JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Feb 2006

Waste Management: Presentations.

Chairman

The joint committee will hear presentations today from the Cork Environmental Forum, Cré, the Composting Association of Ireland and the Institute of Waste Management. I welcome Ms Bernadette Connolly, chairperson of the CEF waste task force; Councillor Dominick Donnelly, CEF representative on south Cork SPC and CEF co-ordinator on the waste project committee; and Ms Jacqueline Hodgson, development officer of CEF; Mr. Conor McGovern, chairman of Cré; Mr. Conall Boland, RPS Consulting Engineers; Mr. Martin Hogan of Cré; Dr. Duncan J. Martin, centre chairman, Institute of Waste Management; Mr. Ted Nealon, director of A1 Waste; and Mr. Noel Madden, vice chairman, Institute of Waste Management.

The format of the meeting will be for each delegation to make a short presentation, following which members may ask questions. I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but that the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are also reminded of the long-standing practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. McGovern of Cré to make his presentation.

Mr. Conor McGovern

I thank the joint committee for giving Cré the opportunity to make this presentation. I am chairman of Cré and work for Greenstar. My colleague, Conall Boland, is a member of the technical committee of Cré and works for RPS. Cré is the Irish Composting Association which has a membership of more than 60 organisations and individuals. Its membership covers the broad base from composters treating municipal, household and other types of waste, local authorities, equipment suppliers, engineering consultancies to waste management companies. It is a not-for-profit association and all of the work done for it is done on a voluntary basis. It is engaged in a wide range of activities, including running themed seminars, producing newsletters, disseminating information, holding training sessions, maintaining a website, liaising with regulators and engaging in project development. I will tell the committee more about these later.

Slide No. 3 of the Powerpoint presentation is a graphical description of what is happening across the board in Ireland and the number and location of composting facilities throughout the country. I draw the committee's attention to the fact that 35% of total household waste generated is organic and readily compostable. Nearly three quarters of household waste is biodegradable. Of this household organic waste, 83,000 tonnes or 10% of the total was recovered in 2004, the most recent year for which we have figures. This 10% is recovered through source segregation, whereby people get a third bin at the back of their premises and segregate their organic waste into it, or they bring it to a community bring centre.

The 83,000 tonnes comprise domestic and commercial organic waste, all of which is municipal. Collections were made by the public and private sectors. There is also a significant amount, approximately 30,000 tonnes, of home composting. In addition to the 83,000 tonnes which have been quantified by the EPA, there is significantly more, approximately 80,000 tonnes, composting. This covers sewage sludge, industrial type sludge and other non-municipal waste streams. Since 2004 there has been significant development of so-called mechanical biological treatment — composting of a mixed waste stream. The fifth slide shows the two main types of composting. One is home composting which people do in their back gardens. The other is centralised composting, whereby the organic waste is brought to a facility producing the material which may be used beneficially.

I would like to draw the committee's attention to some of the main points. Ireland has fallen behind in its implementation of the landfill directive in respect of which urgent action is needed. Regarding source separation policy, the brown bin collection and compost quality assurance, Cré has made a proposal. There is an urgent requirement for a compost quality standard. Markets development in general is required to help Ireland meet the landfill directive targets, in particular for compost. We will be drawing attention to this. A training scheme for composting is also required if we are to meet the directive targets.

Slide No. 7 shows the targets set out in the landfill directive. It is taken on 1995 levels. The amount of landfill allowed falls away steeply from 1995 to 2006 where the amount of landfill allowed is 75% of 1995 levels, reducing to 50% and then 35%. We are in the first of those target years when we are supposed to be landfilling just 75% of what was landfilled in 1995. The most recent EPA figures for 2004 show that rather than being significantly below the figure of 100%, we are above it at 112%. There is a very big gap that needs to be addressed. The next graph indicates this well. The amount of waste being generated is increasing year on year, while the amount we are allowed to landfill is falling away year on year. The increasing gap needs to be closed through technologies such as composting. The composting rates for 2006 need to be twice the recovery rates for 2004. By 2009 we need to have three times the recovery rates for 2004. Ireland needs to respond dramatically by expanding recovery rates and, in particular, composting activity.

Ireland can address the situation by eliminating the policy deficit. There is a policy deficit at European level but Ireland needs to address the deficit at national level by publishing the national bio-waste strategy, the national response to the landfill directive. That strategy will, in turn, make it clear what the Irish attitude is to the derogation from landfill targets which will allow Ireland to push its targets back by four years. If that derogation is taken, it is important that we ensure it does not allow recovery rates to slip in order that we will be in the same situation four years from now with a large task ahead of us. This policy deficit is important in that it harms project deliverability, both in the public and private sectors. It is hard to deliver a diversion or recovery project if there is a lack of a clear policy driving it. I urge the Government to continue support for all forms of composting and organic waste treatment, increase recycling and reduce disposal rates.

I refer the committee to the situation in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has brought down the landfill allowance trading scheme, which sets specific quotas on the amount of waste that may be put into landfill per annum. If a local authority exceeds this quota, it is fined £150 per tonne over the limit. That has focused people's minds.

Source separation is a key way to encourage composting of household waste. This involves source separating organic waste into a third — brown — bin. It is easy to produce high quality compost from clean waste. This involves public participation and satisfaction with the system. Collection can be alternated with that of the black bin to reduce costs, although costs for brown bin collections are increased.

Source separation is in line with the EU policy of recent years but this may be changing. It is important for us to track changes in policy. Source separation works well in urban areas, where there is high-density housing, but not in all areas. It is not possible to source separate all organic waste. In that case, mixed waste composting is playing an increasing role in biowaste recovery rates, thereby meeting Ireland's landfill directive targets.

Typical houses in Galway city and county, Waterford city and county and Fingal have three bins, namely, black, green and brown. The material produced from the brown bins in Waterford can be produced as a premium compost which is sold for €3 per bag. Given that the compost is recoverable and has a value, we need to push this process. One way to push recovery of value from household produced compost is to develop a compost quality standard, which Cré has been doing in recent years. This standard will encourage the public and landscapers to use the industry's composting products. Unlike other European countries Ireland does not have a compost standard.

