41. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed definition and scope of necessary costs?
There are parts of the scope and definitions we support but there is not enough information in the proposals for us to reach a view either way.
We would like clarity on the assumptions that underpin the definitions of “efficient and effective” council services. The local government sector must have a strong voice in these discussions and the LGA would be happy to support this.
Chapter on payments for managing packaging waste from households
42. Do you agree or disagree that payments should be based on good practice, efficient and effective system costs and relevant peer benchmarks?
We accept that EPR payments to councils will need to be based on a model or formula, at least in the early years of the scheme while data is being built up.
Member councils are understandably anxious about where the benchmarks will be drawn, and whether this will disadvantage councils because of the nature of their areas and the existing infrastructure and supporting contracts. If councils are required to break long term contracts on the grounds that they are not efficient, the costs must be fully funded either through EPR payments or new burdens funding.
We are not able to support this proposal because of these concerns and the lack of detail provided in the consultation paper. We would be happy to work with Defra to find an alternative solution.
43. Do you agree or disagree that the per tonne payment to local authorities for packaging materials collected and sorted for recycling should be net off an average price per tonne for each material collected?
Defra has tested this question with councils in the last few months. This is a complex question and there is not a consensus view across councils.
There are significant concerns about how this would work. For example in situations where material is handled by a third party, such as a waste management company.
If the scheme fulfils its purpose the amount of packaging in circulation will reduce over time. However, many elements of council services are fixed and service costs will stay the same regardless of a drop in tonnage. For example, waste collection vehicles have a life span of at least seven years. Councils could be disadvantaged over time by a scheme that bases payment on tonnage rather than service cost.
44. Do you agree or disagree that the Scheme Administrator should have the ability to apply incentive adjustments to local authority payments to drive performance and quality in the system?
We disagree.
Government should wait to see the combined impact of EPR, consistency and DRS before setting up an incentive scheme for councils. If the reforms are well designed they should provide all the levers for reducing waste and increasing recycling. An incentive system for councils operated through EPR would serve no purpose, except to add overhead costs to the scheme administrator.
45. Do you agree or disagree that local authorities should be given reasonable time and support to move to efficient and effective systems and improve their performance before incentive adjustments to payments are applied?
See our answer to question 44 above.
This question should be opened up to consider the combined impact of the proposals on EPR, consistency and the introduction of a DRS for drinks containers on local authority services.
Each council will be in a unique situation with contracts and infrastructure. What is a “reasonable time” needs to take into account the lead in time for renegotiations of long term contracts and development of infrastructure.
46. Should individual local authorities be guaranteed a minimum proportion of their waste management cost regardless of performance?
Yes they should have a guarantee. EPR is a system for making producers pay full net costs and this is a way of ensuring that the scheme delivers at least minimum funding to all councils.
47. Do you agree or disagree that there should be incentive adjustments or rewards to encourage local authorities to exceed their modelled recycling benchmarks?
In principle we support the principle of rewards. When applied carefully and with the agreement with all parties they can have a positive effect on recycling rates. Drawing on the experience of councils who have used incentive systems, whoever administers the incentive payments can expect this to be a complex process that requires support and understanding of the local context in order to succeed.
Defra propose that rewards to councils are based on recycling rates. We would like to see a broader approach that gives weight to environmental outcomes, rather than a narrow focus on recycling. This would support national and local commitments to reduce carbon emissions. Defra should consider whether a system of rewards based on carbon emissions would be better aligned with the UK’s net zero target.
We would need to be reassured about the robustness of the modelling and whether this truly reflects the potential of councils to do more.
If incentive payments are applied this should not remove funding from other councils. This would undermine the principle of payment for full net costs.
48. Do you agree or disagree that unallocated payments should be used to help local authorities meet their recycling performance benchmarks, and contribute to Extended Producer Responsibility outcomes through wider investment and innovation, where it provides value for money?
There should not be unallocated payments. If the Scheme administrator is collecting unallocated payments this would indicate a failure of the system.
49. Do you agree or disagree that residual payments should be calculated using modelled costs of efficient and effective systems based on the average composition of packaging waste within the residual stream?
