Wood waste management – WRAP publishes two reports

Wood Market Study – Municipal Wood Waste Arisings



Civic amenity sites hold the key to improving local authority wood recycling, according to one report published by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP).



The first report, Wood Market Study – Municipal Wood Waste Arisings, written for WRAP by Excelar Ltd, surveyed local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales to determine the wood waste arisings from the collected household waste stream, civic amenity sites (CA sites) and bulky household waste collections.



The research found that wood waste constituted only a small amount of household waste – between 0.2 per cent and 3 per cent (equating to between 40,000 – 600,000 tonnes a year). Further problems for recycling result from the fact that the material is mixed with household waste and is difficult to segregate. Conversely, material collected at CA sites is generally bulky and more easily segregated.



The report suggests that between 18.5 and 26.5 per cent of CA site waste is timber, equating to 1.22 – 1.75 million tonnes a year. Fewer than half the local authorities responding to the survey had timber recycling schemes in place at their CA sites, although nearly 80 percent were segregating green waste.



The report concluded that the greatest potential for increasing the recycling of municipal wood waste was local authorities implementing wood segregation schemes at CA Sites.



Wood Market Study – Standards Review



Wood Market Study – Standards Review, written by the British Standards Institution (BSI), investigated whether BSI standards discriminated against reclaimed and/or recycled wood. The research also included a market study to determine whether intangibles – such as practices, attitudes and perceptions – influenced the use of reclaimed and/or recycled wood.



Following an assessment of 194 standards, the report concluded that 10 percent had a negative impact on wood recycling. This was due to the standards requiring additional processing, such as visual grading of the wood or for the species of wood to be identified, that could be costly and time consuming for reclaimed or recycled wood. On a positive note, none of the standards specifically excluded the use of reclaimed or recycled wood.



The study on attitudes and perceptions found that there was a general negative bias towards the use of reclaimed or recycled wood, and recommended that standards were designed to encourage the use of reclaimed and recycled wood. It also concluded that awareness campaigns should be developed to increase understanding of the potential and advantages of using recycled wood and recycled wood products.



Tom Fourcade, WRAP’s Wood Sector Manager said: ‘These two reports have clear messages for increasing wood recycling. Civic amenity sites offer local authority’s great potential for increasing their wood recycling rates and reducing the huge tonnages of wood going to landfill.’



He continued: ‘The standards report gives a clear indication that improving industry awareness of the potential for recycled wood products can make a big difference to key markets for waste wood.’



The reports should shortly be available on WRAP’s website:



www.wrap.org.uk