Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the Composting Association (X18)

1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1.1  A substantial number of biological treatment facilities need to be established by 2020 to manage the projected quantities of biodegradable municipal waste diverted from landfill to meet the Landfill Directive Article 5 targets.

  1.2  The development of new treatment capacity is severely impeded by the ability of the local Waste Planning Authorities, Environment Agency and State Veterinary Service to grant sequential permits in a timely manner. The processes are unacceptably long with often contradictory aims, as there is no co-ordination or centrally developed logic between them.

  1.3  Provisional estimates suggest that there will be a short-fall in biological treatment capacity capable of processing catering wastes of three million tonnes a year by 2010. It is therefore probable that the UK will not only fail to meet its obligations under the Landfill Directive, but other Government initiatives, such as the development of Sustainable Communities, seem likely to suffer.

  1.4  Delays to the introduction of revised licence exemptions have placed considerable uncertainty on small scale composting operations. Revisions have been due for almost five years. This delay is unacceptable and the Association strongly urges Government to introduce them as a matter or priority.

  1.5  There is considerable legislative uncertainty, especially pertaining to the role mixed waste biological treatment facilities may play, and whether composted materials may be spread on land without falling under a waste framework. These are issues that require urgent clarification. Without it, they are impeding strategic waste planning as they are placing unacceptable risk on the private and public sectors.

  1.6  There is an urgent need to translate Government's waste policies and strategies into practice. In order to facilitate this, The Composting Association proposes that Defra's Waste Implementation Programme be extended to enable it to act as a cross-departmental authority in order to streamline the different parts of Government involved in the waste permitting and delivery processes.

2.  INTRODUCTION

  2.1  The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee seeks evidence in its inquiry into whether the United Kingdom is on target to meet its commitments under the Landfill Directive. Its focus will be on the performance of the Government and what measures may need to be implemented to address the challenges of the Directive.

  2.2  This paper sets out the response of The Composting Association. The Composting Association is the United Kingdom's membership organisation, promoting the sustainable management of biodegradable resources. It actively promotes the use of biological treatment techniques and encourages good management practices throughout the industry. By advocating a suitable regulatory and economic framework, the Association works to ensure the long-term sustainability of the biological treatment industry. It currently has over 700 members including compost producers, local authorities, consultants, technology suppliers, compost users, academics, other membership organisations and individuals. Given that it represents the majority of compost producers in England, it welcomes the opportunity to comment on the draft document.

  2.3  In drafting this response, the Association has consulted with its members. It welcomes the opportunity to discuss any of the points raised in this response.

3.  THE NEED FOR BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT CAPACITY

  3.1  Over 60% of household waste is biodegradable (Strategy Unit, 2002). The majority is suitable for treatment in a biologically based process, including:

    —  Composting—a process that is well established and produces a valuable product: compost.

    —  Anaerobic digestion—a process that is widely employed in other industry sectors (eg sewage treatment) and is a source of renewable energy (methane) and a digestate that can be beneficially applied to land.

    —  Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)—a combination of processes that aims to recover value from, and reduce the quantity of, mixed residual wastes. The biodegradable wastes are subjected to a composting or anaerobic digestion type process, where the resultant material may be used in either a thermal treatment process, applied to land under certain circumstances, or landfilled.

  3.2  A large range of composting and biological treatment systems exist in the market place. They will play an increasingly important role as the UK strives to divert substantial amounts of biodegradable municipal waste away from landfill. Large capital investments need to be made before 2010. As these have such long lead-in times, financing and planning decisions need to be made now.

THE CHALLENGES AHEAD

  3.3  At present, somewhere in the region of two million tonnes of organic materials are composted across the UK (Source: The Composting Association, based on 2001-02 survey), with the majority (80%) comprising green wastes at open-air windrow facilities.

  3.4  In order to meet the Landfill Directive's Article 5 targets the Composting Association has provisionally estimated that somewhere in the region of 18 million tonnes per annum of additional biological treatment processing capacity will be required across the UK by 2020 to compost the food and green waste elements of the household waste stream[63]The majority of these new facilities will need to be in England.