Cré recently submitted a proposal to the EPA's environmental research technological development and innovation, ERTDI, programme to part-fund and develop a quality standard for compost. It holds high hopes that the application will be successful. A standard for both source-segregated and mixed waste-derived compost is recommended. This initiative requires only a modest investment on the part of the Government.

Market development projects are needed. The Government has established a market development group from which, however, we have seen little output but we are hopeful. Cré should be represented on this group.

Projects and funding for market development, in general, in respect of household derived materials are required, particularly for compost. This includes creating the standard for source-segregated and mixed waste compost. Without markets, recovery of household waste will be more expensive and householders will lose confidence in the process.

Grant aid for composting facilities would be beneficial. Composting is expensive because it involves retaining large volumes of waste for long periods. Large buildings are required for the latter. To date, grant aid has been made available only to the public sector. While this is welcome, private composting firms could also benefit from grant aid. This would help Ireland meet its landfill directive targets.

Our membership has also encountered difficulties in the planning process. Facilities that propose to use mixed waste as a feedstock have been refused planning approval on that basis, although composting of mixed waste will help Ireland meet its landfill directive targets, which it urgently needs to do. The requirement to put a roof over all activity is very expensive and does not apply in other European countries. There is a ten-week retention period for all the waste. While local authorities may be favourably disposed towards composting projects their hands are sometimes tied in these situations. Composting should be recognised as a favoured solution in policy and practice.

Cré is also developing a training project to help provide better operation of these facilities which in turn will help prevent composting plants impacting on the environment of local communities. Cré has voluntarily provided ad hoc training courses and is working to develop a certified training course in association with the institutes of technology and possibly FÁS. We request Government support for this initiative.

In conclusion, composting can recycle 35% or more of household waste and will contribute significantly to landfill directive targets. There are areas in which Government action can help Cré to help deliver this possibility. Ireland needs to publish its national biowaste strategy, which should take account of, and give guidance on, mixed waste composting. It needs to support source separation where suitable.

Cré needs support to develop its composting quality assurance scheme and establish its certified training course. Ireland needs to improve national market development initiatives and provide grant aid for all composting practitioners, public and private. Composting projects in the planning process need support in practice and in policy.

Chairman

I invite Dr. Martin of the Institution of Waste Management to make his presentation.

Dr. Duncan Martin

I thank the committee for inviting us to come before it. The institution is an association for professionals involved in all aspects of waste management analogous to the Institute of Engineers of Ireland. It is an international body with approximately 200 members in the Republic of Ireland. It covers people who are active in the disposal and recycling industries, consultants, people in local authorities, in the regulatory bodies, researchers and so forth.

We furnished a submission to the committee last July, a summary of which members have before them. We acknowledge the recent significant improvement in recycling performance in Ireland and credit is due to all who have worked on that. We have, however, serious doubts about the accuracy of much of the data being reported and the realism of some of the targets introduced. I will hand over now to my colleague, Noel Madden, who will speak about that aspect of the process.

Mr. Noel Madden

We have a long way to go in providing recycling infrastructure in Ireland, from door-to-door facilities to bring back facilities at civic amenity centres. We also need to make these facilities convenient, otherwise people will not use them. They must be close to people's homes. We also need to tell people what and what not to put into their green bins because there is a lack of communication on this issue. Many people do not know what happens to the material when it is collected. We can run fancy advertising campaigns on radio and television but people like to know what happens to the items they collect. We need to provide this feedback.

It is possible, between paper and packing, to remove 30% of the material in the household waste stream. Unfortunately, a market does not exist for that material so it cannot all be recovered and, therefore, the most one can possibly target is approximately 25%. If one collected all that recyclable material from the household waste stream, one would end up with 25% being collected and diverted from landfill. It does not work as simply as that, however, because, for various reasons, not everyone participates in recycling systems; for example, they may not be interested or may live in multiple occupancy dwellings. People on very low incomes have priorities other than recycling. There are various other reasons also, so we end up with two thirds of households participating on a regular basis in recycling projects. This means that we get two thirds of the 25%, which is a maximum diversion through the packaging and paper systems of approximately 18%. Some 18% of the 100% is taken out for recycling, which means that there is another 82% to deal with. As Dr. Martin said, however, there is another 35% potential but there is still a long way to go to obtain the maximum potential diversion from landfill.

Dr. Martin

We referred to performance and targets. One of the problems we recognise from comments we receive from our membership is that some of the figures being reported interpret the term "recycling" extremely generously. Recycling figures may be exaggerated by including activities that cannot be categorised as recycling. We think it might be wise to introduce a standardisation of definitions and calculation methods. Recycling may often be calculated on the basis that if material did not go into landfill, it must have been recycled. The latter is an optimistic interpretation. We think that these figures ought to be audited and/or prepared by some independent body, such as the CSO or the ESRI, which is used to dealing with this sort of information. That would seem to be wise because, basically, in any field, unaudited figures are not worth a great deal.

As regards the problem of completing the recycling process, one really only completes it when one has remanufactured the material into something from which products can be made. It is well known that, except in one or two specialised fields, very little of this is happening in the sense of completing the process within the Republic of Ireland. This is partly a question of scale issues. It is difficult to rectify that problem but we need at least to be honest about it and to address it. I will return later to what could be done in some cases to improve the position.

The other matter that concerns us is that there seems to be an almost exclusive focus on recycling as the solution to all our waste problems. It is not the top priority in the waste hierarchy. Waste minimisation, reduction and reuse are higher priorities, although there is little encouragement in respect of those options. The one area in which this tends to be most glaringly obvious, although it does occur more widely, is in packaging, where there is still a huge amount of completely unnecessary material. I have a good example of this because I bought a new mobile phone yesterday. We all joke about the days when mobile phones were the size of bricks. They are not that size now but the boxes in which they come are still pretty much the size of bricks. I did a rough calculation that one could fit 40 mobile phones into the package. That is marketing, not packaging, and I do not know how we can move towards regulating it. This is a huge problem, involving many products, and it really gets up householders' noses. They may say "I don't want that box" but, in many cases, it is not possible to purchase the product without the packaging.

