38
Rosa
Tanfield, Group Manager - Neighbourhood Services, attended the meeting to
present an overview of the latest proposals from central Government in relation
to the Environment Bill, and the impact that this would have on the Council’s
services. The information presented to the Panel was based on the latest
consultation that had been carried out.
The
Panel heard that through the Environment Bill, central Government were seeking
to promote clean air, reduce waste and improve the management of resources. Three
consultations had been carried out recently, and the proposals that were now
being made would constitute the biggest change in waste services in years
across the whole United Kingdom (UK), impacting the way that services were
provided, the infrastructure necessary to support them and the costs of
providing them.
The
Panel were advised that three main elements were being considered, starting
with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which would require packaging
producers responsible for the full net costs of managing packaging that they
placed in the market, including costs incurred from collection, sorting and
recycling as well as litter and refuse management costs. The second proposal
was a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), which proposed introducing up front deposits
for plastic, glass and metal drinks containers, which would be reimbursed when
the container was returned to a recycling point. The third elements that the Panel
were briefed about was the aim to increase consistency in household and
business recycling through standardised collections.
The
Panel were advised that the EPR scheme was intended to ensure that producers
bore much more of the cost associated with the collection and recycling of
packaging waste that they present to the market. Fees would be paid by
producers and used to support Local Authority and local businesses providing
recycling services, and in turn the increased quality of recycling would assist
producers in meeting their packaging obligations. One of the over-arching
principles of the scheme was that of ‘producer pays’, in order to cover the
costs associated with packaging deposited in the litter stream, and to
encourage the design of reusable packaging. Producers would pay into the supply
chain to support a cost effective and efficient system for managing packaging
waste, including the collection of common packaging materials from households
and business. As part of the net cost payments, producers of commonly littered
packaging, such as fast food packaging would be made responsible for the costs
of this. It was proposed that a variety of stakeholders would take on a waste
management cost, in addition to the costs associated with running the scheme
such as regulator administration costs and national communication campaigns. It
was hoped that the actions of producers would enable consumers to more actively
pay their part in recycling packaging waste through providing good services,
correct labelling and other means that told consumers how to recycle and dispose
of packaging. In addition to placing the costs associated with packaging waste
on to producers, there would also be a requirement to label all packaging as
recyclable or non-recyclable, supporting consumers to dispose of it correctly.
The
Panel heard that with regard to litter, it was the Government’s belief that litter
should remain within the full scope of the costs of managing packaging
recycling and disposal, with the aim of reducing the amount of packaging that
is littered, increasing the amount of packaging that is recycled and ensuring
that the costs associated with the disposal of packaging were met by the
producers. This stance recognises that it is producers who profit from the sale
of packaged items and the increase in popularity of ‘on the go’ products has
had an associated environmental impact. Through making producers responsible
for the costs of packaging disposal, it was intended that producers should be required
to cover the costs of all littered packaging, including packaging in lotter
bins and ground litter. Local Authorities and other public sector organisations
such as schools and hospitals all incur costs for the management of packaging
waste, but under the current proposal this cost would be transferred to the
producer. It was proposed that a scheme administrator would be introduced who
would be required to develop and implement the system that would ensure that
the producers were paying the full costs of managing their packaging and
ensuring that effective services were being provided across the UK. Local
authorities with efficient waste management services would have the full cost
of providing these services met through the scheme which it was proposed would be
implemented via a phased approach commencing in 2023. It was confirmed that the
administrator of the scheme was likely to be a central body appointed by
Government, with no powers being devolved to local authorities to make their
own decisions in relation to the scheme.
The
second consultation being carried out was in relation to the Deposit Return
Scheme (DRS), which was another example of producer responsibility in that
manufacturers and importers of packaging would be held responsible for the end
of life environmental impact of the packaging. Consumers would be asked to pay
a higher price for products at the point of purchase, which would include a
deposit which would be returned to them if the item was returned to a
designated return point. It was believed that even a small financial incentive
would encourage significant increases in recycling. A further advantage of such
a scheme would be the creation of specialised item recycling streams with less
chance of contamination and therefore a higher quality yield, which it was
hoped could place UK producers at an advantage by reducing the need for
sourcing materials from abroad. Producers would be required to place a
redeemable deposit on drinks containers that they placed on the market which
would be on top of the price of the drink. The producer would pay the deposit
money received to the Deposit Management Organisation which would then ensure
that the deposit amount was transferred through the supply chain. All producers
or importers would be obliged to sign up to the DRS before placing any drinks
on the market. The ongoing management of the scheme would be paid for by a
producer registration fee to the Deposit Management Organisation. All retailers
would be obliged to accept DRS containers and refund the deposit to the consumer,
and in addition, retailers would be obliged to add the deposit to the purchase
price and ensure that pricing information was clearly on display explaining
this.
