Government Considers Banning Wood Waste To Landfill

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn launched a consultation document last week, which looks at the potential economic and environmental benefits of diverting specific waste types away from landfill to other uses, fulfilling its commitment in the 2007 Waste Strategy. He said, ‘This shows that we are serious about tackling the huge mountain of waste that needlessly ends up in landfill. So much of what we throw away has an economic value or can be re-used, but instead we are burying it.  We must take action to reduce the constant demand for new materials when we can recover materials from used products – this costs less money and saves the earth’s precious resources at the same time.”  You can watch a video of the launch at a waste and recycling centre in East London here. The Government thinks landfill should be the last resort for most wastes.  The number of landfill sites has reduced by over 80% in the last 10 years.  Most landfill biodegrades to methane, a significant greenhouse gas, so a ban could make a major contribution towards the Uk’s target of reducing carbon emissions by 80% on 1990 levels by 2050. Landfill bans could contribute towards improving resource efficiency and help the UK meet EU requirements to divert wastes away from landfill. The EU renewable energy directive sets the UK a target of 15% of overall energy from renewables by 2020, and diverted waste could be used for energy recovery.  A ban would also stimulate the market for alternative forms of waste management, which would in turn secure the investment needed to provide the infrastructure. The consultation draws heavily on two pieces of research.  The first, by the Green Alliance, looked at the experience of landfill bans in Austria, Flanders, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden & Massachusetts, USA, and concluded that landfill bans only work alongside other complementary measures such as:

• economic instruments (taxes/fees/moratoriums)
• upstream measures (mandatory separation or collection) or producer responsibility
• Quality standards for recycled products and market development and support for recycled materials and products to ease impact of restrictions.

The second study, undertaken by Eunomis and WRAP, examined the feasibility and practicalites of a landfill ban on paper/card; food; textiles; metals; wood; green (garden) waste; glass; plastics; electrical & electronic equipment; biodegradable waste; non-segregated waste.  In each case, it estimated the CO2 savings from a ban and the net cost or benefit to society from the financial and environmental impacts to identify which would work. It also found that the benefits of the ban increased where landfill restrictions were combined with a requirement to sort and segregate wastes. Both reports found that complementary instruments were needed,as banning waste to landfill does not in itself result in it diverting to more preferable options and is unlikely to increase prevention of waste or reuse of products. The overall conclusion is that there is a good case for landfill bans on biodegradable wastes, including food, green waste, paper/card, wood and textiles, and on metals.  The case for a restriction on glass or plastics was less clear-cut. Wood’s low embodied energy, but high calorific value, means that its use as fuel gives a greater greenhouse gas reduction than recovering and re-using it.  So there is a strong case for diverting Wood waste away from landfill, and all the countries studied had introduced a ban.  The research found that the net benefit to society between 2009-24 of introducing a ban would amount to £105m (£115m when accompanied by requirement to sort).  If this waste was diverted to incineration with energy recovery, the embodied carbon (CO2e) savings were estimated at 1,340kg/tonne. The Government is now seeking views on the following options for the future direction of policy:

• Doing nothing
• Introducing landfill bans, either as an isolated measure, or accompanied by a requirement to sort the waste.  If there is a requirement to sort, the consultation asks who that should fall on, and how extensive should the separation of wastes be?
• Alternatively, introducing tougher sorting or pre-treatment requirements without an actual landfill ban
• Introducing producer responsibility systems linked to recycling targets.  Under this option, which could be voluntary or mandatory, the product producers would take responsibility for dealing with their products at the end of their useful life; voluntary or mandatory.  Again, this could be introduced as an individual measure, or alongside a landfill ban.

Whatever is decided is unlikely to be brought in quickly.  The research found that although the countries studied has implemented bans in between two and twelve years, it was difficult to achieve in less than five years.  The consultation suggests that it would take 7-10 years to implement in England, but the devolved administrations in Wales or Scotland might be able to move faster.  The deadline for responses to the consultation is 10 June 2010.  The BWF will prepare a response on behalf of the woodworking industry, and would welcome your thoughts and comments on the proposals.