2 Policy areas for growing a circular
economy
Taxes
which support resource efficiency
23. One of the most effective policy measures in
increasing circularity in the past decade has been the landfill
tax, which Hampshire County Council told us "has helped to
push material up the waste hierarchy by making other waste management
systems more affordable".[49]
Waste-to-landfill has halved since the tax was introduced in 1996.[50]
Dan Rogerson told us that he wanted to reduce waste-to-landfill
further, but that there were always some substances, such as asbestos,
which would have to be disposed of in that way:
We have reduced landfill a great deal but there
is more to do on that. … I suppose from Defra's point of
view in particular it would be making sure that we are pushing
the materials up the hierarchy and the amount that goes to landfill
is down to some very hazardous wastes and so on.[51]
Some witnesses felt that the landfill tax had resulted
in a shift to the next cheapest alternative, which is often incineration
or export. Eunomia Research and Consulting told us that incineration,
or energy from waste, should also be taxed in order to achieve
greater recovery of materials.[52]
Novelis told us that they supported transforming the landfill
tax into a "disposal tax that included incineration—effectively
taxing the linear and incentivising the circular".[53]
Dustin Benton from Green Alliance told us that incinerating waste
materials benefited from guaranteed financial returns for the
energy generated, whereas recycling materials to use them again
depended on markets which were more volatile and so less attractive
to investors.[54]
24. The Government's 2011 waste review stated that
"market-based instruments such as taxes and trading systems
are an efficient and cost effective way of pricing in the value
of environmental resources. By giving certainty over the price
of these resources, they create new opportunities for businesses
in markets for environmental goods and services."[55]
We noted in our recent report on Well-being, the work that
the Natural Capital Committee is doing on the scope for Government
policy-making to reflect the value of ecosystem services.[56]
A circular economy would be greatly facilitated if businesses
too could take account of such factors.[57]
Sir Ian Cheshire suggested that taxes should be used to incentivise
businesses to take a more circular approach, by "pricing
the externality properly".[58]
He suggested that differential VAT rates could change business
behaviour:
You could design it in a way that is fiscally
neutral, just to keep the Treasury calm. I genuinely think that,
with a bit of indication and information and a bit of financial
incentive, you will start to get people looking for these types
of products.[59]
25. The Green Alliance believed that the Government
had provided "limited support for conditions enabling circularity".[60]
SITA highlighted that "previous waste strategies have been
overwhelmingly biased towards the management of municipal waste
and towards end-of-pipe … Policies that 'push' materials
out of landfill should be balanced by policies that 'pull' these
diverted materials into the production economy".[61]
Steve Lee of CIWM also highlighted the importance of "stimulation
of the market end for circular economy materials".[62]
Ramon Arratia of Interface carpets told us that more could be
done to incentivise products with better environmental characteristics:
We have products today with 5 kilograms of CO2,
with 100% recycled nylon, and there are products in the market
with 20 kilograms of CO2 with high-pile virgin nylon.
Both pay the same VAT. Both pay the same tax. What are the signals
that we are giving to the market?[63]
Similarly, Steve Lee told us that he wanted:
… to see a transfer of the weight of taxation
away from effort, from skills, from employment and towards virgin
resource use. That could take many forms, including a variable
VAT rate across Europe, such that it would encourage designers
and manufacturers to look for sources of secondary materials for
their products, services and processes. We believe that there
is great scope here and it is something that only Government in
the UK can carry forwards as an argument into Europe, because
it would be a very difficult thing for an individual member state
to do on its own, but it could have tremendous impact if it were
picked up at a European level.[64]
The Local Government Association suggested lowering
National Insurance Contributions for additional staff in repair
organisations to support growth in the re-use sector.[65]
26. Dan Rogerson would not be drawn on whether his
Department had discussed alternative fiscal measures, either internally
or with the Treasury.[66]
He told us that at present the Government's main focus was on
maintaining the landfill tax:
There is some flexibility under EU rules for
looking at VAT but that is not something that we are proposing
to do at the moment. I think it is important that we continue
to make sure the landfill tax is doing the job it has done quite
successfully to make sure that the cost of landfill remains higher
than the far more constructive uses of those materials.[67]
27. Current taxation laws do not reward companies
that take a circular economy approach, with its associated environmental
benefits, and risk locking the economy on a linear path. As pressure
on resources will continue to increase, taxation policy should
incentivise products that are designed to have a lower environmental
impact and support greater repair and re-use. The Government
should introduce differential VAT rates based on life-cycle analysis
of the environmental impact or recycled content of products, and
tax allowances for businesses that repair goods or promote re-use.
