ESA Speeches

FEAD Conference 2002: European Waste Management Today - The Role of Recovery in Sustainable Development

Keynote Speech: Taking the UK Waste Strategies Forward

Mike Walker, Director of Policy, ESA

18 October 2002

Managing waste is recognised by the UK Government as the second most important environmental challenge after climate change.

European policy is the single most important driver for changing resource and secondary resource management.

I will explain where the UK is at the moment, where we are going and how best we can get there. And I will highlight two industry-wide initiatives that will help us on our way.

It's important to recognise that in the UK there are four devolved administrations and four waste strategies - for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The strategies differ in approach and do not have the same targets, but together they will drive UK compliance with EU directives.

Waste has increasing political profile and this has been pushed forward by a waste summit, held in 2001. It involved industry, national and local government, and environmental groups. Following on from the summit, a high level study is currently being undertaken by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit.

Across the UK different targets have been set by the different devolved administrations:

For recycling, targets range from 33% in England - from a current base of 11%-to Wales' more ambitious target of 40% - to be reached from an even lower base of 8%.

For recovery, the targets are the same. Tripling from a current level of 20% to over 60% by 2015.

Each of the strategies present a major challenge for government, communities and the waste management industry.

UK reliance on Landfill

The UK overwhelmingly relies on landfill - accounting for almost 80% of waste management. Other management options are much lower proportionally - recycling 12% and efw 8%. Fourteen energy from waste facilities currently operate in the UK. The size of these facilities ranges from 26,000 tonnes per annum at Lerwick in the Shetland Isles, to 600,000 tonnes per annum at Edmonton in London. The plants in total generate 200 MW of electricity from the combustion of 2.8 million tonnes of MSW per annum. Some generate heat only - such as Lerwick. Others such as Nottingham and Sheffield have CHP.

Efw capacity is expected to rise only very slowly until 2004 and then pick up as new plants are commissioned. An additional 9 plants are under construction or have planning permission and are expected to treat 2 million tonnes of MSW and generate a further 150MW of energy by 2006.

Renewable Energy Generation

The waste management industry is a leader in renewable energy generation in the UK. Through efw and the recovery of energy from methane from landfill gas, it contributes almost 50% of the UK's renewable energy generation.

Approximately 600,000 tonnes of Incinerator Bottom Ash are produced each year and over half is recycled as secondary aggregate for use in road base, asphalt and concrete building blocks. Ferrous and non-ferrous metals are also recovered from the ash.

Moving on to recycling, there have been increases in the amount recycled. But we need to do better. This is progress compared to targets.

The UK has adopted, properly, an output-based definition of recycling. Rather than simply measuring the collection of materials, the UK has recognised that collection is simply the first link in a sophisticated chain of production. Measuring collection is not recycling; measuring water lost through evaporation is not recycling. But the final link is perhaps the most important, as the overall success of a resource efficient economy is dependent on the existence of final markets for materials.

As you will no doubt know, a CEN standard is being developed. It is crucial that a Europe-wide standard is adopted which measures recycling activity on actual outputs.

WRAP

The UK has set up WRAP - the waste and resources action programme - to develop markets and end-uses for secondary materials through five key activities:

• A product standards programme to develop customer confidence - eg in compost products
• A business development service supporting recycling businesses, especially smaller companies
• A procurement programme to stimulate purchases of recycled goods and materials and to establish a reliable supply of material from the waste stream
• Market stabilisation - for instance, develop model paper supply contract for use by local authorities
• Research into current and emerging end use markets for recycled materials

And the recovery of Packaging Waste is developing. The UK's market-based system provides flexibility for waste producers and waste managers alike. It has proved to be a cost-effective means of achieving compliance. We are watching the development of the revision of the packaging directive closely. It is essential that a recovery target is included to allow the management of packaging waste by BPEO and to ensure that maximum value can be derived.

In common with all EU Member states there are different actors. Each has different responsibilities and roles. The institutions of the EU are crucial. Our industry recognises the pivotal role the European Union plays in creating and implementing the environmental agenda.

The Landfill Directive might be our immediate challenge, but we also recognise the significance of the resource and recycling strategies which we have just heard about, and the developing producer responsibility agenda. It is essential that EU initiatives are grounded on achievable and realistic outcomes.

Governments set the strategy, the targets, the incentives and the rules. And then these need to be implemented and regulated. The UK's Environment Agency is proving to be a leader in its field. Effective regulation is essential to create a level playing field so that industry knows that it will be treated exactly the same wherever it operates. This is particularly important for waste - we all know that regulation is required to ensure that waste is treated by anything other than the cheapest available option. We believe we're doing this well in the UK. This will be a crucial issue across the EU in the future, particularly with enlargement.

In the UK - in common with many Members States - there is a focus on Community and Environmental NGO involvement in waste management. The community sector can play a useful role - in changing behaviour, gaining acceptance for waste strategies and introducing new facilities. But it cannot realistically deliver towards targets-industry must lead. Industry has access to capital, has infrastructure, and has the expertise. And to meet challenging targets we need to divert large quantities of waste, which means we need large-scale operations.

Achieving sustainability: priorities for the UK

To deliver more efficient resource management, three priorities need to be addressed. These need to be addressed at European, national, and sub-national levels.

First is the need for effective and predictable regulation. Waste naturally goes to the lowest cost option. Economic instruments can change behaviour, but the single most important means to ensure waste is treated to environmental standards is regulation.

