ENP0016

Written evidence submitted by Biffa

 

About Biffa

Biffa is a leading UK integrated waste management company providing collection, recycling, treatment, disposal and technologically driven energy services across four operating divisions. We operate nearly 200 sites across the UK, servicing around 137,000 customers, collecting and processing around 7.2Mt of waste a year from businesses and householders. We are the UK’s leading industrial and commercial waste collection service across a range of business sectors including manufacturing, retail and hospitality.

 

Our UK-wide operational infrastructure focuses on the processing of residual and recyclable materials and the creation of sustainable energy from the processing of waste, together with safe disposal of wastes still requiring that management solution. Our control of a substantial volume of waste arisings in the UK places us at the centre of a dynamic and growing sector.

 

Biffa’s involvement in national waste strategy development

As well as being a leading UK waste management company, Biffa has also been heavily involved over the last few years in analysis and commentary on waste management and waste policy issues.  In September 2017 we published our “Reality Gap 2017” report looking at waste management infrastructure requirements and policy issues around residual waste and recycling.  This report was an update and expansion of earlier 2015 Reality Gap report.  Both reports have been presented to Defra specialists and are available on the Biffa website, publications section:

https://www.biffa.co.uk/media-centre/publications/

 

Other waste management companies have produced similar reports, reaching similar conclusions, as has the Environmental Services Association.  However, Biffa’s 2017 report was the first analysis also to identify the looming problem of landfill disposal capacity exhaustion in the UK as well as the more widely recognised shortfall of energy from waste treatment capacity and recycling capacity.

 

Over the last two years we have been directly involved in many waste industry meetings and working groups with Defra and the National Infrastructure Commission, covering such matters as waste data, waste management and infrastructure, commercial realities of waste management and waste and resources policy.  We have also submitted consultation responses to the NIC’s National Infrastructure “Priorities” report, BEIS “Clean Growth Strategy”, the Industrial Strategy and other related consultations. Most recently, Biffa submitted written evidence to the EAC Inquiry on the impact of China’s waste import ban.  Biffa is also a leading member of the main trade association for the sector, the Environmental Services Association (ESA) and has been actively involved in liaison with relevant Government departments through that network, helping to inform various ESA submissions and ESA evidence to the EAC on a range of recent waste topics such as impacts from Brexit, China, plastics and crime.

 

General Comment

Biffa welcomes publication of the long-awaited 25 Year Environment Plan and we are pleased to see that the general aspirations about waste and resources mirror issues we have raised ourselves, in our “Reality Gap” reports and other recent commentaries. 

 

Tackling plastics is the obvious headline-grabber at the current time, but the Plan also quite rightly highlights the wider issues about dealing with the many million tonnes of waste generally which we need to manage in the UK, especially with the huge population and housing growth we are facing and changes in international markets for some materials. 

 

For example, we are pleased to see the acknowledgement of the need to develop more waste management infrastructure in the UK to reduce reliance on exports in future; a call to review product and packaging design; stronger secondary materials markets; encouraging producer responsibility and recovering more value from residual waste through measures like energy from waste technology.  In relation to managing residual waste, including unavoidable wastes which still require safe disposal to landfill, Biffa has published its own detailed analysis and commentary, in our “Reality Gap 2017” report referenced above and in more detail in our comments below.

 

These are all strong signals for action, but the document is more of a long term, aspirational strategy than a detailed “plan”.  However, one element which is not mentioned, but is still an essential area the UK needs to plan properly for is replacement planning for the rapidly declining landfill capacity in England and the UK.  This is necessary in order to continue supporting the economy and protecting the environment by catering for the unavoidable waste materials which still rely on landfill as the most appropriate and safest disposal route.  This is also waste which cannot legally be dealt with via an export route and must be managed within the UK.  We elaborate on this in our detailed comments below. 

 

Defra has advised that the specifics about waste management policy and targets are to be delivered through the forthcoming Resources & Waste strategy, expected in the latter half of this year.  Biffa has been pleased to be involved in on-going meetings with government advisors about that strategy development and related data and practical issues.  However, we urge accelerated publication of the strategy, to help build on the current momentum and give further support and clarity for the sector to make the necessary investments and provide the relevant waste management services which the UK’s businesses and householders need. 