It should set up a cross-Government working group, led by the
Cabinet Office to decide how best to implement such reforms.
Producer responsibility and 'take-back'
schemes
28. The Green Alliance have identified that one of
the most fundamental barriers to a circular economy is 'split
incentives' where organisations that design products often do
not have responsibility for their end-of-life recovery.[68]
The Government considers that "producer responsibility is
an extension of the 'polluter pays' principle and is about ensuring
businesses take responsibility for the products they place on
the market at the end of their lifecycle."[69]
Dr Kate Goldsworthy from the University of the Arts told us that
extended producer responsibility could have an impact on how products
are designed:
If the take-back systems are looked at alongside
the design, you see some really interesting things happening.
If a company knows that their product is coming back full circle
to them, it is in their interest to design it in such a way that
they can get the maximum value from it.[70]
29. The RSA highlighted that in Japan "manufacturers
themselves own most of the materials recovery and recycling plants
and operate their own compliance schemes, resulting in direct
cost savings and incentives to design for disassembly, re-use
and remanufacturing".[71]
Dustin Benton of Green Alliance described this as "an example
where the state has effectively created a whole system where the
incentives are aligned".[72]
The Environmental Services Association told us that "design
of products for recyclability, which enables bulk collection and
automated disassembly so far as possible, will help to maximise
the longer run economic benefits of recovering secondary materials
from the waste stream."[73]
30. There is a producer responsibility scheme for
packaging through a system of Packaging Recovery Notes (PRNs),
which packaging reprocessors sell when they have recovered and
recycled a tonne of packaging. There are also regulations under
the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive
which obligate retailers of electronic or electrical goods to
operate or join a take-back scheme. Axion Recycling believed,
however, that these "acted as a barrier to progression towards
a circular materials economy" because most compliance schemes
do not have individual producer responsibility (IPR):
In a system where all producers pick up an equal
cost per tonne for dealing with the end-of-life waste treatment
system based upon market share, there is no incentive for any
single producer to invest in making changes to their own business
model which will help to increase recyclability of products. Why
would any single firm invest this effort, if all they do is pass
those benefits onto other players in the market who will not make
any changes to their own product design, material selection criteria
or ease of disassembly? The lack of IPR options create a barrier
to progress in this important aspect of eco-design.[74]
The Government's Waste Prevention Plan, however,
states that it will "work with the industry to explore how
Individual Producer Responsibility can be implemented" for
the electrical and electronics sector.[75]
31. The Environmental Industries Commission told
us that "producer responsibility has been fairly successful
in increasing the collection and recycling of materials, but has
been much less successful at altering the nature of products from
the point of design so that they have less impact throughout their
life and are easier to recycle."[76]
Nick Brown of Coca-Cola suggested that PRNs should have "different
contributions for packages that are harder to recycle or have
a harder end of life".[77]
The British Plastics Federation wanted a further reform of the
PRN system to "incentivise the use of plastics packaging
recyclate within the UK by enabling obligated organisations to
offset the volumes of recyclate used against the charges applied
for compliance".[78]
32. Sir Ian Cheshire told us that many environmental
regulations have not been designed with the circular economy in
mind. He explained that the additional bureaucracy of compliance
adds costs which are currently prohibitive for many businesses:
… In take-back chains there is a real problem.
I can apparently sell a power tool all the way down the value
chain to a customer but if I want to take it back and repair it
I have to have a WEEE certificate and become a licensed waste
carrier, and frankly the economics don't work.