We support the principle of using a modelled figure because of the challenging timeframe, and to avoid placing a large data collection burden on councils.
As noted above, we would like to understand the assumptions that have been used to estimate the costs of efficient and effective systems.
50. Do you agree or disagree that a disposal authority within a two-tier authority area (England only) should receive the disposal element of the residual waste payment directly?
We support the principle that payment should be made to the tier of local government incurring the cost.
The system should be flexible enough to allow two tier areas to negotiate a different arrangement if they wish to.
Payments for managing packaging waste from businesses
Key points
- We agree that businesses should do more to support recycling efforts.
- The availability of data is poor and waste companies do not provide statistics and performance information in the same way as local authorities. It is therefore difficult to comment on whether the proposed timetable is achievable.
- Councils will be affected by these measures as they have office space and other premises that will come under the new mandatory obligations. We expect any new requirements to be fully funded by either EPR or new burdens.
- Many councils provide waste collection services to local businesses. We encourage Defra to draw on their expertise in developing these proposals. Councils are key to providing services to businesses that are not profitable for commercial waste operators, for example community centres and businesses in rural and less populated areas.
51. Do you agree or disagree that there remains a strong rationale for making producers responsible for the costs of managing packaging waste produced by businesses?
We support this principle.
52. Do you agree or disagree that all commercial and industrial packaging should be in scope of the producer payment requirements except where a producer has the necessary evidence that they have paid for its management directly?
We support this principle.
We do not have enough information to be able to answer the remaining questions on business waste.
Payments for managing packaging waste: data and reporting requirements
Key messages:
- The consultation document notes that WRAP has been working with local authorities to test data capture tools and additional questions in the Waste Data Flow reporting system[5]. This exercise has shown that there is a gap in the data on flats and household waste and recycling centres. Councils tell us that recycling from flats is characterised by high levels of contamination, which results in lower recycling rates.
- Failure to address the data gaps on flats and household waste and recycling centres will create a payment system that is flawed and unfair.
56. Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce a sampling regime for packaging as an amendment to the MF Regulations in England, Wales and Scotland and incorporation into new or existing regulations in Northern Ireland?
We broadly support this proposal but welcome further detail on the design of the sampling regime. Councils have an interest in making sure this is fair and transparent to all parties and must be involved in the development of the regime.
Any additional costs arising from the new regime should be met through EPR and not passed back to councils.
57. Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to require all First Points of Consolidation to be responsible for sampling and reporting in accordance with a new packaging waste sampling and reporting regime?
As above we support the principle but the design of this proposal needs to take into account all the variety of facilities operated by councils. Local government will need to be involved in the design of this process.
58. Do you agree or disagree that the existing MF Regulations’ de-minimis threshold of facilities that receive 1000 tonnes or more per annum of mixed waste material would need to be removed or changed to capture all First Points of Consolidation?
The LGA does not have enough information to answer this question. Individual councils will be able to comment on the implications of this proposals based on their individual circumstances.
59. Do you think the following list of materials and packaging formats should form the basis for a manual sampling protocol?
No. The list should be “futureproof” and include materials that are likely to come under the EPR regime, such as plastic films and flexibles and single use cups.
We should avoid a situation where EPR, DRS and consistency all require different protocols and sampling regimes. We encourage Defra to bring these strands together into one coherent package for councils and reprocessors.
60. Do you think it is feasible to implement more rigorous sampling arrangements within 6-12 months of the regulations being in place?
Yes, provided that there is enough notice and additional funding is provided where needed.
The LGA does not have enough information to be able to answer questions 60-65 on the technical process of measuring output quality and reprocessing protocols.
Payments for managing packaging waste: reporting and payment cycles
66. Do you agree or disagree that local authority payments should be made quarterly, on a financial year basis?
We support this approach. It should be kept under review and further consultation with councils should take place. Running some trials or pilots may help to ensure a smooth transition.
67. Do you agree or disagree that household and business packaging waste management payments should be based on previous year’s data?
The consultation does not suggest any alternative approaches. In principle we support this approach and welcome further information on plans for implementation.