waste data in the uk

Waste Data in the UK An assessment of the current system of data provision in the UK, its strengths, weaknesses and recommendations for improvement ___________________________________________________

Report for RWM Ambassadors

ED 61133 | Issue Number 1 | Date 19/01/2016 Ricardo in Confidence

In association with:

Waste Data in the UK | i

Ricardo in Confidence Ref: Ricardo/ED61133/Issue Number 1

Ricardo Energy & Environment

Customer: Contact:

i2i Events Ltd Simone Aplin Ricardo Energy & Environment Gemini Building, Harwell, Didcot, OX11 0QR, United Kingdom

t: +44 (0) 1235 75 3082

e: [email protected]

Ricardo-AEA Ltd is certificated to ISO9001 and ISO14001

Customer reference:

RWM Ambassadors

Confidentiality, copyright & reproduction:

This report is the Copyright of i2i Events Ltd and Ricardo Energy & Environment. It has been prepared by Ricardo Energy & Environment, a trading name of Ricardo-AEA Ltd, under contract to i2i Events Ltd dated 04/08/2015. The contents of this report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any organisation or person without the specific prior written permission of i2i Events Ltd and the Commercial Manager, Ricardo Energy & Environment. Ricardo Energy & Environment accepts no liability whatsoever to any third party for any loss or damage arising from any interpretation or use of the information contained in this report, or reliance on any views expressed therein.

Author:

Simone Aplin

Approved By:

Adam Read

Date:

19 January 2016

Ricardo Energy & Environment reference:

Ref: ED61133- Issue Number 1

Cover photograph, Malpass Farm Climafuel Facility, Rugby, SITA UK

Waste Data in the UK | ii



Executive summary

The availability, accuracy and timeliness of waste data has long been questioned and the lack of reliable data has, in part, contributed to a great deal of debate about key areas of decision making and policy such as the potential treatment capacity gap in the UK and waste infrastructure planning applications.

The RWM Ambassadors commissioned this report to stimulate the debate around waste data and answer the following questions:

What do we need waste and resource management data for?

What specific information is required for each application?

What data is currently available, who collects it and how accurate and timely is it?

What data gaps exist and what might a proportionate and a robust system of collecting and reporting UK data look like?

Who should be responsible for collecting and reporting different data sets and how much might it cost? and

What would be the benefits to the Government, the waste management sector, manufacturing businesses and the UK economy if data provision was improved?

The majority of the data sets which are currently collected and reported exist because of specific regulations that require it. For example, all waste management sites with an environmental permit are required to submit site returns detailing waste they have received and dispatched, and all hazardous waste must be consigned resulting in detailed data on the character and quantity of hazardous waste managed in the UK. The significant gaps in current waste data provision reflect areas of waste management that are not covered by regulation or where deregulation has occurred, for example waste prevention, re-use, waste managed by some exempt sites and material meeting the end of waste test. Data on any aspect of waste management not covered by regulation is extremely limited and is dependent on periodic surveys, such as C&I waste arisings.

In order to produce this report, representatives of a range of stakeholders were interviewed to understand their perspective on the provision of waste data and how it could be improved in the future. These stakeholders included central Government, local authorities, regulators, the waste industry, lenders and investors and advisors. The majority of these interviews were undertaken in person allowing for a full and comprehensive discussion of the issues and the testing of suggested actions to improve waste data.

The majority of waste data currently available is collected and reported as a result of regulations that place this requirement on operators. Indeed the significant data gaps identified by stakeholders reflect areas of waste management that are not covered by regulation or where deregulation has occurred, for example waste prevention, re-use, waste managed by exempt sites and material meeting the end of waste test. The most significant of these is data on the arisings of commercial & industrial (C&I) and construction & demolition (C&D) wastes. There is currently no duty on waste producers to report data unless their waste is subject to regulations such as producer responsibility legislation or if it is hazardous waste.

Stakeholders identified gaps and weaknesses in existing waste data but were working around these limitations where possible. There are increasing efforts by a number of stakeholders to gain more intelligence from the data that is currently collected by linking and cross referencing of waste and non-waste datasets, recognising the potential benefits of analysing the data more innovatively to understand wider trends, develop business strategies, target interventions and improve compliance.

There was a great deal of discussion regarding potential improvements to waste data in the future. These improvements ranged from simple low cost actions to improve the quality or availability of existing data sets, through to more complex, cross sector initiatives such as a common glossary and data standards, a single reporting portal for all waste data and aspirational initiatives such as a resource tax to fundamentally change the way waste is valued. Overall, the interventions that they considered would improve current waste data provision fell into four broad areas. These were:

The use of data from other sectors;

Improvements to existing datasets;

New data collection; and

Overarching initiatives.

Waste Data in the UK | iii



Significant benefits would result if comprehensive, accurate and timely waste data was collected and made available. These include:

Government would have an in-depth understanding of waste generation and waste management across the UK. This could be used to develop and monitor clear policies to deliver sustainable resource management and a more circular economy in the UK. At present, the significant data gaps such as information on C&I waste arisings mean that the Government and others may be formulating policy that is counterproductive or only focused on areas for which robust data is available. For example there are many more targets and interventions relating to the management of MSW than C&I waste even though C&I waste arisings are almost three times bigger. Comprehensive data would act as a strong evidence against which effective policies could be developed to deliver sustainable resource management and a more circular economy, accelerating the benefits to the UK economy and environment.

The waste management industry would have more confidence to invest in and deploy waste treatment infrastructure and waste management services. This would speed up the delivery of the required waste treatment capacity, including the specialist deconstruction and recycling infrastructure required in the UK to deliver a more circular economy.

The specific actions recommended to improve waste data are set out in the table below. Some actions could be achieved quickly and with limited cost whilst more complex actions that would require greater cooperation between stakeholder groups and/or more funding. The table sets out each recommended action and the stakeholders that would have a role in its delivery. It should be noted that is it extremely difficult to estimate the cost of delivering these actions due to the large number of unknowns.

Recommended actions

No. Description Responsibility

Actions to improve existing data

1.

Engage with the Edoc board to consider how the system could be improved so that it collects data that could be used to generate an estimate of waste arisings. This should include the possibility of collecting data at the point of waste collection through chipped bins.

Edoc Board, Defra, waste industry and its representatives.

2. Support and encourage the publication of open source data by the regulators and Government.

Defra, waste industry and its representatives, local authorities.

3. Publish raw data site returns in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

SEPA, NRW and NIEA.

4.

Review WasteDataFlow and consider improvements including:

- Ensure that local authorities are working to the same definitions and reporting data consistently to allow accurate comparison and interpretation.

- Review questions relating to re-use and waste prevention together and provide guidance on how these should be consistently reported.

- Consider improvements to the user interface to make it easier for users to build queries.

- Review the format of query outputs to make them easier to manipulate e.g. remove blanks and table formats

Defra, WasteDataFlow board.

5. Engage with regulators to explore the potential to combine regulatory datasets into one single reporting portal. This would contribute to building a more comprehensive understanding of

National regulators, Defra, Scottish & Welsh Governments, local

Waste Data in the UK | iv




resource flows through the waste management sector and provide an indication of the progress towards a circular economy.

authorities, the waste industry and its representatives.

6.

Explore the potential to expand work on common data standards started by the Environment Agency to all waste datasets in tandem with the development of a shared glossary. This would could be combined with Action 5 above.

National regulators, Defra, Scottish & Welsh Governments, local authorities, the waste industry and its representatives.

Actions to collect and report new waste data

7.

Establish a working group to look again at the potential for a voluntary agreement between the waste industry and Defra to share data. This should take account of similar agreements in other competitive sectors such as energy supply.

Waste industry and its representatives, Defra.

8. Engage with exemptions review currently being undertaken by Defra to explore the possibility of introducing a requirement to provide limited data on waste managed.

Waste industry and its representatives, regulators, local authorities, Defra

9.

In order to provide accurate and timely data on C&I and C&D waste arisings, consider making the use of Edoc mandatory across the UK as a whole. This would need to be done in combination with Action 1 to ensure that the data collected is fit for purpose.


10.

Review options for reporting the volume and type of waste reaching end of waste status to the regulators. This could include amendments to the quality protocols and/or end of waste decisions made by regulators.

Defra, Environment Agency, NRW, NIEA, SEPA

Waste Data in the UK | v



Table of contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and objectives.............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Core waste data sets ....................................................................................................... 2

2 Stakeholder perspectives .............................................................................................. 5 2.1 Central Government ........................................................................................................ 5

2.1.1 Defra ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Welsh Government ................................................................................................. 6 2.1.3 BIS .......................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Local authorities .............................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Regulators ....................................................................................................................... 8

2.3.1 Environment Agency............................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 National Resources Wales ..................................................................................... 9 2.3.3 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) ................................................. 10

2.4 Waste industry ............................................................................................................... 11 2.4.1 Waste management businesses ........................................................................... 11 2.4.2 Waste industry representatives ............................................................................ 13

2.5 Lenders and investors ................................................................................................... 14 2.6 Advisors ......................................................................................................................... 15

2.6.1 Zero Waste Scotland ............................................................................................ 15 2.6.2 WRAP ................................................................................................................... 16 2.6.3 Consultants ........................................................................................................... 17

3 Data gaps and weaknesses ......................................................................................... 19 3.1 Data gaps ...................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Weaknesses within existing data sets ........................................................................... 20

3.2.1 WasteDataFlow .................................................................................................... 20 3.2.2 C&I and C&D waste arisings surveys ................................................................... 20 3.2.3 Site returns (Waste Data Interrogator in England) ................................................ 20

4 Measures to improve waste data ................................................................................ 22 4.1 The use of existing data from other sectors ................................................................... 22 4.2 Improvements to existing datasets ................................................................................ 22 4.3 New data collection ....................................................................................................... 23

4.3.1 Data on waste collected........................................................................................ 23 4.3.2 Edoc ..................................................................................................................... 24 4.3.3 Exempt sites ......................................................................................................... 24 4.3.4 Waste prevention and re-use ................................................................................ 24

4.4 Overarching initiatives ................................................................................................... 24 4.4.1 Common glossary and data standards ................................................................. 24 4.4.2 Extension of producer responsibility ..................................................................... 24 4.4.3 Resources tax ....................................................................................................... 25

5 Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................... 26 5.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 26 5.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 27

Appendices

Appendix 1 Businesses and organisations interviewed

Waste Data in the UK | 1



1 Introduction

1.1 Background and objectives

The availability, accuracy and timeliness of waste data has long been questioned and the lack of reliable data has, in part, contributed to a great deal of debate about key areas of decision making and policy such as the potential treatment capacity gap in the UK and waste infrastructure planning applications.

Although data and information relating to waste is collected regularly by businesses and organisations in the course of their activities, for the purpose of this report, waste data is defined as the publicly available datasets that exist at a national level (including those covering the devolved administrations). More information on the most significant data sets is given in section 2.

The majority of the data sets which are regularly collected and reported exist because of specific regulations. For example, all waste management sites with an environmental permit are required to submit site returns detailing waste they have received and dispatched, and all hazardous waste must be consigned resulting in detailed data on the character and quantity of hazardous waste managed in the UK. There are gaps in data where no regulations or other drivers exist for it to be reported. The most significant of these is data on the arisings of commercial & industrial (C&I) and construction & demolition (C&D) wastes. There is currently no duty on waste producers to report data unless their waste is subject to regulations such as producer responsibility legislation or if it is hazardous waste.