The European Commissioner, Janez
Potoènik told us "we absolutely need to address those
issues".[79]
There is clearly a need to balance strong regulation to prevent
illegal disposal of waste, with measures that make it easier for
businesses to take back and re-use products. WRAP told us:
"We recognise the need for a balance between
sensible waste controls (which rightly exist to prevent illegal
activity) and the promotion of greater circularity. However, we
think it is important that issues such as the definitions of waste,
by-products and end-of-waste are regularly reviewed to ensure
that this balance continues to be achieved."[80]
33. The current producer responsibility schemes
fail to incentivise or reward companies that design products with
their end-of-life in mind. In addition, aspects of the wider regulatory
framework for waste can prevent businesses re-using materials
or products. The Government should reform the PRN scheme
to include an 'offset' or lower charge for products that have
higher recycled content and ensure that funds generated from the
operation of the scheme are distributed to bodies working to enhance
materials recovery and product circularity. It should also introduce
individual producer responsibility schemes in new sectors to make
more producers design products with their end-of-life in mind.
The Government should review how processes for environmental protections
against illegal disposal of waste might be simplified to encourage
businesses to re-use materials. More generally, it should explore
the scope for regulating the minimum recycled content of particular
products in order to stimulate sustainable markets in recovered
and recycled material.
Recovering materials
A standardised approach to
recycling services
34. We heard from several witnesses that the current
area by area approach to recycling collections is reducing opportunities
for businesses. EEF recommend that the Government introduce a
"nationwide code for local authorities on waste collection
to help manufacturers design for recyclability".[81]
The Green Alliance and Circular Economy Task Force estimate that
introducing more consistent recycling collections could be worth
£1.7 billion a year to businesses.[82]
Sir Ian Cheshire told us:
We don't have any standardisation of the way
that waste streams are done local authority by local authority.
If you are going to get to scale in the UK, it should not be beyond
the wit of man to standardise the way in which we organise and
collate waste streams. At the moment it is absolutely subscale
and suboptimal. I think it has been done in the cause of localism,
which on one hand is a good thing. In this case I think it has
inadvertently created a blockage to potentially a lot of valuable
waste being accessed.[83]
Liz Goodwin from WRAP told us "if we were starting
from scratch we would not be doing what we are doing currently".[84]
She explained that messages about recycling were made more complicated
by the fact that different waste collection schemes are in place
in different parts of the country, and how that affects a WRAP-run
on-pack labelling scheme:
There are three symbols: one is it is 'widely
recycled', one is it is 'not recycled', and one is 'check locally'
because there is not a large enough proportion of the population
covered by the recycling scheme. Once you get to 70% of people
having access to it, it becomes 'widely recycled'. For example,
on mixed plastics we still need about 70 local authorities to
start collecting mixed plastics for that to get a 'widely recycled'
label, and that will be a massive improvement.[85]
35. Dr Stewart Barr of Exeter University told us
that "because of the varying nature of recycling services
in the UK, there cannot be one consistent message about a product's
recyclability".[86]
Mike Barry of M&S told us "the number one thing that
[the Government] can do to help us is to simplify the collection
of waste in the consumer's home."[87]
Nick Brown of Coca-Cola saw a need for "a vision of what
a more common and standard collection system could look like…
There is a lot of potential for overcoming that confusion by moving
towards a more common scheme."[88]
Professor Tim Jackson told us that recycling has to be simple,
and that the two main things that can be done to promote recycling
behaviours are "absolute consistency of messaging and clarity
of infrastructure", and "to return those [recycling]
behaviours as soon as possible to habitual behaviours, rather
than demanding cognitive effort from people".[89]
36. The way waste is collected and sorted can have
a significant impact on its future value. Professor Rob Holdway
told us that "through better segregation, avoidance of sending
stuff to landfill, we now have some very good recycling businesses
that can stimulate designers to think about these issues for milk
bottles, water bottles and so on."[90]
In February 2013, the Government launched a Quality Action Plan
which acknowledged that "although buyers and sellers are
agreeing prices in the market for recyclates, there are strong
indications that market signals regarding quality appear not to
be working in the way they should. This is resulting in inefficiencies
in both economic and environmental terms, and delivering material
of sub-standard quality in some cases."[91]
Many recyclers have criticised the Government, however, for not
going far enough to require local authorities to separate out
waste. Chase Plastics told us that the Government's approach is
unlikely to do enough to reduce contamination and promote recycling
in the UK:
Our government chose to ignore Europe's advice
on source separation and good collection practice. … Poor
quality collection methods mean that the contamination levels
in recyclables is too high for the economic sorting and processing
of such materials here in the UK.
