Waste Recycling Report Footnote 002,009, 014

Waste not, Want not

A strategy for tackling the waste problem in England

Strategy Unit November 2002

CONTENTS

Foreword by the Prime Minister 3 Executive Summary 5

1. Introduction 15
2. What is waste and how much is there? 19
3. Why waste matters the economic and environmental challenge 25
4. Barriers to more sustainable waste management 32
5. Moving forwards to a new strategy 41
6. Economic and regulatory framework 57
7. Strategic investment measures 82
8. Funding and delivering 100
9. Summary of key recommendations and action plan 113 Annex A The role of the Strategy Unit 140 Annex B The Project Team, Sponsor Minister and Advisory Group 141 Annex C Wider wastes 143 Annex D Glossary of terms 151

FOREWORD BY THE PRIME MINISTER

I am intensely proud of the central achievement of this Government strong economic growth, based on sound fundamentals. Unemployment, inflation and mortgage rates are at their lowest level for decades.

In large part this has been accompanied by environmental improvements

cleaner air, drinking water, river quality and bathing waters; falling emissions of greenhouse gases.

But higher incomes and consumption have brought with them increased waste, and associated problems of disposal.

Household waste is now growing at a rate of 3% each year, faster than growth in the economy as a whole. On average every person in the UK now produces about seven times their own weight in waste a year. Around 20% of the food we buy off supermarket shelves goes straight to the bin.

At the moment most of this waste is buried in landfill sites. This is simply not sustainable. In some areas we are running out of space. And there are major environmental considerations landfill is responsible, for example, for 25% of our emissions of methane, a major greenhouse gas.

But the most important reason for changing direction is that the current position is, literally, wasteful. Half of the waste we generate could be re- used and recycled, and transformed from a problem into an asset.

At current rates of growth the amount of household rubbish will double by 2020, and cost £3.2bn per year to dispose of. That would mean spending an extra £1.6bn a year on waste management. So we need first to reduce the amount of waste we create.

We have improved our recycling record over the past decade. But not by as much as we or previous governments wanted. It is excellent that some local authorities are really starting to deliver on recycling. But the majority are not, and many are not even trying seriously. We need now

a step change.

This is why I asked the Strategy Unit to look at how we could do better. Their work has involved a thorough analysis of the problem and of the potential solutions. They have consulted experts in the field and examined examples of successful waste management both at home and abroad.

The report shows clearly that a different approach to waste will pay economic and environmental dividends; that the focus of strategy needs to be on reducing, re-using and recycling waste, with reformed incentives and regulations; and that government, local authorities, industry and households, all need to play a part in containing the problem. The report is offered not as a statement of government policy, but as a contribution to the debate. But I accept its diagnosis. We must rise to its challenge.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key points

England has a growing waste mountain

The UK produces enough waste in one hour to fill the Albert Hall .

Household waste is a particular problem. The quantity produced is rising by 3% per year (faster than GDP and faster than in most other nations). The waste mountain will double by 2020 adding £1.6bn per year to waste disposal costs.

The way England manages its waste harms the environment and squanders resources

Nearly 80% of household waste goes to landfill, far more than in most other European countries. By contrast, the recycling rate in England at 12% is well below that in many other EU countries some of whom recycle over 40% of household waste.

We need to act now to reduce waste growth and recycle more

There are strong environmental and economic reasons for acting now to slow the increase in household waste and to reduce reliance on landfill. Landfill:

accounts for over a quarter of all UK methane emissions (a greenhouse gas);

squanders valuable resources which could be reused or recycled;

is unpopular with people who live near landfill sites; and

areas such as the South East are running out of potential sites.

It has taken other European countries 10-15 years to shift to a more sustainable approach to waste management. A similar timescale is likely to be needed in England.

Other countries have shown that waste can be tackled more sustainably

The good news is that many other nations have shown that careful policy design can lead to a reduction in the growth of waste, less reliance on landfill and more recycling, without in any way damaging business competitiveness. England can learn from the best performers by focusing on waste minimisation; reusing and recycling more waste; and making the most of a wide range of alternative technologies for dealing with residual waste.

Key points (continued)

The aim of policy should be to secure future prosperity whilst reducing harm to the environment

The overall aim of policy should be to ensure that, by 2020, England has a world class waste management system that allows the nation to prosper whilst reducing harm to the environment and preserving resources for future generations. This means:

reducing growth in waste volumes to less than growth in GDP;

fully covering the true costs of disposing of waste in the prices of products and services;

implementing waste management options that deliver the overall aim at least cost.

A robust strategy is needed to realise this overall aim

This strategy needs to be underpinned by three key principles:

the waste hierarchy provides a sensible framework for thinking about how to achieve a better balance between waste minimisation; recycling; incineration and landfill;

measures taken to advance the strategy should take full account of the balance of benefits and costs; and

sustainable waste management is not just a responsibility of government but also of individuals, businesses and other stakeholders.

This report sets out how these principles can be put into practice. It puts waste reduction, re-use and recycling at the forefront of its reform package together with creating the right environment and new institutional structures to deliver change.

To be successful the strategy needs:

a robust long term economic and regulatory framework. This should include significant increases in the landfill tax and new incentives for households to reduce and recycle waste;

a package of short to medium term measures to put England on the path to more sustainable waste management including measures to slow the growth in the amount of waste; investment in recycling infrastructure; and support for new alternative waste management technologies; and

additional funding accompanied by radical reform of delivery structures to ensure the overall aim is realised.

Implementation of the strategy would enable England to match best practice in other countries and at lower cost

In combination, the elements of the Strategy Unit package would:

slow waste growth from 3% to 2% per annum reducing environmental damage, saving money and reducing the number of new waste management facilities required in the longer term;

Key points (continued)

boost recycling by developing the infrastructure needed for increased recycling (including national kerbside collection, focusing on organics, and more bring sites and civic amenity sites designed for re-use and recycling). This would raise national recycling rates to at least 45% by 2015;

increase choice by creating the economic environment within which a wider range of options for managing waste can develop: giving industry, local authorities and households greater flexibility over how they manage their waste, as well as the incentive to reduce damage to the environment;

stimulate innovation in waste treatment and waste management organisations in England; and

reduce environmental damage and improve resource productivity by reducing reliance on landfill and other disposal options; preserving resources for future generations and reducing environmental impacts.

By learning from good and bad practices in other countries, England could achieve a waste management system that will match current best practice in the world more cost-effectively, with reduced waste growth, more recycling, less reliance on disposal, and better incentives for the use of a wider range of technologies to manage waste.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should be the Ministerial Champion for this strategy.

In the short term, a ministerial group, reporting jointly to the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury should develop the public expenditure programmes and institutional arrangements needed to implement this report s recommendations.

England faces rapidly growing England is behind most other waste volumes developed countries when it Some 28 million tonnes of municipal waste are comes to waste management produced annually in England. Each person we produce more waste per produces about seven times their body weight head, and recycle less

in household waste (ten times if all municipal

waste is taken into account).  Most other European countries have a number

of alternatives to landfill in place, as well as Household waste in England is growing at a rate

legislation and incentives to support these

of 3% annually faster than the growth in GDP.

alternatives. Currently, almost 80% of municipal At this rate, the volume of England s municipal

waste in England is sent to landfill sites,

waste will double by 2020, and will cost £1.6

compared with around 50% in France and 7% billion a year more (at today s prices) to manage

in Switzerland. England recycles just 12% of its and dispose of.

municipal waste, while Germany recycles 52% and the Netherlands 47%.

There are several reasons for this: increasing waste volumes are causing

significant and growing damage to the

England has traditionally relied on landfill

environment. Landfill currently produces up because of the country s abundance of holes

to 25% of all UK methane emissions. As from extractive industries and other activities.

methane is a powerful greenhouse gas (21 This has made landfill relatively cheap and

times more powerful than carbon dioxide), discouraged investment in alternatives;

reducing these emissions will have a highly

there are few financial incentives in place for beneficial impact on climate change;

either industry or householders to develop or

the EU Landfill Directive requires the UK to seek alternatives to landfill. Landfill tax in the

reduce the volume of biodegradable

UK is currently £13 per tonne, compared

municipal waste sent to landfill by 2010, with with, for example, £45 per tonne in the

further reductions in 2013 and 2020. Failure Netherlands and £34 per tonne in Denmark.

to meet these targets could result in fines of As a result there is much less economic

up to £180 million per year;

incentive to invest in alternatives to landfill in

the UK; landfill sites are becoming increasingly scarce,

particularly in the South East and the North

public awareness of the growing waste

West. More of these sites and/or other problem, the benefits of managing waste

residual waste treatment facilities will be effectively, and the steps everyone can take

required, unless greater efforts are made to

to reduce waste is far lower than in other EU

reduce volumes of waste; and

countries;

there are significant lead times. Countries

responsibility for waste management is split

that have developed effective waste between a number of different government

management systems have taken between departments, making coherent policy-making

10 and 15 years to do so.

difficult; and between tiers of local

government, causing inefficiency between

collection and disposal authorities; and It would also bring significant

obtaining planning permission for waste economic benefits

facilities can be difficult and time-consuming.

Such facilities are often opposed by local Over 50% of the household waste sent to people concerned about noise, pollution, landfill sites or incinerated in England could be

traffic and effect on house prices. diverted from incineration and landfill through home composting and recycling on the basis of

current best practice. By failing to do this, the There is a strong case for country is wasting valuable resources and

acting now to tackle the putting itself at a competitive disadvantage: problem of growing amounts less wasteful product design and

of waste  manufacturing processes would lead to cost

savings for business; and

Effective action to tackle the increase in

growth in markets for recyclates and new

waste would bring a number of benefits:

technologies for waste management

it costs less to act now. The longer action is represent major opportunities for UK delayed, the greater the cost because there businesses.

will be more waste to manage;

The Government has A clear vision is needed to take recognised that the problem the waste strategy forward

of waste needs to be tackled This report argues that the overall aim of policy The Government has introduced statutory should be to ensure that, by 2020, England has

targets for local authorities for the recycling and a world class waste management system that composting of household waste: 17% by 2003 allows the nation to prosper whilst reducing

and 25% by 2005/6. There are also targets to harm to the environment and preserving

recycle 30% by 2010; and 33% by 2015. Waste resources for future generations. This means: Strategy 2000 for England and Wales stated that decoupling growth in the amount of waste

statutory targets for individual councils would from growth in GDP i.e. waste growth rates be set to support at least the 2010 target. that are lower than GDP growth rates; Targets have also been set for reducing the

fully including the costs of disposing of waste amount of commercial and industrial waste sent

in the prices of products and services; and

to landfill.

identifying the waste management options

The proportion of household waste being

that will deliver the overall aim at least cost. recycled and composted has increased from

7.5% in 1996/97 to 11.2% in 2000/01. The

Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) A strategy for realising this

has been set up to help boost markets for

recycled material and is proving very successful. aim needs to be based on

But there is much more to do. sound principles

The first principle underpinning the strategy in The good news is that other this report is that England needs to move up

the waste hierarchy (see chart below). The countries provide successful higher levels of the hierarchy reflect more

examples of better waste sustainable waste and resource management. management

There is much that England can learn from The Waste Hierarchy other nations about:

how to focus greater effort on measures to

reduce waste;

Waste

the impact of measures to promote re-use reduction

and recycling; and Re-use

how to make use of a wider range of waste

Recycling & technologies e.g. composting, recycling Composting

technologies and residual waste technologies

such as mechanical biological treatment. Energy recovery with

heat & power

Landfill with energy

Landfill

The second principle is that any measures to  or develop a more sustainable approach to

move up the waste hierarchy need to be waste management

soundly based in cost-benefit terms. European

The package set out in this report will minimise legislation requires member states to establish

waste, boost re-use and recycling, promote facilities using the best available technology

alternative approaches to waste management without involving excessive costs. In deciding

and bring environmental benefits such as

which individual facilities are appropriate to

reduced methane emissions. Improving resource local needs and circumstances, the Best

efficiency should help to make industry more Practicable Environmental Option should be

competitive. Households will have access to

taken into account. England should avoid

more convenient facilities for recycling, at little locking itself prematurely into costly and

extra cost. Most importantly, fewer landfill sites irreversible options for disposing of waste. New,

and incinerators will be required, improving the cheaper and environmentally more sustainable

local environment for all.

options for managing municipal waste should

be sought, in particular by encouraging Doing nothing offers the least value for money as technological innovation. costs will still double and greater environmental

degradation and resource wastage will occur.

The third principle underpinning the strategy is

Over the long term the strategy set out in this

that tackling the rising amount of waste is not

report costs only 10% more than doing

just a matter for the Government; it also

nothing, while delivering a sustainable waste involves action by individual households,

management system equal to best practice in business and other stakeholders.

other nations, with significant corresponding

environmental and resource productivity England faces a clear strategic benefits. Taking account of externalities, the

investment package is a classic example of choice spend to save .

Do nothing

If no changes are made, environmental damage The proposed strategy in this wwiillll ccoonnttiinnuuee aton db ep osqteunatniadlelyr evda.l uTahbele c oresst os uorfces report puts waste reduction

managing the municipal waste stream will and recycling at its core double by 2020, the UK could face fines from Previous waste strategies have endorsed the

the EU for failing to meet its international waste hierarchy and the need to minimise and obligations, and more landfill sites and recycle waste, but were short of delivery incinerators will be required. Lack of suitable mechanisms. The strategy in this report

sites for significant waste facilities in some areas emphasises waste minimisation and recycling, (e.g. the South East) will put even more and sets out the key measures needed to pressure on greenbelt land.  achieve its goals, focusing in particular on an

enhanced role for economic instruments, new investment and reformed delivery structures.

To be successful the future strategy for waste management needs to have three key elements

These are:

a robust long term economic and regulatory framework;

a package of short to medium term measures to put England on the path to more sustainable waste management; and

additional funding accompanied by radical reform of delivery structures.

Putting in place a robust economic and regulatory framework is the most essential ingredient for success

This requires:

a significant increase in the landfill tax over the medium term. Landfill tax remains relatively low in the UK, which reduces the economic incentive to develop alternatives. A rise to £35 a tonne is required over the medium term to change behaviour. It needs to be signalled several years in advance, as in other nations, to allow the development of alternatives. Redirecting proceeds from the increased landfill tax partially directly back to business, and also investing in alternative methods of waste management, should minimise any upward pressure on business costs. Waste costs are a small part of most business sectors turnover and even at £35 a tonne, landfill tax in the UK would be lower than in many other EU nations;

greater freedom for local authorities to develop new financial incentives for householders to reduce and recycle their waste. Households currently pay the same Council Tax no matter how much

waste they produce or whether they recycle or not. This means that they have no incentive to manage their waste in more sustainable ways. This report has identified 17 other major industrialised nations where incentives are available for households who produce less waste, and/or recycle and compost more. These schemes have helped reduce waste growth, contain costs, and achieve recycling rates 3-4 times higher than that of the UK. Comparable incentives that could be taken forward in the UK include: Council Tax discounts for people who recycle or compost; reward schemes for people who recycle or compost regularly; and giving local authorities freedom to introduce variable charging schemes, where the Council Tax element for waste would be removed and charges to households made according to

the amount of un-recycled and unsorted waste they produce;

much waste is the result of poor product design and inefficient manufacturing processes. Producer responsibility is a key to better waste management and there is substantial new EU regulation in the pipeline. Rather than add more regulation, this report recommends additional voluntary agreements with manufacturers. For example, to increase the recyclability of their products; and

consideration of new financial

incentives for green goods such as reduced VAT on recycled products, where legal, to boost use and expand markets. Product taxes could be levied on products

that cause environmental harm to encourage To ensure additional funding the development of environmentally-friendly and new investment

saunbdstItitaulytetsa. xF obra tetxearimespcleo,nDtaeinnmingarkh,e Baveylgium effectively tackles the growing metals. Some countries also offer amount of waste, they should

manufacturers the alternative of bring back  be accompanied by reforms to shcahzeamrdeosuws whearset ehfoours seahfoel ddsis cpaonsa rle. tTu hrnese the delivery structures

measures should be considered in the This report proposes:

context of the whole supply chain for

that while one third of the existing Landfill

different products.

