Archive for the ‘Industry Developments’ Category

Within our ever changing and exciting industry, we are seeing a growth in the number of potential frameworks to be associated with. With waste management listed as being one of the largest spend areas for most local authorities, there is growing pressure to be part of such frameworks that claim to help deliver savings.  There are a number of frameworks within our industry, with the best known being WRAP’s call-off contracts.

What is a Framework and how do they work?

The EU Public Sector Procurement Directive defines framework agreements as:

 “An agreement with suppliers, the purpose of which is to establish the terms governing contracts to be awarded during a given period, in particular with regard to price and quantity”.

In this case a framework agreement is, in essence, an agreement with potential providers that sets out terms and conditions under which specific purchases can be made throughout a period of years, usually four. The typical services or goods procured using frameworks can vary depending on the need and requirements of the Local Authority. However, the general ones tend to be:

• Consultancy services;
• Operational services;
• Maintenance contracts;
• IT equipment and office supplies.

Generally frameworks can be set up when the purchasing authority knows they are likely to have a need for a particular service of product and are unsure of the exact extent of what is available on the open market.

Certain frameworks need to be advertised using the OJEU process providing the maximum value of the service or goods over its lifetime exceeds the relevant EU threshold of approximately £173,000 (as of January 2012). Once such frameworks are advertised, suppliers of services or goods, apply to be part of a framework, which generally tends to be a company ‘Health Check’ where companies are assessed for their financial standing and any other specified criteria. Once approved the supplier is invited to submit in a series of fixed prices for the range of services or goods to be provided for the period of the framework. As and when tenders are advertised throughout the framework period, suppliers are given the option of tendering for the works.

Key Advantages and Disadvantages of Frameworks

The key advantages and disadvantages of framework are as follows:

Advantages:

• Not having to go through the full OJEU process every time the need for a service or goods arise; and
• Potential reduction of tendering costs and time of the process for both suppliers and purchasers

Disadvantages:

• Four year contract terms can in-flexible and relatively unresponsive to change i.e. innovation; and
• Tend to apply a ‘one-size fits all’ approach which can lead to difficulties when trying to satisfy own procurement objective.

Key Issues to be considered when using a Framework Agreement:

Through our experience and knowledge of certain frameworks, we have devised and list of what we think to be key issues that need to be considered before entering into such agreements. The most common issues are, as follows:

• Total reliability upon the framework to deliver you, your bespoke and individual based services;
• Within certain frameworks, expecting non waste related personnel to deliver and evaluate technical solutions;
• Direct ordering when a mini-competition should have been used i.e. contacting or ordering from your own known suppliers;
• Depending on the use of a procurement process; not thinking through the exact service requirement leading to a poorly defined specification/contract;
• Contractors being part of such frameworks only because it’s what the rest of the market are doing i.e. too big to miss;
• Including pre-qualification criteria that will have already been assessed in the procurement of the framework agreement – this is not permissible;
• Adding or amending terms and conditions specific to your own needs that are outside of the original scope envisaged in the framework;
• The pre-selected award criteria suiting specific companies and not others on the framework;
• Adding unrelated evaluation criteria that are not specified in the framework;
• Not publicising the weightings of award criteria and sub-criteria used;
• Not allowing suppliers enough time to consider your requirement in order to formulate a realistic and competitive bid;
• Failure to follow correct procedures for e-auctions; and
• Creating “Framework within a framework” type arrangements to narrow a larger field of suppliers for subsequent call-off contracts.

Cleanliness of streets and the local environmental is a key indicator which impacts upon people’s quality of life and as such is an essential front line service. Ensuring appropriate street cleansing frequencies is the core element in designing front line street cleansing operations, but how can these frequencies be designed to meet the need of the local area?

It is estimated that streets cleansing activity in the UK costs in the region of £800 million per annum. In the current economic climate where financial savings are required, new and innovative ways of identifying front line service efficiencies is critical. In this case, can Performance Monitoring of street cleansing services be used to identify where service efficiencies can be made.