37. Food waste collections not only reduce the volume
of waste sent to landfill, where it produces methane, but can
be a feedstock for anaerobic digestion and other technologies.
Novamont highlighted that just 400,000 tonnes of food waste was
collected for organic recycling, out of the 7.2 million tonnes
of food waste from households.[92]
They suggested that regulatory measures are needed to divert organic
waste from landfill, such as the regulations requiring households
to separate out food waste in Ireland, or the landfill ban on
food waste being introduced in Scotland.[93]
The Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association recommended that
the Government should "give a greater steer towards councils
and businesses to implement separate food waste collections".[94]
38. The Government has offered guidance to local
authorities about the frequency of waste collections and made
£250 million available to those that offer weekly waste collections:
The Government is committed to working with councils
to increase the frequency of collections and make it easier to
recycle. .... It is considered that local authorities with weekly
residual collections can still achieve high recycling rates. A
number of local authorities with weekly collections of residual
waste have achieved recycling rates of over 50%.[95]
The Government's initiative on weekly residual waste
collections risks distracting from the message that households
should separate out recyclable materials, and food waste. Whilst
Dan Rogerson told us he saw a "huge amount of progress"
in recycling, he acknowledged some scope for offering "a
little bit more guidance, and we could do some work on best practice".[96]
39. A circular economy would be supported by a
more consistent national approach to household recycling collections.
This would maximise recycling of a wide range of materials, and
ensure consistent messaging and on-pack advice labels on products.
Local authorities need to tailor their services to local needs,
but the Government should give clear guidance that directs local
authorities in England towards a more standard approach. This
should include separation systems that enable reliable delivery
of compatible sorted waste products to all recyclers, separate
food waste collections, and a ban on food waste to landfill.
Better data
40. A lack of detailed information about waste materials
is a significant barrier to companies making informed decisions
about where to prioritise investments and to be able to match
end-of-life materials with markets. The Environmental Services
Association stated "one area of ongoing concern is the chronic
lack of data on material flows".[97]
Eunomia identified that:
One of the greatest sources of frustration regarding
waste, other than those collected by local authorities, is that
the quality of data remains truly abysmal. No one actually knows
how much waste is being generated by commerce, industry, or the
construction and demolition industries, or how it is being managed.[98]
EEF told us that "poor data is increasingly
being cited by the waste industry as the key reason for under-investment
in treatment facilities because it makes it unduly difficult for
financiers to undertake due diligence".[99]
Peter Jones, an independent adviser, stated that "gross ignorance
and utter speculation [about future waste capacity] is entirely
down to the lack of an integrated, real time data capture network".[100]
41. Accurate information about levels of waste materials
is vital for modelling future demand. Axion Recycling told us
that "if there is a lack of confidence in the demand for
the output products of any materials recycling business, then
there is a very high risk that the investment will fail."[101]
One way of addressing this issue is to improve the reporting of
this information through the 'Waste Duty of Care', or 'eDoc',
system. Steve Lee of CIWM explained that:
eDoc … is a very important project. It is
three quarters of the way through its life. It has produced a
web-based data, trafficking and monitoring system that is free
to the user. It was launched at the end of January [2014]. It
is supported by all four UK Governments. The big question now
is who will be its foster parent and who will look after it in
the next critical four or five years of its life.[102]
Dan Rogerson told us that so far 1,446 businesses
had registered on eDoc and it currently contained over 12,000
waste transfer records. He was clear that it is "the job
of us as Government to champion it", noting that the "leading
waste companies are very keen to take this forward".[103]
Dominic Hogg of Eunomia wanted this reporting to be mandatory
in order to get the necessary quality of information for effective
planning, and complained that:
… we have gone backwards a little, because
Defra has now decided to allow alternatives to Waste Transfer
Notes to be used as evidence of proper handling of data, so they
can record waste that has been moved on an invoice, rather than
a waste transfer note, which dilutes and diffuses the nature of
the information. We need a proper, electronic register where we
track the movements of waste and what it is through the whole
system. I cannot believe this is a question of if; it has to be
a question of when.[104]
42. The 'Waste Duty of Care', or 'eDoc', is an
important initiative to improve the quality of information about
the resources contained in waste. It will help businesses and
Government better identify opportunities for maximising the value
of these materials and plan future investments. The Government
should set out plans to ensure eDoc's long term future so that
it can fulfil its role in improving data quality on waste materials.
