The association argued that although the credits stimulated recycling in their early days, they are no longer relevant now that performance standards have been set for all disposal authorities. In their present form, the credits had become “a negative influence in developing integrated solutions as part of joint waste management strategies,” it said.
The credits were introduced to stimulate recycling, allowing savings in disposal costs to be passed back to waste collection authorities to cover the extra costs of recycling.
Chairman Roy Burton said that the way in which the credits are calculated often left the disposal authority with a large extra cost.
Since the credits began, the landfill tax has been introduced and this has made some processing, such as composting, cheaper than disposal alternatives. In these cases, recycling options stood up on economic ground without needing to be underpinned by the credits, he argued.
“Many collection authorities are using the difference between their costs and the credit claimed to subsidise other services,” Mr Burton claimed. He did not blame the collection authorities for exploiting this but said it led to conflict and reduced incentives “to work together to develop the best system of recycling and waste management”.
“With the increases planned for the landfill tax, recycling credit levels, as currently calculated, will become ridiculously expensive and could lead to market instability,” Mr Burton said.
The association's policy committee has advised members to check systems for paying both contractors and credits. Many authorities rely on estimated weights, which will not be an acceptable way of demonstrating whether statutory performance standards have been met from 2003/04, it warned.
In its response to the government's Strategy Unit report Waste Not Want Not, the association called on the government to specify performance standards beyond 2005/06 “as a matter of urgency”, to allow for long-term planning. It also called for the removal of the requirement to use contractors for managing civic amenity sites, which it said conflicted with best value.
The association attacked the unit for failing to “come off the fence with regard to incineration”. It said the unit should have been more positive on this method.
It also objected to the exclusion of local authority officers from two of the main groups involved in developing the unit's plans for municipal waste.
Subscribe for free