 

Specific comments on Introduction Section Goal 8 (minimising waste) and Actions Section Chapter 4 (resource efficiency, pollution and waste)

 

We support the various aims of “Goal 8” on page 29 of the Introduction, relating to waste minimisation and management.  However, until the detailed targets and delivery mechanisms are published in the new Resources and Waste Strategy later in the year it is not possible to gauge whether these goals are realistic and achievable – they need to be both.  As a case in point, in relation to the goal of “meeting all existing waste targets” the UK is not on track to meet the current target of 50% recycling of household waste by 2020.  The latest Defra UK Statistics on Waste report (22nd February 2018) shows household recycling rates stuck at around 45% (2016 data) and having been stuck at 43-45% since 2011.  With this year’s impacts from China’s bans and restrictions on imported recyclables we now expect these rates to fall.

 

In Chapter 4 we support the long term aim of better resource use and eliminating all “avoidable” waste by 2050 and all “avoidable” plastic waste by 2042 (ie the 25 Year Plan period).  We agree with the important reference to “avoidable” waste, acknowledging that some waste is unavoidable.  Unqualified terms like “zero waste” give a misleading impression that all waste is avoidable, which, though well intentioned, is not helpful in properly explaining and addressing the full range of actual challenges relating to waste management and pollution control.

 

We consider the sentence “sustainable growth can go hand in hand with less waste” to be naïve.  It may be possible to achieve less waste per capita, but that is reduced waste growth, not reduced waste.  The Defra February 2018 waste statistics show household waste continuing to grow and the Government’s house building agenda to cater for population growth can only continue this waste growth.  Economic growth is also a Government goal but has yet to be de-coupled from waste growth, if indeed it can be, which we seriously doubt.  In our view, overall waste growth will continue to outstrip waste reduction measures.  An effective Plan or Strategy needs to plan for likely and worst-case scenarios, otherwise it will be found wanting if the dream does not materialise.  The UK needs to plan for the necessary infrastructure provision for such scenarios, even if the hope is that it may not be required.  Otherwise, the risk (and in our view the more likely scenario) is that over optimistic predictions of reduced waste arisings will lead to less investment in waste management infrastructure, leading to the likely double-whammy of more waste than predicted and proportionately even less infrastructure to deal with it.  This will hinder the smooth functioning of the economy and increase the risk of pollution and waste crime due to inadequate waste management systems being in place.

 

The reference to the aggregates levy (page 83) is very valid.  Applying the same logic and principles in a waste context points to a similar tax or levy approach to other raw materials, such as plastics, which compete with secondary materials/plastics.  This could have a similar effect to the aggregate tax in terms of increasing demand for recycled materials.  Stronger demand/”pull” measure are now widely recognised as being fundamental to driving further significant progress in levels of re-use and recycling.

 

The comment about “not exporting waste to other countries” (top of page 84) is a valid concern, in the sense that the more of its waste that the UK deals with in the UK the better, but it could be misinterpreted. Recyclables exports are materials which other countries want from the UK and have purchased, including Europe and China, to make into products and packaging which UK consumers then buy back from them.  This is a simply a reflection of global trade.

 

Section 1: Resource efficiency and end of life environmental impacts

The proposal to produce a detailed Resources and Waste Strategy later in the year is welcomed, but this work needs to be accelerated.  UK shortfalls in waste management infrastructure are now well known through a wide number of reports over the last couple of years. Recent events such as uncertainties around post-Brexit policy and China’s bans and restrictions on various types of waste and recyclables mean that urgent action and greater clarity is vital.

 

Subsection (i): Zero avoidable plastic waste by end of 2042

We agree with the “production stage” actions listed, including looking at using fiscal measures like a tax or levy system to address single use plastics; making packaging easier to recycle and potential reform of Producer Responsibility systems (but subject to clarification of details and not in isolation from other measures).  As regards Producer Responsibility in the wider sense, we think there are also benefits in the approach in Scotland and Wales where separate collection compliance responsibilities fall on the producer, rather than the collector of the waste. 

 

In terms of encouraging bio-plastics this carries pros and cons.  Bio-plastics would need to be clearly labelled to keep separate from plastics for recycling, or they will simply become another contaminant in recycling streams.  They also degrade at different rates, some over a long time, so may not be suitable for processes like composting or anaerobic digestion as some promoters of them claim.  This highlights the need to consider full supply chain and lifecycle impacts for new materials.  It also alters the criteria and debate relating to energy recovery from plastics, since energy recovered from bio-plastics (made from renewable resources) would be classified as renewable energy, whereas energy recovered from fossil fuel-based plastics is not.  These points are noted in the EU Plastics Strategy published on 16th January 2018 and also the work on plastics and plastic markets by WRAP, which identifies a number of key issues and ideas.

