International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

51.4.2.3 Comment on Targets
A concern with the targets from ‘Changing Our Ways’ would be that because the
targets which were set were not given detailed consideration, it could not have been
entirely clear which targets were truly challenging and which were not. Whatever the
source of the caution being exercised, it is worth considering the drawbacks of a lack
of ambition where target setting is concerned. Ireland is, in some ways, fortunate (in
other ways, rather less so – see below) that major infrastructure provision has not
progressed as quickly as might have been hoped. If regions and local authorities had
instated infrastructure on the basis that such recycling rates really were ‘challenging’,
they might have seriously over-provided capacity for residual waste treatment and
infrastructure, though much would depend upon the growth rate they chose to base
capacity estimates upon.
This has been the experience with many local authorities in England following the
publication of Waste Strategy 2000, which set a household waste recycling target of
33% for 2015. The target in the most recent strategy, Waste Strategy for England
2007, is 50%. In the interim period, many local authorities have procured
infrastructure which will make it difficult for them to justify the expenditure on source
separation to achieve recycling rates of 50% when costs have already been sunk into
residual waste treatment infrastructure. Essentially, the experience of England is
similar to that of Ireland – that ‘challenging’ recycling rates have been met and
surpassed far faster, and far more easily, than was thought possible. English data
shows the recycling rate for household waste in England was 34.5% for 2007/8,
implying the target set in 2000, to be met by 2015, had already been met. 873
As regards the NBS targets, the first point to make is that these are not entirely clear.
They are buried within a lengthy document, and it is not clear what ‘targets’ really are
targets, and who has to meet them. The NBS repeatedly makes reference to the
regions and their plans. It suggests that they have to meet these targets, but it is not
clear how the regions should construe the targets.
Regarding national diversion targets, the NBS states:
711
These national targets for BMW diversion for the years 2010, 2013 and 2016
represent the national position. As indicated in Section 3.4 of the Strategy, the
various waste management planning regions / counties should assess their
individual needs for BMW management in order to obtain an ‘indicative target
diversion capacity’. Regions / counties must then decide how their Waste
Management Plans can address these requirements.
These figures should be kept under continuous review and updated regularly
by each region / county, in order to ensure that sufficient capacity is available
to facilitate the achievement of the required BMW diversion targets.
Regarding the targets for residual waste, it states:
873 Statistics from Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes