About 3000 schools are involved.

How many tonnes (or other unit) of textiles did LMB process in the UK last year? It was about 170 to 200 tonnes per week, but is now less than 120 tonnes per week.

What has led to this reduction? A combination of people throwing away less and the loss of several contracts.

33

What percentage is sent overseas? About 80 per cent is sent overseas.

What percentage is sent for recycling? About 15 per cent is recycled, either as rag or as car foam, mattress fillings, shoddy, blankets or heat and sound insulation.

What percentage is discarded (not suitable for reuse or recycling)? Only about one to two per cent.

What are the main sources of textiles (e.g. kerbside collection, bring bank, direct donation etc.)? About 90 per cent is collected from bring banks. We don’t collect from charity shops.

Do you know the split between clothing and non-clothing textiles collected? We collect very little non-clothing textiles.

Do you think that could change with increased awareness? Perhaps.

What are the most common items and what percentage do they account for? The most common items are ladies’ clothing, followed by children’s, then men’s. About 60 per cent is ladies’ clothing.

In your opinion, is the textiles market constrained primarily by demand or supply? It has definitely been constrained by supply in the last five years.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? The general public has had mixed messages about what to do with end-of-life textiles. They need clear messages and more education on what can be reused or recycled.

What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Further education as well as making it easier for people.

If you were advising government, what changes would you seek to implement to stimulate textiles reuse? The government needs to review waste definition and make vehicles carrying over 250kg of clothing carry a waste carrier’s licence.

Do you have any further thoughts? Charity shops should only accept what they can sell in their shops.

4.5 Mike Webster, TRAID TRAID operates over 900 textile recycling banks and numerous charity shops across the UK, it collects unwanted clothes through for reuse and resale.

What is the average technical lifetime of a new item? This varies massively from item to item.

What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? This varies depending on the quality of item. Some items have been used just once or are even new with the label still on. Others have been worn lots but still have some use in them.Others have been significantly worn.

What amount of material is being reused by TRAID? TRAID reuses between 2-3,000 tonnes of textiles each year. Of this over 99 per cent is collected via banks. (TRAID has over 900 banks around the UK.)

34

What percentage of discarded items are reusable? 70 per cent of discarded itemsare reused. 24 per cent are recycled and six per centare gross contamination (products that TRAID cannot deal with – for example bedding and general rubbish).

Of the 70 per cent reused, 74 per cent is sold in shops and approximately one per centis remanufactured as ‘Traidremade’. The remaining 25 per cent is sold to a wholesaler for the UK/European/Overseas markets. At this point TRAID does not know exactly where the products go butthe materials have already been sorted in the warehouse and so they are free from contamination.

How much material is handled by TRAID? 2000-3000 tonnes are handled by TRAID.

What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Some items become day-to-day items and are worn lots but a proportion are bought to be worn on one or two occasions.

Are there any technical barriers to reuse? Old corporate wear could be another market but generally companies are very protective of their brand and wouldn’t want anything logo-ed being reused so a means for removing printed logos at scale could be useful.

How many jobs does the interviewee’s organisation employ? TRAID employed 70 full time equivalent staff during 2010 (figure from accounts on charity commission website).

What is the current state of the market? Is it contracting or expanding? The amount of material in the sector is standing still but prices are rising to a very high level (though the rate of increase has slowed down a bit recently). However, no one knows if, or when, it is a bubble that will burst. However, demand in TRAID stores has gone up and up. This is party because vintage is trendy and although TRAID stores are high-end charity shops (and more expensive than other charity shops), TRAID products are still significantly cheaper than buying new.

Are any new markets in the process of opening up, and if so what are they doing to exploit them? There are no new markets, just the existing one with very high prices.

What recent social/economic/policy developments have had an impact on their area of reuse? Recent development of local authorities (LAs) tendering for textile reuse is seen as a threat to TRAID. In particular, where LAs are working in a partnership, third sector operators do not have the ability to bid for such large tenders. This is partly because third sector operators cannot take the risks that commercial operators can.

Big commercial operators run on a risky basis that cannot be sustained if the market changes, and if the price does drop they will simply walk away from the contract. This is not something a third sector operator could do. While it may save the waste department a relatively small amount of money each year, it runs the risk of wiping out local activities supported by the surplus made through third sector recycling. The waste department does not typically think about the impact this could have on (for example) social services spending if a local charity is no longer able to provide services it used to because of loss of funding from textiles. Textiles are seen differently by the householder from other waste streams. There is a long-term tradition of using them for fundraising.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? The main barriers are the high prices distorting the market and leading to questionable decisions e.g. by LAs, as well as the unethical behaviour of many players.

Howwould they like to see those barriers addressed? Would like to see that LAs realise the importance of supporting third sector organisations.

What was TRAID’s performance in terms of tonnages diverted into reuse and CO2 emissions? TRAID processes2,000 - 3,000 tonnes a year, of which 70% is reused. 35

Why is this story important and what can we take from it, especially what might we take from it that could have policy relevance? There is a high level of UK reuse.

What would you say was unique and innovative about what TRAID do? How is TRAID different from other industry organisations? TRAID is very different from other charity textile reusers as they have very little in over-the-counter collections.The price point and quality of the products is also significantly higher than those of other charities. Also TRAID appeals to a different niche of reused clothing consumers: fashion conscious Londoners with a passion for vintage. In addition, TRAID supports development projects directly with the funds raised.

Anything to add? The TRA has information on understanding motivations of purchasers from charity shops.

4.6 Paul Ozanne, Salvation Army Trading Company Describe the Salvation Army Trading Company It was established in 1991 when the Salvation Army invested £400,000 million in the project. In the last three years £20 million of the profits were gift aided back. It is the only charity that runs its own collection system. 100 per cent of profit goes to the Salvation Army.

How much NEW product is sold in England each year? DEFRA estimates that the UK public buys 2,066,000 tonnes of new clothes (30- 34 billion pounds worth) and just 498,000 tonnes is recycled – that’s just 24 per cent. 52 per cent, or 1,081,000 tonnes of unwanted clothes end up in landfill.

Are there any lifecycle assessment type studies the interviewee is aware of? CO2savings from textile recycling is second only to aluminium – reusing clothes conveys a greater benefit to the environment.

What is the average technical lifetime of a new item? This varies massively with different types of clothing. There is however a trend in the UK for cheaper clothes with a shorter technical life than in other European countries (for example the Netherlands and Germany).

What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? This varies, and it is very difficult to estimate the average previous lifespan of products. Many ‘fast fashion’ items have been worn only a handful of times before being discarded. For high-end designer goods, they are likely to have been worn by two or three different people before their ‘discard’ in a recycling bank.Overall in the UK the length of time clothes are worn for is decreasing. This has changed a little in the last couple of years with people holding on to items for longer during the economic downturn.

What percentage of discarded items are reusable as discarded? Between 75 per cent and 83 per cent of materials that SATCo receive are reused.

How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? SATCo handles 36,000 tonnes each year. Of this 96 per cent is clothing. The remaining four per cent includes pillows, duvets and bric-a-brac

What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? The main pathway is for resale to merchants who ship to Eastern Europe with a very small proportion being used in the UK for the 140 shops and Salvation Army humanitarian use.99 per cent of the feedstock is exported within 24hours and of what is collected, more than 99 per cent is reused or recycled. We receive approximately £1,000 per tonne for unsorted textiles. There is only a niche market for textile reuse within the UK and that is satisfied by charity shops.

36

When the clothes are sent to Eastern Europe, they are sorted. The best quality items go into second hand shops, if they remain unsold for five weeks they are moved on to a second shop and if unsold after a further five weeks, they are sold on market stalls. Anything remaining is shipped to Asia or Africa. Thefour per cent non-clothing materials received, such as duvets and pillows are exported to Pakistan where about 50 per cent are re-used directly and for the remainder are recycled into low-quality blankets or toy stuffing.

What is the average lifetime of a reused item? This is hard to track as most of the reuse occurs outside of the UK. We believe that most of the clothing items once resold are used until they are in an end-of-life state – whether with one further user or a number.

What is the carbon impact of collecting or preparing items for reuse? If this is not available, record any information on typical transport, storage and maintenance activities etc. Items are collected locally, taken to a regional transfer station and then bulked in Kettering.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? There is concern over the ‘overheating’ of the price for textiles at the moment. There has been an expansion of activity but also concerns about the longer-term sustainability of these activities.No other major barriers to reuse exist but it’s a fixed given that consumers in the UK would not want to use reused clothes beyond the ‘niche’ market served by charity shops.Other issues in relation to recycling include the complex composition of materials in modern garments – this could be remedied by clearer labelling requirements.

What is the current state of the market? Is it contracting or expanding? The current state of the market is that it is overheating, with prices remaining very high.This means that there are a number of players in the market who are making the most of the high prices but are likely to stop operating when or if the prices drop. For example, local authorities moving from having charity banks to commercially operated ones on sites they own. The aim of this is to reduce the cost of the waste management services for the local authority. However, anecdotally there have been examples of where charity banks have been replaced by commercial ones and the “take” in those bins has halved. This means that LAs have not achieved the income they had anticipated. Reasons for this could be that residents see the value of their clothes and want the value to go to charity, residents trust charity based collections,etc.

There are a number of actors in the sector who are currently benefitting from the high prices in the market who will be unable to sustain a drop of 40 per cent in price and if this happens they will stop operating. This could potentially leave local authorities with textiles that no-one wants to collect.When prices fell in 2001/02, we spent a year with 7,000 tonnes of textiles in warehouses until prices rose enough for to sell again.

The high prices for textiles are also encouraging a black market in textiles. The National Fraud Investigation Bureau found that there had been clothing theft worth an equivalent of £60 million. This takes numerous forms including operators collecting charity bags, rebagging and selling on (either in the market at a large scale or on a small scale to ‘cash for clothing operators’).

What new initiatives have been taken? SATCo has worked with some major retails to raise funds for other charities. For example the biggest is ASDA, who wanted to introduce collections for their annual nominated charity, Children in Need. Rather than get rid of the Salvation Army banks, the supermarket agreed to have Children in Need branded banks next to the SA ones. While there were concerns that this might lead to the amount of textiles to be collected being the same, just split across two bins, in actual fact, there was a increase in the total amount of textile collected.

Different people are motivated by the different causes and so more can be collected. The bins are emptied by single collections (the materials are put in different coloured bags so that they can be differentiated when weighed later).

Also, North Norfolk District Council has integrated textiles collections with their kerbside service. By agreement with Kier, clothing collection bags are left with householders once a quarter and then collected the following week. The bags are North Norfolk District Council/Kier/Salvation Army branded. A separate small caged vehicle then collects the bags and they are stored for upto two weeks in a container provided by us. Wethen pay Keir £400 per tonne – the same as they would have paid to a collector working on their behalf. This saves the cost of bag delivery (£50 per thousand by Royal Mail). 37

We’ve also recently launched a schools scheme, which places clothing collection bins in the schools and combines this with education in schools. We’re thinking of launching a ‘profit share’ scheme with a number of local authorities. SATCo will pay an amount based on the previous year’s tonnage up front, then if less than that is collected, that will be SATCo’s loss. If more is collected they will pay the additional tonnages.

Anything to add? I admire M&S and their latest marketing strategy of promoting ‘shwopping’ - it is not a new idea but with the marketing approach they have taken it looks like it is all new.

5. Construction & Demolition

5.1 Thornton Kay, Salvo

What is the carbon impact of producing a new item (i.e. CO2 emissions)? Are there any lifecycle assessment type studies the interviewee is aware of? There are methodology issues of how the carbon benefit of reuse is calculated – see below. How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole? See below, MiniREC survey. What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? Architectural salvage discussed below. Others exist to a limited extent. How many jobs does the interviewee’s organisation employ? How many are employed by the sector as a whole? Two employed by Salvo. The MiniRec survey did not include jobs. How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? In 100 years’ time we could have 90% of materials that can be used as valuable resources already existing. The challenge will then be how these can be reused (with minimal additional energy use) in innovative ways. It is technically possible to increase construction reuse from less than 2% to at least 90%. The amount of reuse that is technically possible could be viewed as the amount of product that can be reused (separated from other product and still having retained its condition and value) when a building is demolished. This will therefore change with time depending upon: 1.The way in which different products are fixed together, and the degree of innovation to allow them to be separated again that exists; 2.The nature of the demolition sector and level of speculation within the construction industry (when fewer structures of residual value are demolished then the technically possible level of reuse will fall as more of the buildings being demolished will contain product that has come to the end of its useful life) as more buildings are demolished for structural reasons; 3. The mix of products used by the sector and their residual value (durability) and reusability. What is the current level of trading through online exchanges? Salvo anticipates that the amount traded online is relatively low – perhaps totalling around 1,000-10,000 tonnes of product/year. This is between 0.1-1% of the total salvage and demolition trade. The majority of this (Salvo) will be included in the trade survey. A breakdown of online sales is estimated as follows: 120,000 people/month access Salvoweb in the UK. This is significant, but it was two to three times higher in 2007. Private-to-private sales are limited on Salvo – most involve either purchase or sale by a salvage dealer. There are 45,000 registered users, of which about 10% is the trade. The actual sale rate for Salvo could be confirmed by doing a survey of the trades on the site, but this has never been carried out. Around 5,000 UK adverts are posted each year, and generally remain on site until an item is sold. Around 15% is unsold after threeyears. This system works well because the website is directly connected to the traders and individuals in the salvage industry.

38

The numbers looking at reclaimed materials on e-Bay is similar as those on Salvoweb but the rate of sale is likely to be lower. Although big, it is not specialist. Discussions with the salvage trade have confirmed a low sale rate on e-Bay (e.g. 3-10%) for construction products. This is because the limited time to make an e-Bay bid does not fit happily with the structure of the sector. Other websites seem to startup all the time (but most do not last more than a couple of years). Recipro seems to do quite well in the North West. What difficulties are there with information in this area of reuse? What can be done to improve things? Incomplete Construction Reuse Data:while offsite use is in decline, it is not clear what is happening in terms of onsite reuse. The reuse statistics from the salvage sector and community wood recycling network record a percentage of the offsite reuse in the construction sector, but not web exchanges, informal reuse or on-site reuse. It is not clear what the level of reuse is either onsite or within a client organisation (which could be a private client for smaller jobs or by a builder/construction company working on site. For example, a large building company conducting a strip out in Oxford was instructed to save the flooring for reuse in the refurbishment. Reuse Targets:as a guide, we used to say that around 10-15% could be reused. This is based on a mix of building types that are being demolished. This would need an analysis of the sector to work that out to give a sector-wide (or sub-sector) target. However, this varies markedly from site to site. Setting targets requires some kind of Predemolition Audit or Reclamation Survey (see ICE Demolition Protocol, 2008). Need to clarify methodology and value for embodied carbon of reusing construction products:For example, consider two kitchen worktops: a big slab of reclaimed mahogany and a wood panel composite worktop. The laminate worktop has a higher embodied energy to manufacture than the reclaimed product if measured cradle to gate, as done by the ICE database. It is also harder to dispose of if it is not reused (it needs to go overseas due to energy from waste plant firing temperatures in the UK). This puts the mahogany at risk as an easy potential source for energy from waste. However the solid timber has a greater sequestered embodied carbon than panel board (as the latter is not 100% timber), especially if the impact of non-sustainable sourcing on deforestation is considered (see Weight, 2011). So burning the mahogany, one will have a greater embodied carbon loss – as well as a greater reuse value, if overall cradle-to-cradle impact is considered (which the appropriate comparison for reuse). This raises a question about what embodied carbon value should be considered when evaluating reuse options: is it appropriate to use the value for the product substituted or that reclaimed? The latter is not simple – for example, the embodied carbon to produce materials has changed over time, so if the actual embodied carbon is considered, this will vary with different age of products. The Code for Sustainable Homes values material choices using the Green Guide for Specification, on the basis that it is not so much the individual product (e.g. brick, piece of timber) that is important but the element of the structure (e.g. a wall). This makes the value of reusing a brick – which requires choices of built-form that will require other products to be used alongside – more difficult to estimate. So, a brick could be substituted for blockwork in a wall, for example. At the moment there is a lack of data to make this comparison (as the Green Guide Specification does not report embodied carbon). Salvo's view is that if a product is used for heritage reasons then it is appropriate to measure the embodied energy of a reclaimed brick, and the alternative would be that to make a hand pressed brick, which would also have a higher embodied carbon than a standard fletton. If reclaimed bricks are used instead of modern bricks then the value of product reclaimed should still be quantified. Also, if a truck brings in bricks from Poland it could use the equivalent of all of the embodied energy just in transport emissions. In Salvo's view ISO 14040 is not correct – as it has never thought about reclaimed materials. They have admitted that the allocation system does not work and has no way of dealing with reclaimed use and the full life cycle analysis. Require Trade Association/public support to the sector to investigate costs/business models further: there is public information on the market price, wholesale price and costs in brick salvage. But there is a lack of information on the costs of other types of construction reuse. The change in composition shows that timber has reduced more than the rest of salvage. This suggests something specific to the timber market and/or the way demolition contractors extract timber. This affects the turnover of salvage businesses significantly. It is not clear what effect this has on profitability as the mark-up on different products by the salvage trade is not known.

