Household Recycling Code of Practice: Consultation document

4. Food and garden waste

Views on how to approach organic waste varied significantly during co-design. Although most local authorities in Scotland collect food and garden waste separately, 14 collect food and garden waste co-mingled together. Any change to food waste collection is therefore likely to impact on collection of garden waste, and vice versa. For this reason, this section covers the proposals for food and garden waste jointly.

Local authorities in Scotland operate significantly differing systems for food and garden waste, which led to differing views on recommended standards for collection and treatment. This is reflected in the proposed content of the Code, which does not significantly differ from current arrangements. This section discusses the evidence that was presented and why stakeholders did not reach a consensus on significant changes.

This section refers to the Scottish Government’s Urban-Rural Classification (UR). This defines urban and rural areas across Scotland based upon population and accessibility, and splits Scotland into six categories, referred to below as UR1-6. A description of the categories is included in Appendix A. Food waste collections are not required in UR 4-6.

4.1 What the Code proposes

Food waste

The Code recommends that:

• separate food waste collections are provided, but co-mingled food and garden waste collection is acceptable if it does not affect the amount of food waste collected
• preferably food waste collection is provided weekly, but no less than fortnightly

We are considering whether to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to oblige separate food waste collections in area 4 (remote small towns). If so, it is also intended that the data in the classifications used for all categories of the rural food waste exemption is updated to the most recent from 2022.

Garden waste

Where requested by a householder, local authorities are already required to collect garden waste for recycling or composting in accordance with the waste hierarchy. Local authorities must not routinely direct households to dispose of garden waste within residual waste collections.

The Code recommends that:

• separate garden waste collections are provided, but a co-mingled food and garden waste collection is acceptable
• local authorities should provide information to householders on the availability of home composting and community composting opportunities

Following a review of local authorities’ waste and recycling service charging and discussion during co-design, no change is being considered to local authorities’ ability to charge for garden waste services and the Code does not provide a recommendation.

4.2 Impact of the proposed changes

Only minor change is proposed to food and garden waste services. This section outlines the evidence presented and why it did not result in more significant change to the Code.

Food waste

The 2021 - 2023 Scottish household waste composition study undertaken by Zero Waste Scotland found substantial quantities of food waste remain within residual waste streams, with only 24% of the overall kerbside tonnage of food waste found in the food recycling container.^[21]

Separate food waste collection is therefore one of the strongest interventions available for increasing recycling performance and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Initial discussion focussed on expanding separate food waste collections to two types of area currently exempted by the rural food waste exemption, UR4 (remote small towns) and UR5 (accessible rural areas). Table 6 below was presented at Workshop 2 and in the Cost Benefit Analysis. It sets out the modelled impact of separate food waste collections being available to all households in URs 1-3 and URs 1-5.^[22] Note that although all households in UR1-3 are eligible for food waste collections, not all make use of it and many households receive a co-mingled food and garden waste collection.

The modelling suggests that separate food waste collections in UR1-3 could increase the national recycling rate by 1.4 percentage points and cut annual greenhouse gas emissions by 11,000 tonnes CO₂e. Most of the environmental benefits are where separately collected food waste is treated through anaerobic digestion (AD), which produces renewable energy and nutrient-rich digestate which can be used as organic fertiliser in the agricultural industry, reducing the need for chemical and manufactured fertilisers. The Household Organics Collections report also found that food waste treated through anaerobic digestion achieves greater carbon savings than treatment through in-vessel composting.^[23]

However, some stakeholders questioned whether the modelled benefits could be achieved in reality due to concerns over practicality and existing infrastructure availability. Expansion of food waste collections may require additional transfer station capacity, bulking infrastructure and treatment facilities. Analysis undertaken for the Code^[24] suggests that significant additional treatment capacity could be required nationally if food waste is diverted to anaerobic digestion, particularly in areas currently operating mixed food and garden waste systems.

The Code recommends that food waste collections should be weekly, though consensus was not fully reached on that as some local authorities had strong support for fortnightly co-mingled collections. However, weekly food waste collections are strongly associated with increased collection yield. The report on Additional Organics Options describes how one Scottish local authority moved from weekly to fortnightly food collections in 2022, and subsequently saw a decrease in food waste collection yield of approximately 39% to 29 kg per household in 2023. When comparing this local authority to others operating the same residual waste collection system, weekly food waste collection resulted in significantly higher yields; an average of 50 kg per household.^[25]

Regarding discussions over extending the provision of separate food waste collections to UR 4 and 5, modelling indicated a substantial increase in cost per household, shown in Table 6 above, through increased annual operational costs of £4.9 million to service approximately 200,000 households. There were concerns about collection vehicles making long trips to small numbers of households to collect food waste in more rural areas, and the consequent small carbon emissions reductions. Stakeholders, particularly from local authorities, questioned whether this would be good value for money. For these reasons, the proposal was modified to expand food waste collections to only UR4, remote small towns, where population densities are higher than in UR5, and food waste yields will therefore be more reliable. Approximately 46,000 more households would be in receipt of food waste collections based on this change.^[26]

Garden waste

The evidence reviewed during co-design found that garden waste collections deliver some of the largest increases in tonnage recycled of any service intervention considered – this is a consequence of the relatively high weight of garden waste.