As regards policy suggestions, we would like to see a substantial move towards extensions of producer responsibility. We have made some small steps in this direction with the WEEE directive and the end-of-life vehicles directive but those have been fairly heavily watered down on foot of lobbying from the relevant industries. We recognise that there are huge competition issues of concern to the manufacturing and retail sectors here, which is why this sort of legislation has to be done at EU level and above. It is, nonetheless, an important issue.

Many of the principles espoused by the zero waste movement make a great deal of sense, even if we regard the fundamental concept of zero waste as being rather risky. It gives an impression that one can get rid of waste altogether but there are many sensible ideas in it which should be actively pursued.

The proposal relating to a national waste authority should be pursued. The Government seems to be mostly concerned with regulating the waste industry and how waste is treated. However, the Government needs to be more proactive. That is an important issue. Another issue is over-regulation which, for example, particularly affects the use of processed organic waste that has been through composting or anaerobic digestion processes. I am sure my colleagues from Cré would agree with that. However, the uses to which these materials can be put are limited by regulations that are frequently inappropriate.

As regards more harmonisation and co-operation with the North, apart from anything else, as long as the Border remains open, there will be huge problems with controlling waste movements if there are systems in place that are very different. Economies of scale within the island of Ireland mean that makes much sense as well.

We would like to see much more expansion of material recycling facilities, including kerbside collections. We also think there should be more feedback to the citizenry in terms of what is happening to their waste and why.

Those are the main points I wished to make, so I will not go into any more detail. I will call a halt to my comments now and will deal with any questions that arise later.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Martin. I understand that apologies have been received from Mr. Seán O'Riordan who has suffered a bereavement. On behalf of the joint committee, I wish to extend my sympathy to him in this regard.

The final presentation is from the Cork Environmental Forum. I call on Ms Hodgson to make her presentation.

Ms Jacqueline Hodgson

We decided that I should provide a contextual introduction to the Cork Environmental Forum. The forum is unusual in that it is not a regular NGO. That is why we thought it would be appropriate to have this introduction. We are a local Agenda 21 organisation and a cross-sectoral umbrella group. At present, we represent approximately 950 groups and individuals. A majority of those groups comprise many members, so we represent a large number of individuals.

We started in 1995 under Cork County Council's local Agenda 21 remit and are now a fully independent, limited company. We still have full support from Cork County Council but we also include Cork City Council. I have supplied the joint committee with an information pack. I hope members will have time to read through it later. For that reason, I will not go into too much detail about who we are. The remit of local Agenda 21 means we have to support environmental care at the most local level, and that is what we seek to do. Our approach, therefore, is very much bottom-up in nature.

At this meeting, we hope to represent some of the views we have been able to glean from our various endeavours and activities. We take a partnership and participation approach to all our activities and this means that we try find the point where everybody agrees, which is where approximately 85% of most people come together. There is a good overlap of agreement on the viewpoints and that is the area in which we work. We do not object to anything, therefore, but try to work in positive areas. This is slightly unusual compared with other NGOs, many of which participate in our activities in any event.

The level of representation, the amount of active involvement of all the sectors and the extensive activities that we conduct at all levels, mean that, to a large extent, we are unique in Ireland and Europe. We have attracted a great deal of respect for that, which we value very much because it means that we can bring those individual viewpoints to many different parts.

Our activities include plenary sessions and presentations. We are a kind of forum in the Roman sense of the word in that we work in that manner. We have workshops, projects and a number of meetings. Over the years, we have examined various aspects of waste management, which has been a big issue in Cork. As I am sure members are aware, there have been various ideas about how Cork should manage its waste. We have been involved in such waste management plans since 1995, examining and commenting on both drafts and final versions. We have participated because many of those plans for the waste management strategy in the city and county have involved actions to which local groups such as ours have signed up. We have an annual project, Action on Waste, that is now in its sixth year and one of my colleagues will be talking a little about that. In the pack, I have also included three annual reports that give a fair representation of several of our activities.

Action on Waste is a locally based project indicative of our bottom-up approach. We encourage shoppers in supermarkets to think about the packaging of the food products that they buy. It is a very proactive project. In the past five years, we have considered many aspects of packaging, including glass milk bottles, polystyrene trays and biodegradable materials. The response when we have challenged people on what they think of those different forms of packaging has been very interesting and positive towards such things as the milk bottle and biodegradable materials. The supermarkets have also welcomed us. The main ones have all been involved — SuperValu, Tesco Ireland, Marks and Spencer, Dunne's Stores, to name but a few.

We have had several very positive outcomes from that action. At local level, there is an environmental forum. We host meetings approximately every six months in some 12 different areas of the city and county, encouraging people to discuss their local issues and concerns. As members can imagine, waste is often raised and we are asked, for example, about the location of the local bring site. We have detailed conversations with people but we always encourage local partnership-based solutions. That has been very proactive and positive, giving us good information regarding how waste management can happen at the very local level of the doorstep.

We use our representation, where possible, to influence local, regional and national plans. We have developed, since 2001, a series of position papers that reflect the consensus position of our members and associates. We feel they are very important because they represent where people come together. With such wide representation, it is very important information. We use those position papers and our participants' expertise for submissions on the various development plans. I have already mentioned waste management plans but in recent years we have also been involved in local area development plans, the second stage of the county council's development plans. We are examining the detail and have considered very specific areas where waste management can be integrated. I have included copies in the packs issued to members, particularly since they have a local authority remit.

We have been involved, through our submissions, at all stages of the development of such plans and it has been very interesting to track whether our viewpoint is included. Disappointingly, often it has not been taken into account, although we feel that it represents large numbers of people. We have a new series of task forces composed of experts in the field, one of which is on waste, and we hope that it will produce a policy paper for us in the next few years. We have representatives on seven of the 11 strategic policy committees in the city and county.

