Indicating right: environmental performance indicators for the waste managment sector

indicating right: environmental performance indicators for the waste management sector final report and core set of indicators

“green alliance...

Indicating Right: Environmental performance indicators for the waste management sector.

Final report and core set of indicators was written and researched by Ben Shaw and Julie Hill.

Design by Cottier & Sidaway Published by Green Alliance, November 2001 £5.00 ISBN 095301 60 56 © Green Alliance 2001 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Green Alliance. Within the UK, exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purposes of private research or study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency.

This book is sold subject to condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it was published and without a similar condition including the condition being imposed on subsequent purchaser.

Green Alliance 40 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 0RE tel: 020 7233 7433 fax: 020 7233 9033 email: ga@green-alliance.org.uk website: www.green-alliance.org.uk Green Alliance is a registered charity number 1045395.

Company Limited by guarantee, registered number 3037633

1

acknowledgements

Indicating Right

Green Alliance wishes to thank the following organisations for their financial support of this project: We would also like to extend our thanks to all the organisations and individuals who were involved in the process, including the companies who assisted with piloting the indicators, all those who spoke and participated in the seminars, and those who took part in the email discussion forum.

Green Alliance Green Alliance is one of the UK’s foremost environmental groups. An independent charity, its mission is to promote sustainable development by ensuring that the environment is at the heart of decision-making. It works with senior people in government, parliament, business and the environmental movement to encourage new ideas, dialogue and constructive solutions.

contents introduction

2

the process: how the indicators were developed

5

using the indicators

8

core set of indicators

15

climate change transport water use land use and wildlife regulatory compliance environmental management systems waste minimisation/resource productivity neighbourliness

15 20 21 21 23 24 24 27

commitments made by companies

29

next steps

34

documents produced by the project

38

further information on other indicator and reporting initiatives list of the core set of indicators and endorsing organisations

39 inside back cover

2

introduction

Indicating Right

This document reports on a three-year project to produce environmental performance indicators for the waste management sector. The indicators were developed in conjunction with waste companies and leading waste organisations, and have been endorsed by eleven waste companies, as well as by the Environmental Services Association, Friends of the Earth, the Institute of Wastes Management and Waste Watch.

This document’s primary aim is to detail the indicators and issues around their use. It is also intended: ● ● ● ●

to report on the process used to develop the indicators to record the commitments made by individual waste companies to using the indicators to report on their environmental performance to set out options to encourage uptake of the indicators to highlight other relevant indicator and reporting initiatives

why indicators?

All companies have a responsibility towards the environment. That responsibility is now widely acknowledged, and most forward-looking companies have, or are putting into place, specific management practices aimed at minimising negative environmental impacts and maximising their contribution to environmental quality. This growth in environmental management has been accompanied by a growth in environmental reporting, where companies set out their main environmental effects and provide data showing the extent of their progress in dealing with those effects.

Useful as these reports are, they have limitations in terms of giving a clear view of environmental progress, both for the individual company and across different companies. Companies differ in the environmental effects they report, and in the way data is collected and presented. The information is often very detailed and is not always accompanied by a clear interpretation of what it means. It is very hard to make comparisons between companies, even companies in the same sector, on the basis of existing environmental reports.

The development of a set of agreed indicators of environmental progress can build on and improve current environmental reporting by helping: ● ● ●

to provide a consistent means of reporting environmental progress in key areas to provide a set of measurements that are readily understandable to company stakeholders to work towards, as far as possible, comparability of data across companies

● ● ●

to identify the most significant environmental impacts and focus resources appropriately to clarify a company’s environmental goals and assist with the setting of targets to communicate a company’s environmental goals and progress to all its employees

the need for indicators in the waste management sector The waste management sector provides an important environmental service by dealing with the waste generated by society. This activity has environmental impacts. The negative impacts include emissions of pollutants, the generation of odour and traffic, and the use of resources such as water and energy. The positive by-products of waste include the reuse and recycling of reusable materials, and below these in the waste hierarchy, the recovery of energy from waste through the generation of electricity from landfill gas, and other energy from waste processes. Waste management companies need to be able to measure these impacts in order to manage them. They also need to be able to communicate their progress in improving environmental performance. As outlined above, indicators play a crucial role in the measurement, management and communication of environmental performance.

In addition, waste management companies are involved in the debate about how society as a whole moves towards more ‘sustainable’ waste practices. Beyond that is the debate about the role that the waste management sector should play in contributing to improved resource productivity and better use of resources. The waste sector cannot achieve these changes on its own. However, it is important that the sector understands the possible extent of its contribution, and can communicate it through indicators. They should also have a view on the role that must be played by others. This means taking an active part in the development of national waste management strategies that set out the role of all stakeholders, including the government, other industry sectors, the public, non-governmental groups and the scientific community.

It is not only NGOs that are asking companies to report in more detail on the environmental impact of their activities. The government and financial institutions are keen to see better quality information made available on the environmental

“It is important that the sector understands the possible extent of its contribution, and can communicate it through indicators.”

3

Indicating Right

Indicators are just as valuable to those inside a company as those outside.

By providing a clear picture of trends they will help:

Indicating Right

4

performance and liabilities of companies. The government is also keen to see individual sectors developing sectoral sustainability strategies to address the challenges of sustainability. These measures, along with others such as negotiated agreements, are intended to move away from prescriptive ‘command and control’ regulation to a new model of regulation in which companies adopt responsibility for their environmental impacts. They are also intended to create an ongoing commitment to environmental improvement that goes beyond basic compliance with minimum environmental standards.

Environmental reporting and indicators are an important part of this.

The first phase of the project was completed in April 1999 when Green Alliance published Indicating Right: Environmental performance indicators for the waste management sector1. The document reflected discussions with a number of waste companies and suggested a menu of potential indicators. These covered: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

climate change air pollution transport water land use and wildlife waste minimisation environmental management systems regulatory compliance and neighbourliness

The report suggested a broad range of potential indicators in each of the above areas, and was intended to stimulate further discussions with a range of stakeholders. These included waste companies but also trade associations, NGOs and academic institutions.

From March 2000 we refined the indicators into the core set detailed in this document. The core set of indicators is intended to be the minimum set of indicators that covers all the significant environmental impacts of the waste management sector. At the same time, it has been developed to be applicable to all companies and activities within the sector.

The process of development of the indicators has been one of extensive consultation, debate and research. It has included holding two day-long seminars in May 2000 and May 2001 and piloting the indicators with waste management companies.

This section deals with the overall process of indicator development. Issues relating to the development and use of specific indicators are described in the section detailing the core set of indicators.

1 Available

“The process of development of the indicators has been one of extensive consultation, debate and research.”

in pdf format from Green Alliance’s website: www.green-alliance.org.uk

5

Indicating Right

the process: how the indicators were developed

6

May 2000 seminar

Indicating Right

In May 2000 Green Alliance held a day-long practitioners’ seminar to gain feedback on Indicating Right: Environmental performance indicators for the waste management sector and to discuss and develop five of the more challenging indicators.

These were methane measurement (part of the global warming indicator set); land use and wildlife; regulatory compliance; neighbourliness; and waste minimisation. Speakers and attendees included representatives from waste management companies, business, NGOs, government, academia and environment agencies. The proceedings from the seminar are available from Green Alliance’s website or in hard copy from Green Alliance’s office. The issues raised at the seminar in relation to individual indicators are discussed in the section detailing the core set of indicators.

indicator pilots Following the seminar in May, a web discussion forum was used to gain further ideas on the development of the indicators. Along with further research this allowed the indicators to be refined to the stage that, in Autumn 2000, they were ready to be piloted with waste management companies. The piloting process was intended to establish the practicality of implementing the indicators proposed. Detailed face-to-face or telephone interviews were conducted with representatives of ten major waste companies, the Environmental Services Association and the Institute of Wastes Management.