  3.5  Following the Foot-and-Mouth disease epidemic during 2001, the Animal By-Products Regulations (ABPR) mandate that biological treatment facilities processing catering (food) wastes be approved by the State Veterinary Service before the compost or digestate may be spread on land. Since its introduction in July 2003 only 14 facilities have been granted approvals (Source: SVS). Provisional estimates suggest there will need to be an estimated treatment capacity of around five million tonnes per annum by 2010. Given the current rate of consents there will be an estimated shortfall of three million tonnes per annum by 2010, or over 150 facilities.


4.  CURRENT IMPEDIMENTS

Permitting new facilities

  4.1  Establishing new facilities requires sequential approvals from more than one government body:

    —  Planning Permission by the Local Planning Authority.

    —  Waste Management Licence by the Environment Agency.

    —  Veterinary Approval by the State Veterinary Service (where catering wastes and animal by-products are treated).

  4.2  In theory it should be possible to obtain all three consents in about 12 months if there are no objections, however, the actual timescales are often much longer (greater than two years). Reliable statistics do not exist within Government on the time taken to gain the respective consents, which makes strategic planning for both the public and private sectors difficult.

  4.3  Sometimes the specific criteria demanded by the three regulatory bodies conflict with each other, therefore there is an urgent need for clarification and streamlining of the respective permitting processes.

  4.4  Imminent revisions to land use planning guidance for waste (Planning Policy Statement 10) in England should provide an opportunity to address some of these issues, although on its own it will be insufficient to meet the challenges of the Landfill Directive.

  4.5  At present, the State Veterinary Service is a function of DEFRA. Proposals are underway to change its status to that of an executive agency during 2005 in order to improve its ability to deliver Government's policies on animal health and welfare. However, there is a danger that permitting of biological treatment facilities will be under-resourced and there will be a discontinuity in waste policy development, specifically for those wastes that fall under the Animal By-Products Regulations (ABPR).

Delayed legislation

  4.6  The biological treatment industry has been challenged over the past few years by changing legislation that has made the delivery of long term waste strategies difficult. There are a large number of small scale composting sites (estimated to be in excess of 300) that operate under an exemption to a waste management licence. Most of these are operated by farmers and community schemes, with some under contract to local authorities.

  4.7  DEFRA has been conducting a review of the exemptions for approximately five years. To date, these have yet to be published, despite calls by previous Select Committee inquiries (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 2001). Current proposals seem likely to affect the operation of a large number of exempt sites; therefore further delays are causing unacceptable uncertainties for composters and local authorities alike.

  4.8  DEFRA has recently undertaken an informal review of waste permitting with a view to simplifying procedures and ensuring that regulatory control is proportionate to environmental risk. Although priorities have now changed, the biological treatment industry would still benefit greatly from a streamlined approach that improved waste permitting and provided a better interface between the land use planning and veterinary approval regimes. The Association therefore urges DEFRA to continue with its review of waste permitting to better facilitate the development of new waste facilities in order to meet the aims of the Landfill Directive.

LEGISLATIVE UNCERTAINTIES

Mechanical Biological Treatment

  4.9  There is much current interest by Local Authorities in Mechanical/Biological Treatment (MBT) Plants. In many European countries they are employed solely to pre-treat residual wastes prior to disposal in landfill or thermal treatment plants (eg Germany). In some countries restricted applications to land are also allowed under a waste permitting scheme (eg in Italy for landfill restoration).

  4.10  As MBT plants treat residual (mixed) wastes, the outputs are more likely to be contaminated with impurities such as glass, plastics and heavy metals. In developing its Thematic Strategy on Soils, the European Commission has proposed that MBT-derived material remains a waste with restricted end uses.

  4.11  Some local authorities are viewing MBT plants as a "one stop shop", to meet both their Landfill Diversion targets as well as their recycling targets, which has significant implications with regard to developing European policies.

  4.12  The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) has recently announced that outputs from MBT plants will remain a waste and may only be used under a waste permit for the restoration of landfill sites or the reclamation of contaminated land (SEPA 2004).