It should set a deadline by which time reporting in this way will
be mandatory.
Infrastructure
43. We heard from witnesses that a more circular
economy will need investment in new infrastructure. The Green
Investment Bank told us that it had invested over £200 million
in the UK waste sector, mainly through PFI/PPP projects, but was
now moving towards a strategy of investing in "pioneering
projects", such as specialist fuel supply and anaerobic digestion.[105]
They stated that the move away from traditional PFI/PPP projects
was because "most local authorities have now procured their
chosen waste management solutions".[106]
44. Dominic Hogg of Eunomia thought that the Green
Investment Bank should move away from investments in incineration
infrastructure, including energy from waste plants, because these
potentially diverted materials away from recycling and therefore
limited circular economy activity.[107]
Steve Lee of CIWM disagreed, telling us that England is "short
of the infrastructure that we need to deliver the future".
He emphasised the importance of the Green Investment Bank's funding
for anaerobic digestion because the "signals it sends to
other potential investors that this is a technology, a process
and a part of the market in which it has confidence, and is willing
to invest, are incredibly powerful".[108]
The Local Government Association suggested scaling up debt financing
through the Green Investment Bank,[109]
and the Environmental Services Association wanted the Green Investment
Bank to develop new insurance products to underwrite some elements
of 'feedstock risk' associated with securing sufficient materials.[110]
Air Products told us that such 'feedstock risk' was an issue for
energy from waste plants.[111]
45. The Green Investment Bank can play an important
role in the transition towards a more circular economy, particularly
where infrastructure development for innovative technologies is
held back by a lack of finance. The Green Investment Bank
should finance innovative technologies to support a circular economy.
The Bank could for example showcase the potential of anaerobic
digestion plants which are able to process a range of waste feedstock
sources by investing in such projects. The Government needs to
ensure that its policies for recovering resources and generating
energy are aligned and are consistent with the waste hierarchy.