 

What appears to be missing from this section, however, are actions to promote stronger markets for secondary materials use, as promoted in the opening section to Chapter 4 and referenced in the action box on page 85. Although there is an action to “seek views” on tax systems, other measures such as minimum recycled content requirements in products and packaging could be considered, as well as incentive mechanisms to use secondary rather than primary resources.

 

In relation to “end of life/waste management stage” actions, measures to increase collection of plastic packaging will not achieve recycling on their own if end markets are not addressed.  Collection and sorting/processing is not actually recycling, it is preparing material for sale to a market. For it to succeed that market has to exist and also be stable.  Recent events in China have put that point into very sharp focus.

 

Section (ii): Food waste

We consider that the food waste actions listed on page 90 should also consider proposals similar to Scotland and Wales, mandating food waste producers to have separate food waste collections.  This will help support the suite of anaerobic digestion infrastructure which has now been developed in the UK. The document references local authority food waste collections but does not mention separate food waste collection from businesses, particularly those which produce large quantities of food waste.

 

Section (iv): improving management of residual waste

Biffa has done a lot of detailed analysis of its own on this issue through our “Reality Gap” reports, as have a number of other waste management companies. ESA has also reported on the issue (UK Residual Waste: 2030 Market Review, November 2017).

 

As Biffa’s “Reality Gap 2017” report explains, the UK currently has a shortfall of operational energy from waste capacity of over 13Mtpa, predicted to reduce but still leave a shortfall of around 6Mtpa by 2030.  This also assumes continued RDF export reliance of around 3Mtpa, without which the UK capacity gap would be 3Mtpa greater.  In addition, and despite the impressive progress in the UK on diversion of economically recyclable and combustible waste from landfill to recycling and energy from waste routes, we calculate an on-going need for around 21Mtpa of unavoidable landfill disposal capacity.  This is made up from around 15Mtpa of unavoidable residual waste types for which safe disposal to landfill is the correct and sustainable waste management route – for example, industrial process residues, fines and residues from other waste treatment process, asbestos and asbestos contaminated wastes and contaminated soils from brownfield re-development projects - plus the additional long term “EfW capacity gap” volume of around 6Mtpa.  This is summarised in the graph below from our report:

 

 

Several areas of the UK have already run out of landfill capacity and waste is having to be transported further to the next nearest facility, accelerating the consumption of that capacity. Overall, Biffa has calculated that current UK landfill capacity will run out by 2027.  The Environment Agency predict this exhaustion even sooner for England, running out by 2023, based on 6.8 years remaining from 2016 (Waste Management 2016 in England, published September 2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/waste-management-for-england-2016

 

We support the recognition of the need for additional energy recovery from residual waste but the landfill replacement aspect is also a crucial area for action and should be included.  Unlike other forms of waste management, landfill is the one form or infrastructure which is consumed as it is used, meaning at some point it always needs replacing.  Existing capacity also needs safeguarding from encroachment from sensitive new development, particularly housing and this is a growing problem.  Replacement landfill capacity is also particularly challenging, being largely driven by geology (in terms of following on from mineral extraction and also suitable geology in terms of groundwater protection).  At Local Planning Authority, planning for replacement landfill capacity now needs “plugging back in” to the next round of Waste Local Plans, having largely been ignored over the last few years.

 

Section (v): waste crime

This is an important area of work, which we support.  Not only is waste crime harmful to the environment but it also impacts on business providing legitimate waste management services.

 

Electronic tracking of waste has had a poor track record so far due to the failures of the current “edoc” system in the way it was designed.  There is scope to improve this so long as the mistakes of the past are not repeated.  Efforts need to be focussed on the specific type of data necessary to address the specific problem, rather simply a massive data collection and reporting exercise which could result in additional red tape for legal operators and also not actually deliver the right type of date or deliver it in a way which enables helpful interpretation and conclusions to be drawn.  Waste criminals will not operate within this reporting system anyway, so it needs to be remembered that it will not actually assist in tackling waste crime, although an operator tracking system, rather than a waste tracking system may do.

 

 

Specific EAC questions

Ambition and Reporting

 

Gaps are identified in our detailed comments above.  A significant gap is the failure to plan for replacement landfill capacity in addition to other residual waste management infrastructure in Chapter 4.  We comment on this in detail above.

 

 

In terms of waste management, success will be solving the current shortfall of recycling and residual waste management infrastructure capacity in the UK; reducing reliance on off-shore solutions; stronger markets and demand for secondary materials and achievement of whatever new targets are set.  In relation to commitments it is not possible yet to judge their adequacy until the new, more detailed Resources and Waste Strategy is published later in the year, explaining in more detail what legislative commitments will be and how and when they will be applied. 

