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

55.6 Implementation Costs
The intention of the England scheme – involving trading – was to enable a target for
landfilling BMW to be met at least cost to the country. Clearly, costs have been
incurred in administering the scheme, but as a mechanism for meeting the Landfill
Directive, the scheme appears to have been quite successful thus far. Other
institutional factors in UK waste management are making compliance poorer value,
and there is a suggestion that in residual waste procurements, bidders are increasing
prices in the expectation that local authorities will accept these bids because of the
risk of exposure to landfill allowance deficits or fines.
55.7 Effects on Technical Change / Innovation
Our experience of working with local authorities is that the LASs are clearly
influencing the pace of development of recycling and composting, and are focusing
local authority minds on developing residual waste treatment facilities. Efforts to
reduce waste are also being heightened in some authorities.
Equally, the LASs are making authorities more commercially aware.
It is interesting to note that the LASs effects in terms of the delivery of residual waste
treatment infrastructure has been less apparent than the flurry of activity to engage in
procurement processes. One reason for this is the lengthy period taken to deliver
waste facilities, particularly those of more capital intense nature, and those which
have proved more contentious at the siting stage. Indeed, some commentators
suggest there is still a possibility that the UK may not meet its targets for 2013, but
that it might be tending towards over-capacity in the medium- to long-term. This is
because the lead-times are long, and, some have argued, the process of developing
facilities should have begun much sooner:
817
The EU Directive in 1999 created a need for a strategy for significantly
increasing diversion of waste away from landfill. Before 2003 the
Department’s strategies lacked practical plans for reducing reliance on
landfill. Only then did the Department start to address the complex issues
involved in building new waste treatment infrastructure. As a result, the
market for waste infrastructure projects developed slowly. Only two of the new
waste infrastructure projects developed since the EU Directive (1999) have
completed construction of all planned assets. 1025
Equally, it might be argued that the choice of facility and the approach to
procurement has tended to lengthen lead-times rather than shorten them. The NAO’s
review lends some support to this view:
Prior to contract award, PFI projects have been delayed by an average of 19
months compared to the original timetables. Some delays occur because
projects need to improve their business cases to gain central government
1025 NAO (2009) Managing the PFI Waste Programme, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General,
HC 66 Session 2008-2009, 14 January 2009.
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes