ANALYSIS


Was the waste review a nudge or a shove?


Government policy reviews often go one of two ways. Either they are 100-plus pages of underwhelming policy guff with little targets, answers or action. Or they create controversy and eventually, as is usually the case with this government, end up in some sort of u-turn. Which category does this review fall into? David Burrows reports.


revolved around the re-introduction of weekly collections. However, this piece of work would set out how to achieve a zero waste economy. It had taken in a year’s worth of evidence and information from industry, businesses and a gamut of stakeholders.


T


Sadly, the result was of the ‘guff’ persuasion. Last week’s RWW’s front page told the story: ‘Waste sector underwhelmed by government waste review.’ The editorial went on to suggest that this review “posed more questions than answers”. Indeed, many in the sector will have been left looking longingly to the west and north at the recent, more radical proposals in Wales and Scotland.


“Our expectations for the review had been managed by Defra [the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs], so we weren’t particularly surprised by it,” says Hannah Hislop, Green Alliance senior policy advisor. “We do think that the lack of any stretching target for England makes the ‘zero waste economy’ aspiration sound hollow, particularly when you look at the targets Scotland and Wales have set.


“If you’re not going to have a target, you need very effective policy levers instead, and apart from the commitment to exploring landfill restrictions, those are just not there,” adds Hislop.


The possibility of landfill restrictions was, it seems, one of the few positives from the review. The previous government had been “not minded” to introduce such bans. The devil, of course, will be in the detail. Indeed, it was detail that this review really lacked; it was, however, just that – a review.


“I think we forget this wasn’t a revised waste strategy and, as such, should we really be surprised by the lack of innovation, new thinking or joined up policy contained in the documentation?” asks Adam Read, AEA global practice director (waste management & resource efficiency).


Nevertheless, he was “on the whole disappointed” with the final product. “The 12 month review process did allow the new government to listen to a range of stakeholders, so they will be revisiting some ‘old friends’ in the coming months – landfill bans for target materials, voluntary agreements for local authorities and so on.


“But the sector needed more, wanted more, and as such our trepidation has been replaced with a tinge of what could have been.” It’s an interesting point: what could have been. After a year of build-up, the result may well have left many “underwhelmed”, but as Robert Louis Stephenson once said: “It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.”


Some say the lack of radical initiatives could be a blessing in disguise.


“I’d expected something radical,” says Phil Longhurst from Cranfield University’s Centre for Energy & Resource Technology, “but in some


16 June 30 2011


HE 2011 waste review was eagerly anticipated. This was to be the moment the coalition set out its stall on waste. All the media hype in the preceding days had


ways it’s good that this review isn’t a complete digression from what we have been working towards for a few years. There’s no major conflict with what has gone before, but the concern is around the pace on the large-scale priorities.”


Few in the industry would have wanted a radical shake-up of existing policies. “Plucking arbitrary targets out of the air is not to be encouraged either,” says Matthew Farrow, Environmental Services Association director of policy. ”That doesn’t excuse a lacklustre review, however. The government clearly had the option of making a determined effort to increase the pace by which we move up the waste hierarchy and in choosing not to do so, it disappointed a significant proportion of our membership,” he adds.


Others, like WSP Environment & Energy associate consultant, Matthew Venn, were similarly disappointed.


“The industry was hoping that the review would provide a number of firm commitments and targets to provide them with strategic direction and a basis for future investment and business direction. While some direction and intent has been provided, specifically around landfill bans and sector agreements, there will now be a need to consult which will result in significant time delay.”


The pace of progress is an issue that many have identified as a flaw in the review’s rather timid approach; at least compared with efforts to the west and north.


Future Landfill Directive targets are tough enough, but noises from Brussels are already intimating that the directive could be in line for a major overhaul in due course, with greater restrictions imposed on what can be landfilled. Sita external affair director, Gev Eduljee, says: “We need to be careful not to travel too slowly along the path to modernise our waste infrastructure, and anticipate the inevitable tightening of EU policies on waste. Some in government might call this gold-plating, others might call it being smart and thinking ahead.” The shift to treating waste as a resource is taking shape, but slowly. The support for anaerobic digestion is a step in the right direction, but there is “plenty more waste with calorific value that’s still untapped”, says Cranfield’s Longhurst.


“Municipal solid waste (MSW) is such a small percentage of what we throw away, and to really make progress on using as much waste as possible as a resource, we need to identify opportunities in building waste, construction waste, industrial waste and the other big tonnage materials. We can’t continue to be distracted by the smaller elements.” Of course, the feedstock is one thing; the ability to build the infrastructure to generate energy from it is quite another.


Considerable fears remain over the roll-out of sufficient infrastructure to realise the goals of a zero waste economy with planning policy in disarray. The Localism Bill, for one, is seen as a useful ‘microphone’ for those opposing waste treatment plants. The review calls for less polarised debates on planning applications


through effective engagement, more informed debate, and a greater expectation that local politicians will take responsibility for difficult planning decisions. “We believe local communities should benefit from hosting waste infrastructure and be involved from an early stage in planning for infrastructure. We will support this by providing advice and support for local authorities on science and technology, drawing together and publishing data on likely waste arisings and treatment capacity in future years, and supporting efforts by local authorities through effective contract management to generate further efficiencies in waste collection, reprocessing and treatment.”


Whether these warm sentiments are enough to tackle the challenge of delivering waste infrastructure remains a moot point. “The localism agenda, community engagement and genuine strategic planning that takes advantage of economies of scale are the great imponderables,” comments Sita’s Eduljee. This government is undoubtedly backing a ‘nudge’ approach when it comes to policy and regulation; the raft of voluntary agreements, responsibility deals and community incentives already are testament to that.


But it begs the question: does the waste sector need less of a nudge and more of a shove?


“Clearly, the government will be assuming that a light regulatory touch will leave the ball with the waste industry and local authorities to achieve whatever ‘zero waste’ means through fiscal pressures from Landfill Tax,” says Phil Conran, 360 Environmental director. “All this guff about prioritising prevention: these things


www.recyclingwasteworld.co.uk


cannot happen beyond normal commercial development without a legislative framework. “They are on a different planet. The trouble is all the government departments are now so depleted that you can only see them firefighting. “It is clear that they see waste as a very low priority for intervention and therefore it is hard to see the waste landscape being any different in five years’ time to what it is now.”


The onus may well be on industry to shape the country’s waste agenda. AEA’s Read explains: “Yes, we all wanted to see more challenging targets in line with Scotland and Wales for MSW recycling. Yes, we wanted a clearer steer on the policy alignment between the various government departments. Yes, we wanted greater encouragement and support of joint working and partnerships. “And, yes, we wanted a clear policy framework for the development of residual waste infrastructure, and how to balance the complexities of localism, planning, proximity principle and value for money.


“Unfortunately, the review has delivered ‘what it says on the tin’ a review with little insight, direction or action. The challenge is how the sector will respond, because it is up to consumers, local authorities, the third sector, waste companies and technology providers to ensure that progress continues to be made.” The government’s waste review may not be radical; it may well have passed the buck; it may have posed more questions than answers. But we are where we are, and while the review may not have included the ‘shoves’ to accelerate change, at least the nudges are in the same direction we were headed anyway.


RWW Recycling & WASTE WORLD


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20