39

Fact finding is required to understand the economics of the business, which may not be disclosed without a degree of anonymity, which can come from a trade association, which has never existed for the UK salvage sector. How much new product is sold? In the last four to five-years the sector has categorised salvage to include new replica and reproduction items. There is also re-craft – which is taking antique reclaimed and salvage material to turn it into a new product. The survey did not include this element of the trade. Website analysis.It would be useful to calculate: average tonnes/online posting; average sale percentage for adverts; percentage of adverts that are from contractors, salvage dealers and private individuals. This would allow an estimate of the total tonnage sold online each year, which would enable this to be expressed clearly as a percentage of salvage industry tonnage that is directly due to Salvoweb and what extra tonnes/year this represents. What are the opportunities to develop reuse in this sector? Construction Surplus – Producer Obligation to preserve materials/embodied carbon: Ideally, legislation should require all surplus product to be reused and/or construction product producers to have liability to retain embodied carbon and material value at its end of life. Requiring take back or consolidation of surplus product would help create the market conditions for such a secondary market to be formed and supported. Alternatively, some capacity for exchange is required. Government procurement requirements for reuse, legislation for smaller sites: The industry has changed from being perceived as providing a service for contractors looking for routes for disposal to one reliant on clients willing to ‘save’ materials. Salvage requires clear procurement targets for reuse, especially from clients for larger demolition sites that are often government-owned (e.g. hospitals, prisons and schools). The government could take the lead and require a careful approach to high value materials, a reuse strategy for all its projects. This also needs to be matched by legislation to ensure it also happens on smaller projects down to household demolition works and refurbishment projects, many of which are too small even to feature under the SWMP legislation. Reuse Champion/ Reuse Forum for Construction: the WRAP Reuse Forum (previously coordinated by Defra) has had three meetings. It mainly appears to focus on recycling solutions and does not have a particular focus on construction. A forum to focus on construction reuse would be useful. This could be commissioned to produce Reuse Action Plans to complement WRAP's Sustainability Action Plans for different sector areas, which currently do not focus on new opportunities for reuse. Specification to ensure reclaimed materials are able to be reused at end-of-life However, a reclaimed brick reused correctly (bedded in lime mortar) has a long life, but if it’s bedded in a cement mortar the life is limited. This is because older bricks are not as strong as the Portland cement mortar so they crack before you can get the mortar off. So, while bricks set in lime mortar can be reused lots of times, bedding them in OPC means they can only be reused once. Specify for deconstruction: there is an increased focus on information management in construction. Recording details from the original manufacture and construction, as well as subsequent changes would provide a full record of how a building was constructed which could aid planning at its end-of-life. This could be a requirement in a British Standard, or similar. Insurance/Warranty needs standards and product tests that don't prejudice against reuse: an insurer (e.g. Zurich/Swiss RE) may say reclaimed materials can be used as long as they have been tested. But what does this mean? How can 'fit for purpose' be evaluated for existing products, and how is this reflected in a standards and testing regime that is often defined by new product manufacturers? For example, one of the standard tests under the new standard for the strength of new bricks assesses frost resistance by imposing a number of freeze cycles in test conditions. However, some reclaimed bricks fail to pass this C-RAM (clay manufacturers’ research organisation, which is supported by the Brick Development Association) test, but have retained their condition after 100 years. A new approach to testing and validation of old bricks is needed that reflects the different manufacture and ways in which older bricks perform, so that there is not any reluctance for them to be specified. The tests should be able to be carried out for lime mortar instead of OPC, which would allow older bricks to be specified with lime mortar construction – but this is not currently the case.

40

Different approaches need to be taken to bricks, including specifying that they should be bedded in lime mortar so they can be reused, as well as innovative ways of reusing bricks embedding reuse in OPC. If bricks are rented then the manufacturers could be made to be liable for the reuse at end of life. This would give a different route to challenge the crushing of bricks at the end-of-life of a building. What can be done to increase support for reuse? Support for a Trade Association: When the reclamation industry was bigger, Salvo had a greater influence, as it operated as an informal (market-based) networking system, and was supported by a detailed newsletter and full directory which allowed people to contact all those trading in the sector. Now that it is smaller (and reducing in size) there could be a value in establishing a trade association to help coordinate and facilitate greater construction reuse in the UK. This was investigated, with a report produced for Pathway to Zero Waste (BioRegional, 2011). Support for Construction Reuse Portal: Salvo is concerned that public funding has gone to a number of exchange websites (www.eastex.org.uk/, www.whywaste.org.uk/www.retrader.org.uk/,www.wasteproducerexchange.com/and construction resale [no longer trading]). SalvoWEB was part self-funded to startup and has operated as a free online marketplace and directory, online since 1994, which is accessed by over 100,000 people a month, and has helped save around 60m tonnes of reclaimed building material for reuse. It has running costs of over £100,000 a year. The directory is not now as comprehensive as Salvo operates as a business so charges people to go onto the online directory. Salvo retains a list of all salvage dealers but only paid members (399, including the main dealers, out of a database of 3,824 contacts) are shown online. It would welcome public support to be improved and would be happy to place Defra's logo on the website in exchange. Website Promotion: The Salvo website could have a much higher profile, particularly with the general public. However, there is currently no resource to publicise it: it relies on the good nature of the professional construction press. But without continuing advertising it is quite difficult to maintain a market presence. Increased recognition for reuse, ahead of recycling, recovery and disposal: the government waste subsidies have largely avoided reuse – from landfill tax to packaging recovery notes to renewable obligation certificates to capital support from WRAP. The WRAP Loan Fund provided loans to recycling but not reuse. The current WRAP funding for reuse (loan fund and grant support) does not include construction (see http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/grant-support-re-use-and-repair and http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/wplf/). The preamble of the Waste Framework Directive says that governments must support agencies that do reuse. Government says that it supports reuse by funding WRAP, but there is very little, if any, explicit support for construction reuse. It is not clear how there has been a change in the way WRAP supports construction reuse or a change in its implementation plan (e.g. content of the resource efficiency action plans) so far. The government's support up until a few years ago was solely for recycling and energy for waste except for third-sector support for reuse. It has not yet indicated it would similarly support the commercial reuse sector. Defra should also support commercial reuse, which is the majority of construction reuse in the UK. Only supporting the third sector would mean the government is taken to the EU court for anti-competitive behaviour. The salvage sector took a beating when recycling support increased. EfW looks to make things worse again. R&D support for Technical Innovation for Reuse:what is reusable in the demolition industry depends on how materials were put together in buildings when the buildings were constructed. So with a typical 40-year life, the change in the amount of reuse that is technically possible is now being influenced by the 1960s and 1970s construction. Sustainable (including retention of value and embodied carbon) end-of-life should be a consideration for modern structures as well as old buildings that are relatively easier to deconstruct. Innovation is required to overcome challenges of the problems that post-war and newer types of building construction pose. Research and development support is required to investigate innovations for large products, such as reuse of concrete slabs. For example: Could a multi-storey car park (whether it can be reused insitu or deconstructed to create useful structural components) reclaim and reuse 50-year-old concrete panels for roadways or foot traffic? Could pre-cast concrete exposed aggregate panels (such as wereon the Marsham Street DoE building, demolished in 2000) be reused as paving or as a facade?

41

How can, for example, reuse of old windows comply with modern regulations? This could be effective through secondary glazing with internal or external wooden shutters. The experience in constructing modern method of construction (MMC) buildings at BRE should be matched by increasing skills and processes for their deconstruction that is reclamation-led. No one has yet allowed a salvage approach to be considered. Innovative (MMC) for end-of-life should also be considered, to maximise reuse, with government funding (e.g. TSB). Perhaps this could be to use a chain saw or diamond cutter for masonry; these buildings could be cut up into sections for reuse. What measures can be taken to improve the salvage industry? Employ a different method, particularly with timber: salvage firms pay £100-£800/tonne for big beams and other items. These should be taken out by hand, which requires demolition contractors to follow a different method of working. Although this is cost effective, it may be insignificant in a large contract value. Jobs in architectural salvage: this dropped from around 42,000 in 1998 to around 25,000 in 2006 and has probably dropped a lot since. This includes jobs in restoration, which are now more likely to be separate businesses than those who collect reclaimed timber, so would not all be picked up in a full survey of the architectural salvage trade. Salvage industry – needs re-skilling: 20 years ago the salvage industry had a larger labour force with better skills in hand dismantling, etc. More projects are mechanically dismantled by demolition contractors rather than soft stripped to take value items like timber out first. There is not lack of demand, but an inability of the salvage sector to gain access to sites, particularly at the soft-strip stage. This is in part due to investment by the demolition industry (through government grant subsidy) in equipment that can enable a mechanical approach to demolition to be taken. There is also a limited education and awareness of reuse among construction professionals (planning, architects, engineers and quantity surveyors need to be educated on reuse) and on-site construction staff. What issues need to be addressed to increase timber reuse? Consider Timber and Wood Panel Products as separate waste streams:the wood panel industries use (high embodied carbon) chemicals to produce a material, which has wood as a filler. Chipboard is wood fibre with glue that is derived from oil. New solutions like Crosslam are even more timber intensive, but also use toxins – so have limited reuse and recycling potential compared to solid timber. Why not make chipboard out of municipal solid waste or flooring out of sewage (the latter is being piloted in Japan)? We should focus on solid timber for construction. There is potential for increased timber production which could be via coppice with local use of the roundwood. Rising Wood Prices and Gate Fees: more research needed to identify what is impacting availability for reuse. Anecdotally the salvage sector is finding it harder to have access to timber. Timber reuse demand has fallen in the last 2 years (See http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/wood/south-east-hit-by-fall-in- wood-demand.) Salvage industry – Timber Reuse Costs probably not prime constraint: the salvage industry pays to take good stuff from construction sites. It is not clear why a construction company pays £8-£25/tonne for timber when someone will pay/take it away for nothing. The supply chain allows good (reusable) wood to be diverted (principally from demolition) from the waste stream into recycling or energy. It maybe that smaller projects in particular (e.g. house demolishing) find this an easier and quicker route, which avoids the more cumbersome/time intensive careful dismantling for reuse. Windows and Doors: WRAP (Windows Sustainability Action Plan, 2010) estimates that 7.5 million windows are thrown away each year. Windows are often replaced to comply with part L, but replacements are often of a lower material quality and life. Reuse is not covered in this action plan. Wellmet (see separate interview) is referenced for recommendations for steel and aluminium products. Salvo previously estimated that around twomillion doors are disposed of each year (2005). There used to be significant reclaimed doors stocked by salvage merchants but that is no longer the case. People are not buying reclaimed doors. This is in part because reclaimed doors do not always fit in standard 6'6” by 2'6” openings. There has been no investment to 'adjust' door sizes – so they end up getting trashed. Doors sometimes have to be replaced to meet fire regulations, unless there is an exception if the building is listed. The regulations could be reviewed to consider the different impacts (e.g. thickness, toxicity) that apply to older doors.

42

What is the potential for reuse of bricks from salvage? Brick reuse has fallen since 2007. It is not clear how this relates to the overall size of the demolition sector or construction sector in the UK. There are examples where large projects have recovered only a fraction of the bricks that Trash to Treasure lined up – 800,000 bricks were lined up, but only 30,000 were recovered. Marks & Spencer’s new ‘greenest ever store’ was built using bricks reused from a local mill (corporate.marksandspencer.com/page.aspx?pointerid=6f01065975a546a9a8de5b6afe5d55c9). Is there anything you wish to add? Summary of the MiniREC survey The latest survey undertaken by BRE and Salvo has been analysed, alongside data from the earlier BigREc surveys (1998, 2007), which was presented in Pushing Reuse (BioRegional/Salvo, 2009) as follows: 1998 - 1. Overall Trends 2007 2007-2012 (% changes, excluding metal) Tonnes Tonnes Wood 90.50% 85.40% Inert 63.00% 52.80% Other Architectural 76.10% 77.30% Total 68.20% 57.50%

2. Amount Tonnes 2012 2007 1998 Metal 47485 17600 60800 Wood 48442 330760 511760 Inert 642484 1360656 1734160 Other Architectural 13718 60416 57360 Total 752129 1769432 2364080

£ Value Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes 3. Composition (2012) (2012) (2007) (1998) Metal 6% 6% 1% 3% Wood 42% 6% 19% 22% Inert 36% 85% 77% 73% Other Architectural 16% 2% 3% 2%

The BigREc survey had figures for transport in the 2007 and 1998 surveys. The survey is probably conservative as it assumes the number of businesses is the same. It could be worse as there could have been a reduction with more consolidation/takeovers than new entrants into the sector. The start-ups that are known about appear to be more social enterprise than commercial operations, and are mainly small in scale. (For example, the Westway Trust in Notting Hill is not a commercial salvage yard, and was established to provide employment for those Not in Education, Employment or Training: NEETs.) The main difference between this and earlier surveys is this was conducted by email rather than post, so it cannot be thought of as a direct comparison. No-one is paid to complete the survey, and they are not members of a trade body (unlike the NFDC) so there is no clear idea how big the sector is.

43

The earlier BigREc surveys had both a main survey (repeated here with lower response) and yellow postcards. The latter had a much higher return rate (a few hundred) and identified if the company was still in business, how big they were, and what they traded in and allowed the detailed responses to be scaled up for the sector, so the BigREc survey (1998, 2006) was more accurate and the current survey is based on extrapolation of the businesses that responded in 2006. The impact of the recession is not reflected in the latest survey. The BigREc survey may not have been accurate in terms of absolute values and needs the second part (yellow card) of the survey for it to be fully compared. Short History of Architectural Salvage Sector in England Pre-1945,those in the mainstream construction industry were the main reusers. This reduced with the advent of modern methods of construction, particularly high-rise concrete buildings. The demand for old bricks was driven separately, from outside the construction industry. Leading up to and immediately post-war there was lots of salvage. For example, Dorchester House (at the location of the Dorchester Hotel) was demolished by Sir Robert McAlpine in 1935. The materials from this Georgian building were used to construct council housing in north London. In 1953 the salvage sector demolished a mansion the size of Buckingham Palace almost every day – 240 of them were demolished in that year – and most of the reclaimed product went to America. In the 1960s there was a move to protect some of the old terraces through conservation areas, then in the 1970s the salvage trade became significant focusing on the reclamation of this type of product. The market was largely driven by purchasers, who were mainly affluent women(distinct from the construction industry market for demolished product). This was only a very limited market. In the mid 1970s there was Walcott, LASCO and Andy Thornton (in Yorkshire). From the late 1970s, there was a big increase in the salvage industry. The purchase of salvaged materials for pub refurbishment (to widen their attractiveness to women) together with the use of reclaimed wood and flooring by the fashion industry helped widen this new salvage (part of the reclamation) market. In the past 20 years the demolition industry has changed from predominantly employing lots of hand labourers to using bigger machines, which does not lend it to salvage. This government-led support for recycling enabled the purchase of big machines, which has made it harder to get hold of the materials – demand now outstrips supply for 'architectural' salvage – which has driven a market in reproduction and imported product. There was a shift from 1998 to 2006 in the type of business. In 1998 the conventional salvage yard was more popular, and it was easier to get a little plot to set up a new yard. But a lot of yards were on property that became desirable which led to a loss of a lot of salvage yards, particularly in London. Anecdotally, there has been a different kind of shake up since 2006. With the recession there was surplus capacity in the sector and a small number of very well established businesses went bankrupt – Victorian Woodworks (Stratford/Upminster) closed in 2011; Wallcott Reclamation and MASCO Salvage have now both been taken over. Some individuals have moved from running large businesses to running smaller ones. Some runners (who do not have a yard but make a living moving materials, traditionally from demolition sites to salvage yards) have set up small businesses. The overall make up the architectural salvage trade now is not known.

