|
Limiting Landfill - the Project
Integra Response The objective of
the legislation is to: -
Limit the use of Landfill
Build up alternatives to deal with biodegradable
municipal waste
Encourage minimization of biodegradable municipal
waste
Main areas of concern
1. Definition
of municipal waste
In order to ensure that a consistent
approach in the comment on and implementation of this legislation can be made,
clarification of the given definition is required.
"Any other waste under the control of local
authorities or their agents acting on their behalf."
This definition could limit the target to collected
household waste, waste delivered to civic amenity sites, fly tipped waste and street
cleansing arisings. In addition waste from parks and gardens, cemeteries and highways
maintenance could be included. If the definition was stretched to its logical conclusion,
commercial waste collected by local authority contractors or preferred contractors could
also be incorporated into this figure. Accurate definition of specific waste fractions had
lead to much controversy over recent years in many areas, not least in the much-maligned
calculations of the recycling rate. Current definitions of municipal waste vary according
to source e.g. "a way with waste", the Audit Commission guidance and the new
Best Value performance indicators.
2. Waste Growth
Once the definition of municipal
waste is agreed, it is possible to calculate with confidence the amount of biodegradable
municipal waste which may be disposed of in landfill in the future. However, based upon
the points raised below and comments in "a way with waste", it is not possible
to predict future waste growth with confidence.
One important lesson to be learned from the
implementation of the landfill tax is that the single most measurable effect for local
authorities was not in the reduction of waste, but the dramatic shift of waste from the
commercial and industrial sectors to the municipal waste stream. This movement has lead to
an unprecedented rise in the municipal waste stream for specific fractions of waste.
** HWRC and NAWDO Graphs – See Attached
In addition, consumption patterns have altered to
such an extent that it is not possible to predict how either changes in the economic
climate or changes in related legislation will effect the municipal waste stream.
For example the growth of the fashion industry, the
development of new materials and the relative affluence of householders in the UK has led
to a growth in the amount of textile waste, comparable only to development of the
packaging waste stream.
Growth predictions are critical when to planning to
meet obligations, and can themselves be affected by interventions e.g. Landfill tax;
therefore care is needed.
3. Related Legislation
In terms of reducing waste production
and limiting landfill it is interesting to note that no clarification or amendment of
existing legislation is proposed as a part of this consultation.
At present all of the legislative emphasis is being
placed upon the waste disposal industry who have no direct influence over municipal waste
production.
The waste collection authorities who are not
obligated by this proposed legislation have no direct powers to restrict the amount of
waste collected.
The householder is not encouraged or obliged to act
in any way to reduce the amount of waste they produce, and in turn no message is being
sent to producers to look at a way of reducing the amount of this type of waste entering
the system.
Local authorities are under increasing pressure to
collect more household waste and are constantly being challenged in their efforts to
minimize waste by their obligation under existing legislation.
4. Bans
In principle we are not able to
support the use of bans as a method of reducing biodegradable municipal waste. Simply
restricting the disposal of this fraction of waste does not add any incentives to plan for
alternative methods of disposal and reduction.
5. Permits
In principle the implementation of
permits system is preferred to a variation of the landfill tax or selective bans. A well
allocated permit system with permits controlled by Waste Disposal Authorities will
encourage the sort of long term planning required for the implementation of real solutions
for the reduction and alternative use of this material.
6. Conclusion
That the project Integra partners
support the implementation of option four alongside: -
- A review of the legislation affecting waste collection in order to
empower Waste Collection Authorities to develop flexible strategies to reduce waste at the
point of collection.
- The introduction of a statutory obligation for WDAs and WCAs to
produce joint waste management strategies.
Detailed Comments
1. Composition of waste and the four year
extension
2.7 The analysis of the biodegradable content of municipal waste as
stated above is dependent on the definition of wastes to be included as those under the
control of local authorities. In addition the fraction of biodegradable waste that may not
be separated, such as composite material, needs to be calculated and deducted.
See attached table **
2.16 To have a mechanism based upon the amount of biodegradable
municipal waste to be landfilled rather than the amount to be diverted is supported,
providing there is confidence in the 1995 figures.