Street cleansing schedules can often be a combination of historically designed rounds, ‘ad hoc’/ reactive work, inappropriate zoning (e.g. residential streets classed as town centres) or local knowledge. This can sometimes mean cleansing schedules are reviewed on an infrequent basis. Often the key driver to these schedules is ensuring reaction times are achieved, which is certainly effective in town centres but may not truly reflect the surrounding housing areas.

Up to and including the financial year 2009/10, National Indicator (NI) 195 was used by local authorities to monitor street and environmental cleanliness. NI195a and NI195b were used to show the levels of litter and detritus, while NI195c and NI195d related to graffiti and fly posting. As NI195 is no longer a statutory indicator it is important that local authorities continue to not only monitor service performance, but also use the data generated to inform service design. It may be that local authorities can now design internal monitoring regimes to reflect the make-up of their areas to provide monitoring that meets their operational needs and local surroundings.

Although keeping streets free from litter is a key responsibility for local authorities, it is an area where monitoring techniques can be easily introduced to improve service efficiencies and reduce costs while maintaining a high standard of service.  Efficiency saving is all about either reducing budgets while maintaining service levels, or achieving a static budget with an increase in level of service.

For example, it could be that by simply following historic cleansing schedules a number of housing estates receive a mechanical sweep on a four weekly basis. Upon review of performance data it may be possible to identify that these streets are consistently viewed as high performing. It may also be that this high performance could be maintained even if street cleansing frequencies are stretched to, for example, every six weeks. Local authorities may look to use performance monitoring data to trial such changes in services.

In addition a re-zoning exercise can help to identify where streets are wrongly classified and provided with an over (or under) intensive sweeping frequency. By monitoring performance data it may be possible to see where services are over-resourced and allow for either service efficiencies to be achieved or for resources to be deployed elsewhere in order to meet demand. This can lead to either a reduced resource requirement or financial saving by reducing the frequency of cleansing. Clearly, this regular and structured monitoring is needed to ensure affected areas do not fall below the required standard.

Essentially, utilising performance monitoring can help local authorities address the question “Why Sweep Clean Streets?” If an area is clean, why sweep it when this has a financial cost to a local authority and resource could be targeted at areas that are not performing as well. The Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse clearly lays out anticipated response times for street cleansing activities. This information is often used by local authorities in order to design street cleansing schedules, but as important as this is ensuring that a front line street cleansing service reflects the needs of the public and the local geographical area. By using performance data to map an area this is achievable. By targeting resource to meet need and performance levels it is possible to provide a cost-effective service through the development of a database on service performance and on the operation of the system itself creating a tool that enables service improvement through analysis of the data.

Recently we have observed the first local authority to launch an incentive scheme, organised by Local Green Points, designed to reward residents for waste reduction and increased levels of recycling.

The scheme, which began in October 2011, currently applies to 2,000 flats, although the council is considering extending the initiative to an additional 13,000 flats in the borough during 2012. The model could also work equally well with houses, and this extension may well be considered for the future.

Under this new plan, residents are offered money-off vouchers to spend at local retailers when they activate their membership online, and the opportunity also exists for ‘green points’ to be earned as a community, based on the amount they recycle, and the quantity of residual waste generated. Alternatively residents can choose to donate their points to nominated local charities.

The council measures waste and recycling levels, in the initial test area of the scheme, every three months. If a reduction in waste and an increase in recycling are observed then green points are awarded to the residents which have signed up to the initiative. At present a quarter of households in the test area have signed up to take part so far, and initial results indicate that the scheme is proving to be a success, as recycling rates in the area are already starting to improve and the first round of ‘green points’ has now been handed out to residents.

Although the initial funding for the scheme came from a number of sources the council concerned has said that the cost of the ‘green points’ scheme going forward would be offset by savings in waste disposal charges and increased income from the sale of recycled materials.

An added advantage to this type of endeavour is the way in which a sense of community and local pride can be achieved. People working together for the benefit of all demonstrate localism at its best.

Similar initiatives designed to offer rewards for increased recycling and less waste being sent to landfill are now in operation throughout the country.