Setting standards to promote
circular products
Design and warranties
46. The Government has a role to play in encouraging
design that improves the whole-life efficiency of products. The
Government Office for Science's Future Manufacturing Project
Foresight Report highlighted the potential of eco-design standards
"involving minimisation of critical raw materials and design
for recovery as policies that facilitate a shift towards a circular
economy".[112]
The Government's Waste Prevention Programme for England
states that the Government will seek to influence the EU to bring
waste prevention requirements into product standards and labelling
:
We are implementing the EU Ecodesign Directives
and the EU Ecolabel scheme in the UK. As part of this work, we
will influence the EU to bring waste prevention requirements into
product standards as they are updated. For example, in forthcoming
revisions of the Eco-label criteria for PCs and laptops, there
will be discussions around modifying repairability criteria.[113]
47. The RSA suggested that there needed to be more
guidelines for circular approaches to be mainstreamed into design
briefs:
Currently, there is no requirement for designers
to consider the end of life implications of the products they
create. The current recasting of the EU Directive Ecodesign framework[114]
are the first steps towards potentially providing some guidelines
for some product groups, but do not go far enough into circular
or system thinking. This means that business as usual invests
a significant amount into creating consumables which are designed
for ease of manufacturing, maximising profits for retailers and
manufacturers at the point of sale but that in the majority end
up on the waste pile within 6 months, representing a huge loss
of value in terms of energy and materials.[115]
Similarly, the Local Government Association told
us:
The design of products is of central importance
in determining whether a product can be reused. A lack of available
parts or designs which make repairs difficult and expensive can
mean some products that should be reusable are not. There is a
role for government through promoting the adoption of British
Standards for reuse and remanufacture and encouraging appropriate
EU regulation that sets minimum standards for product design through
future rounds of the EU Eco-design Directive.[116]
Dustin Benton of Green Alliance believed that further
eco-design legislation has a role:
I think there is a real opportunity for eco-design
legislation to enable a more circular economy to happen. It has
been strikingly effective on energy, which is what it was originally
intended to do. I think it would cut the costs to UK consumers
by about £50 per year if they swapped normal light bulbs
for LEDs, for example, and that was driven entirely by legislation.
It is micro policy and it is very detailed when you go into it.
It has to be micro-detailed, but we know that there is interest
already in looking at material efficiency within the eco-design
Directive.[117]
Dan Rogerson told us that "energy has led the
way on energy-efficient white goods but there are opportunities
for us to do a lot more around water and so on".[118]
48. Sir Ian Cheshire believed that there is a case
for forcing businesses to only use recyclable materials. He thought
that "there probably are two or three critical plastics areas
where there might be a case for some very targeted intervention
to say, 'Either we are just not going to let you use this stuff
… or we are going to make it so uneconomic that the market
won't want to use it'."[119]
Commissioner Potoènik told us that it was important to
"start to shape the products that could be used and recycled,
because the materials that are buried are lost".[120]
Liz Goodwin of WRAP told us that voluntary agreements make regulations
not always necessary, provided that there is a clear signal that
"by year X, everything that is put on the market is recyclable".[121]
49. Interface told us that life-cycle analysis of
products could underpin "environmental product declarations
… enabling customers to compare products and choose the ones
that have least impact".[122]
Commissioner Potoènik told us that the European Commission
was "trying to develop a kind of methodology on the basis
of which we would be able to compare products, or at least product
groups, and organisations".[123]
50. The RSA also highlight the importance of longer
warranties for moving businesses towards service-based models,
similar to those discussed in paragraph 14. These business models
are based on products that are designed to last, and be repaired,
with materials recovered and re-used at the end of their life:
Implementing new business models that shift from
linear 'make, sell' models to those with service and leasing systems
will require the review and amendment of current legislation models
including credit licensing agreements, guarantees and warranties.
51. The Government, working closely with the EU,
should establish eco-design standards across a range of products.
It should set out the steps towards a ban on products that are
made from materials that cannot be recycled, or reduce taxes on
those that can be (paragraph 27). Such standards would phase out
inefficient products or hard to recycle materials by ensuring
that companies design products that are consistent with the circular
economy, have a clear end-of-life recovery route and are fabricated
using easily separable and recyclable components. The Government
should underpin voluntary agreements by setting timescales by
which regulation would establish the recyclability of all products
coming on the market. The Government should also work with industry
sectors to set longer minimum warranty periods for consumer products
to encourage businesses to adopt more resource-efficient business
models.
RE-USE AND RE-MANUFACTURING
52. The LGA's Routes to re-use report identified
that 615,000 tonnes of material that currently goes to landfill
or incineration could instead be repaired, resold or donated.[124]
Green Alliance highlight that "finished products are worth
much more than the raw materials inside them and direct re-use
preserves the most value and embodied energy in products".
For example, a reused smart phone retains around 48% of its original
value, whereas its value as recyclate is just 0.24%.[125]
WRAP estimates that as much as 23% of WEEE (Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment) disposed of at recycling centres has the
potential to be repaired. [126]
The re-use of WEEE has the potential to save the taxpayer of £1.9
million on goods with a resale value of £232 million.[127]
53. The Restart project highlighted barriers to increasing
re-use:
Firstly, consumers struggle to find clear and
accessible information on repair services in their local areas.
