Memorandum submitted by Blaby District
Council
VARIABLE CHARGING FOR DOMESTIC WASTE AND
ENCOURAGING RECYCLING
SUMMARY
The Council wishes to offer evidence in support
of the following points;
— most importantly, domestic waste
volume must be restricted and those who continue to generate the
most waste must pay more. Unless this is done there is insufficient
motivation to change established habits. We believe the public
are ready and with proper communication, willing to accept this
principle;
— reuse, recycling, composting, etc
services must be as good as if not better than the refuse collection
and disposal systems. These services need to be properly resourced
and given equal importance in terms of performance assessment,
statutory duties, etc;
— consumer power must be harnessed
to combat waste growth;
— government action is needed to assist,
support and complement organisations attempting to change lifestyle
habits, by altering statutory duties, fiscal tools and deregulating.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The greatest problem facing waste management
is inertia. Peoples lifestyles and habits are incredibly difficult
to change, unless there is sufficient motivation. In the UK, we
have come to expect a "Rolls-Royce" waste collection
and disposal service. Indeed, domestic waste collection is often
perceived as the only Council service and is certainly the one
most residents use to judge the performance of their Council.
Reuse, recycling, and composting schemes are by contrast all too
often seen as services to be added on at minimal cost, carried
out by volunteers, charities, etc for the benefit of cranks, environmentalists
and "good life" types—Cinderella services in the
eyes of the general public.
1.2 We believe that we have identified the
key elements required for successful local strategies which will
deliver effective and efficient means of moving waste up the hierarchy.
To be really effective however, some of these elements require
government action and a consistency of message from all those
involved.
2. RESTRICTING
WASTE AND
DIFFERENTIAL CHARGING
2.1 There has been much debate in Parliament
and the press about variable charging for household waste. Blaby
District Council is already doing this, and doing it in a way
that overcomes many of the problems and objections normally raised.
In October 2001, the Council completed a 12 month programme designed
to radically reshape the perceptions of waste and the way in which
it is handled.
2.2 The central plank of the initiative
was to replace the previous unlimited collection of household
waste with a service that restricted volume. Those creating more
waste must now pay extra for the privilege.
2.3 Most discussions on differential charging
refer to charging per bag/bin or weighing waste. The systems envisaged
are usually unworkable—requiring expensive sophisticated
equipment, individual billing, excessive administration, etc.
The basis of our system is to provide as standard, two 140 litre
wheeled bins. One is for mixed recyclables, currently emptied
every fortnight, the other for refuse, emptied once a week. Where
this is insufficient for the quantity of waste, bigger bins are
available—but a charge is made for the bigger refuse bins.
2.4 By restricting waste volume, participation
in recycling has increased substantially, both in terms of numbers
but also more markedly in terms of tonnage. Not only has participation
increased, but also the amount of waste separated out by participants.
We are now averaging 140kgs per year from each property. We currently
only have around 7% of properties with the larger waste bins.
2.5 Successful governance requires consent
and consensus. Recycling requires the voluntary participation
of all sectors of the community, especially residents. The fear
was that attempts to squeeze waste could provoke a backlash from
a disgruntled public. Fly tipping, contamination of recyclates
to plain obstruction were all possibilities. In practice although
the scheme was in initially unpopular, much of the opposition
was as much to do with the introduction of curtilage collections
and wheeled bins as it was the restriction on waste. Most people
understood the need to reduce waste and appreciated that they
had often not bothered but were now getting into new habits as
a consequence. Information and "selling" is vitally
important to win public support. Publicity campaigns, media articles
, etc are all very well and good and the vast majority of the
public will state their belief that "we" should recycle
more. This type of initiative brings people face to face with
the reality of actually doing something themselves and this type
of change needs to be accompanied by excellent communication.
3. QUALITY OF
SERVICE
3.1 Countless surveys have all indicated
that the public are willing to recycle but expect a kerbside collection
of all materials. We have become a consumer driven society. As
customers we have been encouraged to expect ever higher standards,
which we now demand in ever more strident tones. We are intolerant
of what we perceive as poor quality.
3.2 Central government funding via the Standard
Spending Assessment (SSA) appears to take no account of the provision
of kerbside recycling or composting collections. In Blaby we have
received very low levels of funding due to the relative prosperity
of the district, the apparent logic being that wealthier residents
can afford to purchase the services they need.
3.3 Separate collection systems cost the
same regardless of the wealth of the area served. The Council
bid for funds from the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling
Fund 2003-04, to expand our existing composting scheme. Rejecting
the bid, DEFRA reasoned, "It was felt that the public may
not be prepared to pay in excess of £20 per year to have
their green waste collected". This appears to go against
the logic of the SSA determination, ignores the evidence from
our experience to date and the principle of polluter pays. If
the funding is not provided by SSA, Council tax levels are restricted,
and bids of this nature are rejected, how are these services ever
to be established? One alternative which would encourage quality
recycling services in all areas, would be to provide within the
SSA, an element of specifically identified money per household.