  4.13  The Association urges DEFRA to provide clear, unambiguous guidance to the biological treatment industry and local authorities as to whether the outputs from MBT (or other mixed waste treatment plants) may be applied to land, and if so, under what circumstances.

Recovery of wastes

  4.14  The Composting Association and Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) have done much work to assist the development of sustainable markets for composted materials, including the introduction of the British Standards Institution's Publicly Available Specification for Composted Materials (BSI PAS 100). At present this is an area of legislative uncertainly: criteria to define when biologically treated waste ceases to be classed as a controlled waste and can be marketed as a product do not exist.

  4.15  This impacts, not only on market development, but also on waste planning and permitting. The Association urges Government to establish clear guidelines to define when controlled wastes treated in biological systems can be classified as products.

Overlap between regulatory regimes

  4.16  At present there is some uncertainty in the overlap between different regulatory regimes: for example, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control and Waste Management Licensing; Land Use Planning, Licensing and Veterinary permitting. These grey areas are creating confusion as well as impeding the development of new treatment infrastructure. In implementing the Landfill Directive, Government needs to set in place mechanisms to resolve inconsistencies and provide clarity for industry.

5.  POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

  5.1  DEFRA and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) are working closely to co-ordinate the revision of Planning Policy Guidance for Waste and guidance on the development of Municipal Waste Management Strategies by local authorities. This is welcomed; however, on its own it is insufficient to address the challenges faced by the public and private sectors in meeting the Landfill Directive targets.

  5.2  There is an urgent need to translate Government's waste policies and strategies into practice.

  5.3  Since its inception in June 2003, DEFRA's Waste Implementation Programme (WIP) has done much good work in providing tools for local authorities to develop and execute their waste strategies, as well as providing a central waste data collection centre and the demonstration of new waste treatment technologies.

  5.4  The WIP, in conjunction with WRAP, has a specific remit to assist England deliver Waste Strategy 2000 and the recommendations stemming from the Strategy Unit report. It has a unique role in Government in that it translates waste policy into practice. At present it is addressing some of the problems faced by local authorities, but this does not extend to land use planning or the permitting procedures faced by the private sector.

  5.5  The Composting Association proposes that WIP's function is extended to enable it to act as a cross-departmental authority in order to streamline the involvement of different parts of Government in the waste permitting and delivery processes. This is shown schematically in Figure 2.

  5.6  For example, it could develop the following:

    —  Tools for local authority planning officers and elected members to help them increase their knowledge and understanding of waste treatment technologies to enable them make informed decisions.

    —  Work with waste planners by providing support and advice to ensure specific reference to the appropriate waste treatment facilities are made in the development of the new Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Schemes.

    —  Data collection on the time it takes for sequential waste permits to be granted. This could be dovetailed into the existing data collection unit within WIP.

    —  A mechanism to ensure that guidance on the implementation of the three permitting regimes (land use planning, permitting and veterinary approvals) are congruent. Where inconsistencies and conflicts arise, the WIP should liaise with the regulatory authorities and industry on a proactive basis to identify problems and seek timely solutions. This may involve other Government departments, such as the Cabinet Office's Regulatory Impact Unit.

  5.7  Some of these functions could be modelled on the ROTATE programme set up within WRAP and form a part of WIP's existing Local Authority Support Unit.

  5.8  To achieve this, funding for WIP for a second three-year period will need to be secured.

  5.9  Unless urgent and co-ordinated action is taken to translate waste strategies into practice it is probable that the UK will fail to meet its obligations under the Landfill Directive. Other Government initiatives, such as the development of Sustainable Communities, also seem likely to suffer.


6.  REFERENCESDavies, P (2003) The State of Composting in The UK. The Composting Association, Wellingborough. ISBN 0-9532546-6-6.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (2001) Fifth Report Delivering Sustainable Waste Management.

Strategy Unit (2002) Waste Not, Want Not.

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (September 2004) Composting Position Statement.

6 October 2004





63   This excludes other biodegradable wastes, such a paper and card, fines and some textiles that cannot be recycled. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 17 March 2005