House of Lords - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Sixth Report

CHAPTER 7: TAKING THE LEAD

7.1. Designers, manufacturers, retailers, local authorities and consumers can all play their part in driving waste reduction but they require a lead. In its report, Securing the future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy, the Government committed to lead by example on sustainable development. The report set out the "four E's" model of behaviour catalysts which demonstrates the need for measures which engage, enable, encourage or exemplify changes towards sustainability.[50] In this chapter we examine some of the ways in which the Government can provide this lead, to drive other sectors to embrace waste reduction principles.

Sustainability in government

7.2. The clearest way for the Government to take a lead in promoting sustainability is to exemplify this in their own actions and practices. Furthermore, with their significant spending power, the Government have the potential to encourage innovation and sustainability amongst their suppliers through their procurement policies. Research Councils UK explained that there were a number of good reasons for the Government to be "practising what it preaches." They noted that "firstly, public sector consumption constitutes a significant proportion of total consumption. Secondly, procurement practices can play a key role in stimulating markets for sustainable products and services. Thirdly, the process of changing behaviour across Whitehall provides invaluable lessons to policy-makers about what is involved. Finally, Government policies and practices send important signals to people about public priorities, and social and cultural preferences" (p 226). The EIC added that the Government as a client could lead the way by developing methods to assess sustainability. "Where obstacles or confusion arise, this should be flagged as an issue that needs to be resolved." In this way, other businesses could follow the examples set by the Government (p 113). Envirowise agreed, commenting that "actively encouraging resource efficiency and waste reduction in all Government procurement would help to set the norm for business" (p 88).

7.3. Dr Gibson, Director of Envirowise, thought that government policy on procurement was very good, but "the management of the implementation is not up to the policy in many areas yet." He added that there was a lack of expertise and understanding of environmental issues in the procurement profession which needed to be addressed. Although procurement staff might say that they are purchasing for the whole life cost, "we still see lots of evidence of people buying on lowest purchase price which does not necessarily give you the best resource use over the life of the thing that you are purchasing." The Office of Government Commerce's list of "quick wins" sets out minimum environmental standards for a range of products and Dr Gibson thought this was "a good step in the right direction." He added, however, that "it is quite a cumbersome list at the moment and it is particularly cumbersome for new products to get onto" (Q 209).

7.4. In setting procurement criteria, Dr Gibson also highlighted the importance of allowing enough flexibility to encourage innovative solutions. He warned that "by being over-prescriptive in procurement you can often stifle innovation. We believe it is quite important to follow the best practice we have seen in businesses where they specify the outcome they want rather than telling them how it needs to be done" (Q 209). Mr Holbrow, representing the FSB, commented that the needs of small businesses must also be taken into consideration, as "there is evidence that sometimes small businesses are eliminated from being able to tender for business because the standards are more geared to big business rather than small business" (Q 186). Thus Dr Goodwin, Chief Executive of WRAP, suggested that it would be better to specify the outcome of a product, "rather than specifying the specifics about the individual material that is used" (Q 210).

7.5. The Sustainable Development Commission's 2007 annual review of Sustainable Development in Government reported that government departments were still not on track to meet all of their targets, but performance on the whole was better than the year before. In terms of waste, the total waste arisings had reduced by 5.3 per cent against 2004-05 levels, which exceeded the target of 5 per cent by 2010, and pan-governmental performance on waste reduction was rated as excellent. By contrast, overall performance on quick wins was "hugely disappointing" with only 12 of the 21 departments reporting that they included clauses on quick wins in all relevant contracts. Furthermore, only 46 of the 351 new build and refurbishment projects completed in 2006-07 were assessed against BREEAM and, of these, only 28 projects met the required standard. On a more positive note, the report added that since circulation of the raw data, there had been "considerable activity and encouraging signs that the Government is preparing to up its game with regard to the performance of its estate."[51]

7.6. The SDC told us that the good performance of many departments in reducing waste should be recognised, but that "performance is variable across departments: some have reported excellent progress, whereas others are clearly not on track, and several are still not able to provide complete data for their whole estate" (p 291). Mr Andrew Lee, Director of the SDC, explained that "although government departments are doing quite well on generating less waste and recycling more … there is nothing like enough being done on the procurement side to drive that sort of behaviour change all the way down the supply chain. You are talking about £180 billion worth of expenditure in the public sector which could be driving these changes and helping these choices to become available for other people too." He added that "on waste they are sort of doing okay, but that is because the waste targets are not very ambitious and because they are not driving it through procurement and other things. It will take a long time to do this" (QQ 572, 597).

