The Landfill Directive: A Consultation Paper

CHAPTER 4: THE OPTIONS

4.1 This chapter sets out the options for an instrument to limit landfill, together with some of their advantages and disadvantages.

4.2 The options are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2

Consideration of the options

4.3 A ban on the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste is a simple, clear and transparent method of limiting landfill and would go further to meeting the Kyoto targets to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It is explored further in Options 1 and 2. But certainly Option 1 would require an even greater step-change in waste management than is needed to implement the challenging targets in the Landfill Directive, and within a shorter timeframe. As explained in Options 1 and 2, the Scottish Executive’s initial view is that bans would be very difficult to achieve in terms of the degree of rigour required in separating wastes covered by the ban from other wastes, and the need to put in place alternatives in sufficient time to allow compliance.

4.4 The alternative to banning the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste is to impose limits on how much biodegradable municipal waste can be landfilled by either the waste producer or the waste disposer. This could be framed in terms of the total tonnage of biodegradable municipal waste permitted to be landfilled by the waste producer or disposer. Such a method is considered further in Options 3 and 4. These permitting systems would contain assumptions about the biodegradable content of municipal waste of a particular load delivered to landfill, based on the degree of source separation and sorting which had been undertaken (see paragraphs 4.38 and 4.53). In this way, these options would avoid the problems of separating out the biodegradable portion of municipal waste encountered with Options 1 and 2.

4.5 Both Options 3 and 4 should have the same outcome, in that the amount of biodegradable municipal waste should progressively reduce with time to meet the Directive’s targets. A key question is on whom to place the duty to limit the use of landfill - the waste producer (in this case local authorities have been taken as a proxy for the producer of municipal waste), or the waste disposer (the landfill site operator)? In either case, there would be significant advantages in making permits tradable between participants. A system which does not allow trading would be far less flexible, in that it would not allow landfill use to respond to changes in need and circumstances with time. It would also prevent the equalisation of the costs of compliance in different parts of the country, in that areas which valued landfill more highly than others would not be able to buy additional permits to meet that need.

4.6 On the face of it, providing permits to the landfill site operator (option 3) provides a flexible system, and minimises the disruption of existing commercial relationships with local authorities. Site operators make decisions about where and when facilities will be provided, and what wastes these sites will be designed to take. Providing tradable permits to operators therefore could be seen as maintaining the status quo, keeping decisions on the provision of landfill for municipal waste with the operators, allowing them to plan and invest with minimum disruption. Potential issues include whether the system would allow local authorities to plan effectively and make balanced decisions on the use of landfill, which take into account principles such as BPEO. The allocation of permits might also create barriers to new entrants to the market (new sites or new companies). Landfill facilities for biodegradable municipal waste may become more unevenly distributed with an associated change in waste transport distances, and the design of the permit system may need to take account of this if the potential effect is detrimental.

4.7 On the other hand, providing permits to Local Authorities (option 4) places the decision in the hands of the body responsible for the management of municipal waste. It complements an authority’s role as the planning, collection and disposal authority for such waste. Authorities might be better able to comply with the local government duty of Best Value to ensure that waste is dealt with in the most efficient, effective, and economic manner if permits are placed with them. Potential issues with permits for disposal authorities are how limits on landfill would be apportioned. This is discussed further in paragraph 4.57. Moreover, the needs and circumstances of local authorities will change with time and the system needs to be flexible enough to accommodate this, which favours the trading of permits. But whether local authorities will feel able to utilise effectively a trading mechanism is something which remains to be tested. Another problem is what effective sanctions and penalties can be applied to local authorities (see paragraph 4.55).

4.8 The Scottish Executive’s initial view is that permits for either landfill operators or local authorities (Options 3 and 4) are the better options for limiting the use of landfill. The arguments between these two permit options are finely balanced and further views and information provided in response to this consultation exercise will help the Scottish Executive’s decision-making. Views on which option you consider to have greatest merit, together with the reasoning and supporting evidence behind this, are invited.

4.9 The UK already has the landfill tax, an economic instrument designed to have a role in diverting waste away from landfill. The tax has a key role in the Government’s overall strategy for promoting more sustainable waste management. The series of rises in the standard rate of the tax announced in the 1999 Budget, which will take the rate to £15 per tonne in 2004 sends a strong price signal to waste managers, including those dealing with municipal waste, to reduce their dependence on landfilling. It builds on the existing role of the tax to encourage waste minimisation, re-use, recycling/composting, and recovery of waste. The effect of the tax increases will be reviewed in 2004 in the light of experience, as part of the Government’s review of the waste strategy. However, while it makes an important contribution to the overall strategy the tax cannot, in the short term, give the certainty of outcome that is needed to ensure we meet the Directive’s targets. Nevertheless, views are invited on the future role of the tax, after 2004, to help achieve the Directive’s targets as part of a package of instruments and measures, and it is in this longer-term context that the tax is included among the options listed in the paper. As a tax matter, the landfill tax is not an issue that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Changes made to the tax would not be applied separately in Scotland.

