House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

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

Memorandum submitted by Gemini Waste Consultants Ltd (Waste 48)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This submission addresses Terms of Reference items 1, 4 and 9 only.

2. Government is under two separate legal duties to prepare waste policies ie s44A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) and s17 of the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 (WET). Both transpose EC directives—the former the EC Waste Framework directive (75/442/EEC) and the latter the Landfill Directive (91/31/EC). These are set out at Annex 1. In general terms, the EPA addresses waste in its broadest sense, whereas WET focuses on the narrower area of biodegradable waste to landfill. Clearly, while it would be possible to have two strategies, this would be impractical.

3. The requirements of WET are less broad and in practice s17 (7) of that Act accepts that a single strategy would suffice (Annex 3). Defra have confirmed that it is their belief that Waste Strategy 2007 satisfies the requirements of both WET and EPA, however, there is no specific reference to this in the strategy. This is paradoxical given that the focus of the strategy is actually a requirement under WET and not the EPA.

4. In the context of the Committee's inquiry, the main deficiencies of the strategy vis a vis the Government's legal duties are that it:

i. Does not scope the full duties as required under the Acts, and

ii. Where specific requirements are placed on Government (namely the requirements to plan for the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill and for national and European self-sufficiency in waste disposal), these have either been overlooked or not addressed adequately by Government:

5. This submission also highlights that the Government's approach to financial incentives is contradictory and misrepresents the European experience on which the Government places great reliance. Suggestions are made to overcome these shortcomings in order to optimise the opportunity that the Government is creating with its proposed pilot schemes.

DETAIL

How Policies Proposed by the Waste Strategy will be implemented and the roles of those responsible for the production and disposal of different classes of waste-including industrial, business and household waste (ToR 1)

6. S44A of the EPA requires the Government to prepare a statement (the strategy) containing policies in relation to the recovery and disposal of waste in England and Wales. In addition, s17 of WET requires the Government to have a strategy for reducing:

7. S17 (7) has the effect of providing for a single strategy to cover the duties under both Acts. There are 3 main sectors of waste that are within the scope of the strategy ie household; commercial and industrial; and construction and demolition. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to find policies for each sector within the strategy in proportion to their order of magnitude in England and Wales.

8. In 2004, the UK produced 220 million tonnes of controlled wastes from households, commerce and industry (including construction and demolition wastes) which falls within the scope of the strategy. Household wastes represent about 9% of total arisings. It is also estimated that commercial and industrial wastes comprise approximately 25% of waste arisings. ((http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/waste/kf/wrkf02.htm).

9. According to Government, its objectives with regard to construction wastes are:

— to provide the drivers for the construction sector to improve its economic efficiency by creating less waste at every stage of the supply chain, from design to demolition;

— to get the sector to treat waste as a resource, closing the loop by re-using and recycling more and asking contractors for greater use of recovered material; and

— to improve the economics of the re-use and recycling sector by increasing sector demand and securing investment in the treatment of waste—this will benefit all waste streams, including construction.

10. As regards commercial waste a key element of the Government's approach is:

— the pricing and regulatory framework. Planned increases in the landfill tax (set out in Chapter 3 of the WS2007) are designed to incentivise a significant further diversion of commercial and industrial waste from landfill.

11. In contrast, its approach to household waste sets out a raft of targets and measures. Therefore, as regards waste in general the Committee will see that the strategy focuses primarily on household waste, contrary to its legal duty.

12. As regards biodegradable wastes in particular, the Government's approach focuses virtually exclusively on biodegradable municipal wastes albeit that non-municipal wastes comprise the majority of biodegradable waste arisings.

13. The above show that the strategy is deficient by virtue of:

— Not addressing in proper detail the majority of waste arisings, contrary to its duties under EPA, and

— Failing to address the issue of diverting from landfill non-municipal biodegradable waste contrary to its duty under s17 of WET.

The proposals for financial incentives to increase household waste prevention and recycling (ToR 4)

14. In responding to the 2006 Waste Strategy Review Consultation, a number of local authorities, environmental groups and other stakeholders raised waste charging as an issue that Government should consider (PRIA para.12). In addition, the LGA has called for local authorities to be given the power to offer financial incentives to households for sustainable waste behaviour, because of their potential to reduce waste and encourage recycling, therefore cutting costs. The same point has also been made in the Lyons report. Subsequently, Government commissioned research into this issue by looking at schemes that operate elsewhere in Europe. This showed that "Pay as You Throw" (PAYT) schemes can work effectively. The Government's response to the research was as follows:

15. Consequently, the Government's approach rejects all of the PAYT charging structures that the report showed worked and proposes one of its own. Despite the fact the lack of evidence for the Government's approach it continues to cite European PAYT schemes in support of its approach.