Two aspects are important:

• Clear and unambiguous standards are required with precise implementation dates. Without the certainty that waste will need to be treated to a certain standard at a certain point in the future, industry will not be willing to invest in the infrastructure required to treat that waste.
• And then industry needs confidence that the regulations will be applied consistently and fairly.

The rapid agreement of European Waste Acceptance Criteria is crucial. The delays in agreeing the WAC are causing a major headache for our industry. Co-disposal of hazadous and non-hazardous waste will end in 2004. But the UK waste management industry is not in a position to plan for alternative management options until we know exactly what the new WAC will be. The timing is unfortunate - less than 2 years before a major change in waste management practices must occur. And the risk-based approach put forward in June increases the uncertainty that UK waste managers face.

UK waste managers need the Waste Acceptance Criteria to be introduced at the same time as the ban on co-disposal takes effect in 2004. If this does not happen and the WAC are introduced in 2005 or 2006 or later, what will happen in that interim period?

Regulatory certainty is essential for our industry - not only for hazardous waste, but also more widely. The significant problems faced in implementing the landfill directive must never be faced again.

Our second priority is effective and efficient decision-making.

The UK has a strong land use planning system. But it must also be responsive to future needs - especially in dealing with new developments, which are themselves designed to protect the environment. To move away from landfill the UK will need to develop many new facilities. Obtaining planning permission is a problem-local communities are not keen to live close to waste management facilities. The most frequent complaints about waste infrastructure are visual intrusion or nuisance. The industry is working to reduce these impacts to make them less of a problem. Sympathetic design of buildings and infrastructure is a primary consideration in new developments. But another issue often raised by residents and politicians alike is the potential health effects of waste management facilities. There is no doubt that there will always be a need for further research into health effects.

There is also no doubt that waste management reduces risks to health rather than increases them. But in the absence of clear independent and authoritative advice, the health issue will continue to be a major stumbling block for the development of new infrastructure. Institutions such as the Commission, the WHO, or the EEA are in a position to provide authoritative advice/guidance, which can be cited to allay public concerns and put some rationality back into the debate.

I am very keen to see independent information which places the issue in context.

Third, Paying for waste

It should be clear from what has been said already that ESA's Members are willing to invest to develop greater resource efficiency, but the UK pays much less for waste than other EU countries. Specifically, the municipal waste stream requires a major injection of investment. ESA has identified a possible route to achieve this: we'd like to pilot system of direct charging.

We recognise the work that has been done on comparative basis for charging across Europe - and more widely. The emphasis has been on variable charging - whereby householders pay according to the amount of waste produced. This would seem to be a good way forward in the longer term - if it really does change householders' behaviour, and problems such as illegal tipping are addressed.

But in the UK the need to influence household behaviour is secondary compared to the immediate need to substantially increase the amount of investment in new treatment capacity. Earlier this year Ernst and Young carried out a study to explore the scope of waste management companies directly charging householders. They found that this could provide the opportunity to double investment in the management of the UK's municipal waste stream. There is a parallel in the way that the UK approached funding of the water industry to meet huge investments required to meet EU directives. The waste industry could do the same.

By making charges directly to households, waste management companies could escape the political constraints of local taxation. This would allow increases in charges for waste management, providing resources to increase investment.

Fiscal incentives targeted at waste producers are also important to drive change. ESA supports continuing increases in the UK's landfill tax in order to change behaviour. It should however be neutral across the whole economy - ie there should continue to be equivalent tax reductions in other areas - for instance employers tax, so that the overall tax burden to industry is not increased.

These are the issues that need to be addressed in order to ensure more effective resource management. They require partnership between Governments, regulators, and industry.
But all partners need to bring something to the table.

I'd like to briefly mention two initiatives that ESA is developing:

Along with influential NGO the Green Alliance, ESA has agreed a set of performance indicators. These were agreed last year, and incorporated in ESA's Members' code of practice. The industry is currently looking at how to ensure rigorous and comparable data collection. Aggregated figures will allow the sector as a whole to measure progress towards sustainability.

There are 27 indicators in total. They cover: Climate Change, Transport, Water Use, Land use and Wildlife, Regulatory Compliance, Environmental Management Systems, Waste Minimisation/Resource Productivity, Neighbourliness.

After collecting data from members on the indicators, we will be able to publish annual statistics to track progress.

Another industry-wide initiative is based on health and safety. This issue is particularly appropriate as it is European Health and Safety week. Health and Safety is of huge importance to our industry. ESA's Board of Directors has agreed targets to reduce accidents by 10% per year for the next five years, and to eliminate fatalities. Member companies are providing information on accident statistics, with 2000 Data being used as the benchmark. Accident statistics for 2000 and 2001 indicate that the overall reportable incident rate appears to have fallen.

ESA's accident reduction target will be complemented by information to Members on effective initiatives and training programmes that reduce accidents at work.

Conclusions

I have explained what is required to build on the substantial progress already made by the UK. The EU angle is crucial.

Regulatory certainty is key for private companies to invest in treatment capacity. No one will invest in plant unless they are certain waste will be directed to it.

And confidence about the health impacts of waste facilities will play an important part in either speeding up or slowing down the deployment of infrastructure.

Funding is essential - and the UK needs to work hard to achieve the step-change required.

But the chances of achieving change in these external factors will often be determined by the credibility of the industry as a whole. By being a willing partner to change, industry will carry greater credibility.