Tax Credit Scheme revenue should be

retained in its current form, the remaining Investment is required in four two thirds should be used to fund key

measures set out above and below. This will key areas to accelerate create a significant funding stream over the

progress and give local next 2-3 years which will then continue to authorities and households rise in tandem with the level of landfill tax

more choice in managing revenues;

waste effectively extending the role of WRAP in order to

minimise waste, boost recycling rates,

These are: (focusing on organics), and extending

tackling the growth in waste. This can be markets for recycled goods;

done through increasing WRAP s role in setting up an operational task force to help waste minimisation programmes; expanding bridge the gap between central policy-

home composting; and increasing funding to making and action at a local level. This would Envirowise to help industry reduce waste; help to spread best practice among local

developing the infrastructure for recycling and authorities and drive progress;

associated education programmes. Kerbside giving local authorities incentives to work recycling programmes, focusing on organic together more effectively through joint plans waste, should be rolled out to households to and funds to realise economies of scale and make it easier for everyone to participate in focus on sustainable waste management. In recycling. Awareness also needs to be raised to the medium term, this might involve

ensure effective use of new waste infrastructure combining waste collection and disposal

and high participation in efforts to promote authorities to create unitary resource

the use of composted and recycled goods; management authorities with targets for

improving data and research on waste waste minimisation, recycling and reducing management. Lack of data and research has quantities of waste sent to final disposal undermined efforts to develop a waste options;

strategy, and is essential to monitor progress; establishing an industry forum, so that

and government and the waste industry can have

giving financial backing to pilots of a constructive dialogue on key issues; alternative technologies for waste treatment.

better resourcing of the waste function in dissemination of the national

DEFRA to help it to co-ordinate and communications strategy in the context of disseminate waste policy more effectively and local needs; and

take a proactive approach at the centre of

providing incentives for sound waste

government; and

management.

establishing a steering group, chaired by the

producers and retailers need to reduce

Secretary of State for the Environment, Food

the amount of waste they produce; pass on and Rural Affairs, to help implement policy

less waste through the supply chain to

and monitor progress.

customers; and use recycled materials wherever possible;

Successfully implementing this the waste industry needs to provide an strategy is not just a matter appropriate range of waste-handling facilities,

for central government. irneqliuniere wmiethnt gs;o ivdeernntmifyeannt dp opluicrysuaen odp rpeogrutulantiotireys Everyone has a role to play for developing new technologies; and take

central government needs to set the responsibility for the long-term safe operation strategic and policy direction on waste and aftercare of waste facilities;

management; put in place the framework to householders need to reduce the waste support this strategy; disseminate information they produce, for example through home

and have a clear national communications composting and purchasing goods with less strategy; contribute appropriately to the local packaging; reusing products; using recycling authority funding needed to make the facilities; and contributing to collections for necessary changes; minimise and recycle its composting facilities where home composting own waste; and procure recycled goods;  is not practical; and

local authorities need to set a strategy for NGOs and the community sector need to managing municipal waste locally; allocate educate householders in minimising waste sufficient resources to waste; and provide an and reusing and recycling goods; develop appropriate level of infrastructure to support:  partnerships with local authorities and

home composting to homes that want to business to help promote and deliver

compost;  recycling services; and continue innovating

on service delivery.

kerbside recycling (focusing on organics

first);

more bring sites and better civic amenity Implementation of the

sites designed for re-use and recycling;  strategy would enable England

more practical support and advice for local to match best practice in other people;  countries and at lower cost

minimising and recycling the authority s The key success measures for the strategy in this

own waste;  report, if taken forward by government, will be:

buying and specifying composted and reducing the rate of household waste growth

recycled products; to 2% per annum by the end of 2006;

50% of households carrying out home composting by 2006;

the roll out of kerbside recycling collections;

a target of at least 35% of household waste being composted or recycled by 2010 and at least 45% of household waste being composted or recycled nationally by 2015;

an absolute reduction in the amount of municipal waste going to landfill annually from 2007; and

30% of collection authorities to have tried incentive based schemes to encourage sound management of household waste by 2005/6.

It needs to be backed up by effective arrangements for driving forward and monitoring progress

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should be the Ministerial Champion for this strategy. But, in the short term a ministerial group reporting jointly to the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury should develop the public expenditure programmes and arrangements needed to implement this report.

1. INTRODUCTION

Summary

The Strategy Unit was tasked at the end of 2001 with carrying out a review of the Waste Strategy in England.

The aim of this review has been:

to analyse the scale of the challenge posed by growing quantities of municipal household waste;

to assess the main causes and drivers behind this growth now and in the future; and

to devise a strategy, with practical and cost-effective measures for addressing the challenge, which will put England on a sustainable path for managing future streams of household waste.

This report sets out the findings of a review of waste strategy in England

1. The Strategy Unit (SU), formerly the Performance and Innovation Unit, was asked by the Prime Minister to carry out a review of Waste Strategy[1] at the end of 2001. It was asked in particular to consider the implications of Article 5 of the EU Landfill Directive[2] which sets targets for reducing the proportion of biodegradable, municipal waste sent to landfill sites.
2. This report s focus on municipal waste i.e. waste under the control of local authorities does not mean that other wastes are

unimportant. On the contrary, their aggregate

volume is substantially greater than municipal waste, and hazardous, industrial and commercial waste streams are also increasingly affected by EU Directives. A working paper on the SU web site sets out proposals for further work that might be undertaken on such waste streams. Where appropriate this report highlights recommendations relevant to the more sustainable management of other wastes.

3. The study is concerned with waste policy in England as waste policy, with the exception of most economic instruments,[3] is devolved. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own waste strategies.[4] Some of the positive steps underway in the devolved administrations to tackle waste are set out in Box 1.

Box 1: Tackling waste in the devolved administrations

Wales

The National Waste Strategy for Wales, published in June 2002, sets out how Wales plans to move from current over-reliance on landfill to more sustainable waste management. The Strategy includes a number of specific targets for Wales including waste reduction targets for public bodies and businesses (the aim is to have reduced the volume of waste to at least 10% of the 1998 level by 2010). The Strategy also emphasises the importance of government, business, retailers and the public all playing their part in tackling waste. For example, manufacturers are encouraged to invest in green products likely to represent a future growth sector, and retailers to support eco-labelling.

Scotland

Scotland is preparing a National Waste Plan which will emphasise the importance of reducing the quantity of municipal waste and encouraging recycling and composting through segregated collection and bring facilities. This should reduce the scale of new facilities required in Scotland to treat and dispose of mixed waste. Local authorities are being encouraged to pursue local waste solutions for their own areas through collaborative working with neighbouring authorities.

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland has launched a major new waste awareness campaign Wake up to Waste, involving television and radio advertisements, shopping centre roadshows and a dedicated campaign website (www.wakeuptowaste.org). The campaign focuses on easy, practical steps which the public can take every day to reduce and re-use waste, for example re-using plastic carrier bags. A number of recycling operations have already reported increases of 10-30% in the volumes of recyclable materials collected since the campaign began in February 2002.

4. However, the Landfill Directive applies UK- wide so, where appropriate, reference is made

to the challenges faced by the whole of the UK.

The review had four main objectives:

to analyse the scale of the waste problem, its causes and barriers to progress;

to identify the most cost-effective and environmentally sustainable options for dealing with the growing volume of municipal waste in England;

to make recommendations on how the EU Landfill Directive targets could be delivered; and

to set out a vision of the waste management system to 2020 that will allow the nation to prosper whilst protecting human health and reducing harm to the environment.

The review was carried out by a multi- disciplinary team with support from an Advisory Group

5. The review team consisted of civil servants and secondees from outside Whitehall. Annex B gives details of the team members and their parent organisations.
6. In carrying out the project, the SU team drew on the expertise of an Advisory Group which consisted of various experts and stakeholders from inside and outside government. Annex B lists the Advisory Group s

members. Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, acted as the project s sponsor Minister and Chair to the Advisory Group. The input and assistance of the Advisory Group was a crucial part of the project. The advisory role of the Group does mean, however, that this report

does not necessarily represent the views of all its members.

7. The SU team was also assisted at working level by a Support Group consisting of a variety of stakeholders representing central and local government, the waste and packaging industries, green groups, NGOs and others. The SU is grateful for the support and assistance of the Support Group as well as the wide variety of stakeholders who have contributed to discussions during the course of the project.

There were a number of methodological stages to the review

The review had eight distinct phases:

a Waste Summit was held by Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, at the outset of the project in November 2001. This provided invaluable material on the scale and nature of the waste problem and options for overcoming it;

a scoping note for the review setting out the key issues to be addressed was produced in December 2001. This was posted on the SU web site and views were sought from stakeholders;

workshops were held with experts and stakeholders to discuss various waste management options and their pros and cons. These addressed issues such as waste minimisation, recycling, residual waste management and the planning process. Bilateral discussions were also held with a wide range of stakeholders;

a review was conducted of the economic and regulatory frameworks for waste management that have been adopted by other nations. Members of the SU team visited the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy to discuss how they had improved their management of waste;

some local authorities were visited to seek their views on barriers to progress and options for more effective and sustainable waste management;

representatives of the community sector were consulted and MORI was commissioned to conduct focus group research on public perceptions of the problems;

data was gathered and detailed models developed to analyse the costs and benefits of alternative options for future waste management. This modelling was underpinned by more detailed work on: waste composition and growth rates; technological options and their costs; collection costs; and modelling of likely behavioural responses to different recycling and composting options. The aim of this modelling was not to try to predict the future but rather to increase understanding of potential solutions, their costs and benefits; and

drawing on the above, the team worked up a vision for the sustainable management of waste in England and a strategy for achieving it including funding requirements, the necessary economic and regulatory framework, and reforms to delivery structures.

The rest of this report is structured as follows

Chapter 2 gives an overview of the scale and growth of waste streams in England, how they are managed and how England compares with other countries;

Chapter 3 describes why tackling waste matters and sets out the economic and environmental challenge;

Chapter 4 discusses the main barriers to more sustainable waste management;

Chapter 5 outlines a vision and strategy for moving forward;

Chapter 6 sets out the economic and regulatory framework required for change in the medium and longer term;

Chapter 7 sets out a package of short to medium term strategic investment measures required to put England on the path to more sustainable management of its waste streams;

Chapter 8 sets out the funding and delivery mechanisms required; and

Chapter 9 summarises the key recommendations and sets out an action

plan.

Annexes cover:

the role of the SU;

details of the project team, Sponsor Minister and Advisory Group;

an overview of wider controlled wastes; and

a glossary of terms used in the report.

The following annexes are published on the SU website:

Annex E: Greening government

procurement

Annex F: The role of alternative technologies Annex G: Treatment and disposal of residual

waste (Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) and Incineration)

Annex H: The biowaste fraction Annex I: International comparisons

Annex J: The SU s review of the literature on

health effects of waste management options

Annex K: New delivery frameworks Annex L: Modelling, data and assumptions Annex M: Moving beyond the SU strategy Annex N: Bibliography

2. WHAT IS WASTE AND HOW MUCH IS THERE?

Summary

Households in England produce 25 million tonnes of waste every year. Over half of this consists of garden waste, waste paper and board, and kitchen waste.

Waste quantities in England are rising faster than growth in GDP and faster than in most other European countries. At current rates of growth, the costs of managing household waste will double by 2020.

By international standards, England currently disposes of a higher proportion of its municipal waste through landfill (78% of the total) and a much lower proportion through recycling (12%) and thermal treatment (9%).

Waste comes from many different sources

There are several ways to define waste. A description of the main types of waste is set out in Box 2 below.

Box 2: Types of waste: [1]

Controlled waste describes waste that must be managed and disposed of in line with waste management regulations. It includes municipal, commercial and industrial waste and can come from private homes, schools, hospitals, shops, offices, factories or other businesses. It can be solid or liquid and include a range of materials such as scrap metal, old newspapers, used glass or plastic bottles, aluminium cans, kitchen and garden waste.

Municipal waste includes all waste under the control of local authorities, whether or not they have contracted out services. It includes all household waste (89% of municipal waste),[2] street litter, waste sent to council recycling points, municipal parks and garden wastes, council office waste, and some commercial waste from shops and small trading estates where local authority waste collection agreements are in place.

Box 2: Types of waste: (continued)

Household waste includes regular waste from household doorstep collections, bulky waste collection, hazardous household waste collection, communal collection of garden waste, plus waste from schools, street sweepings and litter.

Commercial waste includes waste arisings from wholesalers, shops, offices and catering businesses.

Industrial waste includes waste arisings from factories and industrial plants.

Agricultural waste includes waste from farms and market gardens including plastics, packaging, tyres and machinery and dependent on its use, some organic matter such as manure, slurry and crop residues.

Construction and demolition waste includes any waste arisings from the construction, repair, maintenance and demolition of buildings and structures. It consists of brick, concrete, hardcore, subsoil and topsoil as well as timber, metals, plastics and special waste materials.

Mines and quarries waste includes materials such as overburden, rock inter-bedded with the mineral resource, and residues left over from the initial processing of extracted material (e.g. tailings).

This report is concerned with municipal waste

1. Around 375 million tonnes of waste are produced every year in England. Twenty five million tonnes come from householders,

47 million tonnes from industry and a further 24 million tonnes from commercial businesses. Construction and demolition waste represents around 89 million tonnes of the remaining

190 million tonnes, with materials such as agricultural wastes, mining and quarry wastes, sewage sludge and dredged spoils making up the balance.

2. The main focus of this report is on municipal waste in England. This totalled 28.2 million tonnes in 2000/01.[1] Household waste, estimated to be 89% of the total, or 25.1 million tonnes[2] typically consists of a wide variety of materials. These include (as a percentage by weight): garden waste (20% of the total); paper and board (18%); putrescible[3] waste such as kitchen waste (17%); glass (7%); miscellaneous non-combustible waste (5%); dense plastics (4%); and textiles (3%).

Figure 1: Composition of Household Waste 2000/01

Garden Waste 20% Paper and Board 18%

Kitchen Waste 17% General Household Sweepings 9%

Glass 7%

Wood 5% Scrap metal/White goods 5%

Dense plastic 4% Plastic film 4% Textiles 3%

Metal packaging 3% Nappies 2%

Soil 3%

Source: Parfitt J. Analysis of household waste composition and factors driving waste increases

The quantity of municipal waste is growing faster than GDP

3. The amount of municipal waste produced in England is growing at around 3-4% per year.[1] This is faster than growth in GDP (around 2-2.5%) and is one of the fastest growth rates in Europe.[2] A range of economic and social factors lie behind this growth such as rising household incomes, changing lifestyles, advertising and the growth in sales of pre- packaged goods.

4. The growing volume of municipal waste is pushing up the costs of waste management. At current rates, the amount of municipal waste produced in England will double by 2020, with the costs of managing this waste stream, doubling to £3.2 billion12 per annum from £1.6 billion13 currently on unchanged policies.
5. Local authorities are under a statutory duty to regularly collect household waste produced by some 21 million14 households. They also have a duty to collect commercial waste if requested, and may also collect industrial waste. The waste collected, other than that which the

authority makes arrangements to recycle, must Most of England s municipal be delivered to the appropriate Waste Disposal waste goes to landfill sites Authority. Increasingly the business of

collection, management and disposal of waste is 2.6 England landfills the majority of its contracted out to private sector waste municipal waste. Almost 80% of municipal management companies.  waste is handled in this way, compared to 50%

of commercial and industrial waste.

Figure 2: Waste Management in England and Wales, 1998/99

Source: Waste Strategy 2000 based on provisional data

Municipal waste: England Municipal Waste Management Survey, 2000/01, DEFRA

This contrasts with waste management in most other countries

7. Figure 3 compares the different waste management methods used by different countries. Most other countries in the EU as well as the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand rely on a mix of alternatives. This commonly includes extensive recycling infrastructure and developing new technologies to tackle waste as well as landfill.

