APPENDIX 4: SEMINAR HELD AT THE ROYAL
ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
15 November 2007
A seminar was organised at the Royal Academy of Engineering
to give the Committee an opportunity to discuss the inquiry with
academic experts, business advisers and representatives from public
bodies.
Members of the Sub-Committee present were: Lord O'Neill
of Clackmannan (Chairman), Lord Haskel, Lord Lewis of Newnham,
Lord Methuen and Baroness Sharp of Guildford. In attendance were:
Professor Stephen Evans (Specialist Adviser), Miss Sarah
Jones (Clerk), Ms Christine Salmon (Clerk) and Dr Cathleen
Schulte (Committee Specialist).
The participants were: Mr Peter Jones (Biffa),
Professor Sue Grimes (Imperial College London), Professor Tim
Jackson (University of Surrey), Dr Robert Chilton (National
Consumer Council), Mr Malcolm Wilkinson (Institution of Chemical
Engineers), Dr Claire Barlow (University of Cambridge), Professor Mike
Ashby (University of Cambridge), Ms Sandy Shattock (Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), Mr Keith Stonell
(Environment Agency), Mr Matthew Rowland-Jones (Envirowise),
Ms Sue Doughty (National Industrial Symbiosis Programme), Ms Teil
Howard (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology), Dr David
Gardner (Resource Efficiency Knowledge Transfer Network) and Mr Patrick
Mahon (Waste and Resources Action Programme).
Presentation by Professor Stephen Evans (Products,
people, waste and resources)
Professor Evans gave an overview of the subject-matter
for the inquiry, outlining the various stages of the product life-cycle:
extraction, processing, manufacture, purchase, use and, finally,
end-of-life. This life-cycle could be divided into three parts;
production, consumption and waste management, but was not necessarily
linear as some products could be fed back into earlier parts of
the process as components of larger products. Waste was produced
at every stage and sometimes could be fed back into the system
as a resource.
There were a number of ways in which people could
intervene to reduce waste, as the "waste hierarchy"
showed. At the bottom of the hierarchy was waste disposal, which
the Committee would not be focusing on during its inquiry. Above
this was recovery, in which value could be recovered by generating
energy from waste. The next level, recycling, could be useful
as it prevented materials from being wasted and many materials
could be recycled infinitely without losing their properties.
However, in a process known as down-cycling, the properties of
some materials were reduced with each cycle and this limited the
number of times that they could be used. Recycling often required
a substantial energy input so this was not the ideal way in which
to reduce waste. The next level up the hierarchy, re-use, could
therefore be more productive and could be carried out by either
the consumer or the manufacturer. But the ultimate goal at the
top of the hierarchy was to reduce or remove waste entirely.
Waste reduction was difficult to achieve because
the three systems of production, consumption and waste management
had largely developed independently of each other and lacked co-ordination.
There was therefore a real need to integrate the three systems
and consider the end-of-life disposal implications of products
at the design and manufacturing stage. Legislation introduced
in recent years had begun to tackle this problem but often manufacturers
only did enough to conform to the regulations and no more. Amongst
designers there was still a tendency to use tried and tested materials
and production processes rather than experimenting with more novel
technologies. This was understandable as taking a risk with a
new material could result in manufacturers losing out to competitors.
The key to promoting waste prevention would therefore be to appeal
to manufacturers on the grounds of self-interest, and demonstrate
the potential benefits that waste reduction could bring for them.
As the management of waste could often be expensive, if these
costs were taken into consideration when estimating production
costs, this might provide incentives for manufacturers to design
their products differently.
Presentation by Mr Peter Jones (Waste and
resource recovery: perspectives across supply chains)
Mr Jones began by describing the handling of
raw materials in the UK, outlining the ways in which they could
be used, re-used or disposed of. There was a lack of information
regarding flows of material, and until this was addressed it would
be very difficult to develop regulation or fiscal incentives in
order to reduce waste. The composition and supply of waste were
influenced by factors such as the Landfill Directive, financial
instruments, municipal recycling targets and producer responsibility
measures aimed at the design stage. But the way in which waste
was used at end-of-life was influenced by the global demand for
non-renewable and renewable resources, the efficiency of technology
in the manufacturing industry, producer responsibility legislation
regarding leasing, re-use or ownership, and taxes on virgin resources.