The interviews reviewed the aims of companies in collecting environmental data, discussed any environmental performance indicators for which companies were already collecting data, and compared these to the indicators we were proposing. The interviews asked about the companies’ experiences of collecting this information and what they found most useful and why. In particular, we investigated the feasibility and willingness of companies to use the new indicators we were proposing.

This process resulted in a draft core set of indicators which was produced in January 2001 and circulated, with a request for comments, within the waste management sector and other stakeholders including, government, NGOs, academics and environment agencies.

May 2001 seminar In May 2001 a second seminar was held to gather feedback on the refined indicators, and also to focus on waste minimisation. This focus was chosen because developing some feasible and acceptable measures of waste minimisation was proving challenging. Speakers and attendees again reflected the range of stakeholders including representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the (then) Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Confederation of British Industry, Environmental Services Association, the waste management industry, NGOs, academia and business.

Following the May 2001 seminar the core set of indicators was revised. In July 2001 a final draft was distributed widely within the industry and to other stakeholders with a request for endorsement of the indicators. Waste management companies were also asked to indicate the timescale on which they thought that they would be able report publicly on the indicators.

7

Indicating Right

As well as discussing waste minimisation in relation to indicators, the seminar made links with the broader policy debate on waste minimisation and resource productivity. The seminar discussed the motivation and justification for waste minimisation, approaches to measuring it and the changes needed to stimulate progress towards the broader concept of improved resource productivity. The proceedings from the seminar are available from Green Alliance’s website. The issues raised at the seminar related to indicators are discussed in the sections below ‘using the indicators’ and the ‘core set of indicators’.

8

using the indicators

Indicating Right

This section discusses how we expect the indicators to be used. It covers the general issues that apply to all the indicators, such as the use of denominators. Specific issues related to the use or development of particular indicators are dealt with in the next section that details the core set of indicators.

external company use of indicators The indicators have been designed to be reported on annually. A number of waste companies already report on an annual basis (e.g. Shanks and Waste Recycling Group) and one company every other year (Biffa). If possible the environmental reporting and financial reporting year should run concurrently. This will allow a clearer understanding of both environmental and financial activities. In reporting publicly, firms should consider who their audiences are and tailor information accordingly. Site neighbours, financial institutions and environmental groups, for example, will be interested in different aspects of environmental performance. This may require presenting the information in different ways. Hard copy glossy reports, headline indicator summaries, the internet, email, and direct mail may all be appropriate ways of communicating information publicly. Making data available on request may also be a way of meeting different audiences needs. Whilst the latter may seem extreme, it embodies a number of principles that should underlie all public environmental reporting from companies. Reporting should increase the public transparency of a company’s operation and impacts thereby enhancing its accountability. Reporting should also be based on the individual’s right to know about activities that impact on them.

internal company use of indicators If indicators are to be effective at the company level they will need to be collected and compiled more frequently than annually. One company that already reports publicly also reports environmental performance internally on a quarterly basis to its board. Reporting on indicators should not be seen as an add-on activity purely for external audiences without any core business relevance. As discussed below, if indicators are to improve a company’s environmental performance they need to be fully integrated into company management practices. This will require investment of staff and financial resources, but to offset this, the indicators have been designed to align with business aims wherever possible. The May 2001 seminar identified the following business benefits of using the indicators: ●

direct cost savings through improved use of resources, such as energy and water indicators, reveal liabilities resulting in potentially lower insurance costs

good environmental performance is valuable in terms of positive PR indicators may have benefits in terms of shaping the future direction of waste management firms and the mechanisms by which those decisions are taken

The same management, collection and collation system for indicator data should be applicable to internal and external uses. Development of these systems should be seen as an investment, not a dead weight cost, as the development of indicators should result in improvement in environmental and economic performance which makes them self-financing. It is commonly suggested that collecting data for initiatives such as the indicators places an undue burden on smaller companies. A number of smaller waste companies have committed to using the indicators suggesting that they are suitable for SMEs. Even for very small companies, all the indicators that imply cost savings (energy, water, etc) should be of relevance even if some effort has to be put into data collection.

coverage and applicability of indicators The core set of indicators is intended to cover all the major environmental impacts of the waste management sector. As such they are applicable to all types of waste management companies, whatever their focus or combination of waste management activities. These activities include landfill; incineration (with and without energy recovery); chemical, physical and biological treatment; recycling; composting; waste minimisation; collection; and transport of wastes. The UK’s waste management industry is dominated by landfill and the indicators reflect this.

However, they are a core set of indicators.

Firms should not assume that adoption of the indicators will automatically ensure that all their most significant environmental impacts are covered. Additional indicators may be required to deal with specific activities of particular firms. As well as the possibility of developing additional indicators there will be the issue of the level of resource to invest in each indicator. This will require prioritisation according to each company’s most significant environmental impacts.

For these and other reasons the use of indicators for reporting and internal management purposes should be considered an ongoing process integrated into other management activities. This is reflected in the Government’s guidance on company

“the use of indicators for reporting and internal management purposes should be considered an ongoing process integrated into other management activities.”

9

Indicating Right

● ●

Indicating Right

10

environmental reporting2, the International Standard ISO 14000 series on environmental management and other reporting initiatives (See under Compatibility with other indicator and reporting initiatives for more details).

The indicators are deliberately presented as indicators of environmental performance, rather than as ‘sustainability indicators’. Although the indicators concentrate on the environmental considerations, some of the indicators such as neighbourliness have a social dimension. The partnerships with other organisations in the land use and wildlife and waste minimisation indicators also reflect this. There is plenty of scope for further work on the social aspect of the indicators. Economic indices are not covered. This is because the waste management industry, in common with all business, has well developed economic measures which it is obliged to report on already.

staged implementation It is suggested that the indicators are implemented in two stages. Stage 1 includes the indicators that we feel a significant number of companies will be able to adopt and report on in the near future, if they have not already done so. Stage 2 includes the indicators that we know will require more time, either because the indicator itself needs further development or because the waste companies need longer to prepare for implementation of the indicator.

comparison and context Contextual and explanatory information is vital in reporting on the indicators. In an industry that is undergoing rapid consolidation and transformation, year-on-year measures will not necessarily indicate clear trends. Contextual information allows the reasons for better or worse performance to be understood and explained. Other factors such as investment in new plant, new techniques or staff training, as well as external factors beyond a company’s control such as severe weather, should be linked to changes in environmental performance.

Concern was expressed by a number of waste management companies during the development of the indicators about the use of indicators for company comparison. The indicators are not designed to provide a basis of comparison of environmental performance between waste management companies and other types of company. This would be very difficult given the different types of activity involved.

Different waste management companies have very different portfolios of activities that may focus on, for example, collection, recovery, recycling or 2

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has produced a series of guides on company environmental reporting. These include a general overview on environmental reporting, targeted at companies that have not reported before, and specific guidance on reporting on greenhouse gas emissions, waste and water use.

“indicators are a vital tool in understanding the environmental impacts of companies, developing strategies to address these impacts and demonstrating this action to stakeholders.”

The indicators are a vital tool in understanding the environmental impacts of companies, developing strategies to address these impacts and demonstrating this action to stakeholders. This is the spirit in which they have been developed. We hope the data that will be collected by companies will be used to better understand the reasons for different levels of environmental performance in the industry. The question. ‘why is there a difference?’ must always be asked when looking at the performance of different companies.

However, the converse is true. If two companies are performing roughly similar activities but with very different environmental impacts the reasons need to be drawn out. Contextual information when reporting on the indicators is therefore vital in this regard.

compatibility with other indicator and reporting initiatives A wide range of reporting and indicator initiatives already exist. These cover not just the environmental performance of organisations but also broader sustainability issues. These include the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the World Business Council on Sustainable Development’s (WBSCD) Eco-efficiency indicators, environmental management systems such as the ISO 14000 series and Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), and the UK Government’s series of publications on company environmental reporting.

