Chartered Institution of Wastes Management Conference
Opening Session, 13 June, Paignton

In his inaugural address at CIWM’s Annual Conference (13 June) in-coming president Keith Simmonite highlighted the need for strong direction and co-ordination on waste policy if the UK is to to ‘lead the pack’ on European developments and not just follow it.

‘We recognise we are working with global markets now – not just local ones. We have to push for well resourced Government Agencies to ensure that new initiatives are implemented in a timely and consistent manner. All parties involved in the delivery of them need to be kept well informed and given clear guidance on both policy requirements and the timetable for their achievement. It does nothing to further our reputation in Europe, if we delay and aim low....

‘...Within the United Kingdom we have many different Government fingers in the Wastes Management pie. DEFRA, DTI, DCLG, Cabinet Office, Treasury, the devolved governments and others. If we are to deliver the change agenda as envisaged by Europe we need a clear single message, relayed to all parties.

‘The draft strategy for England proposes a Sustainable Waste Programme Board to “hard-wire” the contacts between departments and drive the strategy. This is a good step. But we need more. We need strong co-ordination between governments, within government, into Europe and into industries that will deliver this more sustainable future. We need to build and support these links – they will shape our future. We also need a clear action plan. The strategy we have just commented on is long on policy, short on mechanism. We need to be hard-wired into the Programme Board’s work and thinking. There are good ideas in this strategy and NOW is the time build on them.’

Keith Simmonite said that changing of government structures to develop necessary infrastructure and services would not be necessary, provided that existing local authorities faced up to taking the necessary difficult decisions about the required waste management facilities. ‘Other European countries appear to have resolved this difficulty with waste facilities being constructed at the local level and often on a small scale not currently witnessed in the UK. Others are centralising decision-making. The difference is that they have made decisions and are ahead of us in many cases.’

He stressed the importance of collection and disposal authorities working closely together to choose appropriate municipal waste treatment methods for both recyclable and residual wastes.  He also felt that it would be logical for local authorities to extend their current responsibilities to commercial and industrial wastes, both of which will be subject to pre-treatment before landfill by October 2007.  This would maximise the utilisation of waste treatment facilities and therefore reduce the overall number required and investment needed to meet Landfill Directive obligations.

He also highlighted the need for adequate funding to meet the staffing and infrastructure requirements of European commitments  - ‘Direct charging at the local level or increased national and local ring fenced service specific funding would appear to be the only two options available.’

The professionalism, experience and skills of the staff involved in developing and implementing waste management policy was clearly a key issue. ‘Wastes management is now securely placed on the national political agenda but Defra and the other involved Departments of State are short of specialists in waste. While central Government has raised the bar on wastes management, local government has seen a significant decline in the status of wastes management and the professional officer base. In my view both tiers of government have to ‘buy in’ to raising the quantity and quality of professional management and advice that they have available to them in order to drive this new agenda.’

He added that to achieve this Government needed to establish clear training requirements for both new entrants and those already working in the sector. If deemed necessary, obtaining these skills should be made a statutory obligation.

CIWM had a significant role to play in providing information to its members on waste management matters; working with Government to reach the objective of membership of CIWM being recognised as a ‘permit to work’ in the sector; examining with Government and employers the concept of a modern apprentice scheme for waste management; and revisiting the concept of CIWM becoming the awarding body for its professional qualification and establishing the necessary study tools to enable this to be achieved.

Full copy of the presidential address follows:

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS

Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests; ladies and gentlemen it is an honour and great pleasure to be standing here this morning as the newly installed President of this Institution. I trust that the confidence shown in me by my colleagues on the General Council will prove to be well founded. It is also true to say that without the support and forbearance of my wife it would not have been possible for me to devote so much time and energy to the Institution and its work.

The topic of this years Conference and therefore of this address is “Changing the Face of Wastes Management in the UK”.

We have a difficult job. We have to move from managing wastes to keeping resources working and it is no short journey. Meanwhile we have to clear early hurdles and meet early targets – and do it in ways that pave the road to bigger objectives.

