Memorandum submitted by the Composting
Association
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The composting and biological treatment
industry is worth an estimated £20-30 million and is growing
at rate of about 20% per annum. Companies include waste management
publicly limited companies, privately owned composting companies,
farmers and community groups. Currently over two million tonnes
per annum of biodegradable wastes are composted, with one million
tonnes certified to the British Standards Institution's Publicly
Available Specification 100 for quality composts (Source: The
Composting Association).
1.2 The UK's composting and biological treatment
capacity needs to expand significantly over the forthcoming decade
to meet the binding targets set in the EU Landfill Directive (EC/31/1999).
An estimate of over 200 new composting/biological treatment facilities
(with an average annual throughput of 45,000 tonnes per annum)
will need to be established by 2020 (Source: The Environment Agency).
In order to achieve this, planning permission, a waste management
licence and a relevant approval by the State Veterinary Service
(where catering wastes or animal by-products are treated) need
to be obtained. These approvals processes are currently unacceptably
long as there is no co-ordination or centrally developed logic
between the various regulatory bodies. The role of the Environment
Agency is therefore pivotal in helping England and Wales secure
the appropriate level of biological treatment infrastructure and
processing capacity in a timely manner.
1.3 The Association has consulted with its
members in submitting this response about the Environment Agency
(the Agency), and would welcome the opportunity to discuss any
of the points raised in greater detail with the Committee. This
response focuses on the Agency's role in regulating composting
and biological treatment activities.
2. EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
2.1 There have been welcome improvements
in the delivery of the Agency's responsibilities as Waste Regulator
in England and Wales since their BRITE restructuring. Notwithstanding,
there remain significant issues that currently impede the expansion
and operation of the biological treatment industry ("the
industry"). These are detailed below.
2.2 There appear to be inconsistencies and
delays in translating national policies into practice. Difficulties
have been experienced by the industry due to the inability of
some Agency staff to interpret and apply theoretical knowledge
"on the ground". In practice this means that some officers
have been reluctant or unable to give advice or suggest alternatives
when things do not go "by the book". There also remain
important variations between individual members of staff and between
area offices. Such inequities can stifle innovation, introduce
unacceptably long delays, and do not create a "level playing
field" for operators across the country, resulting in disproportionate
commercial environments.
2.3 In many respects the Agency is viewed
as an impeder of development by the industry rather than a facilitator.
It has a powerful leadership role to play in specifying good practice
criteria and helping the industry seek solutions to challenges
brought about by its rapid growth. The easy option has been to
state what it doesn't want to see without providing a clear steer
about what it would like. This is often brought about through
a lack of knowledge and confidence by Agency staff, and has resulted
in "guidelines" being imposed as "law" without
discussion. It has also led to disproportionate conditions being
imposed on sites with little consideration of the real risks involved
or their practicality.
2.4 In response to this, the Association
took the initiative this year to develop and publish a Composting
Industry Code of Practice in conjunction with the Cabinet Office's
former Business Regulation Team. The Code was a result of extensive
consultation between the industry and the UK's waste regulators.
The Association anticipates that this will help provide a positive
framework to assist the industry's development.
2.5 Agency staff's knowledge about other
areas of its work (eg flood management, water abstraction, discharge
consents, etc) appear to be more developed. This has resulted
in a more conducive working relationship with industry, even though,
in many cases, the same officers were involved. This clearly highlights
a training need.
2.6 The Agency needs to be adequately resourced
to enable it to inspect and regulate unlicensed or exempt activities
to a far greater extent than it does at present. Sites that operate
illegally or to poor environmental standards currently undermine
legitimate business interests and damage the industry's reputation.
This is especially important as the industry is developing at
a rapid rate and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future
to meet Landfill Directive targets. The costs of regulating and
enforcing such sites need to be borne by those operators or recovered
through the Courts; they should not be borne by the legitimate
operator through increased fees. The Agency therefore needs to
receive sufficient funding from Government to enable it to carry
out this function effectively.
2.7 These issues were the root cause of
the recent problems with proposals to amend the composting exemption
in the Waste Management Licensing Regulations during the summer.
After over five years in the making, they were pulled at the eleventh
hour as the proposed fee structure would have unduly penalised
small-scale community composting schemes in an attempt to enable
the Agency to recover its costs. A more equitable fee structure
needs to be implemented to enable proportionate regulation.
3. EFFICIENCY
AND VALUE
FOR MONEY
3.1 The Environment Agency is a large and
complex organisation. As such, its ability to respond in a timely
manner to the changing commercial environment brought on by governmental
policy drivers is often painfully slow. In terms of national policies,
it appears to have the right intentions to develop guidance documents
and protocols. However, these can take years to work their way
through the system, by which time they are outdated. For example,
the Agency attempted to develop technical guidance on composting
during 1999-2000 for both internal and external use. Despite extensive
consultation with industry and the issue of a draft in 2001, it
has never been finalised and remains unpublished. Much that is
contained is now out of date.
3.2 From a commercial perspective the Agency
does not always provide value for money to the industry, especially
where problems or complex issues arise. The length of time it
takes Agency staff respond to enquiries and concerns raised by
operators varies markedly across the country, taking, in some
instances, months. Such delays can be detrimental to business
delivery, especially at the developmental stage. A greater understanding
of the commercial pressures the industry operates under by Agency
staff would be beneficial. Again this highlights another training
need.
4. RELATIONSHIP
WITH GOVERNMENT
INCLUDING THE
PLANNING SYSTEM
4.1 The Environment Agency is a statutory
consultee during the planning process; hence it plays a key role
during the development of new processing capability. The Agency
does not always respond in a timely manner to the relevant planning
authority, which has resulted in unnecessary delays being incurred.
Again, the costs to businesses (and ultimately local authorities
in implementing their waste strategies) can be considerable. Given
the scale of development needed over the forthcoming decade, this
points again to ensuring that the Agency is adequately resourced
to carry out this important function.
4.2 Conflicts between the planning and licensing
regimes do occur and these could be addressed on a practical basis
through co-operative working between the various parties. The
recent publication of the Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning
for Sustainable Waste Management (July 2005) and the accompanying
Practice Guide should assist in this respect.
4.3 There is also an important interface
for the industry between the waste licensing regime and Animal
By-Products Regulations. The latter covers the composting or digestion
of catering wastes and animal by-products and is regulated by
the State Veterinary Service (SVS). It requires the industry to
treat these wastes in a manner that minimises the risk of transmissible
animal diseases to an acceptable level. As such, they specify
how composting/digestion facilities should be constructed and
operated. There does not appear to be any sort of working agreement
between the Agency and the SVS to ensure that contradictory constraints
are not placed on the industry. The establishment of a formalised
industry/regulator working group to address inconsistencies and
operational overlap would be welcomed by the industry.
5. ABOUT THE
COMPOSTING ASSOCIATION
5.1 The Composting Association is the United
Kingdom's membership organisation, promoting the sustainable management
of biodegradable resources representing the majority of compost
producers in England and Wales. 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.
The Composting Association
December 2005
| 
