The Landfill Directive: A Consultation Paper

Option 3: Permits for landfill site operators to accept biodegradable municipal waste

Description of the instrument

4.33 The tonnage of biodegradable municipal waste, which could be deposited at each landfill site, would be restricted (see Box 5).

BOX 5

Consideration

4.34 Permits should ensure that the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste is progressively reduced to meet the Directive’s targets.

4.35 This instrument would require that some means of judging, when mixed municipal waste is accepted at a landfill site, how much of it is biodegradable. Many local authorities already undertake some assessment of the biodegradable content of their waste. The Scottish Executive is considering an approach where standard percentages for the biodegradable content of mixed waste are laid down, based on a range of assumptions about what steps had been taken to sort it. These assumptions would include the extent to which home composting was carried out, and the extent to which separation of materials such as glass, paper putrescibles and plastic was carried out at source. This could be backed up by regular assessments by authorities to update the assumptions about the biodegradable waste content of their waste streams going to landfill.

4.36 Views on a pragmatic, reasonable approach to this issue 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?

4.37 An alternative would be to restrict the tonnage of all municipal waste to be landfilled, with the permitted tonnage proportionately larger to reflect the fact that, on average, 60% of it was biodegradable and hence subject to the targets. The Scottish Executive’s initial view is that this is not well targeted to the objective of the Directive to limit the landfill of biodegradable waste. Moreover, assumptions on the biodegradable content of municipal waste would need to be assessed and adjusted to allow the instrument to be sufficiently flexible to take account of differences in the degree of source separation and other local factors, such as changes in the composition of municipal waste over time.

Ease of enforcement/placing sanctions

4.38 Ensuring compliance with the terms of the new permit and amended licence or new permit 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.

4.39 Monitoring compliance could be made more complex where permitted tonnage was allowed to changed hands frequently, for instance under a trading system. Systems would have to be designed to cope with this. The Agency would need adequate powers to scrutinise measures and checks, such as those outlined in paragraph 4.11 to ensure compliance.

4.40 If applied to permits, would enforcement powers similar to those for site licences be adequate to ensure compliance? How large would fines need to be to ensure compliance and should licences be revoked if permits are breached? Views on this, together with reasoning and supporting evidence are invited.

Apportionment of targets

4.41 A tonnage could be allocated to each landfill by the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Alternatively, the Scottish Executive could auction permits for a price to the highest bidder and allow the trading of permits between landfill operators. The expectation would be that the distribution of permits will follow need. If allocated, criteria for distributing tonnage to each landfill site would have to be established. These could be:

a) on the basis of what municipal waste has been accepted at the site within a recent period (‘grandfathering’ on the basis of what is currently accepted);

b) a proportion of the municipal waste allowed to be landfilled under the existing site licence (irrespective of whether this has been utilised or not)

c) a set percentage of total tonnage of biodegradable municipal waste allowed to be landfilled in Scotland under the Directive’s targets.

4.42 The Scottish Executive is considering the following issues relating to the design of a permit system, and would welcome views.

I. Should permits be allocated, accepting that no allocation method will result in a perfect system, and that there will inevitably be winners and losers, or should they be auctioned to the highest bidder?

II. If allocated, ‘grandfathering’ on the basis of what is currently accepted at a site (a) could perhaps be the most simple, transparent approach, causing least disruption to existing commercial relationships between authorities and site operators. Basing the allocation on what the site is licensed to accept (b) might result in a very different pattern of availability of landfill for municipal waste to that at present, since a site may be licensed to accept a large amount of municipal waste yet accept very little in practice. This problem would presumably be exacerbated even further under (c).

III. The consequence of method (a) and possibly (b) might be a greater provision of landfill for municipal waste in areas that have been more heavily dependent upon it in the base year. This might be seen as penalising areas which have already taken steps to divert waste away from landfill, but on the other hand it may provide a ‘cushion’ for areas which will find it more difficult to achieve their targets because of their heavy dependence on this method. Also, there might be a risk that more permits are allocated to older and possibly not the best engineered sites under these mechanisms.

IV. Another consequence of allocating permits is that it could create barriers to new sites and new landfill companies coming into operation after the permits have been distributed. Even under a tradable system, permits would have to be purchased by new entrants rather than provided free of charge. This barrier could be limited in practice in that the number of new sites and companies coming on to the market is not expected to be large. Auctioning permits could help reduce this barrier. This also has the advantage that permits go to operators which are interested in purchasing and presumably using them, avoiding a large number of "sleeping" permits.

V. A method is needed whereby permits can be gradually tapered to reduce the tonnage of biodegradable municipal waste allowed to be landfilled to meet the Directive’s targets. This could be achieved by a pre-set ‘value’ for permits relating to how much biodegradable municipal waste can be landfilled, which diminishes by a set amount at set times. Alternatively permits could be time-limited and new permits re-issued at intervals. This could result in more disruption to commercial relationships and interrupt the free-flow of trading of permits, however.