I believe that there are six broad areas of activity which when taken together, form the backdrop and delivery mechanisms for achieving the level of change that is necessary to move the management of wastes forward in the 21st Century. Without all these elements coming together to address this single objective then it is likely that we will fail and thus leave a lasting negative inheritance to our successors.

Two years ago Alistair Lamont MBE asked us to “Look over the Horizon” and last year Mike Philpott asked us to “Raise the Standard” and both of these concepts need to be incorporated into a wider portfolio of activities, if the change agenda is to be delivered and sustained into the future.

We need big changes: in our behaviours as consumers and waste producers, in gaining public confidence and support; changes in the technologies and skills we use and even to our objectives. We need to keep standards of health and environmental protection up,  AND – we need to put waste back to work.

Therefore, what do I believe form the elements, which need to be successfully managed to produce an integrated sustainable waste management system for the United Kingdom.

1. The Political Scene

2. People

3. Collection and Recycling Systems

4. Streetscene Related Issues

5. Treatment Methods

6. Disposal

I will now deal with each of these topics before moving on to offer some thoughts on a “Model for Delivery” and then proffer my conclusions.

The Political Scene.

It is not many years ago that the political setting for wastes management was held solely in the hands of the United Kingdom Government. Now however, the main thrust comes from Europe with the Commission playing the major role and increasingly devolved responsibilities in the four UK countries. We as a nation and the Institution were slow to recognise the potential for change and the consequences for wastes management practices that this would bring. For too long we either stood back from the formation of European policies or we entered the debate too late when our influence was nil or our views seen as negative. Some people came to call us the “Dirty Man of Europe”. A wholly unjustified label in my view but maybe we are one of the slow men in Europe. We should aspire to lead the pack, not reluctantly follow it. We have much to be proud of – but equally far to go.

Whilst the flow of new directives is expected to slow significantly, we still expect greater scrutiny of how we have implemented Directives and a review of the fundamental waste framework directive. We need to get our voice heard and our opinions and expertise sought at the earliest stage of policy development.

We recognise we are working with global markets now – not just local ones. We have to push for well resourced Government Agencies to ensure that new initiatives are implemented in a timely and consistent manner. All parties involved in the delivery of them need to be kept well informed and given clear guidance on both policy requirements and the timetable for their achievement. It does nothing to further our reputation in Europe, if we delay and aim low.

We also need common standards and definitions to remove doubt and uncertainty, backed by common and consistent regulation across all European Member States.

Within the United Kingdom we have many different Government fingers in the Wastes Management pie. DEFRA, DTI, the Department for Communities and Local Government, Cabinet Office, Treasury, the devolved governments and others. If we are to deliver the change agenda as envisaged by Europe we need a clear single message, relayed to all parties.

The draft strategy for England proposes a Sustainable Waste Programme Board to “hard-wire” the contacts between departments and drive the strategy. This is a good step. But we need more. We need strong co-ordination between governments, within government, into Europe and into industries that will deliver this more sustainable future. We need to build and support these links – they will shape our future. We also need a clear action plan. The strategy we have just commented on is long on policy, short on mechanism. We need to be hard-wired into the Programme Board’s work and thinking. There are good ideas in this strategy and NOW is the time build on them.

Waste, energy and planning policies need to interrelate. These policies must ensure that UK plc extracts the maximum benefit for the minimum environmental cost, from materials which remain as waste after waste minimisation, re-use and recycling.

There has been and continues to be much discussion about local government structures and their ability to meet the requirements of the new waste agenda. The division of responsibilities in England, for the different elements of the waste services between county and district has historically not produced a coherent integrated set of services. The cheapest refuse collection service often involves more expensive treatment and disposal costs and the reverse is also true. It follows therefore, that to achieve “best value” these services should not be reviewed in isolation from each other. In order to reach the overall lowest cost the constituent district and county council services should be examined together.