This could be paid on a sliding scale of varying rates dependant
upon performance, so that those authorities and their residents
achieving the most would be rewarded, and the impact through the
Council tax bill would be minimised.
3.4 Blaby DC adopted a policy of providing
recycling services on a par with the refuse collection service.
Wheeled bins, so often seen as encouraging ever greater volumes
of waste were provided for mixed dry recyclables. Take up was
good, with over 80% using the bins and an average of 90kgs being
recycled per property per year, but still not everyone could be
bothered.
3.5 The current performance indicators for
waste collection require the net cost of the service per household
and the number of missed refuse collections per 100,000. When
Councils provide separate collections the net cost per house rises,
a better indicator would be the net cost of each collection. This
would a be more meaningful comparison and enable the public to
see the true cost of providing separate kerbside collections.
4. HARNESSING
CONSUMER POWER
4.1 When waste volume is restricted, the
awareness of waste increases dramatically. Tolerance of over packaging
changes and people start to consider waste when making decisions.
One of the biggest problems still is the amount and nature of
waste, generated by the use of disposable nappies. There are examples
of successful schemes which promote the use of modern laundry
services from the point of anti natal education. These are too
rare however and there is a considerable amount that could be
done to ensure input at these, and other crucial intervention
points.
4.2 Another negative result of changing
lifestyles has been the decline in doorstep deliveries of milk.
This has caused a huge shift away from the reuse of milk bottles
to the disposal of millions of plastic milk bottles. Yes, these
could be recycled, but plastic reprocessing capacity is still
very limited, and market rates for collected materials still make
its collection and transportation largely uneconomic. Perhaps
this trend could be reversed and recycling rates boosted if milk
delivery could be combined with glass collection from houses.
This diversification from just delivery to the provision of another
service could make these services more economic and provide another
selling point for the service.
5. GOVERNMENT
ACTION TO
SUPPORT AND
ASSIST
5.1 There have been numerous attempts to
use fiscal measures to promote environmental benefit. However,
most of these have taken the form of additional taxation, eg.
Landfill tax, aggregate tax, carbon tax etc. These have raised
significant amounts of revenue, but relatively little has been
fed back into the infrastructure to create new systems and change
lifestyles. The proposed changes to the landfill tax credit scheme
are a small step in the right direction, but "penalty taxation"
needs to be balanced by reduced taxation where there is environmental
benefit. For example, this Council currently makes an annual charge
for the collection and central composting of garden waste. This
contributes to the cost of the service and employs the "polluter
pays" principle. Our charges are however subject to VAT at
the full rate which increases the charge, increases the administration
costs and deters potential customers. As refuse collection is
provided through the Council tax, refuse collection is not subject
to VAT. Surely this type of anomaly sends the wrong message to
the public and could be addressed.
5.2 Similarly, to stimulate recycling of
material, VAT should be reduced on products with a post consumer
recycled content to either zero or a 5% rate.
5.3 All Councils have statutory duties with
regard to the collection and disposal of waste. This stems from
the need to protect public health. In comparison the statutory
duties relating to reuse, 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). The need to safeguard the future in terms of sustainability
must surely be the modern day equivalent of the protecting the
public health, albeit that failures have less immediate apparent
impact. The existing statutory duties are held up as evidence
that Councils must cater for all waste that any individuals or
companies chose to dispose of. This situation could be amended
to more fully reflect the equal importance of moving waste up
the hierarchy.
5.4 Current regulations—whilst made
with good intent, all too frequently end up having the opposite
effect in their application. Examples of this include:
— restrictions on disposal of tyres,
waste site license conditions which prohibit trade waste, disposal
of fridges and freezers, classifications of hazardous waste—have
all led to dramatic increases in fly tipping;,
— the current duty of care audit trails
for trade waste are massively bureaucratic and unenforceable due
to lack of resources;,
— the environment agency considered
an enforcement approach to local authorities in which waste collected
from dog bins would be classified as clinical waste thereby requiring
separate collection, transportation and incineration; and
— on farms carrying out small scale
composting operations, exempt under the tonnage requirements from
a £5,000 site licence, the conditions imposed by the environment
agency for an exemption have been just as onerous as a full licence.
5.5 In order to achieve true sustainability
all aspects of government need to work together, ensuring a consistency
of message and cohesive approach. Safeguards are necessary but
need to be proportionate to the risks involved and applied so
as to ensure that the outcome produces the overall desired result
in terms of best environmental option.
Blaby District Council
3 January 2003
|