16. Having established its policy position, Government then consulted interested parties on its proposals. Government published the responses to its consultation on Financial Incentives for Recycling by Households in October 2007. If minor paraphrasing of the consultation questions is carried out and equivocal responses eg may be etc. are added to the Yes and No replies for each question, the replies break down as follows:

Do you agree that local authorities should have the power to introduce financial incentives for promoting recycling and reducing household waste?	Yes: 81%	No: 18%
Are you in favour of the Government's proposed scheme?	Yes:47%	No.61%
Do you want to be able to charge residents additionally for the waste they generate? (Qu. 4a)	Yes.38%	No.45%
Do you agree that authorities should be free to determine the level of charges?	Yes:68%	No.13%

17. Clearly therefore, not only would there appear to be no evidential basis for the Government's approach, there would not appear to be the necessary support either. Any "charging" scheme, whether revenue-neutral or otherwise, would be a fundamental departure from current practice and historical precedent and one that could meet with public opposition. This does not make it wrong and Govt. should be congratulated for at least grasping half the nettle.

18. A recent announcement by the Minister regarding 5 pathfinder councils suggests a timetable that might not have empirical evidence in place until 2012. Given that there is no evidence that the Government's preferred structure actually works, it could find itself back at square one at a most critical time. The UK cannot afford to risk wasting 5 years if it is to meet EC landfill targets. It would be a better use of time to broaden the scope of the scheme during its experimental phase to allow local authorities to adopt structures closer to the proven European models. As now, authorities would not be required to adopt any or either alternative structure. Indeed, the responses from local authorities to the Government's consultation suggest that it could be somewhat easier to find authorities willing to test the "European" model than the Government's own. Government appears to be embarking on a single course without any fallback position, and with the distinct possibility that it might not be successful in the final analysis.

19. Given that time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted, Government should move forward on a twin-track approach by inviting councils to trial revenue-neutral and alternative schemes.

The adequacy of the existing infrastructure, such as energy from waste facilities with heat recovery; the UK's capacity to process materials collected for recycling; and the for Government action to encourage the most efficient novel technologies (ToR 9)

20. The duties set out under the Acts include the following key issue which are to be addressed in the strategy:

21. In the context of waste paper, Annex D to the Strategy states the following:

— The collection of recovered paper has grown strongly over the past ten years, increasing by over 80%, from 4.3 million tonnes to 7.8 million tonnes.

— This increase has been predominantly absorbed by the export market, and in particular by exports to China.

— Nearly all local authorities in England collect some paper for recycling.

— In 2006, some 1.4 million tonnes of paper packaging waste was exported for recycling.

Over the last 10 years the recycled content of paper produced in UK mills has increased by almost 10 percentage points (from 59% to 68% in 2005), the decline in paper production in the UK over the same period means that consumption of recovered fibre has increased by only ca.500,000 tonnes.

— Having achieved recycled content of over 80% in the newspaper sector the quick wins may have been achieved. There may be scope to increase recycled content further in the other paper sectors, but it could be harder to deliver.

— In general, export prices tend to be higher than prices paid by domestic mills

— In the absence of demand from export markets, the huge increase in collections of

recovered paper might have led to oversupply in the UK market, and a decline in paper prices.

22. In the context of self-sufficiency, the current situation is clearly a failure and there is no indication in the strategy that this position has developed abnormally or against predictions and plans. The Strategy should therefore address two key issues:

(i) How to provide capacity within the UK, or at worst the EU, for the recovered paper that is already being exported, and

(ii) How to provide capacity for the increase in tonnage of recovered paper that is implicit in the strategy's higher recycling targets.

And it must achieve these in the context of there being no prospect of increasing the proportion of recycled paper in newsprint and the apparent view held by the Waste Resources and Action Programme that there are only minor barriers to the processing of waste paper in the UK.

Table D.1: Barriers to market development for key materials

	Supply chain Key: x = minor barriers, xx = major barrier, xxx = very significant barrier
Material	Inadequate collection infrastructure	Quality sourcing problems	Limited reprocessing capacity	End products— need for standard/ specification/ procurement barriers	Need for alternative markets
Paper	x	x	x	xx	xx
Plastics	xxx	x	xxx	xx	xx
Glass	x	xx	xx	x	x
Wood	xxx	xxx	xxx	xxx	xxx
Compost	xxx	xx	xxx	xxx	xxx

Source: WRAP presentation to European Commission, 18 July 2003.

