Waste not want not - States Assembly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 2.3 The amount of municipal waste produced in England is growing at around 3-4% per year. 10 This is faster than growth in GDP (around 2-2.5%) and is one of the fastest growth rates in Europe. 11 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 prepackaged goods. 2.4 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 billion 12 per annum from £1.6 billion 13 currently on unchanged policies. 2.5 Local authorities are under a statutory duty to regularly collect household waste produced by some 21 million 14 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 10 Since 1996/97, the amount of municipal waste collected each year has increased by an average of 3.4% per year. Municipal Waste Management Survey, 2000/01 11 OECD/Eurostat data. % increase/year 1991-1999 = 2.48% in Belgium; 2.55% in Austria; 0.43% in Denmark; compared to 3.87% in the UK (Eurostat figures) 12 SU analysis based on waste growth at 3% 13 Estimate. Latest outturn figure is £1.5 billion in 2000/01, CIPFA (The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) 14 Mid-year estimate, 2001 Office of National Statistics WHAT IS WASTE AND HOW MUCH IS THERE? 21
authority makes arrangements to recycle, must be delivered to the appropriate Waste Disposal Authority. Increasingly the business of collection, management and disposal of waste is contracted out to private sector waste management companies. Most of England’s municipal waste goes to landfill sites 2.6 England landfills the majority of its municipal waste. Almost 80% of municipal waste is handled in this way, compared to 50% of commercial and industrial waste. Figure 2: Waste Management in England and Wales, 1998/99 Waste Landfill Recovery (a) Recycling/ Composting Industrial waste (excluding construction and demolition waste) 44% 48% 44% Commercial waste 68% 28% 24% Municipal waste 78% 21% 12% (a) including recycling and composting and energy recovered via incineration (therefore the total percentages add up to more than 100%) 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 2.7 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. 2.8 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%. WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 22
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: Box 2: Types of waste: (continued)
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 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?