44

5.2 Richard Mehmed, National Community Wood Recycling Project The NCWRP was founded in 2003 to help set up and develop a nationwide network of wood recycling social enterprises. How much becomes waste each year (please separate municipal and commercial waste stream if possible)? It is not clear that there is the same level of reusable materials on site now as a few years ago. There is generally some at the end of projects. The waste associated with building maintenance and refurbishment is not quantified. There is a lack of data on this. Example: One project over-ordered to make sure it could finish on time, so it was possible to pick up whole kitchens and whole unopened pallets of stuff. This happens less often now. We propose a survey of site managers to quantify the extent that potentially reusable material gets discarded through the build process and at the end of a job, and how much waste could be avoided by better protection or damage due to current working practices. What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? 75 per cent from new builds; 25 per cent from refurbishments, most of which are 20-50 years old. Most of the product collected by the wood recycling projects is from construction sites, although there is a limited amount from builders’ merchants and manufacturers. Builders’ merchants give away more products, including surplus timber items as firewood. As fewer builders’ merchants have mills on premises (e.g. to fabricate timber items) and more of the items are pre-packaged. What percentage of discarded items are reusable as discarded, and what proportion are potentially reusable with refurbishment? Around 20 per cent of the collected material is reused, either for DIY/building or made into wood products. This varies from around 10-25 per cent in different locations. How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole? In 2011, England had a total of 7,243 tonnes, of which 21.66 per cent was reused as products. What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? 90 per cent of the collections are from construction sector. The remainder are pallets and packaging waste from other industries. What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Most of the product is used in DIY/construction and has an as-new/ indefinite life. Some product is used to make furniture. A very small amount ends up as raised beds with around 5-year life. Planters and compost bins and other outside products have a 7-10 year life. What is the carbon impact of collecting or preparing items for reuse? If this is not available, record any information on typical transport, storage and maintenance activities We currently work on the basis that reusing timber saves one tonne of CO2 compared with chipping it. How many jobs does the interviewee’s organisation employ? How many are employed by the sector as a whole? There are110 permanent jobs in 29 social enterprises. The enterprises are run on the basis of around 2/3 employed and around 1/3 volunteer labour force. In 2011, the network also supported 13,567 volunteer days by 822 people, which equates to the equivalent of around another 61 full time equivalent work. What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? No market demand constraint: The constraint is the ability to remove reusable product from the waste stream. The conservative nature of the construction sector is a barrier. Commercial barrier: There needs to be a financial incentive for waste contractors to divert timber waste to reuse before chipping. This needs to be a per tonne incentive of around £90/tonne over and above chipping. This would enable enterprises to present a cost effective and economic argument for working with potential customers. We note: Economics of chipping versus reuse: If there is a power station or chipping firm nearby, then they can afford to charge less for the skip, which drives the collection costs. For example, in the Glasgow and Lothian area

45

there is a large chipboard mill and huge recycler. They charge lower gate fees to receive wood waste, and a lower gate fee for cleaner material (which is more likely to be reusable). As the waste stream is the same but the collection rate is depressed less reusable items may be recovered in these areas. However, as the scale of the network is still small, this does not impact the network at present. Competition: We are aiming to only take wood out of skips, so try not to compete directly with the skip companies. So this is not currently a constraint. The main issue is market capitalization and lack of sufficient collection revenues. Need entrepreneurs: Overall, the financial profitability of these enterprises is not attractive. We need a certain kind of entrepreneur willing (and able) to work for relatively little financial reward. Premises cost: There is a lack of suitable affordable infrastructure. It is hard to get kick-start funding. The waste sector is volatile. These enterprises cannot afford to purchase property. There is a time lag to start a new project due to the challenge in locating premises that are cheap enough (sufficiently low specification and low value premises to enable it to operate as a sustainable enterprise). Enterprises are vulnerable to changes in premises’ availability or rental cost. As a result there is a difficulty in growing beyond timber. The network collects some non-timber products but this is not a focus and does not represent a significant part of the business. Scaling up would involve moving premises, which many enterprises cannot afford to do. These enterprises cannot afford to pick up heavy materials (e.g. bricks, blocks, paving, steel) as this needs different collection vehicles and a forklift. Contamination Barrier: MDF contaminates timber skips, which means that it cannot be recycled (e.g. into wood panel products). There is a need to promote good quality recycling, which would help to create pathways for reuse. Lack of representation: The social enterprise reuse network is not part of a trade association and does not have a strong advocate. Its ethos is not same as the salvage industry: it is about job creation, moving waste up the hierarchy and carbon savings. Our main stakeholders are our customers. What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? NCWRP is working hard to: Firstly, increase the number of enterprises to 50; help make our members more efficient; improve our marketing to the construction sector; continue to search for premises in key locations. Currently there are 29 projects which have approximately 65 per cent coverage in terms of population. A further 15 project locations are currently being targeted to create a complete national network. This requires resources to publicise and nurture the opportunity in respective areas. Secondly, wish to evolve the business model to shift to higher volume options so we can work with existing infrastructure. This will involve: Encouraging and developing more reuse options to reduce reliance on the chipping industry. Use of partnerships to build on the existing network of wood recycling enterprises. Rather than compete with skips, we would need to work with skip companies, wood chippers and waste transfer stations to get the reusables out of their waste stream. Infrastructure is required to scale-up significantly: principally collection vehicles and affordable low-cost warehousing. If the model was scaled up to focus on skips it would result in a reduced quality as this is scaled up. Ideally, we would retain a ‘cage truck’ collection. This is tricky as a lot is going off in 40-yard bins, which we cannot compete with due to the lower unit cost. Also we would like to see: Legislation for on-site segregation. This would be useful, but still requires the infrastructure to be there to comply with the legislation. How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? Very crudely: 70 per cent of wood waste ends up in skips with which we can compete, which represents around 1million skip loads/annum with an average market value of around £140. This means the market is worth around £140m, of which the wood recycling enterprises have around £1m share. Scaling up the network to this level would create around 20,000 new jobs and an increase in the accompanying work placements for disadvantaged people.

46

5.3 Rebecca Owens, Recipro Recipro is a free building materials exchange with the intention of recycling builders surplus supply within the construction trade. How much becomes waste each year (please separate municipal and commercial waste stream if possible)? £1.5billion value (corresponding to 10 million tonnes of construction product wasted each year) – see http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/NetRegs/SWMP_Simple_Guide_Feb_2011.pdf. What is the average age of an item first discarded? 80 per cent surplus new, 20 per cent second-hand. How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole? 224 tonnes have been advertised on the website to date (55 tonnes of which has been for the Wirral store for six months) and most is assumed to have been reused. What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? End destinations are community projects and charities. Waste sources are mostly construction companies and one manufacturer. What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Same – most of the product is surplus new. What is the carbon impact of collecting or preparing items for reuse? If this is not available, record any information on typical transport, storage and maintenance activities. The collections are mostly within 40 miles of the reuse centre. No sales data is available. How many jobs does the interviewee’s organisation employ? How many are employed by the sector as a whole? fourfull-time and twopart-time positions for Recipro and reuse yards in the Wirral and Cardiff. What are the costs of reuse? Please explain. Our costs are based on our charging model (see below) which can generate savings for contractors. How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? £1.5b value + reusable second-hand. A large potential could be realized if a website presence and yards are developed hand in hand. What are the barriers and opportunities to developing reuse in this sector? Promotion: There needs to be awareness of the waste hierarchy, better education and understanding. Trade shows tend to focus on opportunities for recycling and waste to energy solutions. Training is needed to change habits on construction sites. This could be supported by reuse systems within construction companies. Improved data required: there is a lack of data on reuse of construction waste in the UK, and how much of this occurs in the supply chain. The following information would be useful: How much waste occurs in the merchant and manufacturer side of the construction industry, and how much ‘dead stock’ do they have? How do the waste/surplus stats we have differ between different parts of the construction industry? How much of the surplus that goes to waste each year is reusable (i.e. from new-build construction)? How much second-hand product is wasted (i.e. from refurbishment and demolition sites)?

47

5.4 Stuart Proud, Surplus Match Surplus Match is a free building materials marketplace helping people save money and the environment by saving surplus building materials What percentage of discarded items is reusable as discarded, and what proportion is potentially reusable with refurbishment? The WRAP figure indicates that £1.5bn/year and 14 per cent of construction waste is reusable. How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole? Negligible so far. This is a start-up, recently rebranded and re-launched. What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? Most surplus reusable building materials goes to crushing plants now. We take bricks worth £100/tonne (roughly £200/1,000 bricks) and then sell off at £6/tonne as recycled aggregate. Crushing loses around 94 per cent of the value (and embodied carbon) of the product. What is the carbon impact of collecting or preparing items for reuse? If this is not available, record any information on typical transport, storage and maintenance activities N/A. The main impact is in the exchange. This is facilitated but not managed by the website. How many jobs does the interviewee’s organisation employ? How many are employed by the sector as a whole? None, as it’s still a start-up comprising the director of a software business and purchasing investment head of construction company. What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? There is no genuine second-tier market for reusing surplus new construction materials in the UK.This needs (sub) regional centres to collect and sell on the materials. This would need local authorities or someone to get involved as the impact of the cost of yards, machinery, forklifts is too great for this to be done by a builders’ merchant, for example.

The website has a simple USP. The website operates as a trade outlet or white label store that protects existing pricing. It is not pretending to save the world. This is a commercial model based on purchasing experience in builders’ merchants and construction companies. It is setting up as there is an opportunity to influence the market.

We could see regional centres happening but this needs to be something like LAs want to set up to improve their green profiles. It needs to be provided with a cheap/free yard. Recipro has a simple model but it still lacks uptake. Construction materials: Throwing away last year’s model? Organisations like Marshalls might deal in heavy, low-value building materials they stimulate the market by driving new fashions in the market. There is significant surplus in the supply chain due to the challenge of ‘what to do with last year’s paving model’? Bricks and facades also come in fashions. There are treads for example from GRP heads and sills to windows, to brick sills. Landscaping materials is one of the most fashion-conscious parts of construction sector. Plumbing, heating and bathroom items are also ‘fashion items’: which limits the potential to sell on to the next tier. Low-value items also represent an untapped reuse market. For example, a landlord with 50 rental properties could just want 50 white sinks that might be trashed by students in a year – which could be provided through local reuse. What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? I would estimate that the scale of surplus that is disposed of is around 1/3 by the manufacturers, 1/3 by merchants and 1/3 from construction sites, and estimate that many merchants have up to £25k of product on site ‘waiting to go into a skip’ at any time. Manufacturers’ yards are often similar. Construction products are supplied and used through a sector that operates with a retail Mentality: if it does not move, get rid of it. Meanwhile there is a sub-market as people want cheap materials.

48

How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? Most of the surplus reuse items are bulky, low-value items, so if you have a physical yard it has to be subsidized to make it work. This will add cost to the transaction. This is a large potential market. This website currently has listings from four builders’ merchants. National house builders could help facilitate reuse as theirlarge-scale purchasing makes this a very big opportunity. A physical site for reuse exchange could be part of a more static site with this temporary storage area linked to a web presence. Most house builders have secure compounds to keep materials on site. The culture change required is to return material to the compound and to reuse not throw away these items.

5.5 David Rose, Portal Power How much NEW product is sold in England each year? Contact EMR steel yard in the Midlands. Expect this to be a limited tonnage/year though.

What is the carbon impact of producing a new item (i.e. CO2 emissions)? Are there any lifecycle assessment type studies the interviewee is aware of? Contact Wellmet at Cambridge University for more details. What is the average technical lifetime of a new item? Modern steel is usually stronger (BS355) than S275 which was common until around 10 years ago.Portal Power has to run on a programme based on it being S275, so the design may be heavier than a new building. However, a lot of older buildings were over-specified as they did not have programmes to prove them at the time of building, so it can still be a good option. What percentage of discarded items is reusable as discarded and what proportion are potentially reusable with refurbishment? About six firms are doing reuse. No-one else gives proper plans with the building. Scrap steel has gone from £20 to £240-260 per tonne. You have to find industrial avenues, as if you want to sell a steel frame for agriculture, they can buy a new one with only half the weight of steel in it (agricultural class twospecification). Most industrial goes to industrial rather than to agriculture. We do also sell to equestrian, as they have to be industrial buildings. The problem is that some tend to cut the building down as soon as they get planning permission. Until companies get fined for not reusing an old building then will tend to cut it down. They can cut it down in threedays rather than six weeks, say, to take down. There is some reuse via a steel reuse yard, but they are not really interested as they are steel stockholder. The only site known in England is the ERM site in the Midlands. This has less value due to the problem that as soon as you move something you put costs on it, which is fighting against the value of new steel. If you can get £250/t for scrap then buying new at around £600 is fine if all the steel is straight and BS355. But most buildings are S275. And demolition contractors are not good at being careful and keeping the steel straight and invariably damage steel beams when they cut up. How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole? 1000 tonnes/ year, though it was higher. One 400-tonne steel building was just scrapped as there was a time penalty on the demolition contract. Although they had secured a client to buy the building it was still scrapped. What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? I would have thought that the actual amount being reused at the moment is not much more than 5 kilotonnes/year in industrial steel frames. Farm buildings are separate again. How many jobs does the interviewee’s organisation employ? How many are employed by the sector as a whole? Depends on the job – generally 12 staff and then others as needed on a project basis.

49

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? There is no financial penalty (or fine) for recycling items that are reusable. There should be a penalty for taking down something that is reusable. They make everyone do an environmental report on these sites but there is not a report on what can be reused again. With less work currently new build with new steel is costing around £1,000/tonne which is hard to compete against financially. What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? The report on the Olympics site was window dressing by the ODA. There was no real intention to reuse any more buildings, just to prove they were trying. Once they got the nice pictures they went back to what was being done before. With a reasonable size development programme they often don’t do anything with the buildings on site until they have spent two years arguing with the planner. That is not a sensible way forward if you are going to reuse buildings. These need to be advertised and put into the marketplace first. Demolition should be separated from the planning permission to allow the demolition to be green. Waiting until suddenly the planners agree on a suitable scheme, when the developer has already had the money laid out for three to five years and so wants to get the site earning as soon as possible does not lead to reclamation. There needs to be a requirement for an outline agreement where a site has existing structures so that reuse can be maximized at the demolition stage. I don’t understand why we do not market buildings before planning is consented. They are usually all in a package with the demolition. The developer does not want to spend money upfront on the contractors. There should be a survey completed as soon as a planning application is placedas to what is reusable, or as soon as developer chooses to develop a site. There is a need for case studies to show this can be done and has real value. A group of companies are trying to work up a project to deliver a new development with 100 per cent reuse. A target for 75 per cent+ is practical for reuse in many cases. 100 per cent may be hard to achieve in practice, as it is difficult to do architectural steelwork second-hand, using what is already there. How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? It should be reasonable to achieve a 10-fold increase to around 50,000 tonnes, in addition to reuse in yards and in farm buildings. There is a greater awareness of the issues than 5 years ago, but unless there is a financial advantage nothing is likely to really change. With the price of scrap where it is, it is difficult to show real advantage at the moment.

5.6 Mono Sanger, Bath Stone Reclamation Bath Stone Reclamation Ltd provide a reclamation yard service that specialises in historic material used in Bath and surrounding areas.

What are the barriers and opportunities to reuse in this sector? Space/support for reuse of more modern buildings: The same approach could be applied to newer buildings, such as a 1960s shopping centre. There is a huge amount of salvageable and reclaimable material. What is needed is the same support the recycling sector received over the last decade or so: there would need to be support such as subsidized space and/or machinery. A reuse operation would just need a bit of open space, a couple of forklifts and a couple of portacabins. However, with low revenue this needs to be a sub-commercial/very low rent. This access to space for reuse would help more products to be reused back into the city it came from.

Salvage as a work opportunity: if there is a month to access a site to carry out demolition (for example) as part of planning permission, then when the F10s are submitted for a demolition order, it could be accessed with sufficient time for reclamation that reuses as much product as possible. This could be an agreement that as long as there is the opportunity to salvage as much as possible a new local salvage enterprise is required to pay minimum wage+, so creating new jobs for local people (e.g. via the job centre). The salvage industry typically pays a good wage (starting at £8/hour + overtime), but it is hard work.

Incentivise/require diversion of waste quarry product for reuse and recycling: there is a lot of quarry 50

waste in Southern England which is going straight to landfill or into quarry arisings, which could also be used in the building industry. This is of particular value as some stone waste (e.g. bath stone) has a high pH when buried (in this case due to lime content), which can cause problems of contamination and in long-term site restoration. Our proposal is to apply the waste hierarchy to quarrying activities as well as to construction and demolition. This would particularly be useful where soft stone is quarried, particularly in the South of England, including soft, red stone in Wells, Bath stone, weaker limestone and some sandstone depending on moisture content. This would ensure that material recovered is considered for reuse and recycling before it is buried again. Therefore it is proposed to: Identify the wastage levels across England for different sorts of quarries, and quantify this for different quarry sites and/or secondary processing works (e.g. Bath stone manufacturers); and Provide incentives for waste material to be combined into new products rather than being buried. This could have the potential to reduce landfill from quarrying significantly (e.g. by half for some sites), while increasing reuse and recycling in the construction sector. Current opportunities for diverting waste from its current waste destination are disincentivised under the Waste Transfer Act, which stipulates (for good reason) that once materials have been bought and charged for landfill, they cannot then be seen to be profiting from the materials that go into the landfill.

5.7 Kate & Richard Snow, Oxford Wood Recycling What opportunity is there to increase reuse in this sector? Require separation of timber waste. MDF, in particular, is contaminating the wood waste stream. What particular issues are posed by MDF? There is a significant (and growing) amount of MDF disposed of. It sometimes avoids landfill tax by being used as overfill or capping in landfill sites, and being mixed in at a low percentage to allow it to be disposed of. There is a problem with end-of-life issues associated with MDF – further research/design for reuse should be considered, or the use of this sort of product (that cannot be reused or recycled) should be limited. In terms of design and refurbishment it is often viewed as a wonder product, but in terms of waste it is a toxic product. What other problem materials are there? Aluminium composite panel (ACP) is now widely used as an alternative to wood for site hoardings, and also for signage. It is energy intensive and difficult to recycle. Structural insulated panels (SIPs) are the buzzword now and are being used as a sustainable product by so- called green architects. But no one seems to be questioning the end of life of the product. The orientated strand board (OSB) is generally glued to the insulation, but there appears to be no thought given to how these might be separated for reuse (or repaired if damaged).