2.19 It is our view that the UK should utilise the four-year
extension to the targets, as although the initial target could be met by some authorities,
the lead time for alternative treatments such as ERI and AD is significant. Partners in
Project Integra have shown that ten years is not an unreasonable lead time in order to
effect the move to Energy Recovery Incineration. The statement "dash to energy from
waste" shows a lack of understanding in drafting that dents our confidence in
Government proposals.
Growth is a significant factor in the UK’s
ability to deliver its obligations, the additional four years will definitely be required
if the 3% per annum growth figure proposed in "a way with waste" is correct.
2. Contracts and Contractors
3.9 Project Integra is based upon a service based
contract where the contractor has an obligation to process all waste in accordance with
legislation and contractual obligations. Any increased costs incurred by the contractor
arising from new legislation to deliver the landfill directive would be passed through to
the local authority clients. The local authorities currently meet all Landfill Tax costs
incurred in delivery of service.
It is considered appropriate that contractors should
not be unduly penalised as a result of changes in legislation, however, it is also
important that no system is adopted which allows private companies to profit without any
obligation to either increase efficiency or directly affect the reduction of waste at
source.
3.12 In order to ensure that sufficient lead time is allowed for the
development of alternative methods of disposal or treatment, we support the view that
statutory action should be taken before the first target is met. Our initial
investigations indicate that in Hampshire we can meet the first target, although this is
dependent upon the successful implementation of Energy Recovery Incineration.
See attached graph **
As a result of the partnership working of
Project Integra, we estimate that in terms of planning for alternative methods of waste
treatment and disposal we have an advantage over many authorities not working together in
this way. This advantage will ensure that we are able to meet the required targets.
Without new legislation, the necessary long term planning will not be implemented on a
sufficient scale for all authorities to meet the second and third term targets.
3. Permits
4.8 The option of issuing permits rather than
implementing bans allows the development of a workable system. Local authorities must be
able to secure disposal, therefore private contractors have to recognize waste disposal
authorities’ requirements.
Although permits are undoubtedly the most workable
option, it is at this point we as local authorities would like to stress our strongest
recommendation.
In order to meet all of the objectives of the
landfill directive, it is imperative that permits are not issued in such a way as to
encourage profiteering by parties with no direct responsibility for municipal waste
collection and disposal.
Any system which allows control over permits by
landfill operators, will detract from the other objectives of BPEO and the proximity
principal. Local authorities need to take responsibility, with support, to plan for the
reduction of this type of waste. This planning will require cooperation with other parties
including contractors, and any new initiatives will require investment. Any process of
cooperation and development would be disadvantaged by the actions of landfill operators
whose primary function is to make a profit.
Authorities have an obligation to collect and
dispose of waste from householders. We are publicly accountable and are in a position to
plan strategically to reduce the amounts of biodegradable municipal waste being sent to
landfill. Placing the onus on local communities via WDAs should help to bridge the gap
over planning permission problems.
Why would we then pass control of permits or
organization of the reduction of this type of waste stream to private companies who are
not accountable to the general public and have no contact or impact on the amount of waste
produced.
In Hampshire we are fortunate to work in good
communication with a true partnership approach to integrated waste management. Our
contractor will seek ways to operate that meet the requirements of BPEO and the proximity
principal in order to meet the requirements of this proposal. However, they are
commercially driven and their appropriate accountability is to their shareholders to make
a profit.
We are being asked to implement a strategy that will
not benefit from the introduction of a completely free market for those not obligated. If
permits are to be tradable, the money has to be available for development, not just
profit. If companies have access to permits they will be sold to the companies’
advantage. If WDAs hold the permits, they will be used to fund research and development
and will be invested in alternative processes.
4. Permits and the Partnership Approach
4.12 In order to ensure sufficient cooperation
between collection and disposal authorities, it is necessary to ensure that there is a
balance of risk. Currently waste disposal authorities are being asked to carry too much
uncontrolled risk associated with population growth and growth in waste arising. Although
power could be given to waste disposal authorities to require certain collection
practices, this measure does not reflect current legislation concerning collection; nor
does it take account of the realities of diversion of waste to fly tipping resulting from
enforced changes to collection practices.
