Memorandum by the Local Government Association
(RC 40)
SUMMARY
England faces stark environmental choices in
the coming decade, not least in the way in which we deal with
rubbish. The amount of waste generated by households is expected
to continue rising and the amount that must be recycled must increase
to 40% to ensure we meet the EU landfill targets. If we do not
meet the targets, councils, and therefore local people, will face
fines of £150/tonne, potentially amounting to £205 million
in 2013. This will be on top of the £4.2 billion government
expects councils need to spend in 2013 to manage waste and will
equate to around £220 for every household in the country
to collect and dispose of the rubbish generated—almost double
what is paid today. On top of this, councils will pay up to £3
billion in landfill tax over the next four years, following the
announced £8/tonne annual increase. If this money is not
returned to local government in an open and transparent way, this
cost will be passed onto council taxpayers.
For decades people have been used to being able
to throw their rubbish away without worrying about the consequences.
Those days are now over. There needs to be a radical overhaul
of the way in which rubbish is created and thrown away otherwise
there is a real danger that council tax bills will rise faster
and the environment will continue to suffer. Local people, businesses
and central and local government all have a vital role to play
to protect our countryside before it becomes buried in a mountain
of rubbish.
Councils are prepared to face up to the major
challenges in dealing with waste, by encouraging greater individual
responsibility, though measures such as alternate weekly collection
and powers to introduce save as you throw, where this has local
support. They are also committed to being increasingly efficient
and exploring opportunities to make savings through joint working;
but expectations around scale and timing must be realistic. However
both resources and better supply markets are also needed to deliver
a waste strategy that can meet the challenging targets set by
the EU.
Government modelling has said that spending
will need to rise to £4.2 billion by 2013, meaning spending
will have to continue growing at around 10% each year over the
Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) 07 period. Government must
therefore provide a sustainable level of funding to local government
in the CSR, and one which recognises the huge risks moving forward,
in terms of forecasting waste growth and the financial and environmental
consequences of failing to meet the targets.
A real terms freeze to local government in the
CSR would result in failure to meet the waste strategy objectives,
the EU directive and ultimately higher long term costs to tax
payers and a deterioration of the local environment, as councils
would need to take money from the discretionary services that
are often what people value most and play an important role in
broader environmental objectives.
The Local Government Association (LGA) has submitted
evidence to the Joint Waste Review, conducted by Defra, CLG and
Treasury to inform the CSR. This has been attached at Annex A
for further background.[24]
1. THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION
1.1 The Local Government Association (LGA)
represents over 400 councils in England and Wales. The LGA exists
to promote better local government. We work with and for our member
authorities to realise a shared vision of local government that
enables local people to shape a distinctive and better future
for their locality and its communities. We aim to put local councils
at the heart of the drive to improve public services and to work
with government to ensure that the policy, legislative and financial
context in which they operate, supports that objective.
2. CONTEXT
2.1 Local authorities in England spend almost
£3 billion a year managing 30 million tonnes of municipal
waste. In addition to simply providing a statutory service, authorities
provide a service that is highly valued by local people and plays
a crucial role in meeting the long-term environmental challenges
outlined by the Government.
2.2 Local authorities have made significant
progress in encouraging recycling and reducing landfill in their
areas. Recycling rates have increased from 11% in 2001 to 27%
in 2005-06. In 2005-06, 66% of people in unitary authorities were
satisfied with waste recycling (local facilities)—an improvement
of 5 percentage points since 2003-04. The proportion of municipal
waste being disposed of in landfill has continued to decrease
from 72% in 2003-04 to 62% in 2005-06.
2.3 But this has come at a cost. Local authorities
expect to spend £2.6 billion in 2006-07 on waste collection
and disposal, an increase of 9% from the previous year. This follows
average annual increases of 10% since 2001-02.
2.4 The increasing spend has been driven
both by rising collection and disposal costs, as authorities increase
recycling rates and divert waste from landfill. Increased spending
on collection has been driven by costs associated with more recycling
(more vehicles, fuel, crew, containers, skilled labour force,
and community engagement). Transport costs to increasingly scarce
landfill sites and multiple locations for processing, along with
the rising cost of fuel, has also contributed to rising costs.
(Further information can be found in Annex A p 5-8)*
2.5 Local authorities have the immense challenge
of increasing recycling to 40% by 2010 to meet the EU landfill
directive, encouraging waste minimisation and ensuring a waste
infrastructure that meets future needs is in place to avoid fines.
All this, at a time when public expenditure is expected to slow
considerably and waste growth is forecast to continue as economic
growth continues and the number of households increases.
2.6 The overall level of waste collected
has been steadily increasing. The total amount of municipal waste
has increased to an estimated 29.7 million tonnes in England in
2004-05 compared to 29.1 million tonnes in 2003-04, an increase
of 2.1%. Between 1996-97 and 2002-03 the Government's National
Waste Surveys have shown an average annual growth rate of municipal
waste of 3.0% (with the exception of 2003-04). Although there
was a fall in the overall level of collected municipal waste in
2005-06, a recent publication by Treasury forecast continued growth
in municipal waste. It is important that the CSR07 settlement
takes account of this volatility and does not make overly optimistic
projections on waste growth, resulting in local authorities being
locked into an unsustainable three-year settlement.
