House of Commons - Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Sixth Report

SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT

Waste reduction and re-use

55. Waste reduction comes at the head of the hierarchy and, we were told, its primacy "is not disputed".[91] This may be so but, while it is an imperative to achieving sustainable development, we learned that few have much practical experience or even a strategy to achieve it. Re-use faces similar problems. In this section of our Report we attempt to show why waste reduction and re-use matter, and suggest changes which will be required if there is to be greater success in these aspects of resource management. Although witnesses to our inquiry used the terms 'avoidance', 'reduction' and 'minimisation' for broadly the same purpose, for the sake of simplicity we have used the term 'reduction' in general and 'minimisation' specifically in relation to the industrial sector.

The role of waste reduction in sustainable development

56. Finding reasons why waste reduction must be a priority is not difficult. In 1995, the Government announced that the UK produces enough waste to fill Lake Windermere every nine months.[92] The little information which we have suggests that the situation has worsened since then: the Industry Council on Packaging and the Environment told us that a household of three or more will produce an average four kilogrammes of waste per person per week; a couple will produce seven kilogrammes of waste per person per week; and a single person will produce about eleven kilogrammes of waste each week.[93] In addition, recycling has been slow to take off (for a variety of reasons which shall be discussed later) and, according to one of our witnesses, the country's landfill capacity could be exhausted within a decade.[94]

57. As we noted in the introduction to our Report, achieving a more sustainable mode of living will require society to cease thinking about waste and instead focus upon a more responsible and imaginative use of resources. Mike Childs of Friends of the Earth told us that what is now called waste needs to be looked at "as a resource", and that greater efficiency in resource use is not merely "something that we need to do in a just society" but also a "political reality".[95] His words were echoed by Walter Stahel of the Product-Life Institute, Geneva, who set before us the challenge of a 'Factor Ten' reduction in resource use, in order to avoid waste and leave an equitable share in resources for the developing nations.[96]

58. Mr Stahel elaborated a radical agenda for social and economic change in order to achieve the type of 'closed loop' system of resource use advocated by Greater Manchester Friends of the Earth.[97] He reminded us of the environmental impact of new resource production, saying that:

"You pulverise 350 kilos of rock to gain one gramme of gold and this rock that before was fixed in a solid formation is now going into the air, into the water".

He argued that these external costs must be taken into account in life-cycle assessment and on this basis, that the productivity of existing resources should be increased to the full wherever possible.[98] By increasing the productivity of resources it ought to be possible to achieve a reduction in resources used of up to 90 per cent: when only 10 per cent of the resources now used are needed to achieve the same result, the 'Factor Ten' challenge will have been met.

59. Mr Stahel's theory is brave, but the realities are complex. The concept of a 'closed loop' system is in some senses simplistic, for there are a number of loops including a resource loop, an economic loop and a liability loop. If resource use were to be suddenly and dramatically cut, economic disturbance would be likely to follow unless some means were found to support the economy. Mr Stahel's solution was that, firstly, the price paid for resources should be increased tenfold to balance the 90 per cent cut in availability.[99] As a longer term measure, the economy itself would need to shift from valuing industry and item manufacture to valuing service and "non-monetary contributions".[100] The utilisation of human energy and resources in the servicing and refurbishing sectors would become ascendant over resource consumption in the manufacturing sector.[101] Solutions to continuing problems would need to become more imaginative: for example, businesses might rent sheep to vineyard owners as a more sustainable means to control weeds than use of pesticides.[102]

60. It was argued that these changes will be necessary because an economy which relies upon the endless creation of new products to stimulate growth has little incentive to consume fewer resources; indeed, there is a disincentive for it to do so. This type of economy might be described as 'linear'. On the other hand, a 'circular' or 'closed loop' economy which is based upon service and utilisation of existing resources-advocated also by the Town and Country Planning Association-[103] bears an incentive to use those resources with increasing effectiveness in order to sustain and increase profitability within the loop.[104] We were reminded of practices within the hotel industry where, increasingly, customers resident for more than one night are asked to indicate if they wish to have towels washed and replaced every day. The hotel is providing a service for which a fixed rate is paid regardless of whether customers decline or accept it: therefore, the profit margin is greater since the hotel "gets the same amount of money but it has

less expense on washing, towels last much longer, the washing machines last much longer".[105] There is an additional environmental benefit of reduced energy consumption, less use of washing powder and thus less water pollution.