In Birmingham the council have chosen to work with the loyalty card company Nectar to run a pilot paper recycling rewards scheme and Defra announced last November that sixteen councils and community organisations have won a share of £500,000 to introduce new schemes to encourage residents to recycle and reuse goods. Rewards include vouchers, donations to charities or discounts on goods or services. Recognition may include personalised feedback on individual household recycling rates or information on how the item donated for reuse had benefitted the local community.

Councils and organisations chosen to receive the funding include housing associations such as Housing 21, the National Union of Students, Gloucestershire Waste Partnership, Waste Aware North East and the London Waste Authority.

Both the Coalition Government and the Mayor of London are known to be strongly in favour of incentive and reward based schemes. It would appear that there is nothing to lose, and the opportunity exists to create many benefits from looking towards implementing some of these measures as part of a waste and recycling plan.

Gordon Mackie Associates Ltd is pleased to announce that we are hosting a one day seminar, on Tuesday 13^th March 2012, with the aim of exploring and highlighting opportunities to achieve service efficiencies in the area of waste management operations, including the possibility of joint working between local authorities and the potential interaction with the private sector.

The event is to be held at the Wrightington Hotel and Country Club, Moss Lane, Wrightington, Wigan, WN6 9PB. The venue is conveniently located immediately adjacent to Junction 27 of the M6, and is also in close proximity to links with the other motorways in the North West such as the M62 and M56.

The day will be structured in order that presentations can be complemented with ample time to take questions and provide opportunities for group discussions on the points raised. Speakers at the seminar will include:

Craig Hatton – Head of Service (North Ayrshire Council)

• Topic – Improving Service Efficiency

Nick Baker – Corporate Director (North Norfolk Council)

• Topic – Efficiencies through Joint Working and Procurement

Mark Hogan – Development Director (Keir Services Ltd)

• Topic – A Private Sector Solution

Geoff Green – Principal Consultant (Gordon Mackie Associates)

• Topic – Multi Discipline Joint Working

The seminar is designed to produce an atmosphere where sharing of past experience, coupled with innovative new approaches, will result in the identification of creative ways of moving forward and possible implementation of new approaches to achieve cost savings whilst at the same time delivering optimum service performance.

This is a free seminar which is scheduled to be CIWM CPD approved and will include lunch and refreshments throughout the day.

It is open to senior staff in waste management within local authorities. Further details can be obtained by contacting us either by phone or email.

Effective communications play a vital role in modern waste management, but at a time when budgets are tight, communications may not be at the top in a long list of priorities. It is essential that we are aware of its importance in helping to reduce waste and that the use of effective and targeted communications should be seen as an investment and not just a cost.

 Important factors in ensuring improved and effective communications include:

• A clear understanding of behaviour change and the effect it has upon waste management communications;
• Utilising modern communication techniques;
• Continuing efforts through all three phases of behaviour changes: change, development and maintenance.

Behaviour Change

It is essential to identify the factors affecting behavioural change before communications can become effective. When it comes to encouraging residents to become involved in waste management schemes, local authorities will need to address multiple behaviours. Some residents will be keen recyclers and therefore communications aimed at this section of society should focus on their continuing efforts. Other members of the community may refuse to recycle, as they do not think that their efforts will be of any benefit to the environment, or because they simply forget or do not fully understand how their local recycling service operates. Therefore these two groups will need to be targeted in different ways.

Factors that influence behaviour are detailed below:

• Personal factors – the knowledge and awareness residents have of the benefits of reducing waste, their attitudes towards the impact they have and the habit and routine they have established that they may or may not be willing to change.
• Social factors – how other peoples values affect residents? Do other residents recycle? Do their friends?
• Environmental impacts – local (the appropriate containers supplied by the council) and wider environment (bring banks, HWRCs).

In addition, the five stages of the grief process provide a useful means to anticipate how residents may react to change; communications can be developed around these stages. The examples below demonstrate how residents may react to a food waste service being introduced:

Denial – refuse to have a kitchen caddy in their house, storing ‘rotting’ food waste;

Anger – with the council for making them do all sorts of recycling when they pay such high council tax rates anyway;

Bargaining – begin to recycle their food waste, but compromise with only dry foods that do not smell;

Depression –feel like they have enough to do without having to separate all their waste for recycling;

Acceptance – once they get used to it, it becomes another daily activity just like the recycling of dry recyclables.

