SWR11
Legislation Committee No 1
Response to the Consultation on the Proposed Shipment of Waste for Recovery(Community Involvement in Arrangements) (Wales) Measure
Welsh Local Government Association
Introduction
1. The Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) represents the 22 local authorities in Wales, and the three national park authorities, the three fire and rescue authorities, and four police authorities are associate members. It seeks to provide representation to local authorities within an emerging policy framework that satisfies the key priorities of our members and delivers a broad range of services that add value to Welsh Local Government and the communities they serve.
2. The WLGA welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation on a measure relating to end destinations for recycling that is collected by the 22 local authorities in Wales. Waste management is a strategic priority for the Welsh LAs because of the heavy potential fines that could arise; both from Welsh Assembly Government and Europe. To meet these challenges significant investment has been made in the provision of recycling services and we have seen Wales’ performance on recycling rise from 7% in 2002 to c.36% in 2008-09.
3. Whilst endorsing the key principles of transparency and proximity principle behind the measure the Association does not believe that this measure is needed. Nor will it achieve its aim of increasing participation in recycling and necessarily ensure that local recycling facilities are utilised. In its previous response the WLGA proposed that a voluntary approach be attempted. In addition recent guidance issued by the Environment Agency to support the monitoring of the Landfill Allowance Scheme ensures that local authorities are already providing as much information as possible on the end destination of the recyclate collected.
Equity and Legislative Competence
4. In our previous submission we argued that there should be equity across all waste streams and that it is just as important to know what happens to recyclate collected from industrial, commercial and other activities in Wales as that collected by councils. In the explanatory memorandum it is explained that the National Assembly only has legal competence currently over local government activities. However we are aware that the Environment and Waste Management Legislative Competence Order is currently being scrutinised by Westminster and if successful will allow the National Assembly to make measures on "preventing, reducing, managing, treating or disposing of waste” i.e. all waste streams. There therefore in the not to distant future will become an opportunity where a system could be implemented that requires this information for all waste streams, and considering that municipal waste i.e. that collected by a local authority, only makes up 10% of total waste arisings in Wales will ensure that Wales knows what happens to all of its recyclate - municipal waste is not the only important waste stream. Indeed because of the Landfill Allowance Scheme it is argued that municipal waste is already under far more scrutiny and transparency than the other waste sectors.
5. The measure seems to imply that simply by putting information on a website that change can occur. However no mention is given to those who have to scrutinise and monitor the existing regime for the shipment of waste i.e. the Environment Agency orthose doing the shipping - the brokers etc. The measure may therefore not achieve what it is intended simply because of its narrow focus because of the current legislative competence of the National Assembly and this measure. The LCO could change this and ensure a robust holistic system was introduced.
Public Confidence
6. The Association is also concerned that the measure could in fact jeapordise public confidence in recycling. The local authorities are not being given any powers to enforce that information is provided to them; it is relying on good will and cooperation of the market and is not backed up by amendments to national and international legislation. There is the potential that some reprocessors, brokers may not provide the information on the grounds of commercial confidentiality and others will. Without wanting to do the waste industry a mis-service we are concerned that because the measure doesn’t give the LAs any power the LAs have to rely solely on the word of the party providing the information and has no mechanism to chase up information. Again because the whole system isn’t being looked at there is the potential that information is published which is incorrect, this is exposed and public confidence in the LA is eroded and recycling services and performance suffer as a consequence.
7. We are concerned that a two-tier system could be created in Wales, could increase suspicion and mistrust of the LAs who are simply unable to get the information and undermine public confidence in the recycling system provided. We accept that this is a worst case scenario but it mustn’t be ruled out. If the measure was more complete then this could be avoided.
8. Recent research undertaken on behalf of Waste Awareness Wales shows that what happens to recycling is important to the Welsh public but isn’t the key motivating factor. Public attitudes towards and participation in recycling is complex; there are many drivers and barriers and different people will have different motivating factors. For some people it is the ease of the system. For others it is all about the "green” ethos and that value should be extracted and we shouldn’t waste our natural scarce resources. For others however it is done begrudgingly and they only participate because the service is too close to home to be ignored. There is general interest in what happens to recycling, and people do want to know that what is put out is recycled but this measure will not ensure more participation in recycling services. People’s attitudes and behaviour are much more complex than that. In addition, it has been explained above that the measure may result in information being provided which the Welsh public do not understand and do not like i.e. that more waste than they thought is being shipped to the major world manufacturing centres (although they don’t mind buying products made from those areas). This could potentially really undermine participation in the recycling service, cause a drop in performance and put the LAs at risk of not meeting WAG recycling targets and importantly the EU targets set for landfill diversion (as if the public mix the recyclate with other waste it has to go somewhere).