Producer responsibility

61. We were told that in order to achieve such a shift in perspective it will be necessary to close the final loop, which is the liability loop. A first step in this direction has been taken by the European Union in introducing the concept of Producer Responsibility. Mr Stahel explained to us that, very simply:

"Waste is a problem of negative value. Anything that has a positive value will never end up in waste ... if a company knows the products are coming back to the company they will not produce products with a negative value ... Waste becomes waste when a product no longer has an owner".[106]

62. In its essence Producer Responsibility, by placing an obligation upon product manufacturers to accept responsibility for that product's management as waste, places an economic incentive upon the organisation or company to maximise the product's life in order to delay and reduce the cost of disposal. It is an exciting concept which, in its implementation, has significant potential to encourage more sustainable patterns of resource use. At present, legislation has only been introduced in respect of commercial packaging but discussions are under way within the European Commission to extend the concept to cover end-of-life vehicles, batteries, electrical and electronic goods. We shall discuss the specific implementation of the EU Packaging Directive in the section beginning at paragraph 156. However the concept of Producer Responsibility cannot, alone, provide a corrective to the over-consumption of resources since it covers only the manufacturing part of the resource-use chain, and specific waste streams. Other waste streams have to be dealt with in different ways, as does waste within industry in first creating the product.

Industrial waste minimisation

63. Although our focus was primarily upon household waste it was not possible to ignore industrial waste. In the first instance, this is because the weight of waste produced by commerce and industry in the course of their activities is estimated to be about three times greater than household waste on an annual basis;[107] in the second place, this is because the products manufactured by industry can end up in the domestic waste stream. We therefore sought written evidence on industrial waste minimisation from the DTI, which is the responsible Government department.

64. While pointing out that "no industrial process is 100 per cent efficient", the DTI accepted that waste minimisation is particularly important in the industrial sector since, "Unlike post-consumer waste, waste in this case has never been put to productive use and represents a waste

of resources".[108] However the DTI also told us, specifically, that it does not consider it appropriate to be prescriptive in its approach to resource use by individual sectors or companies, since these "would depend on the circumstances" and "in the end it will be the companies themselves who will have to take the action".[109] Instead, it takes action to encourage waste minimisation through the Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme and the Technology Foresight Programme, which aim to spread best practice and encourage research into cleaner and more efficient industrial processes.

65. We note that the Panel on Sustainable Development's most recent Report criticised the Technology Foresight Programme for its failure to take account of the requirements of sustainable development, and we support its recommendation that the sixteen consultative panels should be charged with the assessment of the environmental impacts as well as the commercial risks of new technologies.[110] We did not have time to explore the Technology Foresight and ETBPP programmes in detail but we were disappointed by the Department's stance, which seemed to us to exemplify the continuing reluctance of Whitehall to tackle the waste problem with more than words.