5.8 Steve Tomlin, Independent Salvage Dealer Describe the current state of the UK salvage industry There are probably between 12-24 large reclamation (as opposed to specialist architectural salvage) firms in the UK that take building materials, store, display and sell them actively. For example, Carwarden (www.cawardenreclaim.co.uk/) carries up to seven million bricks. Most of the firms in Salvo are architectural antiques dealers. There are a few larger ones that focus on large scale reclamation: Steptoe’s (30-acre site in Accrington), Martin Edwards at Bamber Bridge, Sharles at Preston, Victoria Woodworks (recently closed), Architectural Antique Timber (Bob Lovell), LASCO (at the 3 Pigeons in Oxford), MASCO, The Architectural Emporium, Ray Ragmar, Methyr Salvage, the Bath Stone Reclamation Company (Mono Sanger) and a few more. All of these, except Bamber Bridge and Steptoe’s don't just take stuff away – they do major demolition. There are also Robert Mills, Andy Triplow/MASCO, Frome Reclamation, Coxes and Jason Bowes (in Sussex) who lead on larger architectural projects.

51

Finally, there are also a few specialists who carry out deconstruction – who are employed on a project-by- project basis. What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Need innovations in reuse: for example, Carwarden (www.cawardenreclaim.co.uk/) carries up to 7million bricks. Buildings that are being demolished now are often different to those that were being demolished in the 1970s and 1980s. Many are from the 1960s and more recent, and as opportunities for traditional reclamation are more limited (cherry picking some items) the demolition contractor is more likely just to crush it all. Skills: as there is no support for training with the skills needed for reclamation, dismantling, etc. the skills of those retiring out of the sector are not being replenished. The industry lacks the vitality (and training) to attract the young people in. Informal nature of sector: we do not have a true reclamation industry. The recycling industry has a lot of capitalization. Most of the sector is either insignificantly powerful to compete with the recycling companies, or is just focusing on high-end architectural salvage. There has been no similar grant support to develop the reclamation sector in the UK, or support it through the formation of a trade body or similar. Lack of political pressure: unlike the waste management sector and recycling industry, there is little or no lobbying for an increase in reuse in the House of Commons. In contrast, the demolition sector is well represented by 150-200 members of the Institute of Demolition Engineers. The demolition sector is sitting on large amounts of capital equipment – including plants and site assets. They are involved in major contracts such as cross-rail excavation and Birmingham New Street station so are have the resources to invest time in promotional activities. Demolition contracts are profitable: often contractors quote the price to knock the building down but then make significant amounts of money by running tonnage into the metal recycling industry. This makes the potential benefit of a contractor selling items for reuse small in comparison. Lack of understanding of carbon: as this is not valued it is not a priority.Most contractors don’t understand/appreciate that the embedded carbon value of reuse is greater than its recycling value. It is not understood when a contractor recycles 98 per cent of the steel, only around 70 per cent of the embodied carbon is recovered in the scrap metal. Likewise, recycling bricks is considered best practice by many, even though this only saves around six per cent of the embedded carbon. Lack of investment in developing new, innovative reuse: the US Army has collaborated with the University of Wisconsin, with military funding, to investigate a range of new deconstruction techniques. Recycling focus of WRAP: we are focusing on recycling, undermining reuse and not skilling a generation so that we have a reuse sector that can handle the scale and new challenges of construction reuse today. Lack of client specification for reuse: There is currently too little focus on reuse, and not a desire to expand and increase what is possible to reuse. The demolition sector will generally aim to maximise its profits, even if this does not maximise reuse – unless this is a client requirement. It tends to have its own experts and outlets and its preferred yards and dismantlers, or has its own capacity to take and store reusable materials. However, a lot of them prefer fast, remote handling of materials than the slower, more labour intensive process of reclamation and storage for resale. Serco's procurement could be a key point where the government could increase reuse through its range of management contracts.

5.9 Howard Button, National Federation of Demolition Contractors How many UK jobs are created in production and distribution per tonne of new goods sold? The 137 members of NFDC make up around 80 per cent of demolition turnover in the UK. How much becomes waste each year (please separate municipal and commercial waste stream if possible)? NFDC member returns set out a trend for 80 per cent of sector. See separate table for summary. How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole? The NFDC has 157 company members out of a possibly 2,000 demolition companies in the UK including SMEs. NFDC members have a turnover of around 800 million, around 75-80 per cent of the sector.

52

The NFDC member returns set out a trend for 80 per cent of sector. See separate table for summary. The amount of reuse is not recorded, and has never been recorded by the sector. What is the carbon impact of collecting or preparing items for reuse? If this is not available, record any information on typical transport, storage and maintenance activities etc. It is not measured. What trends have you observed in this sector? Reuse has declined.The larger demolition firms are now very good at recovery and recycling but reuse is definitely declining. Over the past 20 years there has been a change in approach to recover and recycle rather than reuse. Reuse started to slow down significantly four years ago and is becoming more visible now. Some of the reduction is due to heavy machines being employed and some earlier labour-based approaches being considered a health and safety issue (such as recovering 4x2 timbers off a roof). Machine operations are quicker, easier and safer but stop reuse taking place. Is there adequate data on the potential of reuse in this area? Info-graphics for material reuse: we need to know the figures of how much material value is wasted. For example, for every 1g of gold from a mine around 50 tonnes of ore needs to be mined. The overall impact in terms of resources needed for construction is not always understood or appreciated. Data on steel reuse and recycling – EUROFER Survey: the European Steel Federation (EUROFER) is currently undertaking a survey on steel reuse and recycling across Europe. This is currently in consultation with results due out later this year. What measures could be taken to expand reuse in this area? End-of-life value measure for buildings: it would be useful to compare the product life and likely reclamation potential of concrete frame, timber frame (timber inside, plasterboard then a single skin brick on the outside), traditional built (block and brick), SIP panel housing. Ten years ago timber frame housing was common. We do not know how long timber frame buildings (in particular) will last for. If some are noted as only having a life for 50 years, then that would affect the mortgage market. New walls are harder to deconstruct. Not only is OPC used,but wall ties are fixed into the inner face. The polystyrene between the two faces could also pose a problem at end-of-life. An assessment of the end-of-life value of different structures could quantify material value, financial value and embodied carbon value once a building has been taken down/apart, which would be affected by the method of recovery. There could be a sustainability assessment as to what the residual value of our environment in 100 years time is. This could be similar to home energy ratings, and give an indication of the true life sustainability of products – what will be left for our children’s children? This approach could also apply for other products, including furniture, large and small WEEE. Older buildings, such as a Victorian terrace, have high product durability and up to 99 per cent potential to deconstruct and reuse so would score highly. Increased panel product use, innovations in reuse/changed specification required: modern houses have compact trusses, which are gang nailed together with mainly short lengths. Flooring is now more likely to be a laminated product or Glulam and lots of panel products are used. Panel products are recycled products that generally cannot be reused or recycled again. End-of-life Buildings Directive: We could have an ‘end-of-life’ buildings directive, much like the requirement that cars purchased today have an end-of-life specification, resulting in a design that enables end-of-life deconstruction. Deconstruction needs to be considered in design and collaboration detailing: better dialogue is needed between the demolition and construction industry. For example, if a building is constructed with under-floor heating which sits on a layer of polystyrene, then a sheet of plastic could be added to separate this from a concrete foundation, which would aid deconstruction. The use of polystyrene as lost shuttering or inserts makes end-of-life separation difficult. Perhaps the most extreme example of the failure to design for deconstruction is in nuclear power stations. We have no idea of what to do with these structures at the end of life. Time for deconstruction: planning used to hinder the industry but now the industry (mainly) takes a mechanically-led approach so the lack of time does not impact on business as usual. For example, it doesn’t hinder the industry anymore but it will hinder reuse. For example, the Catthorpe Interchange on the M1 was demolished in under 48 hours and achieved 99.8 per cent recovery – but no reuse.

53

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Need R&D for innovative demolition approaches, including reuse: this is likely to drop as more buildings that are being demolished now are composite. Traditional buildings are much easier to recycle (and reuse). For example, the BRE eco-park has many new buildings put up and come down but apart from the Creo building (hollow polystyrene Lego with concrete infill) there have been no case studies for what the best way to take these apart is at the end-of-life. There have been no case studies of how deconstruction/reuse could deal with SIPs panels using modern materials and other new composite materials. The way in which modern buildings are joined (e.g. with adhesives) can limit reuse potential. Lack of a mainstream market: people currently trust B&Q to sell them timber, and will buy a kiln-dried piece of timber full of knots in preference to going somewhere else to buy a piece of second-hand timber. Ideally there should be an incentive (such as VAT relief) to give big retailers like B&Q or Wickes an incentive to trade in reused product. If they started stocking some second-hand timber this would allow some people, who prefer to buy second-hand rather than new, to do so. It would need cleaning up and presenting, and in doing so support a whole new industry. Retailing of reuse would still require increased salvage/reclamation dealers with yards as larger retailers require a strong supply chain. This could also provide a marketplace for a jobbing builder (not the bigger guys – as they could not procure enough to the same specification). It would be better if there was some kind incentive so that the existing retailers, also retail reuse. Increasing reuse supply to retailers might need a centralized area for the materials to go into to be cleaned, graded and palletized. Then this could go off to B&Q or one of the other DIY hypermarkets for retail. It could be a job opportunity for youth employment.

Need new skills for reuse (and recycling) in the demolition in future: we have identified that there will be a problem in the years to come and commissioned built4life with Construction Skills funding to produce Demolition Information Datasheets (DIDs) – 16 single sheets which will act as tools to train apprenticeships for refurbishment and demolition. For each product it will set out what can be reused, recycled and recovered (to be published late 2012).

Steel reuse limited by certification requirements: we used to salvage for reuse second-hand RSJs and cut them to length. Changes now require a certificate on the capacity. Building inspectors now generally don’t accept use of second-hand steel (compared to 10-15 years ago). The requirement for certification has led to this change.

5.10 Gilli Hobbs, BRE The Building Research Establishment is a former UK government establishment (but now a private organisation) that carries out research, consultancy and testing for the construction and built environment sectors.

What is the carbon impact of producing a new item (i.e. CO2 emissions)? Are there any lifecycle assessment type studies the interviewee is aware of? You can download information from BRE on the Ecopoints for different products from greenbooklive.com but this does not set out any data for embodied carbon. Generic environmental profiles sit in BRE’s materials environmental profiles database and BRE’s updated Green Guide to Specification (Anderson, J; Shiers, D, and Steele, K. (2009) The Green Guide to Specification: 4th Edition. IHS BRE Press and Wiley-Blackwell.) BRE’s database is based on the Eco Invent LCA database (which has EU values), which has been adapted and amended by UK manufacturers, and to reflect the UK’s different energy mix. Some carbon values are higher, some lower and some the same. There has been no comparison of BRE’s LCAs against the Bath ICE database. How much becomes waste each year (please separate municipal and commercial waste stream if possible)? Defra overview of waste statistics for England and Wales (2010) for CD&E for England.

54

What percentage of discarded items are reusable as discarded and what proportion are potentially reusable with refurbishment? SMARTWaste is run by BRE. This has some entries for on and off site reuse. This suggests 22 per cent of all waste (out of 13 million tonnes) has been reused. [Note: This figure is not trusted and ‘may be inaccurate’ due to confusion between what is reuse, recycling and recovery in the construction sector.] More reliable data is available from projects that have undertaken a ‘SMARTAudit’ for new construction sites and by Pre-Demolition Audits. There are around 30 such SMARTAudits and a similar number of pre- demolition audits over the past five years. This data could be made anonymous in a report. Comments on the BRE/Salvo MiniREc Survey The amount of salvage in the UK dropped from around threemillion tonnes in 1998 to around 2.2Mt in 2007. The amount in England is assumed to be around 80 per cent of this total. The 2012 survey was sent in 1,300 emails to target 300 of the 2,000 firms contacted before (by post). The 34 responses received included 18 (53 per cent) from reclamation firms. The results of the most recent survey are general but suggest architectural salvage is around a quarter, flooring and paving around a half, bricks around a third and timber around a twentieth of what it was five years ago. It is hard to confirm the extent of these numbers but fair to say that timber reclamation has plummeted, and the overall scale of the reclamation sector in the UK is in decline, which is confirmed by circumstantial information (e.g. mergers, acquisitions and closures in the sector). More time is required to do a full baseline study with the resources to boost confidence in the way the sector is engaged and the results. Jobs were not within the scope of the survey. This could also be related to the NFDC, which undertake surveys of demolition contractors (contact Howard Button). What are the main barriers and opportunities to expanding the sector? Public procurement: this should be made a priority. Currently the focus on reuse is just tokenistic. The Olympics is an excellent example of this. Demolition should define what can/cannot be reused through pre- demolition audits. This is a public procurement opportunity. Differential tax structure / incentives: this should be linked to a proper audit trail to make sure that genuine reclamation occurs.

Research the impact landfill tax has had on the waste hierarchy: there has been no work done to consider the economics of reuse against the landfill tax increases and current ROC subsidies for EfW. There has been a 5-10 year drive to increase recycling and latterly a focus on EfW. The same resource in Defra that has been spent to promote EfW and recycling should be invested in waste reduction (including reuse). In addition to landfill tax we need to incentivize reuse, if it is to occur. This could be in the form of reducingVATfor reclaiming and reusing building materials. Current demand has been impacted by the recession. With less demolition work taking place the sector has been supply restricted, with many demolition contractors less willing to take the time to reclaim. This would recognize the saving in embodied carbon compared to using new products. Increased support (finance and promotion) for reuse: we need a focus on waste minimisation and reclamation. This includes a focus on data collection, policy direction, government capital grants, waste information for waste minimisation and reclamation. We need to commit to spend the same amount or greater on reclamation than recycling. Currently there are millions spent by WRAP on recycling, notably on Envirowise and NISP, with perhaps half a billion to promote [other parts of the waste hierarchy]. This is not really cheap or easy to sort out. It needs real R&D, not just a few studies.

Better reuse promotion: this should include the Ecobuild exhibition. We should focus on better quality and sustainability and ensure that reuse is not portrayed or perceived as either elitist or eco-chic.

Resource efficient refurbishment:we need to focus on resource-efficient refurbishment, both in the housing and commercial sectors. The former could include case studies that maximize reuse (and minimise waste) through a loft conversion, or fit-out of a new kitchen or bathroom. Deconstructabilitycould be a key focus, but in practice the reason buildings are demolished and the way they are demolished are due to financial decisions. In future we should prioritise flexible use of buildings, along with climate change adaptation.

55

We should consider the greater aesthetic/materials value, which can give added value or quality, of older buildings. For example, reclaimed flooring is cheaper than solid wood equivalent but alternative flooring used tends instead to be of a lower quality so there is not a like-for-like comparison. Standard/decision making for choosing to demolish or reuse a building:we need a decision making standard so there is a consistent way to procure projects that take a reclamation-led approach and ensure projects are conducive to the use of reclaimed products. Research has been done to support this (Yates, 2006). A forthcoming BRE report, “Dealing with Difficult Demolition Waste” will focus on problematic demolition.

