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

10 Tackling waste crime

Illegal waste exports

106. Exports of recyclable materials are currently necessary for the UK to meet EU recycling targets and they provide significant economic benefits. For example, paper, glass and plastics exports had a combined market value of around £450 million in 2006. Similar to the pattern in other parts of Europe, the UK's exports of waste for recovery and reprocessing have doubled between 2002 and 2008 and now stand at around 14 million tonnes a year. There are strict constraints on exports of waste under both international and UK regulations. It is illegal to export waste from England and Wales beyond the EU for disposal. Exports for recovery are only permissible under detailed conditions specifying the type of waste and country of destination.[179]

107. According to EA data, since 2002 Thailand, Belgium, the Netherlands and Poland have received illegal waste exports from England and Wales.[180] The Agency is currently investigating alleged illegal waste exported to Brazil from England in early 2009. Since 2004 there have been 18 successful prosecutions for illegal waste shipments, with fines imposed totalling some £224,650.[181]

108. There is some evidence however that illegal waste export cases detected and prosecuted represent only a small fraction of the total percentage of this trade. A 2009 report published by the European Environment Agency found that illegal waste shipments from the EU were rising and that reported cases, which made up around 0.2% of notified waste exports, represent only a fraction of actual numbers.[182]

109. It is difficult to get a complete picture of the potential scale of illegal waste exports due to the nature of the regulatory system. Under the EU Waste Shipment Regulations there are two systems for regulating waste exports—one is for notifiable waste (generally having some hazardous waste content) while the other for "green list" waste is self-policing. The Environment Agency is the competent authority for England and Wales responsible for ensuring compliance with notifiable waste regulations. It estimated that only a small minority of waste exports were of such waste (some 180,000 tonnes annually),[183] and that the vast majority of exports take place under the green list system. Since no prior permission or applications need be made to regulatory authorities before green list wastes are moved, the EA does not collate data on these movements.

110. However, the EA noted that while notified waste shipments were "largely legitimate and well regulated" there was evidence that the green list system was "being abused"—although a majority of exports under the green list system were "entirely legitimate" and played a crucial role in bring about the recycling of waste materials.[184] The EA told us that its efforts to work with the legitimate waste industry to reduce illegal exports, particularly through work at recycling facilities to improve the quality of recyclates, had been a "broad success" but that criminal activity was harder to counteract.[185] It conceded that illegal exports can only be tackled if they are detected and that detection is "more challenging" under the green list system since the Agency did not have accurate information on where the exports take place from.[186]

111. Improving the intelligence on illegal waste exports is therefore central to tackling the problem. The EA considered that some companies "operate on the fringe of legality and others operate at a high level of criminality", and argued there is a need for better co-ordination with agencies including HM Revenue and Customs, the UK Border Agency and Ports Authorities to help its "intelligence led approach".[187] The EA also noted that the Dutch model—whereby electronic tags on waste exports databases flag up to ports authority inspectors which loads might require inspection—was effective but that there were currently "legal impediments" preventing this approach in the UK.[188] Defra told us of work underway through its Compliance and Enforcement Project to improve liaison between the range of agencies working on waste crime.[189] The EA has received additional funding of £4 million over three years to put in place a "more comprehensive programme of work around securing compliant waste exports" with an increase to 132 port inspection days in the first half of 2009.[190] Around 15-16% of total EA waste expenditure is now spent on enforcement activities.[191]

112. The small number of prosecutions for illegal waste exports does not give a true picture of the potentially much larger scale of illegal waste exports from this country. It concerns us that the competent authority for regulating waste exports does not currently have full access to intelligence on potential illegal waste exports. It is vital that liaison between all the relevant agencies tackling waste crime is improved and the Government should seek the first available opportunity to remove legal impediments to full information sharing between the Environment Agency and other agencies monitoring exports, including the police, HM Revenue and Customs and the UK Border Agency. In addition the Government should liaise with the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that the Proceeds of Crime Act can fully bear down on the illegal profits which can be gained from this lucrative trade.

ILLEGAL EXPORTS OF WASTE ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (WEEE)

113. There is a specific problem with exports of electronic and electrical equipment which can only be exported for recycling or re-use, not disposal, and then only to OECD countries. However the EA is concerned that this material is being exported under the guise of non-waste for re-use, but in reality it is being dismantled, and in many instances burnt, to recover metal content thus causing serious harm to human health and the environment.[192] The Environmental Services Association (ESA) shares these concerns and recommends tightening of the regime to ensure that waste electronic and electrical equipment is properly directed into the legitimate WEEE treatment system and that only fully functioning equipment is exported.[193] The Secretary of State told us that the Government supported revision of EU regulations to require electronic and electrical equipment to be tested, labelled and packaged to ensure that it was functioning and not waste equipment.[194]

114. There is evidence that regulations prohibiting the export of waste electronic and electrical equipment have been circumvented on a wide scale by those passing off waste equipment as functioning equipment for legitimate export. We support changes to the regulatory regime to ensure that only fully functioning electronic and electrical equipment is exported from the UK.