Details of where to get further information on these initiatives are given in the useful contacts section at the end of the report.

The core set of indicators detailed in this report is intended to be consistent with these initiatives and is in many cases complementary. For example, the scope of the GRI work is much broader than this project and intended to be generally applicable to all organisations. The GRI is intended to develop and

11

Indicating Right

disposal and other activities. These activities may also take place in very different geographical contexts. The compilation of ‘league tables’ from the indicators may therefore not compare like with like and may also not actually reflect the efforts that particular companies are taking to reduce their environmental impact. However, although companies perform different activities it is important that the resultant environmental impacts are reported on. Green Alliance feel that the small risk of the indicators being used to make inappropriate comparisons will be more than compensated for by the benefits of their use. It should be remembered that as more and more companies report there are downsides to not reporting.

Indicating Right

12

disseminate globally applicable reporting guidelines for voluntary use by organisations reporting on economic, environmental and social dimensions of their activities, products and services. As such the GRI covers, not only social and economic impacts, which this core set of indicators only begins to address, but it also addresses in more detail the framework within which indicators are reported on. However, the GRI does not have the sectoral detail of this project. This is a stated future agenda of the GRI: to develop sector specific reporting.

The indicators are also consistent with ISO 14000 series of international standards on environmental management. Of particular relevance is ISO 140313 on environmental performance evaluation. This recommends a ‘plan, do, check and act’ process for the development and implementation of indicators but with the vital additional stages of reviewing and improving the indicators and their use in the context of a company’s environmental policy and targets. The indicators are consistent with ISO 14031 but do not require its use. However, the use of ISO 14031 may improve the impact of the indicators. ISO 14031 does not contain any external reporting requirement which is a key element of this project.

structure of the indicators There is no ranking or priority among the indicators. They are seeking to measure such different things that any form of ranking was considered inappropriate.

finding denominators A denominator is a figure used to divide the raw absolute indicator figures, in order to get a relative measure – for instance, dividing the energy consumed in one year by the amount of waste handled in that year, or by a company’s turnover. For many of the indicators, a denominator is needed for the indicators to have value.

“For many of the indicators, a denominator is needed for the indicators to have value.”

3 BS

Measurements in absolute figures, such as the amount of electricity or water consumed or the amount of pollution emitted, allow assessment of a company’s absolute impact but are of less use for following changes in performance. Even if measured each year, it is not clear whether variations from year-to-year are because of environmental improvements, or because the company has grown or

EN ISO 14031:2000 Environmental Management – Environmental performance evaluation – Guidelines, BSI.

‘Tonnes of waste handled’ is a good denominator because it relates the environmental measures to the company’s main activity and purposes.

Units of turnover (i.e. £) is another possible denominator which reflects the scale of the company and fluctuations in its level of activity over time.

This will be distorted to some extent by the changes in cost of waste management resulting from, for example, the landfill tax escalator and requirements of landfill directive. It also received little support in our discussions with waste companies and is not used in the core set. Other denominators used in the core set include mileage travelled and number of sites.

The other method of normalisation is to indicate the relevant proportions of different activities, e.g. the ratio of sites flaring gas, to those using gas for power generation to passive venting.

Where a denominator is needed we have indicated this. Otherwise, the measurements are ones that do not need, or do not lend themselves easily to, particular denominators. It should be noted that it is intended that the indicators are reported on an annual basis whether a denominator is specified or not.

A number of the indicators may not show much progress from year-toyear or may progress erratically from year-to-year. For example, trees planted may be related to the number of site restorations completed which for some companies may not happen every year. In cases such as these it may be appropriate to use running averages or just indicate cumulative totals to make trends clearer.

third party issues A number of companies we talked to raised the issue of how they should report on impacts that they could control or influence but did not perform themselves. This includes services which are contracted out or procured from other companies. For example, should the use of contract vehicles to transport waste be reported on by the company purchasing the service or the vehicle operator? Alternatively, when one waste management company delivers waste to another’s processing facility who is responsible for the impacts of waste processing?

There are no clear-cut rules for deciding on when to report on third party impacts. The fact that a third party creates an environmental impact is not necessarily a reason for not reporting. The intention of the indicators is to promote understanding of the environmental impacts of a company and the more complete the information provided the better.

13

Indicating Right

contracted in size. Comparisons across companies are even more difficult, because of the varying size and activities of different companies.

Indicating Right

14

One company we spoke to had contracted out gas management at all its landfills. It would be perverse if this company did not report on its landfill emissions, given its responsibility for landfilling the waste and also its control over the gas management specification. It would be appropriate that the gas management company also report on its performance at minimising the emissions. This has the potential for ‘double counting’. Since the aim of the indicators is to reveal individual company’s environmental performance rather than to compile figures for the absolute impact of the industry, ‘double counting’ is less important.

Availability of data from third parties can be an issue. In the short term it may be hard to get data on environmental performance from contractors. However, contractors should be encouraged, and where possible, specified to provide data in the longer term. In the absence of data, it should be clearly indicated what impacts it has not been possible to report on. In some cases it may be possible to estimate the impact of an activity from extrapolation from a similar activity not contracted out, for example, transport of waste.

“contractors should be encouraged, and where possible, specified to provide data”

core set of indicators

15

climate change

Indicating Right

stage 1 indicator 1: total greenhouse gas emissions divided by tonnes of waste handled, using the Government’s Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions4 explanation of indicator

This indicator involves compiling figures for a firm’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The guidelines cover six greenhouse gases: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6). It includes emissions from all company activities that release greenhouse gases, including transport, energy use, process emissions, refrigerant and other leaks, heating and lighting, etc. The emissions for all these are then converted into carbon dioxide equivalents, thus allowing a total greenhouse gas emissions figure to be reported. issues

Several waste companies have already reported against the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) guidelines and have found them relatively easy to use. In the original guidelines a few issues were not resolved but the revised guidelines issued in March 2001 deal with most of these. These included the availability of conversion factors for the carbon content of different fuels and processes (leading to the inconsistent use of conversion factors) and clarifying whether the carbon dioxide produced by burning landfill gas should be included.

The first edition of the guidelines pointed out that methane represents a waste company’s largest climate change impact and should therefore be measured. However, the problems around measuring methane emissions from landfill are acknowledged in both versions. The Environment Agency has developed methods for estimating emissions to controlled waters from landfill sites and sewage treatment works (STWs). Work is also taking place to produce a tool for estimating emissions of methane and other gases from landfill sites. This is based on a redevelopment of part of the GasSim model and will be available early in 2002. The production of additional reporting guidance and tools is underway to assist industries falling under Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) with their Pollution Inventory reporting commitments.

4

The guidelines are available from the DEFRA website: www.defra.gov.uk

Indicating Right

16

If the Government decides that methane should be traded as part of the emissions trading scheme, this will bring the issue of accurate methane measurement into sharp focus. The present situation with methane measurement is discussed in the next section.

There is a particular issue for waste companies as to whether the fossil fuel energy saved by generating electricity from landfill gas should be offset against total greenhouse gas emissions. The revised guidelines are clear:

“

the figures for any sales or purchases of emissions allowances or carbon offsets should not be included with your headline figures for actual emissions. Once you have reported your headline emission figures, you can express the effects of trading or offsets separately… 5

”

This aligns with concerns expressed by environmental groups that reporting figures with the offset for the energy obtained from waste included reflects a secondary benefit of waste disposal, which obscures the primary impact of waste management operations. Hence, the headline emissions figure before any offset is subtracted should be clearly highlighted to indicate the overall impact and scale of emissions from a company’s operations. The guidelines also suggest that it would be useful to provide as much information as possible about any offsets claimed. If an offset is reported, extension of the original guidelines’ view of CHP would suggest that an allowance of up to twice the carbon dioxide that would have been generated from generation of grid electricity can be offset6.