Our representatives will pick out some of the priorities that we have identified through our bottom-up approach to waste management. They represent the views of many people from all sectors in the city and county. At all times, we have focused on the three elements of sustainable development, which, as everyone knows, are environmental, social and economic. Regarding the latter, we will examine local economic benefits that at the same time can improve the quality of life for all key stakeholders. In particular, we will consider the changes experienced in Ireland and internationally as a result of increases in oil prices. We feel that the economic driver that is oil will have a massive impact, particularly on waste management.

I will hand over to Mr. Dominick Donnelly, who will discuss the public viewpoint.

Mr. Dominick Donnelly

I wish to focus on the top ten legislative changes that we would like to see that would help improve the situation regarding waste management. As Ms Hodgson said, we have run our Action on Waste programme for the past five or six years. For the past few years, I have been its co-ordinator and that has very much informed our opinion on this. When one is standing at a table in a supermarket or shopping centre trying to talk to the public about waste management issues, recycling, composting and so on, one learns a great deal simply from talking to people. That is where many of our opinions were formed, as well as at plenary sessions and through the advice of members with expertise in waste.

Dr. Duncan Martin has already referred to an idea whose adoption we feel is critical for Ireland. We have not thought of a better term for it, so we will simply have to use "zero waste policy". Zero waste would be the target. Such policies are being successfully implemented in many countries, although not generally in Europe. In Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US, many local governments have adopted such policies and we believe Ireland is ripe for them.

It would mean two key things, the primary one of which would be a change in mindset. Rather than seeing waste as a problem to be disposed of, the key change would be that one would view it as a resource, asking oneself how we might use, reuse or recycle it. Second, every waste stream produced in the country would have somewhere identifiable to go. If it did not, we would consider eliminating that waste stream at its source. That is the key message that we should adopt from zero waste. All materials should have a cradle-to-grave life cycle analysis conducted on them. The ultimate aim would be to eliminate the materials' grave, since they would instead continue recycling round the system. A Government statement on adopting such a policy would be a great step in that direction.

We must then look at the waste hierarchy — reduction, reuse and recycling — another aspect to which Dr. Martin referred. The emphasis has been on recycling, which is the bottom rung. There has not been nearly enough emphasis on reduction or reuse, and we have some fairly specific ideas regarding how we might improve them. One key proposal on reduction would be the introduction of a packaging tax or levy whereby one would have nil or very little tax on those types of packaging that one was trying to encourage. Anything reusable would be a very high priority in that regard. We would also consider the types of materials used in such packaging and how easy they are to reuse or recycle. The most easily recyclable would have a low levy and the most difficult to recycle or most non-recyclable would attract a higher levy. One of the big problems is where packaging is made of a variety of different materials that are very hard to segregate and that should probably have the highest tax of all. That is our position.

When we are standing in the supermarkets for our Action on Waste scheme, we find that the amount of packaging is the biggest issue with the public. When they buy a packet of cornflakes, they want the contents rather than the box. Much of the packaging is not about protecting the material but pure marketing. There is room for that but it could be done much more cleverly.

We have heard presentations from Repak over the years at our plenary sessions. However, we feel that its current set-up leaves it unclear where and how its money is spent and it must be much more accountable to the public in that regard. The public's perception of Repak is that it is absolving the middlemen, namely, the retailers, and thereby the producers, from the responsibilities that they should have under the "producer pays" principle, particularly regarding packaging.

Chairman

Repak representatives are observing today's proceedings and may have something to say on that matter.

Mr. Donnelly

That is fine. That is our position on Repak. We regard it as somewhat of an obstacle to progress, particularly in the area of packaging.

I will move on to reuse and to one of our key proposals. As one of our actions on waste, we carried out work in respect of reusable milk bottles. Cork city was the last place in the country to have milk available in glass bottles. It was available until approximately four years ago. The bottle plant still exists in one of the dairies and could be reactivated should the economic situation be amenable. That is just one example. We need to have more reusable packaging.

For four years, I lived in countries in Latin America — Argentina and Costa Rica — regarded as much poorer than Ireland. I have travelled widely throughout Latin America. Every country I visited has a system of reusable beverage containers involving every shop that sells them. For example, all the beer companies use a standardised beer bottle. Someone wanting to buy a bottle of beer brings a bottle back and hands it over the counter in the shop. It is quite simple. We all remember the 5p for the lemonade bottle. We need to move back to that. It is achievable. If it is done in many countries of the world, there is no reason that it cannot be done here. Retailers will probably object because it will mean them giving over space to the return system. However, we believe it is possible. Cork County Council tried to introduce such a scheme by means of a by-law a number of years ago. It seems to have been blocked by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. While the by-law exists, it has never been fully implemented.

What most people call recycling, we would prefer to refer to as not being recycling; it is the segregation of waste streams. Recycling is the conversion of segregated waste into something reusable. In reality, little of that happens in Ireland and we believe it needs to be incentivised by means of grants or otherwise. This could happen through the public or private sector, or a combination of both. As long as it happens, we do not mind who does it. Some of our colleagues have referred to this matter.

Our key points are: a zero waste strategy; more focus on reduction and reuse rather than recycling; strong support for a packaging; a review of Repak; a national scheme for reusable beverage containers; and more incentives for local recycling and reuse enterprises to recycle and recover materials. I will hand over to Ms Connolly who will speak about activities at the community level.

Ms Bernadette Connolly

I will speak about the household community level, which is the lowest level with which we deal. Household waste is still a considerable problem. One of the previous speakers said we need to make it as easy as possible for people. We need to provide a range of options to everyone involving tiers of services. The tiered service addresses the different requirements of high-density urban households, town and village households and rural households. In Cork, approximately one third of the population falls into each of those categories. The menu of services should include the civic amenity sites. Cork Environmental Forum would prefer to see resource recovery parks, which represent a better option and involve joined-up thinking. Such parks link business creation and support the local economy. It has already been highlighted that the segregated waste material is not being turned into reusable goods, which needs to happen at local level, thereby bringing benefit to the local economies.

