Supplementary Memorandum by The Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra); The Department
for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR); The Department
for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS); and The Office
of Government Commerce (OGC)
GOVERNMENT RESPONSES
TO QUESTIONS
RAISED BY
THE INQUIRY
It was stated that when the Environment Agency
collected data on waste streams, the cost was around £3 million
in 2002 (Q817). Does this figure only cover the cost of collecting
data on household waste? If a comprehensive data-gathering scheme
was implemented, collecting data on household, industrial, commercial,
construction and demolition waste, how much do you estimate this
would cost?
1. The cost cited was for the Environment Agency's
National Waste Production Survey. This survey did not collect
data on household waste. Data on household waste are collected
via Defra's WasteDataFlow project and this system provides good
quality information on a quarterly basis. The annual UK cost of
WasteDataFlow is around £0.5m; this covers central staff
costs, non-pay running costs, payments to contractors and estimated
costs to respondents (local authorities).
2. The EA survey collected data on commercial
and industrial waste; the 2002-03 survey was estimated to have
a total cost of £3m. CLG conduct a biennial survey on aggregate
construction and demolition waste. The contracted cost of this
for the 2005 survey was £73,532.50.
3. The current Waste Data Strategy aims to collect
comprehensive data on all waste streams by utilising administrative
data sources, ie returns made by waste facility operators, rather
than directly surveying businesses. The Waste Data Strategy encompasses
WasteDataFlow and collation of data from existing Environment
Agency systems. The Business Case developed for the Waste Data
Strategy during 2005 estimated savings to respondents and central
government from not carrying out surveys at £1-£1.2m
pa—this can be broadly seen as the possible cost of moving
back to a survey-based data collection methodology (and excludes
the existing cost of collecting municipal waste data). There would
be additional, unquantified costs for further surveys on other
waste streams such as non-aggregate C&D waste and agricultural
waste which would be required to give a comprehensive picture
based on surveys.
We were told that BERR was working with Defra's
waste statistics team to gather further data on all waste streams
and that it had commissioned a couple of studies (Q819). What
work has been undertaken so far, what are the studies aiming to
achieve and when will they be completed?
4. There are three relevant studies, as follows:
(i)
Delivering the data for monitoring the Waste Strategy
2007 indicators (Defra funded)—The
purpose of this research study is to identify the data gaps for
the Waste Strategy indicators and to determine the most efficient
and effective long term and short term solutions for filling these
gaps to provide a sufficiently accurate evidence basis for waste
policy monitoring. Defra is reviewing the final draft report from
the contractors and it is anticipated that this report will be
published shortly.
(ii)
Investigation of Uncertainty in Estimation of
Commercial & Industrial (C&I) Waste to landfill (BERR
Funded)—This was completed about six months ago. It addresses
the problem that the amount of C&I waste going to landfill
is not measured directly, it has to be derived by subtracting
the amount of inert and municipal waste going to landfill from
the total amount of waste going to landfill. The study looked
at the accuracy of this derived quantity to see if it could be
used a reliable indicator of trends in C&I waste management.
(iii)
Investigation of Carbon Ranking of C&I Waste
Reduction Measures (BERR funded)—This
study investigates the potential greenhouse gas savings of the
various C&I waste management policy measures currently in
place in England (eg the Landfill Tax Escalator, the Courtauld
Commitment, The "GlassRite" campaign), The purpose of
the study to help ascertain which measures are the most important
in helping reach the Governments greenhouse gas reduction targets.
This study is close to completion.
BERR is considering setting various targets for
the construction industry (Q824). What work is being undertaken
as part of these considerations and when might the targets be
set?
5. A joint industry Government Strategy for
Sustainable Construction is currently being developed and is due
to be launched on 11 June. Although BERR is coordinating this
work, the actions, commitments and targets are the responsibility
of designated groups across the private and public sectors.
6. The actions and deliverables in the current
(23 May) draft of the Strategy, which relate to Waste are:
ACTIONS AND DELIVERABLES
Overarching Target
|
| By 2012, a 50 per cent reduction of construction, demolition and excavation (CD&E) waste to landfill compared to 2008
|
| List of Actions & Deliverables which contribute to Overarching Target
| Body Responsible for each action/ deliverable
|
Timescale |
Construction Waste Commitment: individual organisations commit to waste to landfill targets at company level
| Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP), working with client and contractor sector bodies
| Formal Launch in September 2008, then ongoing
|
Develop guidance on waste reduction for small builders
| National Federation of Builders (working with WRAP & Envirowise)
| By 2009 |
Sector resource efficiency plans prepared and implemented by trade associations
| Construction Products Association | Three begun by end 2008
|
Setting an overall target of diversion of demolition waste from landfill
| National Federation of Demolition Contractors
| By 2009 |
Extension of Plasterboard Voluntary Agreement to rest of the supply chain
| Construction Resources and Waste Platform and WRAP
| By 2009 |
20% reduction in construction packaging waste
| Construction Products Association | By 2012
|
| |
|
7. The overarching target is not a Government target. Rather,
it has been developed by the construction industry and is the
responsibility of the Strategic Forum for Construction.
