Waste not want not - States Assembly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

If England is to make progress towards sustainable waste management new investment is needed now 7.1 Chapter 6 set out the recommended framework of incentives and regulation that needs to be put in place in the medium to longer term. This chapter sets out what is required in the short term. 7.2 There are five key elements: 1. Reducing the amount of waste produced by households. 2. The expansion of recycling via kerbside collection, increased bring and well designed civic amenity sites, and composting. 3. Improving information and advice available to households and industry on all aspects of managing and reducing waste. 4. Improving the data and research available to government, local authorities and the waste industry for policy formulation, strategic planning and service delivery. What’s needed? 7.4 Five key measures are proposed. Their aim is to bring about a 1% per annum reduction in the rate of growth in household waste quantities from 3% to 2%, equivalent to about 1 million tonnes each year by 2005/06. The measures are described in more detail in Figure 14 but, in summary, consist of: ● ● an extension of home composting participation; greater use of re-usable nappies; ● a retailer initiative focused on the top 5 supermarkets; ● ● increased research and development on waste minimisation through better product design; and WRAP to help LAs conduct incentive based schemes for waste minimisation and education to accompany waste minimisation programmes. 5. Promoting new technologies. Priority 1: reducing the amount of waste produced by households 7.3 This is a crucial yet challenging element of the overall strategy since it requires a significant shift in behaviour, lifestyles and attitudes to waste. But, if successful, it offers potentially high returns in terms of lower long-run costs of waste management and a reduced number of extra facilities, minimising public opposition. A Home Composter – photo courtesy of The Composting Association STRATEGIC INVESTMENT MEASURES 83
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 14: Four Investment Measures to Reduce Waste Measure Aims Rationale Estimated Cost Benefit/impact 1. Extension of home composting A three year programme to help households start home composting and to improve composting rates for those who already participate. Led by WRAP through a programme of roll-out of composting bins and high quality, practical advice directly to individual households. Based on the successful Master Composter model from the US and Canada. ● To raise householder participation in home composting by 10% in urban areas and 15% in rural areas; ● specific target areas would be selected after research. The emphasis will be on rural areas where a realistic target would be 120 kg/household a year diverted. In urban areas a realistic target is 90kg/household a year diverted; 119 ● aim is to reduce arisings by a total of 400,000 tonnes over three years; ● in each of the following years the aim is to reduce arisings by 300,000 tonnes per annum. ● Home composting carried out to high standards is an effective way of reducing the organic component of waste arisings. ● There have been successful schemes in Austria, Italy and Belgium as well as in Canada and the US. ● Around a third of households in England have participated in some form of composting activity in the last 12 months. 120 Local authorities are estimated to have rolled out 1.5 million composting bins since 1995/6. 121 However, the lack of sustained support for householders is a major factor in the relative lack of demonstrable success of current home composting activities. Based on an average oneoff bin cost of £20 per household (assuming major economies of scale from large orders) and an average support package of £10 per household a year, the programme costs are £30 million over three years. ● An overall diversion of 300,000 tonnes could be achieved from the third year of the programme onwards. This is based on raising participation by an additional 10% in urban areas and 15% in rural areas assuming waste reduction/ diversion from the household stream of 90kg-120kg per household a year. ● Based on average waste management costs of £45/t, 122 the reduction would save £13.5 million in waste management costs per year. The programme breaks even by 2006/07. 119 Parfitt J. (2002), Home Composting – from participation to diversion? Paper presented at Home Composting Conference 2002, Imperial College, London. This shows a range of estimated home composting diversion rates from 50-250kg/household per year, not all of this material would otherwise have become part of the household waste stream. See also Wheeler P. & Parfitt J. (2002), Lifecycle assessment for home composting. Paper presented to Waste 2002 Conference. Recent analysis of home composting diversion field trials showing average 5.25kg/household per week. 120 Onyx/NOP (2000) Public attitudes towards waste 121 DoE/DETR/DEFRA 122 SU analysis. Estimated average unit waste management cost per tonne, net of landfill tax, 2003/4 – 2005/6. 84
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: 7. CHAPTER STRATEGIC HEADINGS INVES
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 135 and 136:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Recommendation
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?