PUBLIC SECTOR SUSTAINABILITY
FOOD WASTE LEGISLATURE IN BRINGING MORE HARDSHIP
A
ccording to IMC, one of Europe’s leading product innovators that helps catering establishments to turn food waste into a valuable resource,
the proposed ‘Zero Waste’ policies could heap thousands of pounds of mandatory collection charges on catering establishments. The legislature is currently being drawn up by the Scottish regional government but the danger is that this could also act as a blueprint shortly for England and Wales.
IMC has highlighted several flaws in the proposed laws that could not only mandate an extremely narrow solution, with restaurants and commercial caterers paying the heavy price, but also conflicts with the Office of Fair Trading’s investigation into an alternative, arguably more suitable mechanism for turning food waste into an energy source.
A growing group of campaigners are now coming together to raise greater awareness of these plans and to respond to these proposals. Included are industry associations, equipment suppliers, caterers such as hotels and restaurants as well as more high-profile supporters in the form of Imperial College London, who have conducted research on the topic and who themselves employ food waste processing equipment at their main campus and renowned chef and restauranteur Anton Edelmann.
Under the plans to reduce the 20 plus million tonnes of food waste generated each year in the UK by households, caterers and food producers, legislators are proposing mandatory kerbside collection of the waste which would then be sent by road to Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plants to be constructed around the
country for recycling into energy. While this, in principle, is a necessary objective if the nation is to landfill less, turn our waste into a valuable resource and meet overall waste reduction targets, the method proposed, however, will have negative consequences for UK catering establishments.
Under the terms of the new rules, mandatory collection may be imposed at a cost that IMC estimates could amount to around £1,500 per annum for an average restaurant and several times this for public service providers such as hospitals, schools and prisons. Significantly, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), at the request of the water industry’s regulatory body, OFWAT, is currently looking at how Waste Water Treatment Works could become potential sites for treating organic waste together with the sewage that they normally process and converting it into energy. What’s more, many caterers have already invested in food waste processing equipment on site that could be made potentially redundant under the new legislature. Even the House of Commons will be affected by the rules as they also employ such equipment; all at a cost to the taxpayer. This, IMC feels, is a huge opportunity missed as these Food Waste Disposers, or FWDs as they are known, grind the waste down into small particles that can be sent through the existing sewer system before reaching the Waste water Treatment Works. This process not only eliminates collection, thereby saving fuel and reducing overall CO² emissions, but is also proven to improve the energy yield of the waste whilst freeing up other materials including paper, plastic, glass and metal that, as they are no longer contaminated by food waste, can also be recycled.
Reaction from the catering
establishment in the Republic of Ireland, where legislation has already come into force and mandates the compulsory collection of all catering food waste, has been strong. Commenting on effects of the new laws, Adrian Cummins, Chief Executive of the Restaurant Association of Ireland stated; “Our members are already feeling the impact of the collection costs which, in these extremely difficult economic times here in Ireland, is making life even harder for restauranteurs.
24 PUBLIC SECTOR SUSTAINABILITY • VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1
Furthermore, they’ve invested in a great deal of expensive and, more importantly, redundant equipment that now has zero value. Whilst we are all committed to reaching the country’s Zero Waste targets, the banning of Food Waste Disposers really makes little sense given that they reduce the need for separate waste collections, allow Water Treatment Works to convert this waste into a renewable energy source and also improve the yield on other recyclables”. Cummins further added, “We feel these laws have been pushed through as a way of more easily measuring Ireland’s food waste rather than adopting a much broader set of methods that would have been more pragmatic and far less costly” The message that on-site solutions are a viable alternative is certainly getting through as demonstrated recently by Lord Henley, until recently Parliamentary Under Secretary responsible for environmental regulation, who was speaking at the Recycling and Waste World Conference in London earlier this year. In his address, the DEFRA peer praised Wakehurst Place’s, Kew’s ‘Country Garden’, on-site initiative for turning food waste into compost using IMC equipment and applauded the practical and environmental benefits that this system brings.
On a similar note, Imperial College
London devised a new Waste and Recycling Strategy in which In-Vessel Composting, using IMC equipment, met the challenge of tackling the 110 tonnes of food waste they produce each year. As a world’s first the College commissioned a self-contained modular building in which to house the waste processing equipment that converts their food waste into high grade compost which is then subsequently used to fertilize the College’s gardens, saving over £100,000 each year in waste treatment and disposal costs. According to Nic Dent, Imperial College’s Waste & Recycling Manager, “I would envisage our pioneering approach to be followed by many other establishments faced with this challenge”. Consequently, Imperial College has won a host of awards including the 2010 Sustainable FM award for ‘Most sustainable public sector organisation - Education’, the Highly Commended Award at the 2010 National Recycling Awards and the 2010 Rushlight
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 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32