8. England recycles 12% of its municipal waste stream, and deals with 9% of it through thermal treatment technologies including incineration. This is in contrast to the waste management methods of most of the UK s European neighbours. For example, Switzerland recycles or composts 45%, incinerates 48% and landfills just 7%.

Figure 3: Methods of waste management by country

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

0%

Flanders Netherlands Switzerland Sweden Denmark UK 1999

1999 2000 2000 2000 2000

Other Landfill Incineration Recycling and Composting

Source: Figures taken from Green Alliance Creative policy packages for waste: lessons for the UK Autumn 2002. UK figures are for England and Wales only. Figures for municipal waste for the Netherlands and Denmark were constructed by the Green Alliance.

Other countries also use a wider range of policy instruments to tackle growth in waste volumes

9. Many of the most successful European nations have in place more comprehensive packages of both legislative and incentive-based measures to reduce growth in waste volumes and move waste management up the waste hierarchy. For example, they tend to make greater use of higher landfill taxes, landfill bans of some waste streams, variable household charging for the collection and disposal of waste (found in at least 17 other countries) and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).[1] EPR extends the responsibility of producers for environmental impacts of their products to the entire life cycle including take-back, recycling and disposal. These kinds of packages of

measures, supported by a strong economic and regulatory framework, make it more profitable for waste companies to invest in alternatives to landfill and help to reduce/recycle waste.

10. A few specific examples of the means used across Europe to promote alternative options

are given in Box 3.

Box 3: Instruments used in other countries to promote alternatives to landfill

Waste prevention and minimisation is tackled in a number of countries through the use of product taxes on a life-cycle approach. For example, Denmark has a general tax on disposable items such as batteries, electric bulbs, tyres and pesticides. Similarly, Belgium has a product tax on a number of items including disposable drinks containers and some types of packaging. Italy and recently Ireland introduced taxes on carrier bags.

Waste minimisation, re-use and recycling is successfully promoted in a number of countries through deposit refund schemes. Sweden, for example, operates such a scheme for glass and plastic bottles, and aluminium cans, and Germany for a variety of products. Some countries have reported high administrative costs in setting up such schemes, although a number of schemes have achieved return levels above 90%.

Diversion from landfill has been encouraged in a number of countries through the use of landfill taxes, often administered with additional instruments including landfill bans on certain types of waste. The current UK landfill tax rate is £1316 (20.3 Euros) per tonne compared to landfill tax rates in countries such as Denmark (50 Euros per tonne) and Austria (43.6 Euros per tonne). Some countries have used landfill tax revenues to develop alternative infrastructures for managing waste, while incentivising a shift towards alternative waste management approaches.

16 The Government announced in the 1999 Budget that it intends to raise the standard rate of landfill tax by £1 per tonne in April each

year to 2004, subject to Parliamentary approval. Budget 2002 stated that The Government anticipates that the rates of landfill tax will need to be increased significantly in the medium term as part of the mix of future policy measures. The Government will take future decisions on landfill tax, and consider the case for a tax on incineration, in the light of the findings of the PIU waste project. HM Treasury Budget 2002

3. WHY WASTE MATTERS THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE

Summary

There are strong economic and environmental reasons for tackling the growing quantity of waste:

1. poor product design and manufacturing processes add unnecessarily to industrial costs as well as creating extra household waste;
2. disposing of waste causes serious pollution. For example, landfill sites account for around 25% of UK methane emissions (a powerful greenhouse gas); and
3. well targeted government intervention to reduce the rate of growth in waste volumes would be wholly consistent with principles of sustainable development.

England has invested less in reducing the volume of household waste and in alternative methods of disposing of it than other countries. This reflects the historic availability of cheap landfill sites in this country. But such sites are becoming increasingly scarce, especially in the South East.

Taking account of the derogation to which the UK is entitled, the EU Landfill Directive requires the volume of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill to be reduced to 75% of the 1995 level produced by 2010; 50% by 2013; and 35% by 2020.

Unless waste management practices change there will be a widening gap between practice and our international legal obligations.

Addressing this gap is the key challenge for future waste strategy. Later chapters of this report will set out what should be the main elements of a strategy to close the gap.

There are sound economic and the environment benefits to climate environmental reasons for a change are likely to result from minimising

waste and more re-use and recycling. As more sustainable approach to waste continues to grow, so too will its

managing waste contribution to climate change and

environmental degradation if we do not

3.1 Securing sustainable waste management is

change how we deal with it; and

arguably the biggest environmental challenge

after climate change. [1] The case for action has society as a whole alternative waste been accepted at all levels of government: management options, particularly recycling,

can have a positive effect on social cohesion

internationally, as a part of the Sustainable

and inclusion, because of the community- Development Summits in 1992 and 2002

based nature of such activities. Good waste which have led the call for a de-coupling of

management also sends appropriate signals economic growth and contributors to

to the public about valuing the local environmental damage;

environment and can help both to reduce

in Europe, where legislation is driving more anti-social behaviour, such as fly-tipping and sustainable waste management; and littering, and to improve local liveability.19

nationally, as a part of agreed existing and

previous UK Government policy on Reducing excessive reliance on sustainable development and waste.

landfill should be a policy

3b.y2 thTeh  ep ucbasli ec , f  owrh aoc  twiohne nh apsr eals se on t be ed e  nw ait ch c  ethpe ted priority for England

choices between different waste management 3.4 As Chapter 2 showed, England is highly options[2] call for more opportunities to recycle, reliant on landfill as its main method of waste and less reliance on landfill. disposal.20 Yet landfilling waste is generally the

3.3 Government intervention to tackle waste least sustainable of all the waste management will bring benefits to: options:

the economy there are economic landfill sites account for 25% 21,22 of all UK opportunities to be realised from improving methane emissions a powerful greenhouse the way that waste streams are managed. For gas;

example, less wasteful product design and by landfilling biodegradable waste, resources manufacturing processes will translate that could be re-used or recycled are lost; directly into cost savings for business. New

waste technologies and services can also

provide new markets for UK businesses and

generate significant revenues;

public concerns have been raised about the This priority would be

impact of all waste management facilities, consistent with the EU Landfill benuvt iproanrtmiceunlatrslyu rarboouuntd tinhge qlaunadliftilyls o, fin tchleuding Directive, which requires

noise, odour and litter problems, as well as significant reductions in the potential health effects of emissions; and amount of biodegradable

landfill sites are becoming increasingly scarce municipal waste sent to

in the South East and North West due to landfill

other pressures on land use and proximity to

settlements. Transporting waste further 3.5 The aim of the EU Landfill Directive, which distances to be landfilled will mean further applies to most waste, is to prevent or reduce impacts on the environment.  the negative effects of landfill, including the

production of methane from organic sources. As with any EU Directive, non-compliance carries the potential sanction of a fine. It has been suggested that the UK could be fined up to

£180 million a year if it does not comply with the Landfill Directive targets.

6. The main requirements of the Landfill Directive are set out in Box 4 below:

Box 4: Requirements of the Landfill Directive:[3]

To reduce the volume of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill to 75% of that produced in 1995 by 2010, 50% of that produced in 1995 by 2013 and 35% of that produced in 1995 by 2020. These targets take account of a 4-year derogation offered by the EU to those countries heavily reliant on landfill such as the UK.

The co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes is banned from 2004, and separate landfills for hazardous, non-hazardous and inert wastes are required.

Landfill of tyres is banned (by 2003 for whole tyres; by 2006 for shredded tyres).

Landfill of liquid wastes, certain clinical wastes and certain types of hazardous waste is already banned.

There are also provisions to control, monitor and report, and close sites.

Current policies are failing to Waste Strategy 2000 also set a target of 25% tackle rising waste quantities of household waste to be recycled/composted

by 2005/6. On current progress it will be

or to reduce the quantity of very difficult to achieve this.

waste going to landfill sites  3.8 England spends about 60% of the EU

7. Successive governments have recognised average on waste management and disposal

the need to move to more sustainable forms of (i.e. around 0.5% of GDP in the UK versus 1.0% waste management. Governments have in the Netherlands)29 and around 40% of those responded to this challenge by producing at the leading edge of waste management framework strategies within which they have set (Figure 4). Because of England s reliance on targets to move away from landfill and deliver landfill, householders pay some of the lowest higher rates of recycling. Until Waste Strategy rates for waste collection and disposal in Europe 2000, the targets were aspirational (and remain around £50 per year on average,30 which is so for non-municipal streams). However, in the roughly half the EU average and about 30% of absence of a coherent mix of policy and the rate of high performing countries. England s delivery instruments, successive targets have lower spend on waste per capita reflects both

the relative cheapness and the efficiency of

not been met:

landfill. However, while some landfill will

1990 The Environment White Paper [4] set justifiably continue to provide a disposal route

a target of 25% recycling by 2000. This has for certain wastes,31 England s current over-

not been met; reliance on this form of waste disposal means

1995 Making Waste Work  [5] the that significant environmental impacts are not recycling and composting rate for household being captured in what households pay. The UK waste stood at 6%. This document re- has the same population as France and the emphasised the need to meet the 25% target same GDP, but spends 50% less on municipal

by 2000;  waste management; France diverts 150% more

municipal solid waste from landfill than the UK.32

1999 A Way with Waste  [6] recognised that the 25% recycling/composting target

would not be met by 2000;

2000 Waste Strategy 2000 [7] set targets of recycling or composting 17% of the

household waste stream by 2003/4. This was translated into statutory targets for each local authority. This is unlikely to be met as performance in 2001/2 was under 12%.[8]

A landfill site photo courtesy of Hampshire County Council

Figure 4: UK s spend on waste per capita per week compared to

the European average

1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

UK Rest of Europe

Source: Hazell D, Environmental Services Association, Dr Dominic Hogg,

and FFact Management Consultants

3.9 Other European countries give higher protection of the environment and of human political priority to waste issues, and therefore health; and tend to have far higher public awareness of the

the waste hierarchy

waste problem. Many have introduced education

programmes informing businesses and the public 3.11 Both of these are derived from the Waste how to go about waste reduction, re-use, Framework Directive.33 The first has been the recycling and composting. They have been able rationale for the regulation of the waste industry to persuade their citizens that even making small since the Public Health Act of 1875.34 The lifestyle changes, for example choosing products second is a proxy for sustainable waste containing recyclable materials, re-using management at national level, but should also products, composting and taking part in take account of the BPEO (Best Practicable recycling schemes, can help to reduce growth in Environmental Option)35 at local level and the waste volumes, cut the cost of managing waste proximity principle.36 These fundamental

and secure environmental benefits for all. principles would need to underpin any strategy

for waste and resource use.

3.12 Waste Strategy 2000 identified the need

The current strategy is set out to minimise waste and to recycle, compost or in Waste Strategy 2000 re-use waste that was produced. However, there

were few instruments put in place that would

3.10 Waste Strategy 2000 set out the vision,

directly bear on waste growth. Positive actions aims and objectives of sustainable waste

that have been taken to deliver Waste Strategy management in England and Wales for the next

2000 and meet current targets include:

20 years. It has two underlying principles:

33 Council Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC

34 The 1875 Act charged local authorities with the duty to arrange the removal and disposal of waste

35 BPEO (see Chapter 5)

36 The Proximity Principle is a key element of EU environmental and waste management policy. It advocates that all waste should be

disposed of, or otherwise managed, as near to its place of production as possible

setting up the Waste and Resources Action minimising waste (as exemplified by the Programme (WRAP) to help strengthen the absence of any waste minimisation targets); market for recyclables; and

setting local authorities statutory targets for putting in place the economic and regulatory recycling and composting of household framework and enough associated policy waste for the first time; tools to deliver tangible improvements in waste minimisation, re-use and recycling.

setting up arrangements for those targets to

be pooled by local authorities where they

wish to do so; There is a major and growing

increasing funding for local authorities gap between waste produced, tChurlotuurgahl Stheerv Eicnevsi r(oEnPmCSe )n Sta tal  nP dro at re dc t Si po en n a dn ind g amounts of waste sent to

Assessment which includes waste; landfill and what the Landfill setting up the Waste Minimisation and Directive will allow

Recycling Fund to support local authority 3.14 Without more progress it is clear that waste minimisation, recycling and England will move further away from meeting composting projects in 2002 and 2003; the EU Landfill Directive, as Figure 5 shows.

announcing funding through the New 3.15 Few alternatives to landfill have been put Opportunities Fund to support community in place and international experience has

sector recycling; demonstrated that there are long lead times in

introducing legislation for a landfill getting new infrastructure in place and allowances scheme setting limits for the changing behaviour. For example, in the

amount of biodegradable municipal waste Netherlands and Belgium it has taken 10-15 which councils may send to landfill;[9] and  years to achieve change following increases in

landfill tax, producer responsibility measures supporting investment in waste infrastructure

and significant new investment in waste

through the Private Finance Initiative; funds

infrastructure.

have been repositioned to support very high

recycling rates.  3.16 The UK has only 8 years until the first EU

Directive comes into force and must make

3.13 Despite these positive steps, there remains

considerable progress quickly.

concern that the targets in Waste Strategy 2000

will not be met. In particular, there is concern

that Waste Strategy 2000 gives insufficient

attention to:[10]

Figure 5: Estimated biodegradable waste for landfill in England

versus the EU Landfill Directive targets (million tonnes)

25

20

(ii)

Estimated biodegradable

landfill if no further action Tonnages to be

15 (i) diverted away frombiodegradable landfill

to recycling/

2010 Target composting, thermal

treatment or other

10 methods of disposal

2013 Target

5

2020 Target 0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Source: Strategy Unit analysis which (i) takes account of incinerator capacity coming on stream; and

(ii) assumes incinerator capacity does not increase and all additional waste goes to landfill

4. BARRIERS TO MORE SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT

Summary

A number of factors lie behind the absence of a more sustainable approach to waste management in England:

historically, waste has not been an area of policy priority and there has been a relative abundance of cheap landfill sites. This has resulted in comparatively low levels of investment in waste management;

there has been a lack of public awareness of the seriousness of the waste problem alongside perceptions that new waste facilities of all kinds may be damaging to health or have other disbenefits;

the economic and regulatory framework has offered few incentives either for a reduced rate of growth in waste volumes or for alternative methods of management and disposal (such as recycling);

delivery structures at both national and local level have been complex, with insufficiently clear responsibilities and accountabilities for delivering change; and

there have been various practical problems and barriers such as delays in granting planning permissions for waste management plants of all kinds.

England has not needed to invest in alternatives to landfill because of its geology and history

1. England s reliance on landfill reflects its geology and extraction industry history, which have made suitable landfill sites relatively abundant. This abundance of cheap landfill sites

has also meant that England, unlike many of its European neighbours, has not needed to invest to the same degree in alternative waste management options.

2. However, England now needs to make a substantial shift away from landfill to other methods of waste disposal. This will require a number of institutional and practical barriers set out in this chapter to be overcome.

Waste has not been an area of the level of landfill tax has been set to reflect policy priority  environmental costs of landfill and at too low

a rate either to incentivise industry to

3. Historically, waste policy has struggled to develop more resource efficient means of compete for resources with other areas of public production or to encourage local authorities expenditure both nationally and locally. Indeed, to use alternatives;40 and

environmental issues generally have only really

explicit incentives for recycling have been

moved towards the top of the policy agenda

limited. Measures such as the payment of over the past 15-20 years. Even then the focus

recycling credits for waste collection

has been on problems such as climate change

authorities, have had only a marginal impact rather than the challenges posed by waste.

on the costs of treatment and disposal, and

collection costs have remained unaffected. The economic and regulatory Similarly, neither statutory recycling targets

nor measures to promote markets for framework has offered few recyclates have yet had much impact.

incentives for waste

minimisation or the

Delivery structures have been development of alternative

too complex to be effective methods of waste

management 4.5 Responsibility for waste is split between

several government departments and agencies:

4. The economic and regulatory framework in

policy between DEFRA and DTI;

the UK has done comparatively little to

incentivise waste minimisation or to encourage funding between HMT, ODPM and DEFRA; a move to alternatives to landfill: [1] regulatory responsibility is split between the

there have been few measures to curb the Environment Agency (EA) and local

growth of waste volumes apart from, for authorities.

example the introduction of producer 4.6 Various stakeholders consulted as part of responsibility measures for packaging targets this study have argued that the lack of a single following the EU Packaging Directive; focus for waste policy has caused confusion,

householders have little or no incentive to made coherent policy making more difficult, minimise or recycle their waste. They pay the and made it more difficult to make the case for same regardless of the amount of waste they waste to be treated as a priority for central produce. The costs of waste collection and government. A number of stakeholders have disposal are only indirectly passed on to called for the current split of responsibility householders through Council Tax;  between DEFRA and DTI in particular to end.41 While DEFRA leads on most waste negotiations,

despite the introduction of the landfill tax, responsibility for responding to some EU Waste landfill has remained a low cost and readily

Directives is split between DTI and DEFRA as accessible method of waste disposal. To date

both Departments have major interests.