Financial implications for local authorities

4.10 This paper and the associated regulatory impact assessment attempts to draw out the costs to local authorities of implementing a limit on the use of landfill for biodegradable municipal waste. The financial implications for local authorities will be considered in the Year 2000 Spending Reviews.

Distinguishing between different wastes

4.11 Each option requires an effective system to allow parties to distinguish between biodegradable municipal waste and other wastes. This might be achieved through contract relationships, backed up by gate checks and inspections. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency would need to be content with these checks and might therefore need powers to demand information from site operators and authorities on the measures and checks in place to satisfy themselves that these are adequate. Loads which do not comply would be required to be sent back.

4.12 It is possible that further measures might be needed, however. For instance by amendments to the existing Duty of Care system to ensure that the source (local authority area) and the type of waste (sorted identified streams or mixed waste) was clearly identifiable on Waste Transfer Notes at the landfill gate. Similar questions of waste identification are raised by the implementation of other requirements of the Landfill Directive (for instance, the requirement for hazardous, non-hazardous and inert wastes to be separately landfilled), which will require the Scottish Executive to review waste acceptance and monitoring procedures at landfill sites in any case. Views are invited on whether further measures are needed to allow parties to distinguish between biodegradable municipal wastes and other wastes, together with your underlying reasoning, and what these measures might be.

Option 1: A ban on landfill of biodegradable municipal waste

Description of the instrument

4.13 The landfill of any biodegradable municipal waste would be banned after a specified date. An illustration of how the instrument might work in practice is provided in Box 3.

BOX 3

Consideration

4.14 On the face of it, a ban would ensure compliance with all three targets, and well in advance of the deadlines for meeting the second and third targets. It would also lead to a greater reduction in methane emissions from landfill sites. But this would be a costly and draconian option, in that it effectively requires us to meet all three targets in a much shorter timescale and prevents the use of landfill for any biodegradable municipal waste. Such an option would require an even greater step-change in waste management than is required by the Landfill Directive. Whether sufficient alternatives to landfill can be built up in time to meet all three targets in such a short timescale is highly questionable.

4.15 Moreover, a ban implies a degree of rigour in separating out the biodegradable component of municipal waste before landfill. Even with a de minimis level of say 10%, the high levels of separate collection infrastructure and participation rates needed to implement a ban would probably make it less practicable and more costly to achieve than an instrument which restricts the total tonnage of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. Whether ‘dirty’ materials recycling facilities (which separate mixed wastes after collection) could achieve such levels of separation is questionable.

4.16 The instrument would be transparent in that it appears to be simple to understand and apply. It would also appear to be ‘fair’ to the extent that all parties are affected by the instrument in the same way, but it is highly inflexible in that no landfill of biodegradable waste is allowed under any circumstances irrespective of local considerations, which could prevent the BPEO from being achieved.

Ease of enforcement/placing sanctions

4.17 Ensuring compliance with the terms of the licence could take place in much the same way as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency currently enforces other conditions of site licences, including restrictions on the type and amount of wastes that can be accepted at the site. The Agency would need adequate powers to scrutinise the measures and checks outlined in paragraph 4.11 to ensure compliance.

Apportionment of targets

4.18 A ban removes the need to apportion the targets, in that every landfill site is under a duty to not landfill any biodegradable municipal waste.

Environmental considerations.

4.19 The impact of this option on landfill gas emissions is difficult to predict. Other requirements of the Landfill Directive will reduce methane emissions by ensuring that landfill gases from all sites receiving biodegradable municipal waste are collected and used where possible. Reducing the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill will have the positive effect of reducing methane gas generation. But depending on how sites are managed in the wake of a ban, the use of landfill gas to recover energy might conceivably be hindered in some cases, as it is technically difficult to burn landfill gas with low concentrations of methane.

4.20 It is difficult to predict the impact waste transportation of such a ban. Ultimately the effect depends upon how much waste can be dealt with through local recycling, composting and recovery facilities. Increased transport distances would, in turn, have additional impacts on the emissions of local air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The extent of this problem would depend partly upon the mode of transport used.