This leaves the question of whether structural change will assist in meeting the challenges ahead. Are single tier local government structures as in Scotland and Wales preferable to the current two-tier structure of England and Northern Ireland. Alternatively, would the introduction of further bodies at national and regional level, to be responsible for waste treatment and disposal provide tangible benefits. It is my belief, that neither of these latter options will be necessary, provided that existing local authorities face up to taking the necessary difficult decisions about the required waste management facilities. Waste management is still a vote loser rather than a vote winner in many politicians’ eyes. The waste is produced locally and decisions about its management and utilisation should be taken at the lowest possible level not deferred or passed to others to avoid responsibility. Other European countries appear to have resolved this difficulty with waste facilities being constructed at the local level and often on a small scale not currently witnessed in the UK. Others are centralising decision making. The difference is that they have made decisions and are ahead of us in many cases.

A political decision will have to be taken and acted upon, as required. 2010 is rapidly approaching and 2013 and 2020 are not far behind. Based upon the UK track record for the introduction of new waste management infrastructure there is no time left to waste!

Finally, these new requirements for change in waste management practice have a significant cost implication. This is particularly true for local authorities. Without the recognition of this cost increase and the provision of adequate funding for both staff and new infrastructure, we will fall short in meeting our European commitments. Direct charging at the local level or increased national and local ring fenced service specific funding would appear to be the only two options available. Again a clear political decision is required

People

People will be the engine for driving forward the changes in wastes management practice envisaged by the political agenda. The speed and effective delivery of this change agenda will be in direct proportion to the skills of the waste management professionals.

It is acknowledged that there is a shortage of skilled and experienced waste managers in the UK and that this issue must be addressed urgently. Raising the profile of wastes management as a worthwhile career and developing the skills of those already working in the sector, should be issues of significant interest to both Central and Local Government, all employers, the sector skills council and academic institutions.

CIWM as the leading professional body for waste managers is particularly concerned about this issue. It needs to position itself as the champion of the value of a professional career in Wastes Management

Wastes management is now securely placed on the national political agenda but DEFRA and the other involved Departments of State are short of specialists in waste. Whilst Central Government has raised the bar on wastes management, local government has seen a significant decline in the status of waste management and of the professional officer base. In my view both tiers of government have to “buy in” to raising the quantity and quality of professional management and advice that they have available to them in order to drive this new agenda. Similarly employers in the private sector must address the same issues. For the larger companies investment in people and skill development should be automatic and the small and medium sized businesses need to recognise that skilled personnel are essential for their long-term sustainable business future.

Therefore Government both directly and through the Sector Skills Council need to establish clear training requirements for both new entrants and those already working in the sector. If deemed necessary we should make the obtaining of these skills and this continuing development a statutory obligation. The academic sector would then be able to enhance the provisions already available to meet this defined requirement.

CIWM also has a significant role to play.
1. The provision of information to its members on waste management matters supported by a raft of seminars, workshops, briefing sessions, study tours and training courses all providing a route for continuing professional development.
2. Working with Government to reach the objective of membership of CIWM being recognised as a “permit to work” in the sector.
3. Examining with Government and employers the concept of a modern apprentice scheme for waste management, where those employees would undergo a training period utilising both practical hands on experience with a course of academic study.
4. Revisiting the concept of CIWM becoming the awarding body for its professional qualification and establishing the necessary study tools to enable this to be achieved.

Waste Hierarchy

This sets out the guiding principles under which waste should be handled. The de-coupling of waste growth from economic growth is a significant challenge and finding a solution to ensure a sustainable future needs to be at the top of the agenda.

Waste prevention by the use of “smart production” methods and design of products to ensure their ability to be repaired and re-used, recycled at the end of their useful life and to contain the minimum of hazardous and non-recyclable materials are major challenges for manufacturers.

