Waste not want not - States Assembly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 10: Benefits and costs of alternative strategic approaches, 2002-2020 Option Costs Feasibility Environmental Flexibility Ranking (£bn) (a) as a way to benefits (avoiding meet the locking-in Landfill to one Directive option) Option 5: reduction/recycle 29.6 ✔✔✔ ✔✔✔ ✔✔✔ 1 Option 3: high incineration (ii) 29.6 ✔✔✔ ✔✔ ✔✔ 2 Option 4: maximum recycling 31.0 ✔ ✔✔✔ ✔✔ 3 Option 2: high incineration (i) 28.9 ✔✔ ✔✔ ✔ 4 Option 1: status quo 27.4 ✘ ✘ ✘ 5 ✔✔✔ offers maximum benefits ✔✔ offers some benefits ✔ offers few benefits ✘ offers no benefits Notes: (a) costs are waste management expenditure at local authority level from 2002 to 2020 and are discounted to reduce the value of projected future costs to their value as seen from the present day. Source: SU analysis 5.18 Although the analysis suggests that ‘doing nothing’ is the cheapest option, it fails to meet any of the key criteria. The other options are more expensive – by between 5% and 13% – but have a mixture of advantages and disadvantages. The extremes of adopting either high incineration or high recycling as a strategy are judged to be less flexible. ‘Maximum recycling’, although it scores highly in terms of environmental benefits, would require a huge change in culture and behaviour which was judged to be less feasible in policy terms than pursing a range of options, and still left a significant residual. Reduction in waste growth rates reduced costs and the number of facilities required by all the options. The SU reduction and recycling option has considerable advantages… 5.19 Different experts and members of the waste industry will have their own views, but looking across the whole waste system and its operation in England, the SU approach was judged to meet all the criteria and was not significantly (around 10%) more expensive than ‘doing nothing’. 5.20 The benefits would be: ● although the focus is on reduction and recycling, it avoids locking in prematurely to any one method of reducing waste volumes or of disposing of waste. Indeed it aims to increase the options available. This keeps MOVING FORWARDS TO A NEW STRATEGY 49
● ● ● options open and reduces future risks of inflexibility in the face of changing legislation, technology, or other factors; it increases reduction, re-use and recycling and thus moves England up the waste hierarchy; it reduces the level of incineration and the number of costly waste facilities required; and once landfill taxes rise, it should lever in significant private sector funding and investment. ...but also some risks and tough choices 5.21 The main risk is that: ● reducing the waste growth rate by 1% is challenging and ambitious. 5.22 The tough choices are: ● ● ● what we are prepared to pay and prepared to do; changing the behaviour of households will not be easy. Many say they want to recycle and want a convenient doorstep collection, but only some are willing to pay for these new and better services. Many feel they pay too much already but overestimate what they pay by 4-5 times the actual amount; recycling will be an expensive option until markets for recycled goods are further developed creating economies of scale; and ● planning and other delays may make it difficult to get the collection infrastructure and the required number of waste management facilities in place. Most householders say they do not want landfill or incinerators (even though in reality 80% of the UK public live within 2km of a landfill, open or closed). People say they do not want landfill but are concerned about the risks from incineration (even though the perception of the risk is massively higher than the reality – about the same likelihood as the risk of death from a lightning strike); 71 5.23 Whilst the Government has a role in creating the right economic conditions, outlining national aspirations and providing funding for local authorities for a more sustainable strategy, the reality is that many of the choices will ultimately fall to local authorities and households. Waste is not always a high priority compared to many other areas of local government e.g. education and social services. 5.24 In short everyone seems to want a better environment and appear willing to recycle more but few want to pay the additional cost for a better service. 5.25 If we are to shift waste management onto a more sustainable footing – and the benefits of doing this are clear – then there needs to be additional funding, more choices for local authorities, a better informed public who are more involved in local strategies, and a willingness to make relatively small changes in lifestyle. The recommended strategy WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 5.26 The recommended strategy has three strands as set out in Box 10. 71 Enviros Aspinwall, SU working paper The Context for Emissions and Health Impact Associated with Waste Management, (2002) www.strategy.gov.uk/2002/waste/downloads/enviros.pdf 50
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: Having set out the principles and t
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?