Environment Agency

REGULATION

171. The Environment Agency is responsible for enforcing the Waste Management Licensing Regulations which are intended to ensure that waste management activities do not cause pollution to the environment or harm to human health. Witnesses expressed concern about the Environment Agency's ability to regulate. In particular, those involved in novel techniques (such as anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis) and composting expressed anxiety that the Agency did not have staff with the necessary expertise to be able to regulate their activities. The Environment Agency appear to have partially accepted that there is a problem, stating that it "has recognised the need to improve the competence of Environmental Protection Officers who are new to waste management."[265]

172. But perhaps the most significant doubt about the Agency's abilities relates to the public's confidence in them to regulate facilities to protect public health. This concern relates most topically and acutely to incineration, as we noted in an earlier section of the Report. The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee on proposals for the construction of new waste incinerators and is also responsible for regulating emissions from existing incinerators and for overseeing the disposal of the ash they produce. Public Interest Consultants noted the problems here:

"too often planners abdicate responsibility for emissions and health to the Environment Agency which leads to immense frustration in local communities who are particularly mistrustful of the role of the Agency in relation to health issues."[266]

173. When appearing before us, witnesses from the Agency demonstrated the problem: although they did a perfectly adequate job of explaining how the emissions standards are set for incineration, they failed to explain how the public could be convinced that incineration was safe. This is all the more important because the Agency's credibility as a regulator has been damaged by the case of the Byker incinerator, where potentially hazardous ash from the incinerator is alleged to have "blown all over the surrounding neighbourhood"[267] despite numerous visits from the Agency's inspectors. The Agency does not help itself in dealing with those outside the Agency in the manner in which it handled enquiries by Public Interest Consultants. The Agency adopted a less than open attitude to dealing with the enquiries, answering them in a technically accurate fashion but failing to respond sensibly to the direction of the questioning.[268]

174. Communicating with the public about this issue is, of course, no easy task since it requires an explanation and interpretation of risk, a notoriously difficult concept to treat well in public information terms. Nevertheless, the public's ability to take part in the waste debate rests to some extent upon a better understanding of risk. We recommend that the Environment Agency work with the Department of Health to produce an information pack on the health risks which can be associated with waste management facilities. It is vital that the Agency work with the public to ensure that they are enabled to make informed contributions to the debate about waste management facilities. The costs or charges which are made for this information should be low enough to ensure that there is no impediment to a full debate taking place.

175. Fly-tipping was once again raised as an issue.[269] We have dealt with this matter in previous Reports: in our most recent one on The Environment Agency we noted our disappointment that, despite our previous warnings and recommendations, "the Government and the Environment Agency have failed to take the necessary action to prevent the illegal dumping of waste."[270] Evidence that this is still a problem was disappointingly commonplace during this inquiry. For example, the National Farmers' Union told us that a survey of farmers carried out during the year 2000 found that more than half thought fly-tipping was "a major on-going problem" and one quarter said that there had been a significant increase during the last year.[271]

176. A Fly-tipping Forum has been set up to examine the issues of fly-tipping, the main problems being both catching the offenders and ensuring that the penalty provides an adequate disincentive. On the latter point, Mr Meacher told us that:

 "I would hope that ... where there have been serious or repeat offences, where the magistrates court can only fine up to £20,000, that they would refer the matter to the county [crown] court where there is the option of imprisonment for up to two years and an unlimited fine. I wish to give the message that we are getting very serious about fly-tipping."[272] .

To combat the problem of catching fly-tippers, the Environment Agency has submitted a case for additional resources for an environmental crime unit although they go on to note that "it seems unlikely that these resources will be forthcoming."[273] Fly-tipping continues to be a problem and it is clear that better enforcement and greater punishment are required. To ensure that perpetrators are caught, we recommend that the Government fund the Environment Agency's proposal for an Environmental Crime Unit. So that a true deterrent is offered, we also urge magistrates to make full use of their powers to fine and, where necessary, to pass cases to the Crown Court.

177. The other recurring issue in our waste-related inquiries has been the matter of 'sham recovery' of waste. This takes place when inert waste is disposed of illegally on sites which are exempt from waste management licensing requirements, under the guise of waste being 'recovered' for use, for example for landscaping on golf courses. Our Reports on Sustainable Waste Management (1998), The Operation of the Landfill Tax (1999) and The Environment Agency (2000) have all drawn attention to this problem. Our oft-repeated concerns have yet to elicit any initiative from the Government. As we noted earlier, the review of exemptions from the waste management licensing system is urgent not only to help stop sham recovery, but also to aid those undertaking community composting.[274] In December, Mr Meacher promised us a consultation document on revising exemptions "in the next few weeks"[275] but in a later written answer to a parliamentary question, this had slipped to "this spring".[276] This is not good enough - it is time that the Government stopped pondering and published its plans for revising exemptions.