2.7 The National Audit Office has said that
the risk that the UK will not meet the landfill directive is high.
Local authorities will face fines, which could be over £200
million in 2013 if they exceed their landfill allowances and will
pay landfill tax, which is increasing at £8/tonne each year
from April 2008; an increase of 33% in the first year. Councils
have called for this to be returned in an open and transparent
manner to ensure this cost, potentially up to £3 billion
over the next four years, does not fall on council tax payers.
3. MINIMISATION
AND RECYCLING
3.1 Increasing recycling and encouraging
waste minimisation are crucial in meeting the EU landfill directive
and other EU directive targets such as Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (WEEE) Directive. Authorities have made considerable
progress in recent years and support through a range of government
interventions is generally welcomed. Considerable further improvement
is required, however, to ensure we meet our targets. Producers
and individuals will also have an important role to play in this.
3.2 According to the National Audit Office,
however, an emphasis on increasing recycling alone is unlikely
to be enough. If there is to be a true commitment to the waste
hierarchy, which clearly places reduction and reuse above recycling
then there needs to be a much greater focus on waste prevention
and minimisation over the long term. This, however, should not
be done at the expense of continued and extensive recycling promotions
at national level supported by additional local delivery.
3.3 If waste management is going to shift
significantly up the waste hierarchy then a more interventionist
approach is required to tackle the issues at source. This should
focus on all stages along the product supply chain to ensure waste
generation is minimised at the design/manufacture phase of products
and greater steps are taken to remove the use of unnecessary packaging
and improve the recyclability of packaging and products (see Annex
A p 12-14)[25]
3.4 Council leaders have called for tougher
laws and serious fines to crackdown on excessive packaging, with
evidence that only four firms have been successfully prosecuted
under the current legislation. Local authorities are able to prosecute
companies that over-package their goods under an EU packaging
directive that entered UK law in 1999. However, the rules banning
wasteful packaging have too many loopholes to be effective and
the maximum fine of £5,000 does not pose any real deterrent
for large companies.
3.5 Local authorities have, however, already
taken steps to minimise waste and encourage recycling through
the introduction of system changes, these include (see Annex A
p 15-17)* alternate weekly collection, mixed versus separate collection
and combined collection.
Alternate Weekly Collection System
3.6 Under alternate week collections (AWC)
recyclables are collected one week and general refuse the next
week (or some variation on this, such as a weekly collection of
food waste). Many authorities have introduced new wheelie bins
and expanded recycling services as part of the roll out. Around
140 councils out of 354 in England have switched to this system.
3.7 Research by the LGA revealed that on
average, 30% of household waste is recycled or composted in councils
with AWC. For councils that have opted not to undertake AWC, an
average of 23% of household waste is recycled or composted. All
ten of the councils with the highest recycling rates in the country
and eight out of ten of the councils with the most improved recycling
rates also use AWC.
3.8 The LGA is clear, however, that AWC
is not the only solution to encouraging recycling and minimising
waste. It is up to each council, with their local residents, to
decide which sort of approach is used to ensure that local residents
help do their bit for the environment and keep council tax as
low as possible.
Mixed versus separate collection
3.9 The current trend is a move away from
kerbside sorting toward collection of mixed recycling material
that is then separated at the Materials Recycling Facility (MRF).
This system is broadly comparable in cost to kerbside separation
but in some authorities has proven to be far more effective in
yield terms by reducing the "hassle factor" thereby
making it more acceptable to the public.
Combined
3.10 This approach combines the collection
of commercial recyclate with household material thereby helping
to support the cost of municipal waste collection. Despite strong
support for this approach there are some barriers:
— The low cost of landfill means there
is little difference in cost, or even a price premium for companies
to recycle.
— Unlike householders, small-medium
enterprises (SME) have a choice of service provider and it is
risky for local authorities to invest in this market.
— Many waste collection authorities
(WCA) have divested their own interest in commercial waste collection
services, and therefore do not have a customer base with which
to work nor an opportunity to recoup marketing or facilitation
costs.
— There is some evidence that WCA are
being discouraged from further activity in supporting SME by their
waste disposal authorities (WDA) as this could put further pressure
on the WDA meeting its landfill allowance trading scheme (LATS)
obligations.
Save as you throw
3.11 Looking to the future, local government
is calling for powers to introduce save as you throw schemes to
create financial incentives to encourage recycling and minimisation.
The LGA is strongly against any imposition of this on councils,
but believes, given the government's stated commitment to devolution,
councils should have as many tools as possible to meet this significant
challenge.
3.12 If the government brings in "save-as-you
throw" laws, it should be councils, not the Government that
decide whether to introduce the system. It is vital that any authority
thinking of introducing save-as-you-throw should first make sure
it has public support, that there will be no overall increase
in council tax and measures are in place to combat fly-tipping.