9. The Association fully accepts that the public need to engage more with the waste debate, and we are committed through working closely with Welsh Assembly Government and Waste Awareness Wales that more is done to increase participation and community involvement in recycling and waste in general. We do not believe however that this measure will achieve these ends. Activities such as pro-active consultation, engagement on service changes and new facilities and doorstepping to explain to people about why waste is important are far more direct routes of community involvement and will have more of an impact than a statement on a website.
Link to Best Value and the New Waste Strategy
10. It could be argued that if brokers are unwilling to provide the information then they should not be used. However end market is not the only criterion that is taken into consideration and the regulations do not address this. Local authorities have a legislative duty to ensure economy, efficiency and effectiveness i.e. best value. Part of the equation will be local jobs, but for waste end markets other factors are important. Price is very important. Recycling is an expensive activity and continued investment is needed. The local authorities need to get the best price possible to ensure that the affordability gap in waste services can be narrowed. The crash in November 2008 of some markets (i.e. steel went from £100 per tonne to £0) demonstrates the importance of price. The crash also demonstrated the importance of security. Some waste streams are more volatile than others, but to reduce work load and guarantee that materials can always be collected and not stockpiled LAs will look for the longest and most secure contract. These two considerations may result in a very different answer to using the nearest recycling facility.
11. Waste is a complex business. The Welsh authorities fully work within the proximity principle but as stated above will also look for security and best value as well. It cannot always be assumed that the nearest recyclate reprocessor offers the best solution. The Welsh Assembly Government’s new waste strategy 'Towards Zero Waste’ introduces the concept of ecological footprinting to a service for the first time. This is a brave and ambitious approach. However it also proposes that closed loop recycling is the best possible approach for most material streams particularly metals and plastic. Because of world economics Wales is not a major manufacturer any more. We have seen over recent years innovative means of turning collected plastic into fleeces and cans into cars, but the ecological footprint approach and the forthcoming municipal waste sector plan will try and ensure closed loop recycling wherever possible. This means therefore that plastic bottles need to be recycled back into plastic bottles, cans back into cans. The industrial processes for these activities are not always based in Wales and whilst there may be a plastic to fleece facility nearby the LAs will look to secure a market in line with WAG’s waste policy. There therefore is the potential that this measure may actually undermine Towards Zero Waste.
12. The measure relates to the old Waste Strategy - Wise About Waste. Whilst the new waste strategy does endorse the proximity principle the ecological footprinting is supported by life cycle assessment criteria. LCA is a far more complex tool than the proximity principle and we believe that waste should be handled in the best possible environmental manner, and not just assume local is best.
13. Towards Zero Waste also sets out an aspiration for the blurring of the lines between the different regulatory regimes of the different waste streams to ensure effectiveness and efficiency of systems and facilities. For example we don’t need two glass reprocessors one dealing with municipal and one dealing with commercial waste. However this measure implies that in order to get the best possible information LAs should deal with brokers which can guarantee with 100% certainty where 100% of the material ends up and not mix it with other waste streams. As well as creating a different market for municipal waste it goes against the amalgamation required by Towards Zero Waste.
14. It is very important that measures are in line with latest government policy. The points above demonstrate that the measure is potentially out of sync with WAG policy and we would propose needs to be reviewed before it is taken any further.
Impact on Competitiveness
15. As efforts continue to avoid EU infraction fines in 2012-13 and beyond more and more investment in Wales, the UK and Europe is going to go into recycling. Those involved in dealing with the recyclate market are going to be inundated with requests for sourcing markets, contracts and price information. There is the real threat that because Welsh LAs will require more information than their counterparts in England that lower prices, less secure contracts are offered - Wales could become less competitive because of the regulatory and reporting regime this measure imposes. The Welsh LAs will want to ensure that if this measure is passed that they do all they can to ensure the information is provided - and this will involve putting more pressure on brokers. The brokers will not get this from their English LAs and may therefore prefer to work with them. This has not been factored into the measure and it is unclear how Wales would deal with this should it occur.
Cost
16. We cannot ignore that this measure will increase costs. Very few Welsh LAs are currently directly responsible for sourcing markets for their recyclate - they use brokers who are experienced in this field. In our first response we argued that to really get to grips with the spirit of this measure a Full Time Equivalent would be needed per local authority at an all-Wales cost of £700,000. We still believe this to be true. In the explanatory memorandum it is argued that limited time would need to be given to this by LAs and could be part of someone elses’ job. This is assuming that staff within Welsh LAs have spare capacity. With the increase in waste duties over the last few years:- introduction of recycling services, introduction of food waste collection, upgrades of CA sites, data monitoring and reporting and complex food and residual waste procurement programmes to work towards there is no spare capacity in the waste teams in the Councils. New staff would need to be recruited to deliver on this measure and we would look to the Welsh Assembly Government to put additional funds into either the settlement or Sustainable Waste Management Grant to cover the costs. We would be happy to explore the potential for regional/partnership officers to undertake this function on behalf of a number of LAs and this work would also tie into the aim of regional contracts for some recyclate streams, but we believe the £700,000 to be an accurate and reliable figure to work from.
