House of Commons - Waste Strategy for England 2007 - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Waste Strategy for England 2007 - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Contents

6 Re-use and recycling

Household waste re-use and recycling

41. Although household waste makes up only 9% of overall waste, progress in this sector is central to meeting UK and EU targets, particularly those for reducing biodegradable waste. This involves local councils, who are responsible for collection and disposal of household waste,[70] working with residents to reduce the amounts they produce and increasing recovery rates through re-use and recycling. Defra has reported steadily increasing household recycling rates in recent years, to over 37% for the financial year 2008-09.[71] These increased rates mean that although overall levels of waste produced have only fallen slightly, enough waste is being recovered for England to have already achieved the 2010 target of a 25% reduction in biodegradable household waste going to landfill.[72] However this progress comes against a low starting point compared to other EU member states.[73]

Graph 2: English recycling rates 1996-97 to 2006-07

Source: "Waste and recycling statistics", House of Commons Standard note, SN/SG/2728.

42. The national recycling statistics hide considerable variations between regions. Rates range from less than 30% in London to over 45% in the East and the East Midlands. Within regions there is also a wide range of performance levels.[74] For example, in the South West, Restormel District Council achieved levels of under 27% in 2007-08. By comparison South Hams achieved levels of nearly 58%.[75]

43. Many of those giving evidence wanted greater consistency from councils in their approaches to recycling. The Local Authority Recycling Advisory Council (LARAC) believed that "one size does not fit all" but conceded that there was "some room for rationalisation and consolidation of techniques and equipment" to answer "some of the public concerns about the different systems in place across the country".[76] ASDA called for "a consistent nationwide approach to recycling".[77]

44. WRAP research into the attitudes of householders found that many wanted to know more about what happened to their recycling and the environmental impact their actions had.[78] The public is more likely to recycle if there is clear information on the use of recyclates, for example to demonstrate that materials are re-used as far as possible in their original form—for example glass bottles being re-used as bottles rather than crushed for aggregates.

45. Recyclates must be of sufficient quality to ensure maximum use of materials for premium purposes and this requires care in collection. BAN waste told us "cleanliness is the key to the production of high quality [recyclable] materials". They considered that separate collection (as opposed to mixed waste collection which is subsequently sorted) would enable more efficient collection of clean waste suitable for recycling.[79]

46. Some organisations wanted recycling targets to be strengthened. The Green Alliance said that neither the recycling nor the residual waste targets were "stretching enough to stimulate the innovation needed".[80] Friends of the Earth supported a 60% recycling and composting target.[81]

47. We welcome progress that has been made nationally on increasing levels of household recycling. We recommend that the Government set a more ambitious recycling target of 50% of household waste to be recycled by 2015 and 60% by 2020. It should also commission a report to explain the reasons for significant differences in the rates of recycling and prepare an action plan to assist poor performing local authorities to improve their domestic recycling levels. The Government should require local authorities to provide all householders with information on an annual basis explaining what actually happens to domestic waste sent for recycling and the environmental impact of their recycling activities. This information should also be collated nationally so that best practice can be disseminated.

48. Although it is important that maximum levels of re-use and recycling of waste are achieved, this must not be at the expense of efforts at national and local level to prevent waste arising in the first place.

CASE STUDY—ENGAGING THE PUBLIC IN TEXTILE RE-USE AND RECYCLING

49. More than a million tonnes of textiles are discarded each year.[82] There has been an increase in recent years in the amount of textile waste sent to landfill. During our visit to the Viridor site at Beddington Farmlands near Croydon, waste operatives told us that textile waste had increased from around 7% five years ago to around 30% of total waste now—they labelled this the "Primark effect". The company assumed the increase was due to a growing tendency for people to discard low cost clothes quickly. ASDA told us it was moving away from "fast fashion" in response to customer demands for more sustainable clothing ranges.[83]

50. Defra has produced a Sustainable Clothing Action Plan with comprehensive proposals for reducing the environmental impact of clothing. This aims to increase the re-use of textiles and encourages the use of recycling facilities including civic amenity sites, kerbside drop bins, charity shops and collections.[84]

51. We support the Government's work to increase the levels of re-use and recycling of clothing. We recommend that Defra encourage retailers to do more to help customers recycle their clothes, for example by providing information in stores on facilities available at civic amenity sites, local drop bins, charitable collections and charity shops. Clothes labels should, where possible, remind purchasers not to bin items but to pass them on for re-use or recycling.

