The Chartered Insititution of Wastes Management said today that although the 2003 Budget (see letsrecycle.com story) showed “clear intent” to support more sustainable management of waste, detail on funding, delivery and operational issues was “still lacking”.
A statement from the CIWM said: “Whilst the intentions of the Chancellor may be regarded as positive, the Budget has done little to address the uncertainty within the waste sector, particularly with regard to funding mechanisms and timeframes.”
The Treasury was sharply criticised by the CIWM for providing no details concerning the public spending programme resulting from the reform of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. The LTCS reform had been announced in November 2002, as part of the Pre-Budget report, and details concerning the annual 100m being redirected to a public spending programme were expected to be announced in yesterday's Budget.
“Following the announcement in the Pre-budget report last November, of the reform of the LTCS, it was anticipated that the Chancellor would shed more light on the delivery mechanism of the redirected public spending programme. This is not the case,” the CIWM statement said.
“Details of the programme were deferred to a subsequent announcement by DEFRA, with no time indication on when this is to occur. Any Local Authorities keen to establish how and when they would access the funds available, continue to face uncertainty,” the statement added.
Substance
Peter Jones, external affairs director at Biffa Waste Services, also criticised the government for having “more ambition than substance” in its Budget.
The Budget confirmed that Landfill Tax will rise to 14 per tonne in 2003-04, 15 a tonne in 2004-05, 18 a tonne in 2005-06 and a 3 a tonne annual increase from there on.
But Mr Jones argued that this wouldn't “achieve parity with landfill until 2011 – well beyond the 'c;runch' period of 2006/08, when many European obligations land on the mat”.
He said: “It's hardly surprising that the Chancellor has failed to respond to calls for levelling the financial playing field for innovative resource efficient processing technologies compared to the landfill option. This merely confirms what we have come to expect when considering the Prime Minister's rhetoric, which has more ambition than substance.
“Given that the relatively marginal impact on corporate costs compared to the immense gains in resource efficiency, society is the long term loser.”
Variable charging
Mr Jones also criticised the government for failing to take any decision on variable charging pilots for household waste. The government said in the Budget that more work was needed looking into the practicalities and potential disadvantages of such a measure (see letsrecycle.com story).
But the Biffa director said: “The absence of any reference to enabling legislation in this finance act with regard to charging households for waste merely confirms the political fears this administration has when tinkering with environmental economic instruments.”
The CIWM urged the government not to waste time by duplicating studies that have been or are already being carried out on variable charging. It said it will soon publish a major study into the practicalities of operating charging schemes, taking into consideration barriers to implementation in the UK, and utilising international experiences.
“The research, commissioned by IWM (EB), in conjunction with the Local Government Association and funded by Biffaward could make an important contribution to the debate and speed up the progression towards a final decision on extending powers of Local Authorities and initiating pilots,” it said.
DEFRA has defended its lack of clarification by insisting that because of 'purdah' rules, it cannot announce new policies or projects that might influence the upcoming local government elections.
It says further policy details will be announced as part of its response to the Strategy Unit's Waste Not, Want Not report, expected in May.
Register for free to comment