Historically, landfill had been a relatively cheap
option for disposing of waste so there had been little incentive
for manufacturers to reduce waste. Although hazardous waste already
required pre-treatment before disposal, since 30 October 2007,
producers had also been required to pre-treat most non-hazardous
waste before sending it to landfill. Pre-treatment involved changing
the characteristics of waste so that it was reduced in volume,
for example, or to facilitate its handling or enhance its recovery.
Sorting waste to separate recyclable from non-recyclable materials
also counted as pre-treatment. However, experience since the introduction
of these requirements had shown that the Environment Agency was
not very stringent in enforcing these rules. Therefore, it was
suggested that a primary driver for change could be a tax on virgin
resources to encourage manufacturers to re-use materials rather
than dispose of them.
In theory, the greatest financial and environmental
benefits could be achieved by using producer responsibility regulations
which obliged companies to deal with their own waste, overseen
by transparent audit processes managed by the National Audit Office
and Office of Fair Trading. But in practice, manufacturers within
a sector were understandably reluctant to co-operate with their
competitors, which resulted in a fragmented approach often lacking
co-ordination or economic continuity across different product
sectors. This had been compounded by a lack of co-ordination between
Defra and BERR. It was therefore vital that trade associations
worked to bring companies and the Government together in order
to develop national strategies to manage waste effectively.
Presentation by Professor Sue Grimes (Waste
as a resource)
Professor Grimes highlighted the need for an
integrated approach to waste reduction so that waste was viewed
as a potential resource. A new hierarchy for waste reduction was
proposed which took sustainable design into consideration; at
the top was the need to encourage a "design for the environment"
principle. Although the "cradle to grave" concept had
become popular, Professor Grimes felt there was a need to
develop this further into "conception to grave" thinking.
There was a communications gap between design and end-of-life
which needed to be addressed so that designers not only considered
whether a product was "fit for purpose," but whether
it was also "fit for disposal." This would require the
development of markets for recyclates.
At the next level of the hierarchy, it was important
to achieve separation of materials at source and, for this purpose,
tagging technology could be enormously useful. Many commodities,
such as electrical and electronic products, produced complex mixtures
of waste when they reached the end of their lives. But the inclusion
of a RFID tag in high-value materials could allow these materials
to be easily separated and re-used. Following this, further down
the hierarchy there was a need to examine the range of recovery
and sorting technologies currently available, before finally sending
waste to landfill or other disposal sites.
Professor Grimes voiced concern that the legal
definition of waste sometimes inadvertently presented a barrier
to recycling; some products were viable for re-use but could not
always be recycled as they were legally defined as "waste."
For example, technology existed to double the life of vehicle
batteries at the end of their first use, but because batteries
were defined as hazardous waste they could not be collected for
recycling without obtaining a waste treatment licence, a process
which made the recycling technology uneconomic. Legislation by
itself was not enough to encourage recycling and the Government
needed to consider other mechanisms, such as the use of economic
instruments, to encourage sustainability, especially where recycling
was discouraged by legal definitions. Professor Grimes suggested
that the Landfill Communities Fund could be used to promote innovative
sustainability projects that were not currently close to market
by closing the communications gap between design and end-of-life
and by encouraging new partnerships in the "conception to
grave" chain.
Finally, there was a need to improve the skills and
knowledge base at all stages in the "conception to grave"
chain from designer to end-of-life practitioner. This should involve
the development of modular Masters programmes in holistic sustainable
manufacture, inter-disciplinary research to close the knowledge
gap and the provision of industry based Doctorate degrees of the
EngD type.
Presentation by Professor Tim Jackson (Sustainable
consumption)
Professor Jackson introduced the work of the
ESRC Sustainable Technologies Programme: a research initiative
which aimed to identify and explain the social and economic forces
which shape, foster or inhibit sustainable technologies. A wide
range of reasons to explain consumption in modern society had
been identified. These included satisfying the needs of the consumer
or helping to form their identity, social cohesion, sexual selection,
dreaming, hedonistic desire and even the pursuit of meaning. Material
artefacts often held a symbolic meaning for many consumers and
because of the relationship between material artefacts and a sense
of self, consumers sometimes became locked into particular consumption
patterns.