Waste data is used by a range of stakeholders for a wide range of applications. The most significant stakeholder groups, and examples of the applications for which they require waste data, are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Stakeholder groups using waste data

Source: Ricardo Energy & Environment




1.2 Objectives

The RWM Ambassadors commissioned this report to stimulate the debate around waste data and answer the following questions:

What do we need waste and resource management data for?

What specific information is required for each application?

What data is currently available, who collects it and how accurate and timely is it?

What data gaps exist and what might a proportionate and a robust system of collecting and reporting UK data look like?

Who should be responsible for collecting and reporting different data sets and how much might it cost? and

What would be the benefits to the Government, the waste management sector, manufacturing businesses and the UK economy if data provision was improved?

1.3 Approach

As shown in Figure 1, waste data is used by a wide range of businesses and organisations for a wide range of applications and as such, it was important to engage with those stakeholders to gather a comprehensive picture of how data is being used, their perceptions of weaknesses and gaps in current provision and their future needs.

Key stakeholders in each group were identified and approached for an interview. Where possible, interviews were conducted face to face and in the form of loosely structured discussion to allow for a wide ranging conversation. The remaining interviews were undertaken over the telephone. Details of the interviewees and contributors to this report are included in Appendix A.

Please note that the views and perceptions reported in this document, whilst reflecting those of the participating stakeholders, may not represent those of the stakeholder groups as a whole.

1.4 Core waste data sets

There are a number of data sets that hold the majority of waste data available in the UK and that are commonly used by stakeholders. These are described in more detail in Table 1. It should be noted that these datasets are not exclusive. The table includes only regularly updated datasets and does not include the numerous standalone C&I and C&D waste arisings surveys undertaken by the Government and developed administrations or nation level reports summarising data.

Table 1: Core waste data sets available in the UK

Data set Owner Access Description

WasteDataFlow Defra/Welsh Government/SEPA/ Northern Ireland

Available online at www.wastedataflow.org.

Users must register to gain access to the portal.

Detailed information on MSW waste arisings and management in every local authority area. Data is published quarterly (annually in Scotland) and QA’d. Users are able to query the data through a user interface.

Waste Data Interrogator

Environment Agency Now available free of charge at www.geostore.com/environment-agency/WebStore?xml=environment-agency/xml/application.xml

Site returns from permitted waste management sites in England (and Wales up until 2012). Includes waste received and dispatched by EWC code, site type, fate, local authority area etc. Users are able to query the

http://www.wastedataflow.org/

http://www.geostore.com/environment-agency/WebStore?xml=environment-agency/xml/application.xml









Data set Owner Access Description

data through a user interface.

Hazardous Waste Interrogator

Environment Agency Available free of charge at www.geostore.com/environment-agency/WebStore?xml=environment-agency/xml/application.xml

Details of hazardous waste movements in England and Wales by waste type, local authority area etc. Users are able to query the data through a user interface.

StatsWales Stats Wales Available free of charge at www.statswales.wales.gov.uk/Catalogue/Environment-and-Countryside/Waste-Management/Local-Authority-Municipal-Waste/Annual

Tonnages of Local Authority Collects Waste in Wales (arisings, management, recycling rates etc.) by local authority area.

Waste Discover Data Tool

SEPA Available at www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/get-interactive/data/waste-from-all-sources

Details of all waste types generated and managed in Scotland for the period 2011-2013. Waste disposed to landfill is available for the period 2005-2013. The data is also available in MS Excel format.

Household Waste Discover Tool

SEPA Available at www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/get-interactive/data/household-waste

Summary data on Scottish household waste generation and management (waste generated, recycled and landfilled) are available for the period 2004 – 2014 (more detailed information is available for 2011-2014). The data is also available in MS Excel formal.

Waste Sites and Capacity Tool

SEPA Available at http://www.sepa.org.uk/data-visualisation/waste-sites-and-capacity-tool/

Geo-spatial summary of all waste sites in Scotland, with waste capacities and waste inputs and outputs recorded for the year. Available for 2011-2014

There are numerous reports available that cover specific topics such as waste arisings, waste managed, waste composition and information on specific waste streams such as wood and food. These reports seek to address data gaps or present summary information where individual data such as site returns cannot be published. New reports are published regularly and therefore data users are required to regularly undertake searches to ensure they are using the most up to date and relevant information available. A few examples include:

Digest of Waste and Resource Statistics, 2015 Edition, January 2015, Defra. This report covers the whole of the UK and is available at www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/422618/Digest_of_waste_England_-_finalv2.pdf







https://statswales.wales.gov.uk/Catalogue/Environment-and-Countryside/Waste-Management/Local-Authority-Municipal-Waste/Annual







http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/get-interactive/data/waste-from-all-sources/




http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/get-interactive/data/household-waste/




http://www.sepa.org.uk/data-visualisation/waste-sites-and-capacity-tool/



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/422618/Digest_of_waste_England_-_finalv2.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/422618/Digest_of_waste_England_-_finalv2.pdf




Wales Waste Data Information 2012, Natural Resources Wales. Available at www.naturalresources.wales/our-evidence-and-reports/waste-reports/wales-waste-data-information-2012/?lang=en

The Composition of Municipal Waste in Wales, WRAP, May 2010. Available at www.wrapcymru.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Wales_compositional_analysis_report__2_.9076.pdf

Estimates of Food and Packaging Waste in the UK Grocery Retail and Hospitality Supply Chains, WRAP 2013. Available at www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/UK%20Estimates%20February%2015%20%28FINAL%29.pdf

Construction, demolition and excavation waste arisings, use and disposal in Northern Ireland 2009/10, WRAP, June 2011. Available at www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/cdew_arisings_use_and_disposal_in_ni_2009-10.pdf

Along with the datasets and reports, other useful data is available from public registers held and maintained by the regulators, in particular information on waste management sites with environmental permits and those operating under an exemption. These can be found at:

Environment Agency public register - http://epr.environment-agency.gov.uk/ePRInternet/searchregisters.aspx

Natural Resources Wales public register - https://naturalresources.wales/how-we-regulate-you/find-out-if-a-site-has-a-permit-licence-or-exemption/?lang=en

SEPA public register – www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/waste/waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment-weee/public-register/

Northern Ireland Environment Agency - www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/waste-home/public_reg.htm

https://naturalresources.wales/our-evidence-and-reports/waste-reports/wales-waste-data-information-2012/?lang=en

https://naturalresources.wales/our-evidence-and-reports/waste-reports/wales-waste-data-information-2012/?lang=en

http://www.wrapcymru.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Wales_compositional_analysis_report__2_.9076.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/UK%20Estimates%20February%2015%20%28FINAL%29.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/UK%20Estimates%20February%2015%20%28FINAL%29.pdf

http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/cdew_arisings_use_and_disposal_in_ni_2009-10.pdf

http://epr.environment-agency.gov.uk/ePRInternet/searchregisters.aspx

http://epr.environment-agency.gov.uk/ePRInternet/searchregisters.aspx

https://naturalresources.wales/how-we-regulate-you/find-out-if-a-site-has-a-permit-licence-or-exemption/?lang=en

https://naturalresources.wales/how-we-regulate-you/find-out-if-a-site-has-a-permit-licence-or-exemption/?lang=en

http://www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/waste/waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment-weee/public-register/

http://www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/waste/waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment-weee/public-register/

http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/waste-home/public_reg.htm




2 Stakeholder perspectives

2.1 Central Government

As part of this study, we approached representatives of the UK Government and devolved administrations to discuss the issues surrounding waste data. It should be noted that their views do not constitute an official response from the departments.

Each of the devolved administrations are considering changes and improvements to the way waste data is collected and reported. Although they were not able to contribute to this report due to time constraints, the Scottish Government has the most developed plans. As part of this, SEPA published A Waste Data Strategy for Scotland1 in June 2011 which aims to improve understanding of what waste is produced in Scotland and how it is managed. The Scottish Government, working with SEPA and ZWS have a continuing focus on waste data improvements and more developments are expected in this area.

2.1.1 Defra

The Department for Food, Energy and Rural Affairs (Defra) is reliant on a wide range of waste data to identify necessary interventions, inform policy, measure progress, for regulatory purposes and to report to Europe. The majority of the data used by Defra is collected and reported as a result of regulations and includes WasteDataFlow and regulatory data sets held by the Environment Agency.

There are a number of data gaps that present challenges to understanding a comprehensive picture of waste and resource management in the UK. Defra recognises that it is difficult to identify issues or propose solutions in areas of waste and resource management for which there is little or no data. In these cases, it is left to the market to address issues; however opportunities for positive Government intervention can be missed which could impact growth and the adoption of a more circular economy. It is also the case that a strong evidence base is vital to proving the business case for intervention, particularly in this time of constrained resources. Specific data gaps reported by Defra include data on waste managed at exempt sites, re-use and waste prevention. There are also weaknesses and issues with existing datasets such as duplication of tonnages as waste moves from producer to final destination and difficulties in determining waste and material flows by combining and comparing existing data sets.

Against the current backdrop of austerity and budget cuts, it is unlikely that Defra will be able to fund some of the conventional activities it had previously undertaken to collect data, such as the C&I and C&D arisings surveys and the Reconcile project. There are also concerns that the continuing budgetary pressures on Defra and local authorities may impact on the quality and availability of data on MSW waste. This may include a reduction in the scope or frequency of reporting. Defra is currently reviewing the provision of data, its current limitations and seeking to identify areas that may benefit from change.

With the significant budget cuts facing Defra and other Government departments meaning that they are unable to commission new or additional data collection on waste arisings etc., the focus is on the potential for industry to provide the data required. This includes the waste management industry as Defra considers that, as a whole, the sector would be able to provide a reasonable estimate of non-municipal waste arisings. Although detailed data on the spatial arising of waste and its composition would be useful, high level, macro data from the industry would be sufficient for Defra’s purposes. The current Government is unlikely to make it mandatory for the waste management industry or waste producers to provide data and therefore the focus is more likely to be on voluntary agreements to share information. This could involve data being provided to an independent ‘honest broker’ that could then provide Defra with high level, anonymised information. While this appears to be feasible, it should be noted that Defra previously attempted such an agreement with members of the waste industry and that it failed. The perception was that the industry could not overcome concerns around data confidentiality and a fear that their competitive advantage may be compromised. In order for voluntary agreements to be a success, the contributors need certainty that the benefits of more data for the sector as a whole outweighs the cost and any perceived negative impact of sharing it.

Another new and potentially significant source of data may be the Edoc system. At present, the level of take-up by the industry is low, however it is hoped that this will increase as businesses update their

1 A Waste Data Strategy for Scotland, SEPA, June 2011. . Available at https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/110871/waste_data_strategy_for_scotland.pdf

https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/110871/waste_data_strategy_for_scotland.pdf




internal systems and build it in. There are a number of issues with Edoc that would need to be addressed to make it a robust data set from which waste arisings estimates could be generated. This includes more accurate weights on annual waste transfer notes (season tickets) and all fields would need to be mandatory to make the data meaningful. Edoc is not currently mandatory although this is being proposed in Scotland and Defra is interested to see responses to the consultation. Although this Government’s focus is on deregulation, the push towards ‘digital by default’ may influence any decision to explore making Edoc mandatory in England, although a robust cost benefit analysis would be required to prove the business case.

As mentioned previously, one of the challenges facing the production of waste statistics is capturing a holistic picture as there are numerous datasets and information gaps. Combining information from these different datasets is difficult for a number of reasons including the compatibility of data due to inconsistent categories, definitions, inconsistent use of European waste classification (EWC) codes and duplication etc. They believe that there is potentially significant value in developing a single system of data collection which would encompass the reporting requirements of all waste regulations.

2.1.2 Welsh Government

Similarly to Defra, the Welsh Government uses waste data for statutory reporting to Europe, to monitor targets and indicators and to develop policy, including the waste strategy. This requires an in-depth understanding of waste arising in Wales together with how and where it is managed. Data for planning waste treatment infrastructure is considered to be less of a priority for Wales than in other areas of the UK as the Welsh Government is focused on maximising recycling and re-use by supporting separate collections of waste materials and maximising recycling and reprocessing capacity. As a result, there will be less demand for intermediary separation and treatment capacity.

The data gaps that are identified by the Welsh Government include information on waste prevention, re-use and particularly difficult waste streams such as plasterboard, asbestos, tyres etc. They are also keen to understand more about the final destination of recyclates and waste as they seek to retain the value of material within Wales.

The Welsh Government works closely with Natural Resources Waste (NRW) to collect primary data about waste in Wales. This includes C&I & C&D arisings surveys and a current MSW composition study. In the future, they would like to do more work to understand the composition of waste going to landfill. The Welsh Government considers that Edoc is a potentially significant source of new data on waste arisings although it recognises that take up is currently low. It may consider making Edoc mandatory and, similar to Defra, is interested in the responses to the Scottish Government’s recent consultation proposing this. Edoc in its current form would not provide all of the information needed to provide an accurate estimate of waste arisings due to the fact that it relies on volume to weight conversion factors and the high degree of inaccuracy caused by businesses using annual transfer notes to estimate the weight of all movements over that period. These would need to be addressed if it was ever to be a reliable source of information on waste arisings and this may require a clear business case to be developed to justify the additional administrative burden on businesses.

2.1.3 BIS

The Department of Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) takes the lead on the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) Directive. Waste data is used for a number of applications within the department, including as an evidence base to inform policy, monitoring the activities of compliance schemes and reporting to Europe and others. The data is vital to understand how much WEEE is treated, how successful collections are and, as a result, determines the targets that are set. This includes analysis of trends to estimate the arisings of WEEE each year. The targets are set retrospectively. The most useful source of information for the Department is WasteDataFlow although, as this only covers local authority collected waste, it represents only one third of total arisings of WEEE. Data from producers on the quality and categories of WEEE placed on the market is also used, as is information from compliance schemes and obligated businesses, provided through the Environment Agency.

There are significant data gaps for some sources of WEEE, particularly information on WEEE from non-municipal sources. As an example, a great deal of refurbishment, re-use and recycling of WEEE from commercial sources is facilitated by asset management companies but this data is not collected as there is no requirement for these businesses to report data. Other significant data gaps include the levels of wider re-use of WEEE, WEEE in the light iron waste stream and the export of second hand WEEE outside the UK which then becomes waste in another country. The targets for the collection and




recycling of WEEE sold in the UK, set by the WEEE Directive, will increase to 45% in 2016 and then to 65% from 2019 onwards. In order to meet these targets it is important that the Government is able to accurately quantify the level of collection and recycling of WEEE from all sources.

BIS is currently engaging with stakeholders in the sector such as the Furniture Recycling Network (FRN) to discuss and draft voluntary agreements that cover the provision of data to help fill the data gaps. Other Government departments are interested in the effectiveness of these agreements.

Progress towards a more circular economy is also of interest to BIS, although led by Defra, and the perception is that businesses need to know more about the flow of products and material through the UK economy in order to innovate and invest in solutions. The current Government is committed to de-regulation and the reduction of administrative burdens on business and therefore it is unlikely that they would consider any proposals for businesses to report more data on, for example, resource use or waste generation. However, BIS believes that the circular economy debate in Europe may result in this position changing if clear duties on EU member states are agreed. At present, the Government’s position seems to be one of working to facilitate the circular economy rather than imposing it and any additional data provision must be driven by voluntary agreements.

2.2 Local authorities

To fully understand the issues around waste data in local Government, we sought views from a small number of local authorities and their advisors including the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA). Reliable waste data is required by local authorities to plan services and infrastructure to manage waste in the future. Many authorities, such as the Greater London Authority (GLA), develop waste strategies to identify what additional infrastructure is required to manage waste arising in their areas and plan for its development. This requires detailed information on waste arisings, including arisings of C&I waste both in the present and forecasted over the lifetime of the strategy, and accurate information about the capacity of existing waste management infrastructure. This insight is also vital for local authorities determining waste planning applications when considering the need for additional capacity. When procuring long term residual waste treatment or recycling contracts, it is vital that local authorities understand the arisings and composition of waste that will require treatment to ensure that recycling targets will be met and guaranteed minimum tonnages are realistic. A greater understanding of the composition of waste arising and how this may change over time is also required to determine the type of treatment capacity that is required and to design, or understand the rationale for the design, of the plants. This is demonstrated by some MBT facilities that are struggling to meet performance expectations at least in part as a result of feedstock composition.

Local authorities are bound by a number of performance targets relating to the management of the waste they collect and report against a range of indicators through WasteDataFlow. Local authorities and support organisations use waste data in a number of ways, including the benchmarking of performance in order to identify and share examples of good practice. Some of the data required is available through WasteDataFlow but in other cases, such as for detailed financial information, this data has to be requested directly from the local authorities. The quality of data on WasteDataFlow and given directly by authorities can vary significantly and depends of the level of priority the authority gives to data collection and reporting. This reflects the level of priority given to waste services against other duties. There is a concern that as austerity measures take effect, the priority given to collecting and reporting waste data may reduce and that the number of skilled staff who understand and report the data currently may also reduce. This would also have a negative impact on service delivery as there is a clear correlation between service delivery and data collection.

One of the key data gaps for local authorities and their advisors is information on the re-use of waste. In Wales, there is a target for the quantity of waste being ‘prepared for re-use’ and at present this is difficult to measure. An additional question relating to re-use in WasteDataFlow is currently being considered by the Welsh Government but it is not clear how authorities could collect comprehensive data on re-use at present. Another significant data gap centred on a lack of clear data on the capacity of existing waste treatment facilities and the remaining void space in landfills. The capacity of permitted facilities is difficult to determine as it may not accurately reflect the operational capacity. This is because operators regularly apply for the maximum capacity in a charging band for the subsistence fee, giving the greatest flexibility for increasing throughput without incurring additional cost. However, this can mean that the permitted capacity of existing facilities in an area can far exceed the actual operational capacity in some cases.




The composition of MSW is also an area in which more data is required. Composition data has historically been gathered through sample surveys and Wales is currently undertaking another composition assessment working with a selection of rural, urban and valley authorities. Waste composition is also important for authorities, such as the GLA, that are moving away from traditional weight based metrics towards carbon metrics. In the future, local authorities may need to collect more detailed data from individual households if schemes such as ‘pay as you throw’ are considered. This could include data from microchipped bins to measure weights and participation rates.

In the short term, local authorities and their advisors would benefit from improvements to WasteDataFlow. These improvements include greater consistency in reporting (definitions etc.), greater accessibility to data it contains and improvements in the format used to report data queries. They also expressed a wish to receive training on the use, interpretation and analysis of the datasets generated by the Environment Agency. Whilst the introduction of Edoc was generally welcomed, the perception was that the level of participation could be increased if there were greater publicity of the system such as a quarterly newsletter.

In the long term, local authorities and their support organisations feel they would benefit from more data on the management of waste in the higher levels of the waste hierarchy, in particular waste prevention and preparation for re-use. This would assist them to monitor performance against targets where they are set and perhaps set targets in areas where there are none, as there would be increased confidence that they could be accurately measured. The composition of waste in terms of product streams was also highlighted as a potential area for improvement. Knowing more about the type, quantities and location of products, particularly electrical products, in the waste stream would help authorities to plan for the facilities needed to recover them for re-use, deconstruction and recycling, as well as designing collection services.

2.3 Regulators

2.3.1 Environment Agency

The Environment Agency collects and publishes some of the most important data sets relating to waste in England. This includes returns from permitted sites in the form of the Waste Data Interrogator, the Hazardous Waste Interrogator, the Pollution Inventory, and information on Producer Responsibility. The data is used for compliance and regulatory purposes as well as reporting against national targets and informing internal policies and operations such as targeting inspections, enforcement activities and monitoring operator performance. In some cases, its work is not data driven but influenced by public perception of risk to ensure continued confidence in its activities, such as inspections related to fire risk.

In June this year, the Secretary of State announced that Defra will publish 8,000 data sets by the end of July 2016. The aim of making large numbers of datasets available free of charge is to encourage businesses to innovate and stimulate growth. There are numerous tools available free of charge to analyse large data sets such as GIS software and Google Analytics. All data collected by the Environment Agency is within the scope of data that should and will be released unless there is a very strong argument that it would be damaging if it were made public. Data is being screened to identify information that is truly commercially confidential, affects national security or for which there are third party rights. These fields can be redacted or the Environment Agency may decide that the dataset should not be released; however, the assumption is that data should be released. The programme for releasing open source data runs up to April 2018 so there may be a significant wait before some datasets are published. The Environment Agency has set up a Data Advisory Group to advise it on which data to prioritise for open release. The group is made up of external businesses and individuals with an interest in environmental data and the first meeting was held on the 18 th November 2014. The site returns information, published in the Waste Data Interrogator, is one of the datasets that has been identified for early release. In the past, access to the data has cost a minimum of £100 per annum and its use has been controlled by a licence.

The Environment Agency has started to realise the value of the data it collects to provide insights into waste management and identify potentially illegal activities and operators. This has been achieved by comparing internal datasets to track waste, comparing the data it holds with data from other sources e.g. shipping information or the electoral roll and by sharing intelligence with other regulators. This has resulted in more targeted and effective enforcement, inspections and other interventions to improve legal compliance. It is also used to measure the performance of site operators.




The Environment Agency is currently considering undertaking work to develop standards for data reporting as it considers that this would address some of the issues relating to the illegal management of waste, in particular misdescription, and allow datasets to be cross compared more easily, making mistakes easier to spot and giving greater insight. The standards would not only relate to waste descriptions, e.g. a 6 digit EWC code, but also ensure that fields are standardised in terms of format for addresses, for example ensuring data collected by different regulatory regimes can be linked. Similar standardised systems are used by operators in the airline industry to allow data to be shared and would be relatively easy to implement for most datasets, although there would be a cost and it would require the cooperation of the waste industry and support from Defra. BIS is currently working on a similar system of standards for built infrastructure, using standard units of measurement for example. To develop a standardised system for transfrontier shipment of waste may represent a greater challenge as this would require agreement with the competent authorities in other countries.

