House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Eighth Report

4 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

19. During the course of our inquiry, it has become clear that sustainable waste management is not hindered by lack of knowledge or appropriate technology so much as by lack of capacity in key institutions responsible for delivering it.

Defra

20. Dismal comparisons such as those outlined above, and the glacially slow rate of change, have led successive Select Committee reports to be highly critical of the Government's poor performance and lack of vision in encouraging sustainable waste management. We hope that the focus provided by the Strategy Unit's examination of the issue and impending deadlines under the Landfill Directive may at last provide the impetus for real change. It is, of course, too early to judge the effects of measures announced in the Budget and in the Government's response to the Strategy Unit's review. Nevertheless, we are concerned that Defra still appears to lack the capacity, the vision, the sense of urgency and the political will to break the mould and bring about truly sustainable waste management in this country.

21. These concerns are most acute in two areas. First, Defra has failed to forge effective partnerships with key actors in waste management to the extent that those charged with delivering the strategy, including local authorities, are not sure what Government wants of them. Second, this and earlier inquiries have left us with grave misgivings about Defra's approach to negotiating and implementing European Union environmental Directives.

PARTNERSHIPS

22. We commented in our report on hazardous waste that "the Government does not have an adequate strategic relationship with industry."[21] This appears to be true for municipal waste too and for a wider group of stakeholders. The Environmental Services Association did not feel that Defra understood their business well enough and commented that there was "an incredible lack of engagement" with the industry.[22] Many small- and medium-sized enterprises have not been engaged in the debate and are not aware of what help there is available through, for example, Envirowise the government programme that aims to help businesses become more competitive while improving their environmental performance.[23]

23. The problem is, if anything, more acute for local authorities. The Local Government Association (LGA) commented that, although it did work closely with Defra, it wanted "to be really engaged at the point at which these decisions [about waste policy] are taken and not just told about it afterwards."[24] Despite the Minister's assertion that "local authorities are in no doubt whatsoever what they have got to do",[25] Blaby District Council said "the statutory duties relating to re-use, recycling and recovery of waste are vague and couched in terms of targets (with unspecified and uncertain penalties for failure) and the making of plans (with no requirement to implement)".[26] This viewpoint was echoed by the LGA, which said "we do not yet know what we are going to be asked to deliver".[27]

24. Part of the problem is that, at present, different Government departments lead on different aspects of waste policy. Defra leads on most waste issues, including setting targets, but the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) is involved in innovation and producer responsibility and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) is responsible for wider local authority issues. Our witnesses expressed the view that all Government responsibility for waste management should be located in a single department and that that department should logically be Defra.[28]

25. Defra, DTI and ODPM told us that there is no problem with communication between the departments and that they work closely together under the current arrangement. This has not always been the experience of our witnesses. The LGA said "we are still not getting coherent, joined-up strategic thinking",[29] and the CBI said that split responsibility for waste "has caused confusion and has made it difficult for Government to develop coherent waste strategy".[30]

26. The Government has accepted the Strategy Unit's recommendation that a review of the merits of focussing all waste policy in one department should be conducted. The Cabinet Office will carry out the review, which is to be completed by the end of December 2003.

27. The current fragmentation of responsibility between three Government departments has hindered the evolution of a consistent approach to resource use and waste management. The Government as a whole must ensure that its policies are consistent and mutually supportive. However, whether or not the Government decides to concentrate waste and resource use policy-making in a single department, these issues are so far-reaching that there will always be some degree of shared responsibility. Defra's particular tasks are to prove that there is sufficient political will to pay for sustainable waste management and to give the clearest possible signals of exactly what is required of all the stakeholders involved.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION

28. Much of the UK's environmental legislation originates in the European Union, and waste is a topic to which the Commission is paying more and more attention. Defra, then, is one of the Government departments that is most closely affected by decisions made in the Council of Ministers, yet its ability to manage European Union Directives is still disappointing.

29, We accept that, with Qualified Majority Voting on most environmental decisions and in particular with a much larger European Union to come, it may not always be possible to negotiate the ideal outcome for this country. Nevertheless, we are left with the impression that Defra views the negotiation and implementation of environmental Directives as a painful chore rather than as a positive opportunity for change. Our witnesses accused Defra of adopting a "compliance approach" and taking a stance that was "too often to drag its feet until the last minute".[31] The LGA told us that it wanted to see "a department which is going into bat for waste management […] that is not afraid to engage with the European Union on emerging Directives"[32]. We echo that wish. A much more pro-active approach is vital if Defra is serious about sustainable waste management.