5.11 Charlie Law, Chair of UKCG Waste Working Group, BAM Construction

What is the carbon impact of producing a new item (i.e. CO2 emissions)? Are there any lifecycle assessment type studies the interviewee is aware of? He sees the way forward as product declarations with embodied carbon allocated to items in a BIM product. This would mean that once a drawing is produced the embodied carbon of new items would be known. It would not include carbon from transport, on-site energy use or that of waste. However, there is not yet an agreed protocol for embodied carbon measurement in the construction sector so it is currently not possible to properly footprint in a consistent way. This maybe a future project for ENCORD (a business-led network of 20 construction companies, acting outside of most industry collaboration in the UK, established for around 20 years and focusing on R&D in construction with significant EU funding to date). The recent CO2 protocol was a sustainability charter that all these companies signed. This aims to benchmark measurement of CO2 of operations, which are currently really varied and a construction and real estate sector supplement produced by the Global Reporting Initiative. It did not focus on embodied CO2 as this is classed as scope threeemissions for the construction sector. What percentage of discarded items are reusable as discarded, and what proportion are potentially reusable with refurbishment? This applies to large, new-build construction contracts: The company does not have any breakdown of the waste diverted from landfill. The majority is soil. Around 75 per cent is ‘reused’ by disposing of it in exempt sites. (e.g. restoration and cover of landfill, imports, quarry restoration). They have around 20-30 different companies that are used for taking this excavation waste in each region. About 20 per cent is from new-build waste. 1. Most of this is recycled to aggregate. This is done via 1-2 waste management companies for mixed construction waste in each region. They do not see any reuse occurring through this recycling company as the way that waste is treated leaves no chance of reuse happening. For example, consider the operations of Powerday in North London: the first thing they do is to shred the waste so it is easier to deal with through processes, to separate waste with magnets, blow out plastic etc. This does not lead to any reuse. 2. Around 20 per cent of the C&D (excluding soil) waste is timber. That includes shuttering where reuse is limited as design for shuttering for a certain sort of building can’t be adapted for another one. Pallets account for around 50 per cent of timber waste. 3. The other big area is packaging waste which is mainly cardboard and plastic. We need a big push in terms of more reusable packaging. For example, Armstrong sell ceiling tiles which currently all come in plastic cellophane wrapped in a cardboard box. Replacing this with reusable pallets would increase reuse and cut waste. How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole? BAM produces around 1 million tonnes of waste/year of which around 88 per cent is diverted from landfill. Less than 1 per cent is hazardous waste. It is not known how much is reused. Current reuse and take-back pathways used (not quantified). Timber recycling charities are used, especially in the SW Region. They prefer this as it is ‘better than to just chip and burn everything’. 56

Kingspan take-back for all their packaging and any offcuts or leftover insulation. The cost for take-back is £150 for the first tonne. None of this tends to be reused. It would be good to opt for more flat slab construction as this would standardize shuttering and reduce waste. Pallets are labelled so they are repatriated as far as possible using a logistics company. ScottELM (European Logistics Management) are tied with a number of large manufacturers. They pickup pallets from construction sites, refurbish them and sell them back. What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Legislation is a big issue whenever we say we are reusing something. The EA view still starts with ‘it is a waste’, which causes problems. This puts a lot people off trying to reuse items and makes reuse difficult. There needs to be clearer guidance on when waste is no longer classed as a waste, to allow more ‘waste’ materials to be reused in their original form. This is something the UKCG may look at. Sites do not deal with reuse, as this is more expensive due to the significant management costs that reuse would incur. This is seen as the view from the Waste Sub Group of the UKCG. They do not use reuse websites due to the time to put items on a website and the time to pick items up from site. They just want to get rid of it. What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Legislation is probably the main thing for BAM. If there were reuse hubs in town then they could donate materials and just have to pay to get the materials there. For example, when they have surplus bricks they just have to consider the cost in dealing with them – as there often have not paid for them as the subcontractor has just left them on site. There is an issue that as the main contractor they do not purchase items but have to deal with the surplus left on site. The contractor that orders construction products is often different from the one dealing with the waste on site. The only subcontractor generally given the responsibility of dealing with their own waste are the groundwork or concrete frame shuttering contractors as they often are the only ones on site. When you have many different companies and trades on site then contractors cannot have their own skips as there is not room: waste becomes centrally coordinated, and is about logistics. That is why the main contractor takes responsibility for waste disposal. Surplus items are not reused Waste tends to originate from sub-contractors on large sites. Whenever sub-contractors have materials left over these tend to go into the waste, which is generally the responsibility of the main contractor. The main contractor will charge them for disposal of these materials. There is not an incentive to get bricks to be reused. Although an extra pallet of (350+) bricks could be takenback to the manufacturer, this is rare as the cost for the supplier to send the lorry back to pick up the bricks would be more than the bricks are worth. A local charity or salvage yard is needed if they are to be reused. They would give them away but this is difficult. The cheaper option is to put surplus reusable items in the skip. The contractor would like reuse to be cheaper so would prefer if someone could take it away for nothing. If they have a pack of bricks left over and school next door wants to build a wall they can’t give them the bricks. Clearer guidance is needed of where waste is no longer seen as a waste. Opportunities for reuse are multi-million Most surplus items left on new-build construction sites are not high value, unless there is a variation to the contract. High value or special items are often left as spares for the client. The need for reuse includes specialist bits and bobs but this is less of a problem. No structural steel tends to be leftover on new-build sites. It is more lower value, standard, bulky items such as bricks, insulation and plasterboard. This is because it is cheaper to order more and have stuff left over, than risk having a workforce left standing around. See also WRAP case studies. Other aspects – reuse of soil One big issue is the reuse of soils. Soil is a big waste stream and represents around 75 per cent of the waste sent off site [for large new building projects]. [Note: technically this is generally for recycling or recovery.] A draft document has been prepared by UKCG (2011) to clarify the legislation on the reuse of soils, which aims to be a simplified version of the WRAP quality protocol. This has been produced as a guidance document by the UKCG and is awaiting a response from Defra and the EA.

57

Note: BAM tend to do mostly new buildings and are part of Royal BAM Group. BAM Nuttall do Civils (contact Company Environmental Manager – John Hutton – 0787 633 2013, [email protected]).Also worth contacting Hunts (demolition), NFDC (demolition).

5.12 Sharon Parsons, B&Q B&Q represents 26 per cent of the retail of DIY sector, and sells to SME builders as well as householders. What is the average technical lifetime of an item for reuse? It’s essential the same as a new item. Most reuse is product that is surplus, slightly damaged or faulty new items that can be reused or repaired and reused. What percentage of discarded items are reusable as discarded, and what proportion are potentially reusable with refurbishment? There is no data that separates how much is reused from how much is recycled. How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? Total tonnage for the operations side of business is around 77,000 tonnes, of which 66,884 is diverted from landfill. This includes all stores and head office furniture. Store refurbishment is managed separately with tenders for construction/FM contract carrying reuse/waste responsibility. For more on construction and refurbishment of retail stores, contact Simon Tantalini. What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? Breakdown includes: 14,300 cardboard packaging; 2,200 plastic packaging; 27,000 pallets and clean timber (some of this is product).This figure appears to exclude pallet reuse (see below). Timber is currently chipped to make animal bedding. Racking and pallets tend to be reused. They go into long-term storage if they are not needed for a range refresh, or they would get reused again. Contact Paul Leah for more information; 1,400 tonne metal – product and racking. This is a small amount of the total racking which generally is reused (e.g. fit-out for a range review) by backhauling to a massive warehouse. Disposal includes non-standard and special items. There are issues where it is no longer required but is of a size that does not fit into standard cages; MDF (predominately packaging type waste and customer off-cuts) totals 1,600 tonnes (not reused or recycled); Paper/brochures 1,300 tonne

Looking at examples like Styropack in Ford in Sussex to recycle polystyrene back into product (www.styropack.co.uk/). The process is as follows: Reuse currently occurs via product refresh or range reviews. However, in some areas surplus reuse does not occur. For example, B&Q have just completed a range review on freestanding bedroom furniture. They were able to reduce it all and sell it all through, with the final sales via larger city centre stores. Two options are used when a decision is made to write stock off. 1.Local Donations. This is coordinated via Head Office through aligned charities (e.g. UK Youth, scouts) as well as with local schools and colleges. Local reuse collections are arranged with pick-ups from the reuse organisation. This is done through contacting the store and agreeing a time and location for the product to be uplifted. 2. Backhaul. Sometimes items are backhauled to a depot and go to a ‘jobber’: someone who comes and buys stock and sell on. Future innovation. It would be good to be able to scan items and track where donations are made, including weights to produce a consolidated report by donation. This would enable quantification of levels of current reuse. There is a pallet repatriation programme. This does not feature in the waste data.

58

Around 20 per cent of the 800 tonnes of WEEE waste/annum is reusable. Most WEEE is in the form of faulty store returns. A survey of two of 29 regions found that around 20 per cent of the lighting, large and small domestic appliances could be refurbished and put back on market. The challenge is how a vendor (e.g. Black and Decker, Bosch) would respond to sale of a refurbished product. This is less of an issue for own-branded products. [Note: Do not know the extent to which WEEE partners deliver reuse or recycling (e.g. Valpak). WEEE trials are being looked at as a customer recycling opportunity, starting with four stores. It may include batteries and light bulbs depending on cost, storage space used and the uptake.] Noted that Envirocom do PAT testing, visual and function test (e.g. bronze to gold tests for a washing machine) and sell back into the secondary market via BHF. Wood (including pallets), racking and WEEE are probably the main reuse opportunities. What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? The sheer size of business is a barrier, together with the integrity of reporting information. For example, when a line of light bulbs is discontinued it is hard to determine whether there are 10k or 50k left. This affects logistics and makes planning from head office difficult. Will choose to recycle if it is cheaper in some areas of the business. Scouting and UK Youth are the main contacts for charity partners for reuse by B&Q nationally. Stores are also encouraged to do things locally, but there is no data on extent this takes place. [Note: EA permits have never been an issue. Random audits are carried out on hazardous waste and compliance.] What are the costs of reuse? Please explain. The biggest challenge is the space required for reuse and product returns. The main driver that limits reuse is the lower ROI of floor space. Retailers are mainly geared to drive footfall and market – and have not integrated reuse into their business model. This does need investigation. What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Communication and awareness. Demonstrate it is the right thing to do, right people in board.

5.13 Julian Allwood, Group Leader, Wellmet, Cambridge University How much NEW product is sold in England each year? UK consumption of steel is 550kg/head per year. Around half of steel use is due to construction (both globally and in the EU: Cooper, 2012, Table 1 and supporting information).

What is the carbon impact of producing a new item (i.e. CO2 emissions)? Are there any lifecycle assessment type studies the interviewee is aware of? The first part of the Wellmet book gathers all the available data on the flows of steel and aluminium impact. The LCA approach is limited as you ‘can really come up with any number you like by changing the boundary conditions’. For example changing the baseline recycled content in steel is done by many. [Note: Article by Allwood references this, for structural steel the UK value is 1.47 kgCO2e/kg whereas the global figure for structural steel is 2.03 kgCO2e/k – Hammond & Jones (2011)]. It is artificial to take a UK value rather than a global embodied carbon value for steel, as it is nottrue that the level of UK steel production is a separate market from that produced elsewhere. Also, every single LCA (seen) tends to show that the person paying for the LCA was not responsible for the bulk of the emissions. For example, a major retailer will produce a study to show most of its impact is in production of goods, not retail. A fast moving consumer goods company making shampoo included all water heating in the house as part of their LCA while only direct consumption emissions related to them – to show the impact of making shampoo was small compared to the use stage. Reference: Cullen and Allwood (2009). Allwood concludes:‘A consequence is that when LCA studies are used for prioritization, they are in danger of overemphasising the use-phase impacts and overlooking the impacts from indirect activities. These effects, which are broadly understood by LCA developers, appear not to be properly understood by those who use

59

LCA to direct priorities for action. Therefore, practitioners should be wary of using LCA for prioritizing action, and LCA guidance documents should reflect this caution.’ LCA for cement. The cement industry is very adept at confusing the words carbon, energy and electricity. You have to be very quick to spot which one. They make an enormous play on the (potential for) use of GGBS as substitute for cement. However global supply of GGBS is only around six per cent of cement supply: 200 mt/year GGBS compared 3000 mt/year cement. They then quickly expand from CO2 to talk of sustainability achieved by engaging with local communities, and how because they are working with others to do well on this so are sustainable. This is probably because the cement industry has fewer options than the steel industry to make big changes. Except it should adopt a more modular style of design. How many UK jobs are created in production and distribution per tonne of new goods sold? The steel industry directly employs a relatively small number (10s of thousands in the UK) but steel is an intermediate product and it is the downstream industries of construction and manufacture that provide more employment. What is the average technical lifetime of a new item? 40 years for structural steel. (See Allwood, 2012: Cooper: 2012) How much becomes waste each year (please separate municipal and commercial waste stream if possible)? New steel made in UK: 14mt Scrap steel: 10-12 mt – mainly exported This causes 18mt of steel production elsewhere due to the goods we import (least likely to be construction). What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? 40 years What percentage of discarded items are reusable as discarded, and what proportion are potentially reusable with refurbishment? See ‘Potential Reuse of Aluminium Components’ (2008). This and the steel table are taken from Cooper, 2012.

60

What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? Estimate about 20kt reuse/year: around 5,000 tonnes in farm buildings, 5,000 tonnes in temporary works, 5,000 tonnes in structural steel beams and 5,000 tonnes in whole buildings like Portal Power. What is the average lifetime of a reused item? 40 years. What is the carbon impact of collecting or preparing items for reuse? If this is not available, record any information on typical transport, storage and maintenance activities Low.Transport can be significant, but is still low compared to embodied carbon. 61

How many jobs does the interviewee’s organisation employ? Six. What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Certification and timing What are the costs of reuse? Please explain. See Research findings, reproduced in case study for steel reuse. What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Certification and timing issues (see below). Also, we don’t charge VAT on new construction but we do on refurbishment, which reduces the cost advantage to reuse steel rather than build using virgin materials. How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? Reference: Dan Cooper's paper (2012). Cambridge University's Wellmet team have studied how to improve resource efficiency, focusing on steel and aluminium in particular (see www.withbotheyesopen.com for more information and to download the Wellmet research book). What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Study with Portal Power The approach to deconstruct and reconstruct a whole building is good but is only really applicable to some light industrial buildings. This highlighted the two main barriers below– recertification and timing of deconstruction. 1. More time for demolition required to maximise reuse The margin between scrap price and the market value to sell steel for reuse (is lower than in the past but it) is still sufficiently great to cover costs and leave a profit margin. There is some economic analysis in the Wellmet research book (Allwood et al, 2011), which sets out the price of new steel and scrap over the last 40-50 years. This shows that while prices have risen, the ratio between scrap and new steel value looks relatively constant. The main constraint to steel reuse in construction in the UK appears to be around timing. Everything is held off while a whole series of deals are put together, then when the final decision is made everything goes ahead. A site typically remains unoccupied for about two years. Then the demolition contractor is told to come in. The current process incentivises demolition that can be done quicker, not better. If the process could be started earlier then it would be possible to deconstruct rather than demolish. 2. Recertification standard and a portable hardness test are needed In the conventional process Tata will produce a continuous I beam, whose properties are not reliant on product testing but through process control measures. Reuse currently requires recertification by testing a coupon. An alternative test (to identify the grade of steel) could be achieved with a portable hardness test. There is not yet a clear standard that sets out requirements for recertification of steel. Most of the current market for steel reuse (temporary works, domestic use) does not need recertification. But widening the extent of structural steel reuse needs a standard so that the steel can be certified, to secure the warranty to enable risk to be transferred. What opportunities are there to expand the sector? A supply chain exists [but is smaller than in the past]: The whole supply chain for reuse in the construction sector already exists. We have visited all the relevant components from reclamation and demolition onwards. Increasing amount of steel frame buildings come to end of life: surveys of building stock and trends in the construction industry suggest that there will soon be a supply surge in the potential for structural steel reuse, as there was a significant switchover from concrete to steel frame around 40 years ago, which roughly corresponds to typical age of buildings demolished in the UK. Prove mainstream commercial structural steel reuse: this is required to show that reuse at scale can work as part of the development process: that it is possible, not painful, and that a lead user is prepared to focus on reuse. Perhaps the best current example is the reuse of over-ordered gas pipes, substituting for tailor made steelwork in the design and delivery of the London 2012 stadium.

62

Focus on life extension rather than reuse: most of our buildings are being replaced long before they are broken. We have found that the main reason why replacement occurs was because the user needs had changed or something else had become more attractive. In contrast in the steel industry nearly every steel rolling mill ever made is still operating, with just the control systems, which are external, being upgraded since then. Building could be considered as an 'onion skin model': with only the outer layer (paint) or layers (facade/furnishings/fit-out) being replaced with the main embodied carbon – and structural core – of a building being retained, rather than first demolished when change of use for a development site is considered. Demolition could retain the existing structural frame within the core, and in doing so retain a large part of the embodied energy retained, and then the rest of the structure be replaced. Change jointing systems to facilitate higher reuse potential for steel and concrete: different jointing systems would be needed so that reuse is able to separate elements joined mechanically (e.g. precast with steel plates, bolts) rather than wet construction (e.g. insitu RC concrete, welding). Floor slabs represent a large part of the mass of concrete that is used. Designs that facilitate reuse of floors should be considered. The history of MMC and prefabrication has been to wet join different structural elements on site. The extent to which this limits the potential for future reuse should be reflected in the design system. In some cases, more traditional construction processes should be considered instead. Extend life, particularly of concrete framed structures, brick buildings: Generally the only reuse option for many concrete frames will be a life extension. To the extent that this is unlikely, is the extent to which we are overusing concrete. There is already an efficient recycling route for concrete but it should be designed more as masonry so that it is able to have a second life. By combining bricks with OPC, we are creating buildings that cannot be deconstructed or dismantled. There was one project that looked to use microwaves to break apart concrete. But apart from that there has been little practical research to show that a newer (OPC mortar) brick building can have a reuse option, apart from as a complete building. For example, there is a new Laing O'Rourke factory near Sheffield, which is planning to make brick panels as part of an offsite construction approach. But they are not planning for these panels to be reusable.