What estimates do the Government have on the amount of waste
arising from construction and demolition projects? (QQ 824-826)
8. We estimate that the construction, demolition and excavation
(CD&E) industries in England are responsible for the production
of over 100 million tonnes of waste per year. Full details of
the production and management of this waste are set out below.
These figures include waste that is subsequently recycled, including
recycling on the site where the waste is produced.
AGGREGATE CD&E WASTE
9. Aggregate waste[1]
from the CD&E sector accounts for the largest proportion of
waste arisings in England, with approximately 90 million tonnes
produced in 2005 (around one-third of total waste). The total
arisings are estimated to have remained at this level across the
2001, 2003 and 2005 surveys. Chart 1 illustrates the management
methods of CD&E waste from 2001-2005. The data are presented
in more detail in Table 1.
Source: CLG surveys on arisings and use of construction,
demolition and excavation wastes.
Table 1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CD&E AGGREGATE WASTE TONNAGES
FOR ENGLAND IN 2005
Category | Tonnage (million tonnes) in 2005
|
Production of recycled aggregate
| 42 |
| Production of recycled soil (excluding topsoil)
| 4 |
| Unprocessed CD&E waste entering licensed landfill—for engineering use
| 4 |
| Unprocessed CD&E waste entering licensed landfill—for capping use
| 5 |
| Unprocessed CD&E waste entering licensed landfill—for waste disposal
| 18 |
| Waste materials (mainly excavation waste) used on registered exempt sites
| 15 |
| Total | 90 |
Source: CLG survey on arisings and use of aggregate construction, demolition and excavation wastes. Figures are rounded to the nearest million.
| |
10. The recycling of aggregate waste by the CD&E sector
includes waste that is recycled on the site where it is produced.
Around 52 per cent of aggregate waste was recycled in 2005. Only
20 per cent was disposed to landfill.
NON-AGGREGATE
CD&E WASTE
11. Non-aggregate wastes arising in the CD&E sector include
glass, wood, plasterboard, asbestos, metals and plastics. The
Welsh Assembly Government recently conducted a survey of Construction
and Demolition waste arisings in 2005-06.[2]
This covered aggregate and non-aggregate waste arisings from this
sector.
12. In Wales, it was estimated that 12 per cent of CD&E
wastes were non-aggregate wastes. Applying this percentage to
the aggregate waste arising estimated for England suggests a further
12 million tonnes of non-aggregate wastes were produced by this
sector. Estimates by WRAP[3]
suggest this could be higher, at 15-20 million tonnes of non-inert
and mixed CD&E waste, in addition to the aggregate waste described
above.
During the meeting, the budgets for Envirowise, NISP, WRAP
and the MTP were provided for the year 2008-09 (Q827). What were
the budgets for these bodies in the year 2007-008? Has the BREW
programme of funding now ceased and, if so, how is funding for
waste reduction projects now allocated?
13. The budgets for these delivery bodies from the BREW programme
(not their total funding) for 2007-08 were as follows:
| Delivery body | 2007-08 budget
|
| Envirowise | £22.19m |
| NISP | £8.25m |
| WRAP | £12.174m |
| MTP | £3.895m |
| |
14. The BREW Programme of funding has now ceased. From 2008/09,
allocations for business resource efficiency expenditure will
be made from Defra's central budget. Allocations are decided through
Defra's business planning process, which seeks to ensure that
resources are best matched to Departmental priorities.
We were told that Business Link advisers would receive training
on resource efficiency and waste reduction. What form will this
training take and who will provide it? How do you monitor the
effectiveness of the Business Link website? What proportion of
Business Link costs is spent on administration? (QQ837-842)
TRAINING FOR
BUSINESS LINK
STAFF
15. The Government's Business Support Simplification Programme
positions Business Link as the primary access channel for a new
streamlined portfolio of less than 100 publicly funded business
support products and services.
16. RDAs and BERR/HMRC will work with the business support
product owners to ensure that Business Link meets customer support
needs.
17. Defra, as the owner of the Promoting Resource Efficiency
and Sustainable Waste Management product, will work with RDAs
to ensure Business Link is able to deliver the enhanced service,
and that customer service teams and advisors are trained to the
appropriate level.
18. All Business Link customer-facing staff must be accredited
to the appropriate nationally agreed standard of competence—in
the case of Business Link advisors, this involves accreditation
to the National Occupational Standard for Business Support (as
defined by the national standard-setting body for the business
support standard, SFEDI)[4]
and the additional Business Link Broker standard.
19. RDAs have asked SFEDI to ensure the National Occupational
Standard for Business Support is developed to reflect sustainability
as a core element of the national standards.
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
20. Government (BERR) provides, through the Regional Development
Agency (RDA) Single Pot, £140m per annum to support the core
Business Link service.
21. Back office costs[5]
of Business Link Providers as a percentage of core Business Link
grant funding over the past three years have come down from 31
per cent to 23 per cent per annum, with plans to reduce these
even further. Significant future efficiency gains across the Business
Link network are being forecast.
