Memorandum submitted by the Mayor of London
(Waste 32)
LETTER FROM THE MAYOR OF LONDON TO THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMITTEE, NOVEMBER 2007
Please find attached my submission to your Committee's
inquiry on "Waste Strategy for England 2007".
Reducing the amount of waste being sent to landfill
is at the heart of managing waste sustainably. I am particularly
concerned that, rather than genuinely reducing the amount of municipal
waste being sent to landfill, local authorities are disregarding
or attempting to find loopholes to circumvent the rules relating
to the Landfill Allowances Trading Scheme (LATS) to give the impression
that the amount of waste disposed of to landfill has been reduced,
when in fact the waste continues to go to landfill but via the
private commercial waste sector.
Around two-thirds of London's waste is buried
in landfill sites and mostly exported to sites outside of London.
I have set targets in the London Plan (my spatial development
strategy for London) that require a far higher rate of self-sufficiency.
However the Government's lack of support for advanced conversion
technologies, continues to tilt the playing field in favour of
established but inefficient and inflexible incineration technology.
I therefore very much welcome your inquiry as
a timely means to address the inadequacies of the Government's
strategy and particularly its implications for London and the
surrounding regions. I would welcome the opportunity for my Environment
Policy Director, John Duffy, to present evidence at your inquiry.
Ken Livingstone
Mayor of London
14 November 2007
Memorandum
INTRODUCTION
— The Mayor welcomes the opportunity
to respond to the Committee's inquiry on the Government's Waste
Strategy 2007. — This response is informed by the Mayor's
Municipal Waste Management Strategy. — The main points
of the response are summarised below followed, where appropriate,
by answers to questions posed in the consultation document.
SUMMARY
— The Mayor is concerned that local
authorities are selling their trade waste portfolios and deliberately
pricing themselves out of the market. This behaviour is encouraged
by the way the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme operates and
Defra has failed to put in place measures to monitor or manage
this. — The Mayor believes the Government's stance of
having no preference for one technology over another for energy
from waste technologies equates to endorsement of the status quo.
"Neutrality" is not a viable option when one technology
(incineration) has a deeply embedded and mature market in the
UK. Incineration is an inflexible and inefficient waste treatment
method compared with advanced conversion technologies. Further,
this view contradicts the Government's Energy White Paper that
explicitly favours advanced conversion technologies including
gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion over any type
of conventional incineration. This demonstrates once again that
there is no joined up thinking in Defra on climate change and
waste.
— There is a lack of clarity around
the role of regional bodies in the strategy. The Mayor believes
that a single waste disposal authority is required to tackle London's
infrastructure challenge, as is the case in all other major English
and world cities.
— The Mayor believes that the Government
should continue to set individual local authority targets for
recycling and composting.
COMMERCIAL WASTE
AND THE
LANDFILL ALLOWANCE
TRADING SCHEME
(LATS)
1. The Mayor is concerned that the Landfill
Directive has not been properly implemented in the UK, meaning
more, not less, of London's waste is going to landfill and so
leading to damage to the environment and to our fight against
climate change. The Mayor submitted evidence to the Refuse Collection
Inquiry conducted by the CLG Select Committee and also has lodged
a complaint with the EU Commission to ensure proper implementation
and enforcement of the Landfill Directive.
2. The LATS scheme, set up to deliver the Landfill
Directive, only applies to waste collected by local authorities,
which does not properly reflect the intention of the Landfill
Directive definition (nor the definition in UK statute through
the WET Act 2003), which was far wider in scope.
3. The Mayor believes that the Government
needs to review the implementation of the Landfill Directive as
soon as possible and look at options for the inclusion of all
commercial waste in the scheme irrespective of whether it is in
the control of local authorities.
4. The Government's LATS scheme has led
to a considerable disconnect since the introduction of LATS between
waste authorities' obligations under the Landfill Directive for
biodegradable municipal waste and their statutory recycling and
composting performance targets, which are only for household waste.
LATS has effectively acted as a disincentive for waste authorities
to undertake a role in non-household waste management.
5. The LATS system encourages local authorities
to retain a portion of their permits in case of an increase in
household waste arisings, or a failure to divert waste away from
landfill. They can artificially create this "safety net"
by ceasing to collect commercial waste. The Mayor is concerned
that local authorities are selling their trade waste portfolios
and deliberately pricing themselves out of the market. Defra has
failed to put in place measures to monitor or manage this.