Consumer behaviour was constrained to a certain extent
by the costs and benefits of commodities, but trying to explain
the real motivations, attitudes and situations responsible for
consumption was a lot more complex. The role of habit could not
be underestimated, as many consumers simply bought the same products
on a regular basis without even considering their environmental
merits. Human attitudes and external conditions together contributed
to a "value-action gap." Some consumers might have good
intentions to buy sustainable products, but without the appropriate
external conditions and social context, their actual behaviour
would not change. At the other extreme, even where consumer attitudes
might be poor, behaviour could be altered if the external conditions
were positive and made it easy to buy sustainable products or
undertake recycling. The best results would therefore be achieved
when both consumer attitudes and external conditions were positive.
Breaking habits and changing consumer behaviours
would require four key steps, as described in the I will if
you will report[66]
from the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable. First, consumers
had to be enabled to change by removing barriers and providing
the relevant facilities, information and education. Secondly,
consumer engagement had to involve community action, enthusiasts
and media campaigns. Next, it was important for Government to
lead by example and to achieve consistency in policies. Then finally,
tax systems, reward schemes and penalties had to be developed
in order to encourage people to consume sustainably.
Presentation by Dr Robert Chilton (The consumer
perspective)
Dr Chilton explained that the leading principles
guiding the consumer movement were choice, information, access,
safety, fairness, representation and redress. However, these dated
from a time when individual consumer behaviour was paramount.
A more collective approach from consumers was needed and a number
of ethical values could be applied in order to encourage sustainable
consumption, such as achieving a level of equality. For example,
if consumers today used their choices irresponsibly this might
eliminate choice for their children. Therefore, to correct these
inequalities there might be a need to limit the choice available
to consumers, to encourage the consumption of more sustainable
products.
Dr Chilton felt that the tax system sent out
contradictory messages and did not help to co-ordinate different
environmental issues. For example, Landfill Tax was calculated
according to the weight of waste produced and did not take embodied
carbon into account. There was a need for the tax system to narrow
the cost gap between sustainable and unsustainable choices, and
to reinforce consumer behaviour rather than confuse it. Information
relating the environmental credentials of products also needed
to be presented in an interesting, accessible way; consumers would
respond to this type of approach more readily than to scientific
or worthy messages.
But there was a need to lead by example, incorporating
good waste practice into new public developments to encourage
the community to follow. Effort was also needed to co-ordinate
nationally consistent policies for the management of waste. Consumers
were confused about the types of materials that could be recycled
due to varying collection services in different areas; local authorities
therefore needed to co-ordinate their efforts and enter into joint
contracts with industries that could re-use waste materials.
Presentation by Mr Malcolm Wilkinson (Waste
and resource efficiency in the processing industry: the sustainable
production of materials)
Mr Wilkinson began by outlining the inefficiencies
of some sectors within the chemical manufacturing industry. Oil
refinery did not produce much waste as its largest by-product
was carbon dioxide. The production of bulk chemicals resulted
in around one to five kilograms of by-product for every kilogram
of product, but a large amount of this could be used again. However,
the production of fine chemicals resulted in around 5-50 kilograms
of by-product for every kilogram of product, and the figure for
pharmaceuticals was around 25-100 kilograms. Furthermore, the
by-products produced from these types of chemicals were often
very complex and difficult to re-use, resulting in substantial
amounts of waste.
Despite this, waste had decreased over the last decade.
Cost savings and stakeholder pressure had played a part in decreasing
waste, but legislation had been the key driver, including regulation
on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction
of Chemical substances, regulation on the Control of Major Accident
Hazards, the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive
and the Climate Change Levy. But there were still some considerable
barriers for manufacturers, one of the largest being the legacy
effect of existing assets which, in this highly capital intensive
sector, reinforced a traditionally conservative approach towards
new technology. There was also concern about the poor return that
might result from investment in environmental strategies. Although
waste reduction measures could, if properly implemented, often
produce savings in the long run, there were often difficulties
in justifying environmental investments using strict investment
criteria and imperfect accounting information on intangible benefits.
