Memorandum submitted by The Composting
Association
INTRODUCTION
1, The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee announced on 28 November 2002 an inquiry into the Future
of Waste Management. It will examine what steps should be taken
in order to move waste management up the waste hierarchy and will
focus on best practice. It aims to look forwards to what ought
to be done in the future, and is interested in investigating innovative
solutions to waste management problems.
2. Composting will form an important treatment
process to help the UK meet Articles 5 and 6 set in the EU Landfill
Directive (EC/31/99). It will necessarily need to be both a product
manufacturing and residual waste treatment process (of which the
latter often involves some mechanical recovery of recyclables
and is referred to as Mechanical Biological Treatment).
3. The Composting Association is the United
Kingdom's membership organisation, promoting good practice in
the production and use of composted materials. It actively encourages
a regulatory and economic framework suitable for the long-term
benefit and sustainability of the composting industry.
4. The Association has over 700 members
including compost producers, local authorities, consultants, technology
suppliers, compost users, academics, other membership organisations
and individuals. Given that it represents the majority of compost
producers across the UK, it welcomes the opportunity to submit
evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
5. This paper sets out the response of The
Composting Association and identifies some of the current constraints
impeding development of the composting industry as well as proposing
solutions to help overcome them. A number of these issues have
been addressed in detail by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit
in its report Waste Not, Want Not published on 27 November
2002. This contained a comprehensive critique of the current and
future management of wastes as well as recommendations relating
to biowastes. Where appropriate, reference to the relevant recommendation
in the Unit's report has been made.
SUMMARY OF
KEY POINTS
6. Changes to the Animal By-Products Order
(SI 1704) in 2001 as a result of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreak
have had a considerable negative impact on both the composting
industry and local authorities seeking to compost household food
wastes. Current proposals to revise the Order are at odds with
extant good operational practices in Europe and are likely to
rule out established, proven technologies (that have been demonstrated
to operate effectively over the last decade across Europe).
7. The current proposals will place significant
burdens on the composting industry and local authorities (in terms
of timescales and costs) and therefore seem likely to constrain
implementation of Waste Strategy 2000 and the Landfill
Directive. Government also needs to ensure that revisions to the
Order are in line with proposals by the European Commission in
its developing Biowaste Directive.
8. It is unclear at present what composting
technologies will be permitted. This uncertainty is preventing
investment in new composting infrastructure. If this lack of clarity
persists when the revised Order comes into effect, this will result
in inconsistent interpretations. There is therefore a real risk
that it will both lead to facilities being developed that do not
meet the objectives of the Order, whilst at the same time preventing
investment in those facilities that meet these objectives.
9. The proposals have serious consequences
for the biological treatment of residual waste prior to landfill
disposal, especially Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) processes.
It is therefore recommended that MBT processes which only treat
waste for landfill disposal either be exempted from the proposed
requirements in the Order, or be subject to revised (less onerous)
requirements which take account of the reduced risk due to landfill
disposal of the material post treatment.
10. In order to ensure that composting processes
that do manufacture a product from catering wastes (rather than
pre-treat waste) are not disadvantaged economically (because they
have to comply with stricter control measures), financial incentives
need to be set in place. This could be met through increases in
the landfill tax to increase the cost of disposal relative to
composting.
11. All facilities treating catering wastes
will require approval by the State Veterinary Service (SVS). This
will add another tier of regulation and seems likely to magnify
the uncertainties for composters and local authorities. The Association
urges Government to review this as a matter of priority and set
in place a mechanism to ensure that there is effective co-ordination
between the Environment Agency's and SVS's functions and to ensure
that the SVS is resourced sufficiently. It is considered essential
that inconsistencies in the approval and waste management licensing
processes are not allowed to develop otherwise it is unlikely
that the proposed requirements in the revised Order will be met.
It is recommended that a specialist central team be set up within
the SVS to deal with all composting plant applications. The secondment
of experienced waste management staff from the Environment Agency
to the SVS to help establish this central team should be considered.