Whilst the Environment Agency collects and reports some of the most significant data sets relating to waste management, it recognises that there are significant gaps in information on the management of resources as a whole. The perception is that as resource pressures increase, the value of waste as a resource will be recognised and therefore more data will be collected by those in the commodity chain, driven by market forces. Large retailers routinely monitor and track products, such as returned goods, and therefore robust systems exist that could, if the cost is justified, also track waste. This will result in a significant change in the source of information with more data coming from businesses outside the waste industry, such as supermarkets, as they seek to control resources and protect their supply chain. Specific data gaps that currently exist relate to materials that have met the end of waste test and are therefore no longer regulated and waste managed at exempt sites. In the view of the Agency, these materials and sites are not considered to require regulation and therefore are not required to provide information.

The Environment Agency hopes that Edoc will be widely adopted and provide sufficient information on the arisings of C&I wastes to negate the need for separately funded C&I waste surveys. It should be noted that the Edoc data that can be accessed by the Environment Agency is limited and it would have to serve a Notice to obtain data submitted by an individual company.

2.3.2 National Resources Wales

Natural Resources Wales (NRW) is the regulator for all waste legislation in Wales. It is also responsible for monitoring local authority recycling targets, the Landfill Allowance Scheme and validating data in WasteDataFlow. Like the Environment Agency in England, it collects a wide range of waste data as a result of waste regulation and producer responsibility legislation.

NRW was created in April 2013 and was not able to use the established data collection and storage systems used by the Environment Agency. Since then, work has been on-going to develop a robust and comprehensive data collection and storage system. The system has been designed to be modular and to interact so that datasets from all regulatory regimes can be linked. Additional detail has also been built in, for example site returns will report waste managed by disposal (D) and recovery (R) code as defined in the EU Waste Framework Directive 2008/98, which will provide additional insight and accuracy. However, the resource required to develop these new systems has impacted on the data they have been able to release. This relates to site returns in particular which used to be included with data for England in the Waste Data Interrogator before the creation of NRW. Since then, only high level, generalist reports have been published meaning that detailed information on the permitted estate, waste types and quantities manged by sites in Wales has not been available since 2012. The significant impact on users of this data is recognised by NRW and the Welsh Government; however the regulator’s only statutory duty is to report data for Eurostats and resources are limited. Therefore the publication on individual site returns is not a priority. High level data from site returns will be published in 2014 as not all data for this year is on the new system. NRW hopes to return to publishing detailed returns in the near future. Unlike the Waste Data Interrogator, the Hazardous Waste Interrogator continues to include data on the movement of waste in Wales and there is a cross border agreement to ensure this continues.

NRW is also involved in the collection and reporting of new data sets, for example, returns made by operators under the MRF (materials recycling facility) Code of Practice. It also plays a role in the periodic waste arisings and waste composition surveys. Recently, Wales has led the development of Q100 in WasteDataFlow which requires local authorities to map where their waste is treated to its final destination. This is complex and NRW is working with authorities to continually improve the data provided for this question and others, addressing issues such as consistency and validation though a




series of workshops. Responsibility for setting and administering landfill tax is being devolved to the Welsh Government/NRW as it has been to Revenue Scotland in Scotland and although this will result in new data, there are tight restrictions on how NRW can use the information.

Although Edoc could also represent a significant new data set in terms of waste arisings, there are concerns that it will not be widely adopted unless it is made mandatory and a recognition that additional information would have to be collected in a form of an ‘Edoc Plus’ type system to enable the data to fully replace periodic arisings surveys.

Like the Environment Agency, NRW is keenly aware of the data gaps that result from aspects of waste management and resource use that are not closely regulated. It would welcome a situation in which the quality and level of detail available for C&I and C&D waste arisings is analogous to that for MSW. At present, there is a lack of understanding within the organisation of what happens to resources before they become waste, such as commodity markets. Focussing on this area may help to identify issues for waste management before they arise, for example the ban on the use of insulation foam. Understanding material flows is vital if a circular economy is to be realised. At present there are data gaps around waste prevention and re-use, residual waste composition (although a survey is currently on-going), end of waste and waste managed by exempt sites. NRW explained that a light-touch exemptions review is currently underway by the Environment Agency, funded by Defra. The review is focussing on specific exemptions which often require intervention by the regulator, however, requiring operators to provide data on the waste they manage is considered too onerous and may deter re-use, recycling and recovery activities. The regulators would also require additional resources to process any additional data.

In terms of short term gains in data quality, NRW would like to see local authorities including the requirement for contractors to include information on the ultimate destination of their waste in contracts when they are awarded in order to provide better insight into the fate of waste. This may be difficult for operators as they may use a large number of receiving sites to achieve the vest spot price. In the longer term, NRW is looking at ways to allow customers to report data that may be required by a number of regulatory regimes for example site returns, Pollution Inventory, hazardous waste returns etc. just once, through a single portal. This would not only reduce the administrative burden on businesses but allow NRW to cross compare data internally to gather more insight and target its activities.

2.3.3 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)

SEPA collects and publishes some of the most important datasets relating to waste in Scotland. These data are used for national and European reporting as well as for compliance and regulatory purposes, including enforcement and rating under SEPA’s compliance assessment scheme (CAS).

SEPA collects statutory data from three main sources: regulated waste management site operators (including certain activities which are exempt from full waste management licensing); local authorities; and operators of certain regulated industrial facilities, such as accredited reprocessors. SEPA also collects voluntary data from some operators on the economic sector of the commercial and industrial waste they handle, and on the quantity of recycled aggregate produced (from producers listed in the Zero Waste Scotland Aggregate Producer directory).

SEPA publishes these data in a series of user-friendly interactive tools. One is the ‘waste from all sources’ (WFAS) tool which provides users with a summary of the total waste generated and managed in Scotland. This tool is published on Scotland’s Environment Website (SEWeb) and uses data derived from all the waste datasets that SEPA collects. It allows users to filter for waste generated by sector, nature (hazardous/non-hazardous) and type. A second interactive tool, also published on the SEWeb, provides users with a summary of household waste generated and managed by local authority, based on WasteDataFlow data. A third tool that SEPA publishes on its own website is the waste capacity interactive tool that provides information about all of SEPA’s licensed/permitted waste sites, including their capacity to handle waste and the tonnages of waste they managed throughout the year.

In line with Scotland’s Waste Data Strategy (WDS) published in 2011, SEPA has made a number of changes to improve the quality of the data it collects and publishes. Measures to improve the quality of household data collected in WasteDataFlow include a simplification in the number of questions asked and the introduction of an interactive interface (‘Question 100’) that improves the reporting of increasingly complex waste streams. SEPA has also streamlined the on-line validation tool used by local authorities so that they can better visualise the data they report and improved the validation tools and processes used by SEPA to quality assure the data. The collection of commercial and industrial (C&I) data has moved on from the use of business surveys to focus instead on data provided by operators of licensed/permitted waste management sites and complex exempt activities. This has









improved the quality of data on the amount and type of C&I waste generated as it is based on actual operator data, although reporting on the economic sector of the producer still needs to be estimated. SEPA has published enhanced operator guidance on how to correctly complete data returns, including guidance on how to classify waste accurately using the European Waste Catalogue (EWC) and has delivered a series of waste data workshops to waste operators in partnership with Zero Waste Scotland. It has also improved the interactive tools used by staff to quality assure operator data and datasets are being cross-checked more frequently.

Despite the improvements achieved under the 2011 WDS, SEPA recognises there are still fundamental issues with the way it collects waste data, including data gaps and incompatibility between datasets. For example, local authorities are asked to categorise waste into one of 60 broad material types and to report the final destination of waste. By contrast, operators of licensed/permitted site returns are asked to categorise waste using the EWC and to report the next destination of waste. In addition, SEPA continues to operate a paper-based system for special waste consignment notes which requires manual data entry from mostly handwritten forms and captures only limited data on movements of hazardous waste.

SEPA is aware of the need to track the flow of waste materials to support the circular economy but current systems do not provide data in a suitable format. There is only limited information available on the final destination of waste, although data collected under the new MRF code of practice will partly redress this, and there is no mechanism for operators to report data on waste that has met the end of waste test and become a product meaning that this will not be resolved in the short term.

SEPA is currently leading a consultation for a revised WDS for Scotland, due for publication in 2016. The revised strategy will attempt to redress these more fundamental issues.

2.4 Waste industry

2.4.1 Waste management businesses

We interviewed representatives of waste management companies in the UK to gather information and perspectives for this report. It should be noted however that these companies represent some of the largest waste management businesses in the UK and that the views of smaller operators may differ.

Waste data is used for a wide range of applications including business development (seeking new customers), informing business strategy and as an evidence base to inform investment decisions such as those related to infrastructure development. For these applications, waste management businesses are interested in waste arisings in terms of the quantity, type and locations of waste produced by business and householders. Some have internal experts and statisticians that use this data and data from other national data sets, such as total domestic input, to identify trends and other business critical information.

For waste management businesses, it would be beneficial to have more information on the flow of material through the economy as this would inform their business strategy in terms of targeted collections and the development of reprocessing and recycling infrastructure. It is important for them to understand what type of wastes customers are producing and where it is arising. There are significant gaps in the publicly available data which makes this difficult. At present, the majority of the information provided to the regulators and others is provided by the waste management sector and does not therefore cover the complete picture of resource use across the economy. Published data, particularly data on C&I waste arisings is at too high a level, both geographically and by type, to make it useful and its publication is too infrequent. If businesses want to understand the arisings of specific product or material types, e.g. polystyrene and mattresses, there is little to no data available. As a result it is difficult to design efficient collection and treatment systems, i.e. deciding whether to provide multi waste stream collections or bespoke waste collections for certain materials to facilitate re-use and recycling. There are also specific data gaps around the level of re-use.

Data on MSW is recognised as being much better quality in terms of accuracy, detail and the frequency of publication. However, the extraction of data from the system was considered difficult, particularly in terms of the format of the data that results from queries. There is also concern that the data in WasteDataFlow relating to recycling tonnages may be undermined by data provided by MRF operators in response to the MRF Code of Practice. There is a perception that the data within WasteDataFlow may not be comparable between authorities as a result of differences in the way they define and report certain fields. This inconsistency of definitions was also cited as being an issue across the waste sector




and regulatory regime, making interpretation of data challenging and preventing different datasets being linked.

In the longer term, a shift towards a waste and resource based tracking system would result in a significant increase in the quantity and quality of data available to the waste management sector. Technology exists to track waste electronically through the use of microchipped bins, weighing scales on vehicles and hand held recording devices. If this could be collected and shared it would result in a step change in the quality, quantity and timeliness of data available. Vehicle mounted weighing scales are available with a minimum margin of error of plus or minus 2kgs per bin. The more accurate the scales, the more fragile they are and therefore scales with this level of accuracy may require more maintenance, calibration and repairs. However, it is estimated that weights could be collected for approximately 85% of collected waste. It is expensive to retrofit weighing equipment onto vehicles but this could be adopted for new vehicles in line with procurement cycles.