There was a lack of knowledge about the technologies
currently available which presented a barrier on two levels. First,
it was often difficult to understand how a particular technology
would benefit a business as the technology package was incomplete.
Second, the skills within an organisation did not usually support
the innovation activity. Demonstration or prototype facilities
were needed to advance the development of technologies beyond
the proof of concept stage and to reduce the risks of implementation,
but there was a lack of such facilities.
Set against this background, the ultimate goal was
zero-impact, zero-toxicity products and processes, but developing
these would involve tackling a number of key technology challenges
such as:
· Using
biocatalysts and developing chemical bioplants;
· Developing
new polymers which, when fabricated into their components, would
facilitate their disassembly and recycling;
· Using
alternative feedstocks such as organic waste, crops, or simple
molecules such as methane and ethane;
· Developing
micro and nano materials which offered novel functionality;
· Intensifying
processing equipment to develop continuous, rather than batch,
processing in order to reduce waste.
Sustainability considerations were not very high
on the design agenda in most organisations because there was no
recognised holistic design approach for practising engineers.
The "12 Principles of Green Engineering"[67]
provided a framework for the conversations that had to take place
between designers of molecules, materials, components, products
and complex systems, but designers had not systematically integrated
these into a holistic design approach and this remained the challenge.
A further problem was that policy on sustainable
development was fragmented and had not been well communicated,
so sustainable design was not central to business thinking. There
was a need to increase both government and industry funding for
research projects. WRAP and NISP had provided businesses with
some guidance about finding innovative uses for waste material,
and these practical initiatives were particularly relevant for
SMEs. But the problem was that they tended to focus on immediate
operational issues and, whilst they solved some problems, they
rarely tackled the root causes of waste production and had limited
impact on strategic thinking.
Presentation by Dr Claire Barlow (Materials
engineering and production processes)
Dr Barlow outlined the points at which waste
could occur, both within a company and within a supply chain,
before focusing on the specific challenges faced within small
businesses. Dr Barlow described the efforts that had been
made by a small manufacturing plant which had begun a waste management
programme seven years ago in response to increasing landfill charges,
and had managed to reduce the waste it sent to landfill by around
2,000 tonnes per year. Improvements in manufacturing processes
and minor redesigns of packaging had produced a 15 per cent reduction
in manufacturing and packaging waste at source, and the introduction
of re-usable pallets had reduced pallet waste by 90 per cent.
Furthermore, the company had increased its recycling of packaging
and manufacturing process waste, achieving an 80 per cent reduction
in packaging waste and a 30 per cent reduction in manufacturing
process waste. In this way, the company had managed to make significant
changes by implementing relatively simple measures. However, there
was still room for improvement. It was thought that further improvement
in manufacturing processes, increased recycling and a reduction
of packaging could reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill
further still.
SMEs often required help when implementing such changes
and it was crucial that the Government provided this support.
Although SMEs might produce relatively little waste individually,
together they were responsible for a vast quantity of waste each
year. Dr Barlow felt that many SMEs had already looked at
quick or easy measures to deliver immediate economic benefits,
such as lean manufacturing, quality control and energy reduction.
But more profound changes were rare because of a lack of resources
for change, a lack of understanding or knowledge of best practice,
and a lack of incentives. For small businesses, a concentration
on the sustainable agenda could reduce their short-term economic
returns, and their often fragile position within the market reduced
their ability to invest in long-term sustainable solutions.
So what could be done? An example was given of a
recently established "sustainability club" which fostered
an environment in which best practice knowledge could be shared
between businesses. A concerted effort from industry and the Government
was needed to influence supply chains and incentives were also
needed to encourage designers to consider re-use and recyclability
when selecting materials. Finally, innovative recycling processes
needed to be encouraged in order to deal with a wider range of
waste. For example, rather than melting, refining and reprocessing
girders to steel stock, girders from demolition sites could in
fact be reshaped. This idea would be logistically highly complex
and would require substantial changes in the way the construction
industry worked but, if implemented, could save a significant
amount of energy.
