APPENDIX 16
Memorandum from the National Farmers'
Union
1. The National Farmers' Union (NFU) welcomes
the opportunity to submit written evidence to the Environmental
Audit Committee's inquiry into Local environmental crime. The
NFU represents some 55,000 agricultural and horticultural businesses
in England and Wales, many of which are affected by environmental
crimes.
SUMMARY
2. Environmental crimes such as fly-tipping
and abandoned vehicles are a nuisance and can cause significant
and on-going problems not only in urban areas, but also on the
urban fringe and in rural areas.
3. Problems in dealing with the impacts
do not just lie with the enforcement authorities such as local
authorities and the Environment Agency, but in the case of fly-tipping
often the responsibility is left with the farmer or grower as
the occupier or owner of the land. Not only can the costs of removal
be substantial this situation is unsustainable.
4. A number of recent Government initiatives
to deal with fly-tipping and abandoned vehicles present significant
steps forward in addressing these crimes. However, in addition:
— A comprehensive dataset to establish
trends in incidences, locations of dumps and types of wastes tipped
is needed to establish a true picture of the extent of the problem
at a national level, including incidents that occur on private
land.
— Often the extent and prioritisation
of resources within local authorities and the Environment Agency
to pursue these crimes is the limiting factor. Equal efforts by
the enforcing authorities must also be directed to investigating
these crimes on private land as well as public land. Additional
resources for these authorities are needed.
— Better understanding is needed of
the geographical and social factors that influence fly-tipping,
current and future pressures, but also the management of wastes.
— Solutions for dealing with these
crimes outside the existing criminal justice system are also needed.
These may involve better communication and liaison with industry
bodies or representatives; better communication of information
on waste management facilities for use by the public; or dissemination
of best practice case studies.
— Local stakeholder groups could play
a part in addressing these issues but need to be built on current
or existing frameworks that tackle crime.
INTRODUCTION
5. Although many environmental crimes such
as littering, fly-posting and graffiti are associated with urban
areas, other crimes such as fly-tipping and abandoned vehicles
can cause extensive problems on the urban fringe and in rural
areas and often the materials are dumped on farmland. In the case
of fly-tipping, the problems of dealing with the impacts do not
just lie with the enforcement authorities such as local authorities
and the Environment Agency, but often the responsibility is left
to the farmer or grower as the occupier or owner of the land.
6. As our main concerns lie with the issues
surrounding fly-tipping and abandoned vehicles, our response concentrates
particularly on the extent and impact of these environmental crimes.
1. What is the scale of the impact of these
crimes on the local environment?
7. Fly-tipping and vehicle abandonment have
the potential to contaminate land, to cause pollution to watercourses
and to be a hazard to human health and livestock. However, as
well as the environmental aspects to these crimes there are also
social and economic implications.
8. Fly-tipping is an eyesore and unless
removed quickly can attract further dumped material, further damaging
the aesthetic value of an area. Our countryside is a valued asset,
appreciated by many and forms a fundamental element in attracting
visitors. Not only does fly-tipping spoil our countryside for
our own citizens, it also could damage our tourist industry.
9. Although local authorities in some areas
can be sympathetic towards the occupier or owner of land about
the problems of fly-tipping on private land and may remove fly-tipped
waste, in most cases it is left to the farmer or grower to remove
and handle the disposal of dumped waste. The costs of removal
can be substantial.
10. Abandoned vehicles can also be unsightly
and can attract other crimes. Vehicles that are vandalised or
burnt out can create a greater hazard to the local environment.
11. A range of materials can be fly-tipped,
including household wastes, garden wastes, construction and demolition
wastes and tyres. A number of surveys have been carried out to
establish the extent of the fly-tipping and vehicle abandonment
problems, but most provide only snap-shots in time and a comprehensive
national picture of the problems on public and private land is
lacking.
12. EnCams (previously Tidy Britain Group)
conducted a fly-tipping survey of local authorities and bodies
representing occupiers and owners of land (including the NFU)
last year. [9]This
was a follow-up to a previous survey carried out in 1998. In terms
of the NFU members who responded to EnCams, the survey revealed
that
— 70% reported fly-tipping as a significant
or major problem (up from 44% in 1998);
— 46% reported spending £500-£1,000
removing fly-tipped waste, with one farmer spending £30,000;
and
— the majority (56%) removed fly-tipped
waste from between one to five locations on their farm, with 10%
claiming to remove dumped waste from between 11-21+ sites.
