The landfill directive and the challenge ahead: demands and pressures on the UK householder

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00070-2Get rights and content

Abstract

Despite its lowly position on the waste hierarchy, landfill remains the predominant method of disposal in the UK. It currently accounts for disposal of 85% of municipal solid waste, despite the presence of national policies and targets to increase recycling and divert waste from landfill. However, the implementation of the EU Landfill Directive into the UK legislation in 2001 will place increasing pressure on the householder to participate in more sustainable waste management practices. This research will consider the different approaches available at a local level to meet one of the more pressing targets in the Directive — to reduce ultimately the disposal of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) in the UK to 35% of 1995 levels. Significant changes in practice are required if the targets are to be met. This will require an increase in the availability of alternative options such as recycling and composting and place greater pressure on the householder to respond positively. At present there is little incentive for the householder in the UK to divert waste from disposal, as there is no penalty for non-participation in recycling schemes, and ease of disposal has generated apathy towards more time consuming alternative management options. International case studies have shown that direct charging is one approach that can produce dramatic results in terms of increased recycling and waste minimisation. Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) schemes place responsibility on the householder to manage their waste in a more sustainable manner, with economics being the motivator. Reluctance to incorporate such an approach, and its applicability in the UK, form the focus of discussion and alternatives are considered with respect to changing behaviour, increasing participation and meeting the BMW waste targets.

Introduction

Environmental policy makers in the UK are increasingly under pressure to integrate sustainable rhetoric into practice; none more so than those involved in waste management. The last decade has seen an influx of European legislation aimed at promoting integrated waste management strategies. Once incorporated into national legislation, the role of the Local Authority and actions of the householder are paramount to the success of sustainable waste policies.

However, while waste continues to receive the attention of environmental policy makers, it remains to be perceived negatively by the general public. Householder requirements are focussed mainly on the removal and disposal of waste from source with minimal effort or demands placed upon them. Current practice certainly supports this and despite its lowly position on the waste hierarchy landfill is the predominant method of waste disposal in the UK, accounting for 85% disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) (Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, 2000). Targets that have been in place since 1990, to encourage alternative management of household waste, have made little impact, with the current recovery rate (recycling, composting or incineration with energy recovery) being 14% for MSW (Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, 2000). UK is facing one of the greatest challenges in waste management that is set to change the face of the waste industry in a relatively short period of time — the implementation of the European Landfill Directive. As a member of the European Union, the UK has a predetermined amount of time to implement Directives into national legislation. The targets of the Landfill Directive have to be satisfied but the approach that individual member states take to achieve those targets is not prescribed in the Directive. In the UK, if attempts are made to meet the targets set out in the Directive, then there will be significant changes in the way specific elements of the waste stream are handled over the next two decades.

While the Landfill Directive contains a number of different targets, this paper will focus on one of the more challenging aspects in terms of demands on the householder, and that is to ultimately reduce biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) being sent to landfill to 35% of the 1995 level by 2016 (Table 1).

A number of issues make this target extremely difficult to meet:

  • •

    annual growth in waste arisings;

  • •

    lack of market availability and stability;

  • •

    inadequate funding and infrastructure for alternative options.

It is at present unclear as to how these targets are to be achieved. However, it is clear that legal action is likely to be taken by the European Union if the targets have not been reached by the deadlines stipulated in the Directive.

This paper will critically consider the role of the householder in meeting the targets and will discuss the implications different approaches may have on the perception, behaviour and participation.

Section snippets

Biodegradable municipal waste

It is important to firstly clarify what is meant by the term BMW. Municipal waste generally consists of household waste, some commercial waste and waste taken to civic amenity sites. It may also contain street sweepings and some trade waste if it is under the control of Local Authorities in terms of collection and disposal. Biodegradable waste has been defined in the Directive as waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as food and garden waste and paper and

The debate

One of the main issues leading the debate regarding how the targets can be achieved is who should take the initiative. There can be no doubt that the changes required will have a dramatic effect on the householder, whether this is in a practical or economic sense, both directly and indirectly. To add clarification to the scale of the problem, it is anticipated that potentially 30.3 million tonnes of BMW will have to be diverted from landfill by 2020 (Table 3). Expectations on the householder

Household waste management

Regular household waste collection in the UK is a requirement by law and has its origins as a public health service. As a general principle collection is made at the kerbside to remove waste generated by the householder, the charge for which is encompassed within the council tax. While it remains a relatively easy task for householders to simply dispose of their waste, there is little impetus to change. The Local Authority could be considered responsible for the confused perception held by the

Waste minimisation as a solution

One of the ongoing concerns in reaching the targets in the Landfill Directive, and also Waste Strategy 2000 (Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, 2000), is the annual growth of waste. Growth of MSW is predicted to be 3% per annum, which will obviously make it even harder to achieve diversion targets for BMW from the landfill.

While recycling has received much attention from policy and decision makers, waste minimisation has tended to targeted at the commercial and industrial

Direct charging

The most successful case study examples of minimisation of waste produced by the householder has not been as a result of waste minimisation initiatives such as smart shopping, but as a result of an extrinsic motivator — cost of collection and disposal. PAYT, unit pricing, or direct charging are all terms used to describe an equitable approach to household waste management whereby the fee charged for waste collection directly relates to the quantity of waste generated for disposal. This approach

Discussion

Regional and local variations in quantity and composition of household waste are very apparent and this has bearings on the success of recycling and minimisation schemes. A hand sorting analysis of household waste in Luton to provide baseline data on waste composition highlighted variations that occur in inner Luton as compared to outer Luton (Coggins et al., 1996). It is therefore imperative that Local Authorities try to establish individual approaches towards sustainable waste management and

Conclusions

Nationally, there is a need for an integrated approach towards waste which takes into consideration local needs and characteristics. While examples of good practice do exist in the UK at a local level, holistically there is a reliance on low technology traditional approaches. For the BMW targets to be met by the deadlines imposed there is a need for considerable action at the local level and increased responsibility by the householder for the waste they generate. Alternative strategies to

References (36)

  • Anon. Waste targets in doubt as waste strategy put back to 1999. ENDS...
  • Anon. Select committee slams lack of progress on sustainable waste management. Wastes Management...
  • Anon. Slim your bin campaign yet to change consumer behaviour. ENDS Report...
  • Waste Matters — Good Practice in Waste Management

    (1997)
  • Audit Commission Local Authority Performance Indicators, Council Services Compendium for England

    (1998/1999)
  • Barton J, Wheeler P, Poll A. The effects of the introduction of large wheeled bins on the composition of domestic...
  • C. Brown et al.

    Waste reduction indicators: results from a community project

    Waste Manag

    (1998)
  • J. Canterbury

    How to succeed with pay-as-you-throw

    Biocycle

    (1998)
  • Carroll S. Recycling, composting and street cleanliness study. Consultancy Report Comissioned by South Bedfordshire...
  • Coggins P, Sharratt M, Benfield T. Hand sorting of household waste in Luton: towards baseline data. Centre for Waste...
  • Cooper T. Beyond recycling: the longer life option. New Economics Foundation, London, UK,...
  • Curry R. Has pressure group opposition to incinerators prevented diversion from landfill? In IBC Conference: Landfill —...
  • The Environment in Your Pocket

    (1998)
  • Limiting Landfill

    (1999)
  • A Way with Waste

    (1999)
  • A Summary of the Responses of Less Waste More Value

    (1999)
  • Waste Strategy

    (2000)
  • Environmental Protection Agency. Pay-as-you-throw — annotated bibliography. US Environmental Protection Agency web page...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text