7.7. Mr Lee also highlighted the lack of knowledge amongst procurers; "there are small teams of people in these departments struggling with this stuff, desperately trying to get the information together, but compared with the best performance in some areas of business, they are miles behind. It is going to be a complete culture change to get the data, set the realistic targets and then find the leadership and action inside departments to make this happen." Mr Lee did acknowledge that "in fairness, there is a serious drive now to get this sorted" (Q 597).

7.8. Ms Ruddock, Defra Minster, said that "the responsibility now for delivery against government procurement targets is with the Office of Government Commerce, but Defra continues to lead on public procurement policy. I am going to acknowledge, as the Sustainable Development Commission did, that we have got a very mixed picture. There is no doubt that some government departments on some of these issues are not doing nearly well enough." In March 2008, the Government published their response to the SDC's report.[52] Ms Ruddock was confident that steps taken last year "have yielded significant improvements in the performance across government on sustainability" and that future actions outlined in the Government's response "will produce a further step change in performance" (Q 881).

7.9. The Government have also established a new Centre of Expertise for Sustainable Procurement to be overseen by a director-general post of Chief Sustainability Officer within the Office of Government Commerce. The objectives of this centre will be to work with departments to create delivery plans for achieving targets and to provide a central co-ordinated source of guidance to help departments overcome any barriers to progress. The Centre will also "work closely with the Office of Government Commerce teams leading on increasing opportunities for small businesses in order to ensure that the needs of SMEs are considered, where relevant, in all its work." The Government added that they wanted to see SMEs "compete more effectively for public sector contracts, since this is likely to provide greater choice and better value for money, as well as encouraging innovation and enterprise." In an attempt to engage with SMEs, from May to July 2008 the Government ran a three-month free trial for new registrants to the Supply2.gov web portal which gives businesses access to lower value contracts. They were also planning to establish a committee to provide advice for the 2008 pre-budget report. This would identify the actions needed to "reduce the barriers to SMEs competing for public sector contracts, within the scope of EU law and the policy objective of value for money, and advise on the practicality of setting a goal for SMEs to win 30 per cent of all public sector business in the next five years" (pp 427-428, Q 881).

Recommendations

7.10. It is vital that government departments lead by example in reducing their own waste. Although pan-governmental performance on waste reduction has been good, some departments still lag behind and we are concerned that targets are not challenging enough. Departmental performance on sustainable procurement has been disappointing and procurement staff often fail to recognise the lifetime cost of products. We welcome the establishment of the Centre of Expertise for Sustainable Procurement and recommend that it should urgently review the knowledge of procurement staff, providing training where necessary, to ensure that staff recognise the true costs of the products they buy and understand how the principles of waste reduction fit into the larger aims of sustainability.

7.11. We support the Government's attempts to increase opportunities for small businesses to compete for procurement contracts and hope that their work will lead to a greater understanding and removal of the barriers which currently prevent this.

Working with industry

7.12. According to Mr Tait, Programme Manager at the MTP, businesses want "long, loud and legal" signals about sustainability. "They want it to be absolutely clear that this is a long-term process; they want to be told about it clearly, in no uncertain terms; and they want to have it underpinned by a legal framework so they know exactly where they stand" (Q 456). The EIC thought that "the current policy framework is fragmented, confusing and occasionally contradictory. This disincentivises businesses who need clear direction, possibly through regulation. A clear, demanding and long-term government policy framework should be agreed and stuck to. This will encourage investment in the resources and technologies needed to drive waste reduction" (p 112).