22. Efficiency gains are reinvesting in front line delivery
resulting in improved performance. For instance, the number of
intensively assisted customers has increased by 48 per cent since
2004-05 to just over 58,000 customers in 2007-08.
MONITORING
23. Contract management of Business Link (excluding the on-line
service) was devolved to the RDAs in 2005. Business Link has a
centrally defined Management Information Requirement and Customer
Satisfaction Methodology with core questions covering the breadth
of the service. RDAs have, from 1 April 2008, included a new count
on Resource Efficiency: ie the Count of Intensively Assisted businesses
that receive assistance to improve their resource efficiency.
Results are reported on a quarterly basis.
24. RDAs are also undertaking impact evaluations of the Business
Link service in their respective regions.
25. The success of the on-line Environment & Efficiency
section is monitored on a regular basis by reviewing how many
people are using the section and how they are using it. This includes
assessing: how the section performs compared to other parts of
the website; which guides and tools are most popular; percentage
of successful tool use; how users navigate around the section
and individual guides; where users are referred from; and which
websites users access when they exit the Business Link website.
26. Feedback is distributed to stakeholders both by e-mail
and at meetings. In future, this will be done through a regular
monthly report, which will round up new developments to the Environment
& Efficiency section and information about its usage. There
is regular communication with key stakeholders including Defra,
the range of delivery bodies and local Business Link Providers.
This is also used as an opportunity to receive feedback on new
developments and to monitor and improve links between Business
Link and its stakeholders
27. Customer satisfaction with the site as a whole, and the
economic impact that the site has on business users, is monitored
by surveying businesses at least annually. For the most recent
survey, for the year to November 2007, a customer satisfaction
rating of 88 per cent was achieved (business users rating the
site good, very good or excellent). The overall time and cost
savings to business were found to be £251m. The results also
indicate that the website helped start-up businesses achieve first
year profits of £513m and helped increase established businesses"
profits by £210m and reduce their costs by £91m. (These
findings relate to time and costs savings to business as a result
of using the site, or increased profitability).
How successful have Joint Waste Authorities been at promoting
waste reduction? How much funding is provided to Joint Waste Authorities
and Regional Development Agencies for waste reduction and how
is their work coordinated? (Q847)
JOINT WASTE
AUTHORITIES
28. No statutory joint waste authorities yet exist under
the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007,
although a number of joint waste disposal authorities already
exist under earlier legislation. The new primary legislation only
gained Royal Assent late last year and the necessary secondary
legislation is currently being consulted on. It is therefore not
possible at this time to assess their success in relation to waste
reduction or to comment on current coordination arrangements.
29. Authorities wishing to become Joint Waste Authorities
are encouraged to develop their own business case to assess the
costs and benefits. In addition to this, in terms of funding,
Defra has secured £500,000 to support interested local authorities
in the development of proposals for joint waste authorities in
2008-09. It is hoped that further funding will be secured for
2009-10 and 2010-11. Details of how funding will be allocated
are still being developed and details will be published in due
course on the Defra website.
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
AGENCIES (RDAS)
30. The Government has issued indicative allocations to the
RDAs for the period 2008-11, to enable them to produce their Corporate
Plans (see table below). These plans are agreed with BERR, and
should flow from the overall tasking of RDAs provided by Government
Departments. This tasking framework incorporates the Regional
Economic Performance PSA (which includes measures for business
resource efficiency) and two cross-cutting principles to be applied
to all RDA activities, one of which is sustainable development.
RDAs are not specifically tasked on waste reduction.
DETAIL
31. RDAs are sponsored by BERR. In 2008-09, they have been
allocated an indicative budget of £2.2bn from six Government
Departments: CLG, BERR, Defra, DIUS, DCMS and UKTI. This funding—the
Single Programme (commonly known as the "single pot")—gives
RDAs the ability to address regional priorities, whilst at the
same time contributing to the delivery of national policy.
32. The RDAs' indicative budgets for 2008-09 to 2010-11 are
set out below:
RDA | 2008-09
funding (£m)
| 2009-10
funding (£m) |
2010-11
funding (£m) |
| Advantage West Midlands | 279
| 275 | 269 |
| East of England Development Agency | 132
| 130 | 127 |
| East Midlands Development Agency | 159
| 158 | 154 |
| London Development Agency | 390
| 385 | 376 |
| North West Development Agency | 391
| 386 | 377 |
| One NorthEast | 248 | 244
| 239 |
| South East England Development Agency | 160
| 158 | 154 |
| South West of England Regional Development Agency
| 157 | 155 | 151
|
| Yorkshire Forward | 303 |
299 | 292 |
| Total [Single Budget] | 2,219
| 2,190 | 2,139 |
| |
| |
33. The RDAs' Single Budget was reviewed in the Comprehensive
Spending Review in 2007. As part of that Review, RDAs identified
cash savings of £350 million, which will be funded from value
for money savings.
34. The allocation of the Single Budget between the individual
RDAs is determined in part by a formula, which was agreed at the
start of Spending Review 2004 period between BERR and the RDAs
and reflects the economic needs and opportunities in each region.
