SWR8

Legislation Committee No 1

Response to the Consultation on the Proposed Shipment of Waste for Recovery (Community Involvement in Arrangements) (Wales) Measure

Powys County Council

I am writing in response to the recent request for views on the above consultation and detailed below is the response of Powys County Council to the proposed Measures that has been approved by the Councils Board.

Summary of Powys County Council Response

Powys County Council supports the 'proximity principle’ but believes this Measure will not deliver the changes needed in Wales to moves towards local reprocessing of recycling materials. The Measure has the large potential to undermine public confidence in local authority recycling and paints exports as 'bad’ when in fact they deliver huge environmental benefits. It also believes this Measure is onerous and that the relevant systems already exist to collect and report this information, provided private companies are required to provide the information to local authorities.

The Measure should be placed on those organisations in the recycling chain that deal with wastes nearer their final destination as local authorities are unlikely to be able to obtain the information that the Measure requires. Attention and resources would be better placed on awareness raising activities through organisations such as Waste Awareness Wales, WRAP and local authorities rather than methods outlined in this Measure, which could easily have negative impacts on public confidence in local authority recycling activities.

Below are the detailed responses to each of the questions raised in the consultation documents.

Question One

It is felt that any measure that is introduced needs to be designed in such a way that it achieves a desirable outcome - in this instance increasing awareness of recycling issues and public participation in local authority recycling schemes. There is a need for more community involvement in waste management issues and primarily this should be a move towards individuals taking responsibility for the amount and types of waste that are produced.

This is more likely to be achieved through better support and use of organisations such as Waste Awareness Wales, WRAP and local authorities rather than the publication of details regarding recyclate destinations. General awareness raising activities will help to show that recycling material outside the EU still has huge environmental benefits and that the waste that is exported is a resource for use in manufacturing of products that often happens outside of Wales. There also needs to be raised awareness about the economic influences that affect a local authority decision to export recyclate and the lack of current home markets for the materials.

The Measure as currently designed would not raise awareness about the limited opportunities of end markets in Wales or the fact that manufacturing capacity is often outside the EU, hence the market for materials.

Question Two

The level of detail involved in complying with the Measure is considered too onerous for the benefit it will ultimately give. Whilst Waste Data Flow (WDF) can be used as a tool to collect and report the information it has already been highlighted by several of the respondents to the previous consultation that local authorities are often several steps removed from the organisation of the final destination of materials. Private companies are under no obligation to supply information to local authorities and as such council officers will spend a disproportionate amount of time collecting very little information. A lack of published information could then be construed as an authority 'hiding’ something when in fact they have been very diligent in trying to obtain the information. As mentioned in our previous response we feel that the Measure would be better placed on the waste merchants, companies and reprocesses involved in the resource chain and that they should be required to supply local authorities with information. This would allow councils to then complete full returns through WDF.

The authority feels that the publication of information is a needless duplication given that information is accessible through WDF. If a publication were to be done it would be more appropriate to undertake one at an all Wales level through the Environment Agency as happens now in relation to the Landfill Allowance Scheme.

Powys supports the involvement of residents in waste management activities. However the authority feel that inviting and having regard to representations on the destination of wastes as outlined has the potential to do more damage than good regarding local authority recycling activities. As proposed in the Measure the engagement would be unstructured and is likely to give rise to adverse publicity. It will also raise expectations that the local authority can act on representations when the reality is such that local markets for recyclate is immature and needs substantial investment for local authorities to have real choice in where they send their materials. Again in returning to the ideal aim of the Measure, to increase awareness and participation in recycling, it would be much better for local authorities to hold more meaningful engagement with residents through focus groups and roadshows. This would allow two way dialogue and the opportunity for local authorities to explain that exporting of recyclate is still environmentally beneficial.

There is a real danger that exports of recycling will be seen as 'bad’ by the public and turn them off recycling and this Measure could well reinforce that. It would be much more beneficial to the recycling effort in Wales if resources were put into raising awareness about the availability of home markets and that the public can help this by purchasing goods and services made in Wales (such as is happening with food production).

Question Three

The provisions in the Measure do not provide the most appropriate means for ensuring community engagement in local authority arrangements. A concerted campaign at national and local level needs to be undertaken to give people a better understanding of the complexities of the markets for recycled material. The Measure as it stands will raise expectations that the local authorities cannot meet which then has the potential to cause a reduction in public confidence in recycling at a time when local authorities are planning and striving to meet the 70% WAG targets.

Question Four

As highlighted above WDF is a means by which this information could be captured and reported. In that respect existing systems and resources could be used to comply with this measure. However there will be a much higher level of effort required to get the level of detail required from organisations that are likely to be unwilling, or unable, to provide the information. Alongside this will be a much greater resource needed to deal with the actual publication of the information and collating and analysing the public representations that arise from it. Given this it is not unreasonable to believe that the WLGA indicated figure of one FTE will be required by the authority in total to deal with the additional workload this Measure will create, at a cost of £25,000

Given that local authorities have already had an additional FTE to deal with the introduction and ongoing work related to WDF it would seem appropriate that private companies are now brought into the waste data collection network. Household waste only accounts for around 10% of all wastes created in Wales and WAG in their new waste strategy, Towards Zero Waste, have set targets for recycling of other wastes which cannot be measured currently as the data is not collected on these waste streams. This reinforces our comments that this Measure is ultimately better placed on those private sector organisations in the recycling chain that should be required to provide information to local authorities for reporting and publishing through WDF.

Question Five

The Measure as currently structured is only likely to achieve the second of the stated two aims, namely local residents encouraging use of local facilities. There are already systems in place (WDF) that allows openness and transparency of local authority activities. However these aims are not then complimentary to the final aim of increasing interest and participation in recycling, which is the most important aim.

Openness of local authority activities is already available through WDF and given the problems we have highlighting in obtaining the required information, it is likely that local authorities will appear to be less open, not more. Greater transparency in the destination of materials for recycling will only come when there is a duty placed on the private sector operators in the chain.

At present there is no point in creating a demand for local processing when the facilities do not exist to the level and scale that would give Welsh local authorities choice. Therefore the Measure is targeted at the wrong part of the chain and energy and resources should be directed towards investment in reprocessing and manufacturing capacity in Wales rather than local authority reporting.

In the previous consultation exercise nearly all respondents, even those in favour, highlighted the potential negative impact the Measure could have on public perception of recycling systems and this should not be underestimated. Local authorities are committed to achieving the 70% inspirational recycling level laid down by WAG but to do that we will need full public support and participation in the recycling systems we operate.

I confirm that Powys County Council is happy for these comments to be published and we welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Committee and explore these issues with you.

Lee Marshall  MCIWM, FRSA
Uwch Reolwr - Polisi a Gwastraff
Senior Manager - Policy and Waste