7. As well as DTI and DEFRA, the EA has also taken a role in trying to clarify policy. Whilst this is understandable, it adds to confusion. DEFRA and the EA need to work together to ensure

there is a clear interpretation of EU waste policy from DEFRA, and the EA needs to play its role in ensuring this interpretation is used consistently

in the provision of advice across regions.

8. At local authority level, the split between collection and disposal authorities appears to be unique in Europe.42 The Audit Commission43 has found that this split leads to inefficiencies and state that two tier local authorities, where collection and disposal are split, will find it harder to meet their targets.

The planning system has caused long delays in getting permission for new waste facilities of all kinds

9. Delays in obtaining planning permission are perceived as a barrier to the delivery of the Landfill Directive targets and to moving to more sustainable waste management. The issues of concern are:

the length of time it takes to secure planning permission;

the risks that permission will be refused due to public opposition; and

inconsistency in planning decisions.

10. While some delay may be a legitimate part of the local democratic process, a number of stakeholders have expressed concern at excessive delays in getting planning permission for waste facilities of all kinds. Applications for composting facilities (both open windrow and

in-vessel), recycling facilities, incinerators and landfill sites have all been subject to opposition by the public, often due to concerns about effects on local house prices, traffic and general nuisance such as odours and noise.

11. The causes of delay include:

permissions refused by local authorities due to public opposition even where the proposals are reasonable and in line with the waste plan;

applications being turned down and going to appeal or other problems in reaching a final decision;

inconsistency in planning decisions; and

delays in the production of waste plans. Waste plans can take around four years to produce. A number of planning authorities have still to produce waste development plans, while others, whose plans were adopted prior to publication of Waste Strategy 2000, need to consider their revision.

12. Some of the causes are specifically related to the nature of waste:

by their nature waste facilities are unwelcome and controversial and objections will always be made. Those seeking to secure new facilities do not always take a realistic view of timescales and make applications accordingly;44

there are generic issues which are repeated at every public inquiry, often without new information from a previous debate. This adds delay and may not facilitate the democratic process. Equally some issues may not properly be for the land use planning system at all;

42 EUNOMIA Research and Consulting, Dr Dominic Hogg Waste in the Resource Productivity Framework

43 Audit Commission, Waste Management, Guidance for Improving Services

44 Some commentators have compared the UK system to nations where planning permission is an assumption with a permit to operate,

or where democratic objections are not heard. The SU has not looked into these fundamental issues. In the case of waste, there is a good case that it is not only legitimate for objections to be taken fully into account, but also the process is essential if full ownership of waste is to be achieved and with it sustainable choices

facilities require a pollution control permit or underpinned by long-term contracts, essentially licence45 in addition to planning permission. because of the scale and cost of making PFI This can be an additional cause of delay; bids. There is also funding available through the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS) but this has

some areas interpret the proximity principle

been criticised for failing to adequately focus on very stringently without taking account of the

funding projects to reduce, re-use and recycle whole life cycle impact of waste. This may

waste and for a lack of transparency and

lead to unnecessary duplication of facilities

quantifiable outputs.46

and thus avoidable environmental impacts;

4.15 The problems of long-term, inflexible

there is a debate about whether there is a

contracts for waste management options have need at all, at a national level, for incineration

been raised by a number of stakeholders, capacity. Guidance is required on whether

particularly with respect to incinerators.

this is an acceptable form of waste

Incinerators are typically contracted on a 25- management and, if so, under what

year basis to take guaranteed minimum volumes circumstances; and

of waste. These contracts are agreed by local

local authority elected members see no gains authorities because they see them as necessary from taking decisions on planning to finance the high capital costs of an applications for waste facilities which are incinerator and to ensure continuity of

never popular. Facilities are therefore turned feedstock. However, this may reduce the

down or not determined within the statutory flexibility and incentives for local authorities to time period, leading to delay and cost both pursue recycling. It may be preferable to

to the taxpayer and applicant on appeals. structure contracts for incinerators so they take This can be true even where facilities have waste only after other waste streams have been been agreed as necessary in the municipal separated. This would help to avoid any

waste strategy.  potential for crowding out other options

including recycling.

To date there has been an 4.16 Insufficient local authority expertise in unwillingness in England to negotiating and producing effective contracts

has been raised as a barrier to more sustainable invest on the scale necessary waste management by a number of

to achieve a more sustainable stakeholders.

waste management system

4.13 Earlier chapters have shown that England Public awareness of the waste invests less in waste management and disposal problem, their role in solving

tbheahninodt hthere cfaoiulunrter ietos. sThhifits aiswaa ymfarojomr flaacntdofrill.  it and the true health risks of different waste facilities, is

4h.a1v4e bWe he en r  ec oinn vc ee srntms ea nb to udt o  eths e t  av ka elu pe l  afocer  ,mtho enreey very low

obtained. PFI schemes, for example, have 4.17 Public awareness of the growing waste tended to support large infrastructure projects, problem is low. Recent MORI research indicated

45 An authorisation and licensing procedure which is applied to processes which can have a harmful effect on the environment. It is

administered by the Environment Agency and is generally required by a developer to operate a waste management facility in addition to the requirement to obtain planning permission

46 Financial Times, Landfill Tax Credit Lacks Accountability (25 July 2002)

that only 7% of the public identify waste as an schemes to recycle waste.48 There is a good important environmental issue.[1] There is also a deal of misunderstanding about waste, and the lack of public acceptance that they must do role of industry and households in tackling it is more to tackle waste, for example, by buying not widely recognised.

more recycled goods and participating in

Box 5: MORI research into public attitudes towards recycling and waste management49

MORI research found a number of barriers to public awareness of waste. For example:

only around half of households with a kerbside collection scheme are aware that this is available to them;

one in three do not feel informed about which materials can and cannot be recycled;

two in five do not know where to recycle locally;

two in three do not feel informed enough about incineration as an option; and

there are particular information barriers regarding composting (i.e. how to compost).

Public acceptance of personal responsibility for waste varies considerably across MORI s research. What is clear is that where the public perceives other parties to be inactive in promoting recycling (the Government, manufacturers, retailers etc.) they tend to lay the blame elsewhere.50

18. There are many waste myths (see Box 6). that around £200 per year of Council Tax is spent For example, the vast majority of households on waste management and almost a third think think they pay more for waste management than they pay over £260.51 The reality as noted

is actually the case. The majority of people believe above is closer to £50 per household per year.

Box 6: Common waste myths and what the MORI research revealed about the issue52

Myth: The majority of people in the UK recycle their waste

Reality: 85% of the UK population say that they recycle waste53 if 85% of people did recycle everything that it is currently possible to recycle on a regular basis and sufficient markets were found this would translate into a national recycling rate of 45%. It is 12%.

Box 6: Common waste myths and what the MORI research revealed about the issue (continued)

MORI survey evidence: The public perceives a strong and positive association between recycling and the environment. However, to the majority of the public, environmental motivations are not sufficient alone to encourage them to recycle on a regular, rather than ad- hoc basis. Rather, regular participation in recycling is conditional upon other factors notably convenience and time. In particular, demand for kerbside collection services is high; three in four people said they would recycle more if this was available to them. Education and awareness campaigns are also key; two in five people said they did not know where to go to recycle locally, and one in three did not fully understand which materials could and could not be recycled.

Myth: Doing my little bit won t make a difference

Reality: Yes it will. If all the aluminium drinks cans sold in the UK were recycled there would be 14 million fewer dustbins of waste each year.[2] Every tonne of glass recycled saves more than a tonne of raw materials.[3] That means less quarrying, less damage to the countryside, less pollution and global warming, and more energy savings. Switching from plastic to reusable glass bottles, recycling newspapers, choosing products containing recyclable materials, reusing carrier bags, and composting garden cuttings can directly benefit the environment and reduce cost increases due to waste growth.

The Flintham Ecoteam programme

Households from the Nottinghamshire village of Flintham took part in a seven-month pilot project aimed at reducing the impact of daily life on the environment. Householders were supported by the local council and the green charity, Global Action Plan. One family who participated in the scheme, the Claytons said: Before we started the programme, we d fill nearly three large bin bags a

week now we ve managed to bring that down to just one. With the help of a coach, the Claytons now recycle all their plastics, cardboard, paper and glass, as well as composting their organic waste. And to reduce their amount of packaging, they buy loose fruit and vegetables rather than pre-packaged. The Flintham figures are still being analysed, but the experience of similar programmes suggests that, on average, each household can reduce its rubbish by 50%.

The Guardian, 4 September 2002

MORI survey evidence: The concept of fairness is very important to the public i.e. there is a demand for a collective public response led by action from all stakeholders, particularly the Government, local authorities and manufacturers. While the disposal of the UK s waste was not an issue at the forefront of people s minds, when prompted the public did make the links between waste and global issues such as climate change, and local issues, including street cleaning, litter and the wider liveability of the local area.

Myth: Incineration is a waste management option which is wholly unacceptable to the public

Reality: Incineration is undoubtedly a contentious option, and amongst some sections of the population it provokes an instinctive negative reaction because of associations with health risks, and polluting emissions.

Box 6: Common waste myths and what the MORI research revealed about the issue (continued)

MORI survey evidence: Awareness of incineration as a waste management option is very low. Although contentious, there does not appear to be any absolute rejection of incineration. Rather, acceptance tends to be conditional upon several requirements, including:

incineration being part of a recycling-led strategy where everything that can be recycled has been recycled;

certain materials are separated out and not incinerated (toxicity from certain plastics was a particular concern);

operating guidelines for incinerators are strict and preferably under public control rather than managed by a private company; and

the environmental benefits, such as energy recovery from incineration, are emphasised. Myth: The public will never support variable household charging schemes

Reality: The idea of charging people on the basis of how much unsorted rubbish they produce is a contentious issue. Initial reactions are often negative, because participants immediately associate the idea with paying extra on top of their existing Council Tax. The public also foresees practical barriers, including disproportionate impacts on families, and concerns that increased fly-tipping will result. Yet a survey by the EA[4] showed that 60% were in favour if recycling facilities were in place.

MORI survey evidence: Local authority plans to pursue variable household charging must be sensitively and thoroughly explained to the public to gain their support. MORI found that in principle people were more accepting of variable household charging if certain assurances were given:

there must be an opportunity to recycle voluntarily before charging is introduced (pointing to the importance of investment in facilities and infrastructure first);

charging must be in accordance with the Polluter Pays Principle i.e. dependent on how much unsorted rubbish is produced, with refunds given to reward those who recycle and compost and disincentives to those who do not;

any revenue generated should be accountable and spent openly on related environmental issues within the local community;

responsibility is not placed only on individuals other stakeholders (such as manufacturers and supermarkets) should be subject to rewards and penalties for their own contribution and performance in relation to recycling and waste minimisation;

public opinion also flagged the importance of providing a safety net to protect disadvantaged people; addressing the specific needs of different dwelling types (e.g. flats) and tougher measures to discourage, and to penalise fly-tipping.

19. Concerns are regularly raised about the 4.22 Policies to reduce the production of waste potential health effects of emissions from waste and the hazardousness of waste, as well as the facilities of all kinds. It is true that all waste regulation of waste facilities, are the most management options contain some degree of effective ways of managing risks. These risks are risk.57 However, these risks are low and regulated by the EA who can take action to generally much lower than the public perceives, ensure that risks are not unacceptable and are

or that they find acceptable from other reduced and effectively managed.

activities. The waste disposal and recycling

industry is responsible for 4.3%, 0.32% and

5.2%58 of emissions to air, water and sewers There is insufficient data and respectively. Other industrial activities therefore research on waste streams

have a far greater impact than the waste

4.23 Data on specific waste streams, their

disposal and recycling industry. These

growth rates, composition, life cycles and percentages would be lower still if other

impacts is inadequate and yet is vital to unregulated emissions to our atmosphere, such

underpin sound waste management. Currently

as car emissions, were included in the figures.

data collection and publication is widespread

20. In the case of landfill, there is a small but not very well co-ordinated:

statistical link between landfills and birth

defects. 59 However, cause and effect is not a municipal waste management survey

(MWMS) a comprehensive annual survey of proven because of other elements in the

local authorities in England and Wales is environment (such as industrial pollution) which

carried out by DEFRA;

makes analysis of the issues complex.

Incinerators also cause concern to the public, an industrial and commercial survey last

yet these are the most tightly regulated of carried out in 1998/9 by the EA;

industrial plant. UK municipal solid waste

construction and demolition data gathered

incinerators are estimated to release less than

by ODPM;

1.5% of the total for any of the 35 pollutants in

the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, the Waste Collection and Disposal Statistics and less than 0.5% for 27 of them. Dioxin Survey an annual survey prepared by the emissions to the air from UK municipal solid Chartered Institute of Public Finance and

waste incinerators are now estimated to be less Accountancy (CIPFA); and

than 1% of the UK total, 60 down 200 fold from the LTCS funds research data and collection those of 5 years ago. but this is poorly co-ordinated and there is

21. The public is becoming more concerned no systematic dissemination of the results. about other waste management facilities where Current research and data gaps include:

the potential risks are also very small. It is

more consistent data on the source and therefore important that local authorities have

composition of waste;

sufficient information on the relative health

effects of different waste management options better data on what is spent on waste

to help guide their choices. management and by whom;

57 EUNOMIA Research and Consulting Ltd, Dr Dominic Hogg, Health effects of waste management treatments work for SU

58 Based on total 2000 aggregated releases. Source: McLanaghan Dr S. Delivering the Landfill Directive: The role of new and emerging

technologies report for the SU (November 2002) available at www.strategy.gov.uk/2002/waste/downloads/technologies.pdf

59 Elliott et al, Health Outcomes in Populations Living Near Landfill Sites British Medical Journal (August 2001) 60 The Environment Agency, Solid Residues from Municipal Waste Incinerators in England and Wales (May 2002)

time series data on the costs of dealing with waste;

product specific information, for example to monitor the impact of producer responsibility directives (e.g. WEEE);[1]

further development of life cycle analysis and assessment tools that can be used for policy;

better understanding of the drivers of waste growth and compositional changes in waste streams;

a good understanding of what determines household and other behaviour;

systematic dissemination of the EA s data and research programme;

co-ordination of research bodies undertaking research on waste; and

the development of a central database to access key research and data.

5. MOVING FORWARDS TO A NEW STRATEGY

Summary

Tackling the problem of rapidly growing volumes of household waste requires a clear vision setting out what needs to be achieved.

The vision of this report is that: by 2020, England should have a world class waste management system that allows it to prosper whilst minimising environmental impacts and protecting human health.

The practical implementation of this vision needs to be guided by a number of subsidiary aims and principles:

growth in waste volumes should be de-coupled from growth in GDP;

the costs of waste management and disposal should be fully internalised in the costs of all goods and services;

responsibility for moving to a more sustainable path for waste management rests not only with central government but with local authorities, businesses, local communities and individual households. To succeed everyone needs to play their role; and

the measures taken to advance future strategy should be soundly based in cost-benefit terms.

