LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The UK's waste mountain, already
large, is growing. Since 1996-97, the average annual rise in the
amount of municipal waste arisings has been 3.4 per cent. The
increase between 1999-00 and 2000-01 was 2.7 per cent, outstripping
year on year growth in GDP (para 2).
2. No target has been set for waste
minimisation. The resources available under the National Waste
Minimisation and Recycling Fund have been largely directed at
recycling projects rather than waste minimisation efforts. Few
other levers to stimulate waste minimisation exist to compensate
for this. We agree with the OECD's assessment that UK measures
to encourage waste minimisation are very weak (para 28).
3. However the Waste Management Performance
Fund is to be allocated and operated, we urge the Government to
ensure that it becomes an effective instrument to stimulate waste
minimisation (para 29).
4. The proportion of
municipal waste sent to landfill is declining but the overall
amount sent to landfill is still increasing—from 21.9 million
tonnes in 1999-00 to 22.1 million tonnes in 2000-01—and
therefore we are moving further away from the requirements of
the Landfill Directive (para 33).
5. The targets set for recycling and
recovery are unambitious by European standards. Even so they pose
a significant challenge for local authorities by demanding rapid
improvement on traditionally low recycling rates (para 36).
6. Projections based on the current
rates of performance improvement indicate that we will not come
close to meeting any of the national targets set for recycling
or recovery. Under the current set of policies, the targets set
for 2015 and 2020 in particular will be missed by a wide margin
(para 37).
7. Inadequate funding and a lack of
clear Government guidance have made it harder for local authorities
to reach the targets they have been set. We are extremely concerned
that the measures taken to date do not reflect the urgency of
the need for improvement (para 48).
8. There is some evidence of good progress
diverting waste from landfill on the part of industry and commerce
but in the absence of up to date statistics it is not possible
to be certain (para 53).
9. As with municipal waste, there are
significant barriers hindering greater diversion from landfill
on the part of industry and commerce. Rather than developing a
specific strategy covering industrial and commercial waste, we
recommend that the Government concentrates its efforts on removing
those barriers by clarifying the definition and interpretation
of waste to be used by Government agencies, ensuring consistent
and where appropriate consultative decision-making, and providing
cohesion across all aspects of policy (para 59).
10. We repeat our earlier recommendation
that the Government increases the rate of the Landfill Tax more
steeply than is currently proposed (para 61).
11. The Treasury's behaviour over the Landfill
Tax, and the absence of any further environmental measures in
the Budget, reinforces our view, expressed in our report on the
Pre-Budget Report 2002, that it remains timid in its use of fiscal
instruments to tackle environmental issues (para 62).
12. The Government has commissioned a review
of the "environmental and health effects of all waste management
and disposal options. It aims to report on findings of this review
later in the year. The case for using economic instruments for
incineration will be considered in the light of this work".
We recommend a moratorium on permissions for all large-scale municipal
incinerators until this work is complete (para 63).
13. We remain concerned that the Government
saw the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme as a means of financing its
own policies for which it would otherwise have had to find additional
funding (para 66).
14. We recommend that the Government considers
extending the duration of WRAP's funding now to secure its medium
term future (para 68).
15. The Waste Strategy 2000 is not so much
a waste strategy but a strategy for complying with some of the
requirements developed in the European Union. Even with that interpretation,
it has still not proved effective in delivery (para 70).
16. Implicit in the Government's decisions
to call a Waste Summit, held in November 2001, and then to initiate
a year long review of Waste by the Strategy Unit, is a recognition
of the problems inherent with the existing Waste Strategy and
the unsatisfactory level of progress made to date. While we welcome
the attention that these events have brought the waste issue,
the bald fact is that no major new initiatives or mechanisms to
drive progress or solutions to the problems identified have yet
resulted (para 71).
17. The difficulties associated with the
UK's waste problem are compounded by the fact that the Government's
record in dealing with EU legislation on waste is poor. Further
EU measures are due to come into effect in the next five or so
years. The Government will need to anticipate and plan for the
consequences of these measures more effectively than it has done
in the past both to avoid further chaos and to ensure that UK
business is able to exploit the business opportunities presented
(para 77).
18. The planning system is cumbersome. It
takes too long to make decisions and, in the absence of effective
waste management strategies in some areas, the decisions which
are made are too often inconsistent. This increases the risk presented
to those seeking to attract investment in waste management facilities
and results in much nugatory work (para 85).
19. We welcome the fact that DEFRA is "currently
examining the possibility of future staff resource increases alongside
the Government's official response to the Strategy Unit report".
Such resources are essential if DEFRA is to co-ordinate the
delivery of consistent messages on waste from all Government departments
(para 87).
20. We urge the Government to ensure that
the Agency is adequately resourced to meet the challenge of changing
forms of regulation and increasing numbers of waste management
facilities (para 88).
21. The Environment Agency has recently applied
to DEFRA for additional funding to support a Fly Tipping Abatement
Task Force (£14 million start up costs plus annual running
costs of £1 million). We recommend that DEFRA gives this
application urgent and sympathetic consideration (para 89).
22. Both the Environment Agency and local
authorities need more defined responsibilities and improved powers
to help combat the growth in fly-tipping. We recommend that DEFRA
takes the opportunity presented by the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill
to address the weaknesses in the anti fly tipping regime (para
90).
23. The Environment Agency has also applied
to DEFRA for additional funding to support a National Waste Data
Centre for England and Wales. We recommend that DEFRA supports
its establishment (para 91).
| 