CIWM strongly supports these concepts and would wish to see more significant effort from Government, particularly on prevention, as this is better than a cure. Progress along this road will clearly impact upon the number and type of collection and treatment systems required within the UK. Therefore early and well-defined actions are needed if we are to avoid commissioning systems and facilities, which may ultimately prove to have been unnecessary.

Collection & Recycling

For many years the UK adopted a weekly rear of house single container, single household waste stream collection system, without any householder participation. This service was highly valued by householders, who had no appreciation of the actual low cost of its provision. The various methods of raising local taxation did not itemise the costs of waste management, but many residents saw the service as the only one they received for their money.

The containers initially were metal bins to which were added paper and then plastic sacks. Latterly the service has moved significantly to plastic wheeled containers with some authorities retaining the plastic sack. However, the move to wheeled bins introduced a fundamental change to the service and householder participation became the accepted system, with authorities offering either a curtilage or kerbside collection.

With the introduction of recycling targets, storage, collection and vehicle requirements had to change to accommodate the new services being introduced. Since these are weight based the two main fractions of household waste targeted, by local authorities, are paper and card and green waste. Initially the requirements of the animal by-products order meant that kitchen waste was excluded from the green waste service, but as new approved treatment methods are introduced this is starting to change. In addition home composting schemes, often utilising the sale of subsidised containers have seen significant growth. Other dry recyclables, are also collected either directly from the household or via bring systems. All these new services require significant householder participation. Furthermore, the collections are being provided at different frequencies utilising different containers, ranging from wheeled bins, to plastic bags and plastic boxes. There is no one universal system. Those being adopted are influenced by end market requirements, together with the balance of cost benefit between household/kerbside sorting into specific elements and mixed dry recyclables collection, with sorting in a specially designed facility.

Apart from increasing public participation the main challenge faced by the introduction of these services is to ensure that there is a viable market for the materials collected. The upsurge in green waste, collected for composting and the prediction that this will continue to grow offers the greatest challenge. We must ensure the public know and see that their work in supporting source segregated household schemes is matched by reliable recycling services
The introduction of separate collections for recyclables has led to a move towards the introduction of fortnightly collections for residual household waste. Two reasons can be advanced for this change; minimising the overall cost of introducing new recycling services and the residual waste remaining is insufficient to justify a weekly collection. It is also a clear signal that people are now expected to separate their wastes.

These changes require a major public awareness and education campaign and in some cases training of householders. The main targets of the campaign should be maximising recycling collection tonnages and public attitudinal change from “it all goes in the bin” to “automatic source segregation”. Nationally, Government should see this campaign as similar to that run successfully for the wearing of car seat belts. That took time and resources. And in the end, it even took legislation.

Collection vehicle design progressed to meet these changes. The introduction of  lifting devices to handle wheeled bins, which now operate automatically, with the facility to incorporate equipment to record details of the collections made. The development and introduction of multi-compartment side loading vehicles facilitating easy kerbside sorting and collection. Alternatively in some cases, simple vehicles utilising a cage or stillage design to keep materials separate from each other have been introduced.

Health and Safety is a major concern for all involved in the industry. Both tiers of government, ESA, the Health & Safety Executive and CIWM wish to see a significant improvement in the sectors accident record. There are challenges to be faced as increased service provision increases the risk of accidents. Issues such as needle stick injury, repetitive strain and back injury will bring under the spotlight the methods of collection utilised, for example bins versus boxes and bags, type and design of vehicle utilised and task and finish.

The recent poor performance of the industry in regard to Health and Safety was highlighted earlier this year by 9 deaths in 10 weeks of people in or around wastes management. ESA and the Institution, are along with others, seeking workable solutions to reduce this accident rate. This afternoon’s session of the Conference has been organised by ESA on this vital topic.

Streetscene related issues

The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act has addressed issues which affect the appearance of our streets. It recognises the negative effects that fly posting, graffiti, abandoned cars, fly-tipping and indiscriminate littering of roads and pavements has upon the built environment and local residents.

