Memorandum submitted by Horticulture Research
International
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HRI's contribution to sustainable waste management
practices can be summarised as (i) the ability of horticulture
and agriculture to act as end-markets for waste-based products
from other industries, (ii) composting technology and (iii) the
minimisation of waste in the horticulture industry.
Better quality data are required as a basis
for strategy development, and we propose that the Mass Balance
studies, initiated by LTCS funding, are continued as a stand-alone
initiative, and that the Industrial Symbiosis networks continue
to be supported.
Further investment is required to improve the
range and quality of research available to Government. In particular,
HRI notes that the composting industry requires further technical
improvements to raise the quality, reliability, consistency and
safety of the end products—and to make composting activity
more acceptable to local communities. Additional research is required
to characterise the properties of biodegradable municipal waste,
and the assumption that agriculture alone can provide a sufficient
end-market for this material is challenged. A screening programme
to determine the suitability of previously untested wastes as
growing media should be initiated. In all of the above, international
best practice should be taken into account.
There are opportunities for rural businesses
to diversify into creating products from waste materials. Pilot
projects, training and capital grants should be available from
the Regional Development Agencies.
The fate of Category C projects under the previous
LTCS scheme after 1 April 2003 should be agreed and communicated
as soon as possible, with landfill tax credits continuing to be
treated as private sector income.
DEFRA should be given responsibility and additional
resource for investing in strategic R&D into sustainable waste
management. The role of WRAP with regard to technical R&D
should be clarified, and additional resource made available if
they are to manage a greater portfolio of research projects.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Horticulture Research International
(HRI) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to this inquiry.
HRI is currently the largest team of horticultural scientists
in Europe, with a mission to innovate and communicate for the
benefit of consumers and producers of horticultural and other
plant-based products.
1.2 Our key interests in the field of sustainable
waste management are:
(a) minimisation of waste in horticulture
through controlling and targeting inputs and improving the quality
of the end products;
(b) trialling and evaluating waste-based
products for use in horticulture—as growing media, soil
improvers, soil substitutes, mulches, and other horticultural
sundries such as pots, drip-tape, and capillary matting made from
recycled materials;
(c) composting as a means of recycling a
range of wastes: vegetable wastes, municipal green wastes, coal
mining and quarrying wastes, plastic wastes, coffee and cocoa
wastes, bark, straw, solid fraction from anaerobic digestion,
sewage sludge. HRI has an experienced team of scientists, experimental
composting facilities on a semi-commercial scale (turned windrows
and bulk aerated tunnels), and laboratory facilities for chemical
and physical analyses;
(d) overcoming problems associated with composting
such as high heavy metal content, salinity, odour, density, water-holding
capacity, weed seeds, pathogens;
(e) adding value to waste-based products
by utilising pathogen suppressant qualities;
(f) investigating the use of paper and plasterboard
wastes as a means of preventing nitrate leaching in agriculture
and horticulture;
(g) preparation of a Nitrogen Mass Balance
as a means of identifying and reducing the volume of wastes with
high nitrogen contract; and
(h) practical/agronomic aspects of using
waste-derived products—in production and amenity horticulture,
farm woodlands, forestry, brownfield sites, land reclamation,
habitat recreation, industrial crops.
1.3 HRI is a registered Environmental Body
under the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme and a member of the Composting
Association's Research Forum.
1.4 We have set out below key initiatives
that would move waste management in our industry up the waste
hierarchy, towards greater re-use and recycling.
1.5 At the time of writing, HRI is undergoing
a Quinquennial Review, the outcome of which is expected to be
presented to Parliament by Lord Whitty in January 2003. Some restructuring
is inevitable. However, evidence given below would remain valid
within the resources of the proposed "new HRI".
2. THE NEED
FOR BETTER
DATA
2.1 The Strategy Unit report states that
"lack of data and research has repeatedly undermined efforts
to develop strategy".
2.2 HRI would draw the attention of the
Committee to the excellent suite of Mass Balance studies funded
by Biffaward, one of the most innovative distributive Environmental
Bodies within the LTCS (details can be found on www.massbalance.org).
These studies gather data on resource flows inwards, and the resulting
products, wastes and emissions. They are therefore relevant at
all levels of the waste hierarchy from waste minimisation downwards,
unlike studies which only focus on "end of pipe" wastes
and emissions.