12. The Association urges Government to
ensure that HM Customs and Excise is resourced appropriately so
that it is able to prevent illegal imports of meat entering the
UK. It urges Government to make sure that these preventive measures
are acted on as a matter of priority.
13. There are currently a number of fundamental
difficulties with the land use planning process that is impeding
the establishment of new composting facilities, and hence is threatening
to undermine the delivery of Waste Strategy 2000. There is a need
for further guidance on composting specific issues, therefore
it is recommended that Government considers developing a Planning
Policy Guidance Note specifically for composting. This may form
part of an overall review of PPG 10, as recommended by the Strategy
Unit (Recommendation 32).
14. Unambiguous, independent guidance on
potential adverse health effects also needs to be made in order
to influence the decision-making process. It is recommended that
Government considers establishing an independent body, as suggested
by the Strategy Unit (Recommendation 15), to provide independent
guidance on health matters related to composting and waste management
in general.
15. Further research needs to be commissioned
into the health effects of composting in conjunction with the
current work being reviewed by DEFRA's Air and Environment Quality
Division.
16. Given the changes in composting infrastructure
that will need to be established to compost catering wastes in
accordance with the proposed revisions to the Animal By-Products
Order, Waste Planning Authorities need to ensure that their Development
Plans are sufficiently up-to-date so as to accommodate enclosed
composting facilities. It is recommended that Government provides
guidance to Waste Planning Authorities on this at the earliest
opportunity, as changes to the respective Development Plans will
take some years to bring into effect.
17. Working documents from the European
Commission on the biological treatment of biowaste focussed on
separate collection and treatment of municipal biowastes. It is
highly probable that this will form the basis of the nascent Biowaste
Directive; hence local authorities will have a pivotal role to
play. The Composting Association therefore strongly recommends
that DEFRA establishes a multi-disciplinary task force to assist
local authorities in developing their biowaste strategies, as
recommended by the Strategy Unit (Recommendation 28).
18. The Composting Association wholeheartedly
endorses the proposals by the Strategy Unit, that new targets
for home composting be set and that WRAP establishes a three-year
roll-out programme (Recommendation 9).
19. Continued support of Composting Awareness
Week by Government, WRAP and the composting industry is required
in order to help bring about a step change in householder attitudes.
20. The Association recommends that DEFRA
develops a biowaste strategy to co-ordinate the implementation
of the soil and waste strategies, as well as ensuring that animal
and plant health protection measures are taken fully into account.
This should involve cross-sectoral representatives from the respective
directorates within the department in order to ensure that an
integrated approach towards the sustainable management of biowastes
is developed. These proposals build on those made by the Strategy
Unit (Recommendation 10).
21. There is continued debate as to when
composted materials cease to be waste. It is the Association's
view that this approach would be critically damaging to the ability
of compost producers to market a product to potential customers.
Composted materials should cease to be waste once they have been
through a recognised composting process and have met minimum quality
criteria. If this is not the case it is unlikely that long term,
large scale sustainable markets for compost will be available
to receive the volumes of compost that will need to be produced
to comply with the Landfill Directive. Clarification on when composted
materials have been subjected to a full recovery process and therefore
cease to be classed as controlled wastes is sought as a matter
of priority.
CURRENT STATUS
OF THE
UK COMPOSTING INDUSTRY
22. Composting in the UK has expanded significantly
over the past few years. The Composting Association's survey of
1999[1]
indicated that just over 800,000 tonnes were composted in 1999,
of which approximately 70% comprised green municipal wastes. These
were treated at 80 centralised sites, of which 80% were open-air
turned-windrows.
23. Provisional estimates during 2002[2]
indicated that approximately 1.4 million tonnes of organic materials
were composted at 178 sites, of which the majority comprised green
wastes that were processed using windrows. The Association is
currently undertaking a comprehensive survey to update these data.