The Final Report^[27] includes the modelled impact on recycling rates of separate food and garden waste collections being provided to all households with private outdoor space in URs 1-3, and the impact of different approaches to charging for that service. The recycling rate changes, set out in Table 7 below, all include a 1.4% increase based on separate food waste collections in URs 1-3. This means that making no change to current garden waste arrangements is modelled to increase the recycling rate 1.4% based solely on changes to food waste. Local authorities currently operating free mixed food and garden waste moving to a charged service is modelled to increase the recycling rate by only 0.9% as garden waste yields would decrease, offsetting the increase in food waste.

Providing free collections of garden waste separately from food waste delivers the greatest increase in recycling performance, improving the recycling rate by 2.9 percentage points. However, the cost of providing free garden waste services was modelled to be £25.5 million upfront capital and an additional £7 million per year in operational costs^[28] – the lowest value for money option in the assessment. Charged garden waste collections had a lower recycling rate impact but better value for money, with £12 million upfront capital costs and a saving of £12 million per year in operational costs for local authorities due to the revenue generated.

Zero Waste Scotland’s Household Organics Collections in Scotland Report^[29] similarly found that free garden waste services produce the highest recycling yields of all garden waste collection models assessed, while charged services capture lower tonnages but generally provide substantially better value for money for local authorities.

The environmental benefits of garden waste recycling extend beyond recycling rate improvements. When organic material is diverted from residual waste and treated through composting or other biological treatment processes, carbon emissions associated with disposal are reduced. However, the differences in carbon performance between garden waste service models are smaller than differences observed in food waste services because garden waste is less carbon-intensive than food waste. Both Eunomia and Zero Waste Scotland’s research concluded that food waste capture is generally the stronger driver of carbon savings, while garden waste is the stronger driver of recycling performance.^[30]

There are important considerations around equity and affordability. Stakeholders noted that garden waste collections directly benefit only households with gardens whilst the shared environmental benefits of collections are indirect, and that introducing a universal free service would require significant local authority investment. Co-design participants therefore expressed mixed views on whether the Code should recommend a particular charging model. The Eunomia Co-design Report records concerns that free collections may disproportionately benefit households with greater access to private outdoor space as the cost would indirectly be paid by all householders, even those that do not use the service.

4.3 The extent of change required by local authorities to align with the Code

Food waste

Food waste services are already widespread across Scotland, although the method of collection varies considerably.

• 16 local authorities predominantly operate separate food waste collections
• 14 predominantly operate mixed food and garden waste collections
• 2 authorities operate no food waste collection service

There would be a change required for authorities with households in UR 4 (remote small towns: settlements of 3,000 to 9,999 people, and with a drive time of over 30 minutes to a settlement of 10,000 or more) that do not currently receive a food waste service, if the coverage of the rural food waste exemption was reduced to households in UR 5-6. It is proposed that there is no expectation that island locations meet these standards due to limited access to treatment infrastructure. Changes to the rural food waste exemption were previously consulted upon in the consultation Strengthening approach to household recycling collection services in 2025.

Infrastructure remains a significant consideration. Expanding food waste collections would increase demand for transfer station capacity, bulking infrastructure and treatment facilities. The Co-design Report suggests that implementation could require significant additional food waste treatment capacity nationally, particularly if food waste is diverted to anaerobic digestion.

Garden waste

There is a split in the number of local authorities in Scotland that charge for garden waste:

• 17 local authorities currently operate charged, subscription-based garden waste collections
• 10 local authorities operate free garden waste collections
• 5 local authorities do not offer a garden waste collection service

Coverage also varies significantly depending on participation rates and property type.

There was agreement amongst co-design participants that there should be no change to current local authority powers that permit them to charge for garden waste collections. As a result, many local authorities already broadly align with the proposed approach.

4.4 How co-design arrived at this proposal

There were a wide range of views on the best approach to food and garden waste collections.

There was broad recognition across local authorities, industry, third sector organisations and government that separating food waste from residual waste offers substantial recycling and climate benefits. However, stakeholders also raised concerns regarding:

• Treatment infrastructure availability
• Collection costs
• Transport distances in rural and island communities
• Participation rates
• Public behaviour change requirements
• Transition costs for authorities currently operating mixed organics (food and garden waste) services

These factors meant consensus was not reached on separate weekly food waste collections for households in UR1-5, or whether local authorities should be required to provide free services for garden waste, leading to the compromise position set out in this document.

Although evidence presented during workshops showed that free separate garden waste services deliver the greatest recycling performance, stakeholders highlighted affordability and value for money and noted that several local authorities have recently introduced subscription services in response to financial pressures and reported the system to be performing well or even increasing participation. Participants therefore preferred an expectation that garden waste should be collected while retaining local discretion over charging arrangements.

Many local authorities and stakeholders raised concerns about the infrastructure, vehicle and treatment costs associated with requiring separate food and garden waste collections, particularly where existing mixed organics systems are already established.

Given the differing views and the profile of Scotland’s existing infrastructure to manage organic waste, it is also recommended in the Code that:

• Existing free garden waste collections are retained where they exist, as introducing charges has the potential to reduce recycling performance.
• Local authorities should take opportunities to expand food waste collections if introducing garden waste collection charging. This is because savings can be used to fund service expansion and the increase in food waste collected will offset the impact on the recycling rate.
• Charged garden waste collections are preferable to no garden waste collection being provided, as they improve recycling performance cost-effectively.
• Local authorities should provide information to householders on the availability of home composting and community composting opportunities.