2.3 Studies are carried out at three levels:
geographical areas (eg the Isle of Wight), industrial sectors
(eg the construction industry), and products and materials (eg
tyres). HRI is currently carrying out a Mass Balance study on
Nitrogen as part of this programme. Data from these are collected
and analysed using compatible classification systems, which results
in a very powerful interlocking body of data.
2.4 HRI strongly supports the Mass Balance
approach to generating meaningful data for strategy development.
It would be a pity if the work that has been completed thus far
were to be discontinued. Data collection is not yet complete across
all industry sectors or geographical regions.
2.5 HRI would therefore recommend the establishment
of a Mass Balance Centre, using Landfill Tax credits and central
Government funding, to continue the excellent work started by
Biffaward. We note the Strategy Unit report recommends that the
Environment Agency should focus on "gathering, analysing
and disseminating quality data on all waste streams". Perhaps
a joint venture, in the spirit of PPP, between Biffa and the Environment
Agency might help to achieve these objectives.
2.6 Other useful sources of data are the
Industrial Symbiosis Networks currently being set up by the Business
Council for Sustainable Development (details from www.bcsd-nsr.org.uk).
These allow participating members from a wide range of industries
to provide information on wastes or under-utilised resources to
a central, confidential database. Many synergies have been identified
between members, leading to innovations in waste re-use and recycling.
HRI is a member of the West Midlands Industrial Symbiosis Network,
which will be valuable at identifying waste streams that may be
of benefit to horticulture. These networks were set up using LTCS
funds.
2.7 HRI would therefore recommend the continued
support of the Industrial Symbiosis networks either through LTCS
or central Government funds.
3. COMPOSTING
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
3.1 Composting is a relatively young and
unsophisticated industry, yet it is expected to play a major role
in meeting the UK's targets for the diversion of biodegradable
waste from landfill as required in EC Directive 1999/31/EC, and
implemented this year in the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations
2002.
3.2 In order for the composting industry
to thrive and prosper, it needs to stop behaving like a waste
disposal facility, and start acting as a product manufacturing
and marketing facility. This means working to a product specification,
having quality assurance and standards, guaranteeing a consistent
supply, being competitive on price and improving marketing skills.
Part of the solution will be the resolution of outstanding technical
challenges. Two examples of these are as follows:
(a) Composting sites tend to be unpopular
with local communities because of odours arising from microbial
activity and the perceived health risk from airborne microorganisms.
HRI has a good track record in monitoring and manipulating microbial
populations to alleviate these problems, but there are still gaps
in our knowledge;
(b) Plant, animal and human pathogens can
persist through the composting process where the feedstock contains
organic wastes. HRI has a particular strength in identifying and
eliminating plant pathogens. However, further research is required
so that new treatments can be developed to minimise pathogen risk.
3.3 HRI recommends that public sector funding
is made available to the UK research community in order to overcome
the key remaining technical challenges, ideally from one clearly
defined funding source. The Strategy Unit report recommends that
DEFRA be the lead department for these activities; however, it
may be more appropriate to carry out this research within WRAP's
proposed new Organic Material Programme.
3.4 The Strategy Unit report notes that
other European countries have taken 10-15 years to put in place
their sustainable waste management policies and that the UK will
need a similar timeframe. However, in our particular areas of
interest, we believe this timeframe could be significantly reduced
by taking advice from other European member states and countries
such as the USA and Canada where composting technologies are more
advanced.
3.5 The Composting Association (of which
HRI is a member) represents the UK within the European Compost
Network.
3.6 To avoid duplicating research, and learning
by trial and error, HRI recommends the provision of additional
financial support for UK researchers and relevant trade associations
to visit and learn from countries where composting science and
technology is more advanced.
4. PEAT ALTERNATIVES
4.1 There are environmental concerns in
the UK regarding the use of peat as a growing medium, and it is
a stated Government objective for the market to be 90% free of
peat by 2010.
