Waste not want not - States Assembly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

● ● ● ● ● consideration of the potential for fly-tipping of hazardous waste to increase as costs rise and how this would be managed; working with industry to look at how hazardous waste can be reduced through producer responsibility. More hazardous waste (e.g. waste oils) could also be recycled; setting targets for individual key hazardous waste streams; 145 carrying out a review of product taxation as an instrument to reduce specific hazardous components of the waste stream; working with local authorities to look at the feasibility of separately collecting household hazardous waste, how this might be done; and the opportunities for co-disposal with industry. The SU welcomes and supports DEFRA’s decision to have a hazardous waste forum. In addition, a number of specific recommendations have been made in this report to address the needs identified and can be found in the table, ‘Summary of Key Recommendations and Action Plan: Wider Wastes’ attached to this annex. 2. Construction & Demolition Waste The quantities of Construction and Demolition (C & D) waste arising each year are estimated to be 90 146 million tonnes and 72.5 147 millions tonnes respectively for England & Wales. The total is greater than both the municipal and commercial waste streams combined. C & D wastes have recently been the subject of a significant data collection exercise (Spring 2000) for the Environment Agency. 148 The exercise undertaken by Symonds gives data on the estimated arisings of wastes from construction and demolition on a regional and national level for England & Wales, as well as the amounts recycled, re-used and disposed. In 2000, 35% of C&D waste was recycled, 13% was re-used on licensed landfill sites, and 28% was spread on sites registered as exempt from waste management licensing. 149 Only 24% was landfilled. The principle wastes in this stream are soil, ballast, concrete, asphalt, bricks, tiles, plaster, masonry, wood, metal, paper, glass and plastic. This is an area where a combination of landfill tax and the more recently implemented aggregates levy have been important tools in boosting recycling and re-use. Around half the construction and demolition wastes in England and Wales are re-used or recycled according to a recent UK Government study. 150 It is anticipated that further progress in this area would come through recommendations of the Egan 151 report to improve productivity and a review of standards to ensure that artificial barriers to use of secondary aggregates were not reducing progress. Overall however, this appears to be an area where significant progress is being made. The European Commission, in its working document on Construction and Demolition waste, suggested that Member States should aim towards combined recycling and re-use targets of 50-75% by 2005 and 70-85% by 2010. 145 Waste Strategy 2000 146 BDS Marketing & Research 147 Symonds, Construction and Demolition Waste Survey, R&D Technical Summary PS368, (2001) 148 Environment Agency, Construction and Demolition Waste Survey, Research & Development Technical Report P402, (May 2001) ISBN 1 85705 450 4 149 Environment Agency data for England and Wales 150 ODPM, Construction and Demolition Waste Survey: England and Wales1999/2000, (2001) 151 DTI, Rethinking Construction, Report of the Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime Minister, (July 1998) ANNEX C. WIDER WASTES 145
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 146 3. Commercial & Industrial Waste Approximately 30 million tonnes of commercial waste, and 48 million tonnes of industrial waste was produced in England and Wales in 1998/99. 152 From that total 36% was recycled and 54% was disposed of to landfill. Business and industry will opt for the most cost effective way to manage their waste stream and the interest taken in recycling and waste minimisation activities will largely depend on quantities of waste produced, market availability and impact of activities upon their final waste bill. Instruments such as the landfill tax have not necessarily achieved the desired effect of diversion from landfill due to the level of taxation not being set high enough. In addition, as a result of resource and time constraints, it is the larger companies, multinationals, or those operating within an environmental remit that are more likely to consider different waste management options and incorporate recycling strategies. Essentially the drivers in this instance are not just economic but also external relations with the stakeholders. It is possible that further advancements can be made in this waste stream with the right levers for change. There are particular problems with changing behaviour in the SME sector. SMEs and the smaller waste generators are more likely to have less knowledge of their waste production and management and will simply have opted for the cheapest collection service available, or simply utilise the services of a waste management company they are familiar with or have had recommended. It is then entirely dependent upon the services offered by that waste management company in terms of the options for managing the waste generated. There is little or no incentive for SMEs to make the necessary investment in alternative waste management options, particularly in relation to 152 Waste Strategy 2000 153 Waste Strategy 2000 154 For example, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden time and resources, to bring about a change in waste practices. As individual organisations, SMEs may be producing low levels of waste, but collectively they will be contributing a significant quantity to landfill for disposal. This could pose significant problems in the future if the UK is forced to readdress its definition of Municipal Solid Waste, which is contrary to the definition in use by a number of European countries, who include a significant quantity of commercial waste from SMEs and other small producers. Currently, no incentive exists for local authorities to target commercial operations for the recovery of materials. However there is potential for combining paper and cardboard collections from household sources with business parks & trading estates: thus potentially making household recyclables collection more economically viable. This is done in other nations such as the Netherlands and should be considered here. The use of tools such as mandatory environmental reporting (currently a voluntary initiative) could be considered as an approach to changing behaviour within the business sector. In 2000, the Government set a policy to encourage the top 350 companies to report on their environmental performance by the end of 2001. 153 However the response from business and industry to date has been limited. A number of other European countries 154 have implemented mandatory environmental reporting aimed at specific sectors or companies of a certain size. Clear guidelines would need to be established as to the content and specifically the waste management element of the report, if it is to have the desired effect of changing waste management practices. The intention is that with the publishing of an environmental report, a company becomes more aware of its
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 and 102: 8. Funding and Delivery Summary Spe
Page 103 and 104: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 102 Pressures f
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: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT The conclusions
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?