5.14 Bill Addis, Buro Happold Buro Happold is a professional services firm providing engineering consultancy, design, planning, project management and consulting services What are the barriers to re-use expansion? There is no compulsion to use recycled-content materials/products, let alone re-used product. Even the GLA’s requirement is virtually optional. In comparison, London 2012 demonstrated that specification is the best way to ensure targets are delivered. What could be done to overcome these barriers? There is no requirement for manufacturers to quote the percentage reused on a contract. Reuse targets could also be introduced into BREEAM, CSH (as LEED and West Coast Producers in the US have for recycled content at least) and in planning policies. Why has timber reuse fallen? It could be because demolition industry processors simply prefer to chip all the bits of timber they have as they have good machinery. Or it could be a lack of storage space. It is unclear why items of high value (e.g. timber beams and floorboards) are not reused unless this is due to inertia, and a lack of promotion of reuse within the sector. What are the opportunities to develop reuse? Improve definition of reuse: Reuse is considered to mean reuse of a product or a whole entity/assembly at as near as possible to its original state. Recycling is often incorrectly labelled as reuse by the construction industry, such as activities that generate a percentage of recycled content, e.g. in sub-base for road construction, road surfacing materials, recycled aggregate, ‘reuse’ of plastic into drainage goods such as

63

pipes, tanks etc. In contrast, reuse of whole buildings (which is the level of decision making for developers) is generally not recorded as reuse. Include Reuse Targets in Procurement: From Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) to Robust Materials Strategies When there are good strong reasons imposed or voluntarily agreed reuse happens but otherwise it does not happen. For example, the Olympics took recycled content (e.g. of the concrete mix) seriously and made a bit of a difference on this – although reuse was not a success in the same way. Lots of other recent master plans have properly considered reuse but it is hard to evidence results as these are mostly still in the future. It would be good practice to ensure materials are not just considered as waste but there is a strategy for materials. Although waste management is now a requirement under the requirement for Site Waste Management Plan it does appear to require the waste hierarchy to be followed or reuse to be maximised. Often projects that have a SWMP do not specify other aspects, such as recycled materials content or a 'proper materials strategy'. Many big (building) projects also now have a Code of Construction Practice that sits above the SWMP. Many councils now expect or require a project with an EIA to have a Code for Construction Practice, which widens the SWMP to include other aspects as well. Construction impact mitigation is now often dealt with in an EIA and 'may' include elements of a materials strategy. A materials strategy should aim to prioritise reducing quantity of material used (including through reuse), increasing recycled content and low embodied energy, and designing for reuse and recycling. This should sit alongside the waste strategy. It requires a shift from linear to closed loop thinking. A materials strategy should be applied to different aspects of the construction process: At the demolition stage: pre-demolition audits; use of the Netwaste tool; setting up markets for the materials to be reuse; recycled (or recovered) on site or nearby using the Demolition Protocol. At the construction Stage: measures including targets and benchmarks for reclamation and reuse for the whole site, and with time different targets for different types of material and construction (for use of reclaimed materials). Avoiding the use of scarce materials: including peat, weathered limestone pavement, CFCs, To make sure all timber is FSC or reused Reclamation and reuse of materials This opportunity can often limited by considerations at the design stage, i.e. thinking can a particular building component be reused after deconstruction. The market for reused components could be stimulated, for example by focusing on: a high volume of identical products (e.g. ceiling tiles) items with a proven long term service life (e.g. structural timbers) One-off high value products (e.g. a generator or a lift). To build using reclaimed materials it is essential to have the goods before starting the design.

64

How good is our information about the location of Salvage Firms/Reuse Exchanges? We need an updated registered of sites which can salvage/consolidate/retail construction reuse. This should include all of the UK salvage network and also BREMAP. What is the potential to incentivise Reuse of Existing Structures? There is now an opportunity that complements good ‘Design for Deconstruction’, reusing existing structures/buildings. Considering existing structures as part of the construction opportunity, rather than the focus of a demolition contract. However, there is a lot to build on in this area, in terms of established guidance and case studies. Reuse of structures in situ can account for large-scale reuse in construction. This includes refurbishment, e.g. turning an old Victorian factory as part of Huddersfield University and retrofitting a 1970s tower block in Wandsworth by building around it, thereby reusing all of the existing building in situ (see http://projects.bre.co.uk/partL_study/pdf/Wandsworth.pdf). There is also scope for facade retention (such as using formwork systems of RMD Kwikform or similar) and reuse of piles and/or foundations. Some guidance exists for reuse of existing structural frames in situ. This varies from iron and steel structures (Swailes T and Marsh, J (1998)); ICE design and practice guide: Structural Appraisal of Iron-framed textile mills; SCI (1997); Appraisal of existing iron and steel structures; BRE, Structural Appraisal of Existing Buildings for a Material Change of Use; IStructE, Appraisal of Existing Structures.

Reuse of existing foundations is also well-established – with CIRIA guidance and the EU research project, Reuse of Foundations for Urban Sites (RUFUS). What is the scope for technical innovation in reuse? The opportunities to expand reuse need to include expanding the technical scope of what is mainstream practice in the construction industry. Wellmet (Cambridge University) are leading a project looking at the potential to reuse a whole steel frame structure in a commercial venture. There is the potential to cut up and reuse panels but it is hard to validate panel integrity. This has been trialled in Holland and Sweden. What are the potential benefits of contract continuity, from demolition to construction, to increase whole building reuse/refurbishment?

65

A case study on refurbishment of a number of buildings has shown that to incentivise reuse it was important to have the same contractor for the demolition and construction stages. Only when there is continuity across the demolition to construction contractual process do you get benefits to both sides at the same time. This is more likely to happen when someone owns the building and takes it all the way through. What is the potential to reuse structural frames? In principle, there is a very high likelihood that a building frame could be reused, whether it is concrete or steel. Many buildings dating from the 1960s and 1970s that are being demolished now have generally nothing wrong, but the existing structural layout is not usually a starting point in designing for any new proposed use. The bay sizes since the 1960s and 1970s for concrete and steel frames and the floor to ceiling heights have remained relatively constant. In principle there is nothing remarkable that stops the reuse of existing frames. The methodology for this is set out in BRE Digest 366 (Structural appraisal of existing buildings for change of use, 1991, http://products.ihs.com/cis/Doc.aspx?AuthCode=&DocNum=17006). There are also several guides advising on the reuse of 19th century mills and factories, an IStructE and SCI guide for the reuse of structural steel frames. Specific opportunity: There has been less practice in reuse of concrete framed structures, other than façade retention projects. This could be the subject of a TSB-type research project to complement existing case studies, which mainly look at steel framed structures. Specific opportunity: There could be a research project tracking projects that reuse existing buildings (or part thereof) to determine the embodied carbon savings from façade retention and/or structural frame retention, including associated sub-structure works. How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? Huge. Compare what is happening in California with what is happening in England.

5.15 Bill Dunster, ZEDFactory ZEDfactory is a leader in the field of low carbon architecture, including development of BedZED, the UK’s first and largest Zero Energy Development What are the opportunities to develop reuse over new build? Although this will not show up in the stats for reuse in construction, there has been a big shift from new build to refurbishment (reuse in situ) in current years. This means that the decision making has become more supportive of reuse, if this is considered as reuse of the overall product for a developer (they decide what building to buy) rather than for the contractor/specifiers/architect (who input into deciding what building products are purchased). The current economic climate has led to a shift in more projects seeking to retain and refurbish existing buildings, so the decline in reuse of construction materials by larger construction projects might be offset by the retention of existing buildings, particularly for smaller projects. This is in part due to the current margins for new build construction being so low that the retention of existing buildings is more cost effective now, and is being considered as an option for more projects. What opportunity is there to capture benefits of reduced carbon emissions from reuse in construction? It would be good to introduce a financial incentive to reuse building materials, so that they are valued more, in part because of the embodied carbon that they save. Currently, reduction of the carbon used is prioritised through policy, but the embodied carbon is not measured for most developments, and is not valued the same. Embodied carbon and ‘in-use’ carbon for construction could both be valued the same, and reduced together. If construction is to create low-carbon living without increasing carbon emissions in the process, then the overall impact of construction should be to have a positive benefit in terms of climate change. It would be beneficial to fund research to compare the carbon payback for various retrofit measures (such as promoted by the Green Deal) and compare this to different new-build solutions. Using reclaimed products (or retaining existing structures) would then be valued as the overall up-front carbon emissions due to the construction are reduced as well as in-use carbon emissions. (For example see http://www.ruralzed.com/100225_lrg_brochure.pdf, page 13 notes the carbon payback of PV panels. The same approach could include all construction materials.)

66

5.16 Andrew Pitman, TRADA The Timber Research and Development Association (TRADA) - is an internationally recognised centre of excellence on the specification and use of timber and wood products. How much NEW product is sold in England each year? The UK production can be found in the Forestry Commission statistics. This is not broken into final product destination.

What is the carbon impact of producing a new item (i.e. CO2 emissions)? Are there any lifecycle assessment type studies the interviewee is aware of? This has only been quantified for a few products. The full impact including forest growing and end-of-life cycle has not been used commercially but work is currently being done by academics. There is a lot less information on cradle to grave (including reuse), than information on cradle to factory. How many UK jobs are created in production and distribution per tonne of new goods sold? The Timber Trade Federation has the number employed in forest and timber sector in the UK, but this has not been expressed as tonnes/product. What is the average technical lifetime of a new item? This is variable, depending on the product type. For structural elements in buildings 60 years is typical (estimated life, but depends on life of the building). For other products (e.g. decking, fence posts) it could be as little as 15 years. Further research is needed to see the links between how timber is used and how long its lifetime is. How much becomes waste each year (please separate municipal and commercial waste stream if possible)? See various WRAP reports. Including study of the composition of wood waste by MEL (2009). What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? It depends on the product. Again there is a lack of research in this area. What proportion of discarded items are reusable in the condition they are discarded, and what proportion are potentially reusable with refurbishment? What is technically possible would be high but future use will depend on level of contamination (e.g. preservative treatment, paint, engineered/adhesive content– i.e. board products which contain resins such as phenol formaldehyde). What are the main pathways for reusable timber, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? Some through third sector organisations and some through the salvage sector, but research on this has not been completed. We do not anticipate that a lot gets used on the same site, except for temporary works such as hoardings, formwork and falsework. What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Same as new. What is the carbon impact of collecting or preparing items for reuse? If this is not available, do you have any record of information on typical transport, storage and maintenance activities etc.? Limited data/studies have been done on this. For timber, compared to a product made from virgin wood the impact is likely to be lower because the reused wood does not need to be dried, which is a very energy intensive part of the timber production process. How many jobs does the interviewee’s organisation employ? How many are employed by the sector as a whole? 50 What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Too much variation in product type: Everything from a window joist to a panel product is cut to different sizes, made from different woods with different treatments. As different species have different properties this could limit what they would be used for in the future. This makes it hard to use timber in a small product in a larger product. For example, consider a timber bridge – the reused product cannot be of greater quality and is always no bigger than what you have before. Timber is generally joined together with metal fixings, which result in holes/grooves so this will interfere in the value of a product. This means that more timber is reused for non-structural rather than structural applications. This defines what is technically considered as reuse.

67

Reuse is a less efficient market: Timber suppliers trade in large volumes of material of consistent section size and length. In contrast, typical timber arisings from demolition have small numbers of different timbers. This makes the market for reuse less straightforward. Timber has a relatively low value compared to some of the materials it competes with. This limits the amount of effort that can be put into reuse while it being profitable, compared to some other products. As a result a lot of timber is recycled into biomass, animal bedding and chipboard. Research by CO2sense (Mike Greenhalf) and TRADA (Miles Brown) for WRAP investigated the potential to develop hubs to increase timber collection and diversion from landfill. Composition of timber products: The ability to reuse timber panel products can depend on the adhesive used to make the board – some plywoods are constructed using glues that are not able to accommodate wetting of the plywood. Without identification of the type of plywood this limits the applications for reuse of plywood. What are the opportunities to develop reuse of timber? Timber collections could focus on reuse first: Increased timber collections could divert timber going to landfill as set out in the report that TRADA and CO2sense wrote WRAP, 2012). Some of this timber could be reused. Training/skills: Guidance and training is required to improve understanding currently of what is required of a structural timber and what could be used for different end uses and what can’t. This would improve timber identification, evaluation of the condition of pieces of recovered timber. For example, can you recognize there is a loss in strength such as defects that may be developed in service for a plywood (panel product). Specification Control of Composite Timber Products: Specification control of plywood should be improved so it is better able to be reused at the end of its life. Timber should be clearly mark timber to show how it has been treated to aid choice of end-of-life option. How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? There is very limited information on this. Timbers coming out of demolition would generally be of greater value (more likely to be reused) than those coming out of exterior works (e.g. decking, fencing). Limiting factor is whether its in-use function required it to be kept dry. Most of it could be reused. The person who deals with salvage needs to be aware of where the demolition is occurring and has the potential to collect the material. Expect the reuse but almost certainly for non-structural applications. Alliance for Sustainable Building Product (ASBP) has done work to quantify the embodied carbon sequestered in the built environment in the UK. The average house contains four to eight cubic metres of timber.

5.17 Alastair Kerr, Wood Panel Industry Federation (WPIF) The Wood Panel Industries Federation is a representative organisation giving voice to the industrial manufacturers in the United Kingdom and Ireland of Wood Chipboard, Oriented Strand Board (OSB) and Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF). What is the composition of wood panelling in the waste stream? There is a lack of sophistication of segregation. Although we can't use a significant amount of wood panel in new product, there is always some amount that comes back. Some chipboard waste can be reused (7-10 per cent) but the maximum amount of recycled MDF back into MDF is lower (threeper cent). What are the recent trends for wood recycling in this area? The production output of WPIF members has dropped as demand has fallen. The potential output of 1.2mt/year remains the same. Sonae is the largest factory, but it had a fire and closed for a bit. It is now operating at a reduced level and in a 90-day consultation with a significant chance of closure. With Sonae's demise the market is awash with waste wood so we expect EfW to take more. Over the past three to four years there has been no shortage of waste wood for recycling. But there has been cherry picking of the cleanest timber for Wood Recyclers Association (WRA) own products and also for energy-from-waste which has led to a gradual decline in the quality coming available for WPIF recycling. The

68

WRA gate fee has increased as they can charge more as the demand has dropped, while the buying price for the WPIF is low. The margins for WPIF members are being squeezed with rising wood costs and labour costs. Most WPIF members have foreign parent companies and looking to increase manufacturing investment where it is cheapest to make panels and where there are growing markets. The UK market is limited to replacing parts of plant that wear out. WRAP's 2009 study (by Poyry and Oxford Economics) estimate that there is around 4.5mt/year of wood waste, of which 2.5-2.6 Mtpa is actually recycled, of which around 1.1Mt went to recyclers. The remainder includes landfill but also the black market, fly tipping, some illegal burning – including on construction sites. Waste wood is used in chipboard, which averages 70-75 per cent waste content. There may be a lower percentage due to customer preference (a very high waste wood per cent can impact machining, finishing etc.). Construction boards can potentially take 100 per cent waste wood (Sonae operated at around 95 per cent).

5.18 Peter Butt, Wood Recyclers Association The Wood Recyclers’ Association is a trade association for the wood recycling sector. Describe current market conditions for wood recycling? The demand for wood waste is dropping in the UK, mainly as the largest panel board manufacturer Sonae, probably the biggest single customer for recycled wood had a fire 14 months ago and is highly likely to close, so its 400kt/year needs a new home (see http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/wood/uk2019s-largest- wood-recycling-plant-could-close). The feedstock could be a mix of clean pallets, bits of old furniture and stuff that is heavily treated. The WRA charge a gate fee, then chip and then sell on – money at both ends. There is currently a glut of recycled wood, particularly in the South East. Last year there was a UK market of 2.8Mt of chipped wood, of which around 600kt was exported to the EU, 950kt went to make panel board, 300- 400 kt for animal bedding and 200 kt for (cleaner, higher grade material) used for mulches on paths and landscaping. The industry expects that only 500kt of the remainder goes to landfill, the rest is burnt (including on construction sites) and disposed of in non-compliant ways elsewhere.

5.19 Sarah Burgess, Federation of Master Builders The FMB is the UK's largest trade association in the building sector. How much NEW product is sold in England each year? FMB and other trade associations for SMEs only collect statistics and not work directly with small builders on issues of waste. FMB is quite a small organisation. http://www.fmb.org.uk/information-and-help/publications/state-of-trade-survey/?entryid24=415156 FMB have no details of waste performance of their members. They do not have the resources to do this and do not know anyone else who has this data. How many UK jobs are created in production and distribution per tonne of new goods sold? See theNational Statistics Office construction data(annual table 3.1). This notes 227,710 firms in 2010, of which around 90 per cent have seven or less staff. WRAP halving-waste to-landfill campaign has engaged with 800 firms, which is around 15 per cent of the number of firms with 25 or more staff.

5.20 Tony Hutchinson, Rural Industrial Design and Building Association RIDBA brings together the common aims of those involved in rural and industrial construction, representing contractors, designers, colleges, surveyors, land agents, planners, manufacturers and clients.

69

How much NEW product is sold in England each year? The amount of steel used in the agricultural market is around 80,000 tonnes/annum (about four million square metres of roof area). This is about 15 per cent of the single storey structural steel market.

What is the carbon impact of producing a new item (i.e. CO2 emissions)? Are there any lifecycle assessment type studies the interviewee is aware of? Not aware that there has been an estimation of the carbon impact of producing a complete building. Most construction products only have a carbon value at the material level. How many UK jobs are created in production and distribution per tonne of new goods sold? Don’t know. What is the average technical lifetime of a new item?50 years How much becomes waste each year (please separate municipal and commercial waste stream if possible)?Don’t know. What percentage of discarded items are reusable as discarded, and what proportion are potentially reusable with refurbishment?80-90 per cent of a steel frame building is reusable, which is about the limit of what is technically possible. How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole? Probably around five per cent of the new buildings on farms is reused material – which is around 4000 tonnes/year. What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? Some of it isobtained by the farmer, and some by the demolition contractors. Currently five per cent reuse and majority of the rest is recycled. What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Less than the original: 20-30 years. What is the carbon impact of collecting or preparing items for reuse? If this is not available, record any information on typical transport, storage and maintenance activities. A small percentage will be used on the same farm. The majority is typically sold in Farmers Weekly or similar, and would be local/regional market. How many jobs does the interviewee’s organisation employ? How many are employed by the sector as a whole?The agricultural market employs around 350 making framed buildings. Around 2/3 of these are firms with six or less employees. What are the main barriers to expanding reuse in the sector? It is sometimes difficult to reuse farm buildings as agriculture has changed with newer buildings requiring larger spans and a greater height to eaves. Newer tractors need 6m rather than 4m to avoid eaves, adding 2m high footing would become complicated, adding to the design challenge. The spans are longer and wider too, and bay sizes are greater. These different requirements are not just driven by the size of equipment on the farm, but also because of the configuration of computerised design packages. The market is constrained (within the farming sector) due to the span and eaves height desired. It might double but going beyond this would require measures such as cutting and welding steel to increase stantion heights which is expensive and risky. Reuse to another application could be possible, as there tends to be large lengths of H section steel. However, one problem for design using this is that it has to be assumed this is the lowest grade of steel. New steel is CE marked but old steel is not. What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Design issues and change of the size of the building – if reuse to increase significantly it would need to move beyond the sector. There is only a limited market for older buildings within the farm market. The industrial market has similar constraints. It is more likely for industrial buildings to get reused. Often industrial buildings are refurbished and look just the same.