Bring sites should be retained. I live between Clonakilty and Bandon. We have two civic amenity sites in those areas, which is great. However, all the bring sites in the town were removed. The green school in Clonakilty had a very effective programme but it can no longer recycle the bottles and cans. We need to consider how it impacts on other things. We oppose eliminating the bring sites to which people have become used. People without transport cannot travel to the amenity sites in the more rural locations.

We advocate community composting. Even in a high-density urban area in Dublin, the Ballymun experience, based on a Swedish model, has been very positive. We would like to see more community composting at village level. All planning applications for new housing estates should include such considerations.

Kerbside collection of segregated material needs to be extended to everybody. Those in rural areas need options, including provision for brown bins so that people will have access to the range of services they require. A tiered system should reward those reducing their waste. Our household produces very little waste and has a collection once a month. The reward should be based on households not paying for a collection once a week and could rather pay for a collection once a month.

Cost is a significant factor for individuals and communities. We want the reduction of residual waste and to make it cheaper through fewer collections. The tiered model would work in this regard. The main obstacle to elimination of the residual waste, with which nothing can be done, is the type of material used in its manufacture. I recently got rid of one of the children's old schoolbags. As it was synthetic, with so many mixed materials, I realised there was nothing I could do. When consuming products we need to be conscious of what they are made of and whether they could be reused. The public has accepted and adapted well to some of the levies the Government has introduced, such as the 15 cent on plastic bags. People have adapted well in changing their shopping habits.

On transparency and accountability, members of the public need to have confidence as to where the segregated material ends up. We advocate labelling at the sites. When I bring glass or fluorescent light bulbs to the site in Clonakilty, I do not know where they go. The glass goes to Fermanagh. Why not erect a sign identifying the company that is reusing and recycling the material. I have only separated the waste and brought it there. People need to feel confident that hazardous waste is being disposed of safely. Giving the information at the sites to which we bring our waste would be useful.

Repak was mentioned earlier. We also have an issue with IPODEC, which collects much material from bring sites. We have made a number of requests to ascertain what happens to the waste and no information has been forthcoming. It is essential that companies in receipt of public moneys be transparent and accountable. We are concerned about this matter. A recent television programme showed that three containers of waste from a British public authority ended up in Indonesia, having been sent to an address that did not exist. Such programmes place doubts in people's minds. We need to build public confidence in this area. I already mentioned the community school and the green school in Clonakilty. Hospitals and small and medium-sized businesses are other forms of community. We need to take account of all aspects of our communities.

Waste and resource planning should form part of anyone's planning application, regardless of whether it is for a domestic household or a larger application. Our position paper states that planning applicants should be supplied with guidelines for dealing with domestic waste. When providing housing, local authorities should incorporate things that would help low-income householders. They should provide composters such as the "Big Pig", which is produced in County Meath.

We already mentioned that we consult widely with communities regarding local area development plans. However, these should also incorporate waste management plans and information should be easily accessible.

Many members of the public are committed and are playing their part by segregating the material. People regard segregation of the material as being something they can do to help in respect of protecting the environment and it links with their concern for the latter.

We need to make further progress. There should be more incentives in the areas of reuse and recycling and this needs to be driven by Government policy and requires legislation. The subsidiarity principle should be in existence and should apply to dealing with segregated materials. I refer to resource recovery parks and the creation of local businesses in local economies.

Cork Environmental Forum exists on an annual budget of €54,000. Our impact within the Cork city and county area is huge. We have affected the consumption patterns of people and caused them to think about the subject and make changes in the way they deal with their waste.

Chairman

There is much food for thought in the presentation and members are anxious to ask questions.

Deputy O’Dowd

I welcome the delegations and thank them for their submissions and contributions. There is much food for thought in the suggestions put forward, which are important, constructive and impressive.

Dr. Martin made the point well by bringing in the box for his mobile phone. On the question of packaging, I agree with Mr. Donnelly. The problem arises if one does not have a choice of leaving the packaging in the shop and just taking the product such as a mobile phone. If a company or an organisation is a member of Repak, this absolves the shop from disposing of the packaging for the consumer. A person then goes home, puts the packaging in the bin and it goes through a rigmarole of being returned to a recycling stream. This is the nub of the issue. The points made about the producer being responsible and about changing the habits of consumers are critical issues and need to be examined. I acknowledge Repak does good work and it is an important organisation. However, the matter needs to be examined.

There is an issue to be considered regarding the disposal of packaging of goods such as fridges or cookers, which are delivered to the consumer. The retailers are not obliged to take back the packaging but a consumer must have a knife at hand to open the packaging in order to give it back on delivery. I suggest that part of the requirement regarding goods delivered to homes should be that the delivery people must wait until the packaging is returned to them.

I refer to a family who bought a product at Christmas, which, instead of being packed in a white foam material, was packed with a material that washed down the sink. I am not familiar with this material but the delegation may be able to enlighten me. I presume the product did not pollute the watercourse once it was washed away.

I thank our guests for their presentations. The issues raised are serious and need to be taken on board and considered.

Chairman

I ask the delegates to withhold their comments until other members have spoken.

Deputy Cuffe

I welcome the varied contributions from the three groups. My first question is for the first group that contributed. Its presentation on household waste recycling, on slide No. 5, referred to the two methods of composting, home or centralised composting. It seems we are moving in the direction of centralised composting. I am not entirely convinced that this is the most environmentally-friendly option. Has the delegation undertaken any study to examine the full life cycle costs of both options? It appears that most families in the country could compost within their own households rather than using a centralised facility, particularly considering the recent technical products available in the marketplace.

I was very impressed with the detail of Dr. Martin's paper. He hit the nail on the head on many of the concerns about current Government policy. He encapsulated the need to focus on the environmental impact of all options, such as recycling, reduction and reuse, and this is to be welcomed. Any option should undergo careful assessment in respect of its impact. I liked his reference to the family pig. Cork Environmental Forum's presentation referred to a pig but Dr. Martin's reference was a nice way of looking back at the manner in which we used to deal with our recycling problems in the past.