178. One of the concerns is that these exempt sites are effectively unregulated by the Environment Agency. The Government's response to our Report on The Environment Agency states:

 "The Committee is also incorrect in describing exempt sites as 'unregulated'. Exempt sites are controlled under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 and must be registered with the Agency, which has a legal duty to subject them to appropriate periodic inspection."[277]

However, Bob Parish of the Environment Agency was quoted in a recent Big Issue article as saying that the Agency could only get to visit 10% of exempt sites annually: "that means that at the minimum we visit a site every 10 years."[278] In evidence to the Sub-committee, Steve Lee, Head of Waste Regulation at the Environment Agency, noted his dissatisfaction with the current level of inspection and told us that the Agency had put forward proposals to the Department which would ensure that "those types of operation are subject to prior verification by us and are subject to an annual fee payable to us to make sure that we are funded to do the inspection."[279] As we noted earlier, the review of the Waste Management Licensing exemptions is long-overdue. We await the consultation document to tackle the matters of inspection and enforcement.

179. The Environment Agency must crack down on illegal avoidance of the landfill tax. On average, an exempt site will currently be inspected every ten years. Such a low frequency will do little to deter those aiming to cheat the system. We recommend that exempt sites be visited at least once every year and on any occasion when a complaint is made. We expect the Government to make available the resources necessary to enable the Agency to do this.

OTHER ASPECTS OF THE AGENCY'S WORK

180. We have noted earlier in this Report that the quality and quantity of data on waste arisings is rather poor and recommended that the Agency carry out more work in this area and also aim to publish its findings rather more promptly. There is a more general and over-arching criticism of the Environment Agency: that it is failing to influence the strategic debate. This is a point we have made before, in our Report on The Environment Agency, in which we concluded that:

"The Agency needs to recognise that if progress is to be made towards sustainable development, then it will need to be more active. The matter cannot be left solely to central government policy and voluntary initiatives."[280]

This applies nowhere more aptly than to waste management. For example, much is made of waste minimisation on the Environment Agency's website. However, as we have already noted, the Waste Strategy 2000 is extremely thin on waste minimisation and how to go about it. Similarly, given the Environment Agency's green procurement policy (which is rather good and comprehensive), it is disappointing that the Government's plan includes only a weak commitment to procurement, starting with recycled paper.

181. Peter Jones of Biffa Waste Services summarised the problem thus:

"I think there is a role for the Environment Agency to become involved in this more strategic debate, because, after all, they will be responsible for training and developing the people that could be regulating these plants in the future. At the moment they are very much ex post. They are after the event."[281]

In defence, the Environment Agency argue that their role is "to supply impartial information and advice to decision-makers."[282] But, as our Report on the Agency made clear, there is no reason why the Agency should not claim for itself a broader role and aim to influence policy initiatives to a much greater extent than it manages at present.

182. From the content of the Waste Strategy 2000, it is clear that the Environment Agency is still failing to take a convincing and persuasive approach to influencing environmental strategy. Although we note some recent improvement in the Agency's performance, it is vital that it become a champion for the environment and sustainable development. It must aim to persuade Government of the merits of adopting a more ambitious waste strategy which is based around the pursuit of sustainable waste management.

Local Authorities

183. Local Authorities are at the forefront of waste management: they are responsible for collecting and then recycling/disposing of most household and commercial waste. We have already considered many aspects of local authority targets and performance. Here we examine the co-operation between Waste Collection Authorities and Waste Disposal Authorities, the requirement for and availability of funding and the question of planning for waste management facilities.

184. One feature of local authority waste management is the patchy performance around the country, most markedly displayed in the levels of recycling, which vary from 1% to 35%.[283] This variation suggests that there is a real need for 'beacon' councils which have had conspicuous success with their waste policies. As a contribution to this, we have produced in the text boxes within this section examples of local authorities with high levels of achievement.

185. Our comments and recommendation about green procurement as it relates to national Government can be applied to local authorities who can also help develop the stable markets needed for recycled products. This could be facilitated by better central information on the merits of different types of products.[284] We urge local authorities to pursue the greening of procurement policies through the application of environmental principles via the 'Best Value' initiative.

266   Ev p194 (HC 903-II) Back

267   Q123 Back

268   See Ev p165 (HC 36-II) Back

269   Ev p225 (HC 903-II) Back

270   The Environment Agency, Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, HC 34-I (1999-2000) Back

271   Ev p224 (HC 903-II) Back

272   Q1252 Back

273   Table on Ev p192 (HC 36-II) Back

274   See Paragraph 87 Back

275   Q1262 Back

276   Parliamentary Question in the name of Mr Andrew Bennett, MP, Number 150452, Answered 28 February 2001 Back

277   The Government's Response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's Report: The Environment Agency, Cm 4832, Paragraph 57 of response Back

278   "Where there's muck there's brass", Big Issue, October 30-November 5 2000, pp22-23 Back

279   Q953 Back

280   The Environment Agency, Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, HC 34-I (1999-2000), paragraph 20 Back

281   Q34 Back

282   Ev p188 (HC 36-II) Back

283   From the Audit Commission's Local Authority Performance Indicators for 1999/00 - England (www.audit-commission.gov.uk) Back

284   Ev p143 (HC 903-II) Back