In order to maximise the benefit that the Act offers to local authorities new or extended services are required with new equipment and skills being introduced. Street cleansing is no longer only about manual and mechanical highway and pavement sweeping and emptying of road and pavement gullies.

Identification and rapid removal of abandoned vehicles, removal of illegal fly posters and graffiti from buildings etc are high on the public agenda. These require authorities to acquire new skills not only in the treatment and removal of these results of anti social behaviour but in education and enforcement to address the issues.

Prevention is better than a cure. Money invested in improving services to residents and businesses to obviate the perceived need to fly tip, fly post or abandon a vehicle will be repaid, by reducing the number of incidents and enhancing appearance of the built environment.

However, I recognise that this is a significant problem that has grown over the years to the levels we now witness on our streets. Therefore, alongside the service enhancements there has to be a high profile education campaign co-ordinated nationally, together with a strong enforcement role performed by the appropriate public bodies. Once again investment in people is required, to develop the necessary skills and obtain the maximum benefit from the opportunities that the Clann Neighbourhoods and Environment Act offers.

Treatment methods

The choice of municipal waste treatment methods for both recyclable and residual wastes should be the product of joint discussions between the collection and disposal authorities. It is logical to extend the role of public authorities in waste treatment and disposal to cover commercial and industrial wastes, both of which will be subject to pre-treatment before landfill by October 2007. This is particularly so for commercial waste, which is similar in composition to municipal wastes. Indeed the definition given to municipal waste in other EU States is “waste collected from households or from other sources where by its nature it is similar to household waste”. The biggest  benefit from such action would be to maximise the utilisation of waste treatment facilities and therefore reduce the overall number required and minimise the investment necessary to comply with our obligations under the Landfill Directive.

Waste treatment will increasingly be about dealing with source segregated waste streams. EU policy will continue to drive up the levels of recycling required from MSW and increasingly the levels required to be achieved by commercial and industrial waste producers. No longer should we hear or use the term “mass burn” but we should be seeking the most appropriate environmentally acceptable solution to meet local circumstances for recycling/composting and residual wastes arisings.

There is clearly a choice to be made between the separate collection at source of recyclable materials and their subsequent transportation to a recycler or a mixed collection of recyclables, which are then segregated at a materials recycling facility. The latter option clearly increasing the overall number of new infrastructure required. As the tonnage of collected recyclables increases then the end user will seek to source the highest quality materials possible. It is reasonable to assume that materials kept separate from the point of collection to the point of remanufacture will be able to meet such demands. This will place a significant burden on MRFs to achieve the same standards of end product over a relatively short time scale. In taking decisions about the type of service to be introduced  the whole life cost and the long-term availability of a sustainable market for the materials offered for recycling must be evaluated.

The introduction of separate collections for green waste has seen a range of proven alternative treatment technologies being offered to the market. These range from simple windrow techniques to sophisticated in vessel computer controlled aerobic and anaerobic technologies. Anaerobic technologies offer the additional advantage of extracting the energy value contained within the waste stream and ensuring its utilisation. A secure and sustainable source of energy that can contribute towards the future energy demands of the UK. The Animal By-Products Order will also influence the technology choices, as levels of household recycling are increased to include the collection of kitchen waste. Once again short term cost saving may prove expensive in the longer term, if facilities being commissioned today cannot handle or be upgraded to handle, a commingled kitchen and green waste stream. Finally with the upsurge in green waste collections and the production of”compost”, will there be a sufficient marketplace for the end product. A high quality material to an accepted agriculture and horticulture industry standard is essential to success. However, under funded local authorities may be forced into the short-term solution.

Incineration has suffered from a very negative image in the UK, largely based on outdated information from plants no longer in existence. This has led to a search for alternative treatment technologies to deal with residual MSW.