Action is needed in three main areas to deliver the vision:

putting in place a robust long term economic and regulatory framework with significant increases in the landfill tax and new incentives for households to minimise waste and increase recycling;

a package of short to medium term investment measures to facilitate the transition to a more sustainable waste management system including action to: reduce the rate of growth in waste volumes; boost recycling and its associated infrastructure; fund new waste management technologies; and

Summary (continued)

funding for new waste infrastructure and reform of delivery structures to ensure investment is accompanied by improved and robust delivery structures.

Action in these areas should achieve:

a 1% reduction by weight in the rate of waste growth by 2005/06;

an increase in recycling rates for household waste to 45% by 2015 with the majority of households participating in kerbside collection schemes;

50% of households carrying out home composting by 2005/06; and

a reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill from 2005/06.

By 2020 England should be To have, by 2020, a world class waste enjoying the benefits of a management system that allows the country

to prosper whilst minimising environmental more prosperous economy impacts and protecting human health.

and a safer and cleaner 5.3 This vision puts waste firmly at the centre of environment the sustainable development objective for England

and is consistent with the significant contribution

1. Chapter 3 set out the clear links between

that waste can make to that objective.

waste policy and its contribution to environmental

goals. But achieving these benefits is not cost free.

It involves investment, commitment and a change To get there the nation should in behaviour and attitudes. There will be aim to achieve three key goals important trade-offs and choices to make about

how much we are all prepared to pay and do to that put reduction and

achieve the required changes. recycling at the centre of its

2. Paying for the environment and better waste strategy

waste management does not mean that the 5.4 To make the vision meaningful, there needs wealth generating capacity of the economy has to be practical goals to aim for. These are:

to be sacrificed. On the contrary, a less wasteful

society is one that can create and use its wealth the rate of growth in waste volumes should more sustainably. Waste itself can be a valuable be decoupled from the rate of economic resource e.g. as a fuel source; as a replacement growth (i.e. so that waste growth is slower). for raw materials; or to increase soil fertility. This This is a challenging goal that few countries is why the vision of this report is: have achieved[1] but is critical to making real

progress;

the costs of waste management and disposal should be fully internalised in the costs of all goods and services; and

the waste management options that secure the greatest environmental benefit should be pursued, provided they are soundly based in cost-benefit terms.

The achievement of these goals should be guided by sound principles

5. If these goals are to be achieved they will need to draw on a set of guiding principles. The three important ones for waste are:

using the waste hierarchy as a guide to environmental benefits and applying the BPEO to make decisions;

setting out a clear framework of roles and responsibilities; and

keeping options open.

Using the waste hierarchy and the BPEO to achieve higher rates of waste reduction, re- use and recycling

6. The waste hierarchy is a useful framework that has become a cornerstone of sustainable waste management, setting out the order in which options for waste management should be considered based on environmental impact. Following the hierarchy (see Figure 6) the best option for the environment is to generate less waste. The second best option is to re-use products and materials, thirdly to recover value

from waste by recycling it, composting or recovering energy (i.e. through incineration) and, finally, the option at the bottom of

the hierarchy is to dispose of waste e.g. through landfill.

Figure 6: the waste hierarchy[1]

Reduce Re-use

Recover Disposal

7. The merits or otherwise of the waste hierarchy have been widely debated. The main criticisms are that:

it is too simplistic a tool to use; [2] and

it does not explicitly incorporate a cost- benefit dimension for reaching judgements about the preferred point within the hierarchy.

8. To answer the first of these, more sophisticated variants of the hierarchy, (as shown for example in Figure 7) have been developed which set out the range of waste management options more comprehensively.

Figure 7: A more detailed version

of the waste hierarchy

Waste reduction

Re-use

Recycling & Composting

Energy recovery with heat & power

Energy recovery Landfill with energy recovery Landfill

Source: in Murray R. Creating Wealth from Waste from work by Merrill Lynch

9. A third alternative is possible by combining the two versions in Figures 6 and 7 into Figure 8. This retains the principle of moving up the hierarchy to a reduction-re-use-recycling-led strategy but makes a clearer distinction between these options and disposal or pre-treatment options.65 It is a clearer guide to non-waste experts and underpins the approach of the strategy set out later in this chapter and in

detail in the remainder of the report, namely to aim for options in the top half of the hierarchy. It provides a helpful way of focusing on the main themes in this strategy namely reducing, re-using and recycling waste. However, it should be stressed that it is not an accepted and legally

binding tool in the same way as the Waste Hierarchy in Figure 6 under the EC Waste Framework Directive.

Figure 8: SU version of the

waste hierarchy

Reduce Re-use Recycle

A mixture of pre- treatment and disposal options

10. However, it is clear that whatever the specification of the waste hierarchy, it can only be a partial guide to decision making. It shows an ordering of the options and illustrates that each step up will generate an additional environmental benefit. To be of practical use it needs to be assessed against other criteria, including costs, to reach an acceptable point on the hierarchy. This is why the principle of the BPEO is used by waste management experts at local level together with the hierarchy (see Box 7).
11. There are cases where the BPEO for a type of waste may be some way down the hierarchy.

Box 7: Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO)

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (12th Report) defined BPEO as

 for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable costs in the long term as well as in the short term.

65 This does not imply that pre-treatment or other disposal options have no value, nor that all the options within the lower half have the

same environmental impact

For example, recycling may not be the BPEO if Clarity about the roles and

the costs of recovery or transport emissions responsibilities of different associated with it are high compared to landfill.  stakeholders is important

12. For the remainder of this report the term

 residual waste is used to describe waste from 5.13 Everyone has a part to play in solving the household sources containing materials that problems associated with waste. The roles and have not been separated and sent for responsibilities of the different stakeholders reprocessing i.e. the bottom half of the SU should therefore be clear. Box 8 sets these out.

waste hierarchy .

Box 8: Roles and Responsibilities

Everyone should:

seek to minimise their own waste;

re-use, recycle and compost as much as they can;

buy recycled goods.

central government needs to:

take the lead in setting the strategic policy direction on waste management;

put in place an appropriate economic and regulatory framework to underpin the strategy;

ensure the key players are well informed about the strategy and its implications;

contribute appropriately to local authority funding to make the necessary changes; and

buy and specify products incorporating recyclates as part of its procurement policy.

local authorities need to:

put in place local strategies for sustainable management of municipal waste;

plan for and secure an appropriate range of facilities for the management of municipal waste within their area, including co-operation and joint planning with other local authorities and the private sector;

allocate sufficient resources to waste;

secure management of waste in line with the BPEO and their own local strategy; and

provide ongoing education and practical advice for local people.

Box 8: Roles and Responsibilities (continued)

The waste industry needs to:

provide an appropriate range of facilities to handle waste in line with government policy and regulatory requirements;

take responsibility for the safe, long term operation and aftercare of waste facilities;

mitigate, as far as it is practical, the impact of waste facilities on communities; and

identify and pursue opportunities for developing new technologies/approaches. manufacturers/processors need to:

comply with statutory obligations to recycle or recover materials, for example under producer responsibility obligations;

seek to recycle waste materials wherever their manufacturing processes allow it;

pre-treat waste, where necessary, before disposal to reduce hazards and adverse environmental impact;

comply with regulations and give their workforce the training to do so. householders need to:

minimise their own waste and encourage manufacturers to do so by refusing over packaged and wasteful products;

source separate waste and use recycling facilities provided including bring sites;

accept responsibility and ownership of their waste, including accepting waste management facilities where appropriate; and

manage their own waste responsibly, including not littering.

NGOs and the community sector need to:

work in partnership with local authorities and business to support local waste strategies;

deliver recycling services to households targeting particularly hard to reach groups;

help promote waste minimisation, re-use and recycling to householders.

The Environment Agency needs to:

regulate waste facilities and the handling, transport, processing, treatment and disposal of waste in line with the BPEO;

give advice to parties on the handling, transport, processing, treatment and disposal of waste and the operation of facilities; and

give advice to planning authorities on the appropriateness of sites for waste facilities.

Managing future uncertainty the top of the waste hierarchy as well as to the by keeping existing options residual waste options at the bottom.

open whilst creating new ones

5.14 Recent data is not a reliable guide to There also needs to be a clear future trends. There are economic, social and rationale for government technological factors that will influence future intervention

waste growth rates, the composition of future

waste streams, and the range of future options 5.15 The rationale for government intervention for waste management.[1] Any strategy needs to in the management and disposal of waste lies in prepare for the future by keeping options open a number of market failures, which mean that in and encouraging new ones to be developed. It the absence of government intervention, an

is important to avoid prematurely locking into economically efficient outcome would not be costly and irreversible options. This applies achieved. Box 9 gives more details.[2]

equally to the reduce-re-use-recycle options at

Box 9: Market failures in waste

Externalities: for markets to work efficiently, prices need to reflect all the costs and benefits associated with the production and consumption of goods and services. However, in the case of waste, the prices of most goods and services do not reflect the adverse impact of managing and disposing of waste streams on the environment. This leads to more waste being produced and less investment in alternatives such as recycling than is economically efficient.

Missing markets: for example there are poorly developed markets for recyclates.

Imperfect information: efficient markets require good information. But consumers are typically not well informed about the different environmental impacts or health effects of managing waste arisings from the products they buy.

Behaviour and attitudes: peoples views on and understanding of waste are sometimes limited or mis-informed (as shown elsewhere in this report, for example in Box 5 (chapter 4) on the MORI results).

Having set out the principles and the rationale for government intervention, what are the strategic choices that England faces?

16. The SU has conducted a detailed analysis of projected municipal waste arisings, waste management options and the associated expenditure. This was carried out with the help and advice of experts in the field68 as well as assessing other models69 and research.

17. This analysis sought to examine:

the trade-offs involved in placing emphasis on different parts of the waste hierarchy; and

the opportunities and constraints posed by different factors e.g. the composition of the waste stream and behavioural responses.

Four main options were analysed and compared with a status quo base case. A description of the options is set out in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Description of strategies modelled

A summary of the results of the analysis is shown in Figure 10.

68 Several pieces of work were specially commissioned by the SU: McLanaghan Dr. S. Delivering the Landfill Directive: The role of new and

emerging technologies, Parfitt Dr. J. Analysis of household waste composition and factors driving waste increases, Hummel Dr. J. Projecting Collection Costs, Tucker Professor P. and Speirs D. Modelling Forecasts of Recycling Participation Rates and Material Capture Rates for Possible Future Recycling Scenarios, Patel N. and Wheeler P. Facilities Model. The SU also convened a Data and Assumptions Panel to support the modelling work. More details of the data and assumptions used in the modelling work are given in Annex L

69 Strategic Option Appraisal Tool designed by AEA Technology to facilitate the development of strategies for waste disposal at local

authority level. It ranks options and their performance base on criteria such as economic, environmental, operational, technical or waste policy

70 Mechanical Biological Treatment. A hybrid treatment that stabilises biodegradable content and mechanically recovers recyclate from

residual waste. This is explained in more detail in Annex G

Figure 10: Benefits and costs of alternative strategic approaches, 2002-2020

18. Although the analysis suggests that doing nothing is the cheapest option, it fails to meet any of the key criteria. The other options are more expensive by between 5% and 13% but have a mixture of advantages and disadvantages. The extremes of adopting either high incineration or high recycling as a strategy are judged to be less flexible. Maximum recycling , although it scores highly in terms of environmental benefits, would require a huge change in culture and behaviour which was judged to be less feasible in policy terms than pursing a range of options, and still left a significant residual. Reduction in waste growth rates reduced costs and the number of facilities required by all the options.

The SU reduction and recycling option has considerable advantages

19. Different experts and members of the waste industry will have their own views, but looking across the whole waste system and its operation in England, the SU approach was judged to meet all the criteria and was not significantly (around 10%) more expensive than doing nothing .
20. The benefits would be:

although the focus is on reduction and recycling, it avoids locking in prematurely to any one method of reducing waste volumes or of disposing of waste. Indeed it aims to increase the options available. This keeps

options open and reduces future risks of planning and other delays may make it inflexibility in the face of changing difficult to get the collection infrastructure legislation, technology, or other factors;  and the required number of waste

management facilities in place. Most

it increases reduction, re-use and recycling

householders say they do not want landfill or and thus moves England up the waste

incinerators (even though in reality 80% of hierarchy;

the UK public live within 2km of a landfill,

it reduces the level of incineration and the open or closed). People say they do not want number of costly waste facilities required; landfill but are concerned about the risks and from incineration (even though the

once landfill taxes rise, it should lever in perception of the risk is massively higher than significant private sector funding and the reality about the same likelihood as the investment. risk of death from a lightning strike);[1]

...but also some risks and tough choices 5.23 Whilst the Government has a role in

creating the right economic conditions,

21. The main risk is that:

outlining national aspirations and providing

reducing the waste growth rate by 1% is funding for local authorities for a more challenging and ambitious. sustainable strategy, the reality is that many of the choices will ultimately fall to local authorities

22. The tough choices are:

and households. Waste is not always a high

what we are prepared to pay and prepared priority compared to many other areas of local to do; government e.g. education and social services.

changing the behaviour of households will 5.24 In short everyone seems to want a better not be easy. Many say they want to recycle environment and appear willing to recycle more and want a convenient doorstep collection, but few want to pay the additional cost for a

but only some are willing to pay for these better service.

new and better services. Many feel they pay

25. If we are to shift waste management onto

too much already but overestimate what they

a more sustainable footing and the benefits of pay by 4-5 times the actual amount;

doing this are clear then there needs to be

recycling will be an expensive option until additional funding, more choices for local markets for recycled goods are further authorities, a better informed public who are developed creating economies of scale; and  more involved in local strategies, and a

willingness to make relatively small changes

in lifestyle.

The recommended strategy

26. The recommended strategy has three strands as set out in Box 10.

Box 10: The SU recommended strategy

For the medium to long term, a strengthening of the economic and regulatory framework

to send clear signals about the direction of change; and

to secure the desired change in behaviour along the production-consumption chain.

This would be achieved through a series of measures including: substantive increases in landfill tax and new incentives on households to reduce waste and increase recycling by local authorities that wish to take this forward.

For the short to medium term, a package of investment measures to put waste management on a more sustainable path. This would include measures to:

increase waste minimisation;

boost recycling;

develop new technologies; and

improve information/data/the research base.

To support and deliver the strategy, these need to be backed up by effective delivery structures. This requires:

clarity at the centre of government about the direction and focus of waste policy;

a better link between policy and delivery on the ground;

funding for new waste infrastructure to deliver the SU strategy; and

the right skills and delivery structures at all levels to achieve change.

This strategy builds on the not specifying particular options from the Waste Strategy 2000 and centre but setting out the general direction

that aims to realise the vision;

moves it forward in a number

of important respects sdeetltiivnegry o tuoto tlhs eto p moliackye  inthster ucmhaenngtes ahnadppen;

27. The proposed strategy reinforces the and

current Waste Strategy 2000, and adds to it by: setting tougher and more challenging goals.

putting waste reduction and recycling at the

centre of the strategy as desirable and

achievable goals; Clear and explicit measures

recognising that disposal and pre-treatment are needed to judge its success of waste will remain part of waste 5.28 Success will have been achieved when the

management for the foreseeable future; goals set out above have been realised. In terms of intermediate indicators of success, those that are key are:

reducing the rate of household waste growth In summary

to 2% per annum by the end of 2006 and in

the longer term decoupling waste growth 5.30 Figure 11 summarises the links between from GDP; the vision, high level goals, strategy and

outcomes. The following chapters set out in

50% of households to be carrying out home more detail the proposals to strengthen the composting by 2006; economic and regulatory framework (chapter

the roll out of kerbside recycling collections 6); to invest in measures to put the country on across England focusing on organics first; to a more sustainable path for managing its waste (chapter 7); and to enhance funding and

a target of at least 35% of household waste delivery structures (chapter 8).

to be recycled or composted by 2010 and at

least 45% of household waste to be recycled

or composted nationally by 2015;

an absolute reduction in the amount of municipal waste going to landfill annually from 2007; and

30% of collection authorities to have tried incentive based schemes to encourage sound management of household waste by 2005/6.

