Should landfill tax be increased? Or is it more important to encourage recycling by giving tax breaks? Luke Prazsky, waste resource management specialist at Wardell Armstrong, argues that a joined-up approach is what’s needed CIWM Journal Online Exclusive
What’s been the single most effective driver to date in improving the sustainability of UK waste management? Unequivocally, the answer is landfill tax. It’s diverted waste from landfill. It’s increased recycling. It’s led to the emergence of a national network of large scale EfW facilities. All good things – and yet landfill tax hasn’t succeeded in maximising recycling rates, or in minimising the amount of residual waste. It hasn’t made the most of the waste industry’s potential to contribute to the development of the circular economy. And we still send around 30 million tonnes of waste to UK landfill sites every year.
In the past, the tried and tested escalator resulted in year-on-year rises in landfill tax. But the decision to change it to a system that increases only by inflation means that it’s going no higher than £80/t in real terms after 2014. This suggests the UK government has decided it has served its purpose and that there is no tangible benefit to be gained from further rises.
CIWM opinion polls on the other hand, suggest that industry generally wants landfill tax to increase. Most would like to see it above £100/tonne. Some would set it around £120-150. Some even want it increased to £200. But what would that actually achieve? As things stand, EfW, rather than recovery and recycling, would be the natural recipient of waste diverted from landfill. This would avoid the tax but does it move waste high enough up the hierarchy?
“But let’s stay positive. We have a real opportunity in the waste industry to contribute to the circular economy. Waste should be considered as a long term resource. And by recovering more of it, we’re also likely to create more jobs and drive the economic upturn”
Look at any residual waste stream, and you’re likely to see significant amounts both of plastics and food waste. Both are viable materials in their own right. Hard plastics or plastic film can be recycled as many times as they can be recovered but, without incentives to recycle, it is just as attractive to EfW facilities for its calorific value. Food and garden waste is an ideal feedstock for fertiliser production through the AD process, which also produces energy as a by-product but there is still patchy coverage for separate collection of food.
The fact is that the UK simply hasn’t developed markets for the remaining materials found in mixed residual waste streams. Reprocessors demand good, clean, quality material that needs minimal effort before it can be recycled into new products. The treatment of contaminated plastics is not currently financially viable. We’re missing a trick by not going after these materials – it needs a bit of work to get out of the residual waste stream but we need to be innovative if we are to push up recycling rates.
So industry needs financial incentives to clean up materials like contaminated plastics. The reprocessor market isn’t going to do it without support. Following the success of the landfill tax is it now the time for new drivers to push waste further up the hierarchy? And we can’t rely on under-capacity in the EfW market because that will only last for a short time before the market self-corrects.
The Welsh and Scottish governments are already on the case with their requirements for the targeting of particular waste streams (including plastics) before residual waste is thermally treated by EfW. Arguably even this doesn’t go far enough, as the operators only have to target and remove specific materials (like dense plastic) where it’s financially viable. In addition, Scotland and Wales will soon to be setting their own landfill tax levels. We mustn’t let this push waste over the border for less sustainable disposal in England.
But let’s stay positive. We have a real opportunity in the waste industry to contribute to the circular economy. Waste should be considered as a long term resource. And by recovering more of it, we’re also likely to create more jobs and drive the economic upturn.
A welcome step forward would be financial incentives in the form of tax breaks or subsidies for the reprocessing of contaminated materials. That way more materials, plastic in particular, could be recycled and given a valuable new lease of life.
I started by looking at landfill tax, but have ended up in favour of tax breaks for reprocessing. It just goes to show that you should never look at these issues in isolation, and that a joined up approach to taxation and financial incentives is what’s needed. Waste resource management is an inter-connected world.