30. Both the LGA and the Environmental Services Association complained that the Government did not issue clear guidance on new Directives. The LGA said that local governments needed more warning of changes, and that it wanted "no more surprises in terms of the European legislation. Let us be ahead of the game and see what is coming and be prepared for it".[33] The ESA said that "after years and years of engagement we still do not even begin to know what Defra's position [on financial regulations under the Landfill Directive] is likely to be".[34] It is vital that Defra improves its approach to European Union Directives. It should consult with its stakeholders earlier and we would like it to adopt a "maximum benefit" approach rather than the "least short-term cost" attitude it seems to have now.

31. The problem does not appear to be one of a lack of commitment at senior levels in Defra. On the contrary, both the Secretary of State and the Minister have been frank about the shortcomings of England's waste performance and have emphasised the need for change. Rather, the problem seems to be a lack of capacity: a lack of funds and a lack of sufficiently experienced staff. The Environmental Services Association was "very concerned about the skill and the resource level in Defra at the moment";[35] the Composting Association told us that Defra staff are "definitely overworked. They are definitely underfunded […] they do not have the expertise";[36] and the Environment Agency said that Defra "are very stretched".[37]

32. The Minister told us that this was a matter to which Defra had given a lot of attention. He told us, "it is absolutely the case that we are stressed and strained in order to deliver, but we are trying to meet that challenge".[38] On 6 May 2003, Defra announced that it was establishing a new delivery team to "drive implementation of the sustainable waste delivery programme".[39] Defra's lack of capacity is an important issue not only for sustainable waste management but for sustainable development as a whole. We are encouraged that Defra has recognised that this is a matter that needs attention and we will return to this issue in future inquiries.

Environment Agency

33. As we discuss later, effective and consistent regulation is an important prerequisite for acceptable waste disposal. In our view, regulation of waste facilities and prevention and prosecution of environmental crimes are the Environment Agency's most important roles in waste management. We recognise that it can also offer information and expert advice, but should the two come into competition, for example for funding, the Agency must ensure its regulatory obligations are met first.

34. There is some evidence that many of the Agency's core customers are not satisfied with its record on regulation and environmental crime. The LGA told us that "[the Agency's] environment protection budget has been curtailed this year. Personally I think they should have a ring-fenced amount of money to pursue fly-tipping issues because it is something that the public finds very distasteful and there are not the resources to prosecute and follow up".[40] The London Borough of Southwark said that the Agency was "overstretched" and had done little to pursue prosecutions for crimes such as fly-tipping. Moreover, the Agency had rejected the local authority's offer of seconded local authority officer to work with the Agency on this kind of crime.[41]

35. The Environmental Services Association emphasised the need for a "level playing field"[42] for regulation so that companies that invested in expensive environmental protection systems could be certain that illegally polluting rivals would be punished.[43] The National Audit Office's recent report on the Environment Agency's regulation of waste management recommended that the Agency carry out fewer but more comprehensive and in-depth inspections of waste operators and improve its detection of illegal waste activities, such as fly tipping.[44]

36. The Agency said that it had sufficient resources to enforce compliance with landfill diversion targets and prosecuted polluting waste management facilities "where necessary".[45] It cautioned, however, that penalties imposed by the courts for waste-related offences did not match the potential gains of illegal activity and that therefore the penalties did not yet act as deterrents in their own right.[46] In its response to the Strategy Unit report, the Government said that "the Home Office is already working with the Magistrates' Association and with District Judges regarding guidance on sentencing" and that it would investigate other deterrents.[47] We are pleased that the Government is pressing for higher penalties for serious environmental crimes. We recommend that the proceeds of fines imposed for such crimes be passed to the Agency to support its work.

37. As waste management becomes less polluting it is likely to become more expensive, which increases the incentives to commit environmental crimes. The Government must ensure that the Environment Agency is adequately resourced to enforce waste legislation. In its focus on the most seriously polluting incidents, the Agency must not lose sight of the smaller scale but cumulatively damaging crimes such as fly-tipping.

38. The Environment Agency foresees that "at least 1000 new waste treatment facilities will be required [in order to meet the requirements of the Landfill Directive.] This will place a strain on the planning system and on the environmental licensing process".[48] The Agency is responsible for licensing waste management activities. The Environmental Services Association and the British Cement Association both complained that the Agency took far longer to decide on permits and licences than its counterparts in other European Union Member States. The ESA wants "type approval" introduced: "we do not want to have to go to the Agency in Stockport and go through the same rigmarole that we went through with the Agency in South Wales or Dover for the same machine".[49] The Agency told us that it was trying to streamline its systems and was "increasingly using standard template permits, so there are standard conditions which all sites have to meet", but that differences between sites had to be accounted for in their licences.[50]

39. New waste management plants must be judged against the best available techniques and each must be considered within its local context. Nevertheless, the Environment Agency must speed up its licensing procedures, without compromising the level of environmental protection offered, if the necessary increase in waste treatment facilities is to be achieved.