Incentives must be given in order to ensure
sufficient cooperation. All parties must be seen to benefit from joint initiatives.
Investment in collection systems and the development of new treatment technologies, where
a cohesive plan can be shown, would be seen as rewarding the partnership approach.
Obligations for reduction in the amount of
biodegradable waste being sent to landfill must be allocated regionally and then
apportioned to district level to ensure ownership of the programme and an element of
shared risk.
5. Cost Implications of limiting Landfill
4.13 Limiting landfill will "cost" in
the short-term. All credible financial evidence demonstrates that sustainable waste
management e.g. recycling, composting, energy recovery etc requires initial heavy
investment. Cost graphs show higher costs for sustainable waste management options than
"do nothing" landfill options in the early years.
If landfill reliance is to be reduced the government
needs to have due regard for the cost of investment in new facilities. Furthermore
sustainable markets for recyclables will need to be in place in the longer term. It is
clear that existing financial resources are insufficient to cater for the infrastructure
needs of the service and that markets are limited in size and quantity.
Hypothecation of some or all of the revenues raised
by the landfill tax should be considered in the year 2000 spending review. This will be
the most effective way of ensuring the desired waste infrastructure can be introduced
across the Country. Recent moves to introduce congestion and workplace charging and use
the proceeds to fund public transport improvements has set a potentially welcome precedent
for the hypothecation of landfill tax monies.
6. Distinguishing between different wastes
4.15 Once again, providing the definition of
municipal waste in this context is sufficiently robust, these measures could be easily
implemented with a modification to the duty of care and easing controls.
7. Bans
4.26 Option one is considered wholly inappropriate as
a method of encouraging change in production, collection and disposal of a fraction of the
waste stream. Bans allow little room for constructive planning and do not encourage the
flexibility of approach necessary for publicly accountable bodies.
4.35 Option two as a selective ban on paper and card
is considered an ineffective option. Targeting waste from the least innocuous fraction of
biodegradable waste is the least constructive option when considering the main objectives
of the directive.
Banning paper and card from landfill would encourage
local authorities to invest in new collection systems, which, as the percentages of paper
and card collected increased, could not remain cost effective. Increases in tonnage
collected would also put a greater strain on the already overburdened paper recycling
market. The market for paper is a volatile one as recent history shows, and given the
complexities of collection it is improbable if not impossible to remove 90% of paper and
card from the domestic waste stream.
Paper and card together constitute an average of 33% of household
collected waste in Hampshire. This equates to 5.5 kg/household/week.
The most successful diversion rate for this material is 75%, but
this still leaves 25% in the waste stream. These rates were achieved where residual waste
is collected once a fortnight and mixed dry recyclables are collected in a wheeled bin,
also on a fortnightly basis. Not all of the material that is considered to come under this
paper and card fraction is recyclable e.g. cartons.
Another collection system that collects only newspapers and
magazines is only recovering approximately 28% of the total newspapers and magazines
present.
In addition this focus on one type of material
detracts from the overall considerations necessary when developing new technologies. Each
waste fraction needs to be dealt with in the most appropriate manner, and in selecting one
material type from a waste fraction for special treatment, any opportunities to develop a
truly integrated waste management system are lost.
8. Content of Waste and Collection Systems
4.39 In order to develop a system which could
accurately predict the biodegradable content of waste dependant upon the collection
system, it would be necessary to take into consideration the social and demographic
elements associated with waste production. Other significant factors include council
policies on the acceptance of garden waste, container provision, and rural or urban nature
of the area. Given the number of determinable factors it would be necessary to ensure
regular audits formed a part of any implemented system.
9. Permits and Landfill Operators
4.43 Option three is not considered viable as a method of limiting
biodegradable waste whilst encouraging the development of new technologies. In addition,
landfill operators are not considered the best partner for waste planing and evaluation
responsibilities.