Secondly, there is a question around trust in these services:
how to repair (or have an object repaired) in a reliable environment,
and in an affordable way.[128]
The Government highlighted a postcode locator that
WRAP is introducing to help people locate re-use or repair services.
Dan Rogerson told us that "if we get the business to those
repair businesses then that will hopefully safeguard them for
the future".[129]
He told us about the development of a re-use standard for discarded
electrical equipment (PAS 141) that was developed by the British
Standards Institution and supported by BIS.[130]
Oakdene Hollins, which manages the Centre for Remanufacture and
Reuse, highlighted that this standard gave assurance that "re-used
electronic equipment had undergone a thorough hazard and function
checking process before sale."[131]
WRAP is also managing an £800,000 waste prevention fund to
support innovative prevention, re-use or repair initiatives.[132]
54. There are cost and environmental benefits from
re-manufacturing. Caterpillar noted that re-manufactured products
needed a full as-new warranty and wanted this to be defined and
formally recognised by policymakers to ensure a common understanding
and acceptance of re-manufactured goods. They questioned the need
for or value of an international standard for specific re-manufactured
finished goods, but supported the development of a standard "to
describe and define the remanufacturing process".[133]
The RSA added that trade descriptions regulations should be changed
to encourage re-manufacturing:
In the UK, companies are prevented from selling
products as new if they contain reconditioned parts, and this
contributes to the wastage of significant quantities of usable
materials. Provided the parts are certified to the same standard,
either by [Original Equipment Manufacturer] or remanufacturing
bodies, it should be possible for components such as metals to
be remanufactured and used on a recurring basis in different products.
Once again, this is already happening in other parts of the world
(e.g. Japan) and we recommend the UK would do well to learn from
these examples.[134]
Caterpillar wanted countries to treat re-manufactured
goods in the same way as new goods in their trade regulations.
Some countries, they noted, "restrict the free outflow of
core items destined to be remanufactured and the inflow of remanufactured
ones entering specific countries".[135]
55. Re-using products or re-manufacturing components
is an efficient way of using existing materials. There are a variety
of barriers that limit their potential, however, including perceptions
of the quality of re-used products, and formal acceptance of re-manufacturing
as of equal status as new products. The Government should
take steps to remove trade barriers for remanufactured goods through
trade negotiations, including pushing for them to be treated in
the same way as new products.
GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
56. Liz Goodwin of WRAP told us that as a significant
procurer, the Government could stimulate growth in the circular
economy through its own buying.[136]
Defra's Waste Prevention Programme for England states that public
sector spending is worth approximately 15% of UK GDP and central
government alone procures the equivalent of 8% of UK GDP, and
indicates that the Government "will include waste prevention
and re-use requirements where Government Buying Standards for
specific products are updated, building on existing references
to re-use".[137]
WRAP is supporting Defra in this process by providing evidence
of good practice for specific product groups including catering
services, hospitality and mobile phones.[138]
57. The Environmental Industries Commission wanted
Government Buying Standards to be made more demanding in terms
of the use of recycled content.[139]
Green Alliance recommended that the Buying Standards require minimum
standards for products to be disassembled or recycled, and specify
that a minimum proportion of products should come from a reused
or remanufactured source.[140]
58. The Government, through WRAP, has taken some
steps to promote a more circular economy through Government procurement.
However, it should extend buying standards to include a greater
emphasis on the recyclability of materials and recycled or re-used
content.
