APPENDIX 25
Letter to the Clerk of the Committee from
Trefnu Cymunedol Cymru
CONTRIBUTORS TO
THIS SUBMISSION
This submission is from TCC working together
with CPRW Wrexham branch, RAG, the NFU Wrexham branch and DBWAG.
TCC, Trefnu Cymunedol Cymru, is a coalition
of 25 church congregations, a mosque, schools and community groups
based in North-east Wales. We work on a broad range of local issues
that are of concern to our membership. We are not an environmental
group but, increasingly, environmental issues are raised by our
members.
CPRW, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural
Wales, helps people to protect and enhance the landscape and environment
of Wales, through educating people about all aspects of environmental
protection and influencing opinion and attitudes. It has almost
4000 supporters and 17 branches throughout Wales, of which Wrexham
is one.
RAG, the Ruabon Action Group was originally
formed to fight for the best conditions for the village of Ruabon,
Wrexham, which endured the closest landfill site to housing in
Europe.
NFU, the National Farmers Union Wrexham branch,
represents in excess of 200 farmers and growers in the Borough
of Wrexham.
DBWAG, The Dee Borders Waste Action Group was
formed to fight the planned Wrexham incinerator following public
information meetings. Concerned people from England and Wales
combined with two local groups already campaigning against the
proposed Wrexham incinerator. They now represent the cross border
area of South-west Cheshire and the adjoining area of North Wales.
Together we have a significant number of members
in the Wrexham County Borough area and represent many thousands
of people. In a very short period at the end of last year a number
of us were instrumental in collecting a 13,000 signature petition
calling for the deletion of incineration from Wrexham's waste
plans. The petition was submitted to Sue Essex the Minister for
the Environment of the Welsh Assembly Government in January 2002.
Wrexham has become a centre of incineration,
there are already five incinerators as well as cement works and
other polluting industries nearby, and this seems set to expand.
Our members are seeing and living with the consequences of incineration,
hence their concern that the national Waste Strategy for England
and Wales should protect them and future generations.
SCOPE OF
THIS SUBMISSION
Our submission will concentrate on the last
six questions the Committee is examining, as these are the issues
of which we have knowledge and about which we feel we have a contribution
to make. References 1-17 within the text are appended[55]
and contain supporting information.
MAIN POINTS
Concerns About Incineration
— Incinerators, to build and run, are
significantly more expensive than recycling schemes. [1] [2].
As recycling targets are met, incinerators have over-capacity,
fines for breaking contracts
— Health ill effects from incineration
are well documented. [4] Modern incinerators produce ultrafine
particles which are known to create many forms of ill health,
the extent of which is only just being established by medical
researchers. [5] This all places an extra financial burden on
the NHS.
— Costly climate change is increased
by emissions from incinerators and this is significantly more
than would be caused by recycling. [6]
— Valuable resources are being destroyed
forever by incineration, rather than being economically reused.
[7]
Reasons to Recycle
— Can be the costly result, Cleveland
was fined £147,000 in 1996 and Nottingham was fined in 2002.
— Incineration is a serious disincentive
to recycling. [3]
— Recycling is more cost effective
than incineration. Once established, recycling can improve the
economy, as long as Government weight targets and rate capping
do not inhibit initiatives. [8][9]
— Recycling is labour intensive and
creates employment, whereas incinerators are run by a small number
of operatives. [10]
— Reducing, reusing and recycling waste
is cheaper than destroying materials and constantly using new
resources. [11]
— There are fewer health and environment
impacts from recycling, hence fewer hidden costs and a reduced
burden to the NHS.[12]
HISTORY
The above points are a précis of what
we in Wrexham have learnt over the last three years. This resulted
from our investigation of Wrexham County Borough Council's (WCBC)
plans for a Resource Recovery Centre which includes a 52,000 tonnes
energy from waste incinerator with a 25 year contract to burn
household and commercial waste.
TCC's initial concern was to ensure meaningful
consultation between WCBC and the people of Wrexham. Although
unsuccessful in this endeavour we succeeded in raising the profile
and public debate about the issue of creating and disposing of
waste and the respective responsibilities of Local Authorities,
Government, industry and communities.
We were challenged by members of WCBC to provide
an alternative to their proposals. Although we did not accept
that this was our role, we set about learning all we could. We
invited international experts from Canada, Australia and New Zealand
as well as English and Welsh specialists and practitioners in
waste management to Wrexham to speak at very well attended public
conferences. We travelled to see working examples of waste disposal
such as incineration, civic amenity sites and recycling schemes.
We talked to a variety of health and environmental authorities
and experts as well as reading and internet research. During this
time other groups, including those named above, became involved
in the debate and contributed their experiences, such as:
— that planning conditions and licences
are only effective if the authorities have the willingness, funds
and ability to prosecute, therefore the public are left unprotected;
— not all health problems, such as
miscarriages, are registered therefore they do not count in lessons
learnt and forward planning;
— unless there is constant monitoring
of activity, short cuts with terrible consequences are the result;
— farming cannot take another health
scare from the fear of contamination of the food chain from incinerator
emissions.
Because landfill is being addressed we are confining
our response to the issue of incineration.
We came to the conclusion that for the reasons
listed overleaf, incineration should not be allowed. Recycling,
supported by relevant legislation, investment and education, together
with waste minimisation and reuse, is the way forward, not only
for Wrexham but for the whole of England and Wales. [13] [14]
[15] [16] We have been asked many times "What can you do
with waste if you don't incinerate it?" Therefore a paper
has been included addressing this. [17] Mechanical Biological
Treatment method is operational in Halifax, Nova Scotia and Edmunton,
Canada.