70

Most buildings have steel frames cut to size, drilled and framed for that building. So if it is not used for that exact building again then you need to cut and drill. There are specialist companies (e.g. Portal Power – see separate interview) that deal with this, but they are a rare example. So, if a building is not reused as a unit then reuse may not currently be cost effective. How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? This is an 80,000 tonne market if you could work out how to reuse the old buildings. Or around 500,000 tonnes/year for steel frame buildings as a whole.

5.21 Mark Collinson & Malcolm Waddell, Waste and Resources Action Programme What focus does WRAP have on residual waste? Following the 2011 Waste Review the government is now open to looking more at this, and has started to fund WRAP research to recover residual waste that is going to landfill that has inherent energy value and cannot be recycled – like carpets and contaminated materials. This energy-from-waste programme is targeting many feedstocks: any kind that is unrecoverable that has an inherent energy value. This will focus on new forms of energy-from-waste: gasification, gas plasma arc and pyrolysis. It will target items that are harder to process such as textiles, carpets and certain element of wood waste. What is the extent of wood waste generated in the UK? There is around 4.1mt/year (WRAP Wood Market Situation Report, 2011) to 4.3mt/year (Tolvik 2011 Briefing Report on the UK Wood Waste Market). The Tolvik report said there was not much wood out there that could be mopped up by non-existing routes. It investigated different ways to collect wood using existing infrastructure: composting sites, CA sites and small business collection clusters and reverse logistics. This together with an earlier report by MEL for WRAP (Composition of Wood Waste from Construction and Demolition Sites, 2009) confirmed a similar level of wood waste. The Wood Recyclers Association (annual report, 2011) confirm around 2.8 mt/year is recycled, of which around 300-500k of timber is exported. This leaves 0.8-1.2mt unaccounted for, which AEA Technology presumes is sent to landfill in the UK. This is AEA Technology report is referenced in the Call for Evidence to Ban Wood from Landfill (Defra, 2012). It is not clear how much of this could be reused or recycled. What is the potential for Collection Hubs for Timber (including for reuse)? The basis for the ‘Business Case for Wood Collection Hubs’ commissioned was that the majority of timber that is reasonably easy to collect, such as from large joinery operations, like Howdens, is already collected. And that this might go panel board factories etc. The wood recycling industry supply chain is tied into securing predefined amounts of supply to keep the plants running. But if a supplier varies 6-40 tonnes/week this might not interest wood recyclers as they need large, guaranteed amounts on a predictable basis. This assumes that some of that which is not currently captured (and goes to landfill) could be collected, processed and bulked so these industries can take advantage of it. This required investigation into the transport and overhead costs so see where the supply is, and what it is – and how it geographically compares to the wood recyclers and other end-markets. The report investigated how this timber could be collected, bulked, and whether it would need any pre-treatment. It aimed to determine whether it is good to have wood waste collection hubs and whether they could work through composters, wood recyclers and household waste recycling centres. Describe how WRAP’s focus on construction has widened to include C&I supply chain? WRAP has shifted from a sector based approach to a product based approach. Their construction team is now part of their Design for Resource Efficiency Team. This focuses on waste diversion (including limited focus on reuse) potential for different products from manufacture through retail to construction and refurbishment. One way this is being looked at is through Resource Efficiency plans: so far for joinery/timber, flooring, packaging and windows, followed by annual reports on progress. New areas of focus will include building insulation, bricks and blocks and precast concrete. Each is being produced a ‘sustainability group’. For example for bricks this covers a wide range of areas including resource efficiency, recycled content, total waste as well as reuse. These have not focused on reuse. Reuse is mentioned for windows but no actions have been scoped for reuse. Reuse of carpet tiles (800,000 in 2011) is cited in the flooring annual report but again there is no focus on how this could be increased.

71

Research gap: There is no current WRAP focus on improving resource efficiency in metals, such as steel and aluminium, which was the focus of research by the Cambridge University’s Wellmet team (see separate interview). This had interest from leading industry partners to pilot reuse opportunities.

5.22 Adrian Murphy, National Industrial Symbiosis Programme National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP) is a business opportunity programme that aims to deliver triple bottom line, environmental, economic and social benefits across the UK What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? Not directly relevant What percentage of discarded items are reusable as discarded, and what proportion are potentially reusable with refurbishment? Noted that NISP do have some details. How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole? This should be considered as how much is handled by NISP members in the last financial year. What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? Not disclosed What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Not disclosed What is the carbon impact of collecting or preparing items for reuse? If this is not available, record any information on typical transport, storage and maintenance activities etc.Not known How many jobs does the interviewee’s organisation employ? How many are employed by the sector as a whole? NISP claims to have led to 8,000 new jobs. No breakdown provided as to how many of these are due to recovery and recycling and how many due to reuse. What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? No answer provided for reuse specifically. Overall, the main barrier is noted as financial. Noted that the level of work is proportional to government support with 2x support leading to 3x the outputs. What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Barrier seen as speaking to government. NISP is not aware of any other successful models anywhere else in the world. How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed?Currently working with 15,000 businesses, many of which are smaller businesses. Not clear how big the reuse part of this market is.

5.23 Andrew Pears, Kotuku Kotoku works with construction companies to work with sustainability on site. Kotuku have just started an environmental labourer project where new starts receive a two-week construction environment boot camp. Previously Kotoku carried out a review of the market demand for paint reuse (noted below) and engaged construction workers to address workforce uptake of sustainability issues through the Café Van project.

What is the carbon impact of producing a new item (i.e. CO2 emissions)? Are there any lifecycle assessment type studies the interviewee is aware of? Refer to Construction Products Association for this data. What percentage of discarded items is reusable as discarded, and what proportion is potentially reusable with refurbishment? It depends how you classify reusable. Some items cannot be reused as they are out-of-date such as when

72

refurbishment replaces fittings with higher specification items. The items taken out may not meet criteria for them to be used again (e.g. light fittings). This is a bureaucratic question. Items may be difficult to reuse as they may not be structurally certified, have the wrong wiring dimensions, or not be in a condition to be reused (e.g. has wood worm). It also depends on the criteria of the architect, client etc. There is limited third world reuse of construction products – although some is possible. We recently sent two skips of redundant construction tools to the Philippines where they were been reused. There is no reuse of basic items like toilets in the UK. Currently UK toilets would not generally be considered to be reusable (although they are in the US). The reuse of an AC system taken out of an old office block would depend both on the flexibility of the design team to design for its reuse and the care in which it is taken out so it is not just fit for recycling. What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Paint reuse is one of the biggest networks of reuse projects for the UK construction sector. Decoration contractors tend not to use it because clients specify tolerances such as ‘paint must be received in sealed containers of a certain date.’ Specification and logistics seem to limit the market for reuse in this example. CRASH (the homelessness charity) tried to operate a reuse network but it ended up turning into glorious warehouse man – as they did not secure a demand for the items that were collected. COSHH assessments may be a barrier – need to confirm who takes liability for product specification. Specification requirements such as FSC may limit reuse: if a client requires an FSC certificate. This could limit reuse to those with client support and DIY markets. What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Reuse cannot generally compete with the global builders’ merchants. One option is to increase reuse within construction firms – through reverse consolidation and activities on site. Some reuse centres may be possible in rural areas and where a low cost of storing the materials is found. How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? The market potential may be small because the items available for reuse are lower value as architectural salvage is already taking out higher value items as well as many builders taking home items like timber or sand.

5.24 Maxine Narburgh, Bright Green What are the opportunities to develop reuse? Providing assistance to small builders: there is a lack of focus on whole house retrofit waste production and how this could be limited. This would include waste associated with solid wall insulation, glazing, loft and garage conversions etc. Improve waste collection infrastructure for reuse: there is not yet collection/reuse of some high quality construction materials such as hard plastics and drain pipes. Improve take-back (for recycling) and reuse of Kingspan: there is a minimum collection required for reuse (or recycling) of surplus Kingspan. An improved take-back process should be in place as this is now a widely used product. This could include local reuse of larger pieces. Widen Tax Benefits for Capital Gains to include SMEs and reuse: there are currently tax benefits for some measures that improve energy efficiency. This should be widened to include choices that reuse product rather than use recycled/virgin materials. This should be structured so that it provides the same level of incentive for small builders as for large corporations.

5.25 Cat Fletcher, Freegle How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole?Freegle aims to engage the ‘white van man’, as this can have quite an instantaneous trickle down to 73

the community and could also have a wider impact on waste reduction (e.g. in household waste). Single tradesmen are willing and able to reuse but generally do not. Instead they do what they are used to doing, what is easy and use what is easily accessible. By engaging directly (one person signposting reuse opportunities on a voluntary basis) Freegle in Brighton leads to reuse of at least 10 tonnes of waste/month. Freegle can be used to audit what is left over on a construction site – either monetise this or to give it away. As Freecycle links people together (who then do their own exchanges) it does not record the volumes or tonnages reused in the 200+ Freegle networks across the UK. In the future it would be simple to use the Freegle platform specifically for construction reuse/redistribution [which could link to not-for-profit reuse sites such as community wood recycling projects]. How many jobs does the interviewee’s organisation employ? Freegle is run by volunteers. This is not sustainable as the network expands. Freegle have plans to establish a Social Enterprise offering internal company Freegle services or city-wide reuse platforms for commerce. This would provide salaries for main national volunteers and extra funds for IT and media costs. Local groups are sustainable with only volunteers, because we nationally provide technological features that reduce the workload of running groups. What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? Legislation; incentives are wrong; there isn't space for reuse; people are confused (about what is reused and recycled at the moment, and what happens to waste). Finally, waste management companies are not very good at collaborating with other sectors and do not share data (this barrier needs to be acknowledged by waste management sector). What are the opportunities to develop reuse? Address lack of clear/consistent definition/use of words like reuse and recycling: there is confusion and a clouding of what we are dealing with when we talk about waste. The public don’t always understand and appreciate what is happening when different people use the words reuse and recycling to mean very different things (which may or may not be reuse or recycling, if the waste hierarchy is applied). We need to clearly set out definitions for the different ways we can deal with waste. This must actually show how it is. This process is needed to make sure we understand what these words mean and what practices, in both industry and in the community, this represents. This could do be done with a myth-busting approach, using info-graphics as a visual tool. For example, info-graphics could present a lump of wood and show the different routes of what can happen to it and label what they are. We need to de-confuse the public. Without this, a lot of bad practice will carry on. For example, many people don’t understand what incineration is. (Phrases like Energy from Waste and Energy Recycling Facility do not help). The current language used is so confusing and misappropriated. Improve data recorded: ensure there is reuse data that clearly shows what is reused locally and what gets shipped to other countries. In the case of the latter, this can be called reuse, but with no audit trail this cannot always be verified. Mapping waste/resources/reuse/consumption data, targets and services in local areas. Combined with other data (transport, health, weather, economic, climate change, food etc.), this would be very interesting and help people see the big picture as well as 'see' their real (and sustainable) options in any local area. This is something that could be done in Brighton and is in the ‘One Planet Living Materials’ action plan (draft) for the city. Provide incentives: favourable tax structures can incentivise reuse Build Capacity: the community and voluntary sector has vast experience in grassroots reuse and has driven individual behaviour change (peer to peer role modelling), but lacks capacity to ensure this is valued, accelerated and used in conjunction other sectors. Promotion: reuse is not widely promoted. Need a mainstream awareness raising campaign (government or privately funded) to: Make sure existing reuse services (like Freegle, FRN, Salvo for example) are known to the community at large and therefore increase uptake. Encourage white van man to understand his impact and options. Educate, so that people 'get' the difference between reuse and recycling and understand the impact of consumerism and of throwing stuff out. 74

Government (and other funders) are missing an opportunity here. They could assist organisations like Freegle (an established and providing free service that saves all sectors money and absolutely addresses resource challenges in communities) by providing free mainstream publicity, which would increase reuse and raise awareness with massive impact. Freegle also see a big barrier across UK as the lack of support and promotion from local councils for local groups that cause reuse. This does not make sense because Freegle groups provide a free service that benefits local councils and saves them money (less waste to pay to be disposed of) and yet in 90 per cent of cases are very difficult to engage with and impossible to get promotion from. This should target SMEs and particularly one-man tradesmen within the construction industry to use existing local reuse services that they simply do not know about at the moment. For example, the local tradesmen (landscape gardeners, carpenters, builders) on the Brighton Freegle group constantly give away used materials as well as left over new supplies. To make this happen will probably require a person to promote and instigate campaigns in local areas, as well as a national publicity campaign to raise profile. Use the latest Technology: a Freegle mobile phone app would help small tradesmen, making the process of giving away their unwanted materials easy, fast (and with photos and location mapped) all done with a few clicks with a gadget they already have in their pocket. Reuse has to be easy so people follow through and actually do it. The mobile phone app would have the added bonus of appealing to and attracting a younger demographic to the concept of reuse. Reuse exchange support: although a mobile app could be use to increase participation in reuse, a local network still needs an actual person to drive activity in the network. Currently, this is done through volunteer champions. Freegle links together different reuse organisations locally. For example, in Brighton this includes Magpie, Shabitat, Emmaus, the community paint recycling project and the green collective (around 65 local businesses, operating as a subgroup of the Brighton and Hove Chamber of Commerce). This could be strengthened and widened. Take a cross-sector approach: there is a role for connectors to maximise the opportunities of reuse betweenas well as within sectors. There are opportunities that cut across sectors, and involve focusing on all the different people in one place. Business can adapt their business models and attitudes and link with different stakeholders in different ways. Maximise through application of not-for-profit approach: investing in reuse through not-for-profit ventures means that reuse can be maximised rather than income. Now would be a great time for the potential for reuse to be acknowledged, supported and taken forward. Reuse exchange as a platform to facilitate innovation in reuse: use of Freegle in this way could throw up and identify materials and products that are currently thrown away when there is not the time, inclination or knowledge to know what to do with them. Reuse has much potential in the arts, design and housing. Also much social value can result from reuse. Reuse saves money and redistributes wealth, as well as addressing skills/employment issues (as measured by Social Return on Investment). For example, innovation could start in a pop-up way such as through cafes or workshops focusing on deconstruction or refurbishment. Freegle can operate as a platform for innovation, which goes beyond NISP (linking waste providers and waste users in ways that maximise throughput), linking together academics, architects, entrepreneurs and all local providers to maximise the opportunity for (refurbishment) and reuse. For example, if we knew that there were four skips of unwanted spectacles in Sussex each month, we could identify this as an opportunity. Invest in local reuse exchange rather than competing sector-based exchanges: Most current reuse exchanges are focused on one sector – e.g. for architectural salvage, building materials surplus (e.g. surplus match) or household items. But many of the opportunities do not just sit in the construction industry, household or commerce. Sector-based exchanges do not minimise transportation – which could lead to less sustainable exchanges taking place, and lower-value exchanges (which may only be viable locally) not to occur. This will particularly limit the exchange of low value, heavy construction materials (e.g. surplus new bricks and blocks). Reduction in fly tipping:much fly tipping is of bulky items, including construction products that have reuse potential. This should be factored into cost-benefit modelling of reuse. Develop real exchange sites to work with local reuse exchanges: Freegle (Brighton) would like to use weatherproof space in different locations to increase how much is reused.

75

Collaboration with Veolia (the community recycling centre operator) could be a key partnership to improve facilities for reuse and prove that the waste management sector wants to encourage reuse. Propose working with supportive companies to reuse existing space in a different way (e.g. using three empty garages), some of these would be temporary and mobile and will relocate from time to time and some which would be permanent. The council is supportive of the concept and are looking at where places earmarked for development could be used on a medium term (e.g. 2-4 years) as reuse hubs. Options include sites at Hove station, along London Road and on Lewes Road. There are also council owned properties that could be made available.

5.26 Emma Hill, Why Waste / Bradford Environmental Action Trust Why Waste is a free, online waste exchange for businesses in the Yorkshire and Humber region, managed by Bradford Environmental Action Trust (BEAT) – an independent, charitable trust and social enterprise How much is handled by the organisation interviewed? How much by the reuse sector in England as a whole? 2007-2012 approximately 10,000 tonnes was handled through known exchanges (700 tonnes reuse). A lot more waste was registered, though impossible to calculate exact amount without spending a lot more time looking at this. What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway?Recycling and Reuse. We have had one or two large waste exchanges with a recycling route but I think the bulk of wastes recently are more for reuse route e.g. office furniture, carpet tiles What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Very hard to say What is the carbon impact of collecting or preparing items for reuse? If this is not available, record any information on typical transport, storage and maintenance activities etc. We don’t get actively involved in that. How many jobs does the interviewee’s organisation employ? How many are employed by the sector as a whole? One on waste exchange activity.