Concern was expressed by some of the waste companies we talked to that because companies have different portfolios of activity, e.g. some companies focus on collection, others transport of waste and others disposal or treatment of waste, the indicator should reflect these differences. For this reason the climate change emissions could be broken down and reported according to type of activity, e.g. collection, haulage, disposal, treatment.

However, the aggregate figure is still of use as it allows year-on-year comparisons within a company to be made. Contextual information will usually explain the differing performance of companies. However, it is when there are differences that cannot be explained away that indicators are at their most useful as they highlight opportunities for improvement.

One of the areas of discussion has been choosing the most appropriate denominator. Tonnes of waste handled is felt to be the most appropriate way of normalising emissions according to the scale of a company’s activities.

5

How To Start Reporting On Greenhouse Gases, Step 7 – Report the outcome, Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

6 This is because the methane is generated from the biogenic fraction, not the fossil derived fraction, of waste. The offset is doubled as an allowance can be claimed for both the displaced energy from the grid and the fact that the energy is generated from biogenically derived waste, which is part of the short-term carbon cycle. In the case of other energy from waste processes, an element of the electricity will be derived from the fossil fraction of the waste and this should result in a proportionate reduction in the offset claimed.

indicator 2: amount in tonnes of landfill gas and the proportion of gas

17

This will give an indication of the amount of landfill gas passing through gas management systems and the overall approach of different companies to gas management, with the intention of encouraging energy generation where it is economically feasible. However, as discussed below, it is not a meaningful measure of performance in terms of limiting methane emissions until the capture of the methane fraction of the gas (estimated as 50-60 per cent of landfill gas) can be expressed as a proportion of estimated total methane generated. The decrease in biodegradable municipal waste due to landfill directive has been highlighted as having an impact on the amounts of gas produced by sites and hence the economic viability of gas management installations. indicator 3: total energy generated in Megawatts This indicator gives an idea of how much energy is being recovered from the landfill gas, or other energy from waste processes and can also be expressed as carbon dioxide avoided. We are not proposing a denominator here, for instance of tonnes of waste handled per year, because of the time lag between deposition of waste and emission of gas in the case of landfill. stage 2 indicator 4: efficiency of gas capture (gas collected as a proportion of gas generated)

indicator 5: total methane emissions divided by filled volume of landfill or tonnage of waste contained within it aim of indicator

In developing indicators for methane emissions two components are needed. One indicator needs to reflect the efficiency of gas capture, and to do that it needs to show the amount of gas collected as a proportion of gas generated. This means having a good gas (and thus methane) generation model. The long-term objective is to confirm with on-the-ground monitoring the premise that a high rate of capture, and the good management that achieves this, translates into low actual emissions. The second indicator would therefore be actual emissions to atmosphere for methane, with the assumption that they should tend towards zero. issues

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, twenty-one times more potent than carbon dioxide. The emission of methane from landfill sites is therefore

Indicating Right

being flared, used for power generation, or passively vented

Indicating Right

18

a major environmental impact of waste management activities, and the limitation of methane emissions should be a primary objective of waste management companies.

Unfortunately, there is as yet no standardised methodology for estimating or measuring methane emissions from landfill. There are models for estimating the potential maximum methane generated by a given tonne of waste, but a number of variables affect firstly, the extent to which this generation potential is realised and secondly, the time period over which the methane escapes from the landfill. The variables for generation include: the proportion of waste that is degradable; the temperature and moisture content of the landfill; and the amount of oxygen present. For release or capture the factors include: how early gas collection systems are installed and how well they are maintained; how early a cap is put on; and to what extent there are cracks or fissures through which gas can escape.

The Environment Agency is currently developing a method for estimating emissions from landfill sites and waste-water and sewage treatment works.

In particular the Agency hopes to finalise a protocol for estimating emissions of methane from landfill sites towards the end of 2001 and will be working with the sewage and waste-water industry to devise estimation protocols to report their emissions under IPPC by 2003.

Some companies already use models to estimate methane generation, but it is clear that they are not using them in a standardised way. Even if they did, that might not give the whole picture. Most companies know how much methane is being captured, because they know how much is going through flares or engines. The rate of capture can be improved by good management practices: in particular, the early installation of gas collection systems, and the early and high-specification capping of the site. In theory, the gap between the estimated amount of methane generated, as provided by a model, and the amount captured, would be the amount emitted.

However, on-the-ground monitoring suggests that the amount of methane emitted is much smaller. This could be due to oxidation of the gas as it passes through the soil; escapes through other routes, e.g. by lateral migration and through adjacent fissures; or just simply that it is being locked in to the site for longer than previously thought. It may be possible that a certain, probably small, proportion will not be released from the site. These issues will need to be addressed by the Environment Agency in developing a model.

On the ground monitoring is suggested above as the second element of the indicator. Here again there is no single accepted monitoring method, and this would have to be discussed and agreed upon. Flux-boxes and infra-

In the meantime, possible additional stage one indicators of good performance could be the action to minimise the area of uncapped cell and the actual proportion of uncapped cell area; or, where an operational cell is over a certain size, the installation of sacrificial gas systems.

Closed sites also need to be monitored for fugitive emissions of methane, with a view to improving the cap if there are significant emissions, or even retrofitting with a gas collection system if one is not in place already.

However, it is important to consider whether the environmental costs of doing this in terms of energy used might be greater than the impact of the methane. At least one company we have spoken to is developing a methodology for analysing this.

Measuring methane emissions is important from a number of different perspectives – climate change inventories, emissions trading, IPPC (when landfill becomes subject to the regulations). A rigorous methodology that commands broad based support not only from the waste industry, but also from government, other businesses (due to the financial implications of emissions trading), NGOs and academics will be required. One view from the Green Alliance email discussion forum was that a working group with a broad based membership would be required to develop the methodology.

This would ideally gain agreement not only at the UK level but also in Europe.

If a method can be agreed, it would be desirable to have some level of comparability across sites, and a possible denominator could be either the filled volume of the site or tonnage of waste contained within it. This may need to reflect the proportion of active to inert waste that a site has accepted.

indicator 6: trace greenhouse gases after combustion of landfill gas These are yet to be quantified, but could be important, and may form the basis of a stage two indicator. At least one company is studying this.

7

M J T Milton and T D Gardiner, Methods for the Measurement of Methane Fluxes from Landfill Sites, Final Report to the Environment Agency, June 1999, NPL Report COEM 32.

19

Indicating Right

red monitoring are two of the technologies mentioned to us although concerns have been raised about both the cost and efficacy of these. The National Physical Laboratory produced a report for the Environment Agency comparing different approaches to measuring methane fluxes from landfill sites. This provides useful information on the advantages and disadvantages of different options and their costs.7

20

transport

Indicating Right

stage 1 indicator 7: fuel used divided by miles travelled

indicator 8: fuel used divided by tonnes of waste handled Fuel used in transport is important because of the contribution of all carbon-based fuels to climate change, and transport fuel is one of the categories of reporting in the Government’s Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We are suggesting separate indicators for transport so that improvements in both fuel efficiency and logistics are clear in reporting.

Depending on the nature of the company, staff or fleet transport may be the more important transport impact. It may therefore be appropriate to report staff and fleet transport separately.

Most companies have systems for monitoring the amount of fuel used.

Using different denominators monitors different kinds of progress. Dividing fuel used by miles travelled will show up improvements in fuel efficiency and in driving efficiency. Fuel used divided by tonnes of waste moved will show up improvements in logistics. The use of both of these indicators gives a fuller picture and overcomes the problem of some companies operating predominantly in rural areas which involve larger mileages.

