Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Environmental Services Association (Waste 39a)
1. 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. Localisation as opposed
to centralisation of waste management
a) Decouple waste growth from economic growth
and put more emphasis on waste prevention and reuse:
Notwithstanding the prospect of recession, ESA
still believes the UK needs ongoing investment in new infrastructure
to recover value in waste and that the Government should be bolder
than hitherto in promoting producer responsibility which has the
longer term capacity to minimise both the volume and toxicity
of waste.
The Committee may wish to note provision in the new
Waste Framework Directive requiring Member States to develop national
waste prevention programmes and additional duties on the European
Commission.
b) Meet and exceed LFD diversion targets; c)
Secure Investment in Infrastructure; and d) Increased recycling
of resources and recovery of energy:
Our written evidence stated that, given the
shortfall in infrastructure and slow pace of public procurement,
ESA was not as optimistic as the Government that the long term
landfill diversion targets would be met.
That is still our position: indeed, the Planning
Bill is broadly irrelevant to our sector and financing infrastructure
is difficult.
2. The role for and implementation of regulations,
and their enforcement
Our written evidence noted our "Sector Plan"
agreed with the Environment Agency. The annual review of progress
against the objectives in the Plan is due to be published and
the first monitoring report, reporting progress against the targets
in the Sector Plan, is due next summer.
Construction waste is one area where there have been
some positive actions to improve regulation over the last year.
Since 6 April 2008 Site Waste Management Plans (SWMP), which record
the amount and type of waste produced on a construction site and
how it will be reused, recycled or disposed, have been compulsory
for all construction projects in England costing over £300,000.
ESA welcomed the Environment Agency's aims to
make efficiency gains by reducing red tape through their Environmental
Permitting regime, which came into force on 6 April 2008. ESA
hopes that their Integrated Regulation Programme will allow the
Agency better to distinguish between well-managed firms and intentionally
non-compliant firms, and to target enforcement activity accordingly.
Defra, the Welsh Assembly Government and the
Environment Agency have just consulted on their review of the
waste exemptions from environmental permitting, the first such
review since 1994. ESA hope that the revised arrangements will
provide a better framework through which the Environment Agency
can more effectively enforce exemption conditions. We would hope
to see reduced abuse of the exemptions system, fewer illegal operations,
and exempt operations bearing their fair share of regulatory costs,
with effective sanctions on law breakers as well as more rigorous
and transparent reporting requirements.
Over three years from 2005, the Business Resource
Efficiency and Waste (BREW) Programme provided £2 million
pa to the Agency to fight flytipping. ESA repeatedly advised that
this was inadequate. Yet even this funding no longer exists as
BREW has closed. It remains imperative that the fight against
environment crime is properly resourced, particularly as the Landfill
Tax continues to rise. ESA has previously advocated a "zero
tolerance" approach to fly-tipping before the Committee.
3. The classification of waste
As we predicted, the new Waste Framework Directive
("WFD") has not modified the tried and tested EU definition
of waste. We are also very pleased that the Rapporteur and then
the European Parliament and Council accepted our advice that there
should not be significant de-regulation of business waste, including
hazardous waste, by adopting a broad definition of by-products,
a specific type of non-waste. The definition now included in the
Directive is broadly based on existing jurisdiction of the European
Court of Justice.
Further EU standards are proposed for some materials
(including at least aggregates, paper, glass, metal, tyres and
textiles) with the effect that once these standards are attained,
the wastes become products. We have supported the Environment
Agency and WRAP in fully engaging in the process of deriving standards.
However, the Committee might wish to discuss with the Minister
the Government's interpretation of the relationship between this
"end of waste" process and REACH: our sector—and,
no doubt, others—would welcome clear, reliable and timely
guidance.
4. The proposals for financial incentives
to increase household waste prevention and recycling
ESA has consistently wanted local authorities
to be empowered at least to pilot incentive/charging schemes to
promote recycling and discourage production of mixed residual
waste. We regret that this has not attracted greater political
consensus and note that time is already short to put in place
drivers to promote compliance with the challenging landfill diversion
targets for 2013.
While we welcome provision for pilots in the Climate
Change Bill, we are surprised by the Government's timidity as
regards the education and information programmes needed for public
support and acceptance.
5. 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
potential for Government action to encourage the most efficient
novel technologies
We have already expressed concern at the Government's
disinclination better to co-ordinate waste with planning and energy
policies. While we welcome the carbon focus of the new Department
for Energy and Climate Change, we do so on the basis that, by
means not yet clear to us, this will help rather than hinder such
co-ordination.
Environmental Services Association
November 2008
| 