52. Defra should consult manufacturers to develop standards and criteria for whole-life assessments of the environmental impacts of different kinds of textiles and use this information to promote the use of more sustainable materials in clothing.

HOUSEHOLD WASTE INCENTIVE SCHEMES

53. To provide further tools to encourage householders to reduce the amount of waste they produce and to recycle more, the Government introduced provisions in the Climate Change Act 2008,[85] which enable local authorities to pilot household waste incentive schemes. Under such a pilot householders could receive a rebate if they recycled more or, in some pilots, be charged more if they do not.[86] Such schemes would aim to "recognise more effectively the efforts of those householders who reduce, re-use and recycle their waste, and provide an incentive to those who do not change their behaviour".[87]

54. We received a range of evidence both supporting and opposing these provisions. Some witnesses wanted proposals to go further and include wider charging powers, such as variable charging, whereby a household's waste charge depends on how much residual waste is collected from them. This has been used in Europe and North America where it is credited with reducing residual waste by between 15% and 45% in various locations, without any apparent problems of additional unauthorised dumping.[88]A number of EU member states, such as Austria, the Netherlands and Germany out-perform the UK in reducing the amount of municipal waste collected and household charging is the most widely used instrument to achieve this.[89]

55. However, many witnesses considered financial incentives to be less effective than other methods, such as improved recycling services and education campaigns. The Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA) credited improved collection arrangements for quadrupling their recycling rates.[90] WRAP cited the success of campaigns, such as their Recycle Now campaign, which have led to 64% of people in England now describing themselves as committed recyclers, up from 45% in 2004.[91]

56. In January 2009 Defra announced that no local authority had expressed interest in piloting a financial incentive scheme for household waste and recycling.[92] Consequently it has not announced how it intends to take the incentive scheme forward. Councils' willingness to participate in the scheme has probably been reduced by negative press coverage which reinforced the public's misunderstanding of the proposals. Public mistrust has been exacerbated by a lack of information from local authorities on their services and performance, including confusion over current costs of waste collection and disposal, and over which materials can be recycled in their locality, either by collection or personal disposal. Municipal waste costs local authorities £1.15 billion for its collection and £1.46 billion for its disposal.[93] Costs averaged £53.80 per household for collection and £54 per tonne for disposal. However, costs vary considerably between individual councils. For example, in 2007-08, South Shropshire's collection costs were over £90 per household while Breckland's costs were just over £25. For disposal, costs of just over £31 per tonne were incurred in Middlesbrough, but, at the other end of the scale, West Sussex's costs were over £90 and Cornwall's over £107 per tonne.[94] Whilst this information is available for each council, householders have no idea of how much it costs to collect and deal with their property's refuse. Such a situation makes it all the more difficult for councils to either incentivise householders to improve recycling or else "fine" them for over-producing waste. The Secretary of State said in June 2009 that he wished to support councils as they "explain and justify" waste collection systems to householders.[95]

57. Defra must improve its support to local authorities in explaining more clearly the benefits which can arise from households reducing their domestic waste volumes. The department should now produce a report explaining how a more rational regime for charging for domestic waste collection and disposal can be proceeded with. If public commitment to recycling is to be developed, local authorities must firstly make it clear to people what the current costs of waste collection are and express such figures in terms of cost per bin, bag or wheelie bin.