6. Miscellaneous

6.1 David Beale, Warwickshire Re-use Forum What material do you handle? Furniture (including small furniture/bric-a-brac) mainly, but also some comments about small WEEE, display and LDA.

What is the average age of an item when it is first discarded? Anything between two months and decades but on average maybe six to seven years.

What percentage of discarded items are reusable? All items handed into reuse shops are reusable

How much is handled by WRF? 332 tonnes per year (furniture, small WEEE and display) excluding LDA.

What are the main pathways for this material, and how many tonnes go down each pathway? All material is sold to the general public via the HWRC onsite shops, and one other off-site retail outlet.

76

What is the average lifetime of a reused item? Again, this varies between a couple of months and several decades. On average maybe another four to five years.

How many people does WRF employ? Warwickshire Re-use shops on HWRCs employ around 10 staff, and we have 20-30 volunteers.

What are the main barriers to expanding the sector? A progressive effort needs to be made to engage the public, as many still don’t see reuse as normal/mainstream. Also, where facilities are located is vital – many furniture reuse operations are hard to find and therefore present a barrier.

Other barriers include the time it takes to get a new facility up to capacity (about two to three years), the fact that much of the reuse third sector is not driven by environmental goals – charity shops driven by money, FROs driven to help the needy. Therefore not everything that could be is reused or recycled and things get put to disposal easily. Plus, there’s still not enough professionalism or operational efficiencies across the sector – projects operate in isolation, vans sit idle or cross the path of other charities, stock is not rotated or displayed well enough on shop floors etc.

What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? Making reuse easier by placing facilities ‘in the way’ for people to almost trip over – e.g. the shops at HWRCs, attracts and engages people who would never visit a charity shop. Regional and sub-regional influence could be used to get disused buildings into local community use – even as a temporary measure. So maybe a matchmaking service between philanthropic owners of buildings and reuse charities.

Warwickshire, Solihull and Coventry have joined forces to do a study with WRAP on bulky waste across the area and hopefully set up sub-regional facilities to deal with it all.

Regarding education for third sector reusers on environment and operational efficiencies of dealing with bulky items, it would be good to: work with the Charity Retail Association to publish guidance and with big national charities; work with FRN to get members working together more, learning from each other, more efficient and operationally streamlined and environmentally informed. Also, perhaps deliberately develop a few model or exemplar projects around the UK and have learning visits.

Developing national campaigns about reuse as well as waste licensing around reuse should be examined and made more suitable to encourage growth. There could be guidelines from the Environment Agency around reuse from HWRCs.

How big is the potential market for the product or pathway if the major barriers were removed? It’s hard to tell as we are nowhere near potential now. There is a potential with low-income customers (approximately four times what we do now according to estimates) but the potential with the general public is much, much higher. It could easily double in a couple of years but we are still no-where near the saturation point of the market.

Are there any technical barriers to reuse? Trading standards and health and safety issues mean we have to turn many things away.

Are any new markets in the process of opening up? Bicycles is a big new market, a huge amount of bicycles are thrown away at HWRCs which could be reused. The main barriers to bicycle are having the space to process them and know-how to repair them. However they can have huge benefits in addition to reuse – such as reducing transport burden and health. What recent social/economic/policy developments have had an impact on area of reuse? Since the County introduced the third sector to the waste management sector there has been very positive joint working – shops on HWRCs are just one aspect. Also, MP Chris White’s Social Enterprise bill, currently going through parliament, is hoped to make social benefits more mainstream in government contract procurement, and these tend to have a knock on effect of promoting reuse.

How is performance in terms of tonnages diverted into reuse and financial performance? 77

Age UK in Rugby: 73.5 tonnes in 2010/11 Sue Ryder in Leamington 161.5 tonnes in 2011/12 Shakespeare Hospice in Stratford: 97 tonnes in 2010/11 What would is unique and innovative about what you do? The reuse shops on sites are integral to the HWRC reuse site concept. They are there to transform the “waste” site into a “reuse and recycling” site and give a completely different look and feel to the place. Traffic issues around the site are sometime a problem and it’s more appropriate to re-direct to an off-site reuse operation. The reuse shop needs to be correctly located – ideally at the site entrance – otherwise reusable products ends up being skipped before the customer sees the shop. Contractors and on-site staff need to incentivised for reuse. If recycling has the same weight then they often don’t want to do re-use. Re-use should have a higher incentive than recycling from central government to local waste operators. Anything to add? We’ve a new charity shop on Nuneaton site just set up and we’re planning on putting one on each site as they come up for re-development.

6.2 David Roman, British Heart Foundation How many shops does BHF have? We have 560 standard shops; 145 furniture and electrical shops; six books and music shops.

How many employees and volunteers does BHF have? We’ve 2,300 employees and 20,000 volunteers

How much money do the shops make for the charity? £31m profit

Relative importance of financial input? We’re the second largest contributor after legacies department - more than individual donations or events, and we’re growing rapidly.

How much textiles are sold through BHF charity shops? We’ve sold about 20,000 tonnes to textile merchants, so assuming a 50/50 split, around 40,000 tonnes of textiles handled. Of material sold to textile merchants majority is for reuse, mostly overseas, with some recycled.Textile merchant sales are worth £12,000,000, but in shop sales substantially more.

What are the major sources of textiles for the shops? The main sources are over the counter (OTC) donation and door-to-door collections. Door-to-door collections have dropped off due to competition from other collectors, cash for clothing and theft (due to high current value of secondary textiles). Textile banks supply less material, and of a lower quality due to contamination.

We’respecifically after clothing, not textiles so we do not want things like cushions at all. These do not sell and have no rag value.

Is the market constrained by supply or demand? In our opinion the textiles market for charity retail sector is completely driven by the supply. We can sell what we have in our shops fairly quickly but we have found the previous channels for donated items have diminished, due to the growth of the commercial collectors moving into the textile market while the price of textile for rag remains high. This unfortunately means that items which could potentially reach a sale value in a charity retailer being exported for sale or ragged.

What barriers does the textiles part of the operation face?

78

Mainly, competition from commercial and bogus operators, cash for clothes, councils running their own collections and outright theft. These in turn have led to a ‘bag apathy’ amongst householders and confusion, as many no longer know which bags will support legitimate British charities. They’ve also led to a downturn in effectiveness of previous channels, such as van collections, as for many charities this is no longer a financially viable stock channel. Many charities will need to diversify and move into new donated stock channels, which could be a challenge especially for smaller charities that do not have the capacity or capability to manage this. The amount of material coming through stores is increasing, but quality is declining. This is down to the growth of cheap imports.

Also, drop off is not always convenient for customers. Our research shows that the public wants to donate, but it has to be convenient. People will generally choose the closest or most accessible charity shop, rather than choosing a charity to donate to. So, we need shops to be easily accessible.

Lastly, the public are not sure about what is acceptable and what will be used, and this can discourage donation. Rejection of a donation also puts people off so BHF has a policy of accepting everything.

What could be or is being done to overcome these barriers? We would suggest that the government works closely with the Institute of Fundraising & the Charity Commission to regulate the commercial collectors who collect either on behalf of multiple charities (giving them £/t) and those who supply bags to HH, who are registered with the Charity Commission but who do not clearly state: a) that the textiles donated is not given to these organisations to sell in shops, b) what per cent of total income/t is given to the charity, vs. what the organisation makes per tonne, c) that the items are taken immediately abroad and do not benefit a charity in the UK at all.

Having more cooperation from local authorities would also be good and they should require firm evidence of the genuine charitable status of anyone they allow to place textile banks.

Lastly, there needs to be clear information on what is acceptable and what happens to donations, so that the public feel reassured their donation will be appreciated. Each charity might have different criteria but a lack of information is a disbenefit to all. It is reasonable for a donator to know exactly what happens to their items, it is in the interests of the charity to remove any doubts that donations are valuable and it is in the interests of local and central government to divert more potential waste down a reuse/recycling route. We would rather have more donations of mixed quality and find the best home for them than see reusable items being wasted. Possibly a national standard could be set which could assure the public on this.

How many tonnes of furniture are sold through stores each year? Goods are not routinely weighed in or out, but based on data from furniture recycling collections checked against reject ratios and FRN notional weights of items, I estimate about 26,000 tonnes.

Is market constrained by supply or demand? It varies by item. It’s mostly by supply, as demand is generally strong, but demand for beds and certain other items are low.

What barriers does the furniture part of the operation face? Competition from bulky waste service. If the service is cheap, it will win out because it’s more convenient (goods can be left outside). BHF collectionscan take up to a week, and items need to be kept inside.

Transit damage is also a factor as retailers etc. getting rid of furniture typically think in terms of cheap and quick, with item destined for recycling.

Lastly, donor information and understanding of what is acceptable needs to be improved.

How might these barriers be overcome? We could remove public information barrier to donation through picking up everything, but the cost of disposal would be prohibitive without a guarantee that charity could recoup costs if the item is substandard. This could be done through a Service Level Agreement, with charity basically taking over the bulky waste collection, a la Bulky Bob’s.

79

We’ve done trials working with HWRCs and with LAs referring certain bulky waste calls where the items sound appropriate. It solves the problem of unsuitable items and reduces transit damage of trying to reuse from LA bulky waste collection.

Also, local authorities could work with BHF on a joined-up solution that allows charities to realise the value of donations but allows the local authority to reduce its bulky waste. As the recent WRAP report on bulky waste reinforces, there is a lot more potential for reuse and refurbishment. BHF is the market leader for reuse of these items and could play a prominent role in a dialogue with the waste management sector and with organisations that are interested in the social and environmental value of refurbishment.

How much WEEE is sold in BHF stores? Approximately 12,000 tonnes large EEE and 1,800 tonnes small EEE.

What happens to rejected WEEE? There’s no uniform process for dealing with WEEE at BHF. Shops have their own arrangements for getting rid of unsuitable material to recycling. Most are paid for the material. Some is recycled, some reused through AATFs. We’re in the process of reviewing disposal routes.

Is the market constrained by supply or demand? Mostly by supply. There are particular issues with getting electrical items, as the public generally do not think about donating electricals.BHF get additional supply of refurbished WEEE from Environcom, who deal with customer returns from retailers.

What barriers does the furniture part of the operation face? Again, it’s mainly a lack of awareness and information. The market is constantly changing and innovating, affecting desirability and saleability so things can quickly become unfashionable or obsolete. This is especially the case with TVs and phasing out of CRTs. There’s no UK market for a lot of materials coming through.

The WEEE Directive really promotes recycling, to the detriment of reuse. The emphasis is all on getting weight and volume processed to produce evidence notes as cost effectively as possible.

Also, getting material of suitable quality that is still in working order can be a problem so a driver for the charity sector is quantity and quality.Refurbishment does not work as a business model for charity shops. As they’re based in the high street, space is expensive and we need to minimise unnecessary storage. It’s also difficult to get electrician with a volunteer system, so we would need to buy in.

Why have other charities not moved into WEEE? The risk, investment, space, WEEE regs and waste law are a big factor. Add to that a general lack of confidence in what is a complex area.

Anything to add? Books are a big seller. About 6,000 tonnes are given to book resellers and about the same in store, so around 12,000 tonnes of books each year.

Bric-a-brac is also a major material, though it’s difficult to generalise about. It can realise good value, but there lacks a system for dealing with odds (e.g. a set of three rather than four plates, which will not be sold in store).Some shops collect odds and sell to dealers for export (e.g. can be adjunct to textiles dealer) and a market for most things can be found overseas.

We also have an online department for certain high-value items that would benefit the wider market (e.g. rare books or records). This is worth about £120,000 per year.

Lastly, we have an issue with Schedule 2 interpretation by local authorities. LAs should collect for free, since the material is from households. Only five per cent of waste is generated by shop.

80

6.3 Cristina Osoro Cangas, Charity Retail Association How many CRA member shops are there in the UK? CRA members operate just over 7,000 shops, out of an estimated 9,700 charity shops in the UK.

How many staff are employed in charity shops? There’s an average of 1.9 paid staff per shop, and around 20 volunteers.

3. How much money do charity shops raise? The UK turnover is just under £1 billion. Profit is around 20 per cent of turnover.

How much textiles are sold for re-use through charity shops? The whole sector deals with around 370,000 tonnes of clothes. 50 per cent sold in shops, 48 per cent rag and two per cent landfilled.

What happens to materials sold for rag? Rag is mostly exported for reuse, though some is reused in the UK. What is not good enough to be reused is recycled.

What proportion of charity shop sales accounted for by textiles? Clothing makes up around 55 per cent of the value of donated good sales and around 50 per cent of total sales. Rag accounts for about 10 per cent.

Where does the material come from? In store donation is the most common method. Then doorstep and requested collections (more so for furniture etc., though some for textiles) and then bring banks. Bring banks are used by around 30 per cent of charities, and makes up quite a reasonable proportion for those charities. IT’s split 70/10/10/2-3 per cent. Other types of collection are growing now and there’s lots of competition for stock, so innovation is needed, such as working with corporate, business parks etc. New methods probably account for about 3 per cent.

Is the textiles market constrained by supply or demand? Very much by supply. The price of textiles is very high, and it is hard to get a hold of enough high-quality goods – plus donations are falling because people are buying less new clothing.

What are the main barriers for charity shops? As well as the quantity depletion, quality is also falling. Rag supply is up but in-shop sales are down. Demand is also increasing as there are more people shopping at charity shops. The lack of sufficient high-quality is stock is the number 1 problem in the sector.

This is also a problem in other areas – people are not changing their sofas, for example, so donations go down. There is growing competition from textile collectors working with charities with no shops. These often collect commercially, and pay the charity for the right to use the name. These organisations tend to collect on a large scale, whereas doorstep collections from charity shops are organized from the shops and so are small scale (a few streets).

Local authorities are also starting to see textiles as source of income and are tendering out banks that used to be for charities. So, cash for clothes is another source of competition.

CRA has monitored average rag price twice per year since 1999. In the last five or six years, price has increased by 4p per kilo per six months. The average price at the moment is around 60p per kilo (£600/tonne). That’s more than doubled in six years. Price is continuing to rise, despite claims from recyclers that the rise is unsustainable. Price rises are driven by the demand for second hand clothing in the developing world.

What new opportunities are emerging that could benefit textile re-use? New sources of stock from businesses. The Shwopping scheme operated by Oxfam with M&S is a good example, and Cancer Research operate a scheme with TK Maxx.

81

Charities are carrying out collections at business and retail parks, where employees can bring in clothes to donate, and this also offers a way of getting at business stock. We’re also working also with Universities. There is a lot of stock still out there that could be donated.

What could be done to increase the re-use of textiles? We need reuse targets. Targets could end up creating perverse incentives, but this has already happened with recycling targets. LAs need an incentive to encourage reuse. It’s important to use the best waste management option, and that requires the proximity principle – so we should not be exporting if there is a local demand. LAs should thus partner with charities with shops, as this maximizes domestic reuse.

How much office furniture is reused? Office furniture is not such a big draw for charities, but there are a few. East Belfast Mission has a huge warehouse and sells that way. But it’s not common in the charity shop sector.

Any overlaps between charity and FRO type organisations? East Belfast Mission is one example. It’s a big operation that does a lot of refurbishment due to a lack of enough good quality furniture. EBM worked as a profitable enterprise, in its first year, with no funding.

What is the value of furniture sales through charity shops? About four per cent of donated goods sales, but much higher for e.g. British Heart Foundation.

Is the market supply or demand constraint? The furniture market is constrained by supply. Charities can sell furniture if they get it, but there are issues getting material. Also space restricts supply and there’s a problem also with people leaving furniture outside.

What could be done to increase the re-use of furniture? Charities are working with LAs, as in Warwickshire, with shops at HWRCs. On the collection side, LAs would want charity to take everything, but most charities do not do refurbishment.

How much WEEE is reused through charity shops? An even smaller proportion of charities deal with WEEE than furniture. CRA has an environmental group that meets twice a year and electricals is an area that charities would like to explore. One has set up an ATF for WEEE that they are not able to sell. This also allows for refurbishment and recycling.

What is the value of WEEE sales through charity shops? Around 1 per centfor a traditional charity shop – the financial value is very small.

What are the barriers to increasing sales of WEEE through charity shops? The main barrier is ensuring safety and functionality etc. It’s easy to PAT test, but that only ensures safety, not functionality. This also exposes charity to risk from faulty products, warranties etc. and could damage reputation.

Is the market constrained by supply or demand? It’s neither supply nor demand, but the process of getting to supply. It’s very complex and there’s lots of regulation, H&S, quality control. It has really stopped the market from really developing. Some companies have got round this by buying electrical in from specialised refurbishers (e.g. Environcom). But the difficulty of getting electrical workshops is a big factor. Volunteer systems do not really supply electricians, so you’d need to get electrician to come round once a week or so.

What changes might encourage re-use of WEEE through charity shops? No changes, as the issue is the nature of the goods themselves. Regulations are necessary to maintain safety.

82