|
|
|
|
Views are invited on whether data from other sources supports the analysis of the biodegradable content for municipal waste and the figure of 60% as a national average. What existing data could be used to help track the biodegradable content of municipal waste over time? [2.7]
The initial view of the Scottish Executive is it is preferable to have a mechanism based on the amount of biodegradable municipal waste to be landfilled, rather than the amount of waste to be diverted away from landfill. Views on this approach, supported by data and information, are invited. [2.16]
Should the UK make use of the 4-year extension to the targets? Please support your views with data and argumentation. If the extension is taken should the Scottish Parliament aim to meet the original targets? [2.20]
Views on the extent to which extant contracts for landfill would be affected significantly by the options in Chapter 4 are invited, together with supporting data. [3.8]
It is the Scottish Executive’s preliminary view that statutory action to limit the use of landfill will be needed before the first target is reached. Views on this approach are invited. [3.11]
The Scottish Executive’s initial view is that permits for either landfill operators or local authorities (Options 3 and 4) are the better option for limiting the use of landfill. Views on which option you consider to have greatest merit, together with the reasoning and supporting evidence behind this, are invited. [4.8]
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. [4.12]
Views are invited on Option 1: a ban on the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste 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. [4.23]
Views are invited on Option 2: A ban on landfill of specific biodegradable municipal wastes 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. [4.32]
Views on a pragmatic, reasonable approach to Option 3: Permits for landfill site operators to accept biodegradable municipal waste are invited. How could such a system be designed? What data already held by local authorities could assist in developing assumptions about the content of waste based on what steps had been taken to sort it? What other data are needed? [4.36]
If applied to permits, would enforcement powers similar to those for site licences be adequate to ensure compliance (Option 3)? How large would fines need to be to ensure compliance and should licences be revoked if permits are breached? [4.40]
The Scottish Executive is considering the following issues relating to the design of a permit system (Option 3), and would welcome views. [4.41]
Views on the relative environmental impacts of Option 3, and how these impacts could be mitigated in the design of the permit system, are invited. [4.45]
Views on Option 3, and its relative merits and disadvantages, are invited. How easy would it be for waste management companies to institute systems to comply with a permit system? [4.47]
What sanctions and penalties could be used to ensure compliance with a permit system (Option 4)? Should action be taken against landfill operators accepting biodegradable municipal waste not covered by a permit to aid compliance? Views on this, together with reasoning and supporting evidence, are invited. [4.53]
A method would be needed to allocate the amount of waste permitted to be landfilled by each authority. The Scottish Executive is considering the issues set out in 4.54 relating to the allocation of permits, and would welcome views. [4.54]
The Scottish Executive’s initial view is that a simple and transparent method is required for Option 4. A more complex method would not necessarily secure a fair outcome and could have unpredictable results. Views are invited on which method of apportionment appears to fit these criteria and why. What data are available for allocating permits on the basis of these suggestions? [4.54 (Ig)]
An alternative to allocating permits, would be for the Scottish Executive to auction permits at given intervals to disposal authorities. The result would be that the highest bidder obtained the permits. Views on this approach are invited. [4.54 (2)]
Views are invited on whether local authorities should be allowed to trade permits between themselves. [4.55]
Views on which body might be best suited to provide a forum to discuss issues surrounding the permits and to aid compliance are invited. [4.56]
Views on the relative environmental impacts of Option 4: Permits for waste disposal authorities to landfill biodegradable municipal waste, and how these impacts could be mitigated in the design of the permit system, are invited. [4.59]
Views on Option 4, and its relative merits and disadvantages, are invited. Would a system of tradable permits for local disposal authorities be workable and practical for authorities? [4.60]
We welcome views on the future role of the landfill tax (Option 5) in helping to achieve the Directive’s targets for reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste to landfill. [4.65]
Views are invited on the data required to be collected and monitored to ensure the implementation, compliance and monitoring of progress in meeting limits on the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste. [5.7]
|
|
|