WREXHAM'S
CURRENT RECYCLING
TRIAL
We have long urged WCBC to instigate source
separated kerbside collection for the whole of the Borough. Currently
a limited recycling trial is taking place in six areas of the
Borough with mixed success. We have first hand evidence of the
confusion and disillusionment of some residents as they try to
cope with this particular system which has been introduced, eg
weekly and biweekly collection of different waste streams, insubstantial
bags rather than boxes and so on. Our concerns surrounding such
trials are:
— If the trial "fails", despite
the problems of recycling targets, it will make it easier to pursue
an incineration or energy from waste policy.
— If people participate in the trial
but become disillusioned with it because they find it too complicated
or not user friendly, they will never engage with recycling again.
A recycling scheme that is user friendly and meets targets is
found in Daventry which invested in a substantial 3 bin scheme.
This has excellent public participation rates and surpasses current
government targets.
— Local Authorities are in a no win
situation when they are under resourced, expected to instigate
recycling schemes, meet targets and avoid being rate capped. This
is the problem being faced by Newcastle-under-Lyme. Their recycling
trial of 3,000 households collecting nine different recyclables
was so successful that it has been extended to 40,000 properties.
There are labour costs for the residual processing needed for
baling cans, sorting and processing plastics etc. Therefore in
order to take the cheapest option, meet government targets and
avoid rate capping the authority has taken the decision to limit
recycling to fortnightly collections and to only collect the four
heaviest streams with the least processing costs, three colours
of glass and paper. The excellent processing facilities and the
markets that had been developed for cardboard, cans, textiles
and plastics have been dissipated. The people of Newcastle are
volubly disappointed. This is surely the case of an authority
being backed into a corner and having to make decisions that fly
in the face of common sense and sustainability. We appreciate
that money has been allocated for recycling from Westminster for
England, and by the Welsh National Assembly for Wales, but it
is piecemeal and time limited. What is required is enough money
for intensive and Borough-wide permanent recycling schemes, from
which markets can be developed. Anything else is merely tinkering
with the system.
WAYS FORWARD
Britain should pre-empt forthcoming European
Union legislation which is sets ever more stringent recycling
targets by immediately legislating for:
— manufacturers to produce recyclable
goods and packaging;
— manufacturers to have end of life
responsibility for their goods;
— reduction of packaging;
— The UK could follow the example of
Ireland and effectively stop the use of plastic carrier bags;
— education about waste minimisation
and recycling;
— adequate funding for recycling schemes;
— wholesale recycling across England
and Wales should be instigated;
— new technological schemes, (such
as few incinerators which will inhibit recycling) should be authorised
whilst recycling, and recyclate markets, are being established.
With so many parts of the world now recycling
their waste and achieving or exceeding levels of 50%, there are
clearly ways that this can be achieved. It seems to us that there
is a lack of information on how other countries achieve these
levels, which if made available could assist Local Authorities
in achieving high recycling levels. There needs to be clarity
about, and intent for, recycling. Legislation and relevant support
needs to be introduced as soon as possible. Only then can the
UK quickly achieve high recycling rates, thereby obviating the
need for the detrimental effects brought about by incineration.
In addition, we believe that if all garden and kitchen organic
waste were to be composted, whether at home or after collection,
it would significantly reduce the volume and organic content going
to landfill. This would be without the need for the immediate
development of a large market for recycled goods which seems to
be one of the alleged stumbling blocks.
We started by looking at a very local issue,
and have highlighted some of the issues arising from our local
situation. Whilst researching the issue we have realised that
our local concerns are part of a much wider issue that cannot
be resolved unless there is concerted action at all levels. This
is why we have made this submission. We believe that both government
and people recognise that recycling is essential if we are to
build sustainable futures. However the messages coming from different
Government departments about the way to do this are mixed and
confusing. This means that local authorities are not adequately
financed to deliver long term strategic plans which will ensure
that such aims are met. We hope that this Committee can stress
the need for Government departments to speak with one voice on
this issue, and that Government also puts resources into its recycling
vision.
We hope that this submission will assist the
committee in its deliberations and we should be pleased to amplify
any points or concerns raised.
October 2002
END NOTES
1. zero Waste New Zealand, Wasted Opportunity
P.12 para. "waste to energy".
2. A quote from the new analysis of municipal
waste in Switzerland by S Hellwig, T Hoffstetter and K Hungerbuhler
2001.
3. Incineration a burning issue a
leaflet by Friends of the Earth.
4. Incineration and Human Health
a briefing by Greenpeace.
5. Extracts from the Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society 15-16 March 2000.
6. Maximising Recycling Rates: tackling
residuals Dominic Hogg for the Community Recycling Network
2002 P 23.
7. Waste—An interim discussion
paper Strategy Unit 13 September 2002 P 3
8. How to comply with the Landfill Directive
without incineration: a Greenpeace blueprint 2001.
9. an extract from Mal Williams of CYLCH,
the Welsh Recycling Network, explaining what is needed for a successful
recycling system 2002.
10. Zero Waste New Zealand, Wasted Opportunity
P 11 third paragraph.
11. Waste—An interim discussion
paper Strategy Unit 13 September 2002 P 3.
12. Incineration and Human Health Greenpeace
Chapter 6.
13. TCC's Concerns about Incineration 2001.
14. TCC's response to the Waste Strategy
Consultation Document "Less Waste, More Value" 1998.
15. Summary of TCC's response to "Less
Waste" 1999.
16. Summary of TCC's response "Wales
Waste" Document 2001.
17. What can you do with waste if you
don't incinerate it? Keith Collins 2001.
55 Not printed here-see end notes. Back
| 