7.13. CIKTN and CIA said that "this period of rapid legislation changes and review make it a difficult area for manufacturers to commit to with any confidence." They added that if a waste reduction strategy does not make commercial sense, then a business "cannot be expected to follow it" so they suggested that "government has a role to shift the balance if it wishes companies to follow waste reduction strategies in areas which are not commercially viable. They can do this by regulation, or by fiscal policy which charges companies for their environmental impact" (pp 135-136). In previous chapters we have examined the roles of producer responsibility regulations and the landfill tax in encouraging change, but implementing legislation is only one part of the story. Ms Hill, representing Green Alliance, said that businesses "crave certainty. If they feel there is a political momentum towards environmental goals, they want to know exactly what those are" (Q 552).

SUPPLY CHAIN PRESSURE AND THE ROADMAP APPROACH

7.14. When considering the business incentives for waste reduction, the role of the supply chain should not be underestimated. Dr Goodwin told us that WRAP works with major retailers and construction companies and then relies on them "to raise the awareness with all the SMEs that they engage with as part of their supply chain." So far they had found this a very effective way of getting the message across (Q 196). The car industry is well aware of the financial costs of waste and effectively gets this message across to its suppliers. Mr Hardcastle told us that Nissan issues green purchasing guidelines to its suppliers and asks them to "take responsibility for their own waste and recycling." He explained that "we do not have green police but we demand cost reductions and efficiency improvements year on year on year. We know inside our own plant that when you demand those kinds of cost reductions it makes people avoid waste—waste is expensive in every way" (QQ 682-683).

7.15. As an example, Mr Davies from the EIC cited the example of a manufacturing plant which made structural pressings for the motor industry. He said that their profitability was entirely dependent on how they managed their various offcuts, including aluminium, stainless and galvanised steel. They were aware that "if those were jumbled together they had to be disposed of at cost, but if they were recovered they could be sold at a profit. Their awareness seemed to come through the supply chain more than regulation itself" (Q 220). Toyota also demanded resource efficiency throughout the supply chain and, in the past, had stopped working with suppliers which had not obtained the ISO 14001 standard or which did not participate in an EU eco-management auditing scheme.[53] Professor Gregory from the University of Cambridge felt that supply chain pressure really drove smaller companies and commented that "somehow, if you can identify which are the key supply chains and work through from the top end of those, then you have a chance" (Q 219).

7.16. The CIKTN and CIA pointed out that suppliers can also influence manufacturers "by demonstrating that using more sustainable materials, or using materials more sustainably, will improve their business. This might be through cutting their costs, being able to improve product functionality and performance, helping them meet regulatory obligations at minimum effort or minimum cost, or by enhancing customer profile." They added that this required interaction between the supplier and manufacturer in closely linked supply chains (p 137).

7.17. An integrated approach, addressing the roles of manufacturers, retailers and consumers is an effective way to tackle particular products or waste streams, and something which the Government have been attempting to do with their roadmap approach. Product roadmaps were advocated by the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable in the I will if you will report[54] and developed in the SDC's report, You are what you sell.[55] The SDC said that product roadmaps outline "practical steps that businesses and government can take to improve sustainability of products and services … Integral to this approach is a focus on minimising negative impacts, including waste, throughout the supply chain." A key element to the approach is to have "a long-term goal, or vision, of where action and policy interventions are designed to get to. Within such policy frameworks, businesses can invest and innovate" (p 288). Ms Dibb from the SDC said that the most important part of the process was about "bringing people together, giving space in which they can themselves determine—that is people from Government, business, civil society and other interests—what possible research they might need, what possible evidence they might need to help build that roadmap" (Q 589).

7.18. Ms Ruddock said that Defra had examined European research on the environmental impacts of consumption patterns and found that "80 per cent of impacts were coming from food, personal transport, buildings, the kind of equipment that we have in buildings and textiles." So they had selected 10 priority products from these areas on which to trial the roadmap approach: milk, fish and shellfish, passenger cars, TVs, domestic lighting, electric motors, window systems, toilets, plasterboard and clothing.[56] The first roadmap, on milk and dairy, has now been published. Ms Ruddock felt that such voluntary agreements were useful in bringing stakeholders together, often picking up on issues early which could be used to inform the European Commission during policy development. She added that "if we need to legislate then we will, but if we can make headway with voluntary agreements, so be it" (QQ 848, 853).