17. If this measure were passed it is also proposed that additional resources would need to be provided to Waste Awareness Wales to develop and implement a campaign on why recycling markets are the way they are so that the Welsh public understand the complexities of the whole system. This campaign would need to be in addition to existing campaigns on food waste minimisation and waste facilities as this work cannot stop so a budget would need to be set aside by Welsh Assembly Government to support this work. A campaign can cost up to £100,000.
18. In our first consultation response we argued that providing information into Waste Dataflow should suffice and that additional reporting methods should not be introduced. We still believe this to be the case as it avoids duplication and avoids wasted staff time.
Conclusion
19. The WLGA, fully supportive of transparency and community involvement in waste, does not believe that the measure will achieve the aims intended. In fact our main concern is the additional burdens on LAs at a time of restraint and the unintended potentially damaging consequences of the measure.
20. Given the status of the LCO we believe the measure to be premature and that potentially a more holistic system which tackles some of the barriers identified above could be looked at in due course.
Specific Questions
1. Is there a need for an Assembly Measure in relation to community involvement in local authorities arrangements for dealing with recyclate?
The Association does not believe that a measure is the best way to get community involvement in recycling. As outlined above the end destination is not the key motivator for participation in recycling and there are far more effective local and national initiatives which can be put in place to engender community involvement than a statement on a website.
2. What are you views on the key provisions set out in the proposed Measure, i.e.
The duty on authorities in Wales to prepare statements in relation to waste destined for recovery shipped outside the European Community and European Free Trade Area (EFTA) (section 55A(2));
We believe that the statements will be ineffective in creating additional community involvement in recycling service. Indeed lack of information in a statement, through no fault of the local authority could undermine community involvement.
The measure gives no powers to local authorities to get the information needed in the statement and even though this may be stated it is unlikely that the public will believe the LA if another was able to publish some information - the LAs are at the whim of the brokers and reprocessors - which this measure doesn’t cover.
The information required for the statement (section 55B);
The information required is detailed and does not take account of the complexities of the waste world. Waste is an international business and municipal waste will get mixed with other waste streams - it therefore isn’t possible to say with 100% certainty that 100,000 tonnes of clear municipal waste glass when mixed with commercial glass was dealt with by facility x or facility y - the broker won’t be able to tell as glass is glass.
The arrangements for publication of the statement (section 55B, subsection 3); and
The WLGA argued in its previous submission that Waste Dataflow should be utilised not a different reporting mechanism. We continue to support this argument. Each year the Environment Agency publishes on 1st Sep the report on landfill diversion. There is no reason why in the same report a national perspective on recycling end markets could not be provided. Indeed the information is already provided to the EA for the LAS monitoring process.
The requirement on the authority to have regard to representations when deciding on future arrangements for waste destined for recovery (section 55B, subsection 5).
The LAs only have a limited role to play in securing markets for recyclate - they do not always deal with the end processor so representations may have very little impact. Local authorities fully support public engagement in the development of their waste services, but feel that more appropriate methods are needed rather than the approach proposed by this measure.
3. Do the above provisions provide the most appropriate means of ensuring community involvement in local authorities arrangements for dealing with recyclate?
No. We are concerned about public understanding of how waste is dealt with and that public confidence could be eroded. Even those in support of the measure in the first consultation raised this concern. There are far more effective methods for securing community involvement in recycling services than this measure proposes.
4. What are the practical and financial implications for putting these provisions in place?
The practical implications are quite immense. The LAs will need to review all current contracts, see what terms and conditions can be changed and engage with the market to see if they would be willing for such a change - agreement cannot be assumed. An officer will be required to constantly monitor performance and reporting arrangements to ensure that data provided is accurate and up to date. The LAs will also want to ensure that information they are getting is accurate so more engagement with the market will be necessary which will be time consuming. We believe 1 FTE will be required per LA at a cost of £700,000. This should be seen as a new burden and full costs covered by Welsh Assembly Government and additional funds set aside and not part of existing waste funding.
We also believe that investment will be needed into Waste Awareness Wales to support the introduction of this measure to educate the Welsh public on how waste going to China for example for recycling is not a bad thing - particularly if we do not have the closed loop systems in Wales.
5. Will the proposed Measure achieves it overall purpose and aims, i.e. to engender greater transparency and openness in the way that Welsh authorities deal with recyclate; for residents to encourage local authorities to use recycling facilities nearer to the source of the recyclate than those further away; and increased interest and possibly participation in recycling?
Our real concern is that the measure will do the exact opposite.
For further information please contact:
Welsh Local Government Association
Local Government House
Drake walk
Cardiff
CF10 4LG
Tel: 029 2046 8600