Although the technology exists to collect detailed data on collected waste, there is a significant debate around how the requirement to collect and share this information could be implemented. In many cases, waste management businesses are already collecting this data. Indeed, Defra hopes that the waste industry will be able to provide data on the waste it collects to replace the need for future C&I surveys as it is unlikely that they will be funded in this time of austerity. However, there are significant barriers around sharing data that will be difficult to overcome. Waste management businesses consider that this type of data gives them a commercial advantage and many have invested heavily in its collection and analysis. As such, they are unwilling to share this data with third parties, even if it is anonymised, aggregated and provided through a trade body such as the Environmental Services Association (ESA). This was demonstrated by the failure of a voluntary waste data agreement between Defra and the larger waste management companies. Despite best efforts, only limited data was provided which reflects the level of sensitivity around this information and the perceived value of data sharing to the industry. It was also pointed out that in many cases, businesses collecting waste may not be the businesses that would directly benefit from the data they provide if they are not, for example, making investment decisions on infrastructure or service expansion, and therefore there is little incentive to share valuable information. Waste management businesses considered that only a legal duty to provide data on waste collected/waste arisings would provide the level playing field. This could be facilitated by legislation aimed at those collecting waste or potentially an extension of the Duty of Care to require waste producers to report information about the waste they generate. However, there was little appetite for this and smaller businesses with fewer resources may be impacted disproportionately if they were forced to adopt the technology required and collect and report this data.

In addition to the electronic collection and sharing of data on waste collected, waste management companies discussed other options to improve data precision. One of these was the extension of Producer Responsibility to other key materials and product streams. This would generate a great deal more information on the amount placed on the market, how it is used and ultimately managed at the end of its life. A common glossary for use by the industry, regulators, Government and other stakeholders would assist in the analysis and interpretation of current waste data sources. This would allow data to be linked to gain additional insights and allow accurate benchmarking within data sets. At present, some data sets are only available as aggregated data, processed by others and published in high level statistics and reports. These include site returns in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Access to the raw data behind these reports would be much more valuable to the waste management sector as the data could be analysed and interpreted for a much wide range of applications and provide a much greater level of detail. Similarly, whilst some data is available, the format or method of access makes it difficult or too time consuming to use effectively. One example is information on exempt sites in England. This can be accessed through the Environment Agency’s public register, held on its website. Only information for one site at a time can be accessed through the search making it time consuming to understand the number and type of exempt sites in a larger area. These issues are frustrating as the publically available information but it’s format means that it is not readily accessible to those who would benefit from it.

Over time, traditional waste data may become less important as the waste management sector needs to understand more about products e.g. degradation rates, composition and new ownership models. Even data collected by supermarkets and others through loyalty schemes like Nectar and Tesco’s Clubcard would provide valuable insight into the composition and quantity of waste as these products are discarded. This is similar to manufacturing businesses where the waste industry would benefit from understanding more about their customers’ business models and therefore how their waste may change over the short and long term.




2.4.2 Waste industry representatives

The Chartered Institute of Wastes Management (CIWM) and the ESA represent employees in the sector and the largest waste management businesses in the UK. Both organisations use waste data to understand the performance of the sector against targets, gain insights into the market and as an evidence base on which to base representations.

Both acknowledge that there are gaps in data, the most significant being reliable information on arisings of C&I waste. The lack of data on the quantity, composition and management of C&I waste in the UK and other EU countries may be one of the reasons that the European Commission has not set targets for this waste stream. Better data would mean that policy makers and industry could better target interventions to improve performance and implement the waste hierarchy. Other significant data gaps include information on waste composition, waste managed by exemptions, material flows when a waste becomes a non-waste and therefore falls out of regulation and the level of re-use and home composting. There is better data where regulatory regimes require businesses to return information and producer responsibility legislation has delivered detained data on targeted waste streams such as packaging, batteries and WEEE. The MRF Regulations will generate useful new data, identifying losses in the system and providing insight into the true level of contamination.

Overall, industry representatives believe that the paucity of current waste data, other than that for local authority collected waste (LACW), results in conflicting narratives and views, each of which are given equal credibility as there is no strong evidence to support either side and there is often a heavy reliance on assumptions. This creates confusion and reduces investor appetite. Whilst investors can commission detailed due diligence of any funding decision, the absence of accurate and detailed market data represents a barrier to market entry as it costs the industry more to do bespoke work. Better data may have the effect of increasing competition at the economic or geographic margins and might drive organic growth in the sector.

One of the issues with current waste data is a lack of consistency in how information is reported. This can even impact on macro data such as recycling figures. A common glossary across the industry would go some way to addressing these inconsistencies and enable more accurate comparison within and between datasets. There is also a lack of consistency in calculating recycling rates across Europe making it difficult to accurately compare and benchmark performance. There are currently four different methods of calculating recycling rate and although each is approved, different methods can result in a variation of as much as 6%. This is due to inconsistency in how incinerator bottom ash (IBA), home composting, etc. are counted as well as different definitions of municipal waste.

Access to raw data collected by regulatory regimes is important, in particular, site returns. High level summary information is much less useful than data comprising individual site returns which can be analysed in numerous ways to provide insight and inform strategy. Whilst confidentiality may be important for some sites, the overall benefit of this level of access would be significant.

Edoc has been discussed as a potentially significant new data source, providing information on waste arisings as well as how it is managed. However, take up amongst the industry has been less than expected and tends to be smaller businesses rather the larger companies moving significant quantities of waste. One of the reasons for this is the incompatibility of Edoc with in-house systems used by large waste management companies meaning that users are forced to enter data into both systems, either directly or using bulk upload software, to no perceived additional benefit for the company. There are also additional costs of adopting Edoc in terms of staff training and the updating of internal procedures etc. If making Edoc mandatory was ever considered, it would require long lead in times due to the effort and costs involved in merging systems. In any case, some in the waste industry would always prefer to use paper waste transfer notes.

The majority of larger waste management companies (50-60% of the market in terms of tonnage) already employ sophisticated systems to measure and track waste including microchipped bins. If this data could be shared, it would provide a valuable new source of information on waste arisings, however if it is not mandatory, businesses are unlikely to share this data as it is considered to give them a competitive advantage. Alternatively, if it is was made mandatory, smaller businesses with a smaller customer base may not derive the same benefit from the investment. The same concerns apply to data relating to waste composition. Waste management companies have collected a great deal of information from in-house sampling etc. but are unlikely to share this information as it is considered commercially confidential. The ESA would be happy to play a role in data sharing by facilitating and




coordinating an anonymised industry response however, previous attempts to collect comprehensive and consistent datasets had proven challenging.

In the short term, there are a number of actions that would significantly improve current data provision. This includes consistent and granular reporting of waste data by the Government and devolved administrations in something like a waste data repository. This would enable datasets to be linked together more easily, highlight any inconsistencies and streamline access to the data. The perception is that access to data has actually got worse in recent times for example, Wales is no longer publishing site returns, and some information that used to be readily accessible on the internet is now difficult or impossible to find with the move away from a dedicated Environment Agency website to the cross Government, gov.uk site.

In the medium term, the UK should push for consistent data standards across the EU. This might be stimulated by discussions around the circular economy. Counting carbon may be more meaningful than tonnages in the future and any targets, such as residual waste per household, should be complementary not antagonistic. Common standards would enable more accurate benchmarking and allow good practice to be shared across member states.

2.5 Lenders and investors

Waste data is used by lenders, investors and their advisors to develop and evaluate business plans and funding opportunities. The availability of feedstock is a key issue for funders and they need surety that sufficient feedstock of a suitable composition will be available to a proposed facility over its lifetime, or at least over the duration of their involvement in the scheme. This requires the consideration of a range of data and information including the quantity and composition of waste arising in the catchment area, facilities and operators in the catchment area that are competing for the same feedstock and the economic landscape around gate fees etc.

Historically, the majority of lending for waste infrastructure centred on PFI (Private Finance Initiative) and PPP (Public-Private Partnership) funding. The perception has been that the quality and scope of available waste data was less of an issue in these deals as they were predicated on MSW supplied by a local authority meaning that feedstock security was not considered to be a significant risk, notwithstanding trends in recycling performance, population growth etc. The number of these projects have declined sharply with the withdrawal of Government PFI funding and the focus is now on the development of merchant facilities for C&I waste which operates on a shorter term market than MSW. As such, lenders and investors need greater surety that sufficient suitable feedstock exists and therefore demand a strong evidence base. However, data on C&I waste arisings and management is significantly weaker than for MSW. This means that the sector is heavily reliant on consultants and other advisors to analyse and interpret sparse data on their behalf.

The composition of waste feedstock is also of interest to lenders and investors during the due diligence process. The performance of waste treatment technologies can be heavily impacted by the composition of feedstock they receive. This in turn affects the economic performance of the scheme. The economic case can also be heavily influenced by the biogenic content of the feedstock where income from Renewables Obligations Certificates (ROCs) or other incentives are relied upon.

As the availability of reliable data on C&I waste arisings and composition is poor, lenders typically impose some kind of buffer to offset the intrinsic uncertainty around feedstock. This may be effected by requiring a greater proportion of the capacity to be contracted to waste suppliers and in many cases, lenders and investors will challenge the quantity of contract waste to gain confidence in the suppliers’ ability to supply this waste over the contract period.

Although there is no perception that investment in waste treatment infrastructure has been halted by the lack of data, more accurate, timely and detailed data (on composition, material specific tonnages and pricing) would lead to lenders and investors considering deals to be less risky and therefore infrastructure would be deployed more confidently. This is important as the treatment capacity gap in the UK narrows as more projects are completed and come online. Investors will only feel willing to fund more infrastructure and close the gap if they can be confident that sufficient feedstock is available and this can only be achieved with more reliable evidence. At present, the numerous conflicting reports and heated debate around whether a treatment capacity gap exists in the UK and if it does, its extent, demonstrates the lack of clarity provided by currently available data and undermines investor confidence.




2.6 Advisors

2.6.1 Zero Waste Scotland

Zero Waste Scotland (ZWS) is Scotland’s resource efficiency and circular economy expert, supporting delivery of the Scottish Government’s Zero Waste Plan and other low carbon and resource efficiency policy priorities. The availability of good quality, consistent data on waste and resources is vital to support the work of ZWS and to inform and monitor policy interventions. Currently ZWS commissions a number of ad hoc sector and material specific reports, both to inform their own programme development, and to inform and guide partners. These use both national data, as well as primary and secondary data collection.

Scotland published its current waste data strategy in 2011 and the Scottish Government has ensured that resources have been in place in SEPA and ZWS to deliver the strategy. All remain committed to improving waste data and to this end a new strategy is currently being developed with a range of stakeholders and is expected to be published in spring 2016. It is anticipated that there will be changes to the way data is collected, with the likely move towards more integrated electronic systems in the future. The Scottish Government has recently consulted on the potential to make greater use of Edoc in the future to help understand the flow of materials through the Scottish economy.

ZWS is of the opinion that Scottish waste data published by SEPA is more accessible and fit for purpose compared to the rest of the UK and implementation of the current waste data strategy has resulted in some good improvements, particularly in relation to the accuracy of commercial and industrial waste generation data. However, consistency with other Scottish data sets could be improved in future as ZWS is not always able to readily combine waste data with other economic datasets. For example, the economic sector, represented by Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes, is reported at a relatively high level in the commercial and industrial waste dataset and cannot be matched with more detailed codes in other sector studies.