SECTORAL AGREEMENTS

7.19. The Government have undertaken a number of agreements to engage with the business community and consumers about particular waste streams. Perhaps the most well known agreement is the Courtauld commitment which, as acknowledged in previous chapters, has made good progress in working with retailers and manufacturers to reduce unnecessary packaging. The commitment has not been free of criticism. The promotion of light-weighting has resulted in a focus on the weight of packaging rather than its overall sustainability. The British Glass Manufacturers' Confederation explained to us that glass could be recycled infinitely with a high recycled content but, because it is heavy, glass is now often replaced by plastic such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) which "at present can not be recycled in the UK" (p 138). Ms Bickerstaffe, Director of INCPEN, also pointed out that the plastics used in some products were so contaminated with residue that the environmental impacts of trying to clean and reprocess them made it unviable (Q 479).

7.20. Nonetheless, these problems are being addressed and the commitment has been heralded as a relative success with plans to extend it to non-food retailers.[57] Dr Gibson thought that one of the key reasons for the success of the agreement was that WRAP had been "following up with support and advice to the companies after they have signed up." In Dr Goodwin's view, retailers had been keen to sign up to the agreement because of consumer pressure, the realisation that cost savings were involved and because they saw the opportunity to be innovative throughout the supply chain. In addition, she added that "they probably wanted to make sure that the Government did not intervene and put in more legislation, so they felt they needed to be seen to be doing something as well" (Q 202).

7.21. The CIWM pointed out that the Government must monitor the effectiveness of voluntary arrangements closely and "be prepared to replace them with enforceable alternatives if necessary" (p 339). This action had been taken with site waste management plans (SWMPs) in the construction sector. SWMPs had previously been voluntary, but since April 2008 have been mandatory for all new construction projects worth more than £300,000.[58] The opinion of Mr Swain from Aggregate Industries was that "the fact that they were first voluntary and are now mandatory within the industry shows how slow the industry is to take up these sorts of things. It could have done it on a voluntary basis but has not" (Q 778). Ms Hobbs from the BRE explained that the SWMP "basically tells everybody on the site what activities should be carried out in terms of waste reduction and recycling, and that is then communicated to people through the site induction and also through tool-box talks throughout the project" (Q 743).

7.22. Ms Hobbs added that it was not yet clear whether SWMPs would reduce the amount of waste produced because "you have to move up the supply chain a lot more to reduce waste," but she thought that they would be effective at raising awareness of how to manage materials on-site. However, it appeared that the Government had missed an opportunity to improve the information base. Ms Hobbs told us that during the development of SWMPs, the BRE suggested that the plans should be collected to gather an overall picture of the amount of waste that is being produced and the ways in which different companies were managing it. Unfortunately that had not happened, "so that is an opportunity missed really, because now each company has its own SWMP without there being a central place to log them" (Q 776).

7.23. Defra had also used a voluntary approach, working with retailers, to tackle single-use carrier bags (both plastic and paper). In its Waste Strategy, Defra said it hoped that the environmental impact of such bags could be reduced by 25 per cent by the end of 2008; this would equate to 3.25 billion fewer bags being used and would save 58,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year. Retailers had been asked to reduce the environmental impact of their bags by encouraging consumers to use less, by enabling greater recycling of bags, and by reducing the impact of each bag through light-weighting or the use of recycled material.[59] Ms Ruddock recognised the need to monitor such voluntary agreements, saying that "unless there is sufficient progress made on a voluntary basis … we will legislate in secondary legislation next year to produce a charge … so that we would oblige those who wished to distribute single-use bags to make a charge for them" (Q 820).

TAX INCENTIVES

7.24. The difficulty in encouraging businesses was, in Ms Hill's view, the fact that "environmental goods are generally not priced in the market-place, so you get little benefit for innovating for the environment in the absence of specific fiscal or regulatory measures." She thought that business would like "more consistent signals to move towards environmental innovation" (Q 549). To address this problem, WRAP supported the "introduction of a variable Value Added Tax (VAT), with a lower VAT for products that are more sustainable." The organisation thought that this "would contribute to making sustainable products more cost-effective, as well as more attractive to the consumer" (p 99). Vitsoe agreed that new materials which are better from an environmental point of view "can be very expensive initially and could be supported by government via tax on materials with negative environmental impacts and/or subsidies for those with positive impact" (p 213). In a recent report, Green Alliance also argued "for a radical change to the way we tax goods, replacing VAT with a goods tax that is graduated according to the environmental impact of products, with full exemption for those products deemed to be the best performers."[60]