 

 

At this stage it is impossible to gauge the risks and benefits since they depend on the detailed proposals, which are yet to be developed.  If proportionately and realistically applied to relevant forms of development, then the concept of environmental net gain could deliver benefits.  However, if applied in a disproportionate, draconian manner there is likely to be a negative impact, hampering the delivery of necessary new development such as housing and essential infrastructure.  It should certainly not be allowed to be abused such that Local Planning Authorities use it as a means of compensating for budget cuts by placing unreasonable demands for financial or other contributions on developers who are attempting to deliver the new housing, infrastructure and services which are identified in their own Local Plans as being necessary.  In our view, the current planning system already delivers the right balance, having been based on the concept of sustainable development for many years already.  Indeed, sustainable development is already a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework and was similarly embedded in previous national planning policy documents.

 

 

In relation to resource and waste management we consider it essential that, for optimal UK market operation, there is as much consistency (and as least inconsistency) as possible between England and the Devolved Administrations.  Currently there are more pro-active measures and approaches being pursued in Scotland and Wales, such as mandatory food waste collection and compliance responsibilities falling on waste producers rather than collectors, which could be followed in England.  However, there are also potential unintended negative impacts, such as the forthcoming landfill ban on biodegradable municipal waste in Scotland in two years’ time, the consequence of which will be waste export to England or Wales for landfill due to the shortfall of non-landfill alternatives for the material in Scotland.  In relation to waste generation, England has the least remaining landfill capacity of the UK nations and it would be unfortunate if remaining capacity usage was accelerated through imports from Scotland, where, proportionately, greater remaining capacity exists.  Also, there is inconsistency in waste reporting across the Devolved Administrations, with Wales, for example, reporting higher recycling rates due to different materials being included, thereby obscuring direct performance comparisons and generating misleading reports. In relation to WEEE compliance, following the charging review by the EA in England it appears that fees in England are about to increase, creating further disparities.

 

Principles and Oversight

 

In practice, the EU has proved to be largely toothless in enforcing compliance with its waste management targets.  For example, the UK has easily complied with EU landfill diversion targets, but no action has been taken by the EU against Member States which have completely missed, to the point of completely ignoring, such targets.  By allowing different reporting methodologies to be used for waste recycling reporting and other metrics the EU has also presided over confusion, resulting in meaningful like-for-like comparisons between member states being impossible.  Admittedly, harmonised reporting is one of the actions proposed in the EU Circular Economy Package but details and effectiveness of that remain to be seen.  Generally, so far as waste management is concerned, a UK independent statutory body could, potentially, be more effective than the EU has been and would also be entirely UK focussed. It could also assist in achieving greater consistency between the Devolved Administrations, picking up on the previous question.

 

In practice in the UK, compliance with waste and pollution regulation is already delivered by UK agencies, namely the Environment Agency in England and their equivalents in the Devolved Administrations, since the relevant EU Directives requirements are already incorporated into UK law and will continue to be. General UK compliance reporting by Defra to the EU appears to be largely an academic exercise, although the reports themselves (the annual Defra waste statistics reports and the annual Defra Resources and Waste Digest report) provide very useful data for UK waste managers, operators and investors and their publication should certainly be continued, albeit for the UK audience in future rather than for compliance reporting into the EU.

 

 

In relation to resources and waste management, the delivery mechanism for this is stated as being the forthcoming Resources and Waste Strategy.  However, without further substantive and direct intervention to require greater use of secondary resources in products and packaging design, together with better and simpler packaging which is easier to recycle, allied with greater producer responsibility, it is unlikely that current market driven performance will change much – current policy having delivered current performance.  That is not to say there is anything necessarily wrong with current performance – it depends what balance is wanted.  However, the point is that ambitions for a higher level of performance, good as they might be, are unlikely to materialise in reality without some further, regulatory and policy change to alter the status quo.  If a different outcome is now wanted, a different approach will be needed. 

 

As a minimum, unhelpful, misguided, negative approaches and commentaries should be avoided or private sector investment could be discouraged.  This is particularly relevant in relation to residual waste management infrastructure like energy from waste facilities, where investment costs are substantially higher and lead in times much greater than for recycling infrastructure and where, despite the clear needs and benefits, persistent, misguided and negative commentaries can deter investors. Government has been guilty of this in the past (though thankfully not in this document) and the London Assembly is presently guilty of this in its recent report (Waste: Energy from Waste, February 2018). In order to be self-sustaining in the long term, any policy changes also need to be firmly grounded in commercial reality.

 

 

 

 

February 2018

 

 

Page 1 of 8