It was suggested that the denominator tonnes of waste handled will be hard to use. Within a company this may be true. For example, once a tonne of waste has been collected it will be processed, perhaps through a number of operations at different sites. This risks double counting of tonnes of waste handled. However, at the company level, the total tonnage of waste accepted by a company for processing is clearly defined and should be easily obtained and can therefore be used as a denominator. indicator 9: tonnes of waste transported by rail or water as a proportion of total waste transported

This indicator is important to monitor the uptake of modes other than road transport. For companies without existing infrastructure for rail or water transport it is recognised that adopting these modes may mean significant investment, or may be beyond a company’s control, but the indicator is designed to keep these possibilities in mind when considering new investments or exploring partnership projects.

water use

21

stage 1

Indicating Right

indicator 10: amount of water used divided by tonnes of waste handled Some companies felt that their water use was insignificant compared to other environmental impacts, but others agreed that it was important to measure. Most companies seemed able to collect the data through billing systems. DEFRA has published Guidelines for Company Reporting on Water8, which contains more detailed information on how to measure and minimise water consumption.

As suggested in Indicating Right, Environmental performance indicators for the waste management sector the impact that waste companies have on water quality is considered under the regulatory compliance indicator. Companies will have to comply with any authorisations set by the Environment Agency to protect groundwater or surface water quality. These authorisations may detail monitoring requirements to ensure compliance. It was felt that developing either a qualitative or quantitative indicator of impact on water quality would be impractical due to its resource requirements and would not significantly add to the regulatory compliance indicator.

land use and wildlife stage 1 indicator 11: actual or planned uses of restored land This is not an indicator in the strict sense because there is no agreed correct ‘trend’. The conclusion from much of our discussions on this topic is that the most desirable end-use is that preferred by local expertise, such as local wildlife trusts or those implementing a Local Biodiversity Action Plan.

Thus a locally appropriate habitat creation project might be anything from carefully managing the site to be nutrient poor and thus become a speciesrich grassland, to leaving the land to revert to woodland in its own time.

Ecoscope has published a best practice manual on wildlife management and habitat creation at landfill sites which contains more detailed information on these issues9. A view was expressed from one company that, in general, it would be better to manage land for wildlife interest than trying to establish agricultural land, if it was likely to be of poor quality.

8 The 9

guidelines are available from the DEFRA website: www.defra.gov.uk Wildlife Management & Habitat Creation: A Manual of Best Practice, Ecoscope Applied Ecologists, 2000.

Indicating Right

22

There was some difference in viewpoint as to how far end uses are constrained by planning conditions, with some companies feeling that they had very little latitude, and others feeling that they could make their own choices about end use. It would thus be helpful to have this indicator divided into two, firstly, actual or planned end uses that have been decided by the company (preferably in consultation with others, see below) and secondly, end uses that have been entirely conditioned by the planning process. indicator 12: number of partnership projects as a proportion of total sites This is a simple indicator to record involvement with outside parties in promoting biodiversity during the operational phase and in deciding end use at a site. Although landfill sites present obvious opportunities for partnership projects, consideration should be given to the opportunities at all of a company’s sites. There are many exciting possibilities here. Examples include: Penny Hill landfill site, Worcestershire. The site was filled by 1998 and capped in two phases. The site is being restored to calcareous grassland by Shanks, with assistance from the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust. To date, restoration has been successful and a good diversity of species has been recorded. The site has been used as a case study in the Ecoscope best practice guide.

Beacon Hill landfill site, Dorset. Adjoins a SAC (heathland habitat of European importance); SITA has developed close working relationship with Dorset Wildlife Trust to assist in the management of the site.

Thornhaugh landfill site, Cambridgeshire. SITA have agreed with English Nature to develop a part of the site as a newt sanctuary – works will be undertaken in 2003.

Danes Moss Landfill site, Cheshire. Danes Moss cell engineering work was held up earlier this year following the discovery of a family of rare water voles. Working with Cheshire Ecological Services, Waste Recycling Group designed a new habitat for the community of voles. Over 800 newts have been recorded during the relocation and the new habitat is already playing host to a kingfisher, birds traditionally very particular about their environment. indicator 13: number of trees and length of hedgerows planted There seemed to be general agreement that planting trees/hedgerows on or around sites is desirable, both for their amenity value and to take up carbon. A caveat is that they should be locally appropriate, and advice should be sought from local experts on the best species to plant and also whether

indicator 14: volume of green waste composted (potential peat substitute)

Many companies now have composting operations, so they can validly say that they are producing a substitute for the horticultural use of peat, the extraction of which has serious impacts on landscape and wildlife habitats.

The quality of the compost produced should be indicated, e.g. complies with British Composting Association Standards. stage 2 indicator 15: number of local biodiversity action plans as a proportion of total sites

Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) are being developed around the UK as a means of improving local biodiversity as well as delivering national biodiversity targets. For a waste company considering how to manage the end-use of a site and its surroundings, the ideal would be to participate in the development and implementation of an LBAP. They may not exist in all areas, which is why we have suggested this as a stage two indicator.

However, it is open to any person or organisation, including a waste company, to initiate the development of a LBAP. The first point of contact for advice and support will probably and most usefully be the local wildlife trust.

regulatory compliance stage 1 indicator 16: number of enforcement notices This indicator provides a level of detail a little greater than simply reporting prosecutions, and at least one company already reports on this basis. The information is in any case available on the public register. We suggest no denominator is needed here, since a prosecution or enforcement notice should be seen as an indication of deficient management systems, whatever the size of the company.

23

Indicating Right

species will be likely to breach caps or inhibit site monitoring. Concerns were raised that the indicator was dependent on the number of restorations being completed in a particular year and would not therefore indicate yearon-year progress. To overcome this problem the indicator could be reported as a cumulative total and/or a running average.

Indicating Right

24

stage 2 indicator 17: Operator Pollution Risk Appraisal – OPRA scores There was general agreement that the Environment Agency’s embryonic performance scoring system, could, in the longer term, provide a useful common indicator of compliance performance. OPRA scores will be in the public domain and from November 2001 the Agency will start placing the environmental component of waste site OPRA scores on the internet.

However, there are concerns related to the consistency of scoring both between and within regions. The Agency is aware of these concerns and has conducted two regional audits of the OPRA methodology and is also developing a national audit guide. The results from this work, which are not yet published, suggest that consistency is not a problem. However, we recognise that waste companies confidence in the system has yet to be developed, which is why this is suggested as a stage 2 indicator.

environmental management systems indicator 18: registered sites as a proportion of total number of sites This simple indicator received general agreement, although a number of issues were raised around it. One was whether certification itself was crucial, or whether achieving a standard comparable to certification without having gone through the administrative procedure and expense of certification would be acceptable. The problem here would be how to justify the statement that standards are ‘comparable’. Another was the implication of ‘whole company certification’, i.e. where the company as a whole is granted a certificate rather than site-by-site certification. Again there is a question as to whether this means that all sites have comparable standards.

Perhaps most important was the question of what a company should do once all its sites have been certified. However, it was suggested that all companies operate a number of small sites that are not worth registering from an economic point of view. Hence a 100 per cent registration may never be reached. In the case of sites not being registered the reasons for not doing this should be made clear along with the measures that have been taken to ensure that the sites are managed to a suitable environmental standard even if it is not formally accredited. These issues need further discussion to ensure complete confidence in this indicator.

waste minimisation/resource productivity This group of waste minimisation indicators has been one of the most challenging to develop. It is attempting to measure waste companies’

A number of concerns were raised in developing the indicators of waste minimisation. There is a potential problem of commercial confidentiality if, for example, tonnages of materials, their value and destination are being publicly recorded. Also raised was the concern that any indicator based on tonnages of waste to particular destinations should reflect more than just the contractual obligations of companies to deal with waste in a particular way. A number of comments were made that whilst waste minimisation is desirable, it is an option beyond the control of many companies. There will have to be broader policy changes before providing waste minimisation services become a viable option. These policy changes were discussed at the May 2001 seminar and can be read about in more detail in the seminar proceedings.10 However, the May 2001 seminar demonstrated that there was support from a range of stakeholders, including from within the sector, for the industry to transform itself and to play a more active role in supporting improvements in resource productivity. It was agreed that the indicators were likely to get more support if they were put in the context of moving towards greater resource productivity.