In
the first consultation carried out in relation to the proposed scheme, two
options had been given for a deposit return scheme – an ‘all in’ scheme which
would have no restrictions on the size of the container, and an ‘on the go’
scheme with scope restricted to containers less than 750ml in size. It was
considered that the scope of the DRS should be related to the material that the
container was made from, and not what was inside it, and polyethene
terephthalate (PET) bottles, glass and aluminium containers would be included. The
use of clear labelling was considered to be of crucial importance to the
proposal, to ensure that contains which were within the scope of the scheme
were easily identified. The Deposit Management Organisation would have three
funding streams, consisting of the money generated through the sale of the high
quality materials that would be collected via the scheme, registration fees
paid by producers and importers and unredeemed deposits. It was not intended to
set the level of deposit through primary legislation, however, secondary
legislation may provide a minimum and maximum level of deposit that could be
charged, allowing the Deposit Management Organisation to adjust the level of
deposit payable to ensure that statutory targets are met. A fundamental element
of the proposed scheme was that returning a drinks container should be as easy
as purchasing one in the first place, and in order to facilitate this it was
proposed that legislation would require any retailer of drinks to accept all
deposit return containers and to refund the deposit. The retailer would receive
a handling fee to compensate them for hosting a return point, which would be
based on a series of criteria to be set out in legislation. When the scheme was
in pace, it was inevitable that some DRS containers would end up in household
refuse and as litter, and Government was keen to ensure that local authorities
were not disadvantaged by this. Positive impacts of the DRS had been identified
through consultation, including less waste and litter, increased recycling
rates and positive impacts on attitudes to recycling in general. Potential negative
impacts identified included loss of net additional costs to local authorities,
the loss of revenue from recycling and the difficulty of implementing systems
across devolved administrations.
Once
a DRS was up and running, it was anticipated that 90% of eligible containers
would be collected through the scheme, with 70% of the remaining 10% of containers
being processed by local authorities, meaning that approximately 7% of
containers placed on the market would continue to be collected by local authorities
at the kerbside. It was accepted that the costs of sorting DRS containers from
the general waste stream may be prohibitive for local authorities, and three
options were considered in relation to this:
-
Option 1: do nothing and allow local authorities
to redeem deposits of DRS containers in collection streams.
-
Option 2: the Deposit Management
Organisation make payments for DRS containers appearing in local authority
waste streams.
-
Option 3: the Deposit Management Organisation
pays a deposit value on containers returned and any additional DRS material in local
authority waste streams is covered by a funding formula.
Councillor
Chillingworth enquired whether there was any timescale associated with the
introduction of the scheme, and he also enquired whether the Deposit Management
Organisation would have local branches. It was confirmed to the Panel that the
Deposit Management Organisation would be a central organisation which would not
make any reference to local areas.
The
Panel heard that the third scheme that was subject to consultation was designed
to achieve consistency in household and business recycling, and this was
anticipated to have the greatest impact on local authorities of all the
proposals. Government was committed to achieving a recycling rate of 65% by
2035, and it was intended to legislate to increase the consistency of recycling
collected from households and businesses to support this aim. It was
anticipated that accrues the UK, every resident would have the same types of
material collected from their kerbside, including separate food, garden waste,
cardboard and plastic collections. Government recognised that the proposed new
duties could impose additional costs on local authorities, and would use new
burden guidance to ensure that any increase in costs to local authorities was
covered.
The
Panel heard that it was necessary to include the DRS and EPR schemes when
considering consistency in household waste collection, as the three proposals
were interlinked. Of the materials that it was proposed would be covered by the
new consistency in household and business recycling requirements, the Panel heard
that Colchester Borough Council (the Council) was in a very strong position, as
it already collected all the materials mentioned, save for plastic films.