[3]
24. Since the establishment of the Waste
and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), there have been significant
advances in the development of compost standards to help underpin
market development. [4]The
Association's Standards for Composts were translated into a Publicly
Available Specification[5],
published on behalf of the British Standards Institution, which
was launched in November 2002. Further developmental work will
be ongoing during 2003-04.
25. Whilst there has been a significant
expansion in green waste composting over the past few years, there
has been an effective moratorium on composting catering wastes
(food wastes derived from kitchens) since May 2001. This was a
result of emergency legislation (Animal By-Products [Amendment]
[England] Order SI 1704), which was brought in as a consequence
of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease epidemic. Although its principal
aim was to ban the feeding of catering wastes to pigs and poultry,
it effectively prevented the composting of food wastes by making
it illegal to spread the resulting compost on land where animals
(including wild birds) may have access.
26. The Order has had a considerable negative
impact on both the composting industry, and more specifically,
local authorities that have sought to compost household food wastes,
in order to meet their statutory recycling / composting targets.
27. During 2003-04 the European Commission
will be developing proposals for a Biowaste Directive. [6]Previous
drafts (October 2000 and February 2001) promoted source separation
and a proposed series of compost quality standards to protect
soil quality. These are in line with the Commission's developing
Soil Strategy (COM [2002] 179 Final), which appears to be based
on the Precautionary Principle.
CONSTRAINTS IMPEDING
THE DEVELOPMENT
OF COMPOSTING
AND PROPOSED
SOLUTIONS
Animal By-Products Order
28. In order to meet the Landfill Directive
targets, the food (catering) waste fraction of the waste stream
will need to be composted, in addition to the green waste fraction.
Estimates quoted by the Strategy Unit have recently indicated
that household waste comprises approximately 20% garden waste
and 17% kitchen waste. [7]
29. Government is currently consulting[8]
on revisions to the Animal By-Products Order (SI 1704) to permit
the composting of catering wastes, which has been based on a theoretical
quantitative risk assessment. [9]The
proposals, if adopted in their current format, will probably be
far more stringent and costly than anywhere else in the world.
[10]These
will place significant burdens on the composting industry and
local authorities (in terms of timescales and costs) and therefore
seem likely to constrain implementation of Waste Strategy 2000
and the Landfill Directive.
30. In part, the requirements set out in
the consultation document are at odds with extant good operational
practices in Europe and are likely to rule out established, proven
technologies (that have been demonstrated to operate effectively
over the last decade across Europe). This, in turn, will probably
affect the ability of the UK to comply with the Landfill Directive
and most possibly the prospective Biowaste Directive.
31. The draft Order also aims to implement
aspects of the EU Regulation Laying Down Health Rules Concerning
Animal By-Products Not Intended For Human Consumption (EC/1774/2002)
that will come into force on 30 April 2003. However, in doing
so it has tried to apply requirements set out in Annex VI of the
Regulation that only apply to animal by-products and not catering
wastes[11].
As far as the Association is aware, the UK is the only Member
State that is adopting this approach.
32. Following the Foot-and-Mouth disease
epidemic, the Association wholeheartedly agrees that robust measures
are needed to ensure that composting facilities operate to high
standards that do not compromise the principles of good hygienic
practices and by-pass. However, the Association considers that
these requirements can largely be met through process-specific
use of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) approach
that is routinely used in food manufacture and wastewater treatment.
33. It is unclear at present what composting
technologies will be permitted. This uncertainty is preventing
investment in new composting infrastructure. If this lack of clarity
persists when the revised Order comes into effect, this will result
in inconsistent interpretation. There is therefore a real risk
that it will both lead to facilities being developed that do not
meet the objectives of the Order, whilst at the same time preventing
investment in those facilities that meet these objectives and
are needed to meet the longer-term objectives of the Landfill
Directive.
