Waste not want not - States Assembly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3: Methods of waste management by country 100% 90% 16% 19% 7% 1% 23% 13% 80% percentage of waste 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 22% 62% 34% 48% 38% 55% 81% 20% 10% 0% Flanders 1999 47% 45% Netherlands 2000 Switzerland 2000 38% Sweden 2000 32% Denmark 2000 8% 11% UK 1999 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 2.9 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). 15 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 15 Dr Jane Beasley, CIWM – work for the SU (see Annex I) 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. 2.10 A few specific examples of the means used across Europe to promote alternative options are given in Box 3. WHAT IS WASTE AND HOW MUCH IS THERE? 23
Box 3: Instruments used in other countries to promote alternatives to landfill <strong>Waste</strong> 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. <strong>Waste</strong> 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 £13 16 (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. WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 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 24
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: authority makes arrangements to rec
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?