23. The Strategy's policy response, which is set out in full in Annex D to the strategy, is:

(i) To rely wholly on voluntary agreements and targets set under packaging regulations. However, the targets are so timid that those for 2008 are being met already, consequently no improvement should be expected from that quarter;

(ii) For WRAP to investigate opportunities for open-loop recycling of paper products, one of which is to convert paper into moulded pulp products, egg boxes, etc. However, the strategy sounds a cautionary note here because:

— moulded pulp applications currently account for only 0.4% of the market for recovered paper and,

— UK currently consumes around 50,000 tonnes of moulded pulp per annum, and

— collection of recovered paper is increasing by almost the same amount per month.

The Annex further states that " (these) applications cannot be seen as a solution for the UK's reliance on export."

24. The issue of recovering waste paper for recycling is fundamental and not an issue of marginal importance. It cannot be acceptable in terms of sustainable waste management for the majority of the UK's recovered paper to be processed outside the UK and the EU. Also, there is a specific duty on the Government to achieve the opposite.

25. Another point arises here which has been highlighted by the Environment Agency in its report on the 2006-07 Landfill Allowances Trading Scheme report and which has been commented on previously by the Committee ie is all exported waste that undergoes subsequent processing actually being diverted from landfill? Paper is vitally important to the success of LATS and the objective of diverting biodegradable waste from landfill because it is considered to be 100% biodegradable. Consequently, exported paper represents the equivalent of approx. 8% of total UK BMW arisings. This is a significant amount and, while it is not being suggested that this waste is not being diverted from landfill in China, the processes take place outwith EC regulations and it would be easier to monitor these process if they took place in the UK/EU. In this context, the EA's report highlights the difficulties of processing waste even through Material Recycling Facilities in the UK by identifying the ranges of rejects that are suffered:

Material recovery facilities (MRFs) used by all local authorities in England

Region	Range* of MRF reject as percentages	Number of different MRF facilities used
East of England	0 to 19.82	20
East Midlands	0 to 65.13	18
London	0 to 100	11
North East	0 to 86.45	5
North West	0 to 41.63	8
South East	0 to 20.17	20
South West	0 to 37.50	9
West Midlands	0 to 37.50 nt7
Yorkshire & Humber	0 to 15.80	6

Source: Environment Agency LATS Report 2006-7 25.

The EA appears to be so concerned by this situation that one of its priorities for 2007-2008 is:

— work to make sure that the reject rates from MRFs are accurately and consistently reported throughout England;

— audit reject rates from companies receiving materials from MRFs to make sure we support quality recycling programmes; and

— discount volumes that are rejected back to landfill against local authorities' allowances.

Environment Agency LATS Report 2006-7 10.

Environment Agency LATS Report 2006-7 32.

Annex 1

National waste strategy: England and Wales.

S44A EPA

(1) The Secretary of State shall as soon as possible prepare a statement ("the strategy") containing his policies in relation to the recovery and disposal of waste in England and Wales.

(2) The strategy shall consist of or include:

(b) two or more statements which between them relate to the whole of England and Wales.

(3) The Secretary of State may from time to time modify the strategy.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of what may be included in the strategy, the strategy must include:

(a) a statement of the Secretary of State's policies for attaining the objectives specified in Schedule 2A to this Act;

(b) provisions relating to each of the following, that is to say:

(i) the type, quantity and origin of waste to be recovered or disposed of;

(ii) general technical requirements; and

(iii) any special requirements for particular wastes.

S17 WET

Strategy for England

(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy for reducing:

(2) The strategy required by subsection (1) must (in particular) include measures to achieve the targets specified for England under sections 1 and 2.

(3) The measures mentioned in subsection (2) include (in particular) measures to achieve the targets by recycling, composting, biogas production, materials recovery or energy recovery.

Schedule 2A To Environmental Protection Act

Objectives For The Purposes Of The National Waste Strategy

1. Ensuring that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment and, in particular, without: (a) risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals;

(b) Causing nuisance through noise or odours; or

2. Establishing an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal installations, taking account of the best available technology not involving excessive costs.

3. Ensuring that the network referred to in paragraph 2 above enables:

(a) the European Community as a whole to become self-sufficient in waste disposal, and the Member States individually to move towards that aim, taking into account geographical circumstances or the need for specialised installations for certain types of waste; and

(b) waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health.

Gemini Waste Consultants Ltd

November 2007



© Parliamentary copyright 2010	Prepared 19 January 2010