Litter and fly-tipping

115. Levels of litter and fly-tipping have, until recently, been increasing. In 2006 the overall level of litter dropped for the first time in five years. However Encams (the Keep Britain Tidy group) considers this improvement to be minor and not indicative of a general trend.[195] Fly-tipping decreased in 2007-08 but this followed an increase of 5% in 2005-06 when 2.6 million incidents were recorded.[196]

116. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2000 gives councils clear and enhanced powers to act on fly-tipping and littering.[197] The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) was, however, critical of local authorities' enforcement levels. CPRE noted that 25 of England's 354 councils were responsible for almost two-thirds of fines for littering and that 72 councils issued no fines at all.[198] This clearly indicates variations which cannot be explained by local differences in littering levels. Enforcement action and successful prosecutions for fly-tipping increased in 2007-08, with a 26% increase in enforcement actions issued by local authorities and a 95% success rate for the 1,871 prosecutions for fly-tipping.[199] However CPRE noted that this means there is "only a one in 1,450 chance of being brought to book". It considered that there is considerable progress to be made "with regard to existing regulatory powers being used consistently and with vigilance".[200] Greater consistency in the waste collection policies of neighbouring local authorities may reduce the incidence of fly-tipping.

117. Organisations such as CPRE and Encams have mounted large scale public information campaigns, such as "Stop the Drop", to reduce the levels of litter and fly-tipping, including work with a range of public sector bodies to share best practice and "develop comprehensive, effective and geographically consistent systems".[201] Councils such as Bath and North East Somerset have demonstrated success in tackling litter through a blitz on badly littered areas, working with partners locally and supporting education campaigns.[202]

118. We recommend that the Government review how councils are using statutory provisions to tackle fly-tipping and littering. It should develop incentives (both carrots and sticks) for councils to utilise fully their powers on these issues. The outcome of this work should be made available within 12 months.

119. Some witnesses expressed concern over the low level of funding available for enforcement of waste legislation. The Environment Agency believed that increased costs of sending waste to landfill, and proposals to allow councils to pilot variable charging for household waste, could lead to an increase in illegal activity. It argued that their work would be limited without proper funding and both the Agency itself and councils needed powers and resources to tackle it.[203] Private landowners also incur costs from repeated incidences of fly-tipping since dealing with fly-tipping on private land is the responsibility of the landowner. The ESA noted that £2 million had been provided by Defra over the last three years to help the EA fight fly-tipping but said that it had "repeatedly" told Defra this sum was inadequate.[204] The Environment Agency also wanted appropriate sanctions to be in place and for the courts to "recognise the seriousness of waste crime".[205] It noted that although custodial sentences were now beginning to be imposed for some fly-tipping offences, courts were not imposing such sanctions for illegal waste exports.[206]

120. Regulatory income is insufficient to fund enforcement of regulations and Defra must ensure that additional resources are made available. Private landowners who are victims of fly-tipping should also be given assistance in cleaning up their property, using revenue from the penalties imposed for waste crime. We recommend that Defra identifies and brings forward proposals to address barriers to enforcement, including lack of awareness of powers and sanctions, across Government departments.

121. Litter arising from containers used to retail drinks is a significant problem.[207] Keep Britain Tidy's 2008 survey found that such litter was present at over half of the sites visited, the third most prevalent type of litter after smoking materials and confectionary packaging.[208] CPRE considered that a bottle return scheme would help to reduce this significantly. Only 25% of the million plastic bottles used in the UK each day are recycled, compared to recycling rates of 75% or more for the US states and European countries with deposit schemes.[209] Defra claims to have an open mind on deposit and return schemes but CPRE considered that it needed to be more objective and come up with a "new, more positive" approach to such schemes.[210] However, Defra concluded in a report published in December 2008 that alternative schemes, such as collection from households, could achieve the same or better recycling levels at lower cost and that deposit schemes could divert materials from existing arrangements such as bottle banks or kerbside collections.[211] The department's packaging strategy, launched in June 2009, proposed that by 2010 trials for increasing the use of re-usable and refillable packaging would be completed.

122. We welcome Defra's announcement that it is establishing trials of re-usable and refillable packaging. The Government should make public the findings of the outcomes of these trials, in particular how cost-effective different methods of re-using packaging prove to be.

123. The Government should also evaluate the practicalities of applying a small "clean up" levy to products, including smoking materials, drinks and confectionary including chewing gum, which, together with their packaging, contribute the largest volumes of litter. Revenues could be distributed to local authorities to help clean up their neighbourhoods.

179 Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1137) as amended. The UK Management Plan for Exports and Imports of Waste came into operation in 1996 setting out the Government's policies on exports and imports of waste for disposal and recovery. Back

180 HC Deb, 12 October 2009, col 306W Back

181 HC Deb, 12 October 2009, col 305W Back

182 European Environment Agency, Waste without borders in the EU, 2009. Back

183 Ev 405 Back

184 Ev 404 Back

185 Q 429 Back

186 Ev 405 Back

187 Ev 406 Back

188 Q 432 Back

189 Ev 413 Back

190 Ev 406 Back