Communication Techniques

As new technology develops there are increasing opportunities to find new channels of communication. There are a number of options available which include;

• Social media – Social media provides the communicator with an online platform which can help to communicate messages and information to an engaged community:  
• Facebook – 20 million users in the UK, 50% of users log on every day;
• Twitter – more than 175 million users worldwide, with 95 million tweets per day
• Smart phone technology (Apps) –With the growth of the smartphone market there are new opportunities to communicate with residents. The ‘LoveFoodHateWaste’ app has had over 55,000 downloads and its simple yet effective design helps users to reduce their food waste with simple recipe ideas and a potential saving of around £430 per year;
• Blogging – is an interactive facility which allows for stories and information to be updated online and for users to leave comments. Blogging allows for the communicator to receive feedback on their content and interact with communities generating discussions and asking for their opinions on certain subjects.

Advantages:

• Less expensive than traditional communication mediums;
• Allows for immediate response to any questions or queries regarding the campaign.

Disadvantages

• Essential to commit resources to ensure that all information is current and up-to-date, responses are available, and content is regularly updated;
• Principal need to engage the community often portrayed as ‘uncool’, difficult to recruit.

Change, Develop, Maintain

Although communications are essential to provoke a change, it is necessary that positive communications are continued to ensure that after the change phase, residents will develop and maintain their new behaviour. Initial communications that focus on a change will be more costly, they will need to be creative and simple and may need to be repeated several times to reiterate the message. Communications that focus on the development and maintenance of a scheme are generally much cheaper, as they are less frequent and are used as a reminder, which emphasises the importance of continued communications through all three phases of behavioural change.

It is important to remember that communication is usually one of the least expensive aspects of waste management, especially when utilising the new, less expensive alternatives available to us, yet for any scheme to be successful, good communications are critical.

On 30^th September the Government announced that it is to make £250 million available to assist Local Authorities in England to keep or restore weekly waste collections.  Under the new Weekly Collections Support Scheme, which is due to begin in April 2012, only Councils which guarantee weekly collections for five years or more, and at the same time demonstrate improvements in recycling and procurement, will be eligible for the funding. Councils will have to bid for the funding to improve procurement, launch incentive schemes such as shopping vouchers or loyalty card points to improve recycling and reduce fly tipping, or introduce methods which look towards the mechanical sorting of waste into biodegradeable fractions, recyclable items, and those that need to go to landfill. 

Many Councils have invested in technology to operate alternate weekly schemes, and in a number of areas, recyclables are taken one week with general waste being collected the next. These managed schemes are intended to encourage recycling and minimise expensive landfill taxes.  However, the new funding will enable local authorities to look at other alternatives which will still achieve these aims, and at the same time satisfy the public’s wishes that household waste collections services should be weekly, particularly for the collection of organic waste.

One answer might be to use this additional money to provide householders with weekly collections of food waste. This does away with odour issues from residual waste bins and significantly improves the quality of other recyclable materials.

Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, has said the Government was not trying to force councils to make changes, but wanted to remove the financial incentive that goes with fortnightly collections. Audit Commission rules that penalised councils for failing to move to fortnightly collections have already been scrapped. and ministers have pledged to repeal rules that allow Council inspectors to rummage through bins to check whether recycling regulations are being adhered to.  Mr Pickles is also quoted as saying he would like to end the scenario where there are rows of bins, which run the risk of obscuring a small bungalow.

At least half the homes in Britain have lost their weekly collections of general rubbish, although this has been an unpopular move with some householders, who began to complain about increases in rats and other pests, and unpleasant smells from food waste left uncollected for up to a fortnight. To make matters worse bin fines and taxes were sometimes threatened or imposed on those who broke the rules.