Business waste re-use and recycling

58. Support programmes, such as those run by WRAP and the National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP), are in place to assist businesses and encourage them to view waste as a "resource in the wrong place".[96] NISP works to "effect a long term cultural change in business to view all resources as an asset with a value which should not be wasted or discarded".[97] Whilst they do work on waste produced at the end of an industrial process, their main emphasis is higher up the waste hierarchy to prevent wastes occurring through innovative processes and collaborations between companies. Their regional approach aims to help companies to locate closely to maximise such collaboration.

59. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) especially benefit from support programmes, as this group face particular challenges, including difficulties in gaining access to facilities. The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Partnership considered that SMEs have "fallen through a policy gap".[98] Brecknell Willis, a small engineering firm, considered that unless there is a "huge incentive" small firms have difficulty finding the time and resources to recycle. They also said the company valued advice programmes.[99] However it considered there was some duplication in advice services and that it was important to have real focus to enable local sharing of experiences.[100]

60. Defra has cut business resource efficiency budgets on the grounds that increased landfill tax and pre-treatment requirements for residual waste going to landfill would stimulate sufficient market activity. In 2008-09 it cut funding for WRAP by a third, for Envirowise (the resource efficiency advice agency) by 55% and for NISP by 42%.[101] The CBI considered that many support programmes, including NISP, have been "cost effective in realising the potential resource-efficiency gains available to business". It believed that there was a good case for not cutting the programmes budget but for some expansion "where the cost-benefit data justify it".[102] Independent evaluation through Manchester Economics has calculated the benefit cost ratio provided by NISP to be around 30:1 and that, over a five year period, NISP was providing direct receipts to HMT in the region of £148 million to £247 million, in addition to environmental benefits and the creation of 770 jobs.[103] We also note that WRAP has been particularly good at co-operating with small communities—encouraging and enthusing them to seek out innovative waste reduction strategies.

61. Defra is now bringing together all business resource efficiency programmes (BREW), including NISP, under WRAP leadership to provide a "one stop shop". 2009-10 budgets do not reverse previous years' reductions in funding for resource efficiency programmes and we are concerned that the indicative amount shown in the tender document for industrial symbiosis represents a 17.5% cut in NISP's funding from £4.875 million in 2009-10, despite NISP having delivered the majority of the outputs under BREW.[104]

62. Support services to help businesses increase their re-use and recycling of materials have proven themselves to be extremely cost-effective, particularly in the case of the National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP). We recommend that Defra re-evaluates the impact that cuts in funding for the Waste Resources Action Programme and NISP is having on business waste re-use and recycling levels and the missed opportunities for economic growth decoupled from environmental degradation. The department should confirm that rationalisation of services under WRAP has released efficiency savings and explain how WRAP will work with local government, businesses and regional agencies to enable them to serve a wider range of organisations.

LOCAL AUTHORITY SUPPORT FOR BUSINESSES

63. Many witnesses highlighted the need to link municipal waste services with those for the non-municipal sector. The Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) considered that more attention could be given to non-municipal waste by local authorities working with the private and third sectors.[105] The Waste Strategy points out that supporting local businesses with better management of their waste is part of local authorities' local leadership and community development role. It notes that this can provide opportunities for cost-sharing through "more integrated management of different waste streams with economies of scale from joint facilities and services".[106]

64. Local authorities can, however, be reluctant to take on business waste as any increase in certain wastes would increase the probability of financial penalties under the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS).[107] GMWDA told us that local authorities were concerned that taking on trade waste disposal would push up the amount of waste they were accountable for under LATS.[108] While waste collection authorities have a duty to arrange for the collection of commercial waste, where requested to do so, they may, however, recover a reasonable charge for the collection and any disposal costs passed on by the waste disposal authority.[109]

65. We recommend that Defra reviews whether the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme is having a negative impact on council provision of waste services for businesses.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY WASTE RE-USE AND RECYCLING

66. Demolition and construction waste account for around 32% of all waste arisings and excavation waste accounts for a further 30%. The Waste Strategy identified the construction sector as a priority area for action. In June 2008 the Government's Strategy for Sustainable Construction set out an overarching target of a 50% reduction in construction, demolition and excavation waste sent to landfill by 2012, compared to 2008.[110]