49 Hampshire County Council (GCE0020) para 4.10 Back
50
Government (GCE0045) para 53 Back
51
Q223 Back
52
Eunomia (GCE0038) para 24d Back
53
Novelis Europe (GCE0027) para 8 Back
54
Q24 Back
55
Defra Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011 p13 Back
56
Environmental Audit Committee, Fifteenth Report of Session 2013-14,
Well-being, HC59 Back
57
Steve Venton, Natural capital horizon scan (July 2014)
Back
58
Q28 Back
59
Q8 Back
60
Green Alliance (GCE006) para 19 Back
61
SITA (GCE008) para 15 Back
62
Q191 Back
63
Q115 Back
64
Q184 Back
65
Local Government Association (GCE0029) Back
66
Q288 Back
67
Q287 Back
68
Green Alliance (GCE006) para 16 Back
69
Government (GCE0045) para 36 Back
70
Q73 Back
71
RSA (GCE0048) para 2 Back
72
Q32 Back
73
Environmental Services Association (GCE0026) para 14 Back
74
Axion Recycling (GCE0041) para 4 Back
75
The Government Prevention is better than cure: the role of waste management in moving to a more resource efficient economy
(December 2013), p17 Back
76
Environmental Industries Commission (GCE005) para 3 Back
77
Q150 Back
78
British Plastics Federation (GCE0021) para 3.6 Back
79
Q209 Back
80
WRAP (GCE0025) para 63 Back
81
EEF Materials for Manufacturing (July 2014), p20 Back
82
Green Alliance Wasted Opportunities: Smarter systems for resource recovery
(July 2014), p6 Back
83
Q23 Back
84
Q44 Back
85
Q45 Back
86
Dr Stewart Barr (GCE0002) para 1 Back
87
Q90 Back
88
Q136 Back
89
Q134 Back
90
Q73 Back
91
Defra, Quality Action Plan (February 2013), p7 Back
92
Novamont (GCE0039) para 3.1.1. Back
93
Ibid, para 5.1.2. Back
94
Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association (GCE0037) para 8 Back
95
DCLG Guidance on weekly rubbish collections Delivering a frequent, comprehensive service,
paras 30 and 31 Back
96
Q275 Back
97
Environmental Services Association (GCE0026) para 22 Back
98
Eunomia (GCE0038) para 8 Back
99
EEF (GCE0032) para 19f Back
100
Peter Jones (GCE0012) para IV a) Back
101
Axion Recycling (GCE0041) para 7.1 Back
102
Q181 Back
103
Q250 Back
104
Q179 Back
105
Green Investment Bank (GCE0057) para 5 Back
106
Ibid, para 18 Back
107
Q173 Back
108
Q176 Back
109
Local Government Association (GCE0029) Back
110
Environmental Services Association (GCE0026) para 26e Back
111
Air Products (GCE0033) Back
112
Government Office for Science Future Manufacturing Project Foresight Report
(2013) Back
113
The Government Prevention is better than cure: the role of waste management in moving to a more resource efficient economy
(December 2013), p20 Back
114
DIRECTIVE 2005/32/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Back
115
RSA (GCE0048) para 10 Back
116
Local Government Association (GCE0029) Back
117
Q30 Back
118
Q267 Back
119
Q31 Back
120
Q209 Back
121
Q31 Back
122
Interface (GCE0052) para 16 Back
123
Q212 Back
124
Local Government Association Routes to re-use: maximising value from re-used materials
(March 2014) Back
125
Green Alliance (GCE006) para 10 Back
126
WRAP Realising the re-use value of Household WEEE (2011) Back
127
Local Government Association Routes to re-use: maximising value from re-used materials
(March 2014), p11 Back
128
The Restart Project (GCE0053) para 3.1 Back
129
Q269 Back
130
Q271 Back
131
Oakdene Hollins (GCE0031) para 3 Back
132
WRAP, Innovation in Waste Prevention Fund Back
133
Caterpillar Remanufacturing (GCE0040) para 7 Back
134
RSA (GCE0048) para 3 Back
135
Caterpillar Remanufacturing (GCE0040) para 16 Back
136
Q15 Back
137
The Government Prevention is better than cure: the role of waste management in moving to a more resource efficient economy
(December 2013), p17 Back
138
WRAP (GCE0025) para 35 Back
139
Environmental Industries Commission (GCE005) para 5.9 Back
140
Green Alliance (GCE006) para 30 Back
|