Gasification and Pyrolysis, which are not new technologies, but new for the treatment of residual MSW, are being brought forward. They require the residual waste to receive a degree of pre-treatment to ensure a uniform feedstock. Unfortunately their progress in market penetration has been minimal to date, influenced by the current structure of the procurement market available to local authorities, and the perceived risks associated with introducing new techniques. Perhaps the removal of the requirement for local authorities to divest themselves of waste disposal operational services may  spur some local authorities on. These technologies have the ability to capture the energy content of the residual waste and therefore maximise the value contained within it, after a full scale recycling programme. Waste and Energy Policies must be aligned for the national benefit. I repeat, residual waste offers a secure and sustainable component of the future energy needs of the UK.

MBT and MHT technologies have achieved greater market penetration with some plants already being commissioned and others on local authority short lists for procurement. These have the ability to make a contribution to increasing recycling targets by capturing some of the materials, which kerbside schemes have missed. The main product of these techniques is a fibre, which can either be used in low-level land reclamation, landfill or as a fuel. Once again sensible utilisation of the “end product” from a residual waste treatment system offers a contribution to the energy needs of the UK. The production of an industry standard for that fuel, together with a debate about when the product ceases to be waste, under the Waste Framework Directive, are significant matters requiring urgent attention.

Incineration is a tried and proven technology with the regulation of emission standards at the highest level. Other European countries achieve significantly higher levels of recycling/composting than the UK yet have a strong Energy from Waste capacity via an Incineration network. Thus giving the lie to the statement that “Incineration crowds out recycling/composting”. As the types of waste that can be accepted at landfill continues to be reduced, then where those wastes cannot be recycled, the recovery of their thermal energy offers the best solution. Energy production in the form of both electricity and heat will produce the maximum benefit and again make a contribution to a sustainable energy policy. It also offers the potential of “cheap heat” and “electricity” to residents and businesses located in the vicinity of the plant.

Disposal

The Landfill Directive sets the stage for the future use of Landfill as a disposal option for wastes. It is probable that over time the types and quantities of different wastes for which landfill is an acceptable option will decline further.

Collection and treatment technologies will need to adapt to these changes and only produce final residues, which meet these criteria.

Landfill will remain as the final repository for residual wastes for which there are no further uses or for wastes for which no alternative treatment exists.

Model for Delivery

Ensure the consistent and timely delivery of waste policy by Government to meet the EU agenda. This will allow local government and industry to plan for future infrastructure requirements against a known background.

Adapt the public sector role in waste management to learn from the most successful of our European partners. The approaches they have adopted have delivered the change agenda now required in the UK

Ensure that both tiers of local government in England work together to achieve “best value” for their residents by producing waste plans, which give the lowest overall cost for collection, treatment and disposal.

Integrate the political structures at both national and local level to minimise delay and maximise progress.

Where new waste facilities are to be built ensure that there are appropriate planning gains for local residents and businesses.

Establish through all employers, government, academia and CIWM a structure for education and training to ensure the adequate flow of professionally qualified waste managers to deliver the new agenda.

In the review of energy policy seek to integrate the role that wastes can play in meeting UK energy needs, without compromising the achievement of high levels of recycling/composting.

Develop and deliver a planning system that allows for decision-making within a short timescale. If we are to meet the EU agenda then we have to be able to build new infrastructure quickly and in the right locations, based on our commitment to the proximity principle.

Be specific about the outcomes expected and the timelines for their achievement and ensure that they are adhered to.

Empower or require planning and provision for municipal, commercial and industrial waste together, to maximise the efficiency of new infrastructure and prevent unnecessary duplication of facilities

Ensure that waste policy is adequately resourced at both national and local level and that waste management professionals are employed to deliver the agenda.

CIWM to raise its profile and seek to achieve appropriate membership as a necessary “permit to work”.

Conclusion

It is time to take firm actions and not more words, 2010, 2013 and 2020 are not far away. 2007 and landfill pre-treatment requirements are already on top of us.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel, solutions do exist, let us utilise them to provide the BEST VALUE for MONEY SOLUTION for EACH LOCAL AREA

.....and a final word of caution REMEMBER ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL !!!

Minister, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen thank you for your attention and I wish you all a successful conference and exhibition.