6. The Refuse Collection Inquiry findings
recommended the urgent review of London boroughs' data to identify
any disparities regarding commercial waste. However in its response
to the Committee's report, Defra completely disregards the Committee's
recommendation by saying it has already audited some of the London
boroughs' data. In fact, these audits focused on how data was
gathered and reported for the first year of the LATS scheme and
did not look at trends, such as reduced commercial waste collections,
nor did it cover all boroughs as many boroughs are waste collection
authorities and do not report under LATS. This is an inadequate
response to both the Committee's and the Mayor's concerns.
7. The Mayor's submission to the CLG Select
Committee is attached as Appendix A [not printed].
CLIMATE CHANGE
AND WASTE—THE
ROLE OF
ADVANCED CONVERSION
TECHNOLOGIES
8. The Government says it will tackle climate
change by reducing waste to landfill and treating 25 per cent
of municipal waste in energy from waste schemes by 2020. Ten per
cent of the UK's municipal waste is treated through incineration
plants today, and none of these plants utilise both the heat and
power generated—they are the most inefficient form of energy
from waste. The Mayor believes greater emission savings and more
efficient energy generation can be achieved by using advanced
conversion technologies including gasification and anaerobic digestion
rather than through conventional incineration.
9. Research undertaken for the GLA[42]
(to be published in November 2007) shows advanced conversion technologies
can save between 350 and 650 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions per
tonne of waste treated compared to landfill. The best performing
incineration option modelled (with some pre-treatment and operating
in combined heat and power mode) can achieve emission savings
no higher than 350 kg of CO2 equivalent per tonne of waste treated
compared to landfill. All other incineration scenarios perform
much lower, saving between up to 85 kg of CO2 equivalent per tonne
of waste treated.
10. The Mayor believes the Government's
stance of having no preference for one technology over another
for energy from waste technologies equates to endorsement of the
status quo. "Neutrality" is not a viable option when
one technology has a deeply embedded and mature market in the
UK. The use of advanced conversion technologies (and not only
anaerobic digestion) must be actively supported in order for markets
to be developed. Further, Defra's lack of preference compromises
and contradicts DBERR's (then DTI) Energy White Paper[43]
which states incineration without combined heat and power (CHP)
will not qualify for Renewable Obligation Credits (ROC) and incineration
with CHP will be eligible for 1 ROC/MWh, whereas advanced conversion
technologies including gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion
are eligible for 2 ROC/MWh—the Government is clearly expressing
a preference! This demonstrates once again that there is no joined
up thinking in Defra on climate change and waste.
11. Existing waste infrastructure in London
is wholly inadequate. The London Plan identifies the need for
over 300 new waste facilities in London by 2020 if London is to
meet its self-sufficiency targets for municipal, commercial and
industrial wastes. Only a handful of new facilities have been
developed over the last few years and London's waste authorities
urgently need to pick up their game.
12. The Government has proposed using PFI,
Enhanced Capital Allowances, and Renewable Obligation Certificates
to encourage a variety of energy recovery technologies. The Mayor
supports this approach on the whole but is concerned that the
tools are not fit for the job. PFI is notoriously risk-averse.
The Mayor is also concerned that "a variety of energy recovery
technologies" would in reality mean conventional incineration
and anaerobic digestion. More needs to be done on encouraging
technologies with higher energy efficiency potential.
13. The Government also talked about "recovering
energy from waste which cannot sensibly be recycled". This
is an improvement from the current indiscriminate use of incineration
but the Mayor is concerned about the use of the word "sensible".
14. The Strategy suggests developing the
energy market for wood waste. The Mayor's concern that this is
based on conventional thermal treatment of wood waste. It does
not encourage the opportunity of small-scale gasification facilities
with gas engines lending itself to decentralised energy systems.
If this were the case then the Government's suggestion would be
very welcome.
15. The Mayor, through the inter-regional
forum, is working with the East and South East of England Regional
Assemblies to identify markets for recycled materials for the
three regions. Plastic recycling is a major issue for London and
the Mayor will be opening a plastics recycling plant in London
next spring. The plant will process 35,000 tonnes of plastic bottles
per year, producing 11,000 tonnes of food-grade PET (eg soft drink
bottles) plastic and 6,000 tonnes of food-grade HDPE (eg milk
bottles) plastic. This will be the world's first recycling plant
to produce food-grade recycled HDPE. The remainder of the plastic
will be used for non-food applications (such as wheelie bins).
