Ben Bradshaw MP, Minister for Waste, addressed a seminar of the Fabian Environmental Policy Network on18th April 2006 at One Queen Anne's Gate, Westminster, with respondents Nigel Mattravers, Chair of the Waste Management Board, Institution of Civil Engineers and Ben Shaw, Green Alliance, chaired by Fabian Environmental Policy Network co-ordinator, Jamie Hodge. Along with the Network members, those present included representatives of local authorities, the waste management industry, environmental organisation, government departments and elected representatives.

This seminar was held under Chatham House Rules. This record therefore offers a briefing on the broad issues covered in the debate, but without attributing the points to particular contributors who made them.

The discussion covered a range of issues, including

• The government's ongoing review of its waste management strategy
• The increasing salience of waste issues on the political and public agenda, and indeed the changing political landscape with regards to the environment
• Need for stability in waste management policy
• Waste hierarchy and definitions of waste
• Recovery of energy from waste
• Development and implementation of new technologies
• Cost and financial implications of waste

The meeting noted that since 1997, when the UK had one of the lowest recycling rates in the EU, recycling of municipal waste had trebled; the Government had succeeded in meeting its current recycling targets. However, despite this improvement, the current UK rate of recycling is still lower than the majority of EU countries, and unlike Britain, a number of northern European nations had already successfully met their EU targets for 2016 that aim to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 35% of that produced in 1995. The changing political landscape around issues of the environment provides a number of opportunities and challenges for the government. Discussion at the seminar highlighted the increasing salience of waste issues such as recycling amongst the general public, and a number of participants made the point that the government increasingly appeared to be playing "catch up" with other political parties in terms of the environmental agenda.

The government's ongoing review of its waste management strategy was welcomed by the seminar participants, however the case was made forcefully by attendees that stability and clear direction was needed for industry and local authorities, to provide a climate in which they feel able to invest for the long term. It was recognised that the Review and the targets it contains are open to discussion (and deliberately worded in places) to encourage debate on its key issues. The government's main aim was said to be to move away from landfill as the main method of waste disposal, and the need to maximise the UK's waste to energy ratio. This issue proved contentious; much of the debate around the Waste Review has focussed on the government's proposal for increased incineration and recovery of energy, and this was criticised by one participant who said that only residual waste should be used to create energy; there are fears that waste which should be recycled would be incinerated for economic reasons. Waste to energy, (incineration of waste to generate electricity/ heat) was however highlighted by others present as an opportunity to generate substantial amounts of energy from a resource that is currently largely disposed of through landfill. Better technology has reduced levels of dangerous emissions from incinerators, and therefore it was argued that waste-to-energy could play a significant part in UK energy supply.

There were a number of barriers to this being achieved highlighted by participants. The siting of and the process of gaining planning permission for waste facilities, and in particular incinerators/ waste to energy facilities remains fraught with difficulty. One respondent argued that in London, there was a serious problem with lack of capacity in waste facilities, and that currently all Material Recycling Facilities (MRF's) in the capital were at full capacity. A further participant suggested that the planning regulations for new facilities urgently needed reform, as otherwise the current system could lead to a large bottleneck in facility construction. Indeed, the point was made that waste is the fourth utility alongside gas, electricity and water, and should be treated as such due to its national importance. It was estimated by one participant that around £10billion would need to be invested in the UK in order for the UK to meet its EU landfill directives, and that it was important that the political climate encouraged industry to invest for the long term.

Defining "waste" also provided contentious- the point was made that waste means different things to different people, and that there was not enough consensus on the issue. This was agreed by the majority of those present, and that while the definitions of waste used in the Waste Review were those of the Department for Environment, perhaps they needed to be made more clear. One participant criticised the use of weight based targets set by government and local authorities, stating that this led to a situation where councils favoured heavy waste rather than responsible/ productive recycling- providing an example of how local authorities often favoured heavy biodegradable green waste over light plastic bottles which were more bulky and difficult to handle; a situation that did not make best use of the resources available and a knock on detrimental effect on potential carbon and energy reduction.

The current waste hierarchy which the Government uses- "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" was debated. The hierarchy concept provides a framework within which the most desirable waste management options are set out. The hierarchy states that waste minimization/ reduction remains the most important approach to dealing with the growing problem of waste, as waste that is not created in the first place does not need to be reused, recycled or disposed of. There was a general consensus that the government had made steps in the right direction; introducing the concept of producer responsibility as a guiding mechanism to work in partnership with industry to reduce packaging for example, however the comment was made that more needed to be done in this area. An important point however was made that this could not and should not solely be done by government; industry itself has an extremely important part to play in this, and pressure from consumers themselves is an important component in affecting change.

One particular challenge discussed that faced the government in its aim to reduce the levels of landfill and increase recycling was that of providing markets for recycled materials. Whilst the rise in world commodity prices had encouraged the growth of demand for materials such as steel and aluminium, one seminar participant argued that whilst the government had established mechanisms for promoting the growth of markets for recycled materials though the establishment of the Waste & Resources Action Programme, the public resources that WRAP invested were not being directed efficiently, and that there had been too much focus on supply and the demand for recycled materials has been neglected; without demand all other policies would ultimately fail. This was countered by another respondent who agreed that demand was key to stimulating a viable recycling industry, but stated that WRAP had achieved much since its inception, and through its new two year business plan, would be concentrating its efforts in areas where large tonnage gains could be achieved, with the aim of further increasing market capacity for recycled materials.

The issue of the cost of dealing with waste, and indeed the costs of inaction were discussed. Whilst there was a general consensus that the government had made many positives steps, in particular, the introduction of the landfill tax, criticism was made that the level of this charge for waste sent to landfill was not yet set high enough, especially when compared with the much higher rates set in other EU states (many of which enjoyed far higher levels of recycling/ diversion from landfill). This point proved contentious, as others argued that simply raising the level of landfill tax alone would not be an effective enough incentive, and that other fiscal measures must be considered. One participant suggested that the government should look further at the introduction of variable charges for waste production; this also proved contentious as some argued that this would simply load costs onto those least able to pay, whilst others concurred that variable charging could be the most effective way to incentivise members of the public to reduce their levels of waste production. An important point made was that it should be recognised that the application of fiscal measures was the responsibility of the Treasury, and there was discussion of the difficulties that this engendered when making the case of new fiscal measures, something common to all government departments.

There was a general consensus that the government had achieved much in making good progress towards its ambitious targets on waste management. However, there remain a number of difficult and contentious issues; the role of energy-to-waste, the use and application of fiscal measures, and the sources of investment in waste management solutions, amongst others. It was felt by some that the government needed to re-affirm its commitments to its aims of waste minimisation, increased recycling and diversion from landfill; and a number of attendees declared their desire for clear and stable direction on waste management policy. The government's publication of its Waste Strategy is awaited with interest.

The Fabian Society would like to thank all those who attended, particularly Ben Bradshaw MP for speaking to the Network.

Back to Engaging with the Waste Review