4.2 However, the uptake of peat-substitute
products by the professional growing sector is still less than
5%. Professional growers represent 33% of the market for peat,
consuming around 1 million cubic metres per year. They require
a range of growing media that deliver consistently high quality
plants, and are unwilling to risk their livelihoods through using
unproven, higher-risk peat substitutes
4.3 The Growing Media Association (GMA)
believes that green waste can only be used to a maximum of 25%
in any waste-based growing medium, due to the inherently variable
nature of this particular waste. Peat-free mixes based on composted
bark have been developed, but they are on average 25% more expensive
than peat, and to increase the volume produced would require importing
bark, which is not sustainable.
4.4 HRI believe that certain inorganic wastes
from the building, mining, chemical, paper, plastic and textiles
industries could potentially be suitable, offering a greater level
of availability of material of consistent quality. In addition,
the food processing industry provides very consistent organic
waste streams, and horticulture itself produces specific one-crop
wastes, such as onion waste, which contains beneficial fungi that
provide biological control of plant diseases. The majority of
these inorganic wastes have not yet been evaluated as potential
growing media, either individually or through co-composting with
other wastes.
4.5 HRI has a proven track record in this
respect. For the past 15 years, HRI has worked with the growing
media industry to trial and develop alternatives such as bark,
coir and bracken. In partnership with trade publications such
as "Gardening Which", HRI has contributed to the uptake
of peat alternatives by the amateur sector. More recently, HRI
has jointly developed and patented fine particle coal wastes for
use in mushroom growing, with the potential to replace 33% of
the 260,000 m3 of peat that this industry uses per annum.
4.6 HRI therefore recommends a series of
simple screening trials for a much wider range of previously untested
wastes. Wastes that pass this screening process can then be re-used,
with the highest quality as growing media, and lower qualities
as soil improvers, topsoil substitutes and for brownfield reclamation.
This screening project, which we have named "Waste into Rooting
Media" (WIRM), was originally put forward for LTCS funding,
but an alternative source is now required.
4.7 We also endorse the Strategy Unit report's
recommendation to reduce the VAT on products recycled from waste.
Reduced VAT on peat-free growing media would certainly increase
their uptake by the professional growing sector.
5. END MARKETS
FOR COMPOSTS
FROM BIODEGRADABLE
MUNICIPAL WASTE
5.1 In order to meet the requirements of
the Landfill Directive, up to one-third of biodegradable municipal
waste needs to be diverted from landfill. The Composting Association
estimates that by 2010, the UK will need to compost and find alternative
methods of disposal for between 4.9 and 7.7 million tonnes (Mt)
of biodegradable municipal waste per annum, increasing to between
10.6 and 15.5 Mt by 2020. Disposal to land appears to be UK Government's
preferred option.
5.2 HRI estimates that between 1.8 and three
million ha will be required to absorb the above volumes of composted
biodegradable municipal waste. (For comparison, the current UK
area of cereal production is roughly three million ha). This is
based on the nitrogen content of composted biodegradable municipal
waste, restrictions relating to nitrogen use in recently implemented
nitrate vulnerable zones and the need for three to five years
rotations to prevent build-up of toxins or heavy metals.
5.3 It is clear that agriculture alone cannot
absorb the large increase in volumes of composted biodegradable
municipal waste that will be necessary to meet Landfill Directive
targets. Alternative markets, possibly in landscape construction
both for housing and industrial estates, or brownfield site remediation,
must be identified.
5.4 Composting of green waste is well established
within the UK, and research has been carried out on its composition,
and suitability as a growing medium and soil conditioner. However,
composting of biodegradable municipal waste is still in its infancy,
and little research has been performed on its characteristics
and suitability for land spreading.
5.5 HRI recommends that additional research
is commissioned urgently, to establish the characteristics of
a wide range of composted biodegradable municipal waste products
from commercially operated plants, in order to identify the most
suitable end-markets. The Strategy Unit report recommends that
DEFRA should develop a biowaste strategy to address this, and
other related issues. Once we understand the characteristics of
these products, the subsequent development of markets for both
low and high grade materials should be the remit of WRAP.
6. BENEFITS TO
THE RURAL
ECONOMY
6.1 To date, much of the UK's investment
in waste handling and recycling facilities has been in large and
costly infrastructure projects.
6.2 However, due to the cost and environmental
impact of transporting wastes, a more sustainable approach for
composting and biodigesting in the longer term could be to have
small or medium-sized plants located near to the source of the
waste material and, ideally, near to the end-market.