34. A higher level of capital investment
will be required than for open-air composting. Consequently economies
of scale will begin to play a part. It has been estimated provisionally
that facilities of sizes less than 10,000 to 15,000 tonnes per
annum will probably be uneconomic to operate, compared to current
waste management options. This will tend to favour large-scale
centralised facilities. In some rural areas this will be in opposition
to the Proximity Principle, where long haulage distances to centralised
facilities will be required. In turn, this will impact upon local
planning policies and will also have a detrimental effect on small-scale
community and on-site composting schemes.
35. At present all catering wastes that
are composted will be affected by these proposals. This has serious
consequences for the biological treatment of residual waste prior
to landfill disposal, especially Mechanical Biological Treatment
(MBT) processes. This was identified by the Strategy Unit and
advocated as a pre-treatment technology for residual waste to
meet the Article 6 targets in the Landfill Directive. It seems
inappropriate to the Association that waste destined only for
landfill disposal is required meet the same process requirements
as compost to be spread on agricultural land, especially when
the same waste untreated could legally be disposed of directly
to landfill at present. In the longer-term this will inevitably
move towards a greater reliance on incineration as a single solution
for mixed municipal solid waste.
36. It is therefore recommended that MBT
processes which only treat waste for landfill disposal either
be exempted from the proposed requirements in the Order, or be
subject to revised (less onerous) requirements which take account
of the reduced risk due to the landfill disposal of the material
post treatment. However, in order to ensure that composting processes
that do manufacture a product from catering wastes (rather than
pre-treat waste) are not disadvantaged economically (because they
have to comply with stricter control measures), financial incentives
need to be set in place. This could be met through increases in
the landfill tax to increase the cost of disposal relative to
composting.
37. A further impediment will be that all
facilities treating catering wastes will require approval by the
State Veterinary Service (SVS). Whilst the SVS has expertise in
animal disease control measures, it is not expert in waste management.
To date there has been an inconsistent approach towards licensing
and regulation of composting facilities by the Environment Agency.
This has been acknowledged by them and is being addressed. Adding
another tier of regulation seems likely to magnify the uncertainties
for composters and local authorities. This would be best dealt
with by a single body, the Environment Agency, although this currently
falls outside of their statutory remit and would require a change
in primary legislation.
38. The Association urges Government to
review this as a matter of priority and set in place a mechanism
to ensure that there is effective co-ordination between the Agency's
and SVS's functions. In addition, the SVS needs to be resourced
sufficiently to ensure it is able to issue approvals efficiently.
It is considered essential that inconsistencies in the approval
and licensing processes are not allowed to develop otherwise it
is unlikely that the proposed requirements in the revised Order
will be met. It is recommended that a specialist central team
be set up within the SVS to deal with all composting facility
applications. It needs to be recognised that there is no waste
management expertise within the SVS currently, which would enable
applications to be effectively assessed locally. The secondment
of experienced waste management staff from the Environment Agency
to the SVS to help establish this central team should be considered.
39. The risk assessment made worst-case
scenario assumptions about illegal imports of meat infected with
animal diseases (such as Foot-and-Mouth) into the UK. New legislation
restricting personal imports of meat came into force on the 1
January 2003. [12]The
Composting Association very much welcomes this and, in particular,
the recent announcement by Government that HM Customs and Excise
will take over enforcement against the smuggling of meat.
40. The Association urges Government to
ensure that HM Customs and Excise is resourced appropriately so
that it is able to prevent illegal imports of meat entering the
UK. It urges Government to make sure that these preventive measures
are acted on as a matter of priority. The consequences of the
Foot-and-Mouth outbreak have been very damaging for the composting
industry, which is anxious to ensure that an integrated approach
is taken in the future to prevent further outbreaks.
PLANNING
41. There are currently a number of fundamental
difficulties with the land use planning process that is impeding
the establishment of new composting facilities, and hence is threatening
to undermine the delivery of Waste Strategy 2000. These
are:
— Identifying suitable locations for
new facilities, in particular the links between regional waste
management strategies and the local development plan.
— Consideration of disamenity effects
and the respective roles of the statutory consultees.
— Inappropriate new developments being
permitted adjacent to existing waste management facilities.