The seminar covered ways in which the waste sector could contribute to the move away from linear material flow through the economy towards cyclical material flow. In an economy with cyclical material flow the companies that collect waste also supply the inputs to production, placing resource management at the centre of the economy. This means understanding production process as much as waste characteristics, and it provides new opportunities for the present sector to broaden its reach.

The development of waste minimisation indicators alone will not be enough to drive these changes but it is an important element of measuring the progress that is being made. We feel able to propose two very simple immediate indicators, and three longer-term ones that we hope reflect the transition of the industry from being focused primarily on waste disposal to being focused on resource management. stage 1 indicator 19: relative amounts of materials recovered from the waste stream as a proportion of total waste handled

This indicator would record the amount of waste going through re-use, recycling and recovery routes rather than to final disposal. Although this is 10

Available in pdf format from Green Alliance’s website: www.green-alliance.org.uk

25

Indicating Right

contribution to an activity that they do not generally consider part of their core business. For this reason waste minimisation was the focus of the May 2001 seminar.

Indicating Right

26

not strictly ‘waste minimisation’, it does enable monitoring of the shifts in companies’ business and shows how resources are being managed.

The government is keen to enhance knowledge and understanding of materials flows through the economy (both DEFRA and DTI). It appears that in the future companies may be encouraged by government to collect information on the flows and destination of different materials they consume or acquire. indicator 20: amount of company’s own waste arisings This indicator would measure waste companies’ own solid waste arisings, which would be primarily from offices, and monitor year-on-year reductions. Whilst it does not reflect each company’s major potential impact on waste minimisation it is indicative of a company’s desire to address the issue and also its general approach to managing its environmental impacts. stage 2 indicator 21: number of integrated contracts that include waste minimisation and/or resource management services

The provision of this type of service is currently seen as more expensive and consequently something that is unlikely to be wanted by clients.

However, companies performing well on this indicator will be the ones that actively sell the ‘value added’ aspect of waste minimisation services in their bids and also those companies that come up with innovative contractual arrangements that align incentives resulting in benefits for both client and waste firm, such as shared savings schemes. Both of these elements reflect the effort expended by a company and hence its contribution to achieving greater resource productivity.

The following two indicators were first suggested at the seminar in May 2000, as part of a longer list of possible indicators. After extensive discussion, they are the two that companies feel most able to put into operation. indicator 22: number of partnerships with local authorities, businesses and the voluntary sector on resource management

This would reflect companies’ efforts to achieve resource productivity by participating in joint schemes.

indicator 23: percentage reduction in waste coming forward compared

27

This indicator is hard to measure in a meaningful way at the moment, particularly in an industry that is undergoing rapid change through consolidation combined with similar changes in the companies they service.

However, the research that has been done on mass-balance flows, for example, the work that has been done to characterise materials flows on the Isle of Wight11, illustrates that the development of an indicator in the longer term is a possibility. Also, as reported at the May 2001 seminar, the close working relationship between Grundon and British Airways has resulted in this information being available for one client of a waste management company. The Government has also expressed a desire to develop resource productivity indicators at the national and company level which may drive this process12. In the longer term a desire was expressed for an indicator of the quantity of different types of material and/or waste coming forward.

neighbourliness stage 1 indicator 24: number of complaints divided by number of sites There was general agreement that this is a good indicator of environmental performance, so long as there is a clear procedure for recording complaints; clear protocols for deciding whether complaints are ‘justified’, i.e. the problem was caused by the company as opposed to other agencies; and a robust procedure for following-up and ‘closing out’ complaints. indicator 25: number of sites with site liaison committees as a proportion of the total number of sites where they would be appropriate

Although a very simple indicator, this was felt to be important to encourage companies to establish liaison committees wherever there are issues with neighbours at any level. Having established committees, many companies now have written policies or constitutions for their conduct.

11

Island State: An ecological footprint analysis of the Isle of Wight, published by Best Foot Forward. See www.bestfootforward.com for more details.

12 Green Alliance has been working with the DTI to help develop indicators of resource productivity. Proceedings from a joint Green Alliance/DTI conference, Revolutionising Resource Use: Measuring radical improvements in resource productivity can be downloaded from the Green Alliance website.

Indicating Right

to previous years

Stage 2 indicator 26: results of stakeholder surveys This would give companies a more nuanced picture of the views of their neighbours, as well as other stakeholders, such as local campaigning groups, schools, and people affected by their collection and transportation operations. It would also be a means of identifying latent issues that antagonise neighbours but do not actually result in complaints. An advantage of such a survey, with companies setting the agenda for the questions, is that it might elicit positive comments about the companies’ performance rather than the wholly negative picture generated by monitoring complaints. An agreed protocol for carrying out such surveys is needed, so that the results are broadly comparable. Whilst the indicator may not be practical as a continuous site level measure, it will indicate the company’s effort to understanding the impact it has on the communities surrounding its sites indicator 27: amount of pension funds invested in ethical funds There is increasing demand for ethical financial products, and thus significant growth of ethical funds, many of which perform very well compared to the average. Monitoring the extent of a company’s ethical investment gives an indicator of environmental commitment, and may also be a good long-term indicator of financial health. Last year’s modification to the 1995 Pensions Act requires fund managers to have a written statement in place covering the extent to which social, environmental or ethical considerations are taken into account in managing a fund’s investments.

Indicating Right

Indicating Right

28

commitments made by companies

29

The following companies have made commitments to using the indicators and have indicated the timescale on which they envisage reporting on the indicators. A number of the companies gave more detailed information on how they would be taking forward development of the indicators. Some companies raised issues or concerns which we have addressed elsewhere in the report and in the core set of indicators themselves. We do not intend to be rigidly prescriptive about the use of the indicators. It is acceptable for a company to decide not to use a particular indicator, but is important that the reason for not doing so is made clear in the contextual information provided when reporting.

Indicating Right

Company

Commitment “Biffa has demonstrated its commitment to environmental reporting through the environmental reports it published in 1998 and 2000. We are pleased to be provided with the opportunity to endorse the use of the core set of indicators in the waste management industry developed by Green Alliance and do so without hesitation. Our existing reports cover many of the Stage 1 indicators proposed in the core set of indicators. In our next environmental report, to be published in 2002, we intend to address, as far as possible, all of the stage 1 and stage 2 indicators.”

“Following discussions with the Directors of Cleanaway UK I am pleased to be able to tell you that they all agreed to support the Green Alliance set of environmental performance indicators.

The company is aiming to produce a preliminary report of Stage 1 indicators by the end of 2002. This report may have to include some assumptions, but as with other companies that have signed up to the EPIs we will be aiming to refine our data year on year.”

“Cory is in the process of implementing, in stages and on a site by site basis, environmental management systems across the Company. The majority of stage 1 indicators can be reported on as a result of the measures being put in place. However, some of the stage 2 indicators pose technical

Indicating Right

30

challenges and further guidance would be required...

Cory wishes to confirm its support for the core indicators and its willingness to report on those indicators, where they relate to its operations, as environmental management systems are implemented.

Cory will aim to produce an ‘environmental statement’ in the first quarter of 2002 indicating progress the company has made over the last twelve months.... Cory will then aim to publish a report the following year, by which time a number of locations will be able to report in respect of the indicators.”