3.13 Local Government is willing to face
up to the difficult challenges of managing waste more effectively,
is waging a "war on waste" and engaging the public in
debate over difficult choices such as moves to alternate weekly
collection and compulsory recycling and possibly powers to provide
rebates to households that increase recycling through a variable
charging system, where this is locally appropriate. Evidence suggests
that people are ready for change. An opinion poll by TNS, carried
out for the LGA, found that 64% of people would prefer a system
whereby you pay less income tax or council tax and instead get
charged directly for household rubbish removal, so that the more
you recycle the less you would pay; and 77% of people think that
recycling should be compulsory.
4. JOINT WORKING
4.1 Joint working has potential benefits
in generating efficiency savings through economies of scale, purchasing
power, technological expertise, asset management, IT infrastructure
etc. Evidence from the Innovation Forum, which included a range
of case studies including Shropshire, Essex and Norfolk suggested
that the following could be achieved in shire areas through closer
joint working (see Annex A p 22-26):
— Joint working, such as bringing together
collection arrangements, can deliver savings of 10-15% depending
on the number of waste collection authorities involved and their
willingness to bring together operational arrangements.
— A further 5% can be saved potentially
by bringing together collection and disposal activities.
— In addition, if the joint working
involves bringing together "back office functions",
further savings of at least 5% can be expected in administrative
costs.
4.2 The difficulty of establishing such
arrangements should not however be underestimated. These difficulties
derive from demographic and cultural differences of potential
partner organisations, differing contract timescale obligations
(for a WCA this could be up to seven years and for WDA significantly
more), differing resource constraints and of course the political
and practical challenges that such collaborative working presents.
Uncertainty created by government can also hamper joint working.
4.3 Local authorities clearly have a responsibility
to achieve maximum value for money for taxpayers. Where joint
working offers this, local authorities must be committed to overcoming
the barriers. It is important to remember that this cannot be
prescribed. The solutions will be different in different authorities
and expectations on timeframe must be realistic.
4.4 The recent amendment to the Local Government
and Public Involvement in Health Bill in relation to joint waste
authorities, following LGA lobbying, gives councils the option,
with mutual agreement, to establish an "independent"
executive waste board if they believe this to be the most effective
way to create economies of scale. Local circumstances and existing
arrangements will mean that Joint Waste Authorities will not be
the best solution in every locality.
5. PLANNING FOR
FACILITIES
5.1 Waste management treatment and recovery
plants, such as mechanical and biological treatment and energy
from waste plants, estimated at £10 billion are required
to ensure sufficient waste is diverted from landfill. The Office
of Government Commerce (OGC) Kelly Report indicated that 50 waste
management contracts need to be awarded each year for each of
the next four years. This is clearly a major challenge, given
the progress to date. (See Annex A p 27-35)[26]
5.2 The difficulty of obtaining planning
permission has often been sighted as a major barrier in ensuring
the necessary infrastructure is in place to help meet the landfill
directives. Public opposition is a major barrier to obtaining
planning permission. Land availability and length of time involved
also pose problems.
5.3 Government has caused considerable uncertainty,
by changing PFI criteria and timing, delaying funding and changing
regulations eg permissible use of compost-like material. Recent
changes to the planning framework have caused further delays,
although the changes may well be positive over the long term.
A previous lack of public commitment to incineration and mixed
messages on energy from waste has exacerbated the problem, although
steps are now being taken to deal with this.
5.4 Inadequate funding is a significant
barrier to ensuring the necessary infrastructure is in place.
Local authorities have reported potential council tax increases
of above 10% to address the funding gap.
5.5 The waste market is significantly constrained,
with only six to eight providers. This is driving up costs and
preventing joint working, especially on large scale projects.
6. FUNDING WASTE
COLLECTION
6.1 Developing markets, changing behaviour
through new tools and improving efficiency through joint working
are all vital to mitigate against significantly rising costs of
waste collection and disposal. But these will take time. Both
central and local government needs to take action to ensure an
even greater problem is not stored up for the future.
6.2 The imminence of the landfill directive
targets and the significant challenge ahead in increasing recycling
and ensuring infrastructure is in place to divert waste from landfill
means that significant ongoing investment is required over CSR07.
Defra modelling has suggested that local authority spending would
need to increase to £4.2 billion, from £2.6 billion,
by 2013, indicating the need to continue to increase spending
by approximately 10% pa, as in recent years.
6.3 It is vital that the Government's forthcoming
Waste Strategy Review recognises the scale of the challenge facing
local government, and that the CSR07 provides a settlement that
is consistent with the level of ambition set in the strategy and
allows achievement of the national performance indicators for
waste.
6.4 A real terms freeze to local government
in the CSR would result in failure to meet the waste strategy
objectives, the EU directive, ultimately higher long term costs
to tax payers and a deterioration of the local environment, as
councils would need to take money from the discretionary services
that are often what people value most and play an important role
in broader environmental objectives.
24 Not printed Back
25
Not printed Back
26
Not printed Back
| 