42. The onus to identify potential sites
for new waste management facilities lies with the local Waste
Planning Authority (WPA). Specific guidance currently exists in
both Planning Policy Guidance Note 10: Planning and Waste Management
(PPG10) and in a (former) Department for Transport Local Government
and Regions commissioned report. [13]
43. Although the WPAs are required to identify
potential sites in the Development Plan, as far as composting
is concerned, information contained within them is often either
out of date or conflicts with current Environment Agency policy
(such as setting appropriate distances between the site and sensitive
receptors). Where inappropriate policies and locations for siting
new facilities have been suggested in Development Plans (eg on
industrial sites), it then becomes extremely difficult to establish
a new facility that is not in accordance with it. In many areas,
the most technically appropriate location for a site would be
in the Green Belt to ensure it is sufficiently remote. This will
be in conflict with Development Plans which generally do not permit
this type of built development in the Green Belt.
44. Composting, as with any waste management
operation, can result in releases to the environment that can
either cause pollution, harm to human health or disamenity to
the locality. These are controlled within the waste management
licensing framework, however, there is also an element of overlap
with the planning regime. PPG10 states that the Waste Planning
Authority (WPA) will need to consider, as appropriate, factors
including: dust, odours, vermin and birds, noise, and litter.
Although PPG10 does state that WPAs need to work closely with
the Agency to avoid duplication between the planning and licensing
regimes, clear, unambiguous guidance on the scope and remit of
the two does not currently exist.
45. It is recommended that Government considers
developing a Planning Policy Guidance Note specifically for composting.
This should provide advice on the following issues and may form
part of an overall review of PPG 10, as recommended by the Strategy
Unit (Recommendation 32):
— Stating clearly the extent to which
the planning regime should consider emissions to the environment,
and when this becomes a matter for the Environment Agency as the
competent body to regulate such emissions under the waste management
licensing framework (such that it no longer becomes a planning
issue).
— Clarifying when planning permission
will be required for licence exempt sites.
— Clarifying the respective roles of
the statutory consultees.
46. Unambiguous, independent guidance on
potential adverse health effects also needs to be made in order
to influence the decision-making process. It is recommended that
Government considers establishing an independent body, as suggested
by the Strategy Unit (Recommendation 15), to provide independent
guidance on health matters related to composting and waste management
in general. This may involve the Health Protection Agency[14],
as it has a remit to adopt a broad based approach to health protection.
47. Further research needs to be commissioned
into the health effects of composting in conjunction with the
current work being reviewed by DEFRA's Air and Environment Quality
Division.
48. Given the changes in composting infrastructure
that will need to be established to compost catering wastes in
accordance with the proposed revisions to the Animal By-Products
Order, Waste Planning Authorities need to ensure that their Development
Plans are sufficiently up-to-date so as to accommodate enclosed
composting facilities. These will require much greater levels
of containment and engineering than open-air turned-windrow facilities,
and will therefore be more visually intrusive. It is recommended
that Government provides guidance to Waste Planning Authorities
on this at the earliest opportunity, as changes to the respective
Development Plans will take some years to bring into effect.
ASSISTANCE TO
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
49. Working documents from the European
Commission on the biological treatment of biowaste focussed on
separate collection and treatment of municipal biowastes. It is
highly probable that this will form the basis of the nascent Biowaste
Directive; hence local authorities will have a pivotal role to
play.
50. Effective co-ordination of collection
and treatment options, as well as access to appropriate information
to make informed choices will be critical. The timescales for
implementation of any biowaste strategy will not permit significant
mistakes to be made.
51. The Composting Association therefore
strongly recommends that DEFRA establishes a multi-disciplinary
task force to assist local authorities in developing their biowaste
strategies, as recommended by the Strategy Unit (Recommendation
28).
