Robert Long Consultancy Limited - RLCL Conference, Landfill Tax Credits for Recycling and Contaminated Land, 11 May 2000, Homerton College, Cambridge, Wastes Management magazine, IWM, Dr Richard Sills, ENTRUST, Nick Blakey, ESART, Adam Read, Kingston University, Dan Cooke, Viridor Waste Management, Diane Robson, Robert Long Consultancy Limited, RLCL, Justine Adams, Rob Walker, Robert Walker, Robert S. Walker, Dick Sills

Article reproduced, with kind permission, from the April 2000 issue of the Institute of Wastes Management Journal "Wastes Management".

Robert Long Consultancy's conference 'Landfill Tax Credits for recycling and contaminated land' on 11 May aims to answer questions such as:

An annual investment of £80 million from any other source would be very hard earned and would buy a very big stake in the recycling market as it stands. The forecast landfill tax receipts for 1999/2000 are £400 million, 20% of which (£80 million) is potentially available to approved projects each year.

As Chris Mullen (Junior Environment Minister) pointed out: "only one-third of current funding is directly supporting sustainable waste management projects [including recycling] and the Government would like to see this figure significantly increased!"

Projects must meet one of the 'approved objects' of the scheme. The original Category C of the approved objects was interpreted by ENTRUST (the regulator) to allow for recycling research, development and pilot projects. But the recent amendments to the Regulations explicitly made provision for recycling projects to be funded through the scheme. The first word of the amendment is key, but the rest spells out the scope of the possibilities beyond physically recycling things: "recycling and the development of products and markets for recycled materials". This clearly signifies the Government's intention to expand the use of the scheme for recycling and will hopefully result in an explosion of interest in the scheme for funding recycling at the local scale.

The key constraint remains that contributors may not benefit directly or uniquely from a project unless they are part of a general class and would share the benefit with others in the same 'peer group'. For example, research must be made public and available to others who may benefit. This can be done through peer-reviewed journal articles, conference presentations and special dissemination meetings and workshops, or through the media, newsletters and the world-wide-web.

Before a project can even begin, the proposal has to steer a tricky course between ENTRUST, the landfill operator and retaining the initial objectives. Between selling an angle on the project to persuade ENTRUST that it meets the approved objects, and perhaps a different angle to the landfill operator to persuade them to part with their landfill tax credits, this is not always easy! Some proposals are more persuasive than others and some landfill operators are easier to persuade than others that the project is legitimate and the funds will not be 'clawed back' from the landfill operator if the project fails later scrutiny. These are the sorts of grey areas that the conference hopes to address.

Last year, 91% of the funds available from landfill operators through this scheme were actually contributed to Environmental Bodies operating within the Landfill Tax Credit System. This was a significant improvement on the funding donated in 1998 (67%). About £50m was spent, of which £6m went on recycling, £2m on landfill technology and EfW, £8m on nature reserves and public parks and £3m on canals and water course improvements.

However, for these successes, there have also been many criticisms of the system, often focusing on the lack of funding that has been directed towards sustainable waste management research and education (Category C), particularly recycling. It is well known that the largest number of projects are in the local amenity category (D) class; they received nearly 50% of the funds contributed in 1999 (in the order of £23m) whereas Category C only received 15% of the available funds (1998/9) as noted in Table 1.

Of that 15%, Table 2 indicates where the money was spent and the following list summarises the main elements of the Category C project proposals (not necessarily reflected by projects receiving funding):

The main emphasis of Category C project proposals has been on Education & Information (or promotional campaigns) and on Research & Development and General Recycling projects. This is indicative of the problems facing the waste industry today with the need for public ownership, public participation and support of waste management services, and the need to evaluate 'new' and alternative solutions to the mounting waste crisis facing the UK. Funding provided, however, provides a slightly different picture with the emphasis on Education & Information and Materials Recovery & Recycling, whilst R&D does not fare so well. This is reflective of the needs of waste management today with increasing concerns over public acceptance of waste management and the need to fund, test and evaluate a range of approaches to recycling.

Table 1. Landfill Tax Funded Projects
	£ 1998	%	£ 1999	%
Cat A	2,600,000	6.7	3,800,000	8.0
Cat B	200,000	0.5	50,000	0.1
Cat C	12,250,000	31.3	17,800,000	36.0
Cat D	21,850,000	55.7	23,700,000	48.0
Cat E	2,100,000	5.4	3,600,00	7.0
Cat F	200,000	0.4	200,000	0.4
Totals	39,200,000		49,150,000

Table 2. Sustainable Waste Management (Category C) Projects Funded in 1998-1999
	£ 1998	£ 1999
Waste Minimisation	700,000	1,030,000
Green Waste Management	350,000	1,100,000
Materials Recovery Recycling	3,900,000	5,800,000
Research & Development	1,000,000	2,050,000
Education & Information	4,400,000	6,050,000

[This article continues here]