Making use of waste

On 12 February 2003, members of the Committee visited a cement plant operated by Castle Cement at Ketton in Rutland and a presentation given by partners in a plastics recycling project called Panel Plus in Leicester.

Waste incineration in cement manufacture

Castle Cement is part of the HeidelbergCement group. The Castle cement works at Ketton has two kilns, produces 1.4 million tonnes of cement a year and has a workforce of 360 people.
The cement making process consumes a lot of energy, because of the very high temperatures needed to convert limestone into clinker ready to be ground into cement (1450°C, although the kiln flame burns at 2000°C). In turn, this means that cement manufacture consumes a lot of fuel. Energy represents 70% of the company's variable costs. In addition to coal, Castle uses three waste-derived fuels at Ketton: 'Cemfuel', 'Profuel' and tyres.
Representatives from the British Cement Association and from all the cement manufactures in the United Kingdom were present.
The Environment Agency granted approval for the permanent use of Cemfuel as an alternative fuel at Ketton in December 1995. Cemfuel (also called secondary liquid fuel or SLF) is manufactured from waste solvents and oils that are not able to be recycled or re-used. One tonne of Cemfuel replaces one tonne of coal and up to the end of 2002, 193,828 tonnes of Cemfuel had been used at Ketton.
The Environment Agency granted approval for the permanent use of Profuel at Ketton in December 2000. Profuel is a solid fuel manufactured from certain paper, plastic and fibre wastes. As an example, the Committee saw offcuts from disposable nappies being used. The material has a slightly lower calorific value than coal.
There is a Profuel factory managed by Castle's sister company SRM on the Ketton site. The factory accepts the waste material, and inspects, sorts and blends it. The material is then shredded, which helps its complete combustion in the kiln. The factory was commissioned in 2002 and produced 10,000 tonnes of Profuel in that year, which was used in cement manufacture.
The Environment Agency granted approval for the permanent use of tyres as an alternative fuel at Ketton in July 1998. Tyres have a very high energy content, approximately equivalent to that of coal. The steel reinforcing in tyres replaces a portion of the iron that is otherwise used in cement manufacture. 9,000 tonnes of tyres (more than a million tyres) had been used at Ketton by the end of 2002.

Plastics Recycling

Panel Plus is a plastics recycling project developed by a consortium and supported by WRAP, the Waste and Resources Action Programme. The consortium consists of Euro-projects LTTC Ltd., Leicester City Council, Loughborough University, Plastics Reclamation Ltd., Safecomp Ltd. and Southfields Coachworks Ltd. It aims to take

Plastics recycling (continued)

municipal waste plastic and recycle it into lightweight but tough panels, which can be used in a range of applications such as bodywork for trucks, caravans and boats.
The project covers all stages of plastic recycling, from collection from the municipal waste stream, through manufacture and sale of the new product and back to recycling of the new product once it becomes waste.
The first step is collection of waste plastic. The plastic fraction of the waste will then be sorted and shredded into flakes which are melted and re-formed into sheets. These sheets are coated with a thermoplastic 'skin'. The properties of the skins, and so of the panels, can be varied according to the product's final application. For example, they can be made to be fire resistant. The technology involved in the formulation and large-scale manufacture of both the core and of the skins is still under development.
The panels can be used in a number of applications. At the moment the consortium is concentrating on their use as lightweight bodywork panels for trucks. There is a demand for more lightweight trucks that can carry a greater payload for the amount of fuel used.
The consortium involves industry, local government and academics. Leicester City Council provides the waste plastic from its municipal waste. The Council has just entered into an agreement with the waste management firm Biffa with the aim of diverting 80% of its waste from landfill and plastic recycling will help towards this goal.
The Institute of Polymer Technology and Materials Engineering at Loughborough University is carrying out much of the research and development side: the development of the skins, manufacture of the recycled panel cores, analysis of the resulting materials, panel testing and panel recycling.
Plastics Reclamation is a company that already makes recycled plastic products. It accepts and sorts the waste plastics and manufactures the panel cores from this waste.
The thermoplastic skins are being developed by, and will be manufactured by Safecomp and Euro-projects. Safecomp already makes polymer composite compounds for use in, for example, crash barriers and lighting columns. Euro-projects LTTC Ltd is a research, development and technology transfer centre, specialising in the processing and application of thermoplastic composite materials.
Southfields Coachworks manufactures commercial vehicle bodies. It will use the panels in its trucks to make the trucks lighter.
The consortium won funding from WRAP for the project's research and development phase.