VI. Local authorities might have problems planning for, and responding to, local patterns in the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste if permits were traded too frequently. However, contracts between authorities and site operators should provide stability under which authorities can manage their waste.

Environmental considerations.

4.43 Depending on the method of distributing permits and the effects of trading, the provision of facilities may become more unevenly distributed, resulting in longer transport distances to deposit biodegradable municipal waste in certain areas. One possibility could be to restrict trading of permits between regions to ensure that some areas do not become devoid of permitted tonnage (provided this did not have other unwelcome effects).

4.44 A system which gave landfill site operators greater choice in how much biodegradable municipal waste they could landfill might lead to sites being better designed to accept such waste, and greater efficiency in capturing landfill gas.

4.45 Views on the relative environmental impacts of this option, and how these impacts could be mitigated in the design of the permit system, are invited.

Costs

4.46 Issuing permits to landfill site operators is potentially a less restrictive and a more cost-effective way of meeting the Landfill Directive targets than bans. This system could allow a gradual reduction in the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill. This means that waste producers and waste management companies would have more time to adapt and find lower cost means of waste reduction and diversion. If permits were tradable this would provide even greater flexibility, and could further reduce the costs of meeting the Directive targets. This is because tradable permits would allow the greatest amount of waste diversion or reduction to occur in areas where recycling, composting, incineration and waste minimisation are cheapest and most practicable.

Summary

4.47 Views on this option, and its relative merits and disadvantages, are invited. How easy would it be for waste management companies and authorities to institute systems to comply with this permit system?

Option 4: Permits for waste local authorities to landfill biodegradable municipal waste

Description of the instrument

4.48 Local authorities would have a statutory restriction to landfill up to a maximum permitted tonnage of biodegradable municipal waste each year (see Box 6).

BOX 6

Consideration

4.49 Permits should ensure that the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste is progressively reduced to meet the Directive’s targets.

4.50 As with Option 3, the local authority would need some way of judging how much mixed municipal waste sent to landfill was biodegradable (see paragraph 4.38).

Ease of enforcement/placing sanctions

4.51 Local authorities would be required to submit to either the Scottish Executive or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, at regular intervals, information on the tonnages of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. Auditing of such data would be necessary to ensure compliance, possibly checking against landfill site operators’ data.

4.52 The deployment of sanctions against local government is a potentially difficult area. Administrative measures may not be very effective in compelling an authority to act. Alternatively, a breach of permit by an authority could be made a criminal offence, with enforcement taken forward by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Sanctions and penalties would therefore be a matter for the courts, with fines commensurate with the avoided costs. Another possibility would be to constrain authorities’ ability to enter into contracts for the provision of landfill for biodegradable municipal waste to that for which they have sufficient permits. Moreover to help ensure compliance, additional sanctions could be taken against landfill site operators who accept biodegradable municipal waste not covered by a permit. These sanctions could include the revocation of a site licence.

4.53 What sanctions and penalties could be used to ensure compliance with a permit system? 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.

Apportionment of targets

4.54 A method would be needed to allocate the amount of waste permitted to be landfilled by each authority. The Scottish Executive is considering the following issues relating to the allocation of permits, and would welcome views.

I.a) An obvious possibility would be base allocations on the local municipal waste arisings in 1995. This is not least because arisings in 1995 are the basis for the UK-wide targets. In this way, an authority which produced N tonnes of municipal waste in 1995 would have a limit of N divided by a constant for the amount of biodegradable municipal waste they could landfill in a given year.

b) The source of waste arisings data in Scotland was the Scottish Office up until 1994. Since its establishment in 1996 SEPA is now the source of waste data. However, extensive local government reorganisation has occurred since 1995, and this will mean that the 1995 figures are not applicable to existing boundaries. Consequently, either the 1995 figures would have to be reviewed or more recent figures would have to be used. One possible problem with the latter approach is that this might be seen to penalise authorities, which have done much to minimise their waste since 1995.

c) An alternative method would be to allocate the targets at the regional or local level on the basis of factors known to be correlated with waste arisings, such as population, or number and size of households. Household numbers and size may be a better indicator of waste arisings than population alone, since research appears to indicate that smaller households produce disproportionately more waste than larger ones.

d) It could be argued that in order to achieve a fair allocation of permits (and indeed something which better represents whether landfill for biodegradable municipal waste is the BPEO) other factors should be taken into account such as:

• age structure and socio-economic characteristics of population
• number and size of commercial establishments producing waste collected by the authority
• location and amount of landfill voidspace
• availability of alternatives to landfill
• design and engineering of available landfill sites

e) In practice, factoring in such influences is likely to be highly complex. Factoring in the number and size of commercial establishments producing waste collected by an authority will be difficult as it is influenced by a complex mix of factors and could vary considerably with time. The location and amount of landfill voidspace is likely to have an impact on whether an area has already taken strides away from landfill and towards other ways of managing municipal waste. This, in turn, will impact on the speed at which the area can achieve reductions in the landfill of municipal waste, and the associated costs of achieving the targets. However this would need to be linked to the availability of alternatives to landfill, and possibly other factors which might influence the BPEO such as the design and engineering standards of the local landfill sites.

f) If permits are tradable (see paragraph 4.55 below) there is less of a need to take such factors into account to secure a fair allocation of the burden of meeting the Directive targets. Trading permits allows a degree of equalisation of the costs of compliance in different parts of the country. Local authorities in areas where the additional costs of diverting waste from landfill are high could choose to continue sending waste to landfill, by buying permits from local authorities that have chosen to divert waste from landfill because the additional costs of diversion are low in their area.

g) The Scottish Executive’s initial view is that a simple and transparent method is required. 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?

II. An alternative to allocating permits would be for the Scottish Executive to auction permits at given intervals to local authorities. The result would be that the highest bidder obtained the permits. Views on this approach are invited.

III. We do not have data on the biodegradable content of municipal waste at the local level; this will depend largely upon the degree of sorting of waste carried out at source. Either a single figure for biodegradable content of municipal waste would be applied or a more complex method, taking account of local factors would need to be devised (see paragraph 4.45, section 4).

IV. Compared with Option 3, the barriers to new landfill sites or companies entering the market after permits have been allocated are potentially lessened.

V. As with Option 3, permits would need to be tapered to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that could be landfilled in a predictable fashion or time-limited and re-issued at set intervals (see Paragraph 4.45, section 4).

Other aspects of design

4.55 Some authorities will find it more difficult and costly than others to comply with their permitted share of the targets. The Scottish Executive’s initial view is that local authorities should be allowed to trade permits between themselves. The instrument would need to be designed to avoid a permit being traded for waste which had already been landfilled. This might involve a system of "permit notes" which would accompany each load to the landfill gate and be provided to the landfill site operator as evidence that the load was covered by a permit. Such a system would also help provide an audit trail to prove compliance. Views are invited on this approach.

4.56 Local authorities may benefit from regional fora to discuss issues surrounding the permits and to aid compliance. The Executive is considering whether the area waste strategies as proposed in the SEPA National Waste Strategy might be suited to this role. It does not intend to make such a role statutory at present. Views on which body might be best suited to provide such a forum to discuss issues surrounding the permits and to aid compliance are invited.

Environmental considerations.

4.57 The impact on landfill gas emissions are difficult to predict. Where authorities send very small amounts of biodegradable municipal waste to a particular landfill site, the collection and use of methane gas from landfills might be made more difficult (see paragraph 4.29). However, this is likely to be an overall effect of the targets and it is difficult to establish whether this instrument in particular would promote this effect. Authorities might have greater freedom to select better engineered sites under a system in which they have control of the permits.

4.58 The transport implications are difficult to predict, and will depend upon the extent to which authorities provide local alternatives to landfill. However this problem is common to all the options, and it does not appear that this option would exacerbate it. Indeed, if the effects of a tradable system of permits were to ensure that landfill patterns followed need, it might be expected to reduce it.

Costs

4.59 Issuing permits to local authorities is also potentially a less restrictive and a more cost-effective way of meeting the Landfill Directive’s targets than bans. This system could allow a gradual reduction in the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill, and means that waste producers and waste management companies would have more time to adapt and find lower cost means of waste reduction and diversion. If permits were tradable this would provide even greater flexibility, and could further reduce the costs of meeting the Directive’s targets. This is because tradable permits would allow the greatest amount of waste diversion or reduction to occur in areas where recycling, composting, incineration and waste minimisation are cheapest and most practicable. However, the extent to which local authorities use the flexibility provided by tradable permits and choose to buy and sell permits will affect the cost-effectiveness of this instrument.

Summary

4.60 Views on this option, and its relative merits and disadvantages, are invited. Would a system of tradable permits for local authorities be workable and practical?

Option 5: Role of the landfill tax

4.62 The landfill tax has an important role to play in the Scottish Executive’s overall strategy for promoting more sustainable waste management.

4.63 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.

4.64 The Scottish Executive intends to review the National Waste Strategy regularly. This, will provide an opportunity to assess the effect of the tax increases in light of experience. As noted in paragraph 4.9 the landfill tax is not an issue devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However views on how the tax might have a role in achieving the landfill targets in Scotland are still relevant.

4.65 The Scottish Executive has considered the role landfill tax may have in achieving the Landfill Directive targets. However, the tax cannot, in the short term, give certainty in meeting the Directive’s targets. Nevertheless we welcome views on the future role of the landfill tax after 2004 in helping to achieve the Directive’s targets for reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste to landfill.