Waste not want not - States Assembly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

● ● public concerns have been raised about the impact of all waste management facilities, but particularly about the quality of the environment surrounding landfills, including noise, odour and litter problems, as well as potential health effects of emissions; and landfill sites are becoming increasingly scarce in the South East and North West due to other pressures on land use and proximity to settlements. Transporting waste further distances to be landfilled will mean further impacts on the environment. This priority would be consistent with the EU Landfill Directive, which requires significant reductions in the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill 3.5 The aim of the EU Landfill Directive, which applies to most waste, is to prevent or reduce the negative effects of landfill, including the production of methane from organic sources. As with any EU Directive, non-compliance carries the potential sanction of a fine. It has been suggested that the UK could be fined up to £180 million a year if it does not comply with the Landfill Directive targets. 3.6 The main requirements of the Landfill Directive are set out in Box 4 below: Box 4: Requirements of the Landfill Directive: 23 To reduce the volume of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill to 75% of that produced in 1995 by 2010, 50% of that produced in 1995 by 2013 and 35% of that produced in 1995 by 2020. These targets take account of a 4-year derogation offered by the EU to those countries heavily reliant on landfill such as the UK. The co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes is banned from 2004, and separate landfills for hazardous, non-hazardous and inert wastes are required. Landfill of tyres is banned (by 2003 for whole tyres; by 2006 for shredded tyres). Landfill of liquid wastes, certain clinical wastes and certain types of hazardous waste is already banned. There are also provisions to control, monitor and report, and close sites. 23 Council Directive 99/31/EC on the landfill of waste WHY WASTE MATTERS – THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE 27
Current policies are failing to tackle rising waste quantities or to reduce the quantity of waste going to landfill sites 3.7 Successive governments have recognised the need to move to more sustainable forms of waste management. Governments have responded to this challenge by producing framework strategies within which they have set targets to move away from landfill and deliver higher rates of recycling. Until Waste Strategy 2000, the targets were aspirational (and remain so for non-municipal streams). However, in the absence of a coherent mix of policy and delivery instruments, successive targets have not been met: ● ● ● 1990 – The Environment White Paper 24 – set a target of 25% recycling by 2000. This has not been met; 1995 – “Making Waste Work” 25 – the recycling and composting rate for household waste stood at 6%. This document reemphasised the need to meet the 25% target by 2000; 1999 – “A Way with Waste” 26 – recognised that the 25% recycling/composting target would not be met by 2000; Waste Strategy 2000 also set a target of 25% of household waste to be recycled/composted by 2005/6. On current progress it will be very difficult to achieve this. 3.8 England spends about 60% of the EU average on waste management and disposal (i.e. around 0.5% of GDP in the UK versus 1.0% in the Netherlands) 29 and around 40% of those at the leading edge of waste management (Figure 4). Because of England’s reliance on landfill, householders pay some of the lowest rates for waste collection and disposal in Europe – around £50 per year on average, 30 which is roughly half the EU average and about 30% of the rate of high performing countries. England’s lower spend on waste per capita reflects both the relative cheapness and the efficiency of landfill. However, while some landfill will justifiably continue to provide a disposal route for certain wastes, 31 England’s current overreliance on this form of waste disposal means that significant environmental impacts are not being captured in what households pay. The UK has the same population as France and the same GDP, but spends 50% less on municipal waste management; France diverts 150% more municipal solid waste from landfill than the UK. 32 ● 2000 – Waste Strategy 2000 27 – set targets of recycling or composting 17% of the household waste stream by 2003/4. This was translated into statutory targets for each local authority. This is unlikely to be met as performance in 2001/2 was under 12%. 28 A landfill site – photo courtesy of Hampshire County Council 24 Department of the Environment, This Common Inheritance: Britain’s Environmental Strategy, (1990) WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 25 Department of the Environment and Welsh Office, Making Waste Work: a strategy for sustainable waste management in England and Wales, (December 1995) 26 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, A Way with Waste: A draft Waste Strategy for England and Wales (part one), (June 1999) 27 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales, (May 2000) 28 Municipal Waste Management Survey 2000/01 op.cit 29 Kees Wielenga, FFact Management Consultants An alternative view from the Netherlands, 3rd ESTET Conference, (18 September 2002) 30 Taking into account central government grants and business rates. This is far less than households think (they estimate £200-£260 when asked). Waste Watch 1999 What people think about waste and MORI survey for the Environmental Services Association 31 Wastes which are not reusable, recyclable, compostable or flammable and have no other beneficial use 32 Hazell D, ESA, personal communication 28
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: There are sound economic and enviro
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?