5.29 Boxes 11, 12 and 13 set out how waste management in England in 2015 may change depending on the progress made in implementing the strategy set out in this report.

Kerbside recycling boxes photo courtesy of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

A kerbside recycling collection scheme in operation photo courtesy of David Mansell, Avon Friends of the Earth.

Box 11: Scenario 1 Do nothing how England might look in 2015

waste growth has continued unabated and waste costs have increased by 70%;

the number of landfill sites has increased by over 100 from 2002; there have been widespread protests about the shipping of waste from areas where there is little landfill available like the South East to the north of the country;

England s household recycling rate has continued to rise at only 1% per year and is just under 25% the target originally set in 1990 for the year 2000. Other EU nations such as Holland and Germany have recycling rates around 60%;

England has failed to meet the Landfill Directive in both 2010 and 2013 and the UK is currently suffering its fourth year of EU fines. These fines now come to just over £700 million. EU nations who have adopted sustainable waste management are losing patience with the UK;

attempts to meet the 2020 Landfill Directive by a massive increase in incineration are meeting with resistance in some areas;

England s reliance on landfill is causing problems for wider waste management as new EU regulations influenced by nations with lower waste growth, higher recycling and more advanced waste management options, hit the country harder;

industry too has been suffering under tighter waste regulation. Failure to invest in lean manufacturing and alternative waste management methods has undermined productivity and is now requiring a large programme of costly investment to meet new EU regulations;

a MORI Poll shows that most people see waste as a government problem and say that recycling is too difficult due to lack of investment in new recycling facilities. Discussion of the options has not taken place, awareness remains low, and NIMBYism[1] has increased;

England now faces a larger and more costly challenge to try and catch up with nations whose waste management is now 20-30 years in front of that of England; and

the UK remains at the bottom of the European waste management league.

Box 12: Scenario 2 the SU trajectory how England might look in 2015

refocusing existing funding along with new resources in 2003, plus an increase in landfill tax to £35 a tonne, has stimulated a clear transformation in UK waste management;

initiatives to help households reduce waste have paid dividends. Over 50% of UK households now compost at home. Waste growth dropped to 2% from 3% in 2006. It is now in line with GDP as in many other nations, and in the last 2 years has dipped slightly below that. This has reduced costs and the need for additional facilities;

it has also helped industry who, with advice from Envirowise and having made investment in changes, are now making substantial savings on raw materials and waste costs;

every home now has kerbside recycling for organic waste and key dry recyclables. Recycling has reached 45% in England putting the UK above average EU performance;

areas with incentives to reduce waste and recycle are doing even better and around 60% of authorities use this approach;

the new waste resource authorities introduced gradually from 2007, have changed the emphasis from waste disposal to resource management. They are paid based on their success in waste reduction, recycling and reducing residual waste;

LAs are working together, with industry and community groups to produce more effective solutions to waste management;

stimulation of the uptake of more existing and new technologies has provided a wider range of options to manage waste. A wider range of waste treatment methods are being used for handling residual waste: mechanical biological treatment, digestion, gasification and pyrolysis are being used along with a much smaller increase in incineration than was thought necessary to reduce the active waste going to landfill in 2002;

industry and households are now much more aware of waste and the environment. New markets for recycled goods have developed and participation in recycling continues to grow. This holds out the prospect of recycling rates reaching around 50% by 2020;

the Landfill Directive targets for 2010 and 2013 were met.

Box 13: Scenario 3 Doing even better how England might look in 2015

The SU strategy, which seemed ambitious in 2002, is now seen as setting the right direction and progress exceeded expectations:

initiatives to help households reduce waste have paid dividends. Over 60% of UK homes now compost at home. UK waste growth is now 0.5% lower than the growth in GDP at 1.5%. The UK is one of an exclusive club of nations who have managed to achieve this decoupling of waste growth from GDP (including Germany and the Netherlands). This has saved costs and the need for additional facilities;

the majority of local authorities have chosen to take up the option of incentive based schemes for household waste that suit their needs, where those who produce less waste and recycle more pay less. The principal that the polluter pays is now universally accepted;

everyone now participates effectively in kerbside recycling, suggesting that investment in education and information has paid dividends;

recycling rates in England are over 50% and could reach 60% by 2020;

the market for recycled and environmentally friendly goods is well established with people demonstrating their willingness to pay a little extra for goods that are better for the environment and produce less waste;

great leaps forward have been made in tackling wider wastes as well as municipal waste. Producer responsibility via regulation and voluntary agreement has brought about a significant reduction of waste and an increase in the recycling of materials. This has saved many companies money;

those industries who pioneered eco-design to produce such goods are making significant returns. As products that are less wasteful or easier to recycle become more prevalent, the reductions in waste growth are maintained and recycling increases;

the Landfill Directive targets for 2020 are met early without the 4-year derogations envisaged in the SU strategy;

green procurement is widespread throughout the public sector and targets have been exceeded.

6. ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Summary

Giving clear signals within the right economic and regulatory framework is crucial to securing a long-term and sustainable change in waste management.

Action is needed in the following five areas to put the right long term economic and regulatory framework in place:

greater incentives to  reduce the rate of growth in waste volumes. This requires mechanisms that reward households for producing less waste and recycling more; encouragement of voluntary producer responsibility obligations to produce less waste; and greater support for eco-friendly design;

new measures to encourage  re-use, such as deposit-refund schemes and designing civic amenity sites for re-use;

the promotion of more  recycling through support for the expansion of markets in recyclates; reviewing the use of BSI Standards to facilitate the use of recycled materials; and more proactive green procurement by central and local government;

encouragement of  composting ; and

greater incentives to move away from  landfill including a substantial increase in the landfill tax and more rigorously enforced fines for fly- tipping and other waste crimes.

Reform of the economic and Option (a): more incentives regulatory framework is crucial and rewards for households to to realising the vision produce less waste, re-use

1. This chapter sets out a comprehensive goods and recycle more

package of measures for strengthening the 6.3 Incentives for households could take a economic and regulatory framework required to number of forms:

put the waste management system on to a

sustainable path. These measures address five discounts on current charges i.e. Council Tax; objectives: cash incentives and reward schemes;

reducing the rate of growth in waste a mixture of free services and some charges volumes; for special services; and

encouraging the re-use of goods; freedom for local authorities to introduce

increasing recycling; various forms of direct and variable charging.

promoting more composting; and 6.4 Some of these already exist as pilots and trials as described in Boxes 14 and 15.

reducing the volume of waste sent to landfill

sites. 6.5 Variable charging in its broadest sense,

charging households according to the volume

of waste they produce is well established in Reducing the rate of growth in many other industrialised countries. Direct or

waste volumes variable charging schemes are used successfully

in over 17 other nations around the world[1] and

2. There are three main options: have been in use in parts of the USA for over 80

1. more incentives and rewards for years (see Box 16).

households to reduce the volume of

waste they produce;

2. strengthening producer responsibility obligations; and
3. greater incentives for eco-friendly design.

Box 14: An example of a successful variable charging scheme in the UK

A variable charging scheme for household waste collection was introduced twelve months ago by Blaby District Council in Leicestershire. This has reportedly increased the volume of recycled waste by 50% and significantly reduced the amount of waste sent to landfill sites.

Until last year, Blaby residents left their rubbish in black bags, with some households also provided with a container for recyclable materials. Under the new scheme, introduced across the district during 2001, households have been given a 140-litre wheeled bin compared to the usual 240-litre bin for their refuse. They also receive, on request, a green-lidded 140-litre bin for recyclable materials. Garden waste is only collected in special pre-paid sacks or special rented bins, but the council hopes to introduce a third bin for garden waste shortly.

Recyclable materials are collected fortnightly. Some 60% of households can recycle paper, plastic bottles and cans, and the remainder can recycle mixed paper and cardboard. If the refuse bin is filled before the end of the week, householders can buy refuse sacks from the council or have their refuse bin replaced with a larger one for an annual rental fee. Households with five or more people qualify for a discount on the fee.

Of the 37,750 properties served, just 7% are renting a larger bin or buying more refuse sacks. With no reports of increased dumping of household waste, this suggests that most householders have reduced the amount of mixed refuse they throw away.

The amount of recyclables collected by the kerbside scheme rose by 55% after the scheme was introduced across the district.

Source: ENDS Report 332, September 2002

Box 15: An example of incentives to encourage recycling

Recycling Incentive Trials in Brent and Lambeth

Two pilot studies were carried out over a six-month period between June and December 2001 to investigate the impact of offering cash incentives for participation in kerbside recycling schemes and for the amount of household waste put out for recycling. The pilots took place in Sudbury, Brent and Tulse Hill, Lambeth.

In Sudbury 1,240 household properties on an existing weekly multi-material kerbside collection round, including paper, glass, cans and textiles, were given a bar-coded collection box with information about the scheme at the start of the trial. The bar-codes were scanned by the collection officer using a hand held device each time the box was put out for recycling. Households were offered a £10 cash incentive if they put out the recycled box for collection

at least half of the time over the six-month trial period.

Box 15: An example of incentives to encourage recycling (continued)

Participation in kerbside recycling rose from 35% to 41%. The tonnage of recycling collected each week rose during the trial by 34% in comparison to the same time period preceding the trial. 22% of properties qualified for the £10 payment for participating at least half of the time.

In Tulse Hill, 887 households on a high-density housing estate were offered a £10 cash incentive for recycling at least half of the time over a six-month period. Residents were given a booklet of slips that they posted in a special box each time they used the recycling bins located on the estate. The slips, along with the glass, paper and can banks, were collected weekly. The participation rate for the Tulse Hill trial was 13%. A total of 1,872 valid slips were returned over the six-month trial, equating to 8.1% of possible usage. The average weight of material collected over the trial was 475 kilograms, an increase of 27%. Some 11% of households qualified for the £10 incentive.

Source: The Mayor of London s Draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy, 4D.21

6. A key element of these direct or variable it could penalise low-income families if poorly charging schemes is that the waste designed and implemented. Low-income management element of Council Tax is families already get Council Tax rebates and replaced by a charge related to the amount or similar rebates could be applied under

weight of unsorted waste in order to finance variable charging. In many countries with recycling services. It does not involve people variable charging schemes, disadvantaged being charged twice to have their waste people receive a free allowance, for example collected and disposed of. On the contrary, it in the form of free bags or stickers for bags to creates incentives to compost or recycle in order exempt them from charges; and

to lower the charge. The scheme is therefore

it can be complex or costly to administer . There

an incentive-based one where people who

are a variety of possible schemes and some compost and recycle pay less.

are very simple and inexpensive.

7. There are a number of issues that local authorities would have to consider if they chose to implement such a system:

there could be an increase in fly-tipping so far this has not happened to any significant

extent in any of the 17 countries with

variable charging schemes, and in the few

cases where it has occurred, the effect has

been temporary;

Box 16: Case study US experience with variable charging

significant reductions in waste disposal at landfills in the year following adoption of variable charging with an average reduction of 40% with a high of 74% and a low of 17%;

variable charging programmes accompanied by aggressive recycling had larger average decreases in tonnages landfilled than programmes with average recycling;

in the 12 cities that adopted a recycling programme prior to adopting variable charging, major increases in recycling occurred causing increases of 63% to 141% in 4 cases;

with few exceptions, city officials all reported no noticeable increases in littering, and said that illegal dumping was not a problem; and

there was evidence that individuals were undertaking significant source reduction activities i.e. trying to minimise the waste they produced.

Source: Research by DEFRA for Waste Strategy 2000

8. Implementation of direct or variable charging schemes in other countries has worked best where:

composting and recycling infrastructure is in place;

means for mitigating impacts for those on low incomes are in place;

the public have full information about the system and access to help and advice if they need it; and

there are significant fines for fly-tipping and other waste crimes.

Box 17: Measures to tackle fly-tipping

Fly-tipping the illegal dumping of rubbish poses a significant problem for a number of local authorities. Not only is fly-tipping anti-social and unsightly, it also poses a threat to the environment, wildlife and to public health and safety. Fly-tipping can be aggravated by poor waste collection services, a lack of proper disposal facilities (or short opening hours at civic amenity sites), or high charging for bulky refuse collection/trade waste. Many local authorities have started to crackdown on fly-tipping hot spots. This is done in co-operation with the police, local businesses and residents, testing methods such as the use of hidden cameras.

Local authorities including Manchester City Council have been tackling the blight of fly-tipping through a poster campaign, designed to make the public more aware of the anti-social nature of dumping rubbish. The Council s Operational Services Department also advertises a free collection service for most bulky goods from people s doors. And the London Borough of Barnet offers free skip weekends advertised through the local press. The skips are rotated around different areas of the borough, offering residents a convenient way of disposing of bulky items. A number of authorities also provide a public help-line for people concerned about fly-tipping or wanting to report a particular incident. SEPA (the Scott ish Environment Protection Agency) run a 24-hour freephone pollution hotline to report waste crimes.

Box 17: Measures to tackle fly-tipping (continued)

Further measures to tackle fly-tipping are being considered by central government. A recently published DEFRA consultation document Powers and Responsibilities in Public Spaces and Local Environments: Options for Reforming the Legislative Framework set out several options for dealing with fly-tipping, including:

extending investigative powers for fly-tipping to local authorities. The main enforcement body at present is the EA, and it may be that local authorities are better placed to deal with local fly- tipping offences, including minor incidents;

introducing more robust powers for clearing fly-tipped waste from private land, with the option of reclaiming costs for the clean-up; and

extending the duty of care to householders to require them to account for the safe and proper disposal of their waste in much the same way as businesses. Specific guidance would be issued to householders covering what they could and could not put into weekly household waste for collection and what would require specialist arrangements. Fixed penalty notices could be enforced for non-compliance.

The above options all have pros and cons, and are open to full consultation with stakeholders. The results of the consultation exercise, where relevant to this report, should be taken forward in line with the SU s Implementation Plan set out in Chapter 9.

9. Since local authorities face different 6.10 Local authorities would need to consider circumstances and are at different stages of the following to ensure a successful incentive- progress, implementation of any form of based scheme:

incentive scheme including variable charging

the case for piloting the scheme and its likely

should be a matter of local discretion. It

impact before full roll out;

would not make sense to introduce a uniform

national charging scheme in all areas. Local the arrangements for helping households on authorities will be best placed to judge the right low incomes and the specific needs of

time to introduce an incentive scheme in the households in particular dwellings e.g. flats; right form for their local area. But, in order to the adequacy of recycling, composting and

facilitate this, the Government should secure an other facilities; and

early legislative opportunity to grant local

authorities powers to implement incentive and the adequacy of measures to deal with fly-

tipping if it occurs.

charging schemes for waste if they want to do so.

Recommendation 1:

Local authorities that wish to take forward Option (b): producer

household incentive schemes to help reduce responsibility obligations

waste volumes and increase recycling should

be allowed to do so. 6.11 Producer responsibility is an alternative to

taxation or traditional regulation. It aims to move towards a lifecycle approach by making

the producer bear at least some of the costs of their products in and after use. Well-designed schemes give producers incentives to design products that minimise waste, or that can be re- used or recycled. Producer responsibility has been taken forward largely at European level, with voluntary agreements used at national level in the UK.

12. Currently, there are producer responsibility obligations for packaging, junk mail and newsprint. The packaging (which is regulatory

following implementation of the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste) and junk mail (voluntary) schemes require certain levels of recycling to be achieved by the producers. The voluntary agreement on newsprint sets target levels for the recycled content of newsprint.

13. While such schemes do place some extra costs on business, these appear to be small. Estimates of the compliance costs of the packaging regulations, for example, range from 0.18% of profit (large firms) to 2.2% (SMEs).[1]

Box 18: The UK Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations

The regulations place three main obligations on businesses (i.e. the producers ) each year:

to register with the EA, pay a fee and provide data on the packaging handled by the business in the previous year ( the registration obligation );

to recover and recycle specified tonnages of packaging waste ( the recovery and recycling obligations ); and

to certify whether the recovery and recycling obligations have been complied with ( the certifying obligation )*.