A number of good quality, one-off reports exist that have been commissioned by ZWS and others to answer specific research questions. Whilst they contain lots of good evidence they are inevitably based on a snapshot in time and the data in them tends to be collected and reported by contractors using different sources and methodologies, limiting confidence in longer term trends. This can limit the value of these reports over time as they are not directly comparable, nor can the data necessarily be aggregated to produce a wider picture.

A recent study undertaken by ZWS on the compositional analysis of household waste collected at the kerbside offers a good model for maximising the value of one-off studies. Part-funded by local authorities, and using a methodology specified by ZWS, the study has produced consistent results allowing the data to be easily aggregated to provide a national picture and for a range of synthesis studies to be carried out. In addition, ZWS has plans to review the methodology and use it for future comparable studies, increasing consistency over time. The way this study was undertaken – for example using EWC waste codes as a starting point for classification – also means integration with national data in analysis should be possible.

Whilst WasteDataFlow data is seen as a very valuable source of detailed data on Scottish household waste, potential inconsistencies in the data going in and the difficulty of interpreting the csv download means that extracting detailed data out of the system can be challenging. SEPA reports high level data in its Discoverer tool which is easy to use but this does not always provide enough detail. ZWS indicated that it would be really useful to have more information on the materials contained in comingled recyclate for each local authority as assumptions have to be made in order to get estimates of specific materials, such as plastics, at the national level. This, along with lots of other useful data, is in the database but is not readily accessible and ZWS would like to see enhanced reporting so that this data can be easily extracted. Greater consistency between WasteDataFlow, EWC codes, and compositional studies would also make analysis easier, though ZWS would not want to see granularity lost as part of any standardisation process.

As the Devolved Administrations introduce divergent waste policies, there will be an increasing challenge for waste data systems to cope with transboundary data issues across the UK and these will need to be addressed in time. One example would be the way that data on Scottish packaging waste collected for the UK’s PRN system is currently held only in a UK system, limiting the potential for robust Scottish analysis.




Scotland pioneered the development of a Carbon Metric in 2013 as an alternative to conventional weight-based accounting. It comprises a lifecycle materials database which is applied annually to SEPA waste data to obtain the net annual carbon impacts of Scotland’s waste using a consumption accounting framework (as opposed to the more conventional territorial accounting system). The Carbon Metric highlights the carbon impacts of different materials and waste management processes, and allows policy makers to identify and prioritise low carbon waste management outcomes. ZWS says it will continue to promote the Carbon Metric approach to waste and resource management in order to ensure the full potential of the circular economy as a climate change strategy is realised. The growing interest in the Carbon Metric, both in Scotland and the wider EU, is an encouraging sign of things to come.

With increased thinking about the circular economy and resource management there will, over time, be a need for more information on resources, rather than simply “waste” in the future. This isn’t something that will happen overnight, but ZWS noted that as we develop new systems for data capture we need to make sure that they are flexible enough to capture data on resources at a later date. ZWS believe obtaining better data on material - rather than simply waste - flows is both a challenge and an opportunity that experts and practitioners will need to increasingly consider in the medium term.

2.6.2 WRAP

The Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) is working to realise a more circular economy in the UK and abroad. It is a strongly evidenced based organisation and as such uses a great deal of data and information to inform its interventions. This data relates not only to waste generation and management but also product data. This data needs to be credible and meaningful and requires different levels of granularity for different applications.

WRAP is very aware of the limitations of current waste data and there is a perception that, with the current lack of funding and a lack of will from Government and other stakeholders, it is unlikely to improve in the near future. Data and market intelligence is required to identify opportunities to intervene and drive the circular economy. In some cases, data is urgently needed but in others, the lack of data can be used as an excuse not to act when a decision can be obvious. Individual business are starting to collect more data to address gaps but, as it is not available to Government, it does not help them form an overview of resource use and waste in the UK and therefore steer policy. The work that WRAP has undertaken has demonstrated that Government involvement is required to effect change. One new focus for WRAP will be support to the supply chain from end to end so that the burden of any change is shared. In this case, businesses value Government being ‘round the table’ as it gives them more leverage internally to make the changes required.

WRAP uses WasteDataFlow regularly, taking the raw data and turning it into insight in a number of ways, such as benchmarking between authorities. These insights are then shared with local authorities in a way that is easy to understand. While the data set is comprehensive and extremely useful, there is issues over gaps in the data and concerns over consistency in the way data is reported by local authorities. Data from site returns and the pollution inventory are also used regularly. WRAP has commissioned bespoke surveys to collect primary information on specific waste streams for example, construction and demolition waste and waste composition surveys for the hospitality sector to identify where waste arises and how it might be addressed.

For WRAP, significant data gaps exist around the arisings and management of specific materials such as electrical products, clothing etc. At present, data on waste arising and waste managed is not available in sufficient detail to provide much information on these target waste streams. Some information on products placed on the market is available in trade data but the SIC codes don’t clearly define the waste management sector and it is relatively out of date, being 10 months old when it is published. Re-use is also a significant data gap, as is information on the markets for re-use items. In some cases, the sustainable management of specific waste streams may require bespoke infrastructure, for example mattresses and waste orange peel. In these cases, it may be that business has to fund its own research to understand where the waste is arising and in what quantities, rather than be the role of Government. As for other data gaps, similarly to other stakeholders, this includes the de-regulation of waste when it meets the end of waste test. There is a general concern that a Government committed to de-regulation may exacerbate this by making more end of waste decisions.

Gaps in waste data do prevent WRAP from taking action in some areas for which information is limited, focusing instead on areas where there is clear evidence for intervention. It is becoming increasingly important to have a clear business case for intervention, for both WRAP and its partners. As an




example, Defra would not commit funding to Courtauld 20252 unless it could clearly demonstrate the level of benefit. The only way credible business cases can be developed is with good data. For WRAP, it is not just data on waste quantities and type that is important, but also information on social science in businesses and householders, such as common behaviours etc. Behaviours can be very different between large corporations and SMEs and within different groups of people. Product information such as durability is also of interest.

WRAP does not believe there will be a step change in data provision until the waste management industry is willing to share data. This is likely to require some kind of voluntary agreement and, although there is recognition that the previous attempt to share data was not successful, a different type of agreement, such as a voluntary concordat with more active support from Government and other stakeholders, may succeed. Edoc may provide some valuable data if uptake was higher but again, this is perceived to be a voluntary initiative that is not successful due to a lack of will to share data.

2.6.3 Consultants

It is hard to generalise views and perceptions of waste data in this stakeholder group as they are extremely varied. Therefore this section represents the view of a small number of representatives that regularly rely on waste data in their day to day activities. This group takes an academic approach to the analysis, interpretation and application of waste data and are therefore very familiar with its strengths and weaknesses. It may also be true that they have good insight into the questions that others would like waste data to be able to answer as they are typically approached when businesses and others are not able to confidently interpret the available evidence themselves or where data gaps exist.

Consultants use waste data for a wide range of applications according to the needs of their customers. Common applications include residual waste reviews, market reports etc. The perception is that data quality is generally poor and that it can be unreliable. This is particularly the case when customers are looking for detailed information on specific waste streams or in specific geographic areas, for example wood packaging where the data is not available in sufficient granularity to provide reliable insight on arisings, management and fate.

With regard to individual data sets, WasteDataFlow is seen as a reliable source of information on LACW although there are some weaknesses. Information from HMRC on the payment of Landfill Tax is also seen as credible, mostly because the financial implications make reporting accurate data a priority for the businesses involved. Data on the arisings of C&I and C&D waste, estimated from surveys, is considered to be extremely unreliable and does not provide any insight into local waste arisings or give useful information on the composition of the C&I waste stream. Understanding trends in arisings from these surveys and the recent updated estimate is also challenging due to changes in the methodology, sample size and the categorisation of businesses. The point was made that overall, the UK has very little reliable information on how much of these wastes are generated and their fate.

Data on the management of waste at permitted sites is extremely useful for consultancies although some question the accuracy of the data reported by operators. The data, published in the Waste Data Interrogator by the Environment Agency for England, can be interrogated to the level of district council, individual EWC codes, fate and destination. This is extremely valuable, and is the only source of information on specific waste types when looking at feedstock availability and for other applications for which refined, more material specific assessment is required. Moving waste treatment up the waste hierarchy requires more specialised treatment technology with less tolerance for changes in feedstock composition. As such, investors and developers need more detailed information on waste types and location in order to confidently deploy more specialist technology. Although this information is also collected from permitted and licensed sites in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, none of these nations make this detailed information available, preferring instead to publish macro level reports and aggregated data. This is a major barrier to accessing useful data and providing reliable insight and advice. As an example, site returns for Wales were included in the Waste Data Interrogator before Environment Agency Wales became Natural Resources Wales. Since the reorganisation, the Wales data has not been published and therefore market assessments and other applications have to rely on data from 2012 as the most recent. The regulators also publish a number of other useful data sets that are regularly used by consultants and advisors including the Hazardous Waste Interrogator and information on Transfrontier Shipments.

2 WRAP’s Courtauld Commitment. . Available at Courtauld Commitment | WRAP UK

http://www.wrap.org.uk/category/initiatives/courtauld-commitment




Consultants identified a number of data gaps that impact their ability to respond to customer needs. The amount of waste avoided through waste prevention and the amount of material being re-used were two of these gaps. Without this information it is not possible to truly understand the impact of policy on waste generation and management. Other data gaps become apparent when attempting to model the mass flow of materials through the UK economy. Understanding how resources are used and their fate is an intrinsic requirement of a circular economy and as such will become increasingly important as resource scarcity becomes a greater risk to business. At present, the lack of data on waste managed under exemptions represents a significant gap in understanding the fate of materials.

Some consider that waste data in its traditional sense will become less important as the UK moves towards a more circular economy and the emphasis changes to products placed on the markets and how they are managed, recovered and dismantled at the end of their lives. At present there is no detailed data on specific material or product streams in waste and this makes it difficult to demonstrate the business case for infrastructure looking to attract specific feedstock. Whilst macro data on the quantities and composition of waste is at least estimated, it is the micro level information on waste arisings and product composition that will become more important and at present, this information is not collected. The extension of Producer Responsibility to other materials and products could present part of the solution. This would require businesses placing products and material onto the market to report detailed information and establish a framework for their recovery and recycling, including an improvement in logistics, encouraging producers to collect their products back from consumers.

One innovative and aspirational suggestion was to change the focus of the UK tax system to carbon and resource use. This would assign a value to waste and therefore drive businesses and waste managers to measure and report accurate data. The rationale behind this suggestion is that it would increase productivity (at present the UK consumes approximately 1 billion tonnes of resources to produce 60 million tonnes of products) and prevent businesses avoiding tax as it would apply to all resources consumed as part of their UK activities. Collecting the data would require double entry book keeping. The UK currently tracks the flow of money through the economy and systems exist to record how money moves. It was suggested that the same systems could be applied to the movement of resources with weighbridges.




3 Data gaps an/d weaknesses

3.1 Data gaps

The research has identified a number of data gaps that were commonly mentioned by stakeholders. These gaps exist where regulatory regimes or waste management targets do not apply and as a result, there is no driver to provide or collect this information centrally. Figure 2 shows an overview of waste data provision in the UK currently. At present, WasteDataFlow provides comprehensive data on the arisings, management and fate of MSW (or LACW) driven by targets and regulatory requirements. However, there are gaps for MSW around the impact of waste prevention, home composting, re-use and waste composition. For C&I and C&D wastes, there is no requirement for waste producers or those collecting the waste to provide data on arisings. Therefore, the only data available are high level, estimated arisings derived from surveys and, more recently, calculations combining other data sets to generate estimates.