Costs

4.21 A total ban on the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste goes significantly further than the reductions required by the Landfill Directive. Such a ban could also bring forward the timetable for action to meet the 2006 and 2010 targets.

4.22 An outright ban would mean that landfill operators could have to introduce more checks that ensure they were not be in breach of their amended waste management licence. This would probably involve more routine checks on consignments of waste delivered to the site. This could impose extra costs on the landfill operator due the additional staff time allocated to this task. This may be passed on in higher gate fees paid for the remaining municipal waste and other wastes landfilled. A consequence of this could be that operators would refuse to accept some assignments of municipal waste if they contain biodegradable municipal waste. This could impose further costs on waste disposal authorities, particularly in the short term.

Summary

4.23 Views are invited on this option and its relative merits and disadvantages. To what extent would the simplicity of this option balance the extra costs to authorities and businesses? An indication of the extra costs to you would be helpful.

Option 2: A ban on landfill of specific biodegradable municipal wastes

Description of the instrument

4.24 The landfill of specific biodegradable municipal wastes would be banned after a specified date, possibly paper, card and putrescibles. An illustration of how the instrument might work in practice is provided in Box 4.

BOX4

Consideration

4.25 Table 1 indicates that about half of the biodegradable fraction of municipal waste is paper and card. A ban on the landfill of paper and card from municipal sources would decrease the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sufficiently to meet at least the first target. In order to achieve the third (and possibly the second) target, a further ban on other biodegradable municipal wastes such as putrescibles is likely to be needed.

4.26 The instrument appears to be less draconian and more flexible than that of a total ban on biodegradable municipal waste. It also has the advantage that it targets specific waste streams suitable for composting and recycling (possibly resulting in a diverse range of alternatives to landfill being developed). But, as with Option 1, a ban implies a degree of rigour in separating out all paper/card and putrescible wastes before landfill. Even with a de minimis level of say 10%, the high levels of separate collection infrastructure and participation rates needed to implement a ban would probably make it less practicable and more costly to achieve than an instrument which restricts the total tonnage of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. Whether ‘dirty’ materials recycling facilities (which separate mixed wastes after collection) could achieve such levels of separation is questionable.

Ease of enforcement/placing sanctions

4.27 Ensuring compliance with the terms of the licence could take place in much the same way as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency currently enforces other conditions of site licences. The Agency would need adequate powers to scrutinise the measures and checks outlined in paragraph 4.14 to ensure compliance.

Apportionment of targets

4.28 As with a total ban on the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste, this instrument removes the need to apportion the targets, in that every landfill site is under a duty to not landfill certain wastes.

Environmental considerations.

4.29 The impact of this option on landfill gas emissions is difficult to predict. Other requirements of the Landfill Directive will reduce methane emissions by ensuring that landfill gases from all sites receiving biodegradable municipal waste are collected and used where possible. Reducing the amount of certain biodegradable wastes going to landfill will have the positive effect of reducing methane gas generation. But, depending on how sites are managed in the wake of a ban, the use of landfill gas to recover energy might conceivably be hindered in some cases, as it is technically difficult to burn landfill gas with low concentrations of methane.

4.30 It is difficult to predict the impact of this option on the transport of waste. Ultimately the effect depends upon how much waste can be dealt with through local recycling, composting and recovery facilities. Any increase in transport distances would, in turn, have additional impacts on the emissions of local air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The extent of this problem would depend partly upon the mode of transport used.

Costs

4.31 This instrument would have similar consequences to an outright ban of the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste. Although more limited in scope than an outright ban, such an approach would still offer less flexibility than other options. This would mean that paper, card and putrescibles would need to be diverted from landfill everywhere, irrespective of the additional costs of diversion in a particular area. This may limit opportunities to find the least cost approach to meeting the targets. Because it is possible that a ban on landfilling of putrescibles may be necessary in time to meet the second targets, this option would bring forward the need to divert substantial quantities of biodegradable municipal waste at an earlier stage. This option, like the outright ban, may require landfill operators to check more rigorously assignments of municipal waste for the specified waste stream and could also result in the rejection of loads, increasing staff and transport costs. These additional costs may be passed onto the gate fees for municipal waste and other wastes landfilled.

Summary

4.32 Views are invited on this option and its relative merits and disadvantages. How realistic is it to expect a degree of rigour in separating paper, card and putrescible wastes from other municipal wastes? Does the simplicity of this option balance the extra costs of authorities and businesses? An indication of the extra costs to you would be helpful.