Dr. Martin seems to suggest that the Government needs to get its hands somewhat more dirty in this process. I support his call for a national waste agency. Does Dr. Martin believe this waste agency could become involved in the business of developing markets and making grants available? It seems there has been a concentration up to now, almost to the exclusion of many other options, on setting up recycling centres. However, there has not been any thinking regarding the future. Just as the fair trade movement thinks long and hard about where products originate, we should also consider where waste goes. Should the national waste agency be involved with the issues of developing products and markets and perhaps have more than a co-ordinating or regulatory role?

My final question is directed at the Cork Environmental Forum. I welcome the delegation's contribution, which examines in detail the practical problems arising and also some of the solutions. Should development plans and building regulations address waste management issues more comprehensively? Apartment complexes are being built without sufficient account being taken of waste management and recycling. Kitchens are being designed without taking into consideration the need for up to five recycling bins. Is there a need for the Government to provide better building regulations or better guidance for development?

Chairman

I invite Mr. McGovern or Mr. Boland to deal with those questions.

Mr. Conall Boland

I will respond to the question on home versus central composting. Cré is very supportive of home composting and many of our members are environmental awareness officers in local authorities. The current situation is that the local authorities are continuing to support home composting by supplying composting bins free of charge and providing guidance and, in some cases, training in their use. Cré has had regard to the situation in other countries, such as Canada, where home composting was heavily promoted in the 1980s and 1990s. The international experience demonstrates that a certain level of uptake of home composting can be achieved but full penetration cannot. Certain households, for one reason or another, will not use home composting. Cré is of the view that those who will not use a home composting bin should have the option of using central composting by means of a brown bin collection. The combination of central composting and home composting can work. If all our eggs are put in the home composting basket, much of the organic waste could still be sent to disposal and this would not be the preferred option.

Deputy Cuffe

Has any study been undertaken in respect of life cycle analysis, the energy in, energy out aspect, materials, etc.?

Mr. Boland

This has not been studied within the remit of Cré.

Deputy Cuffe

Has Cré access to studies undertaken?

Mr. Boland

I am not aware of anything specifically dealing with the Irish situation. One of the life cycle issues, one of the challenges, is to try to introduce a brown bin centralised composting system, without increasing the level of waste collection. This can be achieved by alternating the brown and black bin collections. The number of journeys would be reduced and the same collection vehicles can be used. That can reduce the energy input and the costs, but we do not have any specific figures for that.

Dr. Martin

I am indebted to Deputy Cuffe for his analogy with the Fair Trade movement, which is instructive. I thank him for that.

We would certainly see it as a very important function of a national waste authority to look at the infrastructure deficit, the question of markets, and see what can reasonably be done. I say "reasonably" because there are issues like economies of scale and what is relevant or appropriate for a relatively small country like Ireland to do for itself. The proximity principle is said to apply to waste but does not apply to anything else. One can pump oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, take it to Texas, turn it into plastics, take those to Shanghai and turn them into trainers, and bring them to Dublin to be sold in shops. When one throws the trainers away, the proximity principle means one must do that not within the national boundaries but within the Dublin regional waste authority. Accordingly there is not a great deal of logic in saying we must do things locally. It should be a principle which ties in with other factors but it would be an important component of the role of a national waste authority to look at that issue.

Mr. Donnelly

Deputy Cuffe asked whether there should be more cognisance of waste management issues in building regulations, development plans, planning permissions and so on. There should be, absolutely. For example there are still terraces of houses being built with, perhaps, a three-bin collection system in place, but nowhere to put the three bins except out on the street. We see that as a severe failure of the planning system. We all know of apartment complexes built with nothing or very little in the way of inbuilt waste facilities, even down to the design of kitchens and the interior design of houses. Waste management must be done through legislation because it is not otherwise happening on the ground, even though we are all aware of it and people are talking about it. Legislation is the only way in which it will be taken account of.

Deputy Cregan

I welcome the three groups and thank them for imparting their knowledge to us. We have had quite a few groups before the committee, with many statistics quoted to us, particularly with regard to the percentage increases and the product recycling percentage at which we have now arrived. Mention has been made by Dr. Martin of doubts cast on those figures. We take pride in the progress and believe we are going in the right direction. We have seen some very impressive figures. If a doubt is being cast on them, Dr. Martin might tell us what he thinks the true figures are and how he arrives at them.

Dr. Martin

Giving a numerical answer to Deputy Cregan would be a step too far, but we are aware of many anomalies in the data. There is no doubt that the figures are heading in the right direction but very ambitious targets have been set and there is considerable temptation to make the figures look as good as possible in the circumstances. We are speaking for example of classifying activities as recycling which are not recycling and cannot properly be categorised as such. In some cases too, the figures are calculated by difference, so for example if the tonnage going to landfill reduces, it is assumed the difference is all down to recycling, when there are many other possibilities, some of them involving the nearest cliff, as the county manager of one unnamed county once said. This is why we are recommending a standardised methodology for the derivation of these figures. Does one measure the amount of material one is sending for recycling or the amount one is not doing something else with?

Another relevant area involves some local authorities who make very impressive claims for the amount of material they send for recycling — but there is recycling and recycling. Despite commercial confidentiality, there must be ways around the difficulty of collecting data on the financial transactions which go along with the material being sent for recycling, because there is a huge difference between sending a tonne of high-quality material which is genuinely going to be recycled and sending 100 tonnes of highly contaminated material which might have anything happen to it somewhere in the Far East. One of the problems is that the stuff ends up in very unregulated parts of the world where we have to be fairly optimistic, or charitable, to assume the material is genuinely being recycled. Bits of valuable material may be scavenged from it, but much of it may simply end up being dumped or burned where it sits. I could not quantify it but it is quite a widespread feeling among professions in the business that the figures are not really as good as they look.

Deputy Cregan

I thank Dr. Martin for his very comprehensive response. Can he expand on his comment that some activities which are claimed as recycling activities are actually not?