7.25. Ms Bickerstaffe was concerned that setting a tax according to the properties of materials would not be an appropriate way to tackle this complex problem. She noted that such a tax would be a "single issue approach … because though you use materials you also use energy to process and convert them, and just putting a tax on one part of an equation is always going to have unintended side effects." To illustrate her point, she explained that corrugated boxes contain a high proportion of recycled material, but in order to be sustainable they also need to include virgin fibres to prevent them falling apart and turning into pulp. She was concerned that by placing a tax on just one part of the equation, sustainable processes could be discouraged rather than encouraged (Q 495).

7.26. Ms Ruddock said that she would have to give us the standard response that "tax issues are for the Treasury." She said that they had encouraged differential taxation for aggregates so that recycled aggregates attracted a lower tax to discourage the use of virgin materials. She reiterated that the landfill tax was a very strong incentive to businesses to reduce waste, but could not comment beyond that "other than to say that the principle [of differential taxation] has been accepted and put into practice elsewhere" (Q 857).

ENCOURAGING INNOVATION: LESSONS FROM JAPAN

7.27. Many of our witnesses suggested that lessons could be learnt from Japan on how to encourage innovation. The "top runner" scheme, used to improve the energy efficiency of household electrical appliances, was often cited. This approach involves the early announcement of minimum environmental standards for products, followed by the use of fines for manufacturers or importers who do not conform. The SDC said that this process had driven a virtuous cycle of rapid innovation and choice editing which had "improved energy efficiency of new appliances and products by as much as 78 per cent."[61] Mr Hyman, Director of the EIC, noted that standards were set at, or higher than, the most efficient product on the market, then "all companies sign up to delivering that within a certain period of time," ensuring a constant improvement in standards. Its success was made clear by one Japanese official who jokingly said to him, "please, Europe, do not adopt this scheme because it is producing lots of business efficiencies and a competitive advantage for Japan" (Q 242). Mr Lee explained that the scheme was "saying to industry, 'we are working with the grain of the market, we are basing our standards on what we know the best people are capable of doing through innovation, and we are also sending a clear signal that over time those standards will get ratcheted up'" (Q 556).

7.28. Mr Pearson, the DIUS Minister, agreed that the top runner initiative had been "effective in terms of driving up standards in Japan" and added that the EU was adopting a similar process in areas such as the phasing out of non-energy efficient lightbulbs. He said that "across a range of different product areas at a European level the UK has been pushing to say which are the most efficient in the marketplace, which are the least efficient in the marketplace and to seek in the first instance to work voluntarily with industry, but then to move to regulate to ensure that the most inefficient products will not be allowed to be sold in the future and so in effect choice editing will take place" (Q 856).

7.29. The government of Japan have also implemented a novel strategy to encourage innovation in the automotive industry. At the end of a vehicle's life, a recycling partnership is responsible for recycling the vehicle and, on purchasing a car, customers must pay a fee towards this cost. The responsibility for managing shredded residue lies with the manufacturers themselves. In order to encourage innovation the manufacturers have been split into two teams which are competing on how to tackle the shredded residue. Mr Hardcastle explained that "if they can reduce the cost of the shredded residue or improve the profit or the recycling, then they can reduce the sticker price on the car … through that competition therefore the manufacturer is required to do the recycling" (Q 734). He acknowledged that the infrastructure and markets in the UK and Japan are very different, so this system is not necessarily directly applicable to all countries, but it is the method used to engage businesses which is interesting.

7.30. Mr Charter, from the University College for the Creative Arts, explained that the key to success was to instil confidence within industry that the Government are committed to their ideas. He noted that the Japanese recycling law for home appliances had been agreed in 2001, but work on the law had actually started in the mid 1990s, demonstrating to industry, government and key influential academics that this was the direction in which Japan was heading. Therefore by 2001 when the law was passed, "there was certainty for the manufacturers the law was going to come into place … that gave the companies the confidence to invest in developing the recycling technologies" (Q 85).