The new scheme will help Councils whose residents want their rubbish collected more frequently to reinstate weekly bin rounds for malodorous waste, while also seeking new and inventive ways to increase recycling and look after the environment. In the coming months Councils will be invited to submit innovative bids to secure the available funding. They will be able to bid individually or in consortiums, and with the private sector, where that increases value for money. In order to encourage the most original and locally tailored solutions, authorities will be able to bid for a mix of revenue and capital funding. Further details of how the Support Scheme will operate and how councils can bid will be set out in due course.

The Government will be working with local authorities to increase the frequency and, equally importantly, the quality of waste collections. Whilst this new proposal is not popular with everybody, largely due to fears regarding a possible reduction in recycling rates, the provision of funding will take the pressure off cash strapped Councils who do wish to revert to weekly collections, and enable them to obtain appropriate support to implement the changes, if required.

GMA has a wealth of experience when it comes to procurement issues, round reviews, and the introduction of new collection systems. Taking on board our expertise, could well result in cost savings both now and in the future whilst, at the same time, satisfying the need expressed by the public for a return to the prompt disposal of organic waste, thus creating a ‘win win’ situation for all.

A key driver in increasing the quantity of waste which is recycled in the UK is a move towards processing organic materials which would otherwise end up in landfill generating methane, a gas which has around 21 times more impact on the climate than CO₂. Methods for dealing with organic waste vary depending on the exact composition of the materials collected. One of the technologies coming to the fore in the treatment of organic wastes is Anaerobic Digestion (AD). The technology can be coupled with other processing techniques to provide a unique recovery solution and is inherently scalable, being able to offer solutions from large municipal districts (for example Greater Manchester) right down to single farm digesters for animal slurry.

There are currently (April 2011)54 operational AD facilities in the UK (32 on-farm and 22 off-farm), excluding sludge treatment facilities. There are currently around 50 additional plants which have obtained planning consent, with a total additional capacity of around 70 Megawatt electrical (MWe).

Beyond the UK, AD is widely adopted throughout the world, from large-scale municipal plants in France and Italy, thousands of farm-based plants in Germany, farm-based food waste plants incorporating crop feedstock’s in Denmark and Sweden, through to many hundreds of thousands of micro-digesters in South East Asia.

Everybody, from Central Government to environmental campaigners, and the waste industry in-between, views anaerobic digestion as being the most beneficial way of dealing with unavoidable organic waste. It has been around for thousands of years, has been the mainstay of the water industry for dealing with sewerage sludge since the Victorian age, and hundreds of plants treating organic wastes have been built on the continent , particularly Germany.  So why have so few plants been built in the UK?  The answer is because unless you have deep pockets as a waste producer, waste contractor, farmer or developer, you will struggle to get the funding community to finance it.

The Government has been asking this question and as part of developing the AD Strategy and Action Plan www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/anaerobic-digestion-strat-action-plan.pdf,  has sought answers from the market as to what was causing those barriers to finance. It is a combination of a number of factors relating to delivering an AD project – which are absolutely no different to the headings you would see for any waste treatment facility. The main problem with AD is that the issues of demonstrating access to long term feedstock  and what to do with the output (the digestate) are even more acute than in other forms of waste treatment.

In many cases, unless it is a major contractor developing the AD project, the above issues are compounded by the questions any financier would ask about the entity looking to deliver the project: who is behind the scheme? What is their financial standing? Are they experienced? What are the governance structures? How much money are they putting in? For many AD developers, who are SME’s, often with the emphasis on the ‘S’, these are difficult hurdles to get over.

Are these issues insurmountable? No, and one of the ways to deal with this may be with facilities based around municipal feedstock as anchor contracts. As with the development of residual waste treatment capacity this has proved a tried and tested way to deliver infrastructure which the contracting and funding communities can come together around. To support this standardised documentation and reduce some of the more generic due diligence issues through dissemination of information and good practice will also help, and it is this latter area that the AD Strategy Action plan focuses on. 