Data on the management of C&I and C&D waste is much better in terms of resolution and scope as all waste management sites with an environmental permit are required to submit information on the waste they receive and dispatch. These site returns are available for individual sites, in a tool that enables the data to be easily queried in England (the Waste Data Interrogator). However, they not available in this level of detail in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, being published in a high level, aggregated form restricting the applications the data can be used for.

In England and Wales there is little information about waste managed at sites that are exempt from the need to have an environmental permit. These exempt sites are typically smaller scale and focus on the recycling and recovery of waste but the lack of data means that it is difficult to track resource flows and assess their contribution to waste and resource management overall. Similarly to waste managed at exempt sites, waste that becomes a resource after meeting the end of waste test also falls out of regulation and therefore is not represented in any of the current datasets. Outside of tonnage information, data on the permitted capacity of sites was also considered a data gap as it is difficult to access for more than a few sites (the public register allows for only one site to be viewed at a time) and there is concern that it does not reflect the actual operational capacity. It therefore cannot be used an accurate measure when, for example, judging the need for new infrastructure.

Figure 2: Data provision and data gaps

Source: Ricardo Energy and Environment

Hazardous waste is a waste stream that is regulated due to the potential risk it poses to human health and the environment. As such, the regulatory regime requires this waste to be closely tracked between producer, carrier and final destination and therefore there is a great deal of data collected and published on the tonnage, type and location of hazardous waste arising and managed.




Producer Responsibility legislation cuts across all waste streams but currently applies only to limited waste streams and products such as WEEE, packaging waste and batteries. Obligated businesses are required to submit detailed returns giving information on the quantities of these items placed on the market and to take responsibility for the recycling and recovery of a target percentage.

3.2 Weaknesses within existing data sets

Many stakeholders identified weaknesses within existing data sets which impact on their accuracy and/or limit their use for multiple applications. This section covers the issues raised for specific datasets during the interviews.

3.2.1 WasteDataFlow

The introduction of WasteDataFlow is recognised as a step change in the quantity, quality and timeliness of data on the arisings and management of MSW. While this has delivered a great deal of insight, there are some issues with the data and the database that were raised during the interviews. In general, the perception was that the system looks and feels dated. Specific issues raised by stakeholders included:

Inconsistency in the interpretation of waste definitions, questions etc. As an example, some local authorities may report all non-ferrous metal wastes in one field whereas others may separately report non-ferrous waste streams such as cans. This makes it difficult to compare data between authorities and benchmark reliably. Open questions also result in data that is difficult to interpret.

There is a perception that the tonnage of waste declared as having been recycled is not an accurate reflection of what is ultimately recycled. The data collected as a result of the MRF Code of Practice may undermine this data.

A number of stakeholders raised concerns that budgetary pressures within local authorities may negatively impact on the quality of data within WasteDataFlow. A reduction in staff or a lack of knowledgeable staff may lead to more mistakes, misinterpretation or delays in submitting the data.

A significant number of stakeholders expressed difficulties with the user interface and particularly the format of the report output from WasteDataFlow. This included examples such as, in the CSV file format, there are no column headings, blanks and table formats that make data difficult to sort and analyse. At least two stakeholders had developed their own tools to process outputs into more usable formats and WRAP uses raw data from WasteDataFlow to bypass the user interface and reports.

3.2.2 C&I and C&D waste arisings surveys

There have been a number of C&I and C&D waste arisings surveys in the four nations of the UK, however stakeholders report that they are of limited use. This is because:

The small sample numbers of businesses surveyed mean that estimates of tonnage and type cannot be broken down very far before confidence levels are too low for the data to be credible. Only national and regional estimates are achievable. The lack of granularity means that the data is of limited use for example, when analysing the potential demand for waste management infrastructure, planning services etc.

The data is often out of date due to the time taken to undertake the survey and publish the results, and the irregular nature of the surveys.

3.2.3 Site returns (Waste Data Interrogator in England)

Site returns are an extremely useful data set for stakeholders. They can be used for a wide range of applications and to answer questions about where and how very specific waste streams are managed. This is because they contain detailed information about waste accepted and dispatched by EWC code, its origin and fate (although the information on origin and fate is considered less accurate). In England, the Waste Data Interrogator can be used to query site returns. This allows users to define queries based on area (down to district council), facility type and waste type for both waste inputs and outputs of sites.




Importantly, the Interrogator can also be used to understand the mix and scale of sites in an area. Site returns data for Wales used to be included in the Waste Data Interrogator but this ceased in 2012 as a result of the formation of NRW. This has had a significant impact on data users as the most recent data available in Wales is now three years old. Scotland has never published site return data in a way that individual returns can be identified, although site return data is on the public register and available on request. Although NRW and SEPA publish high level data, it significantly limits the use of the data. Stakeholders would much prefer access to raw data that they can analyse in different ways, for example linking with other datasets than high level, summary reports.




4 Measures to improve waste data

After analysing the discussions with all the stakeholders interviewed as part of this research, the interventions that would improve current waste data provision fall into four broad areas. These are:

The use of data from other sectors.

Improvements to existing datasets.

New data collection.

Overarching initiatives.

4.1 The use of existing data from other sectors

Representatives of the waste industry, Environment Agency, WRAP and potentially other stakeholders are starting to use a wide range of publically available data that is not directly related to waste management in order to gain more insight into waste management and the flow of material through the economy. This data falls into two types;

Publically available data - such as gross domestic input and product data. This can be used to understand more about the quantities and composition of future waste arisings.

Commercial data that is not publically available - retailers such as Marks and Spencer and supermarkets collect a great deal of data on the products they sell through schemes such as loyalty cards. Although this information is not publically available, it does exist and it has the potential to provide valuable data on resource use and potential waste arisings if it could be shared in some way.

These data sets are being used in innovative new ways, for example combining data to discover previously unknown trends and information. The Environment Agency is prioritising this approach and is combining numerous datasets such as the electoral role, HMRC data and information to identify potentially illegal activity or undesirable trends. More work should be undertaken to understand how these datasets could complement traditional waste data and to explore whether any commercial data could be shared with Government or other organisations to assist in the understanding of waste arisings and composition.

4.2 Improvements to existing datasets

Many stakeholders value existing data sets but identify a number of areas in which potential improvements could be made to make the data more useful, accurate and/or easier to use. In many cases these recommendations could be actioned at relatively low cost and. in the short to medium term, lead to a tangible improvement in data provision. The improvements identified are as follows:

WasteDataFlow – improve the user interface and report output in WasteDataFlow to allow for easier analysis and work to improve consistency in the way data is reported. This could be achieved though guidance, workshops and combined with any work to develop a common glossary (discussed further in 4.4.1).

Site returns – enable access to individual site returns in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Due to the wide range of applications for this data, this would represent a significant improvement in data provision.

Consider establishing a central repository for waste data, similar to the Waste Data Hub established by Defra in 2007. Many stakeholders expressed the view that waste data was dispersed across several sources and it was difficult to understand what data exists and where it can be found. In particular:

Some data is difficult to find on websites, particularly data that used to be accessible on the Environment Agency website and may now be on gov.uk. That website is very hard to search and many had given up trying to find data, they used to be able to access easily.

Some are in a format that makes it difficult to analyse, e.g. public registers that only allow one site to be viewed at time, such as data relating to exempt sites and detailed




information about permitted sites. If this could be made available as a single dataset it would be very useful.

Grey data held by regulators – raw data that should or could be made available for use but that is not regularly published by the Environment Agency such as remaining landfill void, data on transfrontier shipments etc.

If all waste data could be made available in a single repository it would ensure that all available evidence was used to inform decisions and save a significant amount of time for users.

Consider a single reporting portal for regulatory data – NRW is currently developing a modular data collection system that will present users with a single point through which they can report all data required by the environmental legislation that applies to their operations. This would have significant benefits, reducing the administrative burden on business, improving consistency and as a result enabling these different datasets to be linked and cross referenced increasing potential to track materials, trends and gather market intelligence.

4.3 New data collection

4.3.1 Data on waste collected

One of the most significant data gaps is considered to be the lack of accurate and detailed information on the arisings of C&I and C&D waste. One of the solutions proposed by representatives of the waste industry and advisors was the use of technology to electronically track waste from producer to waste management site, and potentially beyond, to its final destination. To many, the fact that waste movements are not routinely tracked and reported electronically already is a surprise. The technology exists to ‘chip’ bins and many waste operators are using this and weighing equipment on collection vehicles to collect data for their internal business activities. If all bins were ‘chipped’ and vehicles fitted with accurate weighing equipment, it would be possible for waste operators to collect detailed information on the tonnage of waste priced by businesses

There are a number of challenges to achieving this level of data collection. The cost of retrofitting bins and vehicles with the technology required would be significant. Therefore this recommendation would require the equipment to be fitted on all new equipment when purchased. The usual replacement cycle for collection vehicles is seven years and therefore represents the lead in time before all vehicles in the UK fleet are able to collect accurate weight data. There are some operational challenges to using accurate weighing scales on collection vehicles as they are relatively fragile and therefore will require more maintenance and may suffer from greater downtime. Smaller operators with fewer resources may not have sufficient resources to meet the cost of this additional technology and may not see the benefits of increased data in managing their businesses as larger operators. However, the view from the industry and their representatives is that unless the requirement to collect and report this data was made mandatory, it was unlikely to be widely adopted. Having a de minimis based on turnover or tonnage collected, below which operators would not be required to have weighing equipment, was also considered to be unworkable as it would allow them to operate at reduced costs and therefore impact on competition. Some work has been undertaken by consultants to estimate the cost of implementing such a system which was considered to be reasonable using a cost benefit approach. However, it has not been possible to identify this work or the resulting estimate.

Opinion is divided on who should take responsibility for collecting and reporting this data. Some consider that the waste collectors would be best placed to collect, aggregate and report this data directly to Defra whereas others were concerned about the impartiality of the sector and believed that responsibility to report data should be with waste producers. However, given the drive for deregulation and the reduction of burdens on businesses, it is considered extremely unlikely that the Government would introduce new legislation requiring waste producers to report data on the type and quantity of waste they produce. If waste collectors were required to supply data, either voluntarily or through legislation, it is likely that this will include detailed and commercially sensitive information about customers and the business activities of waste management companies. Some operators have invested significant amounts in developing sophisticated data collection and recording systems and consider the data they collect represent significant competitive advantage. On this basis, it is unlikely that they will share it unless competitors are required to do the same.

There may be scope for waste management businesses to provide aggregated and desensitised data on a voluntary basis. This would be a significant step forward in understanding the quantity and




composition of waste arising from C&I and C&D sectors. It is certainly the case that Defra considers that data from industry is part of the solution. The impact of austerity measures means that repeat surveys of C&I and C&D waste arisings will be extremely unlikely and therefore alternative approaches to estimating waste arisings will be required. Previous voluntary initiatives by ESA members identified a number of challenges with standardising and aggregating data from different operators in a meaningful way such that broader information could be inferred. However, given the importance of this data in the absence of future surveys, the possibility of a voluntary agreement with the active support of Government and the industry should be explored.