13. A more comprehensive survey on the extent
of fly-tipping on agricultural land, funded by Defra and the Environment
Agency, was carried out during 2001. Unfortunately the report
from this work remains unpublished. However, in response to a
House of Commons Written Question, Michael Meacher[10]
stated that an estimated 618,000 tonnes of waste was fly-tipped
on agricultural land in England and Wales during 2001. The total
quantity of agricultural wastes estimated to arise per year, (including
plastics, packaging and machinery waste) is 500,000 tonnes.
[11]This
exceeds the estimated fly-tipping figure. A further breakdown
of the figure quoted by Minister show that some 380,000 tonnes
of construction and demolition wastes were dumped, 118,000 tonnes
of cars, 94,000 tonnes of green wastes, 8,700 tonnes of tyres,
8,500 tonnes of general household waste, 5,600 tonnes of furniture
and 2,900 tonnes of household goods.
14. The NFU conducted a survey of 2,000
farmers with urban fringe postcodes during 2002. [12]Although
the original aim of the survey was to identify other problem issues
in the urban fringe, an unprompted 67 per cent responded by saying
that they suffered from fly-tipping. In addition, a recent survey
on rural crime of local NFU offices in the South-East established
that fly-tipping is a significant and on-going problem for farmers
and growers in this area. Abandoned vehicles were also identified
as a problem, although predominantly in localities closer to urban
areas.
15. A significant concern to the NFU is
the potential future scale and impact of these crimes. Defra's
Fly-tipping Strategy identifies two pieces of legislation which
may lead to increased levels of fly-tipping. These are the Landfill
Directive and the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive.
We have identified additional pieces of legislation and economic
instruments that could also potentially influence the extent and
incidence of fly-tipping and abandoned vehicles. These are listed
and described in Annex 1, but include the Control of Asbestos
at Work Regulations (2002), changes to the Special Waste Regulations
and the requirements of the End of Life Vehicles Directive.
16. We note that the recent report of the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee inquiry into the
End of Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive and Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment Directive concluded that "it seemed
likely that there will be problems of abandoned waste as a result
of the way in which the ELV Directive is to be implemented".
The figures quoted by the Minister of cars abandoned on agricultural
land in 2001 indicate that some 118,000 tonnes of cars were dumped.
Any increases on this figure would be very concerning.
17. It is our belief that a number of factors
influence the incidence and scale of fly-tipping. An increasing
burden of legislation is but one and there are others. The types
of wastes tipped and the scale of the impacts varies according
to the individuals or groups responsible. These are householders,
businesses, organised crime and travellers.
18. Although local authorities provide a
range of services for household wastes, such as regular street
collections and provision of civic amenity sites and recycling
facilities, some authorities also charge for separate collection
of bulky household waste, such as electrical goods or furniture.
Whilst the costs of disposal for bulky items may deter householders
from disposing or recycling wastes correctly, the figures for
fly-tipping on agricultural land in 2001 quoted by the Minister
above clearly demonstrate that general household wastes are dumped
in greater proportions than furniture and household goods. Although
amounts dumped may be small (eg a few bin-bags full), the frequency
of incidences may be greater than more bulky items. Clearly, factors
other than purely the economic are playing a part. Social aspects
may also be a key influence.
19. For businesses and particularly small
businesses, factors such as landfill tax increases have been widely
reported to be one of the major influences on fly-tipping increases,
but the general costs of waste management will also have a significant
influence on business decision-making. In addition, availability
and accessibility of waste facilities taking commercial or industrial
wastes and the extent of knowledge of responsibilities under Duty
of Care can all play a part.
20. The scale of the impact of organised
crime on the local environment can be considerable. These professional
fly-tippers can dump significant quantities of materials such
as construction and demolition wastes, tyres but also hazardous
wastes. Not only are these wastes dumped on land, incidences where
wastes have been tipped in buildings on a short-term lease have
been reported to us. Only when the lease has expired do building
owners find that they have tonnes of illegally dumped wastes to
deal with. Not only are those responsible deliberately flouting
the law they can cause serious harm to the environment.
21. As OPDM's draft guidance on the management
of unauthorised camping by travellers recognises the fly-tipping
of waste at such sites can be serious problems in some areas.
Farmers report that the dumping of rubbish and other wastes is
one of the most common problems arising from traveller camps.
