Memorandum submitted by the Environmental
Services Association
1.The Environmental Services Association (ESA) is
the UK's sectoral trade association for the waste and secondary
resource management industry which annually contributes more than
£5 billion to GDP.
1.MUNICIPAL WASTE:
PROGRESS BUT
NOT FAST
ENOUGH
2.There has been progress on municipal waste. For example, working
in partnership with ESA's Members, local authorities are recycling
more waste than ever before and the amount of municipal waste
landfilled fell in the last year for which there is data.
3.However the rate of progress still does not appear to be adequate
to comply with required diversion of biodegradable municipal waste
(BMW) from landfill. The UK has not caught up with comparable
EU Member States in recovering value from the municipal waste
stream.
4.The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee stated
recently, "we are extremely doubtful that the target (the
25% recycling target for 2005-06) will be met, and were surprised
that the Departmental Report said that Defra was "on course"
to achieve its goals' (The Department Annual Report 2004).
5.The Government has still not delivered a clear and precise legal
framework, full funding of the municipal waste stream or an effective
and efficient planning process. All are needed to deliver compliance
with the Landfill Directive.
INADEQUATE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Date
1999
| Milestone | |
| July | Landfill Directive appears in the EU's Official Journal.
| |
| October | The Government publishes its consultation entitled Limiting Landfill.
| |
| 2001 | |
|
| April | The Government confirms that a system of tradable permits will be introduced in England to limit the amount of BMW landfilled.
| |
| 2002 | |
|
| November | Waste and Emissions Trading Bill is published.
| |
| 2003 | |
|
| 29 August | DEFRA launches a consultation on the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS).
| |
| October | In its reply to the EAC's report, Waste-an Audit, DEFRA states that LATS "ique in Europe and is evidence of the Government's commitment to changing the face of waste management and ultimately surpassing the requirements of EU Directives".
| |
| November | The Waste and Emissions Trading Act receives Royal Assent.
| |
| November | DEFRA delays the introduction of LATS until 1 April 2005.
| |
| 2004 | |
|
| May | DEFRA publishes the outcome of the consultation on LATS.
| |
| 22 July | The Landfill (Scheme Year and Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2004 come into force.
| |
| August | DEFRA writes to local authorities informing them of their provisional landfill allowances. Final allowances are expected to be announced in November 2004.
| |
| | |
6.The waste management industry is driven by regulation and a
clear, precise legal framework is a pre-requisite for investment.
As things currently stand, local authorities do not know how much
BMW they will be allowed to landfill from 1 April 2005 or whether
statutory recycling targets will be extended beyond 2005-06. One
example of operational uncertainty is that local authorities and
our Members are still awaiting official guidance as to the deemed
level of treatment delivered by Mechanical and Biological Treatment
Processes.Inadequate funding7.A Mori survey of 2002 showed
that waste collection, management and recycling was seen as the
most important service delivered by local authorities-well above
schools and maintenance of roads-even though it accounts for only
1.5% of total expenditure by local authorities.8.The Local Government
Association, the Policy Studies Institute, Ernst and Young and
PriceWaterhouse Coopers all agree with ESA that more resources
need to be invested in the management of the municipal waste stream.9.The
UK spends only half what comparable European countries spend on
municipal waste management and spending needs to get to £1
per person per week to achieve average European standards of performance.10.The
2004 Comprehensive Spending Settlement failed to deliver the necessary
additional resource. In addition, the Gershon review missed an
opportunity to reduce public spending as it could have recommended
that funding for municipal waste management be taken out of public
spending altogether.11.Variable charging may well be the long-term
funding solution for management of the municipal waste stream.
It applies the polluter pays principle and, properly structured,
could deliver new infrastructure without any increase in public
spending.12.However, at current stages of public awareness and
to avoid a potential increase in fly-tipping, we see merit in
an initial period of a flat rate direct charge which provides
no perverse incentives. Subject to the caveat that the primary
need is to get more money into waste management rather than to
disburse funds, we also see merit in schemes which reward householders
for achieving adequate levels of segregation.Poor planning
performance13.According to the Environment Agency, 2,000 waste
management facilities may be needed to comply with the Landfill
Directive.14.However, the cost, delay and uncertainty of the current
planning regime present ESA's Members with very considerable difficulty
in funding and managing the construction of new facilities. In
2002-03 nearly half of "major" waste management applications
took longer to be determined than the Government's target.15.The
review of PPG10 presents the Government with an opportunity to
improve the performance of the planning process. To contribute
to this review, ESA published earlier this year Land-use Planning
for Sustainable Waste Management. This report sets out in some
detail how key land-use planning issues at national, regional
and local levels can be addressed now to achieve more sustainable
resource of uses.16.ESA's recommendations included:a.a national
framework offering precise guidance on the interpretation and
interaction of key planning principles, and setting out the waste
management capacity required in 2010, 2013 and 2020;b.preparation
of model policies; andc.promotion of environmental business planning
zones.2.HAZARDOUS WASTE:
A NATION UNPREPARED17.The
table below shows the delays in providing a clear and precise
legal framework.
| Date | Milestone |
| 2002 | |
| December | The Government establishes the hazardous waste forum.
|
| December | Waste Acceptance Criteria appear in the EU's Official Journal.
|
| 2003 | |
| February | 1st meeting of the hazardous waste forum.
|
| April | ENTEC's report for the Environment Agency warns that new capacity to treat 2 million tonnes of hazardous waste per year will be needed.
|
| May | The Environment Agency warns that the number of hazardous waste landfills in England and Wales will fall by 92% from 16 July 2004.
|
| December | 12 months after the establishment of the hazardous waste forum and with less than seven months before the banning of co-disposal the Government publishes its "hazardous waste action plan".