The budget also takes into account the factors which influence
demand in each Region for advice to business provided by Business
Links.
35. In addition to their Single Budget, the RDAs have taken
over the management of the European Regional Development Fund
(ERDF) and the Rural Development Programme (RDPE), which together
add substantially to the amounts that individual RDAs can direct
towards their Regional Priorities.
What progress has been made towards implementing the Batteries
Directive in the United Kingdom? What work is being carried out
to determine the most cost effective way of collecting batteries
to meet the Directive's targets? (Q855)
36. BERR are currently consulting on the Internal Market
Provisions of the Directive, covering battery composition and
labelling of all new batteries placed on the market from September
2008, and are on track to transpose the accompanying regulations
on time. The timetable for the Producer Responsibility provisions
will be clarified in the Government Response to the public consultation
that was held between 20 December 2007 and 13 March 2008.
37. The Department fully intends to meet the collection targets
as set by the Batteries Directive regarding portable batteries.
We collect just 3 per cent of these batteries at the moment so
we have to get the new system right if we are to make up the numbers.
This means we have to consult with those who will need to comply
with the Directive. We have already started this work with the
manufacturers and retailers of portable batteries.
38. Defra has asked WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme)
to pilot battery collection schemes by working in partnership
with a range of local authorities and not for profit organisations
that already run recycling collection services. The following
methods of collection have been trialled: kerbside, retailer take
back, community drop off, postal returns and NHS and Fire Service.
39. The trials form part of a wider effort to develop cost-effective
ways for the UK to meet the targets of the EU Batteries Directive.
The results of the various trials will be used to help Government
and stakeholders identify the best mechanisms and most efficient
methods of collection that could be rolled out across the UK.
We expect that a combination of collection methods will be needed
to achieve the Directive targets in the UK.
What targets do Government departments have for the procurement
of remanufactured products? (Q863)
40. There are no targets on the procurement of remanufactured
goods.
Is there a need to redefine waste in its entirety, or just
to redefine "end of waste"? (QQ 866-871). Does the Government
support the introduction of a "by-product" definition
into the Waste Framework Directive? Would new definitions of end
of waste and by-products negate the need for quality protocols
produced by the Environment Agency?
DEFINITION OF
WASTE
41. In May 2003 the European Commission began a six-month
EU-wide public consultation on the development of a thematic strategy
on the sustainable use and management of resources—including
waste—as required by the Sixth Community Environment Action
Programme (Decision No 1600/2002/EC). The consultation document
confirmed that:
"The Commission is ready to hold a debate on the definition
of waste. This needs to take into account that amending the waste
definition would have far reaching consequences and it is probable
that any new definition would also contain a certain degree of
uncertainty. Thus, discussion on the virtues and drawbacks of
the current and alternative definitions should also cover possibilities
to ease the application of the definition and reduce compliance
costs".
42. The outcome of that consultation was announced in December
2005 when the Commission published:
(a) its "Thematic Strategy on the prevention and
recycling of waste" (the Waste Thematic Strategy)); and
(b) its proposal for a revision of the existing Waste
Framework Directive (WFD). The Commission stated in its Waste
Thematic Strategy:
"In the light of extensive stakeholder consultation the
Commission has concluded that there is no need substantively to
amend the definition of waste, but that it is necessary to clarify
when a waste ceases to be a waste (and becomes a new or secondary
raw material)".
43. The Commission's supporting document, "EU Waste
Policy—The Story Behind The Strategy" explains that:
"6.6.2 The definition of waste
In the preliminary communication, the Commission noted that
there had been criticism of the definition of waste, and invited
stakeholders to make suggestions or to explain the concrete problems
that the definition was causing them. The feedback from this consultation
revealed that there is a significant consensus in favour of not
radically changing the definition of waste. One reason was that
there is no obvious better alternative; another that change would
render uncertain the twenty years of case law from the European
Court of Justice on the application of the definition that has
helped to make the situation clearer".
44. In October 2006 the Department published a 12-week UK-wide
public consultation on the Commission's proposal to revise the
WFD. To assist stakeholders" participation in the exercise,
the consultation paper asked a series of questions. The consultation
asked a question about the definitions which the Commission proposed
to include in the revised WFD and then asked the following question:
"(b) Should any of the other definitions in the
existing WFD be revised or new definitions introduced for other
terms used in the revised WFD?"
45. In July 2007 the Department published a summary report
on the responses to the UK-wide consultation—which is available
on the Department's website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/thematicstrat/wastedir-consult-responses.pdf.
The report records (paragraph 3.3) the following comments on the
definition of waste:
— "Movable" should be inserted after "any";
— It should contain a reference to the economic
burden on the holder;
— Donations to charity shops should not form part
of the definition;
— Animal by-products should not be classified as
waste; and
— It should make clear that discarding doesn't take
place if there is defined planned use and intent to put it to
that use.