Local funding may also be available though many schemes are short lived and limited in scope. This being the case, many are still able to provide a significant boost to small scale AD facilities. An example of this type of fund is the Measure 3 funding opportunity offered by the Wales Centre of Excellence for Anaerobic Digestion. This fund offers support for consultancy costs on a one off basis.

For organisations with sufficient capital, or the means to borrow from commercial sources, AD can provide a commercially viable prospect through sales of electricity or gas to the grid (especially when complemented by Feed in Tariffs (FiTs), Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs) and profits from any by-products such as compost.

AD need not be viewed as a complicated, inaccessible solution to the challenges posed by organic wastes. With the help of specialist and expert advice, and the conduction of site specific feasibility studies, this will help to address the questions raised by financers and provide confidence within the market place.

In these days when every service area is under pressure to achieve greater efficiency, it is important to understand exactly how each task is being performed. Over the years, working practices become established, with staff responsibilities changing and evolving. When taking on a new task, staff will often be instructed as to what steps they need to carry out, with perhaps little overall understanding of all the parts played by other people. Supervisors may have a broader view, but often limited to the part of the task undertaken within their department. In analysing exactly what steps are followed by all involved to complete the task, unnecessary delays or duplication of effort can often be identified, and thereby costs can be reduced and customer response times improved.

Increasing Understanding

To understand what is going on in detail, the technique of Process Mapping can be used. Based on flowcharting techniques, which are familiar to most people, the essence of Process Mapping is to identify in complete detail:

• what the desired outputs are;
• what inputs are required to produce the output; and
• all the steps in the process to produce the output from the inputs.

The activities of any organisation should be focussed on producing certain outputs, and the process of arriving at this output may involve more than one department or functional area. Process Mapping allows the interrelation of the activities carried out by different areas to be analysed; from this analysis roles can be clarified, and interfaces can be streamlined. Put simply, a finished Process Map shows people what their jobs are, and how they relate to the jobs other people are doing.

From a management perspective, having a Process Map for each identifiable process will be part of moving towards a culture of doing things right first time, every time. The time spent developing each Process Map will reveal if it is possible to increase the efficiency of the process. Mapping the existing process will show:

• the flow of information;
• the tasks being carried out;
• the decision points and who is making those decisions;
• how the inputs are converted into the required outputs.

By using Cross-functional Process Maps (the so-called “Swimlane Diagram”), it also becomes clear where the process crosses boundaries between functions or departments, an area where avoidable delays and duplication of activities can often arise.

To take one example, the notification of a fly tipping incident often comes through the Council’s contact centre, and the details received at this point have to be translated eventually into a vehicle and crew from the waste collection department driving to the right location and removing the offending waste. How many steps are in the process between initial notification and eventual clean-up? Is it possible to reduce the steps involved, and make it clearer who has authority to progress from one step to the next?

In the case of a trade waste customer verbally asking his collection driver if the Council offer a recycling service, is there even a process map available for such a request? Mapping such a scenario as part of a wider process map for trade waste might mean potential valuable sales leads are no longer missed.

Cutting waste

Once the existing process has been mapped, it is then possible to analyse this and potentially re-design the process to avoid tasks now adjudged as unnecessary, simplify the decision making process and also to clarify the roles of those involved. As with any process that impacts on people’s daily working lives, it will be important to invite all those currently involved in the task to give their input. Certain information about the process may only be known by one or two staff, and converting this “private property” into part of the corporate knowledge base is an important subsidiary benefit of the process mapping exercise.

Once agreement has been reached on how the new process will look, then a careful implementation programme must be agreed. All participants must start using the new process map at the same time, and any new support tools must also be deployed and all staff trained in their use before this time. As the new process comes into use, the early days will reveal if any minor modifications are necessary to cover certain unforeseen circumstances.

Reviewing the map on a regular basis will be one way of ensuring that all factors have been considered and that all exceptional circumstances are covered. If the new map has included metrics for performance, then monitoring these will provide feedback to drive further potential improvements.

How to get started..

The initial mapping of processes may be undertaken as part of an exercise to improve software systems within an organisation. For example, the introduction of a new CRM system may well be a useful point to carry out process mapping. Alternatively, response times to customer requests for a certain service may be a cause for complaint, and so process mapping this particular area will bring an understanding of whether there are any unnecessary delays, and how these could be avoided by a process re-design.