|
| 2004 | |
| March | Enviros warns the hazardous waste forum that 3.5 million tonnes per annum of treatment and disposal capacity is likely to be needed to manage hazardous wastes before 2005.
|
| 17 May | Regulations applying WAC to English and Welsh landfill sites are laid before Parliament.
|
| 15 June | Regulations applying WAC start partially to come into force, one month before the end of co-disposal.
|
| 29 June | The Environment Agency warns that the costs for waste producers of disposing of hazardous waste will triple following the banning of co-disposal.
|
| 16 July | Co-disposal is banned.
|
| 29 July | The Government launches a consultation on implementing the EU Hazardous Waste Directive: the deadline for transposition was 1 January 2002.
|
| September | The Government publishes its interpretation of the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 which had come into force more than two years before.
|
18. In a context where we believe defective implementation
of EU law is now, for practical purposes, providing a permissive
framework for criminal and dangerous disposal of hazardous waste
streams, we do not believe the Government has taken anything like
sufficient action to raise awareness within the legitimate business
community of the legal duties businesses retain regarding the
waste they produce and the risks that are run when such wastes
are consigned to criminals.
19. There is some evidence that most businesses are unaware
of their duties and the Federation of Small Business has recently
commented,
"Government"s failure to publish the regulations
in good time and implement an effective and high profile information
and awareness programme has resulted in an information vacuum
for many small businesses". (ENDS, July 2004)
20. It is, for example, beyond the powers of ESA and
our Members to ensure British business is fully informed of aspects
of the new legal framework for hazardous waste such as reclassification
of some waste streams as hazardous. ESA repeatedly urged the Government
to launch a high profile media campaign aimed at business.
21. In the event, the Government's dedicated website
on hazardous waste was only available immediately before the end
of co-disposal and we are not aware of any evidence that it has
perceptibly raised awareness of hazardous waste.
22. While the establishment of a hazardous waste forum
was useful in bringing together partners to discuss and press
key issues, it was never going to be sufficient-as we warned from
the outset-to prepare for the banning of co-disposal.
b. Where are we now
Certainties
23. The United Kingdom has a significantly diminished
hazardous waste landfill capacity. Only six merchant hazardous
waste landfill sites have received a permit to accept a wide range
of hazardous wastes.
24. The present climate is not conducive to investment
in infrastructure even though, for example, compared to sixteen
high temperature incinerators in France, the UK has only three,
one of which is mothballed, to treat hazardous waste.
Uncertainties
25. For a number of reasons, ESA has for some time pressed
the authorities to obtain real-time data on relevant material
and waste flows. This has not happened and, as a result, the Government
and the Environment Agency still do not know precisely what has
happened to hazardous waste streams formerly sent to co-disposal
landfill sites.
26. Following the banning of liquid hazardous waste from
landfill sites in 16 July 2002 our Members reported no significant
increase in this type of waste being accepted into regulated treatment
facilities. ESA and our Members do not know what has happened
to this waste stream. There is now also mounting concern that
solid hazardous waste seems to have been similarly "disappearing"
since 16 July 2004.
27. Neither the Government nor the Environment Agency
knows how much hazardous waste is being stockpiled by producers,
disposed of illegally by criminals or being incorrectly classified
by waste producers as non-hazardous.
28. Whilst we welcome fly-capture it has been operational
for only a few months and does not automatically include fly-tipping
on private land. In addition, no significant additional resources
have been allocated by the Environment Agency to detect and prosecute
criminal dumping of waste.
c. Where do we need to go?
29. The banning of co-disposal was the first step in
implementing the hazardous waste provisions of the Landfill Directive:
the application of hazardous WAC in July 2005 is as significant
for producers and managers of waste and is another deadline for
which the Government is failing to prepare the Nation.
30. As noted above, WAC were confirmed only in the summer
of this year. Our Members have been given a year to identify markets,
raise finance, gain planning consents, obtain environmental permits,
construct facilities and conduct appropriate testing before finally
accepting and treating hazardous wastes.
31. Again, the conditions for prudent investment are
not yet in place. The legal framework is still unclear. Our Members
still do not know how the WAC for monotholic hazardous waste will
be defined and the Hazardous Waste Regulations have still not
been transposed into UK Law.
32. More generally, the culture of enforcement is still
insufficiently strong to encourage investment. For example, the
Grant in Aid budget from DEFRA to the Environment Agency, used
to fund policing and enforcement of illegal waste activity, has
been cut by £4 million for 2004-05 even though the implementation
of more prescriptive EU environmental standards is so obviously
bound, if inadequately policed, to increase criminal activity.
ESA RECOMMENDATIONS
— The Government must fund the development of a
real-time data management system to track waste flows and, therefore,
to identify and police criminal dumping of waste.
— The Government must promptly launch a substantial
and effective awareness campaign to inform British business of
its legal duties as producers of waste and of the implications
of applying WAC from 16 July 2005.
4. THE GOVERNMENT:
CAN IT
DELIVER ON
WASTE?
33. The Government's performance on waste has been consistently
criticised during this Parliament. A strategic waste authority
would certainly not be the solution: its main practical effect
would be to dilute the ability of Select Committees to hold Ministers
to account.
34. Delivering progress on waste management requires
political determination and coordination within the Government:
compared to many other parts of the EU, the political commitment
to become a world leader in recycling and recovery is still lacking
and, as a result, the Country is continuing to lose economic and
environmental opportunities
35. The Government, and this applies to each of the Treasury,
DTI and DEFRA, needs properly making the economic case for environmental
improvement and increased resource efficiency. It is likely that
the price of commodities will tend to rise considerably during
this Century. It would be prudent to secure better resource efficiency
in the British economy sooner rather than later and this would
also enable the UK to develop a more appropriate share of global
markets in environmental services.
October 2004
| 