“Durham County Waste Management Company fully supports the environmental performance indicators for the waste management sector developed by Green Alliance. Our newly formed Regulatory Affairs Directorate has been given responsibility for integrating the requirements of the indicators into the company’s management systems. We will start reporting on a site by site basis as our Environmental Management System is implemented. We expect this roll out to be completed by 2003 but we intend to issue a Company Environmental Statement by the end of 2002 which will update progress. Assumptions may need to be made in respect of some of the indicators in our first report but we will aim to refine the quality of data year on year and move towards reporting on the stage 2 indicator in the longer term.”

“Greater Manchester Waste Ltd endorse the set of indicators developed by Green Alliance and intend to generate an environmental report for the financial year 2002/2003 based upon these indicators.”

“Grundon will be in a position to produce Environmental Performance Indicators, as highlighted in your letter, in time for our Annual General Meeting in April 2002.”

“Shanks is delighted to further support the most recent work on environmental performance indicators for the waste management industry prepared by Green Alliance. Shanks worked very

“SITA UK fully supports Green Alliance’s initiative to develop environmental performance indicators for the waste management sector.

It is our intention to incorporate the core set of indicators within our environmental management systems. These are being developed for all our major operations and should be accredited to ISO 14001 by the end of 2002. In our first UK report, we shall describe progress to date and report on the proposed programme to implement all indicators as early as possible. Having previously been reported within the SITA Group’s annual global Environment, Quality and Safety Report, the intention is to produce the first SITA UK report in 2002.”

“Viridor Waste Management is pleased to endorse the environmental performance indicators for the waste industry. These indicators are complementary to the existing formal environmental reporting procedures that Viridor has in place. All stage 1 and 2 indicators will be incorporated into our annual environmental reports as appropriate.

All Viridor Waste Management operations are accredited to the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System. The use of these performance indicators will help to further demonstrate our commitment to the highest available environmental and operational standards for the continuous improvement in Viridor’s environmental performance.”

“Waste Recycling Group views the development and implementation of environmental performance indicators as a key objective, which is essential to the management of our business. Our Board has endorsed the use of environmental indicators and we

31

Indicating Right

closely with Green Alliance in the development and publication of the phase 1 report Indicating Right and built upon this work to publish its first environmental report in September 2000. Shanks has already incorporated, as appropriate, the core set of indicators into its second environmental report published in October 2001. This report covers all Shanks operations in the UK, Belgium and Holland.”

Indicating Right

32

already produce an annual report on our environmental performance. We are pleased to confirm that we are already meeting your Stage 1 indicator requirements and some of your Stage 2 indicators. We aim to implement the remainder of the Stage 2 indicators in the next 2 to 3 years.”

“Waste Tyre Solutions Ltd and Automotive Waste Solutions Ltd support Green Alliance in their efforts to regulate environmentally responsible attitudes within the waste management industry. We will produce a report of Stage 1 indicators for the end of the financial year, to be published in May 2002. An annual report will be made available with progression towards Stage 2 indicators being the main objective.

We are delighted at the opportunity to support a new initiative relating to environmental performance and feel sure that this will be a positive step for the industry as a whole.”

“On 29th June ESA’s Board of Directors unanimously endorsed Green Alliance’s core set of voluntary environmental performance indicators for the waste and secondary resource management industry. ESA is committed to working with the Environment Agencies in developing risk-based regulation. Environmental management systems and reporting, and perhaps an industry code of conduct, will feature increasingly in this respect and ESA/ESART welcomes early dialogue with partners including Green Alliance to identify next steps.”

“The indicators provide a useful measure of the performance of companies operating within the waste industry. Clearly different stakeholders will be interested in different indicators. Friends of the Earth is committed to encouraging a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and material resource usage. These indicators will help in this and will help identify those companies most active in responding to the environmental challenges of the 21st Century.

Together with fiscal and regulatory pressures, these indicators could make a real difference.”

The Institute of Wastes Management welcomes the dialogue and ongoing development of Green Alliance’s performance indicators for the improvement of the wastes management industry.”

“Waste Watch welcomes this set of indicators as a comprehensive measure of environmental performance for waste management companies, based upon extensive consideration and discussion about their related environmental impacts. In addition to providing a tool for assessing a company’s performance, reporting on these indicators is another way that the public and others outside of waste management can better understand the environmental implications of producing rubbish and the need to use our natural resources more sustainably. The indicators, and companies’ reporting on them, will enhance Waste Watch’s work in promoting action on the “3Rs” – waste reduction, reuse and recycling – as a means of achieving more sustainable resource use. We therefore encourage all waste management companies to continue this work by using the indicators when reporting on their performance.”

33

Indicating Right

“The Institute of Wastes Management supports the multi-stakeholder initiative by Green Alliance in developing a core set of indicators for environmental performance in the waste sector. The IWM encourages its members to be proactive in improving environmental performance and to review and audit waste management practice through voluntary measures such as Environmental Management Systems and through performance indicators such as those developed by the Green Alliance.

34

next steps

Indicating Right

This report and the core set of indicators contained within it represent the conclusion of the current phase of the project to develop a set of environmental performance indicators for the waste management sector.

There are number of areas in which further work could be done.

Some of the Stage 2 indicators need further work. However, all the Stage 1, and the majority of the Stage 2 indicators are sufficiently developed to be implemented by waste companies from now on. This is demonstrated by the number of companies that have committed themselves to reporting on them in the future. Before initiating a further process of development we feel that we should wait and see how the indicators are received more broadly and how their implementation works in the field.

It may be that the indicators evolve of their own accord through exchange of ideas and information presented in indicator reports and discussion in other fora. Alternatively, it may be that a more formal and actively driven process is required to steer the review and further development of the indicators. Should this process be required it may be appropriate for another organisation to take it forward instead of Green Alliance, for example, the Environmental Services Association, Institute of Wastes Management or a reporting standards body. For these reasons, at this stage, Green Alliance has no formal plans to take development of the indicators forward.

recommendations for further work further development of selected Stage 2 indicators The development and adoption of Stage 2 indicators is the most obvious area in which further work can be done. A clear distinction should be made between the Stage 2 indicators that need further development and those that are ready for implementation. The former need to be developed further before waste management companies can implement them. The latter are ready to be implemented but waste management companies need extra time to prepare to implement them.

Stage 2 indicators requiring more development include:

● ● ●

the methane indicators (Nos. 4 and 5) a methodology for the waste minimisation indicator (No. 23) a protocol for conducting stakeholder surveys (No. 26)

Some of these can be implemented once other processes are completed.

For example, once the development of the Environment Agency’s GasSim model for landfill emissions is completed there will be a common methodology for estimating methane emissions. This model is being

Other Stage 2 indicators need further development which is not currently being undertaken. This includes the waste minimisation indicator no 23.

However, even in this area there are related developments, such as the government’s interest in improving resource productivity, that may mean measuring waste minimisation becomes markedly easier in the near future.

For these reasons we would suggest that a review of the potential for the development and implementation of the remaining Stage 2 indicators be conducted at the end of 2002. This review could be combined with a review of the progress made on implementation of Stage 1 indicators and issues that have arisen in relation to these. embedding the indicators in an industry code of practice Voluntary initiatives to improve the environmental performance of a sector will tend to be initially taken up by the more forward-looking companies, followed by the main body of the sector. However, there will always be a proportion of the sector that will not act without further incentives. Firm encouragement needs to be given for as many companies as possible to report on the indicators.