46. In the Government's view, these points do not demonstrate
clear-cut stakeholder support for a change in the definition of
waste. As to the points themselves, (i) Recital (6) of the Common
Position adopted by the Environment Council of Ministers on 20
December 2007 confirms that the revised WFD will apply only "to
movable property"; (ii) it is not feasible to classify substances
as waste or non-waste by reference to the economic burden on the
holder; (iii) donations to charity shops of goods intended for
re-use are not classified as waste and the Environment Agency
does not control charity shops as waste management operations;
(iv) animal by-products controlled under the EU Animal By-Products
Regulation are subject to the exclusion provided in Article 2(2)(b)
of the Common Position; and (v) Article 4 of the Common Position
provides that substances falling within the terms of that provision
are to be regarded as non-waste by-products.
47. Information about the negotiations on the revision of
the WFD is available on the Department's website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/thematicstrat/index.htm
and confirms that:
"Defra held meetings with stakeholders on the Waste Thematic
Strategy before the Environment Council met on 9 March 2006. Defra
also held a series of stakeholder meetings, to inform the development
of the UK's initial views on the revised WFD in March/April 2006
in London and, in association with the Devolved Administrations,
in Edinburgh and Belfast. Regular meetings have subsequently been
held in London to ensure that stakeholders continue to be informed
of developments and engaged in the negotiation process".
48. The most recent of the Department's meetings with stakeholders
were held on 28 January, 31 March and 20 May 2008. These meetings
provide an opportunity, in addition to the public consultation
referred to above, for stakeholders to raise any issues of concern
to them relating to the WFD and the negotiations on its revision.
In this forum, stakeholders have raised issues relating to the
inclusion in the revised WFD of provisions on by-products as non-waste
and waste ceasing to be waste. But it is not the case that stakeholders
have made use of these meetings to advocate that the UK should
be pushing for a revision of the definition of waste itself.
49. The Government addressed the definition of waste in the
Waste Strategy for England 2007 (May 2007) and the relevant extract
reads as follows:
"The European Commission's current proposal to revise
the WFD will not change the definition of waste. The Commission
consulted widely on this before presenting its proposals and concluded
that `The feedback from this consultation revealed that there
is a significant consensus in favour of not radically amending
the definition of waste'. The UK Government agrees with this assessment".
50. Setting aside the question of stakeholder support for
a revision of the definition of waste, a relevant consideration
is the fact that the revision of the WFD is subject to co-decision
by the Council and the European Parliament. As indicated above,
the European Commission did not include a new definition of waste
in its proposal for a revised WFD. The European Parliament did
not include a new definition of waste when it carried out its
First Reading of the proposal on 13 February 2007; and none was
proposed when the Parliament's Environment Committee met on 8
April 2008 to consider, in the context of the Parliament's Second
Reading, amendments to the Council's Common Position.
51. Within the context of the Council, decisions relating
to the revised WFD are subject to qualified majority agreement.
In the absence of a particular provision's being contained in
the Commission's original proposal, this means that any proposal
brought forward by an individual Member State must receive sufficient
support from other Member States to secure a qualified majority.
In relation to the definition of waste, this means in practice
(a) sufficient support for a proposal to revise the definition
and (b) sufficient support for and agreement on a new definition.
During the course of the negotiations on the revision of the WFD,
no Member State has taken step (a) and submitted a proposal to
revise the existing definition of waste. Aside from the question
of support by other Member States, the UK has not taken step (a)
because the Government agrees with the assessment made by the
European Commission (see above).
52. However, the UK does support two provisions in the Common
Position which will provide clarity on currently contentious issues
relating to the definition of waste. These are (i) the provisions
in Article 5 on end-of-waste and (ii) the provisions in Article
4 on by-products as non-waste.
"END OF
WASTE" AND
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
PROTOCOLS
53. The European Commission's proposal to revise the WFD
contained a provision enabling the Commission to adopt environmental
and quality criteria for specified waste streams and, where those
criteria were met, the waste in question would be deemed to have
ceased to be waste. Whilst the Commission's proposal was subject
to revision by Member States, the basic principles of that proposal
are retained in Article 5 (End-of-waste status) of the Common
Position adopted by the Environment Council. The UK not only supports
Article 5 of the Common Position but has also consistently supported
the inclusion of an end-of-waste provision in the WFD throughout
the negotiations on the Directive's revision.
54. The national end-of-waste protocols being developed by
the Environment Agency have broadly the same objective as the
end-of-waste criteria that would be adopted by the Commission
under Article 5 of the Common Position text of the revised WFD—assuming
the revised Directive is adopted in that form. However, there
are two significant differences between the protocols and the
revised WFD criteria:
(a)
the Environment Agency's end-of-waste protocols are national in
scope and, whilst they reflect case law established by the European
Court of Justice (ECJ) on the definition of waste, they are non-statutory;
and
(b)
the end-of-waste criteria adopted by the Commission would apply
throughout the EU and would be legally binding.
55. This means that if the Commission were to adopt binding
EU-wide end-of-waste criteria for a waste stream for which the
Environment Agency has produced a non-statutory national end-of-waste
protocol (eg compost) then the former would supersede the latter.