4.3.2 Edoc

Edoc could provide an alternative source of information on waste arisings and waste management. It would not provide all of the information required in its current format as, in cases such as annual transfer notes, weights are estimated. A review would be required to ensure the appropriate data is collected. Edoc will not produce a useful dataset unless it is used for the majority of waste movements. At the moment, the take up of Edoc is low and limited to smaller waste management companies rather than larger businesses with national coverage, which typically have their own in-house systems, to which Edoc adds no value. The view from industry and advisors is that it needs to be made mandatory for this to happen. The Scottish Government is currently consulting on this and the Welsh Government has not ruled it out.

4.3.3 Exempt sites

Defra is currently undertaking a limited review of exemptions. Stakeholders or their representatives should contact Defra and discuss whether a requirement for these exempt sites to provide limited data could be included in the review, particularly for sites treating key waste streams or significant quantities of waste. From conversations with Defra and the regulators, it appears very unlikely that a general requirement for exempt sites to provide data would be palatable due to the additional administrative burden it would pose on business and the regulators who would have to collect the data.

4.3.4 Waste prevention and re-use

Understanding the amount of waste prevention and re-use is a challenge. Quantifying waste prevention is important to determine the effectiveness of campaigns such as WRAP’s Love Food Hate Waste initiative and estimate future waste arisings, however conflicting factors such as the performance of the economy make is difficult to estimate accurately. As this is an area that is likely to remain unregulated and without a statutory target, it is likely that only analysis of existing data can provide an estimate. In the future, if more accurate data on waste arisings can be collected, it may be that stronger relationships between waste arisings and waste prevention measures can be proven and quantified.

4.4 Overarching initiatives

The research identified a number of initiatives that would contribute to better waste data. These initiatives require the cooperation of a number of stakeholders or action by Government which mean that they may require longer lead in times to assess and, if there is a cleat business case, to implement.

4.4.1 Common glossary and data standards

A number of stakeholders, including the industry and all regulators mentioned that common data standards and a shared glossary across the sector would significantly improve the quality of current data sets by reducing inconsistency and enabling datasets to be matched and compared to improve intelligence and understanding. The Environment Agency has identified common data standards as a key work area and they are working to standardise data so that datasets can be matched more easily This includes standardising fields such as the format of names and addresses, ensuring the use of six digit EWC codes and replacing free data fields with drop down lists. Common data standards would also benefit European data reporting as it might address differences in the methodologies used to calculate recycling rate and other areas in which there are differences in approach or definition. A shared glossary would improve data quality by ensuring all stakeholders are using the same definition of key terms such as ‘recovery’.

4.4.2 Extension of producer responsibility

Many stakeholders considered that the extension of producer responsibility legislation to other key materials or products would ensure they were more closely managed and generate useful data about




their arisings, management and fate. No suggestions were made as to the specific materials that should be included in the legislation.

4.4.3 Resources tax

Some stakeholders suggested a number of initiatives that would fundamentally change the perception of waste and resources. Whilst these are aspirational in nature, they provide an interesting counterpoint to the current system. Many of these ideas centre on the idea of giving waste a value. Businesses closely monitor things that have an economic value such as raw materials, and the fact that waste is seen to be valueless is often cited as the reason that only limited information is available.

One suggestion was the adoption of a ‘resource tax’, replacing other tax regimes. This would focus the attention of businesses on the use of resources, driving resource efficiency and productivity. It would also reduce the scope for tax avoidance by multinational companies who would be liable for tax in the country in which the resources are used. Material would be tracked electronically through the economy in a system analogous to the financial system, using existing waste management infrastructure and information cross correlated like the bank clearing system. This approach would make it easier to identify illegal activity as the monitoring and reporting of waste data would be more robust.




5 Conclusions and recommendations

5.1 Conclusions

The purpose of this research was to understand what waste data is currently available in the UK, what it is used for, identify any gaps and identify any improvements that can be made. To gather a comprehensive understanding of the issues, a wide range of data users were interviewed in depth to gather their views and perspectives and to test potential changes that could improve the availability and value of waste data.

Waste data is used by a wide range of stakeholders to inform their activities. Stakeholders fall into five main types:

Governments – use data to understand waste arisings and management, inform strategy and interventions, measure their effectiveness and monitor performance.

Local authorities – use data to understand waste arising in their area, plan services, ensure sufficient waste treatment capacity and monitor performance against statutory targets.

Regulators – use data to monitor compliance, identify illegal activity and target interventions.

The waste industry - use data to develop business strategy and act as an evidence base to support new infrastructure development.

Lenders and investors - use data for due diligence of funding applications.

Advisors – use data for a wide range of research purposes.

The data required for each application varies slightly but typically focusses on what waste is arising and how that waste is being managed. The level of detail and data resolution required varies depending on the application. Overall, data falls into two distinct groups:

Waste arisings by location, waste type and source; and

Waste managed by location, waste type, facility type and fate. This includes international movements of waste.

The weaknesses and gaps in waste data available in the UK have been discussed by Government and stakeholders for many years. In 2006, Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government published a Waste Data Strategy which set out the development and implementation of a three year data strategy covering all UK waste streams with the exception of radioactive wastes. The strategy envisaged data being collected on a quarterly basis to include quantity of waste arisings and its subsequent management (including cross border movements) and annual data on waste infrastructure provision along with a number of other provisions. Unfortunately, it no longer seems to be available but it highlights the fact that the issues that have been identified in this report have existed for some time and continue to exist despite plans to improve the provision of waste data.

The majority of waste data currently available is collected and reported as a result of regulations that place this requirement on operators. Indeed the significant data gaps identified by stakeholders reflect areas of waste management that are not covered by regulation or where deregulation has occurred, for example waste prevention, re-use, waste managed by exempt sites and material meeting the end of waste test. Data on any aspect of waste management not covered by regulation is extremely limited and is dependent on periodic surveys, such as C&I waste arisings.

All stakeholders were acutely aware of the gaps and weaknesses of existing waste data but were working around these limitations where possible. There are increasing efforts by a number of stakeholders to gain more intelligence from the data that is currently collected by linking and cross referencing of waste and non-waste datasets, recognising the potential benefits of analysing the data more innovatively to understand wider trends, develop business strategies, target interventions and improve compliance.

There was a great deal of discussion regarding potential improvements to waste data in the future. These improvements ranged from simple low cost actions to improve the quality or availability of existing data sets, through to more complex, cross sector initiatives such as a common glossary and data standards, a single reporting portal for all waste data and aspirational initiatives such as a resource tax to fundamentally change the way waste is valued.




Significant benefits would result if comprehensive, accurate and timely waste data was collected and made available. These include:

Government would have an in-depth understanding of waste generation and waste management across the UK. This could be used to develop and monitor clear policies to deliver sustainable resource management and a more circular economy in the UK. At present, the significant data gaps such as information on C&I waste arisings mean that the Government and others may be formulating policy that is counterproductive or only focused on areas for which robust data is available. For example there are many more targets and interventions relating to the management of MSW than C&I waste even though C&I waste arisings are almost three times bigger. Comprehensive data would act as a strong evidence against which effective policies could be developed to deliver sustainable resource management and a more circular economy, accelerating the benefits to the UK economy and environment.

The waste management industry would have more confidence to invest in and deploy waste treatment infrastructure and waste management services. This would speed up the delivery of the required waste treatment capacity, including the specialist deconstruction and recycling infrastructure required in the UK to deliver a more circular economy.

5.2 Recommendations

The actions recommended to improve waste data are set out in Figure 3. Some actions could be achieved quickly and with limited cost whilst more complex actions that would require greater cooperation between stakeholder groups and/or more funding. The table sets out each recommended action and the stakeholders that would have a role in its delivery. It should be noted that is it extremely difficult to estimate the cost of delivering these actions due to the large number of unknowns.

Figure 3: Recommended actions


Actions to improve existing data

1.

Engage with the Edoc board to consider how the system could be improved so that it collects data that could be used to generate an estimate of waste arisings. This should include the possibility of collecting data at the point of waste collection through chipped bins.


2. Support and encourage the publication of open source data by the regulators and Government.

Defra, waste industry and its representatives, local authorities.

3. Publish raw data site returns in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

SEPA, NRW and NIEA.

4.

Review WasteDataFlow and consider improvements including:

- Ensure that local authorities are working to the same definitions and reporting data consistently to allow accurate comparison and interpretation.

- Review questions relating to re-use and waste prevention together and provide guidance on how these should be consistently reported.

- Consider improvements to the user interface to make it easier for users to build queries.

- Review the format of query outputs to make them easier to manipulate e.g. remove blanks and table formats

Defra, WasteDataFlow board.





5.

Engage with regulators to explore the potential to combine regulatory datasets into one single reporting portal. This would contribute to building a more comprehensive understanding of resource flows through the waste management sector and provide an indication of the progress towards a circular economy.


6.

Explore the potential to expand work on common data standards started by the Environment Agency to all waste datasets in tandem with the development of a shared glossary. This would could be combined with Action 5 above.


Actions to collect and report new waste data

7.

Establish a working group to look again at the potential for a voluntary agreement between the waste industry and Defra to share data. This should take account of similar agreements in other competitive sectors such as energy supply.

Waste industry and its representatives, Defra.

8. Engage with exemptions review currently being undertaken by Defra to explore the possibility of introducing a requirement to provide limited data on waste managed.

Waste industry and its representatives, regulators, local authorities, Defra

9.

In order to provide accurate and timely data on C&I and C&D waste arisings, consider making the use of Edoc mandatory across the UK as a whole. This would need to be done in combination with Action 1 to ensure that the data collected is fit for purpose.


10.

Review options for reporting the volume and type of waste reaching end of waste status to the regulators. This could include amendments to the quality protocols and/or end of waste decisions made by regulators.

Defra, Environment Agency, NRW, NIEA, SEPA

Waste Data in the UK



Appendices

Appendix 1: Businesses and organisations interviewed




Appendix 1 – Business and organisations interviewed

Stakeholder Group

Business/organisation Interviewee

Government

Defra

Andrew Woodend

Alistair Paul

John Rae

Robin Karfoot

Lindsay Holmes

BIS Melanie Foster

Welsh Government Andy Rees

Wales Audit Office Andy Phillips

Regulators

Environment Agency Martin Whitworth

Mat Crocker

Natural Resources Wales

Becky Favager

John Fry

Tim Morris

SEPA Peter Ferrett

Waste Industry

CIWM Steve Lee

ESA Jacob Hayler

SITA Stuart Hayward-Higham

Gev Eduljee

Biffa Simon Rutledge

Funders Green Investment Bank Chris Holmes

Stewart McMahon

Local Authorities WLGA Gwyndaf Parry

GLA Doug Simpson

Circular Economy

WRAP Barbara Leach

ZWS Cindy Lee

Novelis Andy Doran

Consultants Eunomia Dominic Hogg

Ecolateral Peter Jones




Stakeholder Group

Business/organisation Interviewee

Compliance Schemes

Ecosurety Steve Clark

The Gemini Building Fermi Avenue Harwell Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QR United Kingdom

t: +44 (0)1235 753000 e: [email protected]

ee.ricardo.com

waste data in the uk

Documents