This tipped material can present risks to the environment and
to health. In some cases, the enforcing authorities are reluctant
to take action until the travellers have moved on, leaving the
farmer with the responsibility and costs of clearing up.
22. We are very supportive of Defra's plans
to develop a database of fly-tipping incidences that are dealt
with by local authorities and the Environment Agency. However,
there is a danger that the information collated covers only that
being dealt with on public land. A comprehensive dataset to establish
trends in incidences, locations of dumps and types of wastes tipped
is needed to establish a true picture of the extent of the problem
at a national level, including incidents that occur on private
land.
2. Has there been a cultural change in attitudes
to these kind of crimes and are they being treated more or less
seriously than in the past?
23. There has been a gradual shift in central
Government policy on the seriousness of these crimes.
24. Recent publication of Defra's consultations
on Fly-tipping Strategy and Statutory Directions to the Environment
Agency and Waste Collection Authorities on the Unlawful Disposal
of Waste are significant steps forward. In addition, we welcomed
the package of measures proposed by Government in 2001 to help
tackle the problems associated with abandoned vehicles and subsequent
proposals to clarify responsibilities in dealing with vehicles
on private land.
25. We believe, however, that this is only
the start of the process in tackling these issues. Clarification
or roles and responsibilities for enforcing authorities in relation
to these crimes is important and provision of powers provide the
framework to allow action to be taken against those responsible
needed. However, often the extent and prioritisation of resources
within local authorities and the Environment Agency to pursue
these crimes is the limiting factor (see also response to Q3 below).
3. Do responsible bodies who deal with the
problem and its consequences have sufficient resources and powers
to do so?
26. Our experience of fly-tipping is that
the identity of suspected fly-tippers is not an easy thing to
establish with any certainty. Therefore, we welcome the powers
provided within the Anti-Social Behaviour Act to give local authorities
the powers available to the Environment Agency to stop, search
and seize vehicles suspected of being used for fly-tipping and
to investigate fly-tipping incidents.
27. Significant resources will be needed,
however, to empower local authorities to fulfil these new roles
and pursue incidents to prosecution. Without these additional
resources the extent of the current problems will remain.
28. We do fear, however, that the efforts
involved in investigations and prosecutions will be focused on
incidences on public land and that the problems encountered by
farmers and growers will be overlooked, primarily because the
responsibility for wastes dumped on private land rests with the
occupier or owner of that land. This should not be the case. Equal
efforts by the enforcing authorities must also be directed to
investigating fly-tipping incidences on private land.
29. Where vehicles have abandoned on private
land, local authorities can use powers to give a notice to the
occupier of that land of their intention to remove the vehicle.
Last year Government consulted on proposals to reduce the statutory
notice period for occupiers of private land to object to the removal
of vehicles abandoned on land from 15 days to 5 working days.
The NFU welcomed this proposal to help rid abandoned vehicles
from farmland in a more effective manner. However, following consultation
the Government decided to maintain the statutory notice period
at 15 days, citing concerns that 5 working days may not give enough
time for occupiers to respond and that reducing the notice period
would adversely affect an individuals rights in respect to their
property (under the Human Rights Act 1998). This was disappointing.
30. A local authority should recover the
costs from the owner of the abandoned vehicle or the person abandoning
it (if they can be traced), not the occupier of the land. However,
some authorities still try to recover the costs from the occupier
of the land. Also some authorities seek to get out of their duty
to remove abandoned vehicles because they would incur are not
costs that they are not prepared to pay.
31. We understand that Government does propose
to produce definitive guidance on procedures for local authorities
to follow on dealing with vehicles abandoned on private land.
Guidance providing clarification is welcomed, but additional resources
for local authorities are also needed.
4. Is there sufficient dialogue and co-operation
across Government and amongst the various bodies responsible for
dealing with the problem at a local level?
32. The NFU very much welcomes the work
that Government and the DVLA have been undertaking together to
help reduce the problems caused by abandoned vehicles. In particular
we welcome the Government initiatives to:
— improve access for local authorities
to the DVLA vehicle record; and
— change the vehicle registration system
to ensure all vehicles can be associated with a registered keeper.
33. In addition, we are very much in favour
of addressing these crimes at a local level as well as at the
national level. This point is particularly relevant where locally
based businesses or individuals are affected but may also be responsible
for these crimes.
