Further supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (X8b)
DEFRA RESPONSE
TO QUESTIONS
FROM THE
COMMITTEE ARISING
FROM WRITTEN
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ASSOCIATION[7]
1. The ESA states in paragraph 23 of its
written evidence that 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. Can
Defra confirm that this figure is correct?
This is not correct. Overall Agency GiA budgets
for 2003-04 were increased by an additional £6 million in
recognition of in-year pressures. The budget for 2004-05 could
only be increased by £2 million due to budgets constraints,
but still provided an additional £2 million in 2004-05, not
a £4 million cut. Other increases in charging income for
the Agency, previously offset by GiA, provided further funding.
It should be emphasised that these are overall budgets to cover
all Agency GiA demands across all functions. The GiA is not hypothecated
and it is for the Agency to allocate funding in order to deliver
strategic outcomes.
2. In paragraph 33, the ESA states that
Austria and the Netherlands already comply with the 2016 BMW diversion
targets of the Landfill Directive. Can Defra confirm which EU
countries are already in compliance?
Unfortunately, Defra is not in position to confirm
which EU countries already comply with the 2016 targets. This
information will only become available when the European Commission
issues a Report.
3. Paragraph 35 states that "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". Does
Defra agree with this statement?
Defra issued provisional allowances under the
Landfill Allowances Trading Scheme to local authorities in August
2004 and the final allocations in February 2005. These allowances
show the amounts of BMW that every waste disposal authority is
allowed to landfill in each year from 2005-06 to 2019-20. Decisions
relating to recycling targets beyond 2005-06 will be announced
in due course.
4. Paragraph 38 states that the UK spends
only half what comparable European countries spend on municipal
waste management. Can Defra confirm the basis for this figure?
ESA has always maintained that the UK spends
a much smaller proportion of GNP on municipal waste management
than do "comparable" countries elsewhere in Europe.
However, while it is generally accepted that the UK has a degree
of catching up to do in respect of waste management, as far as
we are aware, this straightforward calculation takes no account
of differences in government systems and waste management operations
nor in "value for money" considerations.
5. In paragraph 43, ESA states that the
Government "does not appear to know whether recycling and
recovery treatment capacity sufficient to enable the UK to comply
with the Landfill Directive is being consented or even whether
there is currently a net loss of permitted waste management infrastructure".
Does Defra have this information?
Clearly this is a moving target and the Defra/Environment
Agency Landfill and Hazardous Waste Implementation Programme project
board receives regular reports on licensed/permitted waste treatment
facilities/capacity. Also a working group of the Hazardous Waste
Forum, chaired by a waste management industry representative,
keeps a watching brief on waste treatment capacity. It is also
worth pointing out that the scare stories in circulation before
July 2004 that there would be insufficient landfill capacity for
hazardous waste when co-disposal came to an end have proved to
be unfounded.
February 2005
7 Ev 80 Back
| 
