Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Sixth Report


ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Local government (waste disposal)

207. The main issue for consideration in relation to the role of the Waste Disposal Authorities is the extent and type of control which they exercise over the disposal of waste in their care. Typically, the contracts these authorities have drawn up with waste management companies are long term contracts, lasting between ten and fifteen years.[383]

208. Under the existing requirements for compulsory competitive tendering (CCT), and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the authorities must, in establishing contracts, consider both the financial and environmental implications of their actions. However it appears that the financial considerations will generally be conclusive. David Coleman of the London Borough of Bexley admitted that:

     "a local authority has to take a very rounded financially based view ... We are an average local authority that is trying every one of the options that are available to us, bearing in mind the finance that underlies everything we are trying to do. We are short of cash".[384]

Similarly the Onyx Environmental Group wrote that "The treatment and disposal options adopted ... are usually price-driven and consequently in practice the options available become severely limited".[385] John Birch, treasurer of the Local Authority Waste Disposal Companies Association, (LAWDCA) said that, "Clients will come along and say they wish to have their waste disposed of ... and a contractor will price for that activity and say what contract may be necessary to bring the price down to a particular level."[386]

209. In many cases such a contract will have specified landfill as a primary destination for the waste because, in spite of the Landfill Tax, it remains by far the cheapest option.[387] As we have discussed previously, the combination of budgetary pressure and cheap landfill acts as a dual disincentive to the authorities to bring the more expensive options, such as anaerobic digestion, into play.[388] The Minister told us that he was unable to provide "a glib and easy answer" to this difficulty.[389] We appreciate his honesty.

210. In the absence of additional capital and revenue allocations from Government, the Private Finance Initiative is the primary source of additional capital for local authorities in developing more costly facilities and services. Through the provision of PFI credits, local authorities can commission more sustainable services now and thereby manage what may be a significant 'affordability' gap in the short and medium term. Additional support for investment in new management technologies has been provided by Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) awards which subsidise the production of electricity by generators using the non-fossil fuel sources of landfill gas and energy from waste incineration. Hampshire Waste Services told us informally that its planned energy from waste plants were underpinned by NFFO guarantees:[390] however, the company also drew our attention to an apparent anomaly whereby NFFO awards do not apply, at present, to anaerobic digestion. Although anaerobic digestion is likely to be a useful alternative to energy from waste incineration, its viability has been constrained by the cost and rate of progress of technical development. It is possible that greater progress could be made with the support of the NFFO regime and therefore we recommend that the Department of Trade and Industry, as administrators of the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation awards, consider the eligibility of anaerobic digestion as a matter of urgency.

211. Nevertheless, even within the confines of public spending it is possible for the Waste Disposal Authorities to take action through the tendering process, to encourage contractors to handle waste in more resourceful ways. Much depends upon the extent to which the contract is prescriptive. David Beadle of the LAWDCA told us that the tender usually describes "in very much detail" the system which a company should use to handle the waste, be it a landfill system or recycling, the authority knowing how much this system will cost to operate.[391] The alternative approach adopted by Hampshire County Council, following its public consultation, was to describe "the service level that they expected to see ... quantified in terms of the percentage of recovery ..." and leave it to the contractor to determine how that service level would be achieved within the price set.[392] This focus upon outcomes rather than processes is not dissimilar to the 'service-based' approach advocated by Walter Stahel[393] and is beneficial in that "it does encourage innovation and it does try and get the private sector to do some lateral thinking".[394]

212. Inevitably, there are drawbacks to such a non-prescriptive tender: the questions of liability are more complex than in a prescriptive tender and one party will have to agree to accept the risk if a part of the strategy fails (for example, if landfill prices should be doubled through increases in the Landfill Tax). Ian Avery expressed the view that it is often better for the authority to accept responsibility for such risks.[395] Alternative strategies will have to be borne in mind and costed in case the public rejects the strategy the waste management company proposes at the planning stage.[396] Equally, however, penalty and incentive schemes can be inserted into the contract to ensure that the waste management company fulfils the service level required.[397] A company facing such specifications is unlikely to put all its eggs into one basket by operating at only one level of the hierarchy.

213. While the Council for the Protection of Rural England called for such flexible contracts to be used more widely, other campaigning groups expressed concern over the long duration of the contracts.[398] The National Recycling Forum, together with the Community Recycling Network and Friends of the Earth London, feared that contracts which may last up to twenty- five years may have the effect of 'locking in' the local authority to a limited range of options and hamper the full exploration of the higher options in the hierarchy. Their particular concern was that such contracts could encourage local authorities to make long-term commitments to incineration, to the detriment of waste reduction and recycling.[399] In response, the authorities and the waste industry argue that it is necessary to plan waste management strategies over the medium to long term "Because the capital investment [in waste management facilities] is so high and the private sector will need to see an appropriate return". Indeed, David Beadle said that it may be necessary for contract lengths to increase from the present ten to fifteen years to an average of twenty to twenty-five years in the future to guarantee such returns.[400] We recommend that local authorities exercise caution in committing themselves to inflexible long term waste management contracts given that the technology of waste management is developing rapidly.

Integrated waste management

214. A solution to the concerns of the environmental campaigners, which also addresses the needs of authorities and the private sector, can be found in 'integrated waste management'. This is essentially the type of strategy which is now being pursued in Hampshire through Project Integra, and also being developed elsewhere. The purpose of an integrated strategy is to deal with all the different waste streams arising in an area in the way which represents the Best Practicable Environmental Option for each; therefore a range of options is required, which are capable of functioning side by side. Integration becomes important particularly to optimise the achievement of higher recycling and recovery rates. An additional stimulus to the adoption of a more integrated approach-or at least, less reliance on landfill-will be the proposed EU Directive on landfill which, if implemented, will require the diversion of substantial quantities of biodegradable waste to non-landfill routes.

215. The DETR's new guidance to local authorities states that "it is often possible to improve efficiencies, benefit from economies of scale and take advantage of avoided disposal costs" through an integrated strategy.[401] Effective integration requires consideration of: the characteristics of waste in an area; the appropriate collection and transport systems; the availability of existing facilities in an area and of the potential for new sites and capacity; the costs of collection, recycling, treatment and disposal; the environmental impact of the different options considering the nature of the local environment; and preferences amongst the local

communities.

216. For such a strategy to be achieved, there will need to be a much greater degree of co-ordination between the Waste Disposal Authorities and the Waste Collection Authorities. We were told that while the WDA has a responsibility to put the strategy into place, the WCAs which collect the waste have a key role to play in educating householders, encouraging waste reduction, re-use and recycling, and also in providing "clarification of the waste flows" for the disposal authority, in order to ensure that the waste management facilities developed are neither too large nor too small for the amounts of waste collected.[402] Where the establishment of unitary authorities has brought both the waste collection and waste disposal functions into the same organisation, it was suggested that co-ordination and management have improved because "they have control at both ends of the waste stream".[403] Witnesses who supported the integrated waste management option included the Womens Environmental Network, PDA and the Energy from Waste Association.[404]

217. We recommend that, in drafting the statutory strategy, the Government recognise the value of integrated waste strategies for the achievement of higher recycling and recovery rates at the regional and local level. Case studies of authorities who are implementing such strategies should be included in the strategy so that key implementation lessons can be learnt and shared between authorities.

218. The possibility of integrated waste management has some significant implications for the ways in which waste is managed at present: it will require a reversal of the split which has been established between waste collection and waste disposal at the local level; it is also possible that the practicalities and economics of moving waste 'up' the hierarchy will require some degree of co-ordinated, co-operative effort between waste disposal authorities across a region. In our next section we examine the role which the regions, and the new regional authorities, may have to play in determining and implementing a new waste strategy.

Regional government

219. Witnesses were optimistic about the role which the regional authorities might play in improving the management of waste. In moving away from strategies where any one management option is predominant, towards strategies where the appropriate treatment for the waste stream is the primary consideration, there is a clear logic in establishing strategic facilities which may be shared by a number of authorities to achieve economies of scale.

The proximity principle

220. The possibility was raised that, by moving from very localised planning to regional planning, waste management would shift away from operation of the proximity principle. This principle requires that waste should be dealt with close to the source of production, in order that the producer may accept responsibility for it. However witnesses suggested to us that regional planning for some facilities would not run counter to the proximity principle, since regional self-sufficiency would be maintained.[405] The prospect of introducing a regional strategic and planning overview for waste management was welcomed by a wide range of witnesses including the Environment Agency, the Local Government Association, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Environmental Services Association.[406]

221. Surprisingly, however, the Government was cautious about the role which the proposed regional authorities might play. Philip Ward of the DETR told us that the regional authorities would be expected to include "questions of waste management ... within the general consideration of sustainable development" but suggested that the activity would be limited to "creating a debate".[407] The Minister said that he would not necessarily look to the regional assemblies or the Regional Development Agencies to get involved, as the size of region they will cover will be too large: instead, he envisaged "a number of ... adjacent local authorities co-operating with each other", this being something the Government would "wish to facilitate".[408]

Regional planning

222. Regional level planning is currently carried out by groups known as the Regional Planning Conferences. Through its revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 the Government is recommending that these Conferences be provided with additional support by the establishment of 'Technical Advisory Groups'. The membership of these groups would include representatives of the planning authority, the Environment Agency, and the waste management industry. In the Minister's words, their function would be to provide "technical information about both the amount and location of waste arisings and options for dealing with it, so that the waste local plan is based on sound information and accords with the Planning Policy Guidance".[409] This will, undoubtedly, be of assistance to planning authorities who "are strictly unable to assess matters not related to land-use".[410]

223. We welcome the Government's intention to involve the Regional Planning Conferences in waste management, but we remain to be convinced that the establishment of Technical Advisory Groups-which in any case does not constitute a formal requirement-will provide more than a partial solution. As we have previously pointed out, the support of the public for a sustainable waste strategy will be crucial to its success at the local, regional and national level. While the Government has detected, and addressed, a need for greater scientific support for the planning process there will also be a need for a more sophisticated dialogue with the public. This could be provided by an elected chamber. In addition, we have the evidence of the regulator, the waste management industry and the representative bodies for local government and planning that the extension of strategic waste management planning to the regional level will make self-sufficiency and the Best Practicable Environmental Option achievable goals.[411]

224. While we acknowledge that the form and role which the regional tier of government will take is still "developing",[412] we believe that regional bodies can provide essential support to waste management planning through public consultation and scrutiny of proposals, and through strategic oversight of the work of the Waste Collection, Disposal and Planning Authorities. In practice, however, the delivery of the waste management strategy will have to continue at the local level.

The waste industry

225. While the determination of waste strategies lies within government, the management of wastes in the UK is primarily in the private sector.[413] This is different to the practice in most European countries, where it is in the public sector, but was considered by the Environment Agency to present considerable advantages. Caroline John argued that the clear distinction between the regulator-the Environment Agency- and the operators ensured greater transparency and public protection; the Agency's Chief Executive, Ed Gallagher, perceived advantages in the private sector's access to markets and its fostering of innovation.[414]

226. Those advantages were borne out, in many instances, by the evidence we received from such companies as Hampshire Waste Services, its parent company Onyx, UK Waste and WMC Resource Recovery.[415] We learned from them that the waste industry is at last coming to terms with the waste hierarchy and the implications for its operations. Innovative technologies are being tested, and the companies are also making efforts to engage with waste minimisation through educational initiatives in school and industry.[416]

227. Although the waste industry profits by waste generation, it has begun to demonstrate interest in waste minimisation. Keith Riley of Hampshire Waste Services told us that the industry is moving "out of what I call maximum waste production and ... into resource management";[417] similarly, David Beal of Recycle UK told us of a "shift of focus" amongst industry as a whole towards recovering value from waste, in which the waste industry is recognised as a key player.[418] It would appear that the waste industry is demonstrating greater flexibility in its management techniques, and accepts its duty first to reduce wastes and then to manage them responsibly.

