|
Conservative Party Conference: ESA Fringe Event
From Waste to Recycling: Manifesto for Change
Dirk Hazell, Chief Executive, ESA
Bournemouth, 4 October 2004
This year’s Conservative Party conference opened to Elvis Presley’s song A little less conversation, a little more action. When it comes to implementing its own promises to Europe on waste this Government’s deeds have fallen short of its words.
None of the three levers under the Government’s direct control-regulation, funding management of the municipal waste stream or planning-point towards the UK meeting its legal obligations to recover more energy and materials from the municipal waste stream.
Labour is creating a time bomb for the next Conservative Government. The less Labour does, the more of a problem it creates for the next Conservative Government.
Last month Michael Howard promised to give a lead on the environment. Of course it was Michael Howard who signed the agreement to end CFCs and not only signed the Climate Change Convention but persuaded the first President Bush to do the same.
And despite having odds stacked heavily against them, Conservative controlled councils are leading on the environment at the local level. 8 of the 10 councils achieving the highest levels of recycling are controlled by the Conservative Party. Conservative controlled Dorset achieves the highest level of recycling of all county councils.
ESA shares with Conservatives a long-term vision of a much more resource-efficient economy and society. With prices for commodities like steel set to increase dramatically, resource efficiency makes good sense, for the Government, businesses and the public.
We need an efficient economy without destroying our planet. People need to work and people need to consume. One of the most important jobs today is to help people to consume and work in a way that is environmentally benign. We need greener rather than less consumption.
We need a manifesto for change, a manifesto for action.
Michael Howard has called handling of EU environmental legislation by this Government as 'unbelievably incompetent'. Some would argue he was being charitable.
Throughout this Parliament we have had crises: fridges, abandoned cares and more recently, hazardous waste. It is all unnecessary: in many ways, delivering sustainable waste management is one of the easiest and cheapest objectives of public policy to deliver. Much easier than sorting schools. Much easier than cutting crime.
Our EU competitors do it: Austria and the Netherlands already comply with the 2016 biodegradable municipal waste diversion targets of the Landfill Directive. ESA’s Members can do it: they are already doing it in other EU Member States.
It is all very simple. Before it can invest in new waste management technologies, our industry needs a clear and precise legal framework. Invariably, the framework has been as clear as HP sauce.
It took the present Government five years to confirm the standards to which hazardous waste would need to be treated. This is positively rapid compared to the regulations for agricultural waste for which we have been waiting for thirteen years.
Many of the effects of the Government’s chaotic implementation of EU legislation, particularly the Landfill Directive are not yet visible. The Environment Agency and the Government do not have real-time data on waste flows. As things currently stand, they do not know if hazardous waste is being stockpiled by producers or dumped illegally by criminals.
Liquid hazardous waste simply disappeared when it was banned from landfill two years ago, there is mounting concern that solid hazardous waste is now bypassing legitimate treatment infrastructure.
And the legal framework for municipal waste isn’t much better. Local authorities still do not know exactly how much biodegradable municipal waste the Government says they can landfill in coming years. Local authorities still do not know if statutory recycling targets will be extended beyond 2006/07.
A major Mori survey of 2002 showed that waste management was seen as the most important service delivered by local authorities. It was even ranked above schools. And yet, waste management accounts for only 1.5% of total expenditure by local authorities
It costs more money to recycle waste than to dump it into a hole in the ground. We spend only half what comparable European countries spend on municipal waste management. Spending needs to get to £1 per person per week.
Oliver Letwin will be pleased to hear that we do not believe that the public purse should provide this additional funding. For a start it wouldn’t be consistent with the polluter pays principle.
My personal view is that variable charging is the long term funding solution.
However, at current stages of public awareness there is merit in starting with a charging scheme which does not encourage fly-tipping. That was one reason, in a study Ernst & Young did for us, why flat rate direct charging was recommended for the early period.
Direct charging worked for the Conservative Government when it privatised water: we believe it could work for waste management.
Over the longer term, we are looking with interest at a scheme to be piloted in Belfast which instead of charging householders more for producing more waste, rewards households for achieving high levels of segregation for recycling.
If we are to recycle more waste then the UK will need new facilities to treat and reprocess the waste. The Environment Agency estimates that 2,000 facilities may be needed. The planning process isn’t up to this job.
Earlier this year, ESA published a report setting out the improvements needed in the planning system. One of our recommendations was to build upon the success of the enterprise zones introduced by the Conservative Government in the 1980s and to develop environmental business planning zones.
The Conservative Party is committed to reducing the regulatory burden for business.
ESA believes that environmental regulation needs to be modernised to emulate the principles of financial regulation. The next generation of environmental improvement will not be achieved by adding another layer of prescription to regulation of industrial process but it can be sustainably achieved by harnessing the market to carefully defined environmental outcomes.
Recovering more value from the waste stream is not difficult. The current Government is just making it look that way.
If the Government provides a proper framework, ESA’s Members can promptly deliver state of the art facilities to transform Britain’s environmental performance.
Time is running out. If we are serious about handing to future generations an environment better than ours we simply cannot afford another Parliament which sees plenty more words but not enough deeds.
|