67. Fiscal and legislative mechanisms which have most impact on this sector include the landfill tax, the aggregates levy, mandatory Site Waste Management Plans (SWMP) which apply to construction projects worth over £300,000,[111] and the Code for Sustainable Homes.[112] SWMPs are improving the culture and practices of construction companies but Constructing Excellence, representing construction companies, argued that an alternative to the project value, such as floor area or number of units, would avoid problems such as the original project value falling below the threshold but the final account being above it.[113] Constructing Excellence also believed that smaller companies were not aware of good waste management practices and that there was insufficient enforcement of SWMPs.[114]

68. We recommend that the Government should identify more specific criteria than the current project value which could be used to determine which projects require a Site Waste Management Plan. We are concerned that some smaller construction companies find it difficult to comply with Site Waste Management Plan provisions to the same extent as larger companies. Defra should work with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to raise small and medium sized construction companies' awareness of their legal responsibilities on waste and to encourage them to view it as a resource. We further recommend that the Environment Agency puts greater effort into enforcing construction waste requirements such as Site Waste Management Plans across the construction sector. It should publish a report by December 2010 showing what progress they have made in this respect.

69. Defra ought to work more closely with both the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government to realise the opportunities that both reclamation and salvage present. More use should be made of the knowledge and expertise of the Building Research Establishment.

WASTE CLASSIFICATION

70. Defining when waste ceases to be waste is a complex issue. It has been a deterrent for those wishing to re-use waste. Materials classed as waste must be managed in compliance with waste regulations, which require that those handling it follow certain processes and potentially bear compliance costs. While definitions of waste under the European Waste Framework Directive have been clarified through a series of legal judgments in recent years, the EA believed that the lack of clarity has "fuelled debate and disagreement, often at the expense of identifying better options for managing waste and minimising its impacts".[115]

71. The revisions to the Waste Framework Directive agreed in 2008 mean that criteria to determine when a product ceases to be a waste and becomes a new product can be developed for materials including aggregates, metals, paper, glass, tyres and textiles. WRAP and the Environment Agency were working together to produce protocols defining 15 waste streams.[116] WRAP has said it would wish to continue this work, subject to resources being available.

72. The British Metals Recycling Association considered that the classification of recycled metal as 'waste' rather than as "an extremely valuable secondary raw material" was a deterrent to re-use and recycling of metals.[117] The organisation considered that scrap metal should be "reclassified as non-waste as far as possible in the UK and under the EU's Waste Framework Directive".[118]

73. We recommend that funding is continued for the protocols work to develop standards to define when a wide range of waste material ceases to be waste, with arrangements also being made to provide widespread publicity of its conclusions. The Environment Agency should produce a report highlighting where the biggest gains could be made if certain materials were declassified as waste.

IMPROVING THE RE-USE AND RECYCLING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK—ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING PROGRAMME (EPP)

74. Waste management operations require a permit, although exemptions can apply to low risk waste recovery and disposal activities. The Environmental Permitting Programme (EPP), which came into force in April 2008, streamlined the permitting system by combining previous waste and pollution control systems into a single environmental permitting system.[119] Defra estimates the new system will save around £90 million over 10 years.[120] The department recently consulted on reviewing the exemption regime and revisions to EPP are due to come into force in 2010 and be fully implemented by 2013.[121]