228. Despite these improvements and the industry's practical expertise, representatives complained that its opinion is rarely sought when decisions are to be made about wastes. The Local Authority Waste Disposal Companies Association told us that too often the impact of products as waste is not considered:

    "The waste ... industry is usually left with the discards and is expected to cope with the decisions already taken by others and inevitably has no say in the types, quantities and nature of much of the waste stream, for which we are expected to find disposal routes and safe and environmentally friendly outlets, all at minimal cost".[419]

The Environmental Services Association commented that "companies are expected to invest in increasingly sophisticated facilities to achieve Government policy" and would therefore welcome a closer consultative relationship between the two in policy formulation.[420] These suggestions were supported by comments from Onyx and from UK Waste, who complained that the waste industry had not been represented on the Advisory Committee on Packaging which invented the Packaging Recovery Note.[421] In defending the PRN, the Environment Agency told us that nobody had "suggested anything substantially better";[422] yet, if the waste industry was indeed excluded from deliberations on the packaging recovery system it would appear to be a major oversight which should be avoided in the future. The Environmental Services Association suggested that a joint committee be set up between the industry, regulators and Government in order to ensure a more thorough testing of long-term Government strategy:[423] this idea seems to us to be worth consideration.

229. Our attention was drawn to the activities of traditional waste collectors such as "totters" and gypsies.[424] It was claimed that the waste licensing regime operated by the Environment Agency is making it uneconomic for these small businesses to function. However, we did not receive a great deal of evidence on this point and may return to it in a future inquiry.

230. Inevitably, however, those parts of the industry which were sufficiently interested to participate in our inquiry are not entirely representative. As we have previously discussed, UK Waste was highly critical of landfill operations which continue to be poorly managed, and provide inadequate environmental protection.[425] Again, as we have previously noted, the poor design and management of incinerators in earlier decades has left a legacy of public mistrust.[426] The Local Authority Waste Disposal Companies Association told us that the industry is generally "under enforced";[427] it is in this context that we must proceed to consider the role of the Environment Agency.


383  QQ119, 241 Back

384  Q132 Back

385  Ev p 292 Back

386  Q258 Back

387  Ev p 311 Back

388  See paragraph 135 Back

389  Q872 Back

390  See Annex 1 Back

391  Q195 Back

392  Q496 Back

393  See section beginning paragraph 58 Back

394  Q502 Back

395  QQ502-503 Back

396  Q509 Back

397  Q497 Back

398  Ev p 223 Back

399  Ev pp 48, 92, 258 Back

400  Q195 Back

401  Preparing and Revising Local Authority Recycling Strategies and Recycling Plans, DETR/Welsh Office March 1998 paras 2.12-2.15 Back

402  Q111 Back

403  Q150 Back

404  Ev pp 132, 41, 265; see also Ev pp 65, 70, 117-118 Back

405  Q72; Ev p 294 Back

406  QQ67, 145, 546; Ev p 100  Back

407  Q12 Back

408  Q870 Back

409  Q869; see also PPG10 Final draft DETR February 1998 Annex B Back

410  Ev p 311 Back

411  See paragraph 220 Back

412  Q12 Back

413  Ev pp 68, 70 Back

414  Q82 Back

415  Ev pp 122, 240, 290, 295; see also Annexes 1 and 2 Back

416  See for example Annexes 1 and 2 Back

417  Q480 Back

418  Q634 Back

419  Ev p 111 Back

420  Ev p 96 Back

421  Ev pp 291, 244; see also Q786 Back

422  QQ789-790 Back

423  Ev p 96 Back

424  Ev pp 195, 309 Back

425  Ev p 241 Back

426  See paragraph 113 Back

427  Ev p 115 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 30 June 1998