34. We believe that a key aspect of Defra's
consultation on Statutory Directions to the Environment Agency
and Waste Collection Authorities on the Unlawful Disposal of Waste
relates to the need for local authorities to develop a strategic
approach for dealing with fly-tipping. This idea needs to be developed
further to help tackle particular waste stream problems and fly-tipping
hotspots at local levels.
35. Local stakeholder groups to address
these issues need to build on current or existing frameworks that
help tackle crime. For example, the NFU is frequently involved
in local Farm and Ruralwatch networks to pass information around
a group about the activity of miscreants in the neighbourhood.
5. What alternatives exist for dealing with
these types of crimes outside the criminal justice system?
36. Although greater powers for enforcing
authorities and prosecutions may be effective, these options could
be viewed as end-of-pipe measures. Perversely also, a reliance
on regulatory measures and economic instruments for dealing with
waste can have a serious side-effect in the form of increased
fly-tipping and other illegal disposal of waste on land.
37. We note that as part of the Fly-tipping
Strategy, Defra has outlined that it intends to investigate reasons
why people fly tip their wastes and the relationships between
cost and fly-tipping levels. This initiative is welcomed and could
help formulate better solutions to fly-tipping. This work needs
to be tied to a better understanding of the waste management chain
(see paragraph 41), geographical and social influences and current
and future pressures.
38. We note that Defra's Fly-tipping Strategy
aims to address fly-tipped waste from the construction and demolition
sector, which we also welcome. Construction and demolition wastes
can be dumped in substantial quantities. However, we would advocate
that similar approaches need to be taken with other waste streams
commonly fly-tipped (household wastes, tyres, electrical goods,
vehicles, etc). Comprehensive examinations of these wastes should
evaluate sources of waste arisings, the management of that waste
and disposal/recycling or recovery options. Better understanding
of the waste management chains and businesses and industries involved
are needed. Possible reasons for the occurrence of fly-tipping
(see paragraph 40) and potential solutions to the issues need
to be included. These evaluations could help form the basis of
a toolbox of measures or options for dealing with particular waste
streams. A range of measures could be adopted depending on the
circumstances.
39. Solutions to fly-tipping problems may
lie much higher up these management chains (and could lead to
identification of other Government departments which may need
to be involved in solution finding (see Q4)). These solutions
may involve better communication and liaison with industry bodies
or representatives or there may be a need for better information
and communication of information about the availability of waste
facilities and services provided by local authorities.
40. Also, the dissemination of best practice
case studies on how fly-tipping or abandoned vehicles have been
dealt with at a local level could also be provide a valuable alternative.
41. Local stakeholder groups could play
a key role in addressing some of the problems (see response to
Q4 above). For example, in one area, farmers, the local authority,
the Environment Agency and Police met to discuss problems that
arose because of an authorised encampment by travellers. Greater
inter-agency/authority co-operation and support was agreed as
a result of the meeting.
6. Does environmental crime have a disproportionate
impact on poorer and less advantaged sections of society?
42. As we have already noted, responsibility
for removal of fly-tipped wastes on private land often falls to
the farmer or grower, as the occupier or owner of land. Although
perhaps not regarded as one of the poorer or less disadvantaged
section of society, farmers incomes have been at historic lows
in recent years. Too many farm businesses remain economically
fragile despite a modest upturn in incomes recently.
43. In addition, unlike other businesses
and industries or owners of private land in a use other than agriculture,
farmers are unable to pass on any additional costs onto their
customers.
44. Although agricultural waste is currently
not "controlled" waste, we are expecting Government
to publish proposals, which will outline its intentions to apply
waste management controls to agriculture. Regulations will cover
the storage, handling and disposal of wastes such as plastics,
packaging, building wastes, and hazardous wastes.
45. Given that agricultural waste will soon
be under new controls, it will appear even more unfair and inequitable
to farmers and growers to take responsibility for dealing with
other peoples illegally dumped wastes. Not only that, this approach
is unsustainable.
March 2004
9 Fly-tipping Study 2003-EnCams http://www.enacms.org/information/researchreports.asp?Sub=O&Menu=0.26.13.203. Back
10
HC Written Answers, 4 March 2003, Columns 901-2W. Back
11
Towards Sustainable Agricultural Waste Management-Environment
Agency and Biffaward http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/toward_sust_ag_588593.pdf. Back
12
12 Farming on the Urban Fringe-an NFU survey http://www.nfuonline.com.stellentdev/groups/press/documents/policypositions/farmingontheurban_ia3f5dd304-5.hcsp. Back
| 