Staff and managers who are used to handling a particular approach are not always best-placed to identify all elements of a process map. Gordon Macke Associates, with its experience of waste management, street cleansing and grounds maintenance operations within a municipal context are able to facilitate the whole mapping exercise, whether this be across all waste and Streetscene operations or just one individual process. Through a consultation exercise, including a workshop with all staff involved, a process map can be quickly developed, and improvements suggested.

The Waste Review’s findings were published in June 2011, alongside a series of actions for the future.  With respect to local authority waste collection and recycling services, the prominent policy decisions raised as part of the review, are the need to:

• Encourage councils to sign new Recycling and Waste Services’ Commitments, setting out the principles they will follow in delivering waste services to households and businesses;
• Scrap bin fines and taxes (repeal Section 46 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 plus Section 108 of the Environment Act) while bringing in powers to deal with repeat fly-tipping offenders and genuine nuisance neighbours.

At first glance, the item 1 would appear to be a logical extension of the service bond between each local authority and its council tax paying customers, whilst  item 2 appears to reduce some of the powers of local authorities to ensure recycling is carried out fairly across the board.  It will be interesting to see how these objectives manifest themselves at service delivery level, if at all.

Ending the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme ( LATS)

Defra has taken this decision after a careful analysis of the range of policies needed to enable England to meet landfill diversion targets in 2013 and 2020. This analysis has shown that LATS is no longer the major driver for diverting waste. The Landfill Tax is now much more of an incentive for local authorities to reduce the waste sent to landfill.

Defra has already announced that England has met the 2010 EU Landfill Diversion Target and is making good progress towards meeting the 2013 and 2020 targets.  It is now the intention to end LATS after the 2012/13 scheme year and rely, instead, on existing measures, such as the Landfill Tax to deliver reductions in the amount of waste sent to landfill. This approach is consistent with the direction of the Government’s wider review of waste policies, removes unnecessary burdens on those affected and removes a potential barrier for small businesses to manage their waste in a more environmentally friendly way.

Local authorities should bear in mind the following:

• the legislative requirements of LATS remain in place and will be enforced until the end of the 2012/13 scheme year;
• Municipal waste, eg, commercial and industrial waste collected under contract by a local authority, can be considered in a more flexible manner as part of a sale/transfer process to the private sector.  In this respect, a greater degree of “added value” could be harnessed through such a sale/transfer process.

The Reward and Recognition Scheme

Defra is making limited funding (£500,000 pot) available to local authorities, in addition to civil society organizations, to introduce or trial new schemes that reward or recognise people or communities for adopting “positive behaviour” towards managing their waste.

Funding is being made available in order to strengthen the evidence base of the environmental and financial costs and benefits of rewarding householders, and to make this information available to local authorities and others to help inform their choices locally.

In order to obtain this funding, local authorities should bear in mind the following:

• Applications should be submitted by 17:00 on 26 July 2011.
• Although local authorities may find it challenging to submit applications in the first part of the financial year, Defra recognises that early allocation of funding is desirable, as it allows more time for money to be spent over the current financial year.

The manner in which this expected “positive behaviour” is monitored and recorded as part of this process, will inform future reward and recognition schemes, which could be used as part of an integrated recycling development process.

The Waste Strategy Review 2011 has been met with some strong criticism throughout the waste management sector.  Is this a fair reflection of the findings or a hasty reactive opinion? Different interest groups may have different views on the findings of the Waste Review 2011. The Waste Review did achieve some of the initial goals in the form of a continual drive towards resource efficiency and the provision of more support for the business sector as a whole. Although the themes and overarching Strategy may have been appropriate overall, has the Waste Strategy Review 2011 been a missed opportunity to provide clear strategic and target- based leadership for the waste industry as a whole? A number of the policies were anticipated and cover old ground, so perhaps this could be seen as a wasted opportunity to move the waste management industry forward at a quicker pace with a new strategic direction.