66. It is the Environment Agency's function to regulate the environmental impacts due to the activities of the most polluting processes. It has powers to regulate processes through its Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) regime,[111] under which companies are required to demonstrate that they have minimised the environmental impacts of their activities by using the Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost. We were not presented with any evidence as to the effectiveness of IPC to date in this regard. In 1996, the European Commission introduced a Directive on IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) which is to be implemented in the UK in October 1999. The Directive states that:

"Member States shall take the necessary measures to provide that the competent authorities ensure that installations are operated in such a way that ... (c) waste production is avoided ...".[112]

We asked Dr Kramer, Head of the Commission's Waste Management Unit, how this is to be enforced: he told us that "the ideal is impossible to enforce" although the pollution control requirements would have some effect in reducing waste impacts, and comparisons of performance between similar operators might encourage some to do better.[113] This would appear to us to indicate that the lack of direction for waste reduction is endemic. Since the requirement is for member states to take the lead, we call upon the Government to specify clearly how it intends to implement Article 3(c) of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, and to monitor the effectiveness of that implementation, at the time of its Response to this Report. Where there are implications for local authorities or the Environment Agency we would expect these to be highlighted for consultation.

67. The Agency told us that, beyond its enforcement of Integrated Pollution Control, it can only promote waste minimisation without requiring it. There have been a number of demonstration projects which have illustrated the potential for "considerable" reductions in waste produced, and associated cost savings.[114] Yet Keith Riley of Hampshire Waste Services, which is running similar projects, told us that companies are often reluctant to sign up, preferring "to deal with [their] waste in the cheapest possible way".[115] This being the case, it would appear to us that the DTI, DETR and the Agency will have to re-assess their approach to such projects, perhaps providing for a tougher regulatory approach in cases where no effort is made to minimise waste or alternatively, holding out to companies greater incentives than the promise of cost savings to come. Philip Ward considered that penalties and incentives attached to waste reduction would be "helpful", which we take to be an indication that the DETR is already considering this possibility.[116]

Promoting waste reduction

68. We are not unsympathetic to the Government and other bodies which struggle to achieve waste reduction; whereas recycling requires positive action to produce tangible results, waste reduction depends upon positive action in order not to produce something tangible. Waste Watch's discovery that the public tend to equate recycling with waste reduction is not entirely surprising but it does indicate the need for far more, and far clearer promotion of this option.[117] The Audit Commission suggested that one way to promote waste reduction so that it can be better understood would be to set a new target for reductions in household waste, not as a percentage but in terms of kilogrammes per household: this would seem to us to be worthy of consideration.[118]

69. Mr Stahel reminded us of the importance of tailoring the message to the culture of the society receiving it, and of leading by example.[119] There is also a need, where household waste is concerned, to provide clear guidance as to how waste can be reduced. We were told both formally and informally that householders feel powerless to reduce the wastes which they perceive being passed on to them by manufacturers;[120] yet Ray Georgeson and Jemma Little equally told us that where Waste Watch and Pat Delbridge Associates had focussed on specific households as demonstration projects, very significant savings had been made in waste produced and waste recovered.[121] These appear very much to be independent initiatives: Roger Levett identified a public perception that "there is not any national, strategic, explicit policy" for waste reduction,[122] and local authorities regretted that they did not have statutory powers to promote it.[123] Bob Lisney, from Hampshire County Council, said that "there is not a collective push ... towards a national vision" of better resource management;[124] the responsibility for promoting such a vision, Walter Stahel concluded, has to rest with the Government.[125] The Government already provides guidance to industry upon waste minimisation: this guidance should be extended to local authorities and householders. There would be an immediate benefit in raising awareness of the need to reduce waste universally; and an additional benefit in increasing consumers' knowledge of the environmental choices made by industry.

70. Many local authorities now have a recycling officer. Some of these have done an excellent job, but there is a pressing need for all to devote more time and energy to the campaign for waste reduction prior to recycling. Where this is not at present the case, officers should extend their activities to promote minimisation within the local industrial and commercial sectors as well as by householders.

91 Q582 Back

92 Making waste work, Cm 3040, HMSO London 1995 p3 Back

93 Q346 Back

94 Q391 Back

95 QQ263, 269 Back

96 Q719. The concept of Factor 10 first originated at the Wuppertal Institute, Germany. Back

97 Ev not printed. Back

98 QQ719, 723 Back

99 Q719 Back

100 Q723 Back

101 Q723 Back

102 Q721 Back