Incorporating use of the indicators into industry codes of practice would result in the indicators becoming more widespread. Green Alliance has asked the Environmental Services Association, which covers the vast majority of the waste management sector, to consider incorporating the indictors into a specific code of practice. Setting a date by which all members should report on the indicators would add further impetus to this process. A series of dates may be appropriate that reflect the challenge for different companies due to for example, their different size or waste management activity performed. encouraging uptake in local authorities and other organisations The indicators cover the waste management sector. As well as the waste management companies there are other bodies that could use the indicators to report on their waste management activities. Local authorities have a significant role in the collection, disposal and management of waste, as well as in the development of waste strategies. The indicators could be used to monitor the progress of local authorities in improving the environmental performance of their waste management activities. The indicators would be useful in analysing the environmental impact of different waste management operations, as well as helping to position local authorities in a leadership role in relation to the other actors they work with. In particular, local authorities could assist in the implementation of the indicators by requiring any waste contractors they use to report on the indicators.

35

Indicating Right

developed in consultation with the waste management sector. In such cases we hope the indicators will be adopted at the earliest possible opportunity once the required work is complete.

Indicating Right

36

The indicators have not been piloted within the local authority sector although a number of the ex-local authority waste management companies have been consulted. We would recommend that the Local Government Association should seek local authorities that are willing to pilot the indicators in a local authority setting and, if this is successful, recommend a wider implementation. broadening the scope of the indicators The indicators currently focus on environmental performance of waste management companies. A number of the indicators reflect companies’ performance on social issues. These tend to be where there is a social aspect to an environmental issue rather than because we have developed pure social performance indicators. The current indicators provide a foundation to develop broader based indicators. One of the next areas that could be addressed in more detail is the movement of the waste management industry towards sustainable resource management. This would take forward many of the issues addressed in the Stage 2 waste minimisation indicators. There is also the issue of broadening the environmental performance indicators to be sustainability indicators through the development of social and economic indicators. sectoral sustainability strategies Addressing the issues around sustainability is a significant challenge for any sector or organisation. The government has been encouraging sectors to develop sustainability strategies that address these challenges. The development of a sectoral sustainability strategy for the waste management sector may be the most appropriate context to take forward further development of the indicators. The process can be used to lay out the short and long-term challenges faced by the industry; to set out aspirational targets and firm commitments; and outline mechanisms for delivering these goals.

Mechanisms for delivery can include voluntary and negotiated agreements with government.13 the future Indicators are an important step in understanding, measuring and improving environmental impacts of all organisations. We hope the process and lessons learnt in developing the indicators will be of use not only to the waste management sector but also to other sectors considering indicators.

Improving the way we manage waste is vital to reducing the environmental impact of society. Reducing the environmental impact of 13

Green Alliance’s report, Signed, Sealed and Delivered? The role of negotiated agreements in environmental policy, discusses the role of agreements in delivering environmental objectives in more detail.

The seminar in May 2001 extended the discussion of indictors into these wider areas and there was a consensus across representatives of government, business, NGOs and the waste management industry that a greater effort needed to be expended on achieving waste minimisation and improving resource productivity. It was also agreed that there was a role for the waste management industry to play in achieving this change. The opportunities that resource productivity presents for the industry and the threats posed to it if it does not react to the agenda were also discussed. However, action is required not just from the waste management sector, but more broadly.

We have begun the process of considering the wider context of waste management by looking at waste minimisation and resource productivity.

This project has focused on creating tools to measure and improve the environmental performance of the sector. Our focus will now move towards the broader framework that will facilitate an improvement not only in waste management companies’ environmental performance and resource productivity but also all producers of waste, whether business, industry or individuals. We hope the broad range of companies that are committed to using the indicators signifies the beginning of a radical change in attitudes to resources and waste.

37

Indicating Right

waste management is an important objective. Waste management is currently predominantly an ‘end of pipe’ activity. Waste management companies deal with the waste that is produced by industry, business and consumers. They have little control over the size of this flow of materials although they have more control over how waste is managed. We hope that the indicators will not only assist in reducing the environmental impacts of waste management but also help stimulate more fundamental changes in the role that waste management companies play in resource management. Improving performance on a waste minimisation indicator will require the industry to develop new services, a new approach to the way it operates, and to the way it interacts with its clients.

38

documents produced by project

Indicating Right

These documents are available to download from the Green Alliance website, www.green-alliance.org.uk Indicating right: environmental performance indicators for the waste management sector.

Phase 1 project report, April 1999.

Practitioners’ seminar May 2000. Proceedings of seminar held to discuss issues around development of indicators of methane emissions, OPRA (regulatory compliance), neighbourliness and land use and wildlife.

Practitioners’ seminar May 2000. Annex: presentations. This document contains the overheads and slides used by speakers at the seminar.

3rd practitioners’ seminar May 2001. Proceedings of seminar held to gain feedback on the core set of indicators and discuss issues around waste minimisation.

3rd practitioners’ seminar May 2001. Annex: presentations. This document contains the overheads and slides used by speakers at the seminar and some longer papers.

Global Reporting Initiative. The Global Reporting Initiative is a long-term,

multi-stakeholder, international undertaking whose mission is to develop and disseminate globally applicable sustainability reporting guidelines for voluntary use by organisations reporting on the economic, environmental, and social dimension of their activities, products and services. www.globalreporting.org World Business Council on Sustainable Development Eco-efficiency project. The project has developed a framework for assessing and reporting eco-efficiency which can be used across all industries. www.wbcsd.org

ISO 14000 international standard series on environmental management.

The ISO 14000 series is administered in the UK by the British Standards Institution. www.bsi-global.com DEFRA has produced a series of guidelines on company environmental reporting. These cover general principles of environmental reporting, and reporting on greenhouse gases, waste production and water. www.defra.gov.uk

39

Indicating Right

further information on other indicator and reporting initiatives

ISBN 095301 60 56

Printed on recycled paper made from 75% deinked post consumer waste and 25% mill broke.

ÂŁ5.00

core set of indicators climate change

regulatory compliance

stage 1 indicator 1: total greenhouse gas emissions divided by tonnes of waste handled, using the government’s Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions indicator 2: amount in tonnes of landfill gas and the proportion of gas being flared, used for power generation, or passively vented indicator 3: total energy generated in Megawatts

stage 1 indicator 16: number of enforcement notices

stage 2 indicator 4: efficiency of gas capture (gas collected as a proportion of gas generated) indicator 5: total methane emissions divided by filled volume of landfill or tonnage of waste contained within it indicator 6: trace greenhouse gases after combustion of landfill gas

transport stage 1 indicator 7: fuel used divided by miles travelled indicator 8: fuel used divided by tonnes of waste handled indicator 9: tonnes of waste transported by rail or water as a proportion of total waste transported

water use stage 1 indicator 10: amount of water used divided by tonnes of waste handled

land use and wildlife stage 1 indicator 11: actual or planned uses of restored land indicator 12: number of partnership projects as a proportion of total sites indicator 13: number of trees and length of hedgerows planted indicator 14: volume of green waste composted (potential peat substitute) stage 2 indicator 15: number of local biodiversity action plans as a proportion of total sites

stage 2 indicator 17: Operator Pollution Risk Appraisal – OPRA scores

environmental management systems indicator 18: registered sites as a proportion of total number of sites

waste minimisation/resource productivity stage 1 indicator 19: relative amounts of materials recovered from the waste stream as a proportion of total waste handled indicator 20: amount of company’s own waste arisings stage 2 indicator 21: number of integrated contracts that include waste minimisation and/or resource management services indicator 22: number of partnerships with local authorities, businesses and the voluntary sector on resource management indicator 23: percentage reduction in waste coming forward compared to previous years

neighbourliness stage 1 indicator 24: number of complaints divided by number of sites indicator 25: number of sites with site liaison committees as a proportion of the total number of sites where they would be appropriate stage 2 indicator 26: results of stakeholder surveys indicator 27: amount of pension funds invested in ethical funds

endorsing organisations