Dr. Martin

There would be many examples, particularly with regard to what experts in the field call "downcycling". Recycling basically means reprocessing a material into a state where it can be used for the original purpose or something similar. For example, one can melt down bottles and make new ones from them, but if one grinds up old bottles and uses them to make shotblasting material or some sort of filler for concrete, or reflective paint for the road, one can do that only once, so one does not retain the material in the system and use it again. That is a good example. Another would be the use of rubber to make playground and footpath surfaces. One can do this only once. It may be more environmentally beneficial than throwing the stuff away but it is not recycling in the proper sense.

Another example would be the use of low-grade composted materials for motorway landscaping, covering old landfills and so on. Such usage might be beneficial and save extraction of peat, which would be otherwise used for those purposes, but the material is not going back on the land, which would be the ideal solution and would be genuine recycling. I could give many other examples but those give a flavour.

Deputy Gilmore

I join colleagues in welcoming the delegations to the committee. The picture we are being given today is quite different from the talked-up line of great progress being made, which we have been getting from the Government, the EPA and many official sources. In summary, the picture we are given today shows we are putting 12% more waste into landfill, with less landfill available, than we were ten years ago. We are codding ourselves with regard to what we think we have been doing in recycling. We are separating materials and they are being taken away somewhere but, as Dr. Martin says, they are not really being recycled at all. The definition of recycling which he has given us means that most of the material we think is being recycled is not.

Meanwhile, as a country we have been putting in place over the past ten years or so a waste collection and disposal management regime which is costing the end user much more than it did ten years ago. In the main, most householders did not pay for waste disposal, though in some rural areas there were services which local authorities would not normally have provided. Householders are now paying for all the separated collection and recycling and the cost is rising. Meanwhile, trundling along in the background is a Government strategy to burn the waste. Gradually we are putting in place municipal incinerators and toxic waste incineration. What is the view of each of the three groups on incineration, or more specifically, the waste to energy argument for incineration?

Deputy Moloney

I welcome the delegations. It is important to control our waste but the cost of doing so is a hidden component. Eight years ago, my local authority had seven landfills but it took a decision in 1999 to reduce the number to one. I was chairman of the waste management committee of the council for a number of years and the management team provided a clear picture of the overall costs of running the landfill. The latter must reach a particular standard and that requires more investment. The local authority began by having to decrease the amount of waste going to landfill but now the reverse is the case, with a set amount of waste needed for processing to meet the overheads. Many local authorities are faced with this dilemma where they have been asked to reduce waste, on one hand, but where they have been asked to maintain a high standard, on the other. I am glad Mr. Hogan is present. He gave me advice on running a landfill when he was involved with Laois County Council a number of years ago. How does the cost per tonne of composting in a commercial facility compare with the cost per tonne of current landfill fees? The committee can have high hopes in this regard but waste management will be governed by the cost per tonne in the estimates and budgets of local authorities.

Deputy Sargent

I apologise for not being present earlier but I had to attend another meeting. I read the presentations.

Despite the discussion of all the complex issues surrounding waste management, the focus is on recycling as a panacea in the wider public mind. Has the Waste Management Act 1996 been implemented appropriately in the opinion of each delegation? Section 29, for example, gives significant powers to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to restrict importation and manufacturing practices and to ensure that containers are reusable and that packaging is not created. The section is robust. Has it been tested sufficiently? Are the regulations only window dressing or should they be implemented? The section has not been implemented and I would like the delegations to identify where the blockage lies.

I am interested in the potential of composting because we are only at the tip of the iceberg regarding what is possible. Animal manure and paper provide a mix of nitrous and carbon material, which Ireland has in plentiful supply. As Dr. Martin stated, paper is often sent halfway around the world to be recycled. The energy expended on this must be considered to ascertain whether the correct action is being taken in this regard. Has this been the subject of pilot studies or tests? There is potential for dealing with these problems and combining the solution to the two problems may be the way forward.

The Cork Environmental Alliance zero waste strategy goes to the heart of the matter and it needs further explanation and elaboration. It is often done a disservice by people thinking it is a magic solution because it is a targeted process. Has the alliance checked where the best zero waste strategies operate so that the Government can be pointed towards them rather than only talking about practical implementation? I found the wet-dry system used in Guelph, Ontario, heartening but perhaps the alliance can refer to other strategies.

Chairman

The questions relate to incineration, the cost of landfill and composting, the implementation of the Waste Management Act 1996, animal manure, paper and zero waste strategies. I call Mr. McGovern of the Composting Association of Ireland.

Mr. McGovern

On Deputy Gilmore's question, in view of the nature of Cré, as a representative association, it is fair to say that there are differing opinions on the place of incineration in the overall strategy. However, there is general agreement, at the top end hierarchies, that we would like more emphasis on avoiding waste and recycling it as much as possible.

In the hierarchy of waste, mechanical biological treatment, MBT, is another technology on the same level as incineration. A mixed waste stream, from which dry recyclables have been removed, results from this type of treatment. Material, from which low-quality compost can be extracted and produced, can be stripped out. By producing that material, the need for incineration is avoided. A refuse-derived fuel is also a by-product of the MBT process, which may, in part, be used in thermal treatment. If all the biodegradable materials are extracted, one can significantly reduce the need for thermal treatment. That technology is an alternative to incineration.

Deputy Moloney asked a cogent question about the status of composting and landfill prices. Composting is an expensive technology because the material must be collected separately. For example, additional collection bins must be used or, if one is involved in a twinned system, expensive mechanical treatment must be applied. In recent years, landfill prices have fallen for a variety of reasons and the knock-on effect is that, in some cases, composting is more expensive and unviable. The bankability of the projects is difficult if landfill turns out to be cheaper.

Deputy Sargent asked about paper and animal manure. One of our members is producing a high quality compost from animal manure. The material is bagged and sold as a premium product through a supermarket chain. That is produced on a small scale but there is significant potential to develop such material, especially through anaerobic digestion technology. Ireland has three or four anaerobic digesters, each of which uses an animal manure product as its base. They also generate energy as a by-product and it helps very much in that case. A large anaerobic digester is under development in the south. It will address agri-waste on a large scale. This is due to go into the planning process this week. I hope that answers the question.