A strategic direction?

7.31. Waste, as a topic, is a complex subject involving a range of products, materials and services, influenced by designers, manufacturers, consumers, retailers and local authorities. It can be tackled in a number of ways but with a lack of data on the overall waste picture, it is difficult to know where to begin. One of the Government's key objectives is to decouple the growth of waste from economic growth and good progress has been made in this area over recent years with waste growing at a significantly lower rate than gross domestic product since 2000. Previous aims and strategies have largely focused on the recycling of municipal waste, and the amount of household waste not recycled has decreased significantly over this period (pp 1-2). However, the fact that the amount of waste continues to rise at all is a major cause for concern.

7.32. In their Waste Strategy, the Government admit that "England's performance on waste still lags behind many European countries" and state as one of their key objectives that more emphasis is needed on waste prevention.[62] It appears that the focus of Government policy is thus moving towards waste reduction, but as the CIWM pointed out, "this relies heavily on further and more detailed work to be done. In turn, this relies on strong co-ordination by Defra between various government departments and with a broad range of stakeholders" (p 336). The SDC was not convinced that the Government had the balance right though. They commented that the strategy has an "over-riding emphasis downstream and post-consumer, on recovery and recycling, rather than tackling the problem of waste further upstream in the supply chain." They added that the Government need to "adopt a more aspirational approach to reducing waste by setting longer-term targets and introducing enablers to support a culture of zero waste" (p 285).

7.33. Mr Robert Lisney, LRL Consultancy Services Ltd, criticised the way in which government waste reduction targets are "differentially set for different areas of focus," so whereas some targets for household waste are set in terms of tonnages, other targets for commercial, industrial, construction and demolition wastes may be set in terms of percentages, making useful comparisons difficult (p 50).

7.34. There were also doubts over whether the strategy placed the correct emphasis on each sector. For example, although only a small proportion of the nation's total waste arises in the household, the strategy claims that "a greater focus on waste prevention will be recognised through a new target to reduce the amount of household waste not re-used, recycled or composted."[63] In comparison, although the strategy says that targets for commercial and industrial waste would be set soon, a year later the Government still have not put any in place. The Government reported that they were "actively engaging with stakeholders" who had told them that because commercial and industrial waste is so varied, "it would make more sense to look at action sector by sector, as well as using cross-sectoral approaches like the Landfill Tax." While the Government were "reflecting on the outcome of the meeting," there was no indication of how long it would take to develop proposals (p 429).

7.35. With regard to the construction sector, a Strategy for Sustainable Construction was launched jointly by the Government and industry in June 2008.[64] This includes a target to halve construction, demolition and excavation waste sent to landfill by 2012, compared to a 2008 baseline. Whilst BERR was said to be co-ordinating the work, the Government made it clear that "the actions, commitments and targets are the responsibility of designated groups across the private and public sectors" and that "the overarching target is not a Government target" (p 419).

7.36. Despite being "concerned" about commercial and industrial waste, Ms Ruddock admitted that so far "our concentration has been on household waste and household waste arisings." One of the Government's most widely publicised projects has been the campaign to phase out single-use carrier bags, even though, as Ms Ruddock admitted, "they occupy a tiny, tiny proportion of the waste stream." She argued that these bags had been targeted not just on the grounds of waste, but also because they caused litter, endangered marine life and, most importantly, because they were "symbolic of a throwaway and wasteful society. When there is public demand to tackle this aspect of waste then it seems to us that we as a Government need to respond to that demand." In Ms Ruddock's view, the Government have to address behaviours in symbolic areas where consumers demand change, and she hoped that this would enable them to persuade people to change their behaviours in relation to other forms of waste (QQ 816-817, 821).