4.45 Any permit system which allows landfill
operators responsibility for permits is considered inefficient, as the restrictions to
reduce profiteering and protect authorities would create an unworkable and ineffective
system which would not, as detailed above, meet the requirements of the legislation.
4.48 The impact of a permits system managed by landfill operators
even with restrictions to regions will be greater than one managed by WDAs, purely because
the greatest driving factor would be profit not BPEO or Proximity or equality between
authorities. If only one landfill site in a given region was able to accept municipal
waste, then equality of transport is instantly lost and a hierarchy within the region
outside of the authorities’ control will evolve.
4.50 As previously stated, any system designed
around profit rather than planning or development detracts from the fundamental objectives
of this legislation.
4.56 WDAs could have legal obligations to comply with regulations
such that failure to comply could lead to criminal liability. There is a precedent for
WDAs having such a corporate liability in respect of health and safety legislation.
However, in our considered view the greatest incentive to comply will result from
financial penalties such as fines or adjustments to SSA.
It wouldn’t be appropriate or necessary to take
action against landfill operators provided all deliveries of biodegradable waste are
accurately classified on delivery. This can be delivered through the existing duty of care
regulations.
There needs to be open debate as to how sanctions
might be applied to local authorities in the event of non-compliance. Whatever measure is
adopted it needs to be as fair as possible, although penalties should be sufficient enough
to force compliance
If non-compliance became a criminal offence the
potential for non-compliance would have to be accurately measured. A situation whereby the
majority of local authorities were taken to court in the event of non-compliance would be
at best unfortunate and at worst unacceptable.
Many local authorities are going to find it
difficult to comply without significant additional resources being available to them.
After funding the major services such as Education, Social Services and Transportation
there is limited scope to put in place the necessary infrastructure that is required to
enable reliance on landfill to be reduced.
Permits should therefore be tradable/transferable if
they are to be introduced in order that those authorities who have not been able to comply
with the directive targets can at least "buy" additional landfill space.
10. Apportionment of Targets
4.57 It is important that any system of apportionment
for permits rewards the early investor. Authorities who have already acted for whatever
reason should not at this stage to be expected to perform to a higher standard than those
who have made no progress.
Household number and size along with
an acknowledgement of social and demographic factors is infinitely preferable to a system
based upon population alone.
Although other factors need to be taken into
account, particularly those of availability of landfill and other suitable technologies,
the inclusion of the commercial factor gives rise to fluctuation which cannot be tracked
to other measures of growth. As such it is suggested that commercial waste be treated
distinctly or excluded from the definition as discussed above.
In order to avoid an unnecessarily complicated
system requiring that permits accompany every load, it is suggested that each area is
evaluated and allocated a number of permits according to household number and size.
Each area (county including local authorities is
suggested) must then submit a plan, which details how this allocation will be achieved.
Quarterly reports will be submitted, including audits, and permits may only be traded to
fund development.
If this process of preparing and submitting
municipal waste strategies were made a statutory obligation, this would ensure preparation
of strategies by waste collection and disposal authorities to comply with the directive
The system used for calculating compliance should be
consistent with the PRNs in terms of retrospective allocation. A legal view is currently
being sought in order to establish the procedure relating to accountability and
enforcement if the requirements are not met.
Although consideration must be given to BPEO and
Proximity for areas which have an oversupply of available and suitable landfill, it is
imperative that other methods of disposal are also encouraged in these areas, with larger
partnership operations attracting incentives and encouragement.
4.57 2. If permits were auctioned to the highest
bidder by the Government, any idea of equality and apportionment would be disregarded.
Authorities would be put in a position of using revenue to buy permits rather than develop
new technologies. If permits are to be tradable it should be to promote development.
Questions related to how these funds would be allocated are raised, especially in light of
the lack of landfill tax money returning to fund waste management initiatives.
4.58 Design a permit system consistent with the
current PRN system, designed to allow trading retrospectively and at year-end.
