Waste not want not - States Assembly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The future costs of managing England’s rising volume of household waste are very uncertain but clearly subject to upward pressure 8.1 Local authorities in England are estimated to spend around £1.6 billion each year on waste collection and disposal services. 131 This is largely spent through contracts with the private sector and, as set out earlier in this report, is dominated by disposal of waste at landfill sites. If policies remain unchanged, this expenditure will double over the next twenty years as a result of rising waste volumes. Various commentators and analysts have attempted to estimate the cost to local authorities of meeting various targets over the medium term. These are shown in Box 30. Box 30: The cost of reducing reliance on landfill Ernst and Young(a) have estimated that additional investment of £600-700m per annum over the next 10 years will be required to reduce the volume of waste sent to landfill, sufficient to meet the Article 5 targets of the EU Landfill Directive. A County Surveyor’s Society(b) report has estimated future costs of waste management in the medium and long term. This analysis concluded that local authority expenditure might have to increase by 60% compared to 2001 in order to meet the 2005 Best Value recycling targets (25% of household waste recycled and composted by 2005) and by over 100% by 2013. Waste Strategy 2000(c) estimated the additional costs over a baseline of different mixes of waste management options to meet the Waste Strategy targets. These ranged from £3.4 billion to £7.7 billion in present value terms. (a) Ernst and Young Local Authority Waste Management Survey, 2001 (b) AEA Technology Waste Strategy Compliance Costs – Phase II, 2002 (c) DETR, Waste Strategy 2000, Part 2 8.2 Predicting the future cost of waste 8.3 The least value for money option is making management is, of course, highly dependent on no change. Environmental damage will continue the assumptions made. The SU estimates that and potentially valuable resources will continue the cost of implementing the strategy set out in to be squandered. The costs of managing the this report would not be significantly different municipal waste stream will double by 2020, from doing nothing over the 18 years to 2020 – the UK could face fines from the EU for failing less than £3 billion more in present value terms: to meet its international obligations, and more £26.7 billion versus £29.6 billion. 132 landfill sites and incinerators will be required. 131 Estimated. Latest out-turn figure is £1.5 billion in 2000/01, CIPFA 132 SU analysis. These figures differ slightly from those presented in Figure 10 in chapter 5 and result from incorporating more information into the analysis of ‘status quo’ and the package of SU recommendations FUNDING AND DELIVERY 101
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 102 Pressures for increased spending on managing and disposing of household waste can, in part, be dealt with by making better use of existing resources 8.4 There are currently five main funding routes for waste management. It is important that best use is made of each. 1. Local Government Standard Spending Assessments: the EPCS block 8.5 The main source of funding for local authority waste services is through the Environmental Protection and Cultural Services (EPCS) Standard Spending Assessment (SSA). This SSA is not a limit on local authority expenditure on these services, but is the means by which government distributes resources to local authorities. 8.6 The EPCS SSA provides for a wide range of local authority services including libraries, local transport and flood defence, as well as waste. In total, the provision for the block is: 2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 £8,961m £9,435m £9,703m £10,024m 8.7 This provision includes the following increases announced in the Spending Review 2002. 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 £82m £350m £671m 8.8 Provision for waste services is not separately identified within the total. 2. The Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund: “The Challenge Fund” 8.9 Announced as part of the 2000 Spending Review, this Challenge Fund is designed to support better waste management practices including waste minimisation, re-use and recycling. In November 2001, DEFRA consulted local authorities and other interested parties on the distribution of £140m available to the fund in England. 8.10 For 2003/4 a total of £76.3m will be available for projects. An expert panel evaluates the bids. Project categories include: ● ● ● ● ● partnership working; turning around low performance; high performance innovation and best practice; developing community initiatives; and general projects 8.11 Whilst this scheme has not been without its problems, notably allocation of funds for 2002/3, it remains an important means of providing support for waste management. Efforts need to be made to ensure that sufficient weighting is given to waste minimisation projects as well as recycling projects. Building on the challenge elements in the fund, consideration should be give to open up some of these funds to the private sector to tackle municipal waste. Recommendation 22: The Challenge Fund should be retained with consideration given to opening up the fund to bids from the private sector either independently or in partnership with local authorities to tackle municipal waste.