Mr. Boland

I wish to add one point on the cost of landfill versus the cost of composting. The current landfill levy in Ireland is €15 a tonne. We are on the cheaper end of the scale compared with our European counterparts where composting is on a better footing. The Composting Association of Ireland would have no difficulty if the landfill levy was increased gradually as a signal that the difference in cost will be maintained in the future.

Dr. Martin

Deputy Gilmore asked about our view of incineration. I am tempted to say the answer is 42 — it depends on the question. The majority view within the institution is that incineration is a perfectly acceptable means of waste disposal. It is not as problematic as is sometimes presented. It is not a hazard to the extent that is commonly stated. However, it is not a panacea or a universal solution. It has its place. There are several layers on the waste hierarchy above that which we should be prioritising. Where I would take issue with the zero waste idea is that there is under all rational reasonable scenarios an element of waste with which one cannot do anything useful. One can either landfill it directly or incinerate it. However, one will end up with a solid residue which must be landfilled. We see incineration as having a place but not necessarily as the dominant mechanism for waste disposal.

Some of the other things that have been said about incineration are irrational. For example, it is commonly said that incineration drives down recycling rates. Many countries throughout Europe combine incineration with excellent rates of recycling, reuse and recovery. It does not have to be that way, it depends on how the whole package is put together. With regard to the idea of an incinerator as a beast demanding to be fed, one could say the same about any large industrial plant. Yes, it will be most cost-effective if it is kept operating at full capacity. However, it does not have to be. If one proposes building a milk processing plant, one does not talk about it as a beast demanding milk, yet in a sense it is.

Perhaps we can deal with the problem of incineration and the private sector in terms of seeking economic returns by building into the contracts some sort of guarantees and price supports, so that if the volumes go down, either the incinerator will be designed flexibly to burn other materials such as biomass crops or turf as an alternative fuel. This would ensure that whatever is being used as an energy output is still maintained and there is still a revenue stream. Alternatively, one might decide to provide the operator with a subsidy because the market has disappeared of because of other actions of the State. It is a big topic.

I will defer to my colleagues in Cré on the cost of composting. Deputy Sargent asked about digestion of manure and paper mixtures. This is being done and is technically possible. I do not know if it is being done on a large scale basis but it is certainly being done on an experimental scale. While it is workable, it does not appear to be a particularly attractive option. It may well be that there are better uses for the paper, which would probably include burning it. Some serious studies of the best thing to do with paper, particularly relatively low grade paper like newsprint, found that the best practical environmental option is to use it as a fuel in a waste energy plant rather than to recycle it.

As far as section 29 of the Waste Management Act is concerned, my colleagues and I are not aware of any great implementation of it. Perhaps the focus of the Government's action has been on the regulation side, therefore, it might now shift towards the area of prevention, which we would like to see. Perhaps if the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, was put in charge, something would be banned overnight.

Deputy Sargent

She has been in charge for quite some time.

Dr. Martin

Not with that brief. The powers exist but I do not get any sense that they have been much used.

Ms Hodgson

I will respond to Deputy Gilmore's question and my colleague, Mr.Donnelly, will respond to the other points. As everyone will be aware, incineration is very much a hot potato in Cork. The process is still being decided in terms of Indaver's proposal for a toxic waste incinerator. The forum has had many debates on the issue. We had a big debate with Indaver and people from Galway in 2001. We were ahead of ourselves in introducing the topic, seeking viewpoints and getting the generalfeeling about Indaver's proposals. In fairness to Indaver, it had introduced a lot of recycling at that point so it had a high public profile in the Ringaskiddy area.

We have never come out either for or against incineration. The reason for this is that we operate only in terms of 85% agreement in the matter. Incineration is one of the issues included in the 15% area where there are many different viewpoints, and many people are either for or against it. There is not a big percentage of shades of grey in regard to incineration, particularly in the Cork and Cork Harbour area.

We have a position paper on waste and waste priorities. Echoing what has been said already, reuse and reduction is at the top of our hierarchy, and incineration was at the bottom of that hierarchy. What governs the hierarchy we defined is the fact that we also have a position paper on sustainability principles. The two principles governing much thinking on whether anything should be considered sustainable — this is what we would be examining in a basic sense — is the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. If these principles are implemented in a number of different areas, it will raise questions as to whether some of the ideas are sustainable.

On Dr. Martin's point about downcycling, in my opinion the product of incineration would be downcycling, which would not produce a recyclable. This is where the forum stands on the issue. In terms of how we would like to see a zero waste policy implemented, in many ways there is no place for incineration because it produces a product. I hope my response has been helpful. As we are not an NGO, we do not have a position on the matter.

Mr. Donnelly

We have no knowledge on the cost of landfill and so on, so I cannot help the Deputy in that regard. In reply to Deputy Sargent, we do not see these aspects of the Waste Management Act as having been enacted. If we take it down a step to county development plans or city development plans, normally there are many lofty aims to the fore in such plans, but they get lost in the meat and potatoes of the plan. Many lofty objectives are put forward in the official literature which is not followed through. The Deputy's example of section 29 of the Waste Management Act is another example of this.

In regard to areas where relatively successful implementation of zero waste strategies is concerned, one that springs to mind, which has a lot of suitable comparisons to our situation, is Nova Scotia in Canada which has implemented such a strategy. It is much bigger than Ireland. I am not sure of the specific size of the population but it has a very distributed rural population. Nevertheless it is implementing successfully such a strategy. Certain towns have been even more successful in implementing strategies. However, Nova Scotia offers a good comparison because it encompasses a large rural area and some urban centres. Across the spread of strategies it seems to be doing well.

Chairman

That concludes our question and answer session. I thank the three groups represented for making submissions in the first instance and for travelling to Dublin to attend this meeting. The discussion has been informative. The groups' views will be incorporated into our final report on the recycling of household waste. We will send them a copy in due course. I thank them for their contributions. We are grateful to them for coming.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.10 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 February 2006.