However, an advantage of the Environment Agency's producing national
end-of-waste protocols for a range of waste streams is that the
UK is well placed to make an effective contribution to the Commission's
development of EU-wide end-of-waste criteria—and the UK
is currently doing so in the context of the preparatory work being
undertaken by the Commission's Joint Research Centre in Seville.
"BY-PRODUCTS"
DEFINITION AND
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
PROTOCOLS
56. The European Commission's proposal to revise the WFD
did not contain any explicit provision on by-products. Instead,
the Commission proposed the publication of non-binding guidance
based on ECJ case law, on the distinction between production residues
as waste and by-products as non-waste. The Commission published
its guidance on 21 February 2007 and it is available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/strategy.htm
57. However, most Member States took the view that, if the
existing definition of waste was to be re-enacted, then it was
important that the revised WFD should address the issue of by-products
as non-waste; and took steps to ensure the inclusion of such a
provision in the revised WFD. The UK supports the inclusion in
the revised WFD of the provision on by-products now contained
in Article 4 of the Common Position. The effect of Article 4 of
the Common Position is to provide that substances or objects resulting
from a production process, the primary aim of which is not the
production of that item, may be regarded as non-waste by-products
if certain conditions are met.
58. The end-of-waste protocols produced by the Environment
Agency will not be negated by the provision on by-products in
Article 4 of the Common Position because there is no direct relationship
between the two. The by-products provision addresses the issue
of when a substance is discarded and becomes waste (and by-products
are not to be regarded as waste) and the Agency's protocols address
the issue of when waste has been fully recovered or recycled and
ceases to be waste.
What is being done to ensure that Government departments can
account for their waste and meet sustainable development targets?
Which are the top three performing departments (QQ874-878)?
59. All central government departments are covered by the
Sustainable Operations on the Government Estate (SOGE) Framework,
which contains targets for departments to reduce their waste arisings
by 5 per cent by 2010 against 2004-05 levels and to increase recycling
rates to 40 per cent of waste arisings by 2010. The Sustainable
Development Commission scrutinises government's performance against
these targets each year in its Sustainable Development in Government
(SDiG) report. In its most recent report (published in March 2008
and covering the year 2006-07) based on this analysis the top
three departments in reducing their waste arisings are Department
of Health, Her Majesty's Treasury and Department for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The best performing departments
against the recycling target are Department for Health, Department
for International Development and Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs. A full copy of the report can be found
at: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=700.
60. However, Government acknowledges that not all departments
are making such strong progress, and that there is still more
that can be done. In responding to this year's SDiG report, government
announced the creation of a Centre of Expertise in Sustainable
Procurement (CESP) to address the need for stronger integration
between the government's action on procurement and the government
estate and the drive to achieve SOGE targets and Sustainable Procurement
Action Plan (SPAP) commitments through stronger cross-Whitehall
collaboration. The objectives of this new organisation will be
to:
— work with departments to draw up a delivery plan
with milestones and a trajectory for the delivery of the government's
SOGE targets and SPAP commitment (including those on waste), to
be published in Summer 2008;
— ensure delivery of the plan by providing stronger
central coordination of performance management, and to provide
guidance and support to help departments rapidly develop the capability
and capacity to deliver our commitments;
— take account of all the recommendations of the
SDC report and, in the delivery plan, lay out timescales for their
delivery;
— set out the actions required to counter the barriers
that stand in the way of further progress in government and to
raise government's capability and leadership in sustainable procurement
and operations.
What role does the Office of Government Commerce play with
regard to sustainable construction and refurbishment on the Government
estate?
61. Departmental Accounting Officers are ultimately responsible
for procuring and delivering construction activity to meet departmental
business objectives. They are also responsible for the actions
of departmental procurement staff in meeting the policy standards
and objectives that Government has collectively set itself. Moving
forward, all Departmental Accounting Officers will have objectives
relating to their departmental performance against the SOGE targets.
62. Central government departments are required to comply
with OGC's mandated Common Minimum Standards (CMS) for the procurement
of built environments. The CMS identify those policies/initiatives
essential to whole-life value for money, while delivering safe,
well designed, sustainable and well managed projects. OGC also
provides and encourages the application of good practice sustainable
construction guidance through its Achieving Excellence in Construction
guidance suite, and in particular Guide No 11 on Sustainability.
63. The sustainable operation of the Government estate has
been identified by the Cabinet Secretary as one of his four corporate
priorities for the civil service for 2008-09. The new Director-General
post in OGC of Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) will strengthen
leadership in Whitehall in this area while the CESP will provide
the necessary support to help departments deliver their sustainable
procurement objectives. Individual departments' performance will
be scrutinised by the CSO, with challenge at the highest levels
where necessary.
What work will the Centre of Expertise for Sustainable Procurement
and the Office of Government Commerce undertake to ensure that
the needs of small businesses are taken into account when developing
procurement policies? (Q881-883)
64. The Centre of Expertise in Sustainable Procurement has
been set up within OGC in order to benefit from close links to
OGC's existing work on procurement policy, collaborative procurement
and management of the government estate. CESP will work closely
with the OGC 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.