Local Authorities

40. As we discuss above, local government responsibility for waste is split between County and District Councils, except where there is a unitary authority. This has some disadvantages, which were outlined by Lancashire County Council:

"One of the major barriers [to improvement of waste management performance] was the split of responsibilities between Waste Disposal and Waste collection Authorities, and in particular that the primary responsibility for recycling is placed with the Collection Authority, i.e. District Councils. The barrier is not just organisational or functional, it also concerns finance and resources and general issues of Local Government Finance."[

41. The LGA conceded that "there are inefficiencies in the two-tier system, there is no doubt about that, not with every two-tier system but with some" and suggested that joint waste strategies would be "a big step towards improving efficiency." [52] Efficiency aside, there is also the problem that Disposal Authorities lack incentives to encourage recycling, because any savings in disposal costs made by recycling have to be paid to the collection authority.

42. Although we do not agree with Oxfordshire County Council's view that unitary resource management authorities are "essential",[53] we think there are considerable benefits to be gained from local authorities working together. For example, Danish municipalities jointly own waste treatment facilities, which allows them to benefit from economies of scale. Here, where it is more likely that such facilities will be privately owned, regional waste plans can encourage the development of a flexible mix of local waste management options. Local authorities working together through Best Value can also learn from one another's experiences. We recommend that, where possible, local authorities produce joint waste strategies to minimise disposal and to encourage waste minimisation, re-use and recycling. We also recommend that the Government consider what incentives it could introduce for disposal authorities to encourage recycling and composting.

Waste Management Techniques

On 22 January 2002 Members of the Committee visited a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) and a pilot composting plant, both operated at Rainham in Essex by Cleanaway ltd, and SELCHIP, an energy from waste facility in Lewisham, operated by Onyx.

Rainham Materials Recycling Facility (MRF)

Cleanaway operates a materials recovery facility at Rainham that can sort and bale 50,000 tonnes of material a year. The plant accepts mixed, but dry, recyclables from household waste. The mixed material can contain clean paper and cardboard, food and drinks cans, aluminium foil, plastic bottles and containers and thin plastic carrier bags.
Composting pilot
Cleanaway also has a composting facility at Rainham. We saw three types of composting: open windrow, GORE static and in-vessel composting. In the open windrow system, green waste only is shredded then piled in long rows in the open air. These are turned from time to time.
In the GORE method, the shredded material is covered and the air supply and temperature of the pile is controlled. The in-vessel system can take kitchen or catering waste as well as green waste. Once in the unit it undergoes seven to ten days of high temperature composting. After this it is turned out onto a windrow where the partially composted material matures for several weeks.

Rainham Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) (continued)

The materials are currently being tested for their suitability for use as garden compost and in other applications on-site.

SELCHIP

Onyx operates a mass-burn incineration plant in Lewisham. This plant was established as a result of partnership between the public sector (the London boroughs of Lewisham, Southwark and Greenwich) and private companies (Martin Engineering Systems and some other, minority, shareholders). SELCHIP stands for South East London Combined Heat and Power Consortium.
The plant can handle 420,000 tonnes of household waste a year. This waste is burnt on an incineration grate. The burning layer of refuse on the grate is mixed and rotated for even burning. Extra fuel is only needed when the plant is started up. The energy released in the process is recovered in a boiler; the steam feeds directly into a 35 mega-watt steam turbine generator in a turbine hall next to the incinerator. The flue gases from the incineration process are cleaned using a selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (to reduce oxides of nitrogen to nitrogen and water), then acid gases are neutralised and an activated carbon scrubber is used to absorb dioxins and heavy metals. Particulate matter is removed by a filter and then the gases are ejected into the atmosphere.

21 EFRA Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2001-02, Hazardous Waste, HC 919, p.1. Back

22 Q 295. Back

23 Ev 171 and Ev 263. Back

24 Q 212. Back

25 Q 356. Back

26 Ev 188, para 5.3. Back

27 Q 187. Back

28 For example, see Ev 246, para 3.1, Q 230. Back

29 Q 231. Back

30 Ev 255, para 2.1.3 Back

31 Ev 2, para 10 and Ev 246, para 3.3. Back

32 Q 231. Back