Page 1 and 2:
Waste not, Want not A strategy for
Page 3 and 4:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 2
Page 5 and 6:
The report shows clearly that a dif
Page 7 and 8:
Key points (continued) The aim of p
Page 9 and 10:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 8 There are sev
Page 11 and 12:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 10 The second p
Page 13 and 14:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 12 that cause e
Page 15 and 16:
● 50% of households carrying out
Page 17 and 18:
Box 1: Tackling waste in the devolv
Page 19 and 20:
● Chapter 3 describes why tacklin
Page 21 and 22:
Box 2: Types of waste: (continued)
Page 23 and 24:
authority makes arrangements to rec
Page 25 and 26:
Box 3: Instruments used in other co
Page 27 and 28:
There are sound economic and enviro
Page 29 and 30:
Current policies are failing to tac
Page 31 and 32:
● setting up the Waste and Resour
Page 33 and 34:
4. BARRIERS TO MORE SUSTAINABLE WAS
Page 35 and 36:
4.7 As well as DTI and DEFRA, the E
Page 37 and 38:
that only 7% of the public identify
Page 39 and 40:
Box 6: Common waste ‘myths’…
Page 41 and 42:
● time series data on the costs o
Page 43 and 44:
Summary (continued) ● funding for
Page 45 and 46:
Figure 7: A more detailed version o
Page 47 and 48:
Box 8: Roles and Responsibilities (
Page 49 and 50:
Having set out the principles and t
Page 51 and 52: ● ● ● options open and reduce
Page 53 and 54: ● ● ● ● reducing the rate o
Page 55 and 56: Box 11: Scenario 1 - Do nothing - h
Page 57 and 58: Box 13: Scenario 3 - Doing even bet
Page 59 and 60: Reform of the economic and regulato
Page 61 and 62: Box 15: An example of incentives to
Page 63 and 64: Box 17: Measures to tackle fly-tipp
Page 65 and 66: Box 18: The UK Producer Responsibil
Page 67 and 68: Option (a): developing markets for
Page 69 and 70: Building regulations 6.26 One of th
Page 71 and 72: minimisation targets for office was
Page 73 and 74: Recommendation 9: DEFRA together wi
Page 75 and 76: Figure 12: Landfill tax rates and p
Page 77 and 78: 6.53 Lessons from the introduction
Page 79 and 80: management strategy in reducing was
Page 81 and 82: Box 26: Department of Health eviden
Page 83 and 84: 7. CHAPTER STRATEGIC HEADINGS INVES
Page 85 and 86: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 14: Four
Page 87 and 88: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 14: Four
Page 89 and 90: What could a reduction in waste gro
Page 91 and 92: Box 27: current collection infrastr
Page 93 and 94: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 17: Two
Page 95 and 96: Industry: what’s needed? 7.19 Sin
Page 97 and 98: Priority 4: improving the research
Page 99 and 100: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 18: Summ
Page 101: 8. Funding and Delivery Summary Spe
Page 105 and 106: scheme to tackle priority areas for
Page 107 and 108: Figure 19: A new framework for the
Page 109 and 110: will be required and then translate
Page 111 and 112: Recommendation 31: DEFRA and ODPM s
Page 113 and 114: Recommendation 34: ODPM and DEFRA s
Page 115 and 116: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 114 2. Strategi
Page 117 and 118: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Summary of key
Page 119 and 120: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Recommendation
Page 141 and 142: ANNEX A. THE ROLE OF THE STRATEGY U
Page 143 and 144: Lester Hicks - ODPM, senior officia
Page 145 and 146: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT The conclusions
Page 147 and 148: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 146 3. Commerci
Page 149 and 150: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Annex C: Summar
Page 151 and 152: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Annex C: Summar
Page 153 and 154:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 152 Community s
Page 155 and 156:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 154 Licensed si
Page 157 and 158:
Waste Strategy 2000 - Government vi
show all

Waste not want not - States Assembly

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?