The timber industry has an established record of making use of its residues. The same is not always true of the industry’s customers such as furniture manufacturers. Work by a variety of organisations has identified that a significant amount of wood waste from furniture still goes to landfill or is incinerated without heat recovery.
There is frequent uncertainty within the timber and furniture sectors as to what constitutes “waste” especially if the material has a potential use, as is often the case with timber based substances. Correct classification is important because a “raw material” will not be subject to waste legislation and its associated transfer notes, carrier registrations and waste management licences.
Trying to decide whether a substance is a raw material or a waste is becoming more difficult by the month. The European Court continues to produce decisions which deem more substances to be waste, where previously they were thought to be raw materials.
The basic definition of waste was introduced by the EU Waste Directive. The definition includes virtually anything a company discards (or intends or is required to discard) and which has fallen out of the commercial chain of utility.
In order to translate the above into a more practical form, the government body formerly known as the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions suggested a number of questions to ask when deciding whether or not something is waste. These include (but are not confined to):
l Has the item been discarded so that it is not part of the normal commercial chain or chain of utility? If not, it is not waste. For example, an old car sold to a second hand dealer is not waste, unlike a written-off car sent to a scrap merchant.
This appears to suggest that off-cuts of timber sent to a chipper will be waste, whilst dust residues sent directly to a poultry farm for bedding will not be. However, more recent European decisions have concentrated upon the intention of the manufacturer. If a company is established to produce a primary product (eg furniture) and this process generates another substance (eg sawdust) then the latter is waste.
Lack of awareness
A number of barriers exist which have hindered the constructive use of furniture residues, uppermost among which has been awareness. Managers of smaller companies typically have very fluid job descriptions and must turn their hand to a wide variety of issues. Consequently, they have many pressures on their time and they have to concentrate on key production issues. More voluntary initiatives such as the identification of wood waste recycling options are not a priority if the company has a skip which is emptied regularly.
A number of initiatives have been trying to raise the awareness of just such a manager regarding the true cost of waste and the recycling options available. FIRA has published a free report (FIET [2002], Evaluation of waste production, utilisation and brokerage potential within the UK furniture industry; tel: FIRA on 01438 777700) based upon waste audits of 50 companies. This found that the average cost of waste was 3.55% of turnover – a level not too far removed from the profit margin of many manufacturers.
The cost of waste
An even higher cost was recently reported by BFM Ltd (BFM Ltd [2002], Implications of sustainable development for reproduction furniture manufacturers; free from BFM on tel: 0207 724 0851) with regard to reproduction furniture manufacturers, for whom the cost of waste was typically around 5.5% of turnover. This figure includes a number of components, for example, the cost of raw material being thrown away, processing labour and machinery costs, handling costs and disposal fees.
Work within the sector has highlighted some interesting facts which hinder recycling. Firstly, companies tend to assume that the cost of waste is synonymous with the cost of disposal. The latter is the amount paid to the waste management company which typically represents between just 2% and 20% of the true cost of waste. Naturally, a company which does not differentiate between these costs will be much less motivated to address the waste issue.
Secondly, companies often perceive that their waste is unavoidable. Therefore, their opening stance on waste management is “how can I get rid of the waste more cheaply?” rather than “how can I minimise the waste in the first place?”. Therefore, they are failing to recognise the importance of the waste management hierarchy – a series of options in descending order of environmental and economic preference: eliminate, minimise, reuse, recover (recycle, compost or incinerate with heat recovery), dispose.
The elimination of waste is always the best option, for example through the design of products, optimisation of cutting and the avoidance of damage during processing. However, when dealing with variable and natural materials such as timber, elimination can only go so far. Therefore, attention with regard to unavoidable residues should concentrate upon reuse and the recovery of value.
A guide by Envirowise (Envirowise [2001] GG290, Savings from waste minimisation in furniture manufacturing; free from Envirowise on tel: 0800 585794) shows how waste reduction at source has led to annual savings of £627,000 for three furniture companies. It is often suggested that most manufacturers could save 1% of turnover through waste minimisation.
Comprehensive information
In order to help smaller wood users to evaluate their recycling options, BFM Ltd is currently working on a guide which will act as a comprehensive source of information on the main recycling routes(TTJ 21/28 December 2002). It will include a description of each option, technology requirements, costs and suppliers as well as a summary of the pre-requisites such as timber quality, quantity, distance/transport costs, achievable savings etc. Case studies will be included to illustrate companies which have successfully implemented recycling initiatives. Discussions are currently being held with a range of organisations involved in wood recycling.
The research is funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a government funded company set up to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products.
Such work is timely, given the increasing pressure that is being brought to bear to encourage a move from landfill. For example, the landfill tax is currently charged at £13 per tonne for biodegradable waste. This is increasing by £1 per tonne per year until 2004. The chancellor has hinted that a steep rise could be expected after this date with an eventual figure of £30 per tonne or more not unrealistic.
The Climate Change Levy is another instrument designed to encourage minimisation and improve the pay-back of efficiency measures. The levy has increased average energy bills by 10 to 15% and it is unlikely to remain static for too long.
In addition, the Landfill Directive is gradually being introduced to the UK. This will affect all waste streams, with pre-treatment being a requisite for landfilled material. It is still unclear what form of pre-treatment would be applicable to wood waste, but the chipping of off-cuts is likely to be a minimum requirement.