7.37. Defra's Waste Strategy has now identified a set of priority materials and products within the retail, chemicals, construction, electronic and electrical and food sectors, based upon potential reductions of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from diversion from landfill and greater recycling and recovery. Addressing the production and consumption of these priority materials and products will require the work of Defra, BERR, DIUS and other parts of government, whilst the Environment Agency will have to deal with the management of waste. To implement the policies set out in the Waste Strategy, a Defra-led Waste Strategy Board has been established with representatives from relevant departments "to provide leadership within and across government." The Board will monitor and evaluate implementation of the strategy, provide support to government and delivery organisations and develop new policies. A Waste Stakeholder Group has also been established, consisting of representatives from business, the waste management industry, local government, third sector, environmental non-governmental organisations, consumers and households, to "provide advice and input to delivery of the strategy, and future development of policy and strategy."[65]

7.38. Despite this, Ms Parkes, Head of Waste at the Environment Agency, said that "with the publication of Defra's Waste Strategy there is room for greater clarification about the way forward and who should be responsible for what." Although she felt that the work of the Environment Agency was clear, she added that "it is not just about environmental legislation and delivery, it is about getting it into the socio-economic debate." Furthermore, "the challenge for society and for government going forward is to be very clear about this bigger agenda and what are the interventions that are going to give rise to the best environmental outcomes" (QQ 109, 114). The Waste Strategy examines the whole of the waste hierarchy, including prevention, re-use, recycling, recovery and disposal, and there is value in developing such a comprehensive strategy for waste. Nevertheless, there is now a specific need to drive the prevention of waste. The key lies in co-ordinating action across the whole range of affected parties—public and private sector alike—and in providing guidance on who will lead on waste reduction.

Recommendations

7.39. We welcome the fact that waste prevention has been recognised as an important strand within the Government's Waste Strategy, but this approach must be backed up with the appropriate policies. Progress is being made in tackling domestic waste, but this accounts for a relatively small proportion of all waste in the UK and more attention must now be paid to other waste streams. The Government should continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that policies are set appropriately, but the Government should now also take the lead in developing a strategy to reduce industrial and commercial waste. We welcome the revision of the Waste Framework Directive which we hope will contribute towards a more efficient use of resources and reiterate the importance of Government working with other EU Member States to ensure that the directive's provisions are implemented as quickly as possible.

7.40. Following their campaign to promote re-use and recycling, the Government must now provide clear and consistent signals that waste reduction is a priority. Businesses will not invest in sustainable practices unless they are confident of the Government's long-term policies, and consumers will not change behaviours without education or incentives. In order to engage, enable and encourage businesses and consumers to embrace waste reduction, it is crucial that work is undertaken on a whole supply chain basis, examining the impacts of products throughout their lifetime. We endorse the use of the product roadmap approach which tackles particular products or waste streams by working with all the relevant players, including manufacturers, retailers and consumers. We hope that the Government will use these roadmaps to provide industry and the general public with clear guidance on the direction they are taking.

7.41. We support the use of voluntary sectoral agreements to bring stakeholders together in tackling specific waste streams, enabling businesses to recognise the costs of their waste and giving them the opportunity and guidance to minimise it. The Government must be prepared to monitor these agreements and review policies when necessary.

7.42. The Government must engage with industry and provide the assurances and certainty required to enable businesses to invest in waste reduction strategies. In order to encourage innovation, we recommend that the Government adopt the "top runner" approach wherever possible. This strategy should involve the use of standards and choice editing, pre-selecting the most sustainable products, to drive continued improvements in sustainability.

7.43. We were disappointed by the unwillingness of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss fiscal incentives and recommend that the department should work with the Treasury to review the case for implementing variable Value Added Tax to promote the development of sustainable products.

7.44. It is important that the Government address areas of public concern in order to engage with members of the public and encourage behavioural changes. Nevertheless, the Government's focus must now widen to include other waste streams apart from the obvious options of domestic waste and packaging. We welcome the identification of key materials from the commercial, industrial and construction sectors, but recommend that the Government should provide greater clarity about who will be taking the lead in addressing production and consumption in each of these areas and who will be responsible for promoting and monitoring the over-arching aim of waste reduction.

50 Her Majesty's Government, Securing the future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy, 2005. Back

51 Sustainable Development Commission, Sustainable Development in Government 2007, pp 8-9, 23. Back

52 See http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/reports/~/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/reports/sustainable_development/govt_response_sdc_180308%20pdf.ashx. Back

53 See Appendix 6. Back

54 Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, I will if you will, op. cit. Back