52. Local authorities also have an important
role to play in waste minimisation. Home composting may provide
one tool to help kerb the influx of green wastes into the municipal
waste stream. This was reviewed comprehensively by the Strategy
Unit, which recommended that new targets for home composting be
set and that WRAP establishes a three-year roll-out programme
(Recommendation 9). The Composting Association wholeheartedly
endorses this. Research currently commissioned by the Environment
Agency may be used to help develop appropriate indicators.
53. Raising awareness about composting and
using composted materials will be essential in order to engage
public participation. Composting Awareness Week is an international
event organised during the first week in May every year and is
co-ordinated by the Association. Continued support of Composting
Awareness Week by Government, WRAP and the composting industry
is required in order to help bring about a step change in householder
attitudes.
DEVELOPING MARKETS
54. The Waste and Resources Action Programme
(WRAP) has facilitated the development of standards for composts,
which are fundamental to underpin market development. On-going
work by WRAP in this area will therefore be essential.
55. The European Commission is developing
its soil strategy, following the publication of its thematic strategy
in April 2002. It will be important that these developments, and
those of DEFRA's developing soil strategy, link in with the establishment
of a framework to ensure that quality composts are used appropriately
in order to return organic matter to soils.
56. The Association recommends that DEFRA
develops a biowaste strategy to co-ordinate the implementation
of the soil and waste strategies, as well as ensuring that animal
and plant health protection measures are taken fully into account.
This should involve cross-sectoral representatives from the respective
directorates within the department in order to ensure that an
integrated approach towards the sustainable management of biowastes
is developed. These proposals build on those made by the Strategy
Unit (Recommendation 10).
57. The Association is aware that there
is a debate within DEFRA and the Environment Agency as to when
composted materials cease to be waste, with some suggestion that
it is only at the point of final application when this takes place.
It is the Association's view that this approach would be critically
damaging to the ability of compost producers to market a product
to potential customers. Composted materials should cease to be
waste once they have been through a recognised composting process
and have met minimum quality criteria, such as those specified
in the BSI PAS 100. If this is not the case it is unlikely that
long term, large scale sustainable markets for compost will be
available to receive the volumes of compost that will need to
be produced to comply with the Landfill Directive. Clarification
on when composted materials have been subjected to a full recovery
process and therefore cease to be classed as controlled wastes
is sought as a matter of priority.
The Composting Association
10 January 2003
1 The State of Composting 1999. Results of The Composting
Association's survey of UK composting facilities and collection
systems in 1999. Rachel A Slater; Jim Frederickson and E Jane
Gilbert. Back
2
Source: the Composting Association. Back
3
Supported by the Environment Agency and the Waste and Resources
Action Programme. Back
4
Through WRAP's Standards and Specifications Programme. Back
5
Publicly Available Specification for Composted Materials (BSI
PAS 100: 2002); British Standards Institution: ISBN 0-580-40590-7. Back
6
As stated in: COM (2002) 179 Final. Towards a Thematic Strategy
for Soil Protection. Back
7
Waste Not, Want Not. A strategy for tackling the waste problem.
Strategy Unit; Novembre 2002. Back
8
Responses to the consultation are due in on the 14 February 2003. Back
9
Gale, P Risk Assessment: Use of Composting and Biogas Treatment
To Dispose of Catering Waste Containing Meal. Final Report to
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. WRc plc;
May 2002. Back
10
At the time of writing, DEFRA has only issued a draft partial
regulatory impact assessment with the proposed changes to the
Animal By-Products Order and nis relying on industry to provide
further detailed information. The Composting Association has commissioned
research to quantify the likely costs, which will be submitted
with our response in February 2003. Back
11
This excludes catering wastes that are derived from international
transport, which may not be composted under any circumstances. Back
12
Commission decision of 9 December 2002 laying down interim safeguard
measures with regard to imports of products of animal origin for
personal consumption (2002/995/EC). Back
13
Guidance on Policies for Waste Management Planning Department
for Transport Local Government and Regions (May 2002). Land Use
Consultants. Back
14
As outlined in Getting Ahead of the Curve, Department of Health
(January 2002). Back
| 