Presentation by Professor Mike Ashby (Materials
of industry: history, dependence, consumption, cost and value)
Unlike biological systems, modern industrial society
is not in balance, hence waste is produced. Professor Ashby
noted that this had not always been the case; thousands of years
ago we had used different materials in a system that was largely
balanced and sustainable. Throughout history we had become increasingly
dependent on metals, and the widespread rapid consumption of fossil
fuels, which had taken millions of years to accumulate, meant
that the system was no longer in balance. In recent history, our
reliance on natural resources had declined and there was now a
large dependence on man-made polymers which were not renewable.
Professor Ashby drew attention to the range
of materials produced worldwide and the extent to which they were
recycled. If comparisons were made by weight, then oil, coal and
steel appeared to be in greatest use, but this was not a fair
comparison because polymers were not very dense. If these figures
were examined in cubic metres, our substantial reliance on polymers
became clear. However, the amount of material recycled was pathetically
small, particularly when it came to polymers, for which less than
20 per cent were generally recycled. So why was society wasting
so much material? Part of the problem was that materials had become
cheaper over the last 150 years and society had become richer,
so materials were valued less. An increasing scarcity of materials,
the increasing price of energy, and government legislation would
therefore be key drivers in changing attitudes.
Discussion
Discussion initially focused on the needs of small
businesses when developing waste reduction strategies. SMEs often
required an adviser to visit the premises, examine their processes
and suggest ways to improve manufacturing, transportation and
packaging processes. Some organisations, such as Envirowise and
NISP, were already assisting businesses in this way. To assist
the manufacturing industry, PICME assisted manufacturers of pharmaceuticals,
chemicals, plastics and rubber, to improve competitiveness and
efficiency and to reduce waste.
SMEs needed to be educated about the importance of
waste reduction and encouraged to seek help from such organisations.
Historically, SMEs had been motivated by short-term benefits,
and many small business owners simply took their waste home and
disposed of it through the domestic route, thereby avoiding taxes.
It was not always economical for small businesses to implement
big changes to reduce waste, and a common attitude amongst SMEs
was that they wished to remain small and independent and would
not welcome more regulation or guidelines.
So how could SMEs be encouraged to reduce waste?
One way to promote change was to instil a sense of value about
sustainability and waste reduction. The promotion of moral and
ethical reasons for reducing waste often inspired small businesses
to change their processes, and could provide a useful marketing
tool for them to advertise their products. Pressure from further
up the supply chain was also beginning to provide an influence;
for example, big food retailers and construction companies were
beginning to examine their suppliers and often exerted a pressure
for sustainable manufacturing.
Although the inquiry would not be focusing on the
management of waste, it was noted that the disposal facilities
available to businesses fed back and influenced attitudes towards
waste. It was felt that partnerships between businesses and waste
services were essential; for example, it was good practice for
waste companies to provide communal disposal units on trading
estates for all businesses to share. However, it was important
that communal facilities did not negate attempts to make businesses
aware of their own waste, and did not remove their responsibilities.
It was important to encourage change collectively; businesses
would be reluctant to make changes to their practices unless other
companies followed, for fear of losing their competitive edge.
It was difficult to measure the total amount and
cost of waste produced because there was no standard method to
compare different wastes produced at various points in different
production processes. Waste could occur in terms of energy, carbon,
raw materials, food and other aspects, and could occur at a number
of points including mining, production or disposal. It was felt
that SMEs would respond more quickly if they were presented with
clear figures showing the cost of the waste they produced, but
accounting for these various factors was difficult. The Prince
of Wales' Accounting for Sustainability project[68]
had begun to address this matter and aimed to develop systems
that would help both public and private sector organisations account
more accurately for the wider social and environmental costs of
their activities.
Difficulties had also arisen from the legal definition
of waste as it was often more difficult or costly to re-use resources
if the "waste" label had been applied to them. There
was therefore a need to review the way in which waste was legally
defined and the point at which a material ceased to be waste.
There was also a need to examine how resources could be re-used
to encourage more sustainable manufacturing processes.
66 Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, I will if
you will, op. cit. Back
67
Anastas and Zimmerman, Environmental Science and Technology
37 (5), 2003, "Design through the 12 Principles of
Green Engineering," pp 94A-101A. Back
68
See http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/newsandgallery/news/hrh_launches_accounting_for_sustainability_at_st_james_s_pal_1859677089.html.
Back
|