A SINGLE WASTE
DISPOSAL AUTHORITY
FOR LONDON
16. There is a lack of clarity around the
role of regional bodies in the strategy. Voluntary arrangements
have failed to deliver the necessary changes that are required
in London's waste management. The Mayor remains unconvinced that
voluntarism can deliver this huge task. The Mayor believes that
single waste disposal authority is required to tackle London's
infrastructure challenge, as is the case in all other major English
and world cities.
17. Whilst the Government wishes to see "clear
and well-integrated strategic priorities and plans" it has
failed to put in place the governance changes to do this. The
Government has acknowledged the limits of working at a local level
by legislating to allow local authorities to create joint waste
authorities, however this does not go far enough. Experience from
Wales and Scotland suggests that there is a need for infrastructure
to be delivered on a sub-regional or regional scale and that in
many cases local authorities are not suitably sized to deliver
either the economies of scale or the expertise to deliver this
infrastructure[44].
18. The Government states that it sees a
role for regional government bodies to develop services and facilities
for the collection and management of waste, however the Mayor
does not have the power to direct waste authorities to use such
services or facilities and therefore he would be developing them
as merchant facilities, with no guarantee of supply. This not
an appropriate role for regional government.
RECYCLING AND
RECOVERY TARGETS
19. The new national household waste recycling
targets are welcomed but it is disappointing that they are not
for municipal waste and are not as challenging as the London Plan's
targets. The "recovery of municipal waste" targets are
welcome. However this creates an inconsistency between targets
for household and municipal waste, which is not welcome.
20. The Government has chosen not to set recycling
targets for local authorities. The Mayor sees this as a huge backward
step as targets have driven the improvements over the last five
years and meant that for the first time a national target has
been achieved. The Mayor believes that individual local authority
targets should continue to be set.
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE
21. It is disappointing the Government only
"encourages local authorities to offer separate collection
services for household hazardous waste". According to a study
by Imperial College London[45],
each year up to 10,500 tonnes of hazardous waste is produced by
the capital's households, yet in 2005 only 200 tonnes of this
dangerous waste was collected by London boroughs' main collection
service and properly disposed of. This is because the council
services are badly advertised, there are only two vehicles across
the capital collecting this type of waste and only five reuse
and recycling centres that accept all of this waste for London's
7.4 million residents. Consequently, it is estimated that around
10,000 tonnes of household hazardous waste is being mixed in with
normal household waste collections or liquids such as chemicals
are being poured down the drain.
IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF
LEGISLATION AND
REGULATIONS
Packaging regulations
22. The Strategy states that Packaging Recovery
Notes (PRNs) are delivering increased packaging recovery however
research undertaken for the GLA[46]
indicated that Packaging Export Recovery Notes (PERNs) appear
to be functioning as an export subsidy for lower grade materials,
potentially at the expense of domestic sorting and reprocessing
activities. As a result, there appears to be justification for
amending the current system to offer greater relative reward for
the issue of (domestic) PRNs compared to PERNs to incentivise
domestic reprocessing.
23. For domestic reprocessing, PRN prices are
largely fixed by contracts between obligated companies or compliance
schemes and domestic reprocessors. Many PERNs, however, are sold
on a spot market basis, and thus often at higher prices particularly
when there appears to be a shortage of tonnages to meet obligations.
Furthermore, whilst PRN revenues from domestic reprocessing must
be made transparent and reinvested in new recycling infrastructure,
there is no such requirement for PERN revenues. As a result, even
in situations where UK reprocessors are able to compete with the
prices paid by overseas reprocessors, there can be more profit
to be gained from exporting the material.
24. The PRN/PERN system supports reprocessing
without regard for its carbon impact. For example, PRNs generated
from recycling glass bottles back into new glass bottles, or from
recycling glass into aggregate have the same value to waste producers.
Yet in carbon terms, recycling glass back into glass rather than
into aggregate has a far greater carbon benefit[47].
25. The current PRN/PERN system should be
amended so that it is weighted in favour of materials being recycled
locally and in favour of recycling with greater carbon benefits.
Pretreatment legislation
26. The Government says it will consult
on strengthening the requirements for written records to support
implementation of pre-treatment requirements for landfilled waste
that comes into effect in October 2007. This is a key way in which
increased recycling can be "required" for businesses,
but there is a serious concern that the legislation will be difficult
to enforce. Therefore further strengthening of the legislation
is essential.