In addition, retailers have a consumer information obligation to inform consumers about various recycling issues.

Businesses handling 50 tonnes or less of packaging each year, and with turnover of £2million or less, are exempt from the regulations. A business may comply themselves, or join a registered compliance scheme, which will discharge the producer responsibility obligations for it.

In 1997 the UK recovered some 30% and recycled around 27% of packaging waste. By the end of 2001, some 48% was recovered and 42% recycled.

The Environment Council reached political agreement on a Common Position in October 2002, which envisages a minimum overall 60% recovery target, and an overall recycling target of between 55% and 80% by 2008. In addition, there are material-specific recycling targets of: glass 60%, paper 60%, metals 50%, plastic 22.5% and wood 15%. The European Parliament have yet to have their second reading but the review of the Directive is expected to conclude in 2003.

Box 18: The UK Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations (continued)

These higher targets suggest that packaging recovery from the municipal waste stream will become increasingly important. This underlines the need for segregation and sorting systems and infrastructure as well as co-operation at local level.

*The evidence takes the form of Packaging Recovery Notes (PRNs). Obligated parties that do not have access to their own sources of recycled materials can either buy them from the processors or sign contracts with collectors of recyclable material. PRNs therefore have a price. If there is a shortage of a particular material in relation to the target, then the price of PRNs should rise and increase supply (and vice versa).

14. Producer responsibility is likely to provide the clearest incentives for innovation and improvement when responsibility is related to producers own products and where action is introduced over a sufficiently long time scale to enable producers to change their products. There is, however, a balance to be struck between linking responsibility to producers own products and the most cost-effective ways of achieving particular targets. The best approach for some products may not work for others.

15. Voluntary agreements have the benefit of working with the relevant industry and avoiding the need for taxation or the burden of regulation. They can challenge industry to devise its own solutions to tackle environmental problems efficiently.75

Recommendation 2:

DEFRA and DTI should extend voluntary agreements with industry to reduce waste and increase the use of recycled materials and the recyclability of products.

Box 19: Junk mail

For some people direct or junk mail serves a useful purpose, and it is an important communication method for many companies, small businesses and charities. As such it contributes to national economic performance. However, many households dislike unsolicited mail. A proportion of junk mail ends up as household waste for disposal or as litter. Though junk mail represents only a very small proportion of the municipal waste stream, it still poses environmental problems, such as the loss of virgin forest to create the glossy paper often used.

Some measures to tackle junk mail are already underway. For example, DEFRA has negotiated a new voluntary producer responsibility scheme for the recycling of direct mail and promotions material with the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) the body representing most producers of junk mail. This initiative aims to increase the recycling of junk mail, minimise the quantity of junk mail sent to landfill, improve the targeting of its distribution, and reduce the use of contaminants in mailshots (e.g. glue). A Good Practice Guide for producers will also be published.

Members of the public can contact the Mailing Preference Service76 if they wish to have their names and home addresses removed from direct mailing lists. Some local authorities and/or local voluntary groups also distribute no junk mail stickers to households and produce hints and tips on reducing junk mail.77

75 Experience of voluntary agreements should help in identifying suitable candidates for further agreements and identifying successful

factors in implementation. Existing evidence shows that adding voluntary agreements to a policy mix of traditional command and control instruments can improve the flexibility and cost-effectiveness of the policies as well as reducing administration. OECD Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy, an assessment (1999)

76 Mailing Preference Service, DMA House, 70 Margaret Street, London W1W 8SS, telephone 020 7291 3310, web site

www.mpsonline.org.uk

77 For example, advising households that when dealing with their credit card company, donating money, or ordering a product or service they should mark their account with the words please do not pass or sell my name and address to any other company.

Option (c): stimulating eco- plastic bag tax has been a successful measure in friendly design terms of raising awareness and reducing litter.

Plastic bags are, however, a very small part of

16. There is currently relatively little incentive the municipal waste stream (substantially less for consumers to demand products which are than 1%).

designed to minimise waste over the life of the

6.20 Deposit refund schemes are another

product. Stronger incentives for households to

approach. Such schemes use an up front charge reduce waste would have some impact.

(deposit) combined with a refund payable when However, there may also be a case for providing

the waste product is returned to encourage re- financial incentives to manufacturers to test new

use (or recycling). They can have significant designs. Some pioneering industries have

impacts on return rates, litter and waste

already started to develop new products based

management costs and are suitable for products on eco-design (e.g. refillable packages for

that cause particular disposal problems. household cleaning products and toothbrushes

Applications in other countries have included with changeable heads). Industry has voluntarily

beer bottles, hazardous wastes, batteries and pushed eco-design objectives (e.g. product

light bulbs.81

stewardship by the chemicals industry and

 eco-design by Phillips).78 Recommendation 3:

DEFRA and WRAP should consider the

17. The Advisory Committee on Consumer

options for increasing incentives for the re- Products and the Environment (ACCPE) is

use of goods. More work is needed to assess already considering the role of eco-design and

the preferred means for different products integrated products design through a series of

and to establish where the impact on the recommendations to government.79

waste stream would be greatest.

Encouraging the re-use of goods Increasing recycling

18. Re-use means the multiple use of a product 6.21 There are five main options for increasing in its original form. Excluding exchanges within the volume of waste that is recycled:

families and the turnover of charity shops, the

1. developing markets for recycled goods and

market for second-hand goods in the UK totals

recyclates;

an estimated £3 billion a year.80

2. incentives for green products;

19. To date there have been few incentives for

re-use in the UK, and the packaging regulations (c) removing regulatory barriers;

exclude re-used materials. In other countries, (d) green procurement targets for the public there are a variety of incentives for re-use sector; and

including, for example, taxes on single-use

items such as batteries and the recently (e) targets for local authorities. implemented plastic bag tax in Ireland. The

78 OECD Working Party on Environmental Policy, OECD Household Energy and Water Consumption and Waste Generation: Trends,

Environmental Impacts and Policy Responses (2002)

79 Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment, Action for Greener Products: a tool-box for change. Second Report

(2002)

80 WRAP and Envirowise, The Size of the UK Recycling and Re-Use Industry (2002)

81 For a review of examples see Stavins R.N. Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments, discussion paper 00-09,

(January 2000)

Option (a): developing markets for recycled goods and recyclates

22. Markets for recycled goods and recyclates are still comparatively small. As these markets expand and increasing volumes of waste material are recycled, economies of scale and

greater stability of market prices can be expected to reduce the unit cost of recycled goods. It is important to continue and expand the work of WRAP (the Waste and Resources Action Programme) whose remit includes facilitating the development and expansion of these markets (see Box 20).

Box 20: Market Development by WRAP

WRAP is working to create stable and efficient markets for some of the 100 million tonnes of waste produced each year by households, industry and commerce. Its plan for delivering a step- change in recycling in the UK focuses on three generic areas (procurement, financial mechanisms, and standards and specifications) and five specific material streams (paper, glass, plastics, wood and, in England only, aggregates).

Some examples of its achievements include:

support for a capital investment of £23m in the UPM-Kymmene paper mill at Shotton, North Wales. If approved by the European Commission, this investment will boost the UK s paper recycling capacity by 30%, diverting an extra 320,000 tonnes of newspapers and magazines away from landfill;

support for investment of £5.5m in 34 research and development projects. Together, these projects which range from investigating the use of recycled glass in industrial-scale drinking water filtration to developing standards at European level for recycled plastics have the potential to prevent an extra 2.6 million tonnes of waste materials going to landfill;

creation of a British Standards Institution Publicly Available Specification (BSI PAS 100) for Composted Materials. BSI PAS 100, which lays the foundation for a first full British Standard for compost, was funded by WRAP and developed jointly with BSI and The Composting Association. Launched in November 2002, it has been designed to boost the market for composted products by improving production methods, increasing confidence among potential buyers and making it easier for end-users to identify high-quality composted materials; and

development of a model paper supply contract for use by local authorities in selling recovered paper to re-processors. One of the key aims of this initiative is to encourage broad acceptance of longer-term contracts that incorporate a degree of price predictability and thus reduce both parties exposure to market price volatility.

More details on WRAP and its progress to date can be found at www.wrap.org.uk/stakeholders_report.asp

Option (b): incentives for Recommendation 4:

 green products HMT and DEFRA should consider the case for

applying incentives such as economic

23. Green products are, in the broadest sense, instruments to encourage environmentally- those that have an environmental benefit and friendly products. This could include

can range from unleaded petrol and energy- differential product charges and incentives efficient light bulbs to products made from such as VAT reductions.

recycled materials. The European Commission s

Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy Option (c): removing

emphasised the potential role for economic

instruments to promote green products.[1] There regulatory barriers

are a number of incentives that could be

applied to increase demand for green  BSI Standards

products.

6.25 BSI Standards85 have been cited as a

6.24 These are:

potential barrier to the use of more recycled

taxes on non-green products to reflect materials by a number of stakeholders. BSI does negative externalities; not currently have a specific policy on the use of subsidies for green products [2] to reflect recycled materials in its Standards. However, BSI

positive externalities; are taking action in some areas. For example, in addition to their work with WRAP to produce a

differential VAT rates on products according Standard for composted material (see Box 20), to their environmental characteristics;[3] and they are producing a suite of Standards for

market incentives to promote green products material recovery and for the use of recycled such as eco-labelling. plastics material as packaging.

Further work is required to evaluate the case for Recommendation 5:

applying these in the UK, in particular: DTI should also work with DEFRA, WRAP, industry and the BSI Group to assess what

the gains of switching demand to alternatives

more can be done to promote the use of

i.e. whether the benefits would outweigh the

secondary resources where appropriate economic and administrative costs;

through BSI Standards. Where practical, they

the sensitivity of demand in response to price should review areas of standardisation which signals; may be unnecessarily blocking the use of what is a clear and workable distinction recycled goods; and consider whether an

between green and non-green products and affirmative policy on the use of recycled

how this might change over time; and materials in BSI Standards might be

appropriate.

potential infringement of international trade rules.

Building regulations

26. One of the reasons that people give for not recycling is the lack of room in their homes to store separated material.86 In future such storage space should be an integral part of the design of living space in new developments. Existing building regulations and planning guidance do not cover designing in space for the storage of items (such as recyclates) either inside or outside the home.

Recommendation 6:

ODPM should revise the building regulations to require, where there are new housing developments with more than 50 houses,

that space is allocated within the

development for easily accessible recycling facilities. Similar requirements should be taken forward in Housing Corporation standards for new social housing schemes and NHBC standards for new private housing developments.

Option (d): green procurement targets for the public sector

27. The Government can play a significant role in boosting markets for recycled materials by increasing targets for green procurement. A high-level inter-departmental Sustainable Procurement Group (SPG)87 has been set up by DEFRA to raise awareness of the importance of green procurement across government.

28. Although some progress has been made, performance across departments against targets set by Green Ministers88 remains patchy. For example, there has been wide variation in the performance of departments against the key target to recover 25% of total office waste from recycling or composting in 2000/1, rising to 70% by 2003/4. While a few departments have been exceeding their recycling targets, others are recycling less than 25%.89 Pilot arrangements for departments to procure recycled goods, initially paper, were announced in Waste Strategy 2000 but to date have not been successfully taken up. Targets proposed by SPG, in partnership with WRAP, address some areas of government procurement of particular environmental concern where there is scope for improvement. These are set out in Box 21.

86 MORI research report for SU and ENCAMS study op. cit

87 SPG is feeding into the new Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate to be published in Spring 2003 (see

http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk). This new Framework supersedes the Greening Government initiative and will incorporate new targets

88 Green Ministers are tasked with considering the impact of government policies on sustainable development and championing

sustainable development in their own departments. For details of published targets see the Greening Government Third Annual Report (2001) at http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk

89 Data from the Greening Government Third Annual Report (2001) e.g. the Home Office recycled 21% of its waste in 2000/01; the ONS

22%; and DfEE 25%. A number of departments did not submit data, in part because some may not have had adequate data collection systems in place at the time

Box 21: SPG/WRAP proposed targets* for government green procurement

Targets for paper

White copier paper recycled fibre should comprise a minimum of 35% of the weight of paper procured in any one year by 2003/4, increasing to a minimum of 75% by 2006/7.

Tissue (eg hygiene products) to be made from 100% recycled material from 2003/4. Packaging to consist of 100% recycled materials from 2003/4.

Targets for construction materials

For aggregates, a target of at least 10% recycled (by weight) by 2003/4, rising to 20% by 2006/7.

For all other construction materials, a target of at least 10% (by value) by 2003/4, rising to 25% by 2005/6.

(Suggested targets apply per project and would not be applicable to projects under £500,000 in value.)

*As of December 2002, targets are still being finalised. Further details on these targets, including the reasoning behind them, are included in Annex E on Greening Government procurement, available on the Strategy Unit web site at www.strategy.gov.uk.

29. In local government, sustainable procurement is also used inconsistently and is part of a broader issue of procurement management. The Byatt review of local authority procurement skills[1] recommended that every authority should have in place a formal documented procurement strategy. According to the Audit Commission,[2] 80% of procurement strategies are inadequate, either because they are not finalised, not implemented, or do not cover all the necessary issues. Byatt also highlighted the importance of local authorities working in partnership with each other to negotiate contracts more effectively.
30. The SU supports the work that WRAP is undertaking with the LGA and IDeA[3] to promote the take-up of green procurement by

local authorities and the training of

procurement officers. This work should continue and be extended to the pooling of knowledge, perhaps through regionally based procurement units. It is also suggested that formal mechanisms are put in place by Green Ministers93 to roll-out best practice tools developed by SPG to local government.

Recommendation 7:

OGC and other Departments should work through SPG and WRAP to finalise targets for the use of recycled materials as set out in Box 21. Departments should put in place a trained Green Procurement Officer (either combined with a finance officer s role, or as a separate post). Consideration should also be given to setting specific waste

minimisation targets for office waste streams, for example, for office paper.

Recommendation 8:

ODPM and the LGA should consider setting voluntary environmental procurement targets for local authorities to encourage

the purchase of more recycled goods and services, to minimise waste volumes and to encourage them to recycle more of their waste. These targets might be incentivised in a number of ways, for example through links to implementing service area targets within Sustainability Action Plans or re-instating waste in Beacon status for councils.

Option (e): targets for local authorities

31. The Government has set statutory performance standards for each Waste Collection Authority and Waste Disposal Authority. These have been set at a level to ensure that each authority contributes proportionately to the achievement of the national targets in 2003/4 and 2005.94 In addition there are nine Best Value Indicators for waste management.95

32. The statutory targets are intended to drive up the rate of recycling but they risk creating perverse incentives. Since the targets are expressed as percentages of total waste tonnages, there is a particularly strong incentive to recycle the heaviest items such as green waste, but this may not be the economically or environmentally most efficient outcome. Moreover, they risk encouraging the collection of additional green waste, which could be more cost-effectively managed through home composting.96 There are no explicit targets for waste reduction, despite Waste Strategy 2000 stating that these should be a priority.97
33. The nine Best Value Indicators (see Box 22) also contain various anomalies:

they are based on the tonnage collected with no indicator of success in reducing waste collected;

they include an indicator for the cost of waste disposal per tonne . But costs could be reduced by disposing of more waste at landfill sites.

94 Taking performance from the 1998/99 baseline data, these standards equate for many authorities to doubling their 1998/99 recycling

rate by 2003/4. Audit Commission Waste Management: Guidance for improving services

95 see http://www.bvpi.gov.uk

96 Where local authorities are offering green waste collections, there is evidence of a significant increase in waste growth compared to

those that do not. Parfitt J. (2002)

97 Evidence suggests a correlation between waste reduction and those authorities that have encouraged home composting. However, in

some cases local authorities have encouraged waste growth through issuing 240 litre bins, compared to the normal bin size of 140 litres, and proposing that waste is only collected fortnightly even though pressure to maintain service levels has often resulted in weekly collections. Parfitt J. (2002)

Box 22: The nine Best Value Indicators

Waste management is a key service provided by local authorities and a number of Best Value Indicators have been set for waste management services. These are:

1. The tonnage and percentage of household waste arisings that are

recycled

composted

used to recover heat, power and other energy sources

landfilled

2. Weight of household waste collected, per head

3. Cost of keeping land clear of litter and refuse per km

4. Cost of waste collection per household

5. Cost of municipal waste disposal, per tonne

6. Number of collections missed per 100,000 collections of household waste

7. Percentage of people satisfied with cleanliness standards in their area

8. Percentage of people expressing satisfaction with

recycling facilities

household waste collection

civic amenity sites

9. Percentage of population served by a kerbside collection of recyclable waste, or within one kilometre of a recycling centre.

