Examination of witnesses (Questions 733
- 739)
TUESDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2000
MS SARAH
OPPENHEIMER and MS
LIANA STUPPLES
Chairman
733. Can I welcome you to the last session this
morning and can I ask you to identify yourselves for the record?
(Ms Stupples) My name is Liana Stupples and I am campaigns
director of Friends of the Earth.
(Ms Oppenheimer) My name is Sarah Oppenheimer and
I am waste campaigner of Friends of the Earth.
734. Do you want to say anything by way of introduction?
(Ms Stupples) With your indulgence, I would like to
tell a little story because it struck me hearing the previous
witnesses that Friends of the Earth in the United Kingdom is coming
up to its 30th anniversary. It was almost 30 years ago that we
did one of the first campaigns that we ever ran and that was about
returnable bottle schemes.
735. It failed, did it not?
(Ms Stupples) Yes. We took thousands of Schweppes
bottles back to their headquarters and dumped them on the doorstep
of Schweppes, telling them not to schhhhh on Britain.
I think it is a bit of a sad indictment that
30 years later we still do not seem to have a returnable scheme;
nor do we have the kind of approach to waste management that we
hoped that action would engender 30 years ago. Of course, I would
say that this is not a reflection on Friends of the Earth's effectiveness.
One could even say that it is quite a depressing business and
I would like to think that in 30 years' time we still would not
have to be campaigning on waste. However, over the past 30 years
I think it is important to note in the context here that we have
used just about every tactic there is in the book to be able to
promote waste reduction. We have researched the technologies and
techniques; we have done huge public information campaigns; we
have set up our own recycling schemes; we have worked with local
authorities on projects like Recycling City; we have worked with
waste companies on putting forward handbooks of best practice;
we have worked with local communities about exposing where the
standards of waste disposal were completely inadequate; we have
blown the whistle on dodgy landfills; we have campaigned in Europe
and whatever. All of that has been done and yet I still do not
think we have actually addressed the true challenge that we face.
We have had some great victories, if you like. Yes, public opinion
is definitely on our side, as you were referring to. We have a
landfill tax. We even have statutory recycling targets now, but
if you look at where we need to be in the next 30 years—and
I know your Committee has previously pointed this out—we
need to make something of the order of 80 per cent reduction in
the kind of material throughput that we have in our economy. The
gradual approach that we have taken over the last 30 years I do
not think is going to be sufficient. We need to create some kind
of mechanism to allow us to leapfrog that pattern of development.
There are a lot of members of the public out there who feel extremely
disenfranchised because they thought that they were going to be
able to recycle and reduce their waste. We do need to try to create
those economic conditions that will enable us to leapfrog so that
we can have an economy that sets up the situation where it pays
to reduce your waste.
736. In spite of all that, actual domestic waste
is increasing according to local authorities by about three per
cent in each person's bin per year.
(Ms Stupples) If you look at the figures, the optimistic
thing is that it is staying the same and the pessimistic thing
is that it is getting worse. If you come back to the topic in
hand which is the waste strategy there is a glaring omission in
that there is no target to set about reducing the waste that is
generated overall. Although we have been enthusiastic supporters
of recycling over the past and indeed I think recycling has a
big role to play in waste reduction, we do not see recycling as
an end in itself. It is not a religion, but we do have to seriously
start looking at what we are going to do to address waste right
back at the beginning of the chain.
Mr Blunt
737. What should have been in the strategy?
(Ms Oppenheimer) We think the starting point, the
ultimate aim, is a reduction in primary resource use. One thing
that Friends of the Earth has done in a publication called Tomorrow's
World is to look at individual materials in the waste stream
and calculate what percentage reduction we need to achieve for
those in order to achieve sustainability, and live within environmental
limit. For example, with wood we need to achieve perhaps a 67
per cent reduction and with some metals it is between 65 and 90
per cent. Then the strategy should put together a package of measures
to achieve that reduction. That would include high levels of recycling
and also waste minimisation. Instead of the strategy accepting
that waste is rising, the strategy should determine that it is
going to put a cap on those arisings to make sure that we minimise
as much as we recycle.
738. Do you think local authorities should be
set a target for waste reduction?
(Ms Oppenheimer) That would be one measure to make
sure minimisation takes place. There are things that local authorities
can do such as encouraging home composting, providing nappy washing
services and advertising those. I think local authorities should
be encouraged and perhaps set a target to make sure that happens,
but what local authorities can do is also limited with regard
to waste minimisation because they are not responsible for a lot
of the waste.
739. What is your attitude to Surrey County
Council who have entered into quite a controversial waste disposal
contract with SITA, but that contract does include an obligation
to be responsible for growth in municipal waste being only one
per cent per annum, not three per cent per annum, which is the
current trend. What is your view of that arrangement?
(Ms Oppenheimer) I am not aware of the details of
the contract.
| 