6.3 HRI believes that the need to move UK
waste solutions further up the hierarchy presents an opportunity
for some rural businesses, previously involved with production
agriculture and horticulture, to diversify into sustainable waste
management businesses.
6.4 Actions required in order to encourage
such diversification include (a) the acquisition of additional
skills and retraining, (b) grants towards capital investment,
and (c) the funding of pilot projects to increase confidence in
new waste technologies.
6.5 The Strategy Unit report recommends
giving financial backing to pilots of alternative technologies
for waste treatment. Many such pilots have previously been funded
under Category C projects using LTCS funding.
6.6 HRI recommends that Regional Development
Agencies be given the responsibility of distributing funds for
this purpose. HRI has a good relationship with our Regional Development
Agency, Advantage West Midlands, and believes their Rural Policy
Department and Environmental Technology Business Cluster would
welcome this recommendation.
7. SOURCES OF
FUNDING FOR
RESEARCH ON
SUSTAINABLE WASTE
SOLUTIONS
7.1 Identifying the most appropriate source
of funding for R&D projects on sustainable waste management
can be a complex and time-consuming process. HRI's experience
is that there are inconsistencies in objectives between different
funding bodies. Simplification and clarification of objectives
would lead to better value for money from research contractors.
LTCS
7.2 Whilst HRI applauds the recommendation
of the Strategy Unit to raise Landfill Tax to £35 in the
medium term, we are disappointed that the Landfill Tax Credit
Scheme is to be capped, as this restricts the value of funding
that could be channelled directly towards sustainable waste solutions.
7.3 Obtaining funding for sustainable waste
management research projects through the LTCS has been over-complicated,
largely due to the different procedures and priorities of the
trusts set up by Landfill Operators. HRI appreciates that it should
be simpler, and more efficient, to have one organisation responsible
for funding Category C projects with clearly defined entry criteria,
procedures and deadlines. However, the achievements of the various
Landfill Operators' Trusts at encouraging and funding research
projects should not be overlooked.
7.4 HRI recommends that whoever is to take
over from the Landfill Operators' Trusts in this respect should
be appointed quickly, so that we do not lose the momentum, or
skills base, of sustainable waste management research that has
been built up.
7.5 We would also recommend that Landfill
Tax credits continue to be regarded as private sector income,
as this gives research contractors the opportunity to match them
to other income, through LINK, STI or EU programmes.
WRAP
7.6 We understand it is likely that WRAP
will administer the funding of Category C projects following the
planned revision to the LTCS. HRI has a good relationship with
staff at WRAP, and is currently carrying out one research project
with WRAP to investigate the effect of the composting process
on plant, animal and human pathogens.
7.7 WRAP does an excellent job of communications,
awareness raising, market creation, and investment in capital
projects for reprocessing. However, the original remit of WRAP
was "to create stable and efficient markets for recycled
products", not technical innovation in waste management science.
Therefore, if WRAP is to administer the funding of strategic and
applied research previously handled through Category C projects
in the LTCS scheme, they will need additional expertise. This
can be achieved either through directly employed staff, or through
forming networks of external advisors.
7.8 HRI recommends that the remit of WRAP
is clarified, and if they are to manage a programme of waste management
science projects, then they should be given sufficient extra resources
to carry out this function effectively.
7.9 During its first term, WRAP's main objective
with regard to composting was the production of a set of standards
for composts. This has been achieved with the launch of PAS 100,
in association with the Composting Association. WRAP might consider
it to be more cost-effective to pass the responsibility for commissioning
composting research and technology projects directly to the Composting
Association, so that WRAP can concentrate on the creation of stable
end-markets for composts, which will be essential if composting
as an industry is to be sustainable.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
FUNDING
7.10 For the UK to achieve the vision set
out in the Strategy Unit report, we will need to make step changes
in technical innovation. At present, several Government Departments
are responsible for policy, funding and regulatory responsibility
on waste.
7.11 HRI supports the Strategy Unit's recommendation
that DEFRA be given the overall responsibility for funding research
into sustainable waste management, and that DEFRA (together with
the Environment Agency) should draw up a data and research strategy
for the next three years. There will need to be some clarification
of responsibilities with regard to the role of WRAP in managing
technical R&D for organic waste streams.
Horticulture Research International
January 2003
| 