65. The Government wants 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. The Government's policy is to encourage and support
SMEs to compete for public sector contracts where this is consistent
with the obligations on public procurers to seek value for money
and to comply with EU Treaty principles and the EU procurement
directives. OGC's newly launched Procurement Policy and Standards
Framework (PPSF) provides further information (http://www.ogc.gov.uk/).
66. The Government is keen to open up opportunities for small
businesses and the Budget 2008 outlined a number of measures to
ensure better access to Government procurement for small firms.
This included the announcement in "Enterprise: Unlocking
the UK's talent" of a free trial for new registrants to the
Supply2.gov web portal, which provides business with easy access
to lower value contracts (typically below £100,000). The
three-month free trial for new registrations runs between May
and July 2008 (http://www.supply2.gov.uk/). In addition, the Budget
2008 stated that Government would set up an advisory committee,
chaired by Anne Glover (Chief Executive of Amadeus Capital Partners
Limited). This will provide advice for the 2008 pre-budget report
on necessary Government action 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.
RESPONSE TO
ADDITIONAL, QUESTIONS
AND INFORMATION
REQUESTED:
On 27 November, Mr Neil Thornton, Director of Sustainable Consumption
and Production and Waste, told us that Defra would be publishing
work over the next few months on what motivates different types
of consumers at different points in their lives and what their
attitudes are to products and materials. Has this work been published
yet and where can it be accessed?
67. Defra published its Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours
on 14 January 2008. It is available on the Department's website,
alongside links to the supporting evidence base: www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/index.htm
68. The Framework has been developed in order to improve
the support Defra and its delivery partners give to consumers.
This new evidence base and social marketing framework for pro-environmental
behaviours change includes a set of behaviour goals (agreed with
stakeholders), new research on current and potential behaviour,
an environmental segmentation model and an assessment of the implications
for policy.
69. The aim has been to look at the range of pro-environmental
behaviours in which Defra has an interest. The report covers environmental
sectors such as energy, waste, water, air quality and biodiversity
and the big consumption impacts from food and drink, personal
travel, homes and household products, and travel tourism.
70. Further research currently being conducted on behalf
of Defra includes:
— Public Understanding of links between Climate
Change and Energy and Food consumption in the Home.
— Per Capita Carbon Footprints.
— Public Understanding of Sustainable Clothing.
— Household and Economy Wide Impacts of Changing
Environmental Behaviours.
— Investigating Motivations—Focusing on Specific
Segments and Behaviours.
— Investigating "mavens" with regard to
environmental behaviours and the linkages between mavens, social
norms, identity, and trust for mainstream consumers.
71. Defra is now applying the behaviours framework to its
policy, communications and marketing activities, including the
further development of Act on CO2.
On 11 December, Professor Simon Pollard told us that the Higher
Education Funding Council was working to place designers alongside
engineers and materials scientists as part of their education.
What do these placements involve and what initiatives does the
Council have in place to ensure that designers are trained about
the industrial applications of their work?
72. HEFCE has worked with the Design Council to raise awareness
in HE institutions about the Cox recommendations. As part of this,
Design Council and HEFCE facilitated a visit to the US in autumn
2006 to look at the models that had informed the Cox Review recommendations
on centres of excellence. This included visiting the Stamford
University D-School and MIT Media Lab. The visit helped UK HEIs
understand in greater depth overseas models and helped them explore
critical dimensions to devising and implementing Cox proposals,
particularly the challenges of getting demand from businesses
and link to innovative "places" (eg influence of Silicon
Valley on D-School). Design Council and HEFCE arranged a similar
visit to N Europe in 2007, which was particularly helpful in raising
HEI awareness of new curriculum developments and approaches to
development of the learning experience. As part of this, HEFCE
discussed the formation of the Helsinki "Innovation University"
being created through amalgamation of specialist institutions
for business, technology and art and design.
73. Recognising that demand (from businesses, students) is
a key issue, Design Council has also arranged a number of visits
for HEIs to businesses (such as Nissan) to understand business
demands for designers, innovators etc, as well as the use made
in business of multi-disciplinary teams.
RESPONDING TO
INNOVATIVE PROPOSALS:
74. HEFCE has used its Strategic Development Fund where HEIs
have come forward with sustainable proposals which address the
Cox recommendations. HEFCE regional teams have worked with HEIs
to develop these proposals iteratively toward a fundable proposition.
As part of this, HEFCE has sought advice from Design Council,
and has also worked with NESTA, which has invested in some elements
of some new proposals.
75. Major investments related to the centres of excellence
recommendation have been:
— £3.8M (of £5.8M project) to Royal College
of Art and Imperial Colleges/Tanaka Business School for a new
development "Design-London"; and
— £3.4M (of £5.4M project) for Cranfield
University working with University of the Arts London for a "Centre
for Competitive Creative Design (C4D)".
76. HEFCE have also funded a small phase one proposal at
Northumbria University (£250K) and a Cox-related multi-disciplinary
centre at Southampton University (£1.2M) (the latter as part
of a larger Employer Engagement project); and a small project
at Kingston/St Georges—called the "Innoversity'. This
is a pilot for developing inter-disciplinary programmes for designers,
engineers etc (total project value £389K; of which HEFCE
SDF is £264K).