75. Some witnesses were concerned that EPP was not bringing benefits to their sector due to its "one size fits all" approach.[122] The BMRA considered that the inflexibility of EPP imposed "excess regulatory costs and burdens which do not improve the environment but rather the reverse".[123] Constructing Excellence was concerned that the thresholds under EPP were deterring the re-use and recycling of materials. They stated that the 500 cubic metres threshold, above which companies were required to obtain a permit to re-use materials, was set at too low a level. Its member companies considered that the "much lower limits on quantities of materials that can be used/stored" being proposed would encourage greater use of virgin resources since it would be more time and cost effective to do this than to apply for a permit to re-use waste.[124] The Environment Agency told us in November 2009 that it would "continue to work with industry to develop the right levels for thresholds to balance cost and risk".[125] In a draft Statutory Instrument laid before Parliament in November 2009,[126] the threshold triggering the requirement for a permit to re-use inert aggregate waste was increased ten-fold to 5,000 cubic metres. However it is proposed that thresholds for requiring a permit for the storage and treatment of waste metal be reduced. The British Metals Recycling Association is reported to be concerned that this will add unnecessary regulatory burdens to the metals industry while doing "nothing to improve environmental protection".[127]

76. There is some evidence that Environmental Permitting thresholds are being set in ways that deter rather than encourage re-use of materials. Since recycled metal is a valuable secondary raw material, a specific review of waste regulation for the metals industry should be undertaken to ensure that regulatory burdens are proportionate to the health and environmental impacts of this sector. Any change in the rules that might result must ensure that metals, a valuable resource, are not discarded but re-used.

77. Over half of the UK's discarded waste fuel oils are currently either sent to landfill sites or illegally fly-tipped, presenting considerable risks to the environment and to public health. However, recovery processes can turn these waste materials into environmentally safe recovered fuel oil (RFO) which can be used as an alternative to fossil fuels for providing heat and power.[128]

78. The EU requires hydrocarbon oil duty to be applied to such fuel, but allows both a minimum rate of duty and differential rates of duty to be applied to reflect the product quality and environmental benefit of different waste fuel-derived products.[129] A number of companies operating recycled oil facilities were concerned that the level of duty applied in the UK was ten times higher than that applied in most other EU member states and that such a high duty level could end waste oil recycling in this country.[130] This duty is applied on a product which originally attracted duty. Lhoist UK, a lime manufacturing business, considered the duty regime to be "bizarre" since the duty levied made RFO more expensive to use than virgin fossil fuels such as gas, despite RFO representing a "greener" alternative. Since some other EU member states have exempted RFO from duty, the company considers that the current situation favours competitors operating in those countries.[131]

79. The duty regime for waste fuel oils is acting as a deterrent to the re-use of such oils, increasing the likelihood of illegal dumping and providing a perverse incentive for industry to use virgin fossil fuels. The Government should impose lower levels of duty on waste fuel oils which meet quality specifications determined by the Environment Agency.

70 Waste collection authorities (WCA)-376 unitary or district councils responsible for collecting waste from 22 million homes and some businesses. Section 45(1) of the Environmental Protection Act (1990) imposes a duty on WCAs to arrange for the collection of household waste in their areas, with section 46 giving them powers to determine the arrangements. Waste disposal authorities (WDA) councils manage the waste that is collected by the local council. In some cases the WDA is the same council as the WCA, if not it is often the county council for an area. WDAs are also responsible for developing and implementing plans to deal with municipal waste, working with WCAs to develop plans to help meet European targets to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill. WDAs also arrange for places where householders can take their waste (civic amenity sites). Back

71 Defra statistical release, Municipal Waste Management Statistics for England, 2008-09, 5 November 2009. Back

72 Environment Agency, Report on the Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme, November 2008, p 3. A total of 10,580,000 tonnes of biodegradable municipal waste was landfilled in 2007-08, against an EU set limit for 2010 of 11,200,000 tonnes. Back

73 Waste and recycling statistics, Standard Note SN/SG/2728, House of Commons Library, April 2008. Back

74 Defra statistical release, Municipal waste management statistics for England 2008-09, 5 November 2009. Back

75 "Municipal Waste Management Statistics for England 2008-09; data for individual local authorities, November 2009", Defra environment statistics web pages. Back

76 Ev 248 Back

77 Ev 379 Back

78 WRAP, Barriers to recycling at home: technical report, August 2008, para 5.5. Back

79 Ev 263 Back

80 Ev 284 Back

81 Ev 193 Back