The
Environment Bill would require that food waste would have to be collected at
least weekly, separately from other household waste, and the definition
provided of food waste was consistent with the collection model currently used
by the Council. The free provision of caddy liners for food waste had bene considered,
as part of the consultation, with householders broadly supportive of this
proposal, and it was believed that the use of caddy liners for the collection
of food waste greatly increased the volume that was collected.
The
Panel heard that local authorities were allowed to charge for the collection of
garden waste, but it was now proposed that garden waste collection would be
free and take place fortnightly for up to a two hundred and forty litre bag or
sack, with local authorities being allowed to charge for mor frequent
collections or for great volumes of waste.
The
Government envisaged that it should be possible to collect plastic films (which
the Council did not currently recycle) for recycling by the end of the
financial year 2026/2027. The specific requirements cover plastic film and
flexible packaging, including crisp packets and pet and baby food pouches.
It
was proposed that waste and recycling collections of the same materials that
were collected from residential properties were also collected from businesses
in the financial year 2023/2024, with recyclable plastics introduced from
20204/2025. It was acknowledged that these proposals would impact businesses,
and work was being carried out to explore how costs on businesses could be
reduced through direct support, collaborative procurement projects, local franchising
of waste collection services, combined household and business collections, more
commercial waste drop-offs or financial incentives o business waste producers.
The
Panel were advised that Government was keen to introduce the EPR scheme as soon
as possible, with a proposal to introduce the scheme with a phased approach
from 2023, while it was hoped to appoint the Scheme Administrator in early
2023. It was considered that the scale of the proposals contained within the
scheme made an implementation date of 2023 ambitious as there were two key
elements which had to be in place to support this; the necessary regulations
and the appointment of the Scheme Administrator. In terms of the consistency of
collections, the separation of dry recycling was to be introduced from October
2023, weekly separate food collections introduced from the end of the financial
year 2023/2024, together with separate garden waste collections and plastic
films being collected by the end of 2026/2027, however, all the proposed
timings were subject to Parliamentary approval of the Environment Bill. The
Panel were advised that there were still a number of areas of uncertainty surrounding
the proposals, including the apparent lack of localism contained in the
schemes, the funding and regulation of the schemes, the potential for the loss
of income for local authorities together with the potential need for new or
improved infrastructure.
The
Council had submitted views through the consultation process, and Officers now
needed to consider the impact that the proposals could have, as more detail and
information became available. It was proposed that the Council’s Waste and Recycling
Strategy was reviewed in line with the proposals to ensure that the Council was
in the best position possible in the future.
Councillor
Jowers noted the excellent position that the Council was in but expressed some
concern about the economies of scale that he felt were represented in the proposals,
noting that the schemes would seem to work better with much larger metropolitan
authorities or unitary authorities, and he welcomed greater detail being
provided in due course. He further considered that the proposed scheme would highlight
the contrast between rural and urban areas, and would mean that any local
consultation on the proposals would need to be handled with care. Councillor
Jowers, expressed his broad support for the proposals, although did consider
that the timeline associated with them was extremely ambitious.
Councillor
Young considered that the logistical implications of introducing the proposals
would be very significant for the Council and would impact on decisions being
taken about the Council’s depot and the fleet that would be required. She
highlighted the potential risk of losing income to private companies, and noted
the need for a revised Waste Policy, which she felt should be brought back to
the Panel in the future to enable Members to be kept informed and feed into the
revision process.
Councillor
King requested an early evaluation of the role to be played by the Council,
together with the associated costs, as he acknowledged that the areas of
uncertainty that had been highlighted would be key in the future. Support was
expressed for the proposals and the general principle behind them, however, in
Councillor King’s opinion Government should be challenged on the model
proposed, with local resources and structures given much influence over how the
schemes were implemented.
Councillor
Jowers reminded the Panel that a similar scheme had been trialled on Mersea
Island in the past, and although this scheme had been successful, it had been
very labour intensive and costly. He suggested that it may be appropriate to
look at speaking with other local authorities to explore the idea of joint
waste collections.