77. HEFCE have funded a number of proposals related to the
other Cox recommendations on SMEs and preparation of students,
as part of its Employer Engagement programme.
78. HEFCE are continuing to discuss Cox-related proposals
with a number of interested HEIs. A primary issue in developing
proposals is sustainability—that is ensuring there is good
likelihood of demand from students, employers etc and hence value
for money from their initial investment.
In the Waste Strategy for England 2007, the Government said
that it would shortly be setting "a new national target for
the reduction of commercial and industrial waste going to landfill".
Has this target been set yet and what progress has been made towards
meeting it?
79. The Government has not yet set a new national target
for the reduction of commercial and industrial waste going to
landfill but we are actively engaging with stakeholders on this
issue. On 22 May the Waste Stakeholders Group established under
the England Waste Strategy discussed what the future policy objectives
for commercial and industrial waste should be, and how they might
be achieved. One of the key messages from that discussion was
that since C&I waste is very varied, it would make more sense
to look at action sector by sector, as well as using cross-sectoral
approaches like the Landfill Tax. The need for better data on
C&I waste was also recognised. Defra is reflecting on the
outcome of the meeting and this will inform future proposals by
Government for action on C&I waste.
80. The Government's Sustainable Construction Strategy, scheduled
for publication on 11 June (see question 3), will include a separate
target of reducing by half construction, demolition and excavation
waste sent to landfill by 2012, compared to a 2008 baseline.
In a written answer to the House of Commons on 10 March, an
estimate was given of the amount of waste diverted from landfill
as a result of BREW-funded work, but it was acknowledged that
the results should be viewed with caution because "delivery
bodies report according to a range of methodologies". What
work is being undertaken to improve consistency of reporting systems
between environmental bodies?
81. The system of metrics used to report BREW results was
developed for Defra by consultants Oakdene Hollins, who worked
in partnership with delivery bodies in the first year of the BREW
Programme (2005-06). This work provided initial guidance to help
ensure a degree of consistency in delivery bodies' initial reporting.
82. In consultation with delivery bodies, Defra developed
guidance to encourage greater consistency in delivery body reporting
in the second year of the programme (2006-07).
83. In the third year of the programme (2007-08), Defra held
two meetings with delivery bodies to explore in more detail the
differences between delivery bodies' reporting methodologies,
and seek ways of improving the consistency of reporting.
84. Defra is using the information gained from these meetings
to help inform delivery body guidance for reporting from the third
year of the programme, which will be issued shortly.
85. Although the BREW Programme has ceased, valuable experience
has been gained of monitoring and evaluation techniques. Defra
is considering whether this experience can be applied more widely
across its delivery bodies, and whether further improvements can
be made to performance monitoring systems. This work is being
taken forward as part of Defra's review of its resource efficiency
and carbon reduction delivery bodies, which is expected to report
by the end of 2008.
What progress has the new products and materials unit made
to date? Is it using the same roadmap approach as the Market Transformation
Programme?
86. The products and materials unit has brought together
work in Defra on product life cycle analysis, product information
and evidence on sustainable consumption and production and waste,
in order to influence and support action on products within Government
and elsewhere. The unit has specific responsibilities for work
on energy-using products, including Defra's Market Transformation
Programme.
87. The unit has made good progress so far in developing
approaches to tackle the environmental impacts of products, in
catalysing action by others, and in taking forward commitments
relating to products and materials in the Waste Strategy for England
and the Energy White Paper.
88. Developing a product roadmap approach (building on the
experience of the Market Transformation Programme) is a key part
of the unit's role. The unit has been working on how the approach
can be applied to 10 key product areas (milk, fish & shellfish,
televisions, domestic lighting, commercial electric motors, window
systems, plasterboard, WCs, clothing, and passenger cars).
89. Examples of other work being done by the unit includes:
— Together with the Carbon Trust, sponsoring BSI
to develop a publicly available specification for the measurement
of the greenhouse gas emissions "embodied" in products.
This will provide an agreed method that can be applied across
a wide range of goods and services to enable companies to measure
and reduce their impacts;
— Developing evidence and working with business
on future standards for energy-using and other products. This
includes developing standards for use in public procurement; and
— Influencing the growing international and EU agenda
for addressing the impacts of products.
90. A full report on the progress of our products and materials
work is due to be published in July.
June 2008
1
CD&E aggregate waste includes waste materials that arise from
the construction or demolition of buildings and/or civil engineering
infrastructure and excavation waste including naturally occurring
soil, stone, rock and similar materials (whether clean or contaminated).
It does not include materials such as wood, metals and plastics,
which also arise on demolition sites, but have no potential for
use as aggregate. Back
2
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/regions/wales/816243/1985904/?version=1&lang=_e Back
3
The Sustainable Use of Resources for the Production of Aggregates
in England, WRAP, 2006. Back
4
The Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative. Back
5
Back office costs include all non-customer facing costs (including
Chief Executive; finance; Human Resources; quality; accommodation;
and ICT infrastructure costs. Back
| 