Source: Waste Strategy 2000, Vol. II

34. The SU has reviewed whether the current targets and indicators should be amended. There are several options that would provide better-focused targets:

a waste minimisation target alongside the recycling rate;

a balanced scorecard approach combining waste minimisation and recycling and a residual waste target; and

a residual waste target i.e. a volume limit on waste after re-use and recycling/composting

a declining target would be set over time.

35. All have merits in principle: they are simple, output based and would provide incentives consistent with overall strategic objectives. However, there are practical difficulties in their application the key one being definitions e.g. what counts as residual waste.[1]
36. The most effective target would be the residual one. It is simple and moves away from the unnecessary focus on tonnage based recycling rates, which have led to increased waste growth.

Recommendation 9: Recommendation 10:

DEFRA together with ODPM, the Audit DEFRA should continue to encourage the Commission and WRAP should develop development of quality standards for proposals for alternative indicators that compost, ensuring in particular that the incorporate success in reducing waste needs of the customer are taken fully into volumes. New targets for local authorities account. These quality standards should should then be set to reflect the SU waste inform DEFRA s position during any reduction and recycling strategy. negotiations on an EU Bio-waste Directive.

6.42 DEFRA should also develop a bio-waste

Promoting more composting strategy addressing, amongst other issues:

37. Markets for compost, as well as for making available a soil map showing where recyclates have a vital role to play in reducing compost may benefit agricultural land;

the volume of biodegradable municipal waste the provision of advice to farmers on the going to landfill.  agricultural and environmental benefits of

38. The most immediate issue concerning compost;

compost has been raised by the Animal By the contribution compost can make as a Products Order (ABPO) 1999. Amendments to carbon sink for the UK climate change

the ABPO in 2001 effectively banned the programme; and

composting of catering waste by making it

illegal to spread the resulting compost on land the scope for extending farm environment where animals (including wild birds) may have schemes to cover the improvement of soil access. This has halted progress in the use of quality through the application of compost.

compost on agricultural land. DEFRA have

issued a consultation paper on changes to the Reducing the volume of waste ABPO that will allow the composting of catering

waste and its spreading on land, under certain sent to landfill sites

conditions.99 6.43 The main options are:

39. Currently there are no statutory standards (a) a further increase in the landfill tax;

for compost; however this may change as the

EU is expected to begin negotiations on a Bio- (b) banning waste from landfill.

Waste (the biodegradable fraction of waste)

Directive sometime in 2003. In the meantime a Option (a): a further increase full national British Standard has been

developed by the Composting Association, in the landfill tax

WRAP and BSI (see Box 20).  6.44 The UK introduced a landfill tax in 1996.

40. The development of markets for organics There are two tax rates: a standard rate,

is considered further in Chapter 7. originally set at £7 per tonne, for active

wastes; and a lower rate of £2/t for inactive

41. A separate annex on biowaste is available

wastes.100 While the lower rate has remained at on the SU web site.

99 In the absence of domestic legislation on this issue, the terms of the EU Animal By-Products Regulation will become UK law. These

requirements are much more stringent and probably rule out composting operations using catering waste as the feed material

100 Inactive waste includes: rocks and soil, ceramic or concrete materials, minerals, furnace slags, ash, low activity inorganic compounds,

calcium sulphate, calcium hydroxide and brine, water

£2/t since inception, the standard rate was increased to £10/t in 1999. Current policy for the standard rate is based on the escalator announced in 1999, under which there was to be a series of five annual £1/t increases from April 2000 to April 2004. The standard rate for active wastes will therefore reach £15/t in April 2004.

45. When the landfill tax was introduced the rates were based on estimates of the environmental externalities (i.e. the environmental costs that are not reflected in the market price) associated with disposing of waste at landfill. As mentioned above, current policy for the standard rate is based on the escalator announced in 1999. In effect, the landfill tax has become more of a behavioural tax, designed to reduce further our reliance on landfill, and encourage a shift towards more sustainable waste disposal practices.
46. The annual revenue raised by the tax is £502 million (2001/02)101 net of contributions to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, of which 95% is active waste revenue. This is offset by a 0.2% reduction in employer National Insurance Contributions.
47. Since the introduction of the tax, there has been a 60% reduction in the volumes of

 inactive waste sent to landfill sites, whilst the volume of active waste sent to landfill has remained broadly unchanged.102 The latter is explained by the fact that the costs of landfill, including landfill tax, remain low compared to other alternative methods of treatment/disposal.

Moreover, landfill disposal costs represent a relatively small proportion of business operating expenses.103

48. If a reduction in landfill is desirable (and the earlier chapters of this report argue it is), a further increase in the landfill tax would be one way in which this could be achieved.104,105,106

It would be important, however, that any increase in the landfill tax strikes the right balance between stimulating the desired change in behaviour whilst not imposing unacceptable burdens on local authorities and business.

49. Of the total revenue sourced from active waste, approximately 46% is paid by business and the remaining 54% by local authorities. Some analysis has shown that for business sectors, a landfill tax as high as £45/tonne would mean that waste management costs would rise to at most only a few tenths of a percent of turnover in any one sector.107 However, this analysis would need to be supplemented by more work to look at the impact in more detail.

101 Latest year. The Landfill Tax Credit Scheme is explained in more detail in Chapter 7. Source: Customs and Excise Annual Boards

Reports

102 Customs and Excise

103 Quoted in ACBE Resource Productivity, Waste Minimisation and the Landfill Tax (August 2001) Original source: Effectiveness of the

Landfill Tax in the UK: Barriers to Effectiveness and Options for the Future, ECOTEC Research and Consulting (March 1998)

104 Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee 5th Report op.cit

105 ACBE, op.cit

106 Budget 2002: The Government anticipates that the standard rate of landfill tax will need to be increased significantly in the medium

term as part of the mix of future policy measures.

107 ACBE, op.cit

Figure 12: Landfill tax rates and prices in other countries

Sources: OECD, ENDS and Austrian Federal Environment Agency, 2002

50. Of those countries which have a landfill tax, the UK currently has the lowest tax rates for active waste (Figure 12), apart from France (which has an escalator of 1 Euro per tonne per annum) and Finland which is proposing large

increases (See Box 23 below). As the UK also has relatively low gate fees[1] the overall cost of landfill remains low compared to other countries.

Box 23: Recently announced increase in landfill tax in Finland

The Finnish government has proposed doubling its landfill tax over the next three years. A newly approved national waste plan, covering the years 2002 to 2005, stresses the need for urgent measures to improve waste management practices in Finland as progress has been slow. Under the plan, waste taxes are to rise in steps from their present level of   15.14 per tonne of waste to  30 per tonne by 2005. Revenue is to be used to increase government spending on research and development and other investments in waste management.

51. Like businesses, a rise in landfill tax will provide local authorities with an incentive to

fund alternative ways of managing and

disposing of waste. For example, increasing recycling through civic amenity sites and bring sites the lowest cost ways of recycling would become economically attractive options.

52. It is not envisaged that the operation of the tradable allowances scheme (Box 24) will be adversely affected by increases in the landfill

tax. It supplements the effect of the tax by providing an additional incentive to ensure that targets under Article 5 of the Directive relating to biodegradable municipal waste will be met. However, significant rises in landfill tax rates to those approaching the highest rates in Europe, could remove the incentive for local authorities to trade allowances as the net cost of diverting waste to alternative waste management options falls.

Box 24: Tradable landfill allowances for local authorities

The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill was published on 15 November 2002. Part 1 of the Bill sets up a system of tradable landfill allowances. This is believed to be the first of its kind in Europe. If an active trading market develops, this system should help to ensure that the targets in Article 5 of the Landfill Directive are met in the most cost efficient and effective way for the UK as a whole.

Waste disposal authorities will be able to send to landfill biodegradable municipal waste only up to the levels of the allowances which they hold. Local authorities that divert more waste away from landfill (e.g. though more recycling) will be able to trade their unused allowances with a local authority that does not hold enough allowances to cover the amount of waste it plans

to landfill.

The key advantage of tradable allowances is that they allow the Landfill Directive targets to be met at less cost. This is because those authorities with high costs of diversion from landfill will wish to buy allowances from those with lower costs of diversion so that they can continue to landfill. Lower cost diverters will be incentivised to over-achieve their targets and receive an income from selling the surplus allowance.

53. Lessons from the introduction of high it forces all firms to comply regardless of the rates of landfill tax in other countries include: costs.

the importance of signalling the increase 2 to 6.57 There is less of a case for applying a ban 3 years in advance to allow time for the now, however it could be retained as an option transition and the development of for the future. A suitable time for review would alternatives; and be 3-4 years before the first Article 5 target on municipal biodegradable waste to landfill in

there may be advantages in banning specific

2010.

waste products from landfill sites in parallel

with the tax increase.  6.58 A specific ban on biodegradable material

could be considered if the other instruments

54. Based on SU analysis of the relative prices

designed to meet Article 5 of the Landfill Directive of waste management options, a landfill tax rate

were failing to make progress. Another alternative of £35/t would provide a sufficient incentive to

is to impose a ban on recyclable materials at some change behaviour and reduce reliance on

future point. Consideration could also be given to landfill as the major waste management option.

109 extending a similar ban to incineration.

This is broadly in line with previous estimates.

Recommendation 12:

Recommendation 11:

DEFRA and DTI should review the case for a HM Treasury should consider an increase in

ban on the landfilling of recyclable products the landfill tax to £35/t for active waste in

in 2006/7 and at the same time consider the the medium term.

case for a similar ban on incinerating

55. The proceeds from an increased landfill recyclable products.

tax are considered in Chapter 8.

Should there be a

Option (b): banning waste complementary increase in from landfill fines?

56. The combination of instruments

6.59 As the landfill tax increases and waste costs

recommended in this chapter should provide a

go up, there is a strong argument for increasing strong incentive to reduce volumes of waste

the penalties for illegal dumping of waste.

sent to landfill. Consideration of a ban would be

necessary if these instruments were less effective 6.60 The evidence on fines and prosecutions than anticipated.110 However, an outright ban shows that current penalties are low. Although has several disadvantages: the fines imposed for waste offences by

Magistrates Courts under Section 33 of The

it allows less flexibility within the waste

Environmental Protection Act 1990 have been management system compared to economic

gradually increasing,111 the average levels of incentives;

fines still fall far short of the maximum that can

it can be counterproductive if, for some be awarded for waste offences i.e. up to

wastes, landfilling is the most cost-effective £20,000 as shown by Figure 13 below.

option; and

109 See for example Biffa Future Perfect(2002) and the House of Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee Fifth

Report

110 Sweden has banned combustible municipal waste from landfill from January 2002. This was first proposed in 1997. Sweden already

landfills just under one quarter of household waste, the figure is estimated to fall as low as 5-10% within three years (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency)

111 Data supplied by the Environment Agency. Maximum penalties for waste offences under Section 33 (8) of The Environmental

Protection Act 1990: on summary conviction, imprisonment for up to six months or a fine up to £20,000 or both; on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for up to two years or a fine or both

Figure 13: Prosecutions and average fines for various waste

management offences between 1999-2002

14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000

0

Individuals & Individuals Organisations Individuals Organisations Organisations

Offence 1 Offence 2 Offence 3

Offence 1: Section 33 Unauthorised or harmful depositing, treatment or disposal of waste Offence 2: Section 33 (1) (a) Fly-tipping and Related Offences

Offence 3: Section 33 (6) Contravention of conditions of a waste management licence

61. A recent Home Office report112 on fine Recommendation 13:

enforcement in magistrates courts highlighted The Home Office/Lord Chancellor s

the need for more effective imposition of fines Department should ensure that guidance

at the point of sentencing; shortening directed to magistrates is sufficient to timescales for enforcement actions; and support more prosecutions for waste crimes. measures to deal with persistent offenders. Strengthening the role of other deterrents to More generally, the report highlighted the waste crimes, such as vehicle confiscation, importance of increasing courts capacity to driving license removal, and more on the trace and pursue offenders more efficiently and spot fines, should also be considered.

the need for better training for magistrates.

62. The Lord Chancellor s Department has in Even if high levels of recycling place (from April 2002) a 2-year collection are reached, it will still leave a

sncehtteemde o bffyawndh icreht urernveedn ut eo ft rhoem c ofiunr et ss , p r ainidg -is significant proportion of the fenced for enforcement. Legislation on more waste stream to be managed stringent fine enforcement arising from the 6.63 Less of England s waste stream will go to

Government s Justice for All White Paper113 is landfill for the reasons explained in earlier

also being taken forward through the Courts chapters. The implications for incineration and Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on 28 other residual waste management methods will November 2002.  depend on the success of the future waste

112 Home Office, Fine enforcement in magistrates courts (2002)

113 The Government White Paper Justice for Allwas published in July 2002 and set out a programme of reform of the Criminal

Justice System

management strategy in reducing waste volumes, increasing re-use and promoting recycling. The more successful these aspects of the strategy, the smaller will be the volume of residual waste to be disposed of, and the lower the requirement for associated facilities.

64. England makes less use of incineration than other industrialised countries (see Box 25). Incineration capacity has been increasing very slowly in the UK in recent years. There are currently 12 incinerators dealing with municipal waste.

Box 25: How other countries manage their residual waste

The two main methods of managing residual waste in other nations are incineration and landfill.

Incineration is widely used in other nations as a means of recovering some energy as electricity and heat.

It accounts for about 20% of municipal waste management on average in the EU. Even countries with high recycling rates e.g. the Netherlands incinerate around 30% of their waste. The UK currently incinerates about 9% of its waste.

Despite having kerbside recycling and other measures in place to tackle waste, the Italian Government has recently decided it must build some incinerators to deal with residual waste and has set out a national programme to this end.

What is the potential role of incineration?

65. Although there is some recovery of energy and heat from incineration it can be quite small, and the EU is currently deciding if incineration should be classified as a disposal option. In the SU s view, recycling is higher up the waste hierarchy than incineration. However, incineration is widely used in the EU (even in nations with high recycling rates) for waste that is not easily recycled or cannot be recycled as an alternative to landfill.
66. Its place in England s waste management, like any other option for managing residual waste, depends on our success in reduction, re- use and recycling and the development of alternative residual waste facilities such as MBT. If we do not reduce our residual waste/develop alternatives we will need far more incinerators to manage residual waste.

67. Ultimately it is for local authorities to decide on the BPEO for managing their waste. When considering incineration they should:

take care to avoid being locked into long term tonnage contracts that do not take account of plans to reduce and recycle considerably more waste;

make the choice between lower costs, by sharing large-scale incinerators with neighbours, and higher cost local incinerators on a smaller scale;

give thought to the development of contracts that only allow the incineration of residual waste i.e. waste after it has been pre- segregated; and

consider other options like MBT for managing residual waste.

68. The aim should be to find the best options Recommendation 14:

for dealing with waste which cannot be The case for an incineration tax should be reduced, re-used or recycled. This is a decision kept under review. The purpose of raising

best made by local authorities depending on the landfill tax is not to promote

local circumstances.  incineration at the expense of all other

options, but rather to send a clear signal about landfill.

Should there be a

complementary introduction 6o.f7a0ppAl nyiyn gre dvii effwer eshn oti uall dt acxo  nrastidese  re .tgh.e  t po o psrsoibmilio tyte of an incineration tax? cleaner technology and/or on different types