11. Permits and Trading
4.62 In order to ensure that the environmental
impacts of this option are reduced as far as possible, it would be necessary to ensure
that WDAs have as much control as possible over permits and trading. This control will
allow for planning in areas to use only certain landfill sites, which are either
preferable in terms of transport and accessibility or site engineering. Any benefits which
may be gained as a result of planning in this way are likely to be long term and will
benefit from a joint approach for development of new collection systems which allow for
greater segregation of waste fractions. This joint approach requires long term planning
and would benefit from control over permits and trading.
4.63 The adoption of a tradable permits system for WDAs has the
advantage of ensuring that control over which disposal sites are used remains with the
disposal authority. Guidance needs to be offered to authorities in order to assist them to
plan effectively to include new technologies to meet objectives.
That permits might disrupt existing commercial
relationships in this case is much less likely than if permits were awarded to landfill
operators. In Hampshire our long term partnership is based around the proximity principal
in terms of transport for operation as well as cost reasons. This situation is more likely
to remain the same if WDAs are allocated tradable permits.
In order to ensure compliance, a system of regular
reporting on reduction and diversion plans is required, and a system of sufficiently high
fines for non-compliance will ensure that it is no longer affordable not to act.
As suggested above, if permits are to be introduced
they should be tradable in order to allow for flexibility within the system and overall
success in limiting landfill (this is acknowledged in paragraph 4.63). It is clearly the
case that diversion (and the scope for it) will be easier and cheaper in some parts of the
country than others. However a simple and transparent solution in the case of tradable
permits would not necessarily enable on-going service improvements to be delivered. Local
authorities "selling" the permits would surely seek a "return" on the
sale to allow for further investment in new facilities.
Assuming annual waste growth continues to be an
issue recycling rates etc would have to be increased year on year if the directive targets
are to be maintained and landfill permits sold on. This would require the permits to be
sold on according to local conditions and not at a nationally agreed price which may not
sufficiently account for local investment decisions/needs.
However, if returns were sought, some authorities
could "sell" to the highest bidder. This could be inequitable if the original
permit allocation for a particular authority was over generous. Therefore any return on
the sale of permits should be regulated so that it is clearly seen to be re-invested in
waste management. This would help to limit the market risk that authorities would become
exposed to and should help to avoid the situation where an authority with surplus permits
(for whatever reason) exploited another authority and then "vired" the return to
another service area.
12. Role of the Landfill Tax
4.68 The current and most noticeable action
associated with the implementation of the landfill tax has been the movement of waste from
the commercial and industrial to the municipal waste stream. This movement has effectively
placed a greater burden on waste disposal and has not achieved the goal of reducing waste.
As such, no suggestions are made regarding any further adjustments to this tax, as it is
not considered an efficient tool unless more specifically directed.
5.7 Specific data required in order to demonstrate
compliance with this legislation may be collected as a result of the planning and auditing
process described above with year end figures forming a part of other statutory returns
e.g.
Biodegradable Content of
Hampshire’s Household Collected Waste
|
% of Hampshire's
average waste |
Biodegradable % (see
below) |
Biodegradable
portion of waste |
| Paper Card |
32.6 |
100 |
32.6 |
| Putrescible |
303 |
100 |
30.3 |
| Textiles |
4.6 |
50 |
2.3 |
| Fines |
4.3 |
50 |
2.15 |
| Misc. Combustible |
5.5 |
50 |
2.75 |
| Misc. Non-combustible |
0.8 |
50 |
0.4 |
| Other |
22.1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
Total
70.5% |
The above table is an estimate on the
amount of biodegradable waste contained within waste that is collected from households in
Hampshire. It is based on 60 samples taken from a variety of different communities in each
of the 13 waste collection authority areas. This is residual waste plus any recyclable
waste that is collected, but it does not include waste or recyclables delivered to banks
or HWRCs.
Waste from commercial properties and
litter arisings are not included.
The samples were collected throughout
the spring; therefore potentially higher amounts of green or garden waste may be present.
The percentage for each fraction that is
biodegradable is taken from table 1 in the Limiting Landfill consultation document.
Extract from second report of the NAWDO Statistics Working Group
IWM Scientific & Technical Review November |