WEEE
27. The Government has chosen to prioritise the
use of existing collection infrastructure, such as Reuse and Recycling
Centres to collect WEEE. This approach is unacceptable because
the Government has not reviewed the density of Reuse and Recycling
Centres in London nor surveyed their suitability to separately
collect electrical equipment. More should be done to develop in-store
take-back and take-back on delivery. These systems would be likely
to increase the volume collected, because they would be the easiest
way for Londoners to participate and have positive transport impacts.
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
TO INCREASE
HOUSEHOLD WASTE
PREVENTION AND
RECYCLING
28. Whilst the Mayor supports the use of
financial incentives as a means of increasing recycling participation
and landfill diversion, he believes that the Government's preferred
option[48]
constitutes direct charging, rather than a financial incentive.
Introducing direct charging would be a disaster in London under
current governance arrangements. An independent decision by a
borough to introduce a charge ("incentive") would have
significant negative impacts on neighbouring boroughs, in terms
of both fly-tipping and additional waste disposed of at their
reuse and recycling centres. What is more, by excluding flats
from the scheme the Government is perpetuating the myth that many
boroughs refuse to address: that flats are "too hard"
to cater for with recycling services. Nearly half of London's
households are flats and it is not acceptable to arbitrarily exclude
them from an incentive scheme—especially when they will
foot the bill for its implementation through their council tax.
29. The Government's proposal is effectively
a new local tax that could be levied in 33 different ways in London.
This is typical of Defra's approach to London, once again disregarding
that London is a city and that its residents don't recognise borough
boundaries. The proposal, if implemented, will lead to confused
residents who object to paying a new tax for no increase in service
30. The Mayor is particularly concerned
that the Government's definition of revenue neutral is flawed.
For the scheme to be revenue neutral the true cost of operating
the scheme needs to be taken into account when calculating any
potential rebate. By choosing to not include these costs in the
definition of "revenue neutral" the Government's approach
would force local authorities to increase council tax to finance
introducing these schemes, which is contrary to the Government's
own policies.
31. The Mayor is also concerned about the
potential legality of the incentive scheme the Government is proposing
and would like to see the legal justification for the scheme.
REDUCING PACKAGING
32. The Government continues to promote
voluntary agreements with producers. The further development of
voluntary agreements is not appropriate, and statutory measures
are required. Lack of significant progress to date shows the extent
to which businesses will make voluntary commitments to prevent
waste or promote reuse, composting and recycling when there is
no immediate economic or regulatory stimulus. Voluntary agreements
too often simply allow industry to avoid significant behavioural
change. Shortcomings include low participation rates, leading
to free-rider problems, and a lack of analysis of the impact,
scope, outcomes and effectiveness of voluntary agreements.
33. The Government favours light-weighting of
packaging, which may be an appropriate way to ensure resources
are used productively where the product is not reusable or recyclable.
However, this preference could drive the trend towards creating
one-use products and packaging and prevent the product being reused
if light-weighting is applied indiscriminately to all products
and packaging. The preference for light-weighting or construction
for reuse needs to be driven by the inherent reusability of products
(for example soft drink cans are not reusable whereas soft drink
bottles are), and material types (for example much plastic packaging
is not recyclable).
34. Designers and producers of consumer
goods, particularly packaging, should consider domestic recycling
infrastructure as part of the design process. Clearly, a product
is only recyclable if there are the facilities and technologies
available to recycle it, a problem compounded by the inconsistent
and misleading presentation of products' environmental credentials.
Mayor of London
November 2007
42 Enviro Centre and Eunomia, A greenhouse gas balance
of waste recovery scenarios, Greater London Authority, October
2007. Back
43
Department of Trade and Industry, "Meeting the Energy
Challenge, A White Paper on Energy", May 2007, pg 151. Back
44
Mouchel Parkman, Evaluation of Options for the Future Governance
and Administration of Waste Disposal In London, Greater London
Authority, July 2005. Available at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/waste/docs/lswa/evaluation-of-options.rtf Back
45
Imperial College London, Further Development for the Management
of Household Hazardous Waste, August 2005. Back
46
SLR Consulting, Creating a recycling loop for London, Great
London Authority, August 2006. Back
47
The case for a resource management strategy, Institute of Civil
Engineers, January 2006. Back
48
Defra, Consultation on the incentives for recycling by households,
May 2007. Back
| 
